Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
Le 11-mars-07, à 09:40, Tom Caylor wrote in part: > Getting back to the plenitude, it seems that > the many-worlds interpretation takes bottom-up to the extreme and > says, OK we can't figure out how the good stuff happens, so let's just > say that everything happens. So this is supposed to take the worship > and awe out of it all: It's not a big deal that we are here. We just > are, so let's just get on with it and mechanically follow our local > wants. Some are using the many-worlds idea like that, but with reasonable hypotheses like comp and /or the QM hypo, we already know that what matter are the relations between the worlds/OM. With comp the multi-OM is structured canonically by each choice of point of views. Even if this is not the correct theory, it is enough to make your inference not valid. QM can be used instead. In particular ultimate meaning is not excluded at all, although (with comp) what is excluded is that the ultimate meaning can be written on a finite piece of paper. 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-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
I agree that there is in a sense something mysterious about consciousness,
but I think that assembling a human being out of the appropriate chemicals
would necessarily reproduce this mysterious element as well. I also believe
that a human with a computer analogue of a brain would be conscious, unless
it turns out that there is something fundamentally non-computational about
the brain, which would mean that there is something fundamentally
non-computational about chemistry.
As for these ideas taking the "worship and awe out of it all", I am reminded
of the Church's reaction to Copernicus and Galileo. Do you think the
revelation that the Earth orbits the Sun had a negative impact on society?
Even if it did, do you think it should have been suppressed? I don't see the
multiverse idea as essentially different to an extension of the Copernican
principle, and I can't understand why even a theist would limit God and
insist that he wouldn't have done it this way.
Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/11/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2:34 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 7, 1:52 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous
> to
> > > > > any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most
> of
> > > > > the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody
> > > > > bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The
> > > > > good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This
> is
> > > > > what I mean by being in charge of it.
> >
> > > > The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still
> know
> > > that
> > > > you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant
> > > place
> > > > full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a
> > > conscious
> > > > entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the
> single
> > > > most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle =
> > > > observed reality).
> >
> > > > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> > > Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is
> > > only half of the equation of the meaning of life. Modern science is
> > > only in the left side of the brain of humanity.
> >
> > Do you agree then that science can in principle explain observed
> reality, to
> > the point where we might be able to assemble a conscious human being
> from
> > the appropriate chemicals?
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
>
> If it is true that science is looking at only half of humanity's
> brain, do you think that science will be able to build a single brain
> that would truly be part of humanity? I believe that understanding
> consciousness is at the core of understanding everything. I believe
> that at the core of consciousness is the question and answer of
> meaning, goodness, creativity and love. Modern reductionist science
> that you allude to tries it backwards: try to explain everything in
> terms of mathematical physics from the bottom up ("meaning is only
> mechanical relationships"), then we will understand consciousness.
>
> With this bottom-up approach, understanding consciousness seems to be
> always beyond our reach. Getting back to the plenitude, it seems that
> the many-worlds interpretation takes bottom-up to the extreme and
> says, OK we can't figure out how the good stuff happens, so let's just
> say that everything happens. So this is supposed to take the worship
> and awe out of it all: It's not a big deal that we are here. We just
> are, so let's just get on with it and mechanically follow our local
> wants. There isn't any exciting broadsweeping love story to the
> universe that has anything to do with our consciousness. We are just
> an odd very^very rare string of bits in a random meaningless sea.
> When we feel that we want to talk to someone out there, it is just a
> mistake. Sorry for bothering you all. I'll let you get back to your
> local bit flipping ;)
>
> Tom
>
>
> >
>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 10, 2:34 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 1:52 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to
> > > > any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of
> > > > the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody
> > > > bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The
> > > > good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is
> > > > what I mean by being in charge of it.
>
> > > The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know
> > that
> > > you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant
> > place
> > > full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a
> > conscious
> > > entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single
> > > most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle =
> > > observed reality).
>
> > > Stathis Papaioannou
>
> > Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is
> > only half of the equation of the meaning of life. Modern science is
> > only in the left side of the brain of humanity.
>
> Do you agree then that science can in principle explain observed reality, to
> the point where we might be able to assemble a conscious human being from
> the appropriate chemicals?
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
If it is true that science is looking at only half of humanity's
brain, do you think that science will be able to build a single brain
that would truly be part of humanity? I believe that understanding
consciousness is at the core of understanding everything. I believe
that at the core of consciousness is the question and answer of
meaning, goodness, creativity and love. Modern reductionist science
that you allude to tries it backwards: try to explain everything in
terms of mathematical physics from the bottom up ("meaning is only
mechanical relationships"), then we will understand consciousness.
With this bottom-up approach, understanding consciousness seems to be
always beyond our reach. Getting back to the plenitude, it seems that
the many-worlds interpretation takes bottom-up to the extreme and
says, OK we can't figure out how the good stuff happens, so let's just
say that everything happens. So this is supposed to take the worship
and awe out of it all: It's not a big deal that we are here. We just
are, so let's just get on with it and mechanically follow our local
wants. There isn't any exciting broadsweeping love story to the
universe that has anything to do with our consciousness. We are just
an odd very^very rare string of bits in a random meaningless sea.
When we feel that we want to talk to someone out there, it is just a
mistake. Sorry for bothering you all. I'll let you get back to your
local bit flipping ;)
Tom
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [SPAM] Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
Tom, is it not a simple fact, surely, that *meaning*, for a creature with the wherewithal to worry about it, is fundamentally the recognition of relationships amongst the creatures and things perceived in the world, including oneself, and relating these to oneself? Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Tom Caylor wrote: > On Mar 7, 1:52 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to >> >> >>> any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of >>> the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody >>> bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The >>> good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is >>> what I mean by being in charge of it. >>> >> The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know that >> you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant place >> full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a conscious >> entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single >> most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle = >> observed reality). >> >> Stathis Papaioannou >> > > Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is > only half of the equation of the meaning of life. Modern science is > only in the left side of the brain of humanity. > > Tom > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
Le 10-mars-07, à 04:59, Tom Caylor a écrit : > Modern science is > only in the left side of the brain of humanity. Unlike greek science, if you look carefully. 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-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 7, 1:52 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to > > > > > any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of > > > the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody > > > bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The > > > good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is > > > what I mean by being in charge of it. > > > > The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know > that > > you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant > place > > full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a > conscious > > entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single > > most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle = > > observed reality). > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is > only half of the equation of the meaning of life. Modern science is > only in the left side of the brain of humanity. Do you agree then that science can in principle explain observed reality, to the point where we might be able to assemble a conscious human being from the appropriate chemicals? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to > > > any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of > > the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody > > bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The > > good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is > > what I mean by being in charge of it. > > The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know that > you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant place > full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a conscious > entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single > most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle = > observed reality). > > Stathis Papaioannou Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is only half of the equation of the meaning of life. Modern science is only in the left side of the brain of humanity. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to > any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of > the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody > bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The > good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is > what I mean by being in charge of it. The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know that you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant place full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a conscious entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle = observed reality). Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 10:54:44PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote: > Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to > any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of > the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody > bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The > good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is > what I mean by being in charge of it. > > Tom > I don't see anyone else deciding what the good stuff is except for you and I and every other observer (or person if you desire) out there deciding for themselves. This is anthropic selection. There doesn't seem to be anyone else out there deciding what is good for me. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 6, 6:07 am, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote: > > > You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the > > plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the > > meaning of "possible" for now), or God is in charge of (but not IS) > > only part of the plenitude. What about God being in charge of > > Everything (rather like Jason's "Everything is in the mind of God")? > > > Tom > > There is nothing to be charge of with respect to the whole > Plenitude. Everything happens in the plenitude - there's nothing you, > God or anyone else can do about it. > > Only parts of the Plenitude have the possibility of someone being able > to change things. > > This is one of the themes of my book. As I put it: ``Demigods yes, but > is there room for God?'' > > Cheers > > -- > > ---- > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---- Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is what I mean by being in charge of it. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote: > > You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the > plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the > meaning of "possible" for now), or God is in charge of (but not IS) > only part of the plenitude. What about God being in charge of > Everything (rather like Jason's "Everything is in the mind of God")? > > Tom > There is nothing to be charge of with respect to the whole Plenitude. Everything happens in the plenitude - there's nothing you, God or anyone else can do about it. Only parts of the Plenitude have the possibility of someone being able to change things. This is one of the themes of my book. As I put it: ``Demigods yes, but is there room for God?'' Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 5, 4:52 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 4:54 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the > > > > meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its > > > > symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He > > > > basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless > > > > histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is > > > > needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with > > > > multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. > > > > What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, > > both > > > are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as > > immanent, > > > outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude > > has > > > the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is > > philosophically > > > contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). > > > Your proposal totally erases God from the picture (which is precisely > > what you want to do, so it is successful, in your view). > > This leaves the original problem as I've explained: The > > "picture" (Everything) is totally blank to begin with. > > > > No doubt you will say that the plenitude is not a person and cannot > > provide > > > love, morality and meaning. Let's assume this is true for the sake of > > the > > > discussion, and let's assume that there is a separate non-plenitude God > > who > > > creates a real world imbued with these gifts. But even God can't destroy > > > mathematics, so the plenitude will give rise to creatures in parallel > > with > > > God's real world. These simulated creatures will not know they are > > simulated > > > and will not know that there is no overseeing God, no ultimate meaning > > etc.: > > > they will go about their business in a delusional state just as if they > > were > > > in the real world. The question is, how can I tell whether I am in the > > real > > > world or in the godless (or deistic, or pantheistic) plenitude? > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > You are hypothetically putting God in charge of only part of reality. > > The point is, God is not in charge of mathematics, even though he might know > all mathematics and have chosen the mathematical laws that physical reality > will follow. If you accept some version of comp, conscious beings will arise > who are beyond his control. But, I suppose, you could avoid all this by > saying that only beings specially imbued with souls can be conscious. > > Stathis Papaioannou You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the meaning of "possible" for now), or God is in charge of (but not IS) only part of the plenitude. What about God being in charge of Everything (rather like Jason's "Everything is in the mind of God")? Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 5, 4:41 pm, "Tom Caylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 2, 4:54 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the > > > > meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its > > > symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He > > > basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless > > > histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is > > > needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with > > > multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. > > > What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both > > are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, > > outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has > > the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically > > contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). > > Your proposal totally erases God from the picture (which is precisely > what you want to do, so it is successful, in your view). > This leaves the original problem as I've explained: The > "picture" (Everything) is totally blank to begin with. > Tom, do you believe that God is omniscient? To me, if God is omniscient, then all possible universes exist within the mind of God. The inhabitants of any of those imagined universes, if perfectly imagined in every detail (perfectly simulated) would also necessarily be conscious, short of accepting a dualist position. Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 2, 4:54 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the > > > > > meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its > > > symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He > > > basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless > > > histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is > > > needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with > > > multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. > > > > What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, > both > > are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as > immanent, > > outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude > has > > the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is > philosophically > > contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). > > > > Your proposal totally erases God from the picture (which is precisely > what you want to do, so it is successful, in your view). > This leaves the original problem as I've explained: The > "picture" (Everything) is totally blank to begin with. > > > No doubt you will say that the plenitude is not a person and cannot > provide > > love, morality and meaning. Let's assume this is true for the sake of > the > > discussion, and let's assume that there is a separate non-plenitude God > who > > creates a real world imbued with these gifts. But even God can't destroy > > mathematics, so the plenitude will give rise to creatures in parallel > with > > God's real world. These simulated creatures will not know they are > simulated > > and will not know that there is no overseeing God, no ultimate meaning > etc.: > > they will go about their business in a delusional state just as if they > were > > in the real world. The question is, how can I tell whether I am in the > real > > world or in the godless (or deistic, or pantheistic) plenitude? > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > You are hypothetically putting God in charge of only part of reality. The point is, God is not in charge of mathematics, even though he might know all mathematics and have chosen the mathematical laws that physical reality will follow. If you accept some version of comp, conscious beings will arise who are beyond his control. But, I suppose, you could avoid all this by saying that only beings specially imbued with souls can be conscious. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 2, 9:11 am, "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2 Mar, 11:54, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the > > > > meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its > > > symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He > > > basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless > > > histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is > > > needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with > > > multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. > > > What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both > > are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, > > outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has > > the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically > > contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). > > cf Whitehead's Primordial Nature of God. Stathis' proposal is not the same as Whitehead's concept. Stathis' original proposal (the plenitude is God): all that is is God. Whitehead's concept: all that is is IN God, and God is IN all that is. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the > > > meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its > > symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He > > basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless > > histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is > > needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with > > multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. > > What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both > are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, > outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has > the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically > contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). > Your proposal totally erases God from the picture (which is precisely what you want to do, so it is successful, in your view). This leaves the original problem as I've explained: The "picture" (Everything) is totally blank to begin with. > No doubt you will say that the plenitude is not a person and cannot provide > love, morality and meaning. Let's assume this is true for the sake of the > discussion, and let's assume that there is a separate non-plenitude God who > creates a real world imbued with these gifts. But even God can't destroy > mathematics, so the plenitude will give rise to creatures in parallel with > God's real world. These simulated creatures will not know they are simulated > and will not know that there is no overseeing God, no ultimate meaning etc.: > they will go about their business in a delusional state just as if they were > in the real world. The question is, how can I tell whether I am in the real > world or in the godless (or deistic, or pantheistic) plenitude? > > Stathis Papaioannou You are hypothetically putting God in charge of only part of reality. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On 2 Mar, 11:54, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the > > > meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its > > symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He > > basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless > > histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is > > needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with > > multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. > > What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both > are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, > outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has > the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically > contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). cf Whitehead's Primordial Nature of God. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the > meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its > symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He > basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless > histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is > needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with > multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. > What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). No doubt you will say that the plenitude is not a person and cannot provide love, morality and meaning. Let's assume this is true for the sake of the discussion, and let's assume that there is a separate non-plenitude God who creates a real world imbued with these gifts. But even God can't destroy mathematics, so the plenitude will give rise to creatures in parallel with God's real world. These simulated creatures will not know they are simulated and will not know that there is no overseeing God, no ultimate meaning etc.: they will go about their business in a delusional state just as if they were in the real world. The question is, how can I tell whether I am in the real world or in the godless (or deistic, or pantheistic) plenitude? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Plenitude
ERRATA: in the last paragraph to the post I send to Georges, instead of Another justification on the "bigness" of the 1-plenitude is that a first person cannot even give name (description) of itself: the real "I" is already undefinable. Its extension set cannot be extremely complex and big. Cf the "Benacerraf principle": if I am a machine I will never KNOWN which one. Read: Another justification on the "bigness" of the 1-plenitude is that a first person cannot even give name (description) of itself: the real "I" is already undefinable. Its extension set cannot NOT be extremely complex and big. Cf the "Benacerraf principle": if I am a machine I will never KNOWN which one. Mind the "NOT" ! Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: The Plenitude
Hi Georges, Le 03-nov.-05, à 04:23, George Levy a écrit : From the thread Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 22-oct.-05, à 04:50, George Levy a écrit : The 3-plenitude is equivalent with the computationnal states accessed by the UD. It is also equivalent with the (finite and infinite) proofs of the Sigma_1 sentences, etc. The 1-plenitudes are then so big (provably) that they are not nameable. Approximations can be named though, and their logics can be assessed, and tested. Bruno, you are making a distinction between the 1-Plenitude(s) and the 3-Plenitude. This is new to me. I thought that the Plenitude was the same no matter who the observer is - in a sense, the ultimate invariant - and also infinite. Could you please elaborate on your thought. Thanks. OK. You must keep in mind the methodology I'm following. I do postulate comp (or its generalisation alpha-comp I mentionned recently). Comp is really an humility principle, it just means I am a digitalizable machine. From this all proposition saying that some particular entity is more complex that myself is undecidable. Actually the UD, which provably generates many things more complex than me is itself very plausibly less complex than myself, and the UD is enough for generating the many interfering dreams from which an appearance of "physical reality" proceeds from first (plural) peron points of view. So with comp, the 3-plenitude can be very simple (near 0 information), like the UD or any effective part of arithmetical truth in which the UD can be embedded. I say this in my last paper (see my url) when I say that with comp AR makes AR+ undecidable (AR = Arithmetical Realism = arithmetical truth is independent of me; AR+ = Arithmetical Realism AND NOTHING ELSE = Pythagoreanism= "everything is numbers and their relations). With OCCAM, comp makes AR+ enough. (But this can be said only after comp has been shown to imply the physics/psychology reversal). The situation is quite different for the 1-plenitude, which is determined in part by all my experiencial accessible states, and which relies for that reason to the set of all my consistent extensions (this with respect to any state I am going through). That set is not even a constructive object. Only the UD can generate those consistent extensions (like the UD generates all real numbers including the non algorithmically definable one). The first person point of view relies on the whole complete UD* (an infinite object) or, more correctly on non definable subpart of UD*. This follows from the invariance lemma (see UDA) and mainly on the facts that a first person cannot be aware of the delays of reconstitution. Another justification on the "bigness" of the 1-plenitude is that a first person cannot even give name (description) of itself: the real "I" is already undefinable. Its extension set cannot be extremely complex and big. Cf the "Benacerraf principle": if I am a machine I will never KNOWN which one. Hope this helps a bit, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
The Plenitude
From the thread Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 22-oct.-05, à 04:50, George Levy a écrit : The 3-plenitude is equivalent with the computationnal states accessed by the UD. It is also equivalent with the (finite and infinite) proofs of the Sigma_1 sentences, etc. The 1-plenitudes are then so big (provably) that they are not nameable. Approximations can be named though, and their logics can be assessed, and tested. Bruno, you are making a distinction between the 1-Plenitude(s) and the 3-Plenitude. This is new to me. I thought that the Plenitude was the same no matter who the observer is - in a sense, the ultimate invariant - and also infinite. Could you please elaborate on your thought. Thanks. George
