Re: Who is the enemy?
GLevy wrote: [...] I am fascinated by antiterrorism methods that expose the inconsistency of terrorists. The problem is that that no matter what rational argument you could come up with, they will find a way to rationalize their position. It may be that the root of the problem is emotional and no amount of rational argument will work. It's like being faced with a tiger and trying to explain to the tiger that eating you will generate inconsistency in his set of belief. Unfortunately, it may be that the only way to show the inconsistency of their terrorist to the terrorists is by means of the ultimate argument: force. Mmh... You can and perhaps you should, in some circonstance, use force for capturing terrorist Inc, but I doubt you could convince them of their inconsistencies by force. Perhaps you mean they will learn the inconsistencies by accumulation of enemies, war, violent choc. Kamikase-like terrorist are enhanced in their paranoid belief by such accumulation of difficulties. They want prove your own inconsistency, at the price of their own. It is perhaps a form of social madness. I think more and more we should bet on the reasonableness of most. And we should be the less violent possible, and then attack the problem at his roots. My opinion (if you mind) : the inescapable solution could be international antiprohibition. Americans have known the result of alcool prohibition, they know antiprohibition is *the* weapon against mafias and their obscure and unfair financial fluxes. I'm not sure that it is realist. I said: Well, a typical G*-like answer would be: we will get rid of terrorism when we will stop trying to get rid of terrorism. This is also in the spirit of Alan Watts The Wisdom of Insecurity. Terrorist are not inconsistent (although some of their beliefs can be inconsistent with our beliefs), but they indeed prove some inherent and intrinsical possibility of inconsistency of our democraties. But, that possibility of inconsistency is what we must learn to live with. For the same deep reason we can expect there will never be universal vaccin in medecine. Here is a funny illustration by Tom Tomorrow (from New-York): http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2001/10/01/tomo/index.html ;-) Bruno
Re: Who is the enemy?
Hi Charles Sorry, I am not responsible for these statements. I was only quoting Bruno Marchal's post or 09/19. However, I agree with Bruno very much. It seems that as in mathematics, any (religious) belief anchored by a rigid credo (set of axioms) is bound to be either incomplete or inconsistent. The fanatic insists that his position is both complete and consistent. The agnostic accepts the incompleteness of his belief. In fact the agnostic accepts that his current belief is only temporary and may evolve depending on new information. Charles Goodwin wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I just say this because I consider real atheist as very religious people, and, what is worth is that most of the time they want us to believe they have no religion. Only the agnostic can be said not having still made its religion (yet). The problem arises because the modalities []-x and -[]x are confused in most natural language. I am fascinated by antiterrorism methods that expose the inconsistency of terrorists. The problem is that that no matter what rational argument you could come up with, they will find a way to rationalize their position. It may be that the root of the problem is emotional and no amount of rational argument will work. It's like being faced with a tiger and trying to explain to the tiger that eating you will generate inconsistency in his set of belief. Unfortunately, it may be that the only way to show the inconsistency of their terrorist to the terrorists is by means of the ultimate argument: force. While battling terrorism by using consistency methods may not be applicable directly to the terrorists themselves, they may help win the heart and mind of those who are sitting on the fence. Richard Dawkins strikes me as a militant or indeed a religious atheist, for example. I don't know enough about Richard Dawkins personal beliefs except for his generalization of the principle of evolution. Brought to its ultimate generalization I believe that this principle can bring the physical world, life and consciousness out of the plenitude. Creation is converted from creatio ex-nihilo to creatio ex-toto. In other words God did not have to do anything. Creatio ex-toto just happened. In my opinion, this does not diminish God in any way. Au contraire! He created the world by doing nothing! Talk about power and magic! Even if we show creatio ex-toto, the question of God doesn't go away. It only makes God greater. The question of God is just moved to a meta level. In summary, I think that someone can believe in evolution, can believe that God did nothing and yet be intensely mystical and believe in a higher God. George
RE: Who is the enemy?
-Original Message- From: George Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 21 September 2001 8:18 a.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Who is the enemy? I just say this because I consider real atheist as very religious people, and, what is worth is that most of the time they want us to believe they have no religion. Only the agnostic can be said not having still made its religion (yet). The problem arises because the modalities []-x and -[]x are confused in most natural language. Richard Dawkins strikes me as a militant or indeed a religious atheist, for example. Charles
Re: Who is the enemy?
Hi John, You wrote (out-of-line) Bruno FYI here is a private message I submitted today including a copy of part of a post to a complexity-list yesterday. (No restriction in using any of it anywhere) John Mikes (jamikes). Thanks for your courageous post where you attempt to define and perhaps justify in some way terrorism. [...] Terrorism is usually assigned to activities by clandestine preparations to cause damage both in property and life, many times unselected and randomly applied. OK. What is terrorism? If we do not include A/ anarchy against ALL power wealth and B/ criminal activity aiming at financial extortion then (in most general cases) it is the expression of DESPERATION You are the interpreter. It could be you'r right but be careful it depends of case. Desperation can express itself, although rarely (but this happens today (27/sept/01) in Switzerland), by terrorist act. Desperation can aswell expresse itself in songs, literature, etc. of the powerless against oppressing and overwhelming power, exercised in the absence of other possible remedies sometimes up to even self-sacrificing acts (and I include here hungerstrike and self-setting-on-fire as well) with the goal of hurting the powerful. It is alway triggered (except for point A/ and B/ - although A/ may be a variant) by action(s) of the powerful and aims at making them suffer. If that is terrorism, I don't think terrorism exists. Intellectual left terrorism of the last (20) century was not necessarily aimed at making people suffering. In Belgium we have known a form of such terrorism (the CCC cellules combattantes communistes) which demolished public and private goods, but cared not wounding people. Still they killed two firemen accidentally and said they regret. Still they were linked to the Baader German Group and Italian's one, who were murdering innocent persons, but not innocent in their mind (sure). I think they were fighter with a (crazy) purpose, and were using terrorism has a (unsuccesful) psychological trick to impose their philosophy or way of life, by threaten life and goods of their enemy, the bourgeoise classe for exemple. Most of them were coming from wealthy family and find their inspiration in book full of hate written by anti-humanist thinker justifying violence with eloquence. Young people fall easily in that trap, during puberty. If you read their literature you will see they are aware of the moral problem of making suffering. making suffer is not the goal. The problem is that they believe the publicity on their message is worth making suffering or dying innocent people. I don't see why you put hungerstrike and self-setting-on-fire with terrorist. Be prudent with your desperation interpretation before revendications are given. (For exemple, it could be your own desperation that you were projecting) . When and how could we open our eyes that the reason for 'their' fight is to protect themselves from all these goals of the western world? They see their institutions and philosophy jeopardized by us, their lifestyle in danger The western world is a myth. Islam has produced one of the most genteel and sophisticated civilisation, our western sciences owes a lot to Islam thinkers especially mathematicians, philosophers. The civilisations meshed more than one time. Not always violently. Since christians made crusade and invented christ soldiers, some Muslims gives the right to defend Islam by killing the crusaders. (normal) Later some school or sect (not easy to distinguish) developped literal interpretation of the coran and variant of it containing the idea that Islam must rule the world, and that any muslim who kill a non-muslim (infidel) go immediately to paradise. It has always been a minority in Islam traditions. from the free market global economy and their 'system' (in their view the only one worthwhile living for) being attacked. They conduct a life/death struggle, in their view worthwhile dying for the noble cause. For their culture, which they do not want to give up. I'm afraid it is not the case in the current affair. In america there are people who reject modernity including electricity, and nobody really threaten their philosophy and souls. Those who revived those agressive version of Islam are decadent intoxicated by petrodollars wanting to communicates nothing more than hate: no revendication, no signature. They are not defending the poor. They oppressed them by terror. They use that nazy trick to use their (originaly real) people frustration for enhancing hate of a world which exists only in their imagination. They are sellers of fear and they work hard making grow a collective paranoia. We tolerate the saoudian school of hate by petrol addiction, and even used them against the communist. We are indeed paying a price for a terrible mistake (not realising that the old war rule which consists in building enemies against
Re: Who is the enemy?
Marchal wrote: George Levy wrote This paradox can easily be solved by falling back on a relativistic approach. Each observer has his/her own frame of reference. All perceptions are relative to the observer. Period. After all, Einstein's Relativity does not use first person and third person. Yes but Einstein was still confusing the methodological evacuation of the subject with the idea that the subject cannot be handled scientifically. I don't understand. Do you mean the methodological evaluation of the subject...? Which subject was Einstein evaluating or believed could not be handled scientifically? And I guess you forget I am using comp, and this include that the set of provable arithmetical truth is a 3-person sharable objective set. I guess this is the crux of the difference between us. Your starting point is axiomatic and logical/mathematical and you believe that the set of provable arithmetical truty is a 3-person sharable objective set. My starting point is relativistic and I feel comfortable with a relativistic generalization of the first/third person concept. It would be nice if we could bridge that gap. I guess one way to begin is to specify what are the axiomatic logical constraints A for a set of provable arithmetical truth to be 3-person sharable. Second question is: Are there several logical modes of A for which this set is sharable. If yes, then each mode corresponds to a frame of reference. Observers possessing identical logical modes would belong to the same frame of reference and would experinece the same arithmetic truths. Observers in different logical modes would experience different loogical truths. If three such modes can be demonstrated, then the first/third person concept becomes insufficient to express the relationships between the observers. We may have to fall back on a relativistic concept. the machines which communicates they are consistent ([]t) == Fanatics the machines which communicates they are inconsistent ([][]t) == People with terribly poor self esteem the mad machine == illogical people ([]f) the the wrong machine = Misled people ([]f) the dreaming machine = Schizophrenics ([]f) Note that the fanatics belongs to the type []t, but the arrogant one also. You should not forget the liar machine, also of type []f, which intentionaly mislead the others. The worst one, imo, especially in politics. Those who lies to their people conducts their people to a catastrophe, soon or later, isn't it? (I don't speak about special military information). (G* proves []f - f, unlike G which does NOT proves []f - f). So let us add in our search of evil definition the misinformation, and most probably too the surinformation (which hides info). OK? I am fascinated by the parallelism between social systems and axiomatic systems. Please allow me some poetic license. Each social system becomes inconsistent given certain conditions. For example, Ghandi showed that the British system could not possibly be civilized and deal with non-violent protest in a civilized non-violent manner. By demonstrating that the British presence in India was inconsistent, he was able to kick the British out. It may be that the rise of christianity in ancient Rome happened when judaism monotheism exposed the inconsistency of the Roman religious beliefs. Modern terrorists take advantage of our freedoms (economic, legal, etc..) to perform their evil acts. These may be our inconsistencies. The big question is this: is it possible to expose the inconsistencies of terrorists and terrorist organizations? What are their inconsistencies? What methods should we use to get rid of them, that will remain consistent with our own system? George
Re: Who is the enemy?
George Levy wrote [...] I guess I was talking mostly about the fanatics and the misled people. One could also argue that these people do not have a rigorous scientific upbringing and are very much driven by their emotions. Therefore, they may be classified as illogical. I think emotion are logical. I mean emotions have (meta)logical reasons and (meta)logical explanations. Of course they are lived from 1-point of view and are not (scientifically, G) communicable. They definitely are not schizos and do not suffer from poor self esteem. Mmmh... I am not sure but imo the fanatics suffer generally from poor self-esteem. So poor that probably they cannot recognize it for such. (so that they communication could belong to the arrogant type []t) (of course some are fanatics because their parents are, and then they learn at school that the other does not really exist, and they developpe all the appearence of over self-esteem, but lives really with some terrible poor self-esteem of type [][]f. I have been using first person and third person to accomodate the vocabulary used in this list. However, there is definitely something wrong with these concepts. All perceptions have to be first person. When the frame of reference are very close to each other first person and third person perceptions are identical. When the frames of reference are too dissimilar as in QS, there is no objective reality, and therefore, there is no third person. In either case the concept of third person is useless. So why use first person? This paradox can easily be solved by falling back on a relativistic approach. Each observer has his/her own frame of reference. All perceptions are relative to the observer. Period. After all, Einstein's Relativity does not use first person and third person. Yes but Einstein was still confusing the methodological evacuation of the subject with the idea that the subject cannot be handled scientifically. And I guess you forget I am using comp, and this include that the set of provable arithmetical truth is a 3-person sharable objective set. the machines which communicates they are consistent ([]t) == Fanatics the machines which communicates they are inconsistent ([][]t) == People with terribly poor self esteem the mad machine == illogical people ([]f) the the wrong machine = Misled people ([]f) the dreaming machine = Schizophrenics ([]f) Note that the fanatics belongs to the type []t, but the arrogant one also. You should not forget the liar machine, also of type []f, which intentionaly mislead the others. The worst one, imo, especially in politics. Those who lies to their people conducts their people to a catastrophe, soon or later, isn't it? (I don't speak about special military information). (G* proves []f - f, unlike G which does NOT proves []f - f). So let us add in our search of evil definition the misinformation, and most probably too the surinformation (which hides info). OK? Bruno
Re: Who is the enemy?
Marchal wrote: George Levy wrote This paradox can easily be solved by falling back on a relativistic approach. Each observer has his/her own frame of reference. All perceptions are relative to the observer. Period. After all, Einstein's Relativity does not use first person and third person. Yes but Einstein was still confusing the methodological evacuation of the subject with the idea that the subject cannot be handled scientifically. I don't understand. Do you mean the methodological evaluation of the subject...? Which subject was Einstein evaluating or believed could not be handled scientifically? And I guess you forget I am using comp, and this include that the set of provable arithmetical truth is a 3-person sharable objective set. I guess this is the crux of the difference between us. Your starting point is axiomatic and logical/mathematical and you believe that the set of provable arithmetical truty is a 3-person sharable objective set. My starting point is relativistic and I feel comfortable with a relativistic generalization of the first/third person concept. It would be nice if we could bridge that gap. I guess one way to begin is to specify what are the axiomatic logical constraints A for a set of provable arithmetical truth to be 3-person sharable. Second question is: Are there several logical modes of A for which this set is sharable. If yes, then each mode corresponds to a frame of reference. Observers possessing identical logical modes would belong to the same frame of reference and would experinece the same arithmetic truths. Observers in different logical modes would experience different loogical truths. If three such modes can be demonstrated, then the first/third person concept becomes insufficient to express the relationships between the observers. We may have to fall back on a relativistic concept. the machines which communicates they are consistent ([]t) == Fanatics the machines which communicates they are inconsistent ([][]t) == People with terribly poor self esteem the mad machine == illogical people ([]f) the the wrong machine = Misled people ([]f) the dreaming machine = Schizophrenics ([]f) Note that the fanatics belongs to the type []t, but the arrogant one also. You should not forget the liar machine, also of type []f, which intentionaly mislead the others. The worst one, imo, especially in politics. Those who lies to their people conducts their people to a catastrophe, soon or later, isn't it? (I don't speak about special military information). (G* proves []f - f, unlike G which does NOT proves []f - f). So let us add in our search of evil definition the misinformation, and most probably too the surinformation (which hides info). OK? I am fascinated by the parallelism between social systems and axiomatic systems. Please allow me some poetic license. Each social system becomes inconsistent given certain conditions. For example, Ghandi showed that the British system could not possibly be civilized and deal with non-violent protest in a civilized non-violent manner. By demonstrating that the British presence in India was inconsistent, he was able to kick the British out. It may be that the rise of christianity in ancient Rome happened when judaism monotheism exposed the inconsistency of the Roman religious beliefs. Modern terrorists take advantage of our freedoms (economic, legal, etc..) to perform their evil acts. These may be our inconsistencies. The big question is this: is it possible to expose the inconsistencies of terrorists and terrorist organizations? What are their inconsistencies? What methods should we use to get rid of them, that will remain consistent with our own system? George
Re: Who is the enemy?
Who is the enemy? What is moral? What is not moral? What is morality in the context of the MWI? Is Quantum Suicide moral? Let me propose a conjecture and let us see how far we can go with it: Morality is the creation, protection and preservation of information. Immorality is the destruction of information. In classical religious terms this fits pretty well with the Ten Commandments. Lying, killing, bearing false witness destroys information. Adultery messes up social order (information). Honoring parents, protect and preserves their wisdom and honors them as creator (of information). Meta Commandments include observing the Sabbath which honors creation itself and the first three Commandments which honor the Creator (of world information). As an aside, let me say that in the modern context the destruction of the environment is immoral because it results in a decrease in biodeversity (world information). Conversely, work that generates information is very moral. I like to think that engineers are very moral individuals (I am one :-)) because they create new thing that do not exist in nature. But if you really think about it, any work that generates a desirable service or product of benefit to society is in fact adding information to the world and is therefore moral. In response to Spudboy, we could define murder as killing that results in the destruction of information. Killing that results in the creation, preservation or protection of information is not murder. For example, A lion killing an antelope does so to survive. This action preserves biodiversity, allows the lions to continue as a specie and shapes the evolution of lions and antelopes (faster running, better senses of hearing, sights etc...) In short this action is necessary for the creation (evolution) of the fauna. The Taliban destruction of the statues of Buddah, on the other hand was evil because its aim was to reduce cultural diversity in Afghanistan. The Holocaust was evil because its aim was to reduce ethnic diversity in the world. The terrorist action of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was evil because its aim was to eliminate a way of life. The Taliban operate within a very inflexible system. Bruno would call it G. Our system on the other hand is much more flexible and adaptable. Because our way of life allows a continuous adaptation we cannot be described as a G. -- WE ARE THE TRUE REVOLUTIONARIES! Clearly we present a threat to the terrorists: OUR WAY OF LIFE SHOWS THAT THEIR G IS INCONSISTENT! In an evil attempt to restore their consistency, they attempt to eliminate our way of life. They won't succeed. We shall adapt. The world will end up better with more information. Now, how does this conjecture fits with the MWI? The Plenitude contains zero information. No matter what you do, the total amount of information will not change. For example, performing a good action, merely means that you allow your consciousness NAVIGATES the plenitude to a world where you have performed a good action. Other branching to counterfactual bad action worlds also exist but YOU have not NAVIGATED there. Other you's (Yoush) have navigated there. As you can see, making decision in the plenitude can be reduced to the concept of NAVIGATION. You choose a branch, but yoush choose all branches. Thus the ABSOLUTE information of the world does not change NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO! It seems therefore that just like everything else in our world (all physical entities) the only type of morality that matters is morality as seen by the first person. We now enter the realm of first person and third person perception and relativity. To go any further I must now define the concept of objective world in relative terms. Objective worlds are worlds which share frames of reference close enough to the first person world as to be indistinguishable from it. First and third person perceptions are identical when the third persons live in such objective worlds. First and third person perceptions differ (as in Quantum Suicide QS or FIN) when the frames of reference are too far apart. I would like to make a distinction between absolute morality and objective morality. As I explained above absolute morality does not exist - absolute information remains at zero no matter what. Objective morality on the other hand does because objective worlds do exist. Objective information can change. Thus insofar as there are objective worlds, there is objective morality. Destroying a specie or a person to reduce diversity in the world is objectively immoral. QS or FIN however does not fall within the scope of objective morality because, in this case, the first and third person worlds are very significantly different. The only type of morality that applies is first person morality. It appears that the action of QTI or FIN actually creates first person information! Since I believe that measure does not change with QS it appears that QS or FIN is actually moral
Re: Who is the enemy?
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Bruno, what did you expect? You should expect Jacques to be a typical
American.
The everything list is not a random sample. Unfortunately!
Because frankly I appreciate the Americans here.
I find them very sympa.
You know how Americans on opposite sides of an issue tend to
behave.
The champion of biased arguments has been an European!
Note also that Jacques Mallah has never been dishonest. I am
just afraid by its lack of doubt on some fundamental questions.
I keep asking, because I have no prejudice.
E.g. recounting of votes in Florida,
This is a triumph of democracy ('course, it's not a triumph of
organisation). In my opinion they should perhaps recount again.
Especially now.
It is good USA have a lot of allies but then you must listen to
them, and reassure them. Expression like crusade, infinite
justice etc. are diplomatical errors. Worst: they are
strategical errors. Why?
(with comp they are of course G* error: never pretend the
good is on your side, especially when it is obvious).
pro life versus pro choice...
And Death Penalty! God told them Thou shall not kill, and the
state himself shows the exemple of killing. Shocking. You got a
point.
But I know there is a lot of Americans shocked by that too.
Unthinkable here in Europe!
Be careful. I'm afraid it is thinkable here in Europe. Perhaps
your country is very open minded, but I am afraid by the last
election in Italy. Even in part of Belgium some election have
given frightful results. Extremism is not dead in our countries.
Anyway, there is nothing wrong with Jacques, he is behaving
in a way you should expect from the MWI or your theory.
I don't know. I'm troubled by its persistence to negate the
distinction between first and third person point of view. But
you should not put him so quickly in a box.
Of course you raise the question are the enemies the americans?.
Of course no. You know that americans are the victims here.
Still you can ask are *some* americans, and more generaly
some occidentals, responsible?
Of course. Islam has begun a secularisation process, with a
begining of separation of state and church, but this has been
stopped by the Wahabit (Saoudian) with the help of the occidentals.
So that the fanatical islamic schools have been favorised and
are still now favorised, by the occident (who have justify this
by the cold war with the (ex) Soviet Union, but also by the need
of petrol).
But why to continue after the fall of Berlin wall? I don't
understand.
Other questions: when did USA stop supporting the
Taliban? (After the Buddha destruction? after the 11 sept. ?)
Apparently unrelated, but I'm afraid it is perhaps *the*
central question:
Why is hemp forbidden in most countries? (One century of lies and
propaganda). The international Petrol/Health politics is criminal
since a long time.
You can compare the relation between Occident and Middle East
with the relation between the heroin-addict and its dealer.
I'm afraid the real hard dope on this planet could be petrol.
Half-jokingly when Bush administration decides not to respect
the Kyoto protocol (signed by almost all countries in the world),
I told my friends that this was a declaration of war against the
whole planet!
The concrete enemy, I am afraid, is international banditism.
We should depenalize all the dopes, if only to control black
money. Violence is of no use in this war. Its use will always
increase it and make it turn back. They are real technical
international problem which must be solved the most
pacificaly possible.
If Georges Bush drops bombs on Afghanistan, there is a risk he
will be obliged to drop Bombs on Pakistan, then on Saoudians, then
... on Americans, who are the real protector of what happens
to be the roots of the hate of the occidental tolerance.
Let us hope GB will not fall in this diabolical trap.
USA and the whole occident should profit on being victim for doing
serious inquest in the whole world.
The fanatics are dangerous. The cynics who help them in the
shadow, are much more dangerous. And they are, in part, among us,
as it is more and more obvious days after days.
Nothing will be simple in this war. But please, in this
conflict the enemy is widespread in all countries. If you say it
is the Afghans, the Americans, the Occidentals, the Muslims,
etc. you will always miss the point.
Bruno
Re: Who is the enemy?
From: Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jacques Mallah wrote: (I'm currently in North Dakota, but have lived in NYC most of my life. I did not know anyone who was in the WTC.) I told you my relief, but I begin to doubt ! What do you mean by that? Recently, of course, I have been more concerned with the destruction caused in NYC by the advocates of suicide and believers in immortality. I understand your concern with NYC. I share with you the concern of those terrible and crual 11 sept. events. Now a pecularity of this war consists in figuring out who is the enemy, exactly. It looks like you have solved that problem too. The enemy are the believers in immortality, the religious people !?! I did mention that they were also advocates of suicide. I am fearing amalgamations, like the amalgamations between Muslims and terrorists (to name one which has been done by some). But you are the champion: the enemy are all religious people. The war between atheism and religion !?! Perhaps I should tell you what are, according to G*, the canonical enemies of the sound universal machine. Bruno, you have an amazing ability to misunderstand what I say. I used to think that the problem was that many of the posts on this list concern arcane philosophical and technical points, so that misunderstanding was understandable. By now I know better. I could say Coke is better than Pepsi, and you would interpret that to mean that I don't know they are both colas. Further, you would believe that the only way to illustrate the relationship between the two drinks is by analogy to G and G*. The sound machine is maximaly humble, she is agnostic on both her own consistency and her own inconsistency. Does that imply it is agnostic on any question? One of these days, I'll have to check out what kind of analogy you are making between Godel's theorem and belief systems. Right now I doubt there's much to it. A couple more points. When I say X is true you can assume I mean I believe X is very likely to be true, so my Bayesian probability of (not X) is so low it is best to neglect it. If I say for example This is a chair that is what I mean. Also, if humans have properties that are not shared by your consistent machine model, then it is not the humans' fault. It is not their job to describe your model. It means your model is faulty. The universal sound machine is forever undecided about any of its possible ultimate worldview and, by doubting, never imposes its religion or worldview on different machines. Why not? Even if I'm not sure of X, I might still want you to believe X. Or, equivalently, I might want your Bayesian probability for X to be high even if mine is not. (Not that I'm that sort though, but some people are.) Today I guess we have still the choice between a war between moderates and fanatics and a war between fanatics and fanatics. It's going to be a war between ordinary people vs. evil. Personally I am not too concerned right now with the philosophical differences among the ordinary people, be they religious or intelligent. This will be serious, I fear. In the second case we loose the war at the start, isn't it? Do you agree with this last statement? Or are you really, Mister the Devil's Advocate, a fanatical atheist? I'm an atheist, and have no doubts of any significance about it. I do believe that other people should be atheists too, and that on the whole religion is an evil. Of the major religions I would say that Islam and Christianity are the worst, but the main factor is how seriously the believers take it and how radical they are in interpretation. But again, for now I am putting disagreements among non-evil people on the back burner. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate I know what no one else knows - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/ _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Who is the enemy?
Bruno, what did you expect? You should expect Jacques to be a typical American. You know how Americans on opposite sides of an issue tend to behave. E.g. recounting of votes in Florida, pro life versus pro choice... Unthinkable here in Europe! Anyway, there is nothing wrong with Jacques, he is behaving in a way you should expect from the MWI or your theory. Saibal - Original Message - From: Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 6:08 PM Subject: Who is the enemy? Jacques Mallah wrote: (I'm currently in North Dakota, but have lived in NYC most of my life. I did not know anyone who was in the WTC.) I told you my relief, but I begin to doubt ! Look at what you write: Recently, of course, I have been more concerned with the destruction caused in NYC by the advocates of suicide and believers in immortality. I understand your concern with NYC. I share with you the concern of those terrible and crual 11 sept. events. Now a pecularity of this war consists in figuring out who is the enemy, exactly. It looks like you have solved that problem too. The enemy are the believers in immortality, the religious people !?! I am fearing amalgamations, like the amalgamations between Muslims and terrorists (to name one which has been done by some). But you are the champion: the enemy are all religious people. The war between atheism and religion !?! Perhaps I should tell you what are, according to G*, the canonical enemies of the sound universal machine. [ ... and here a very long reasoning with lot of thought experiments, or a shorter formal reasoning where the main point consists in distinguishing what G and G* say ... I don't want to bore you and give you at once the result ...]: And it looks like you were almost right. The universal sound machines war is between the agnostic and the *imposed* religion (whatever that religion is, atheism included). The sound machine is maximaly humble, she is agnostic on both her own consistency and her own inconsistency. This entails two sort of dangerous consistent extensions: 1) meeting a machine (perhaps itself) which feels superior, and 2) meeting a machine (perhaps itself) which feels inferior. (Meeting or becoming herself). That reminds me a theory of intelligence I developped years ago (still from G*): a machine is intelligent iff it is not stupid. And a machine is stupid iff either the machine believes itself intelligent or the machine believes itself stupid. [with consistent (resp. inconsistent) in place of intelligent (resp. stupid) those sentences are just rephrasing of particular instantiation of Godel second incompleteness theorem]. The universal sound machine is forever undecided about any of its possible ultimate worldview and, by doubting, never imposes its religion or worldview on different machines. This should not prevent her to react against those imposing-view machines. That's just self-defense. We can respect only those who respect ourselves, and ... reciprocaly. With comp any sound machine is condemned to doubt, forever. A sound machine can neither be a believer in immortality nor be a believer in mortality. The sound machine is forever agnostic on that question. That is forever undecided. (and by consequence forever undecided about comp of course: they can bet, fear or hope for comp and/or for self-soundness, but that's personal). The sound machines can also make reasoning with comp *as an hypothesis*. This is what I find very humanistic about comp: we are necessarily more modest and ignorant about fundamental questions, and thus more open and prudent with other's opinions. At the same time we get tools for studying the geometry of that ignorance and see precisely where matters come from, through the comp act of faith. Precisely but uncertainly. Like any scientific approaches. The consistent computationalist cannot *not* be moderate, like the honnest scientific, which is also a professional doubter. Some people believe that doubting is a sign of lacking confidence in oneself, or even lacking faith. Apparently (with G*) it is the contrary. This is coherent with the apparent lack of doubt of the fanatics, which above all does not even tolerate sign of doubts. Today I guess we have still the choice between a war between moderates and fanatics and a war between fanatics and fanatics. In the second case we loose the war at the start, isn't it? Do you agree with this last statement? Or are you really, Mister the Devil's Advocate, a fanatical atheist? Bruno
Who is the enemy?
Jacques Mallah wrote: (I'm currently in North Dakota, but have lived in NYC most of my life. I did not know anyone who was in the WTC.) I told you my relief, but I begin to doubt ! Look at what you write: Recently, of course, I have been more concerned with the destruction caused in NYC by the advocates of suicide and believers in immortality. I understand your concern with NYC. I share with you the concern of those terrible and crual 11 sept. events. Now a pecularity of this war consists in figuring out who is the enemy, exactly. It looks like you have solved that problem too. The enemy are the believers in immortality, the religious people !?! I am fearing amalgamations, like the amalgamations between Muslims and terrorists (to name one which has been done by some). But you are the champion: the enemy are all religious people. The war between atheism and religion !?! Perhaps I should tell you what are, according to G*, the canonical enemies of the sound universal machine. [ ... and here a very long reasoning with lot of thought experiments, or a shorter formal reasoning where the main point consists in distinguishing what G and G* say ... I don't want to bore you and give you at once the result ...]: And it looks like you were almost right. The universal sound machines war is between the agnostic and the *imposed* religion (whatever that religion is, atheism included). The sound machine is maximaly humble, she is agnostic on both her own consistency and her own inconsistency. This entails two sort of dangerous consistent extensions: 1) meeting a machine (perhaps itself) which feels superior, and 2) meeting a machine (perhaps itself) which feels inferior. (Meeting or becoming herself). That reminds me a theory of intelligence I developped years ago (still from G*): a machine is intelligent iff it is not stupid. And a machine is stupid iff either the machine believes itself intelligent or the machine believes itself stupid. [with consistent (resp. inconsistent) in place of intelligent (resp. stupid) those sentences are just rephrasing of particular instantiation of Godel second incompleteness theorem]. The universal sound machine is forever undecided about any of its possible ultimate worldview and, by doubting, never imposes its religion or worldview on different machines. This should not prevent her to react against those imposing-view machines. That's just self-defense. We can respect only those who respect ourselves, and ... reciprocaly. With comp any sound machine is condemned to doubt, forever. A sound machine can neither be a believer in immortality nor be a believer in mortality. The sound machine is forever agnostic on that question. That is forever undecided. (and by consequence forever undecided about comp of course: they can bet, fear or hope for comp and/or for self-soundness, but that's personal). The sound machines can also make reasoning with comp *as an hypothesis*. This is what I find very humanistic about comp: we are necessarily more modest and ignorant about fundamental questions, and thus more open and prudent with other's opinions. At the same time we get tools for studying the geometry of that ignorance and see precisely where matters come from, through the comp act of faith. Precisely but uncertainly. Like any scientific approaches. The consistent computationalist cannot *not* be moderate, like the honnest scientific, which is also a professional doubter. Some people believe that doubting is a sign of lacking confidence in oneself, or even lacking faith. Apparently (with G*) it is the contrary. This is coherent with the apparent lack of doubt of the fanatics, which above all does not even tolerate sign of doubts. Today I guess we have still the choice between a war between moderates and fanatics and a war between fanatics and fanatics. In the second case we loose the war at the start, isn't it? Do you agree with this last statement? Or are you really, Mister the Devil's Advocate, a fanatical atheist? Bruno
Re: Who is the enemy?
Wonderful post Bruno! I agree with you 100%. It reminds me of a great book with the title One by Richard Bach the author of Jonathan Linvingston Seagull, There Is No Such Place As Far Away and The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah. In One Richard Bach asks the questions--what if we could meet the people we are destined to be in twenty years? What if we could confront the people we were in the past, and those we are right now in parallel lifetimes, in alternate worlds? He also meets an old man who has a book that holds the Truth. I won't tell you what happens to the Truth book because that would spoil the story. George Marchal wrote: Jacques Mallah wrote: (I'm currently in North Dakota, but have lived in NYC most of my life. I did not know anyone who was in the WTC.) I told you my relief, but I begin to doubt ! Look at what you write: Recently, of course, I have been more concerned with the destruction caused in NYC by the advocates of suicide and believers in immortality. I understand your concern with NYC. I share with you the concern of those terrible and crual 11 sept. events. Now a pecularity of this war consists in figuring out who is the enemy, exactly. It looks like you have solved that problem too. The enemy are the believers in immortality, the religious people !?! I am fearing amalgamations, like the amalgamations between Muslims and terrorists (to name one which has been done by some). But you are the champion: the enemy are all religious people. The war between atheism and religion !?! Perhaps I should tell you what are, according to G*, the canonical enemies of the sound universal machine. [ ... and here a very long reasoning with lot of thought experiments, or a shorter formal reasoning where the main point consists in distinguishing what G and G* say ... I don't want to bore you and give you at once the result ...]: And it looks like you were almost right. The universal sound machines war is between the agnostic and the *imposed* religion (whatever that religion is, atheism included). The sound machine is maximaly humble, she is agnostic on both her own consistency and her own inconsistency. This entails two sort of dangerous consistent extensions: 1) meeting a machine (perhaps itself) which feels superior, and 2) meeting a machine (perhaps itself) which feels inferior. (Meeting or becoming herself). That reminds me a theory of intelligence I developped years ago (still from G*): a machine is intelligent iff it is not stupid. And a machine is stupid iff either the machine believes itself intelligent or the machine believes itself stupid. [with consistent (resp. inconsistent) in place of intelligent (resp. stupid) those sentences are just rephrasing of particular instantiation of Godel second incompleteness theorem]. The universal sound machine is forever undecided about any of its possible ultimate worldview and, by doubting, never imposes its religion or worldview on different machines. This should not prevent her to react against those imposing-view machines. That's just self-defense. We can respect only those who respect ourselves, and ... reciprocaly. With comp any sound machine is condemned to doubt, forever. A sound machine can neither be a believer in immortality nor be a believer in mortality. The sound machine is forever agnostic on that question. That is forever undecided. (and by consequence forever undecided about comp of course: they can bet, fear or hope for comp and/or for self-soundness, but that's personal). The sound machines can also make reasoning with comp *as an hypothesis*. This is what I find very humanistic about comp: we are necessarily more modest and ignorant about fundamental questions, and thus more open and prudent with other's opinions. At the same time we get tools for studying the geometry of that ignorance and see precisely where matters come from, through the comp act of faith. Precisely but uncertainly. Like any scientific approaches. The consistent computationalist cannot *not* be moderate, like the honnest scientific, which is also a professional doubter. Some people believe that doubting is a sign of lacking confidence in oneself, or even lacking faith. Apparently (with G*) it is the contrary. This is coherent with the apparent lack of doubt of the fanatics, which above all does not even tolerate sign of doubts. Today I guess we have still the choice between a war between moderates and fanatics and a war between fanatics and fanatics. In the second case we loose the war at the start, isn't it? Do you agree with this last statement? Or are you really, Mister the Devil's Advocate, a fanatical atheist? Bruno
