Re: What's wrong with this? (a side question)
Hi John, Bruno: thanks for the I thinkG in your text below - also: I cannot argue against your negative assessement about atheism - who IMO require a 'God to deny. You know my shortcomings to equate physics with other domains of hearsay belief systems, like theology (as religion mainly). What I mean is a 'system' based on primitive misunderstandings of phenomena at a lower level epistemicly enriched explanatory attempt, at a very early age (way before the Greeks) that was kept as a basis and equipped by the newer epistemic additions over the eons of development up to our times now (and continued probably for the future). You add to that your belief system of the numerals as constituting 'our world' - if used in large enough sequences - what I do not address at this moment. My point is technical. Mechanism and materialism are incompatible. At any rate: it is a 'human' base for constituting a worldview. It is a Löbian one. It concerns the aliens also, except those who are ultrafinitists. I dont' identify myself more with humans than with Löbians. We are not capable of more. That could be John Mikes limitation. I don't like to much Teilhard de Chardin but he said that we are not humans having spiritual experience, but we are sipiritual being having a human experience. That does resonate with Löbian machine's experience. Our capabilities are restricted to absorb only parts of the totality and that. too, in ways how our PERSONAL thinking machine (brain?) adjusted them into its genetic buildup AND our personal experience- background, making it into a PERSONAL mini-solipsism, (expression from Hale) - also callable a perceived reality. That's the first person views. But we can bet on other people and entities, and we can use logic to study the consequence of our hypotheses. Partial, that is. Yes. Since you slanted the 'mind-body' problem towards religious connotations(?), I turned to the Cartesian body-soul dualistic pair which was a result of Descartes's fear of the Inquisition. I think so too. Not finding reasonable that a short-lived body should impose 'eternal' judgements upon an 'eternal' soul, Bodies make no judgement. Only our (eternal) soul do. That is not a religious belief, it is a theorem in mechanist theory (which may be correct or not, we will never *know*). in such respect (at least in its effectiveness?) the 'body' extends the time-limit we assign to the contraption enclosed (spacially) into our 'skin' - what I find untrue as well. This may be done by questioning the precision of our 'time' (and arrow of it) concept as physics takes it into account more or less. Physics come later. Plotinus is right: physics is the study of what God cannot control. The physical reality is the clothe of God when he look to itself. (images). As someone who does not include the necessity of a creator or god into a worldview and claims agnostic ignorance about the much dicussed origins as well as the conclusions of physics-based conventional sciences and considers 'eternity' a timeless concept (maybe just an instant?) OK. furthermore the 'numerals' and math - as David Bohm said: a human invention, - Ok for the numerals and humpan math. But not necessarily for the numbers. This does not makes sense in the mechanist theory (which might be wrong of course). I have no proposal how to formulate answers to those 'burning' questions of 'everything'. Just a thought that may be wrong, but could lead to further enlightening ideas if some smarter-than-me minds add their remarks to it. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What's wrong with this? (a side question)
On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under the rug, Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What's wrong with this? (a side question)
On 18 Sep 2010, at 14:34, 1Z wrote: On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under the rug, Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem. Indeed. Since Aristotle. Even more so since Christians burns those who depart from the Dogma, and atheism blocks progress in a less hot but as irrational way. But the platonist start with the right unifying principles, I think. The idea to separate physics from theology has been fertile methodologically, but, as I explained, it just does not work without reintroducing magical matter and/or magical minds, and/or magical dualist supervenience principles. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What's wrong with this? (a side question)
On 18 Sep, 18:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Sep 2010, at 14:34, 1Z wrote: On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under the rug, Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem. Indeed. Since Aristotle. Even more so since Christians burns those who depart from the Dogma, and atheism blocks progress in a less hot but as irrational way. ??? That wasn't at all what I meant. I meant that consciousness isn't obviously a physics problem (although it is obviousy a psychology problem) People who think consciousness is part of physics have presupposed it is fundamental -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What's wrong with this? (a side question)
On 18 Sep 2010, at 19:43, 1Z wrote: On 18 Sep, 18:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Sep 2010, at 14:34, 1Z wrote: On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under the rug, Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem. Indeed. Since Aristotle. Even more so since Christians burns those who depart from the Dogma, and atheism blocks progress in a less hot but as irrational way. ??? That wasn't at all what I meant. I meant that consciousness isn't obviously a physics problem (although it is obviousy a psychology problem) People who think consciousness is part of physics have presupposed it is fundamental When a physicists use a formula to predict an eclipse, he can forget for a while consciousness, but if the physicist want to predict that he will *see* an eclipse, he needs some form of supervenience. Now with classical mechanics, usually he will use (implicitly) the mind/ brain identity thesis, but this breaks down with quantum mechanics and digital mechanism. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What's wrong with this? (a side question)
Bruno: thanks for the I thinkG in your text below - also: I cannot argue against your negative assessement about atheism - who IMO require a 'God to deny. You know my shortcomings to equate physics with other domains of *hearsay belief systems*, like *theology* (as *religion* mainly). What I mean is a 'system' based on primitive misunderstandings of phenomena at a lower level epistemicly enriched explanatory attempt, at a very early age (way before the Greeks) that was kept as a basis and equipped by the newer epistemic additions over the eons of development up to our times *now* (and continued probably for the future). You add to that your belief system of the numerals as constituting 'our world' - if used in large enough sequences - what I do not address at this moment. At any rate: it is a 'human' base for constituting a worldview. We are not capable of more. Our capabilities are restricted to absorb only parts of the totality and that. too, in ways how our PERSONAL thinking machine (brain?) adjusted them into its genetic buildup AND our personal experience-background, making it into a PERSONAL *mini-solipsism*, (expression from Hale) - also callable a *perceived reality*. Partial, that is. Since you slanted the 'mind-body' problem towards religious connotations(?), I turned to the Cartesian body-soul dualistic pair which was a result of Descartes's fear of the Inquisition. Not finding reasonable that a short-lived body should impose 'eternal' judgements upon an 'eternal' soul, in such respect (at least in its effectiveness?) the 'body' extends the *time-limit* we assign to the contraption enclosed (*spacially*) into our 'skin' - what I find untrue as well. This may be done by questioning the precision of our 'time' (and arrow of it) concept as physics takes it into account more or less. As someone who does not include the necessity of a creator or god into a worldview and claims agnostic ignorance about the much dicussed origins as well as the conclusions of physics-based conventional sciences and considers 'eternity' a timeless concept (maybe just an instant?) furthermore the 'numerals' and math - as David Bohm said: a human invention, - I have no proposal how to formulate answers to those 'burning' questions of 'everything'. Just a thought that may be wrong, but could lead to further enlightening ideas if some smarter-than-me minds add their remarks to it. With best regards, respectfully John M On 9/18/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Sep 2010, at 14:34, 1Z wrote: On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under the rug, Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem. Indeed. Since Aristotle. Even more so since Christians burns those who depart from the Dogma, and atheism blocks progress in a less hot but as irrational way. But the platonist start with the right unifying principles, I think. The idea to separate physics from theology has been fertile methodologically, but, as I explained, it just does not work without reintroducing magical matter and/or magical minds, and/or magical dualist supervenience principles. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What's wrong with this? (a side question)
On 02 Sep 2010, at 19:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following: ... Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus operandi. Only layman and engineers have to hope that their theories fits enough a reality. The theories and the reasoning can be presented informally or formally. Rigor has nothing to do with formalization, but a lot to do with clarity. It is also better that the theory/assumption are shared by many, because ... it is more fun. How would you define what a physical law is? Empirically: physical laws are the laws which can relate what I can observe and share with others. Assuming digital mechanism, after the UDA reasoning, the physical laws are no more primitive laws, inferable from observation, but they emerge from the coupling consciousness/reality itself emerging from the additive/multiplicative structure of numbers. The laws of physics are no more fundamental. The emergence is enough constrained as to make the mechanist assumption testable. If we are in a 'matrix', we can verify it. (mechanism entails we are in a matrix, actually in an infinities of matrix, existing platonistically in the structure of numbers+addition+multiplication. Note that this makes the ultimate physical laws much more solid: such laws are shown to have a reason. The reason I am asking is that recently I have read The Elegant Universe by Brian Green about the superstring theory. For some reasons physicists insist that they can find Equation of Everything. Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under the rug, and they usually confuse everything with everything-physical. This has been a fertile methodological simplification, but it breaks in front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What's wrong with this? (a side question)
on 03.09.2010 10:10 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 02 Sep 2010, at 19:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following: ... Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus operandi. Only layman and engineers have to hope that their theories fits enough a reality. The theories and the reasoning can be presented informally or formally. Rigor has nothing to do with formalization, but a lot to do with clarity. It is also better that the theory/assumption are shared by many, because ... it is more fun. How would you define what a physical law is? Empirically: physical laws are the laws which can relate what I can observe and share with others. How to distinguish then a law and a correlation? Assuming digital mechanism, after the UDA reasoning, the physical laws are no more primitive laws, inferable from observation, but they emerge from the coupling consciousness/reality itself emerging from the additive/multiplicative structure of numbers. The laws of physics are no more fundamental. The emergence is enough constrained as to make the mechanist assumption testable. If we are in a 'matrix', we can verify it. (mechanism entails we are in a matrix, actually in an infinities of matrix, existing platonistically in the structure of numbers+addition+multiplication. Note that this makes the ultimate physical laws much more solid: such laws are shown to have a reason. Let me continue with my question. So we have observations and then we make some model. It could be of empirical nature or we say that this model is a law. How do we know when a model becomes a law? The reason I am asking is that recently I have read The Elegant Universe by Brian Green about the superstring theory. For some reasons physicists insist that they can find Equation of Everything. Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under the rug, and they usually confuse everything with everything-physical. This has been a fertile methodological simplification, but it breaks in front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem. Could you please recommend some modern books in this respect? Say I have just listened to audio book Best of the Brain from Scientific American: Mind, Matter, and Tomorrow’s Brain http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/09/what-crazy-scientists-make-with-brain-nowadays.html and they have found an effective way to treat depression: plant an electrode to some brain area (area 25) and put a voltage. Could it be also a way in the future to solve the mind-body problem? A couple of electrodes, some voltage pattern, and that's it? Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What's wrong with this? (a side question)
On 03 Sep 2010, at 15:55, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: on 03.09.2010 10:10 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 02 Sep 2010, at 19:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following: ... Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus operandi. Only layman and engineers have to hope that their theories fits enough a reality. The theories and the reasoning can be presented informally or formally. Rigor has nothing to do with formalization, but a lot to do with clarity. It is also better that the theory/assumption are shared by many, because ... it is more fun. How would you define what a physical law is? Empirically: physical laws are the laws which can relate what I can observe and share with others. How to distinguish then a law and a correlation? By doing the correct statistics, we can *infer* laws from observation. But this needs always some theory in the background. Assuming digital mechanism, after the UDA reasoning, the physical laws are no more primitive laws, inferable from observation, but they emerge from the coupling consciousness/reality itself emerging from the additive/multiplicative structure of numbers. The laws of physics are no more fundamental. The emergence is enough constrained as to make the mechanist assumption testable. If we are in a 'matrix', we can verify it. (mechanism entails we are in a matrix, actually in an infinities of matrix, existing platonistically in the structure of numbers+addition+multiplication. Note that this makes the ultimate physical laws much more solid: such laws are shown to have a reason. Let me continue with my question. So we have observations and then we make some model. Before mechanism, I insist. Mechanism says that physical laws have to deduced from number theory/computer science. In principle we need no more observation than the trivial assessment of our own consciousness, and then some introspective work. This is not practical, but the goal is to solve conceptually the mind body problem, not to predict physical phenomena. The conceptual advantage of mechanism is that it gives directly the correct physics (correct with respect to mechanism!). With observation we can never be sure that the laws are only local, if not based on lucky correlations, or hallucinated. It could be of empirical nature or we say that this model is a law. How do we know when a model becomes a law? Never. But in science we never know. We may believe in a theory, for a time. Or we may derive a laws from another theory, on which we already *bet*. It is always a sort of bet. Science search truth, but never know when it finds it. Of course the more you derive from simple hypotheses, the more you can be confident for the theory, but it is confidence, never certainty. Actually, this is a theorem of machine psychology : assertable certainty is *only* a symptom of madness. The reason I am asking is that recently I have read The Elegant Universe by Brian Green about the superstring theory. For some reasons physicists insist that they can find Equation of Everything. Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under the rug, and they usually confuse everything with everything-physical. This has been a fertile methodological simplification, but it breaks in front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem. Could you please recommend some modern books in this respect? Say I have just listened to audio book Best of the Brain from Scientific American: Mind, Matter, and Tomorrow’s Brain http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/09/what-crazy-scientists-make-with-brain-nowadays.html and they have found an effective way to treat depression: plant an electrode to some brain area (area 25) and put a voltage. Could it be also a way in the future to solve the mind-body problem? A couple of electrodes, some voltage pattern, and that's it? Not at all. If we accept mechanism, we have to abandon the Aristotelian idea that there is a primitive universe, and that physics is the fundamental science. We have to backtrack on Pythagorus, Plato and Plotinus. The relation between consciousness and brain is far more subtle than the materialists believe. In a sense the brain does not create consciousness. The brain makes it possible for consciousness to be manifested relatively to some computational histories. We may find correlation between brain activity and some problem like depression, but this is just the art of the physician, or the shaman (plants are still better than electrode today). It does not address the fundamental issues. For books, you could take a look for books here: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/web/resources http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/web/auda Have a good day, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You
Re: What's wrong with this? (a side question)
on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following: ... Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus operandi. Only layman and engineers have to hope that their theories fits enough a reality. The theories and the reasoning can be presented informally or formally. Rigor has nothing to do with formalization, but a lot to do with clarity. It is also better that the theory/assumption are shared by many, because ... it is more fun. How would you define what a physical law is? The reason I am asking is that recently I have read The Elegant Universe by Brian Green about the superstring theory. For some reasons physicists insist that they can find Equation of Everything. Best wishes, Evgenii http://blog.rudnyi.ru -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
