Re: From Atheism to Islam

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/31/2017 9:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Are you really agnostic about the god of theism?

Quoting from wikipedia:

"The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term
theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[5] In Cudworth's
definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who
affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind,
existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other
things".[6]
Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest
sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in a god or gods.[7] The
claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is
agnosticism.[8][9]"


So the existence of any deity, say Yaweh or Zeus or Baal, is unknown or 
unknowable?




I would say that, under these definitions, the correct scientific
stance is to be agnostic.


And exactly why would you take a definition from a 17th century 
theologian and Platonist as authoratative?  Are you also agnostic about 
polytheism and pantheism and deism?  Does agnostic mean you think 
nothing can be known about these questions - or does it just mean you're 
not absolutely certain about the answer.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[smitra]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9sw7kbMGE

Saibal

On 30-01-2017 04:44, Samiya Illias wrote:

These videos might be of interest to some (the first one is by a Math
professor):

https://www.quora.com/What-reasons-have-made-an-atheist-convert-to-Islam/answer/Shau-Sumar?srid=s5B1=215c99a7
[1]

Samiya

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[2].
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].


Links:
--
[1]
https://www.quora.com/What-reasons-have-made-an-atheist-convert-to-Islam/answer/Shau-Sumar?srid=s5B1share=215c99a7
[2] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[3] https://groups.google.com/d/optout


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[Telmo Menezes]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Stathis Papaioannou  
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed., 1 Feb. 2017 at 4:32 am, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Are you really agnostic about the god of theism?
>>>
>>> Quoting from wikipedia:
>>>
>>> "The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term
>>> theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[5] In Cudworth's
>>> definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who
>>> affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind,
>>> existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other
>>> things".[6]
>>> Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest
>>> sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in a god or gods.[7] The
>>> claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is
>>> agnosticism.[8][9]"
>>>
>>> I would say that, under these definitions, the correct scientific
>>> stance is to be agnostic.
>>>
>>> In this mailing list, we have seen hypothesis about such a mind that
>>> do not require man-in-the-sky, creationism or other absurdities, nor
>>> conflict with current scientific models. Are they correct? I don't
>>> know, so...
>>
>>
>> Is agnosticism about God different from agnosticism about other entities
>> such as fairies and elves?
>
> I would argue that man-in-the-sky god is the same as fairies and
> elves: the likelihood of these things being real is extraordinary
> slow. But that is not a particularly interesting fact...

I meant to write "extraordinarily small"

> Telmo.
>
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[Telmo Menezes]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>
> On Wed., 1 Feb. 2017 at 4:32 am, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>>
>> > Are you really agnostic about the god of theism?
>>
>> Quoting from wikipedia:
>>
>> "The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term
>> theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[5] In Cudworth's
>> definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who
>> affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind,
>> existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other
>> things".[6]
>> Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest
>> sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in a god or gods.[7] The
>> claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is
>> agnosticism.[8][9]"
>>
>> I would say that, under these definitions, the correct scientific
>> stance is to be agnostic.
>>
>> In this mailing list, we have seen hypothesis about such a mind that
>> do not require man-in-the-sky, creationism or other absurdities, nor
>> conflict with current scientific models. Are they correct? I don't
>> know, so...
>
>
> Is agnosticism about God different from agnosticism about other entities
> such as fairies and elves?

I would argue that man-in-the-sky god is the same as fairies and
elves: the likelihood of these things being real is extraordinary
slow. But that is not a particularly interesting fact...

Telmo.

> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Wed., 1 Feb. 2017 at 4:32 am, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

> > Are you really agnostic about the god of theism?
>
> Quoting from wikipedia:
>
> "The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term
> theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[5] In Cudworth's
> definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who
> affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind,
> existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other
> things".[6]
> Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest
> sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in a god or gods.[7] The
> claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is
> agnosticism.[8][9]"
>
> I would say that, under these definitions, the correct scientific
> stance is to be agnostic.
>
> In this mailing list, we have seen hypothesis about such a mind that
> do not require man-in-the-sky, creationism or other absurdities, nor
> conflict with current scientific models. Are they correct? I don't
> know, so...


Is agnosticism about God different from agnosticism about other entities
such as fairies and elves?
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[Telmo Menezes]

> Are you really agnostic about the god of theism?

Quoting from wikipedia:

"The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term
theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[5] In Cudworth's
definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who
affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind,
existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other
things".[6]
Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest
sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in a god or gods.[7] The
claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is
agnosticism.[8][9]"

I would say that, under these definitions, the correct scientific
stance is to be agnostic.

In this mailing list, we have seen hypothesis about such a mind that
do not require man-in-the-sky, creationism or other absurdities, nor
conflict with current scientific models. Are they correct? I don't
know, so...

Telmo.

> Brent
>
>
> On 1/30/2017 2:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> I hope all atheists and all religious people with all of their silly
>> certainties convert to intelectual humility and agnosticism.
>> Then maybe we have a chance of transcending this silly monkey-stage
>> where we seem to be stuck at.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Telmo.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Samiya Illias 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> These videos might be of interest to some (the first one is by a Math
>>> professor):
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.quora.com/What-reasons-have-made-an-atheist-convert-to-Islam/answer/Shau-Sumar?srid=s5B1=215c99a7
>>>
>>>
>>> Samiya
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[Telmo Menezes]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 30 Jan 2017, at 11:26, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> I hope all atheists and all religious people with all of their silly
>> certainties convert to intelectual humility and agnosticism.
>> Then maybe we have a chance of transcending this silly monkey-stage
>> where we seem to be stuck at.
>
>
> I can't agree more. Well said Telmo. The divide is not between the believer
> and the non believer (in whatever), but between the arrogant dogmatic who
> dare to impose their view with violence to the others, and the modest
> researcher who live the genuine doubt and skepticism toward easy answers.

Thanks Bruno!

> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Telmo.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Samiya Illias 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> These videos might be of interest to some (the first one is by a Math
>>> professor):
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.quora.com/What-reasons-have-made-an-atheist-convert-to-Islam/answer/Shau-Sumar?srid=s5B1=215c99a7
>>>
>>>
>>> Samiya
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Correction to MWI post

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Jan 2017, at 00:27, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:



I would suggest that those other beings out in never-never-land, are  
not me, and I am not them.


Never-never land?

You need magic to distinguish you from those other beings. You might  
be right, but then computationalism is wrong.




The histories are experiences that I was never a part of.


How could that be? Which criteria could you use to assert you were not  
part of those histories? The memories are the same. You would be like  
the W guy saying that the M guy is not the H-guy, but then you cannot  
say yes to the digitalist surgeon.





Speaking with very smart space aliens might be an enjoyable  
substitute for a conversation with God. Like the saying goes,  
beggars can't be choosers.


OK, perhaps, I miss the relation with what you say above.

Are you OK with P = 1/2 in the WM-duplication? (UDA step 3)? Let us  
move slowly. Nothing is urgent.


Bruno








-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 10:14 am
Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post


On 29 Jan 2017, at 16:28, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

So, just to be clear, the Boltzmann Brain(s) spun off from the  
thermodynamics of an absolute vacuum (as opposed to the false vacuum  
that is the Hubble Volume) would, if they existed, be persons.  
Bodies, with a sub-component, called a 'mind'?


Not really. They support mind, for a second. the probability that  
you are in a Boltzman brain, in the computationalist setting, is  
near zero. You, the person, is attached to *all$ histories, and  
those who win the measure play, are related to long, and interesting  
(in bennett sense) histories. To be conscious for a second, one  
brain is sufficient, but for two seconds, you need a long and  
complex histories, making you rare in your branch, et quite numerous  
relatively to that branch. QM does show a sort of solution (Feynman  
phase randomization) so we can expect to justify it through  
computationalism, assuming only arithmetic, and this actually works.  
The logic of the material points of views does show a quantum logic  
on which, hopefully, some equivalent of Gleason's theorem will hold.


A brain is never a person. A person owns a brain, and actually owns  
an infinity of brains, on which he is first person-undetermined. No  
need to invoke some God-like entities, like "universe" or "god": we  
must explain their appearances only from arithmetic/computer  
science. I am aware that this is counter-intuitive, but Pythagoras  
and Plato warned us that the fundamental reality might be quite  
different from what we see/observe/measure, etc.


Bruno







-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 29, 2017 8:19 am
Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post


On 27 Jan 2017, at 13:57, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

What about Boltzmann Brains?
Do you view these as mindful observers?


I don't see any brain as mindful observers. Only a person is  
mindful, and they own brains, which are just tools making that  
person able to interact with some stable collection of universal  
entities.


The UD generates all Boltzmann brains, but to be conscious, you need  
more than a brain, you need a sheaf of normal (gaussian)  
computations (measure 1, or 1 - epsilon). And, you, that is the  
person, are not attached to any brain per se, but only to a  
succession of brain state compute by a stable universal environment,  
which lacks (by definition) for Boltzmann brains. That reduce the  
Boltzmann brain problem in physics to justifying the appearance of  
brain in arithmetic (the white rabbit problem).To simplify; we might  
say that you need an infinity of brains belonging to an infinity of  
stable computations. That such infinities exist and have a quantum  
logic suggests that computationalism might be correct.


Bruno






-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 2:07 pm
Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post


On 26 Jan 2017, at 17:07, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

If dreaming is a function of biological things,


It depends on how you define biological. If you define it like me  
with a theorem in arithmetic/computer-science, of intensional  
numbers (relative codes, like DNA, or programs) which can  
reprodruces themselves with respect to other universal numbers,  
physical or not, then, OK, like Bateson, psychology is a cousin of  
biology, and we use ineddded the same trick (Dx = xx -> DD = DD)  
both in abstract biology and in abstract psychology, ... and in  
abstract theology.




where then, might be the brain of the dreamer.

That does simply not exist. It is all in your brain (grin).

If we except Babbage machine, computability and the notion of  

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Jan 2017, at 00:01, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​> ​You do have agree that the three people are the same H  
person. But he is duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the  
HM in M.


​You were correct when ​​when ​you said "he is duplicated",  
therefore while in H any question of the form "what will he...?" is  
meaningless because "he" is duplicated and the personal pronoun is  
ambiguous after that.


Given the protocole, and the assumptions and definitions given, there  
is no ambiguity at all.






​> ​The H in Helsinki is no more there, so to confirm the  
prediction, we have to ask both HW and HM, and both say that the  
prediction "W v M" was correct, in both the 1p views,


​So if they both agree and they are both correct then there must be  
only one answer to the question. So what one city do both W and M  
agree that H ended up seeing in the first person, Washington or  
Moscow?


W and M, from the 3p view that both can have on themselves.

But the question is about the 1p experience, and both agree with "W or  
M" being correct for the predictor in H, and verified in both cities.







​> ​and that "W and M" is correct from the 3p views but incorrect  
from the 1p-views, which was the one asked to predict in Helsinki.


​That's all very nice but it doesn't answer the question​ I  
asked, what one and only one city did H end up seeing?


The whole point is that in Helsinki the answer "H" CANNOT know the  
ending city. The best correct prediction (W v M) assesses that  
ignorance, which, as we assume computationalism, is necessary. We did  
detailed this already more than once.





Your entire proof is built around the idea that a correct prediction  
cannot be made in Helsinki,


?

A correct prediction has been made. It was "W v M" (exclusive "or").



but for that to work after the thought experiment is all over you've  
got to tell us what the correct prediction turned out to be so we  
can see that the correct prediction was not made. So what would the  
correct prediction have been, M or H?


None. It is "M or H".




If you can not clearly and unambiguously answer that very simple  
question then


Then we have the 1p indeterminacy.


the entire thing is nonsense because there is no way to tell if the  
correct prediction was made or not.


Then there is no indeterminacy even with a coin.

We have just to ask them both, and it is easy to see that "W v M" is  
verified by both, and none of "W" nor "M" is satisfied by both. Then,  
it is enough to look at all precise definition given to see that "W v  
M" is the best prediction possible at H. Like "Head or Tail" is the  
best prediction when throwing a coin.








​>>​So you tell me, what one and only one city did H end up  
seeing, W or M?​

 ​
​> ​W, and only W for the H guy finding himself in W.
​> ​M, and only M for the H guy finding himself in M.

​OK.​

​> ​Both agree that "W or M" was correct

​No, they don't agree on that at all. ​One says W saw W and H saw  
W. The other says M saw M and H saw M. The one thing they both agree  
on is H saw W AND M.​


About the 3p, or 3-1p view. That is correct, but does not answer the  
question asked. But "W v M" was still the best prediction, and it is  
verified by both, given that for M it is true that M -> (M v W), and  
for W it is true that W -> (M v W).







​> ​None claims suddenly to have the first person experience of  
feeling themselves being in two cities at once.


That has no relevance on the question asked. ​ ​The question was  
what cities will H see, if both are H then H will see both cities.



Of course not.
H is duplicated, and know that in advance.
He knows in H that whatever happens, respecting the protocol, it is a  
certainty that the H-guy (him, here and now in H) *will* see only one  
city. That is true in all accessible situations available from H.





Where is this failed prediction you keep talking about?​


?  (the fail prediction is "W and M": it is violated in both  
place, given that "W" and "M" represent the 1p views).






​>>​And yes both say they are in one place and one place only,  
but if both also say they are H then which one should be believed, W  
or M or both or neither?​


​> ​Both.

​Fine. If both say they are H and one says H is in W and one says H  
is in M and you believe both then the answer to the question "what  
cities will H be in?" is rather obvious.​


Yes, it is obvious both for the 3p view: (W and M), and for the 1p  
view (W xor M).






 ​> ​both confirm "W v M" (exclusive "or"), and both refutes "W &  
M"


​Neither can confirm or or refute "W v M" by themselves. W can say  
that H sees W but W can say nothing about H seeing M,  Mr. W knows  
nothing about M, to find out about H seeing that you'll have to ask  
Mr.M. ​


The guy in H has read the protocol, and knows that both will feel "W v  
M" to be true, and none will feel "W and M"