subject:"Why is there something rather than nothing\? From quantum theory to dialectics\?"



On 02 Mar 2015, at 00:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0  
(zero) or { } - the empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not  
just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe  
in set theory or doesn't believe it is basis enough. As Kronecker  
said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist  
Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of  
some atheists who rejected his thesis.  Otherwise he could easily  
use The One or aperion or quintessence other theologically  
neutral terms.


Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a  
temporal beginning. Maybe it should be Logic (and he could throw  
in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)


I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if  
there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top  
of the thread - Why is there something rather than nothing? It  
just changes it to Why is there a creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever  
satisfies its existence predicate is what exists.


Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing  
I've ever come across that actually works on this basis (being  
logically necessary). Otherwise the universe is just a brute fact -  
which of course it may be.


Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between  
concepts we made up - so maybe logically necessary isn't so  
necessary after all.  I find it interesting that a lot of logically  
necessary truths were contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing  
can be in two places at the same time.  Two things can't be in the  
same place at the same time.  The truths of arithmetic seem to me to  
be the same way.  The number of letter in this word plus the  
number of letters in that word is 10 because each has 5 letters.   
Or is it only 5: t h i s a ?  It depends on how you conceptualize  
letters; are they marks on the paper or are those marks on tokens  
of the Platonic letters?



You are free to develop a quantum theory of numbers.

But to convince us that it is a theory, you need to rely on the usual  
arithmetic taught in high school, or anything Turing equivalent.


Numbers themselves are not logical necessities. But if you have enough  
axiom to represent the computable functions in your theory, you are  
under the incompleteness fate. If your initial beliefs is classical  
(contains the classical tautologies), then G and G* will apply to you,  
as far as you reason correctly about yourself at a correct  
substitution level.


As the goal consists in deriving the correct physics, I limit my  
interview to (simple) correct machine, where correctness refer to the  
usual interpretation of the natural numbers.


That is used in virtually all books making the math used by virtually  
of physicists.


And there is no need to make any metaphysical assumption about the  
existence of the numbers. The point is that there is no need, and no  
possible use, of a metaphysical assumption of primary matter, once we  
bet that we are Turing emulable.


I don't propose anything new, I show that an assumption (the primary  
universe) might not be compatible with the idea that our (generalized)  
brain is Turing-emulable.


Note that Turing emulable is an arithmetical concept: you can *define*  
it using only the symbol s, 0, +, x and predicate calculus.


Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 03 Mar 2015, at 21:03, PGC wrote:




On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:32:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:



 As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles
 Übrige ist Menschenwerk.

Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is

Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlwerk.

Hmm, what is the plural of Zahl in german ...

Lol, it's die Zahlen.


Thank you!




Therefore, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist  
Zahlenwerk.


OK. Nice.



But I think we can say god mostly forgives syntax error of this  
sort, without huge danger of blasphemy. PGC


I hope so. At least we can't misspell the name of God, as God has no  
name :)


Bruno







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 08 Mar 2015, at 23:47, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/8/2015 2:07 PM, LizR wrote:

On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:

I thought P meant P was possible?
In the alethic interpretation of modal logic,  means possible,  
and [] means necessary.


Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions...
Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ?
So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is  
true


In the temporal interpretation of modal logic,  means sometime,  
and [] means always.


p is true implies that p is sometimes true

In the locus interpretation of modal logic,  means somewhere, and  
[] means everywhere.


...somewhere...

In the deontic interpretation of modal logic,  means permitted,  
and [] means obligatory.


p is permitted (by whom?!)

etc.

Note that all  interpretation are form of possibility (alethic,  
temporal, locative, ...).


In our interview of the Löbian machine,  is translated in  
arithmetic with Gödel beweisbar predicate:


In particular: t is consistency.
t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number  
coding the sentence 0 = s(0).


OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then  
that implies that p is consistent - which, roughly speaking, is  
what Godel showed to be wrong.


Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x.  
Proof must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they  
can be coded into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the  
proof named by y and looks if it proves the sentence coded by x.


t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove  
the false, or PA is consistent.


So to summarize you don't want p-[]p as a modal axiom because it  
particularizes to t-[]t which says all true propositions are  
provable, contrary to Godel's theorem.


I guess there are typo error here. You mean p - p.

I just have no choice, p are for arbitrary arithmetical proposition,  
and  is for ~beweisbar ~p.


Now G* proves p - p, and this means that this is true for the  
machine, bu G does not prove it, which means that the machine cannot  
alway justify that fact.


And if you know Gödels theorem, you know that already with t, we don't  
have t - t. If G proves that G would prove t, and the machine  
would prove its consistency, which she can't.




Godel proved PA incompleteness by diagonalization on classes of  
numbers.  But this applies to PA, not to every axiom set.


It applies on every axiom set rich enough to define what is computation.




So why not conclude there is something wrong with PA?


It applies to all recursively enumerable extension of PA. It applies  
to us, by comp, and assuming we are consistent enough (which is the  
case in the ideal case by construction).




To me it seems more intuitively compelling to say p-p than to say  
every number has a successor and deny p-p.


You confuse the non intuitive truth about us, with the intuition of  
the first person. yes, they do oppose, that is why []p, []p  p, []p   
t, []p  t  p, obey different logic.


The first person, S4Grz does prove p - p. And, yes, it is very hard  
to her to bet she is a machine, and she is correct by doing so. So the  
machine's soul, in some sense, is not a machine. I explained this to  
Craig sometimes ago.


But I don't defend comp, I just show that with comp, physics and  
theology become branch of number theory. This makes comp testable,  
just compare the computer-physics with nature.


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 08 Mar 2015, at 22:07, LizR wrote:


On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:

I thought P meant P was possible?
In the alethic interpretation of modal logic,  means possible, and  
[] means necessary.


Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions...
Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ?
So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is  
true


In the temporal interpretation of modal logic,  means sometime,  
and [] means always.


p is true implies that p is sometimes true


Yes, and in this case, the actual word is called now. You can  
translate:


p is true now implies that p is sometimes true.






In the locus interpretation of modal logic,  means somewhere, and  
[] means everywhere.


...somewhere...


yes, and the actual world is called here.





In the deontic interpretation of modal logic,  means permitted,  
and [] means obligatory.


p is permitted (by whom?!)


permitted by the actual government (say).





etc.

Note that all  interpretation are form of possibility (alethic,  
temporal, locative, ...).


In our interview of the Löbian machine,  is translated in  
arithmetic with Gödel beweisbar predicate:


In particular: t is consistency.
t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number  
coding the sentence 0 = s(0).


OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then  
that implies that p is consistent - which, roughly speaking, is  
what Godel showed to be wrong.


To be true on PA, but non provable by PA. And so it is not a theorem  
of G, as G is a modal logic which axiomatized the arithmetical  
provability.





Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x.  
Proof must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they  
can be coded into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the  
proof named by y and looks if it proves the sentence coded by x.


t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the  
false, or PA is consistent.


Similarly and more generally p means (PA + p) is consistent, or p  
is consistent with PA, or PA does not prove 0= 1 when assuming  
p, ...  as formulated in the language of PA.


PA=Peano arithmetic, yes?


Yes. And RA = Robinson Arithmetic. PA = Robinson Arithmetic + the  
infinitely many induction axioms:


If F(0) and for all x (P(x) - P(s(x)), then for all x F(x).

It means that if a formula F, meant for a proposition or property is  
hereditarily preserved by the successor relation, then, if it is true  
for 0, it is true for all its successors. Like the infinite range of  
dominoes.







So p asserts that p is true relative to PA?


When PA asserts p, it means, strictly speaking, only that PA believes  
p. But *we* are trusting PA, and so we know that it means also that p  
is true (in the usual interpretation of the numbers). If PA asserts
ExEy 2x^2 = y^2, it means that PA believes that there is two numbers n  
and m such that two times the square of

n is equal to the square of m. And that is true, of course, n = m = 0.



If so wouldn't P imply P? Or have I misremembered what P means?

Note that p - p is the contrapositive of [] ~p  -  ~p.

As a axiom, it is valid for all p, so, as an axiom, p - p and []p  
- p are equivalent.


But []p - p cannot be an axiom of the modal logic of provability  
(G), that is when [] is the arithmetical beweisbar, given that []f - 
 f cannot be proven by PA (PA would prove ~[]f, that t, that is,  
its own consistency. PA is consistent, and cannot prove its own  
consistency.


So we don't have []p - p, nor p - p.

Given that p means consistency, yes.


Even, that PA, or the Löbian entity under consideration is consistent.







In fact, by Löb's theorem, we have that []p - p is provable if and  
only p itself is provable. And the machine can prove that: []([]p -  
p) - []p (and the reverse which is trivial, if the machine proves  
p, she can prove that anything implies p).


Consistency of p is a form of possibility.

In fact p - p  *is* true, for all p, but the machine cannot  
prove all such formula, like she can't prove for all p that  []p - p.


This is made nice and precise by saying that []p - p and p -  
p belongs to G* minus G, the corona of the proper theology of the  
machine. It contains all (3p) truth *about* the machine that the  
machine cannot rationally justified, yet that she can intuit or  
produce as true in a high number of different ways.


OK?

Yes, I think so.

It also answers Brent's why can't we just define  differently so  
that... whatever he said - the answer being that redefining   
would mean we got something completely different and probably  
nonsensical.


Yes. I don't use modal logic like an analytical philosopher could do,  
with the goal of formalizing a philosophical, or deontical notions.


Well, I do it when telling that I define (abstractly) knowledge by the  
axiom of S4. Most philosophers

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-08 Thread LizR

On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:

 I thought P meant P was possible?

 In the alethic interpretation of modal logic,  means possible, and []
 means necessary.


Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions...
Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ?
So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is true


 In the temporal interpretation of modal logic,  means sometime, and []
 means always.


p is true implies that p is sometimes true


 In the locus interpretation of modal logic,  means somewhere, and []
 means everywhere.


...somewhere...


 In the deontic interpretation of modal logic,  means permitted, and []
 means obligatory.


p is permitted (by whom?!)


 etc.

 Note that all  interpretation are form of possibility (alethic,
 temporal, locative, ...).

 In our interview of the Löbian machine,  is translated in arithmetic
 with Gödel beweisbar predicate:

 In particular: t is consistency.
 t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number coding the
 sentence 0 = s(0).


OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then that
implies that p is consistent - which, roughly speaking, is what Godel
showed to be wrong.


 Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x. Proof
 must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they can be coded
 into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the proof named by y and
 looks if it proves the sentence coded by x.

 t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the
 false, or PA is consistent.

 Similarly and more generally p means (PA + p) is consistent, or p is
 consistent with PA, or PA does not prove 0= 1 when assuming p, ...  as
 formulated in the language of PA.

 PA=Peano arithmetic, yes? So p asserts that p is true relative to PA?

 If so wouldn't P imply P? Or have I misremembered what P means?

 Note that p - p is the contrapositive of [] ~p  -  ~p.

 As a axiom, it is valid for all p, so, as an axiom, p - p and []p - p
 are equivalent.

 But []p - p cannot be an axiom of the modal logic of provability (G),
 that is when [] is the arithmetical beweisbar, given that []f - f cannot
 be proven by PA (PA would prove ~[]f, that t, that is, its own
 consistency. PA is consistent, and cannot prove its own consistency.

 So we don't have []p - p, nor p - p.


Given that p means consistency, yes.


 In fact, by Löb's theorem, we have that []p - p is provable if and only p
 itself is provable. And the machine can prove that: []([]p - p) - []p
 (and the reverse which is trivial, if the machine proves p, she can prove
 that anything implies p).

 Consistency of p is a form of possibility.

 In fact p - p  *is* true, for all p, but the machine cannot prove all
 such formula, like she can't prove for all p that  []p - p.

 This is made nice and precise by saying that []p - p and p - p
 belongs to G* minus G, the corona of the proper theology of the machine. It
 contains all (3p) truth *about* the machine that the machine cannot
 rationally justified, yet that she can intuit or produce as true in a high
 number of different ways.

 OK?


Yes, I think so.

It also answers Brent's why can't we just define  differently so
that... whatever he said - the answer being that redefining  would mean
we got something completely different and probably nonsensical. We could in
theory define a new whatever-you-call-it however Brent thinks that could be
done (I don't think he filled in that minor detail?). But that would be a
huge exercise, and probably impossible given Godel's theorem, because maths
kicks back. (Of course it maths was just something we made up, this
wouldn't be a problem I guess.)


 Now, that is why the rational believability predicate acts like a
 believability and not a knowability, and that is why to get a knower, we
 need to impose explicitly the link with the truth: that is, we have to
 apply Theaetetus' idea, and get the new operator []p  p. That one, unlike
 the G box (beweisbar), is NOT translatable in the language of the machine.
 The first person has no name, no 3p description, and that explains why it
 match so nicely with Plotinus universal soul or with the greek inner god.

 I can almost hear someone preparing to tell you that the Ancient Greeks
were a bunch of nincompoops. Watch out!


 Bruno





 On 7 March 2015 at 21:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 07 Mar 2015, at 02:51, meekerdb wrote:

  On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist
 context it means true in the standard model of arithmetic, which is this
 reality if you want.

  In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our
 arithmetical context is NOT necessarily among the accessible world, because
 we don't have []p - p). With the logic of provability, we cannot access
 the world we are in. p does not imply p


 I

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-08 Thread meekerdb


On 3/8/2015 2:07 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be 
wrote:



On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:

I thought P meant P was possible?

In the alethic interpretation of modal logic,  means possible, and [] 
means necessary.


Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions...
Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ?
So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is true

In the temporal interpretation of modal logic,  means sometime, and [] 
means always.


p is true implies that p is sometimes true

In the locus interpretation of modal logic,  means somewhere, and [] 
means everywhere.


...somewhere...

In the deontic interpretation of modal logic,  means permitted, and [] 
means
obligatory.


p is permitted (by whom?!)

etc.

Note that all  interpretation are form of possibility (alethic, 
temporal,
locative, ...).

In our interview of the Löbian machine,  is translated in arithmetic with 
Gödel
beweisbar predicate:

In particular: t is consistency.
t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number coding the 
sentence
0 = s(0).


OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then that implies that p is 
consistent - which, roughly speaking, is what Godel showed to be wrong.


Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x. Proof 
must be
mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they can be coded into 
numbers, and
the predicate proof just decode the proof named by y and looks if it proves 
the
sentence coded by x.

t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the false, or 
PA
is consistent.



So to summarize you don't want p-[]p as a modal axiom because it particularizes to t-[]t 
which says all true propositions are provable, contrary to Godel's theorem.  Godel proved 
PA incompleteness by diagonalization on classes of numbers.  But this applies to PA, not 
to every axiom set.  So why not conclude there is something wrong with PA?  To me it seems 
more intuitively compelling to say p-p than to say every number has a successor and 
deny p-p.


Brent

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-08 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:


I thought P meant P was possible?



In the alethic interpretation of modal logic,  means possible, and  
[] means necessary.
In the temporal interpretation of modal logic,  means sometime, and  
[] means always.
In the locus interpretation of modal logic,  means somewhere, and []  
means everywhere.
In the deontic interpretation of modal logic,  means permitted, and  
[] means obligatory.

etc.

Note that all  interpretation are form of possibility (alethic,  
temporal, locative, ...).


In our interview of the Löbian machine,  is translated in arithmetic  
with Gödel beweisbar predicate:


In particular: t is consistency.
t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number coding  
the sentence 0 = s(0).


Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x.  
Proof must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they can  
be coded into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the proof  
named by y and looks if it proves the sentence coded by x.


t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the  
false, or PA is consistent.


Similarly and more generally p means (PA + p) is consistent, or p  
is consistent with PA, or PA does not prove 0= 1 when assuming  
p, ...  as formulated in the language of PA.





If so wouldn't P imply P? Or have I misremembered what P means?


Note that p - p is the contrapositive of [] ~p  -  ~p.

As a axiom, it is valid for all p, so, as an axiom, p - p and []p - 
 p are equivalent.


But []p - p cannot be an axiom of the modal logic of provability (G),  
that is when [] is the arithmetical beweisbar, given that []f - f  
cannot be proven by PA (PA would prove ~[]f, that t, that is, its  
own consistency. PA is consistent, and cannot prove its own consistency.


So we don't have []p - p, nor p - p.

In fact, by Löb's theorem, we have that []p - p is provable if and  
only p itself is provable. And the machine can prove that: []([]p -  
p) - []p (and the reverse which is trivial, if the machine proves p,  
she can prove that anything implies p).


Consistency of p is a form of possibility.

In fact p - p  *is* true, for all p, but the machine cannot prove  
all such formula, like she can't prove for all p that  []p - p.


This is made nice and precise by saying that []p - p and p - p  
belongs to G* minus G, the corona of the proper theology of the  
machine. It contains all (3p) truth *about* the machine that the  
machine cannot rationally justified, yet that she can intuit or  
produce as true in a high number of different ways.


OK?

Now, that is why the rational believability predicate acts like a  
believability and not a knowability, and that is why to get a knower,  
we need to impose explicitly the link with the truth: that is, we have  
to apply Theaetetus' idea, and get the new operator []p  p. That one,  
unlike the G box (beweisbar), is NOT translatable in the language of  
the machine. The first person has no name, no 3p description, and that  
explains why it match so nicely with Plotinus universal soul or with  
the greek inner god.


Bruno






On 7 March 2015 at 21:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 07 Mar 2015, at 02:51, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist  
context it means true in the standard model of arithmetic, which  
is this reality if you want.


In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our  
arithmetical context is NOT necessarily among the accessible  
world, because we don't have []p - p). With the logic of  
provability, we cannot access the world we are in. p does not  
imply p


I wonder about such definitions of modal operators.  WHY doesn't p  
imply p?  We could define  so that it did.  Is there some good  
reason not to?



The modal logic are imposed by the fact that he box (and thus the  
diamond) are the one describing the self-reference, by Solovay  
theorem. The box is Gödel's beweisbar. It is an arithmetical  
predicate. We really assume only Robinson (and Peano) arithmetic. We  
don't have p - p, because this would mean in particular t - t,  
and if that was a theorem of G, then t would be provable,  
contradicting Gödel's incompleteness.


All modal logics are extracted from arithmetic. They are shortcuts  
provided by Solovay's completeness theorem of G and G*, and the  
Theaetetus' variants.


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-06 Thread meekerdb


On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist context it means true 
in the standard model of arithmetic, which is this reality if you want.


In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our arithmetical context is 
NOT necessarily among the accessible world, because we don't have []p - p). With the 
logic of provability, we cannot access the world we are in. p does not imply p


I wonder about such definitions of modal operators.  WHY doesn't p imply p? We */could/* 
define  so that it did.  Is there some good reason not to?


Brent

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-06 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 05 Mar 2015, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/5/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my  
faculties and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study  
of the sciences is not doubt.

Doubt is the lack of faith!


I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the  
matter.


Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of  
everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able  
to doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith  
can build on that.


So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any  
theories, texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is  
definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations,  etc.


The universal machines are confronted to something similar when  
they introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second  
recursion diagonal way).


In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the  
doubt, but without ever needing to abandon faith.


It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all*  
the fables.


So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular?


Why? I didn't say that.


Of course you didn't.  It's ineffable. :-)


Lol.

Of course, I meant the one which has no name/description.









  I can see why a logician would think that way; since he always  
wants to start from axioms he assumes.


Not at all. Humans start from a reality and develop beliefs on that  
reality, and they assume axioms to have their theories, but they  
doubt the theory, as they trust the reality. Fundamental reality  
kicks back all theories, but that is nice, as it is a promise of  
infinite learning and surprises.




But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries  
to operationalize the coherence theory of truth.



Not too bad blaspheme for the practical purpose, although it can't  
really work, but that is another topic.
Fundamentally you should not like it, as it confuse truth and  
reality (possibility/consistency).  It confuses p and p.

It confuses p is true with there is a reality in which p is true.


Does p is true mean p is true in *this* reality, or what?


That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist  
context it means true in the standard model of arithmetic, which is  
this reality if you want.


In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our  
arithmetical context is NOT necessarily among the accessible world,  
because we don't have []p - p). With the logic of provability, we  
cannot access the world we are in. p does not imply p


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-05 Thread meekerdb

On 3/5/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence
for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt.

Doubt is the lack of faith!

I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter.

Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of everything, and so, we
do trust something. The more we are able to doubt, the more we can see what remains
undoubtable, and faith can build on that.

So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories, texts, etc. The
faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations, etc.

The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they introspect
themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal way).

In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but without ever
needing to abandon faith.

It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the fables.

So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular?

Why? I didn't say that.

Of course you didn't. It's ineffable. :-)

I can see why a logician would think that way; since he always wants to start from
axioms he assumes.

Not at all. Humans start from a reality and develop beliefs on that reality, and they
assume axioms to have their theories, but they doubt the theory, as they trust the
reality. Fundamental reality kicks back all theories, but that is nice, as it is a
promise of infinite learning and surprises.

But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries to operationalize the
coherence theory of truth.

Not too bad blaspheme for the practical purpose, although it can't really work, but that
is another topic.
Fundamentally you should not like it, as it confuse truth and reality
(possibility/consistency). It confuses p and p.

It confuses p is true with there is a reality in which p is true.

Does p is true mean p is true in *this* reality, or what?

Brent

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties  
and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the  
sciences is not doubt.

Doubt is the lack of faith!


I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the  
matter.


Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of  
everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to  
doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can  
build on that.


So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories,  
texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond  
words, texts, theories, equations,  etc.


The universal machines are confronted to something similar when  
they introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion  
diagonal way).


In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt,  
but without ever needing to abandon faith.


It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all*  
the fables.


So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular?


Why? I didn't say that.



  I can see why a logician would think that way; since he always  
wants to start from axioms he assumes.


Not at all. Humans start from a reality and develop beliefs on that  
reality, and they assume axioms to have their theories, but they doubt  
the theory, as they trust the reality. Fundamental reality kicks back  
all theories, but that is nice, as it is a promise of infinite  
learning and surprises.




But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries to  
operationalize the coherence theory of truth.



Not too bad blaspheme for the practical purpose, although it can't  
really work, but that is another topic.
Fundamentally you should not like it, as it confuse truth and reality  
(possibility/consistency).  It confuses p and p.

It confuses p is true with there is a reality in which p is true.

Bruno









Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-04 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties  
and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences  
is not doubt.

Doubt is the lack of faith!


I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter.

Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of  
everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to  
doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can  
build on that.


So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories,  
texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond  
words, texts, theories, equations,  etc.


The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they  
introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion  
diagonal way).


In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt,  
but without ever needing to abandon faith.


It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the  
fables.


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-04 Thread meekerdb

On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence for
reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt.

Doubt is the lack of faith!

I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter.

So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories, texts, etc. The
faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations, etc.

The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they introspect
themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal way).

In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but without ever
needing to abandon faith.

It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the fables.

So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular? I can see why a logician
would think that way; since he always wants to start from axioms he assumes. But note the
Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries to operationalize the coherence theory
of truth.

Brent

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-04 Thread John Mikes

This and the next post of yours are classic. In the next one you cast doubt
on our space-based worldview - I was waiting for the next step: the
TIME_BASED doubt.
*
Bruno quoted Samiya concluding: *Doubt is the lack of faith!*  - and I
could not keep my agnostic mind from reversing this into:
*Faith is the lack of doubt*.
*
And I salute your hint to the axioms as startups for logicians' thinking. I
would add tothe 'he assumes' - in order to verify the theories applicable
in (our) science.

Regards
JM

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


  On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

  My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and
 intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not
 doubt.
 Doubt is the lack of faith!


  I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter.

  Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of
 everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to doubt,
 the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can build on that.

  So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories,
 texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words,
 texts, theories, equations,  etc.

  The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they
 introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal
 way).

  In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but
 without ever needing to abandon faith.

  It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the
 fables.


 So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular?  I can see why
 a logician would think that way; since he always wants to start from axioms
 he assumes.  But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which
 tries to operationalize the coherence theory of truth.

 Brent

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


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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 01 Mar 2015, at 20:16, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:




On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:


Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for  
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative  
theologians.


God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of  
worship (loving obedience).


That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking  
it go without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said  
by anyone, because you can't really name God so as to be clear  
about what to obey to. Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant,  
to make believe he is the intermediate. That happens very often.






Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points  
to an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection,  
say, at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of  
time and space, and explains the reason of the perception of  
origin, time, space, etc


I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is  
not omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many  
things, including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge  
and ability to change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all  
things, but then unable to change anything, or forgetting and then  
being able to change and move.


Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems  
appropriate to you, however I would suggest that you do not use of  
the term Allah, as the concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly- 
able, perfectly and constantly all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing,  
perfectly-commanding and perfectly-governing being, in control of  
everything


So why worry?

If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is  
Allah will?






and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.


I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.

But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when  
they believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid,  
intermediate between God and humans, for political purpose. I am  
not sure at all, but it does look like blasphemy.






Allah alone is worthy of worship,


Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't  
think any human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I  
think is Allah in arab) has no name.


Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.


The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something  
that set in motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no  
longer involved in the process of creation, forgets, unable to act,  
and so on.



I think that you are not entirely correct on this. Both from a 3p pov,  
and the 1p pov, although what you say might make a bit more sense from  
the 3p view.


Yet, in the 3p view, the initiating (by zero, successor) is easier for  
us to connective like it was a sort of procedure working in time. But  
this is due to our limitation, and if this would be true, (like it is  
in intuitionistic mathematics), it is provably false in classical  
mathematics, where the truth of a sentence is not related to anything  
temporal, and indeed escape entirely the realm of procedure.


Then an internal dynamics appears in the 1-views, distributed in the  
whole arithmetical reality, in a way which is beyond the procedure too.


So, it makes sense in the arithmetical realm, (which is provably  
enough when we assume computationalism) to say that such a truth, like  
God, is present everywhere and acts everywhere. It is open if it has  
will, per se, but we have already suggestion that it acquires  
personality when restricted to machines, or intermediates non-machine  
entities (which exists provably in arithmetic).



That is not the concept of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most  
religions.


I am not sure why you seem so sure about it. If you are correct, given  
that there is only one God, and that this remains true when we assume  
computationalism, if you are correct that would make Islam incoherent  
with computationalism. I tend to believe the contrary, a priori. Only  
a too much literal interpretation of the Quran would make it  
incoherent with computationalism. Many muslims scholars can agree with  
this, at least this is what I get from my reading of them.




That is why I suggested that perhaps what you've discovered is not  
God but rather an origin, a primary creation

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?




On 01 Mar 2015, at 22:39, LizR wrote:

If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0  
(zero) or { } - the empty set?


I can like 0 and 2 as the primordial Goddesse, enclosing the old  
fashioned male God who thought he was the source of all things, but he  
was just a child playing in the magical garden sustained by the  
goddess of annihilation (0) and the goddess of creation the number 2.


But coming back on being serious, the things the platonist name the  
one is closer to the concept of truth, with the fact that such truth  
is encompassing the machine-believer, and this makes it undefinable  
from the first person perspective. Eventually, it defines the notion  
of first person, which lives at the intersection of belief and God  
([]p  p), according to the definition of Theaetetus).


God is approximated here as the knower of the larger set of true  
sentences about you (or about the universal person) and your relation  
with the rest of what can exist relatively to you (or relatively to  
the universal person. The universal person is the one whose logic of  
truth, belief, knowledge, observable and sensible are described by the  
eight variant of the Gödel-Löbian provability predicate. It is an  
ideal simple rational believer, since Gödel we know it is infinitely  
non trivial, but thanks to Solovay, the propositional logical part are  
decidable.


The intersection of all religion, if you read Aldous Huxley, is in  
that set, if you agree with the plotinus translation in arithmetic.


The universal dovetailer is the sigma_1 truth, to which  
computationalism gives a special role. But God would be, in that  
approximation the union of all sigma_i and pi_i truth. probably the  
analytical truth to, but that is for the internal inside understanding.


For God I use usually truth, but I use God to examplify  
relationship between truth about a machine, truth as conceived by a  
machine, truth as undistinguishbale from the Perenial God, from the  
machine's pov. You need two words to equate God and Truth. I am only  
following the greek (neo)platonist tradition, where God is use for  
concepts and possible first principle.





I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator,


There are none. But there are no evidence for a creation either,  
beyond an extrapolation which ease our lives.


But there are evidence of persistent relation between numbers, and  
between some measurable numbers. There are evidences for persons and  
stories.


There are evidence for some simple but deep truth, related to good and  
bad, life and afterlife, etc.


Using theology is an act of modesty. A way to recall you need faith  
in some religion; here you need at least some faith in a possible type  
of technological reincarnation. (That is entails infinitely  
arithmetical reincarnation is a consequence).




but even if there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question  
at the top of the thread - Why is there something rather than  
nothing? It just changes it to Why is there a creator?



And computationalism changes that question into why there are numbers  
and why do they obey to addition and mutiplication. Since the failure  
of logicism, we know that we cannot derive them from logic alone. That  
is why I ask you to be willing enough to assume that
x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), and an half dozen other obvious  
axioms. (or Kxy = x, and Sxyz = (xz)(yz) which are even simpler).


Then assuming computationalism, that MUST be enough to explain the  
sharable persistant illusions, and in only one way: by the logic of  
the observable (defined by the notion of probability one, or the  
relative measure on infinitely many computations.


And what I find wonderful, is that from assuming x + 0 = 0, etc. It  
can be explained why such beliefs (or Turing equivalent) cannot be  
avoided. It explains why we just cannot explain our faith in the  
numbers addition and multiplication, like it explains alson but  
differently why consciousness and truth are not definable, etc.


The numbers, or the combinators, are the minimal unsolvable mystery.  
It assumes some God already implicitly, like Kronecker guessed perhaps.


Bruno







On 2 March 2015 at 08:16, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com  
wrote:



On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:




On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:


Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for  
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative  
theologians.


God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of  
worship (loving obedience).


That might be true for those who meet

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-03 Thread PGC



On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:32:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:




  As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles   
  Übrige ist Menschenwerk. 

 Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is 

 Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlwerk. 

 Hmm, what is the plural of Zahl in german ... 


Lol, it's die Zahlen. 

Therefore, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist 
Zahlenwerk. 

But I think we can say god mostly forgives syntax error of this sort, 
without huge danger of blasphemy. PGC

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:58, LizR wrote:


On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0  
(zero) or { } - the empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not  
just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in  
set theory or doesn't believe it is basis enough. As Kronecker said,  
Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist  
Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of  
some atheists who rejected his thesis.  Otherwise he could easily  
use The One or aperion or quintessence other theologically neutral  
terms.


Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a  
temporal beginning. Maybe it should be Logic (and he could throw  
in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)


I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if  
there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top  
of the thread - Why is there something rather than nothing? It  
just changes it to Why is there a creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever  
satisfies its existence predicate is what exists.


Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing  
I've ever come across that actually works on this basis (being  
logically necessary). Otherwise the universe is just a brute fact -  
which of course it may be.


I guess you mean the fact that we explain the phenomenological  
existence of god, universe, consciousness, from x+ 0 = 0, etc.


x + 0, etc, are our new brute facts. Together with the  
computationalist hope that comp is true, the doctor competent, and the  
substitution level low enough, in case we practice.
Some can say, like John Clark, doctor, if you exist, I trust you do  
your best.


I am aware that for non logician, it is not that easy to understand  
that x + 0 = x has to be assumed, or equivalent. Formally, most logic  
are very weak, you cannot prove the existence of 0 with them, still  
less of a universal number. Now if you assume the S and K laws, then  
you can prove that x + 0 = 0, accepting combinators definition of  
numbers. For the S and K laws, or from those simple arithmetical  
axiom; you can prove the existence of universal numbers, and of their  
discourse about their multiple phenomenologies (the intensional  
variant. A believer is a believer in such a theory, + the belief of  
the induction axioms, which is what makes them obeying G and G*, when  
self-referentially correct.


I use only the most known elementary, and not so elementary, theorem  
from computer science and mathematical logic.


The key technical things is in the difference between Cantor diagonal  
argument, tarski diagonal argument, Gödel diagonal argument, and, the  
most important of all Kleene diagonal argument.


I will have to go, and as the number of mails seems infinite, I guess  
I have an infinite time to comment them. The month of mars is tightly  
scheduled. Thanks for patience.


Bruno







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-03 Thread LizR

On 4 March 2015 at 06:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2015, at 22:39, LizR wrote:

 If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
 { } - the empty set?

 I can like 0 and 2 as the primordial Goddesse, enclosing the old fashioned
 male God who thought he was the source of all things, but he was just a
 child playing in the magical garden sustained by the goddess of
 annihilation (0) and the goddess of creation the number 2.


LIKE +1

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-03 Thread LizR

On 4 March 2015 at 09:03, PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

 But I think we can say god mostly forgives syntax error of this sort,
 without huge danger of blasphemy. PGC

 Unless they cause the universe to crash.

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0  
(zero) or { } - the empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not  
just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in  
set theory or doesn't believe it is basis enough.


Yes. There is only one arithmetic of natural numbers on which everyone  
agree. ZF is a nice theory, but there are many different  
interpretations, and worst, many very different theories of set. We do  
have a quasi communicable notion of standard model for arithmetic, but  
not for set.


Also, the quantified qG and qG*, and thus their intensional variants,  
are not immune of Quine Barcan-Marcus critics of predicate modal  
logic, unlike the qG and qG* of arithmetic.


Nobody really believe in set theory. It is the Fortran of formal  
mathematics, if you want. yet, quite useful for handling little set  
naively, and quite useful to climb the more possible on the  
transfinite. But those are in the meta of computer science.




As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles  
Übrige ist Menschenwerk.


Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is

Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlwerk.

Hmm, what is the plural of Zahl in german ...


At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of some atheists who  
rejected his thesis.


Without reading it, and just because it contained the term  
consciousness.




Otherwise he could easily use The One or aperion or quintessence  
other theologically neutral terms.



People would miss the point that computationalism is not theologically  
neutral at all.








I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if  
there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top  
of the thread - Why is there something rather than nothing? It  
just changes it to Why is there a creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary


I guess this is a typo. I insist all the time that since the failure  
of logicism, arithmetic is NOT logically necessary. If it was, I would  
not need to add the arithmetical axioms to the theory. Logic would be  
the theory, but that is not enough. I make clear that I assume x + 0 =  
0, etc.




and therefore whatever satisfies its existence predicate is what  
exists.


There is no existence predicate.





Brent
Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with  
the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.

   --- Ambrose Bierce


That is logic. yes. But the comp TOE is not logic, which is only a  
tool. The TOE is arithmetic, or anything Turing equivalent.



Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-02 Thread LizR

On 3 March 2015 at 05:23, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 2, 2015  Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:

  Ambiguity is some kind of disease, is it?


 Well...it doesn't exactly help in developing a logically healthy mind.


  Aren't you just expressing your distaste for such things?


 Yes and no.

 Heehee!

A sense of humour, on the other hand, is a great help.

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-02 Thread Jason Resch

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:50 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:16 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

  Who's personal experience?


  Bruno makes it clear that he only considers what someone writes in a
 diary as being what counts for the purposes of the thought experiment.

 (This is obviously a proxy for memory in most situations, but it
 simplifies matters so we don't get confused about what he is talking about.)


 If the machine is sophisticated enough to duplicate the human brain and
 all the memories it contains then duplicating the diary would be child's
 play.

  he MWI turns the universe into a matter duplicating machine.


 But very special type of duplicating machine where the laws of physics
 forbid anyone from observing any of the duplicates that the machine has
 made, so the personal pronoun you never causes ambiguity.



This is a specious argument. If the possibility of future interaction is so
irksome to you, then proceed with the assumption that they're duplicated
outside each other's light cones. Or use the example of a forked computer
simulation containing a brain emulation of an observer.

You have nothing to lose in proceeding to step 4, and possibly something to
gain: a record for having spent the most time on step 3.

Jason

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-02 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015  Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:

 Ambiguity is some kind of disease, is it?


Well...it doesn't exactly help in developing a logically healthy mind.


  Aren't you just expressing your distaste for such things?


Yes and no.

  John K Clark

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 1 March 2015 at 14:29, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Who's personal experience?

 Bruno makes it clear that he only considers what someone writes in a diary
as being what counts for the purposes of the thought experiment. (This is
obviously a proxy for memory in most situations, but it simplifies matters
so we don't get confused about what he is talking about.)

The way to identify the who in the above question is thus whoever is
reading his own diary at a given moment. This is the same idea as the
notes in Fred Hoyle's pigeonholes in the marvellous October the First is
too late. Hence identity is constructed from notes or diary entries
or memories at any given moment.

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 1 March 2015 at 16:52, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Feb 28, 2015  Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:

  Can you clarify where you do and don't have a problem with the pronoun
 you? Presumably there is no problem for you if there is a unique world
 with only one version of you. What about the MWI


 With Everett and with everyday life there is no ambiguity in what the
 personal pronoun You refers to, but matter duplicating machines are not
 in everyday life and there is lots of ambiguity.

 The MWI turns the universe into a matter duplicating machine.

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread John Mikes

Schoppenhauer?

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
 { } - the empty set?

 I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
 such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
 Why is there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is
 there a creator?

 On 2 March 2015 at 08:16, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:



 On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
 (loving obedience).


 That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go
 without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,
 because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to.
 Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the
 intermediate. That happens very often.




 Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


 I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




 From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an
 origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



 I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say,
 at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space,
 and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc

 I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not
 omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,
 including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to
 change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable
 to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move.


 Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to
 you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the
 concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly
 all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and
 perfectly-governing being, in control of everything


 So why worry?

 If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah will?




 and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.


 I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.

 But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they
 believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid, intermediate
 between God and humans, for political purpose. I am not sure at all, but it
 does look like blasphemy.




 Allah alone is worthy of worship,


 Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think any
 human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is Allah in
 arab) has no name.

 Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.


 The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something that
 set in motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no longer
 involved in the process of creation, forgets, unable to act, and so on.
 That is not the concept of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most religions.
 That is why I suggested that perhaps what you've discovered is not God but
 rather an origin, a primary creation of sorts, may be. Feel free to call it
 whatever you like, I was just sharing my thoughts on the matter.

 Samiya




 and all else is creation,



 Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think
 the neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the
 Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.



 and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to Allah.
 Use of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be a good idea.


 Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?

 Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use Allah.
 Logically.

 And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible that
 it is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?

 I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly understand
 that you might not appreciate the doubt about taking literally the talk of
 the prophets (despite we both agree they are human).
 I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might have
 chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and the eleventh
 century in the Middle-East.

 I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?


On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:

If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) 
or { } -
the empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a 
beginning,
but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't 
believe it
is basis enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, 
alles
Übrige ist Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye 
of some
atheists who rejected his thesis.  Otherwise he could easily use The One 
or
aperion or quintessence other theologically neutral terms.


Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a temporal beginning. Maybe 
it should be Logic (and he could throw in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)



I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there 
is such
evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread - 
Why is
there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is 
there a
creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever 
satisfies its
existence predicate is what exists.


Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing I've ever come across 
that actually works on this basis (being logically necessary). Otherwise the universe is 
just a brute fact - which of course it may be.


Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we made up - so 
maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all.  I find it interesting that a 
lot of logically necessary truths were contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing can be 
in two places at the same time.  Two things can't be in the same place at the same time.  
The truths of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way.  The number of letter in this 
word plus the number of letters in that word is 10 because each has 5 letters. Or is it 
only 5: t h i s a ?  It depends on how you conceptualize letters; are they marks on the 
paper or are those marks on tokens of the Platonic letters?


Brent

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
{ } - the empty set?

I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
Why is there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is
there a creator?

On 2 March 2015 at 08:16, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:



 On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
 (loving obedience).


 That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go
 without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,
 because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to.
 Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the
 intermediate. That happens very often.




 Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


 I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




 From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an
 origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



 I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say, at
 the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space,
 and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc

 I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not
 omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,
 including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to
 change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable
 to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move.


 Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to
 you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the
 concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly
 all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and
 perfectly-governing being, in control of everything


 So why worry?

 If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah will?




 and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.


 I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.

 But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they
 believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid, intermediate
 between God and humans, for political purpose. I am not sure at all, but it
 does look like blasphemy.




 Allah alone is worthy of worship,


 Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think any
 human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is Allah in
 arab) has no name.

 Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.


 The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something that
 set in motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no longer
 involved in the process of creation, forgets, unable to act, and so on.
 That is not the concept of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most religions.
 That is why I suggested that perhaps what you've discovered is not God but
 rather an origin, a primary creation of sorts, may be. Feel free to call it
 whatever you like, I was just sharing my thoughts on the matter.

 Samiya




 and all else is creation,



 Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think the
 neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the
 Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.



 and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to Allah. Use
 of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be a good idea.


 Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?

 Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use Allah.
 Logically.

 And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible that
 it is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?

 I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly understand
 that you might not appreciate the doubt about taking literally the talk of
 the prophets (despite we both agree they are human).
 I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might have
 chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and the eleventh
 century in the Middle-East.

 I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can also
 understand the worry. No problem, I will use, according to the context the

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?


OOPs  Should written 8 not 10.  Changed my mind about the words without 
changing the number.

Brent

On 3/1/2015 3:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:

If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) 
or { }
- the empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a 
beginning,
but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't 
believe it
is basis enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, 
alles
Übrige ist Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye 
of some
atheists who rejected his thesis. Otherwise he could easily use The One or
aperion or quintessence other theologically neutral terms.


Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a temporal beginning. Maybe 
it should be Logic (and he could throw in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)



I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there 
is such
evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread - 
Why is
there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is 
there a
creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever 
satisfies its
existence predicate is what exists.


Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing I've ever come across 
that actually works on this basis (being logically necessary). Otherwise the universe 
is just a brute fact - which of course it may be.


Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we made up - so 
maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all.  I find it interesting that a 
lot of logically necessary truths were contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing can 
be in two places at the same time.  Two things can't be in the same place at the same 
time.  The truths of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way.  The number of letter in 
this word plus the number of letters in that word is 10 because each has 5 letters.  
Or is it only 5: t h i s a ?  It depends on how you conceptualize letters; are they 
marks on the paper or are those marks on tokens of the Platonic letters?


Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 2 March 2015 at 12:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we
 made up - so maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all.  I
 find it interesting that a lot of logically necessary truths were
 contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing can be in two places at the same
 time.  Two things can't be in the same place at the same time.  The truths
 of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way.  The number of letter in
 this word plus the number of letters in that word is 10 because each
 has 5 letters.  Or is it only 5: t h i s a ?  It depends on how you
 conceptualize letters; are they marks on the paper or are those marks on
 tokens of the Platonic letters?


The truths you mention were hypotheses about the nature of the universe. I
don't think QM contradicted any arithmetical truths (if there are such
things). It just showed that some intuitions about the nature of the
universe we inhabit were wrong.

I don't agree with your truths of arithmetic seem to be the same way
argument. At least, not as stated - the example with the letters is merely
a matter of what you're counting - are you counting the total number of
letters, or only how many different letters there are? You get two
different results depending on which of those you choose, but you get the
same result every time for a given choice.

In other words, there's no space for contingency once you've properly
defined the problem. Which means that the truth of the matter does in fact
appear to be logically necessary, unlike the truths about the nature of
the universe (well, until a better contradictory example comes along - any
ideas?)

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?


On 3/1/2015 4:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 12:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we 
made up -
so maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all.  I find it 
interesting
that a lot of logically necessary truths were contradicted by quantum 
mechanics:
Nothing can be in two places at the same time.  Two things can't be in the 
same
place at the same time.  The truths of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way. 
The number of letter in this word plus the number of letters in that word is 10

because each has 5 letters.  Or is it only 5: t h i s a ?  It depends on 
how you
conceptualize letters; are they marks on the paper or are those marks on 
tokens of
the Platonic letters?


The truths you mention were hypotheses about the nature of the universe. I don't think 
QM contradicted any arithmetical truths (if there are such things). It just showed that 
some intuitions about the nature of the universe we inhabit were wrong.


Sure.  But maybe our intuitions about counting are wrong too - at least insofar as they 
apply to the world.




I don't agree with your truths of arithmetic seem to be the same way argument. At 
least, not as stated - the example with the letters is merely a matter of what you're 
counting - are you counting the total number of letters, or only how many different 
letters there are? You get two different results depending on which of those you choose, 
but you get the same result every time for a given choice.


You don't see the No true counting fallacy analogous to No true Scotsman?  There are 
twelve people on our high school basketball team and six people on our tennis team.  When 
they have a banquet do I have to set 18 places?




In other words, there's no space for contingency once you've properly defined the 
problem. Which means that the truth of the matter does in fact appear to be logically 
necessary, unlike the truths about the nature of the universe (well, until a better 
contradictory example comes along - any ideas?)


Right, the necessary truth is a truth in Platonia, a world entirely defined by 
us.

Brent
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality.
-- Albert Einstein

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread Samiya Illias

John, thank you for sharing your thoughts and narrative.
i'm not sure anyone can provide an 'acceptable explanation' of the
Creator/Originator. I think it is simply beyond our comprehension. However,
I do believe that there is an overwhelming evidence of
creation/origination, thus implying a Creator/Originator.

Samiya

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:06 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 Samiya, I am always cautious not to hurt a fellow lister's feelings. Bruno
 is a bit mixed up with religion (uses 'theology', capital G in God, etc.
 etc.) so I do not question his 'faith' beyond what he disclosed already (I
 hope). I was always polite with your preconditions as well.
 Now that you question Creator vs. origin, (I assume you mean Originator)
 the question arises where did such Originator originate from? (I am not
 asking about 'times befor Origination', because I assign our concept of
 time a product of OUR universe (not even World) for ourselves, started with
 the universe (if it ever has been started?). Was there some 'originated'
 oeuvre when our world has been 'created'? - My narrative has a positive
 stance for that: there was an everything (I call it Plenitude) of which
 universes (Pl) were torn out by violation of the universal symmetry
 (Equilibration) of the Plenitude - all in interchange - when some (I call
 them: 'similars) got too close and so developed interactive complexities,
 what I call A Universe. Such violations dissipate (within the no-time
 system) as they form - back into the Plenitude.
 This is something 'beyond us' with no Spiritus Rector involved, except for
 the ground-rule of the total super symmetry among ingredients(?) of the
 Plenitude,
 (call it: relations) what I 'suppose to explain something assigned usually
 to some 'Big Bang' - not without flaws itself.
 I agree with Bruno in the baseless faith of our agnosticism, unless
 somebody shows an acceptable basis. Even then my agnosticism may overwhelm.
 So far I did not get 'acceptable' explanation for neither a 'Creator' nor
 the Numbers.
 We gather (new) information continuously so I am not relying on ideas
 generated many centuries ago. I do not think we reached perfection.
 I used to be a meek religious chap as a youngster 70~90(!) years ago. .

 Best regards
 John M

 On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:



 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
 (loving obedience). Does the One/God of Comp mean as such? From what I've
 gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an origin, not the
 Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?
 Samiya


 Bruno




 Samiya

 On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:

  On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God,
 by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is
 what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical
 thing? A first principle, etc.


 The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not
 assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From
 Wikipedia:

 Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron
 as the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a
 further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to
 the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the
 archaic period (8th-6th century BC).

 So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
 avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
 basis of reality.



 Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning,
 God was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the
 indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron)
 into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the
 notion of bad, or matter.

 If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about
 God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God,
 except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary
 discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).

 I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to
 the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with
 soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth,
 non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not
 distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread Samiya Illias

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
 (loving obedience).


 That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go
 without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,
 because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to.
 Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the
 intermediate. That happens very often.




 Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


 I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




 From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an
 origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



 I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say, at
 the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space,
 and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc

 I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not
 omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,
 including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to
 change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable
 to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move.


Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to
you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the
concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly
all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and
perfectly-governing being, in control of everything and not sharing its
sovereignty or command with anyone. Allah alone is worthy of worship, and
all else is creation, and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits
humbly to Allah. Use of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not
be a good idea.

Samiya



 But it is a very complex subject, and I am extrapolating probably too
 much.  You might read the book by Brian Hines Return to the One
 (subtitled Plotinus' guide To God-Realization). It is not a scholar, but
 it fits rather well with the machine's talk, but to verify this we need to
 climb that Mountain, and if I remember well we are still learning lacing
 the shoes 

 About this, can you tell me if you have a idea of what a set is? And what
 a subset is? How many subsets has the set {0, 1}?

 I hope you indulge my math teaching vocation ... For the greeks,
 mathematics is the preliminary study of theology.

 Bruno




 Samiya


 Bruno




 Samiya

 On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:

  On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by
 definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what
 is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A
 first principle, etc.


 The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not
 assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From
 Wikipedia:

 Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as
 the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a
 further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to
 the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the
 archaic period (8th-6th century BC).

 So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
 avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
 basis of reality.



 Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God
 was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the
 indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron)
 into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the
 notion of bad, or matter.

 If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about
 God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God,
 except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary
 discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).

 I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to
 the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with
 soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth,
 non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not
 distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine.

 BTW,

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?


On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or { } - the 
empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a beginning, but a 
sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't believe it is basis 
enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist 
Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of some atheists who 
rejected his thesis.  Otherwise he could easily use The One or aperion or quintessence 
other theologically neutral terms.




I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is such evidence 
that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread - Why is there something 
rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is there a creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever satisfies its existence 
predicate is what exists.


Brent
Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and 
incapacities of the human misunderstanding.

--- Ambrose Bierce

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:

 If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero)
 or { } - the empty set?


 I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a
 beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or
 doesn't believe it is basis enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl
 schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I
 think he wants to poke the eye of some atheists who rejected his thesis.
 Otherwise he could easily use The One or aperion or quintessence other
 theologically neutral terms.


Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a temporal
beginning. Maybe it should be Logic (and he could throw in a homage to
Leonard Nimoy)


 I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
 such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
 Why is there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is
 there a creator?


 He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever
 satisfies its existence predicate is what exists.


Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing I've ever
come across that actually works on this basis (being logically necessary).
Otherwise the universe is just a brute fact - which of course it may be.

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread Kim Jones



 On 2 Mar 2015, at 2:50 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 But very special type of duplicating machine where the laws of physics forbid 
 anyone from observing any of the duplicates that the machine has made, so the 
 personal pronoun you never causes ambiguity.
 
   John K Clark  


So thinking must be tethered to language, then? Ambiguity is some kind of 
disease, is it? Aren't you just expressing your distaste for such things? If 
you are so infatuated with things the way they are in this boondocks of the 
Multiverse then you will never get your head around the full implications of 
MWI. Language is not designed to deal with the ambiguity that is woven into the 
fabric of reality (you bloody boofhead.) That's why you have to have the maths 
for it, man. 

Kim

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 2 March 2015 at 04:27, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

  Instead of saying I hope I win the lottery they may say, if they are
  pedantic, I hope I end up the version of me that wins the lottery.


 If the lottery is tomorrow and they are pedantic they would say I hope the
 day after tomorrow the thing that remembers being me today remembers winning
 the lottery yesterday, and their hope would be fulfilled. And if they are
 pedantic they would also say I fear that the day after tomorrow the thing
 that remembers being me today remembers losing the lottery yesterday and
 their fear would be realized. But I don't think anybody is quite that
 pedantic.

No, most people would just say I hope I win the lottery, because
being duplicated 100 times and having one copy win the lottery is
subjectively the same as having a 1/100 chance of winning the lottery.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:16 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Who's personal experience?


  Bruno makes it clear that he only considers what someone writes in a
 diary as being what counts for the purposes of the thought experiment.

(This is obviously a proxy for memory in most situations, but it simplifies
 matters so we don't get confused about what he is talking about.)


If the machine is sophisticated enough to duplicate the human brain and all
the memories it contains then duplicating the diary would be child's play.


 he MWI turns the universe into a matter duplicating machine.


But very special type of duplicating machine where the laws of physics
forbid anyone from observing any of the duplicates that the machine has
made, so the personal pronoun you never causes ambiguity.

  John K Clark





 The way to identify the who in the above question is thus whoever is
 reading his own diary at a given moment. This is the same idea as the
 notes in Fred Hoyle's pigeonholes in the marvellous October the First is
 too late. Hence identity is constructed from notes or diary entries
 or memories at any given moment.

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


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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread Samiya Illias



 On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:
 
 
 
 On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
 
 
 
 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
 
 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O 
 
 
 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the 
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians. 
 
 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship 
 (loving obedience).
 
 That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go 
 without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone, 
 because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to. 
 Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the 
 intermediate. That happens very often.
 
 
 
 
 Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?
 
 I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above. 
 
 
 
 
 From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an 
 origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct? 
 
 
 I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say, at 
 the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space, 
 and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc
 
 I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not 
 omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things, 
 including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to 
 change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable 
 to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move. 
 
 Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to 
 you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the 
 concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly 
 all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and 
 perfectly-governing being, in control of everything
 
 So why worry?
 
 If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah will?
 
 
 
 
 and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.
 
 I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.
 
 But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they believe 
 in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid, intermediate between 
 God and humans, for political purpose. I am not sure at all, but it does look 
 like blasphemy.
 
 
 
 
 Allah alone is worthy of worship,
 
 Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think any 
 human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is Allah in arab) 
 has no name. 
 
 Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then. 

The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something that set in 
motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no longer involved in the 
process of creation, forgets, unable to act, and so on. That is not the concept 
of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most religions. That is why I suggested that 
perhaps what you've discovered is not God but rather an origin, a primary 
creation of sorts, may be. Feel free to call it whatever you like, I was just 
sharing my thoughts on the matter. 

Samiya 

 
 
 
 and all else is creation,
 
 
 Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think the 
 neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the 
 Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.
 
 
 
 and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to Allah. Use 
 of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be a good idea.   
 
 Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?
 
 Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use Allah. 
 Logically.
 
 And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible that it 
 is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?
 
 I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly understand that 
 you might not appreciate the doubt about taking literally the talk of the 
 prophets (despite we both agree they are human). 
 I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might have 
 chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and the eleventh 
 century in the Middle-East.
 
 I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can also understand 
 the worry. No problem, I will use, according to the context the more neutral 
 One, or The Truth, or The ultimate reality, or simply God  (the 
 common term used in comparative theology) and not call It/He/She Allah, nor 
 Brahma, nor Tao, nor  
 
 You are right that we cannot comprehend it, but sometimes you do behave like 
 you do comprehend it, somehow, it seems to me.
 
 All

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:


Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for  
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative  
theologians.


God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of  
worship (loving obedience).


That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it  
go without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by  
anyone, because you can't really name God so as to be clear about  
what to obey to. Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make  
believe he is the intermediate. That happens very often.






Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to  
an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection,  
say, at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of  
time and space, and explains the reason of the perception of origin,  
time, space, etc


I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not  
omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,  
including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability  
to change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but  
then unable to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to  
change and move.


Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems  
appropriate to you, however I would suggest that you do not use of  
the term Allah, as the concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly- 
able, perfectly and constantly all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing,  
perfectly-commanding and perfectly-governing being, in control of  
everything


So why worry?

If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah  
will?






and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.


I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.

But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they  
believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid,  
intermediate between God and humans, for political purpose. I am not  
sure at all, but it does look like blasphemy.






Allah alone is worthy of worship,


Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think  
any human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is  
Allah in arab) has no name.


Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.





and all else is creation,



Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think  
the neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the  
Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.




and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to  
Allah. Use of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be  
a good idea.


Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?

Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use  
Allah. Logically.


And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible  
that it is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?


I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly  
understand that you might not appreciate the doubt about taking  
literally the talk of the prophets (despite we both agree they are  
human).
I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might  
have chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and  
the eleventh century in the Middle-East.


I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can also  
understand the worry. No problem, I will use, according to the context  
the more neutral One, or The Truth, or The ultimate reality, or  
simply God  (the common term used in comparative theology) and not  
call It/He/She Allah, nor Brahma, nor Tao, nor 


You are right that we cannot comprehend it, but sometimes you do  
behave like you do comprehend it, somehow, it seems to me.


All Names miss the One.

I think. Currently.

Bruno




Samiya


But it is a very complex subject, and I am extrapolating probably  
too much.  You might read the book by Brian Hines Return to the  
One (subtitled Plotinus' guide To God-Realization). It is not a  
scholar, but it fits rather well with the machine's talk, but to  
verify this we need to climb that Mountain, and if I remember well  
we are still learning lacing the shoes 


About this, can you tell me if you have a idea of what a set is? And  
what a subset is? How many subsets has the set {0, 1}?


I hope you indulge my math teaching vocation ... For the greeks,  
mathematics

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Mar 2015, at 02:29, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com  
wrote:
 2) Like Everett Bruno is interested in predictions but unlike  
Everett Bruno thinks that good predictions are the key to personal  
identity, and that's just nuts. The sense of self depends on the  
past not the future. You remember being Russell Standish yesterday  
so you feel like Russell Standish today, but if one of your  
predictions was false and things didn't turn out as you expected  
(and I imagine that has actually happened to you at some point in  
your life) you'd still feel like Russell Standish, you'd just feel  
that you've made a mistake. Bruno has got it backwards, he's trying  
to push on a string.


 Personal identity is irrelevant in the FPI.

OMG, that means I've forgotten what the P in Bruno's juvenile  
homemade acronym stand for, or you have. And what about all the  
peepee stuff Bruno is always talking about?


We have discuss this before. You are deliberately confusing. The P is  
for Person, and the I for indeterminacy. As we have already explained  
to you the FPI avoid the need to define personal identity, above the  
fact that we accept we survive with an artificial brain.


In that case we can say clearly and without ambiguity that assuming  
computationalisme and the correct susbstitution level choice:


1) the guy in Helsinki does survive at W and at M, seen from a third  
observer (the 3p view).


2) the guy in Helsinki will survive from its 1p view at W or at M (and  
that his confirmed by all the diary)


With the usual protocol.






 Only personal experience is considered.

Who's personal experience?


All the possible one appearing in the thought experience.







 With experiments like the quantum erasure, you are forced to  
identify your self with multiple past entities.


I don't identify with multiple past entities and I'm quite certain  
you don't either, I only remember one.


 Why do you seem to have so much trouble with the same when its in  
the other direction of time?


Because I can remember the past but not the future. Tell me, when  
things don't turn out as you expected them to do you feel like  
you've lost your personal identity?


 You admitted earlier that an AI within a forked computer  
simulation where one thing differed in each instance of the  
simulated environment would experience the fork as subjective  
randomness.


Obviously

 Keep going from there.

I need better transportation than that! The vehicle provided is  
life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'll find  
and it's difficult to go very far with a old broken down vehicle  
like that.
 3) With Everett the meaning of the personal pronoun you is  
always obvious, it is the only person that the laws of physics allow  
me to observe that fits the description of Russell Standish, but in  
a world with matter duplicating machines as in Bruno's thought  
experiments there are 2 (or more) people who fit that description,  
and so the word you is ambiguous and conveys zero information.  
Bruno says he wants to explain the nature of personal identity but  
then without a second's pause acts as if the concept of personal  
identity was already crystal clear even though in his thought  
experiments such concepts are stretched about as far as they can go.  
In such circumstances to keep using personal pronouns with abandon  
as Bruno does without giving them a second thought is just ridiculous.


 When one starts trying to define you, you get into questions of  
personal identity.


If it has nothing to do with personal identity (!) then when when  
Bruno uses the personal pronoun you as he does with reckless  
abandon in his proof what is John Clark supposed to make of it?


To take into account the fundamental key distinction between the 1p  
and 3p view, well defined at the beginning of the post and papers.







 When one talks about a subjective first-person experiences of two  
third-personal identifiable duplicates, there's no need for personal  
identity to come into it.


It does when in Bruno's proof he goes on and on about how you  
will expect to see this and that but you will not expect to see  
that and this.


Yes, but for a reason that Jason and Quentin proved to you to be  
equivalent with the use of it in the MWI where you accept the use of  
probability. Your argument that in one case the doppelgangers can met  
and not in the other case has been shown unconclusive, more than one  
time.


Imagine that the guy in Helsinki is told that soon after the  
reconstitution in W and in M, he will be killed, in both place, in  
such a way that none have the time to meet their double. In that case  
probabilities would suddenly make sense, according to your criteria.  
But then they continue to make sense even if we change our mind and  
don't kill the guy in both place.


I am aware of your hand-waving. I answer in case someone is not aware

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:

 If we discovered some way of communicating with the other worlds, that
 would be interesting


Interesting is a understatement, communicating with other worlds would
change everything,  then the situation really would be equivalent to living
in a world with matter duplicating machines. But we can't communicate with
other worlds and most think we never will.

 but I don't think it would make any difference to how people think about
 themselves and probability


I disagree, if the communication was easy and in common usage I think it
would change our gut feelings about a lot of things. For one thing the
entire English language, especially personal pronouns, would need to be
radically overhauled.


  Instead of saying I hope I win the lottery they may say, if they are
 pedantic, I hope I end up the version of me that wins the lottery.


If the lottery is tomorrow and they are pedantic they would say I hope the
day after tomorrow the thing that remembers being me today remembers
winning the lottery yesterday, and their hope would be fulfilled. And if
they are pedantic they would also say I fear that the day after tomorrow
the thing that remembers being me today remembers losing the lottery
yesterday and their fear would be realized. But I don't think anybody is
quite that pedantic.

 John K Clark

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:


 To be fair to Bruno, that is not what he claims. The FPI comes from the
 fundamental uncertainty in know which person you are,

^^^

John Clark doesn't understand the question. Which person who is?


  it seems Everett did much the same thing with the MWI.


I disagree for 3 reasons:

1) Everett was trying to explain the strange observations of the Quantum
world in a logically cohesive way and to show why Quantum Mechanics was
able to make such good predictions about future physical events. Everett
said nothing about consciousness because he didn't need to, and that is the
HUGE advantage Many Worlds has over other Quantum interpretations and is
the only reason I'm a fan of the MWI. In the other Quantum Interpretations
consciousness soon enters the picture, that would be OK if they could
explain consciousness but they can't. Everett can't explain consciousness
either but he doesn't need to because consciousness has nothing to do with
his theory.

2) Like Everett Bruno is interested in predictions but unlike Everett Bruno
thinks that good predictions are the key to personal identity, and that's
just nuts. The sense of self depends on the past not the future. You
remember being Russell Standish yesterday so you feel like Russell Standish
today, but if one of your predictions was false and things didn't turn out
as you expected (and I imagine that has actually happened to you at some
point in your life) you'd still feel like Russell Standish, you'd just feel
that you've made a mistake. Bruno has got it backwards, he's trying to push
on a string.

3) With Everett the meaning of the personal pronoun you is always
obvious, it is the only person that the laws of physics allow me to observe
that fits the description of Russell Standish, but in a world with matter
duplicating machines as in Bruno's thought experiments there are 2 (or
more) people who fit that description, and so the word you is ambiguous
and conveys zero information. Bruno says he wants to explain the nature of
personal identity but then without a second's pause acts as if the concept
of personal identity was already crystal clear even though in his thought
experiments such concepts are stretched about as far as they can go. In
such circumstances to keep using personal pronouns with abandon as Bruno
does without giving them a second thought is just ridiculous.

John K Clark

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:


  as diehard atheist in every way,


That's me.


  finding any possible transcendental concept of others laughable,


I don't find all transcendental concepts laughable, some are based on logic
and are reasonable or at least semi-reasonable scientific speculation. But
I do find transcendental concepts based on the myths of bronze age tribes
laughable because compared with what we know today the authors were
ignoramuses


  Leave people their transcendent dreams of godhood and miracles, John.


Hey I'm a libertarian, if they want to believe in God and miracles and talk
about it I wouldn't dream of stopping them even if I could, but don't
expect me to agree with what they say or even to respect it if there is
nothing respectable in it.

  John K Clark







 Even if they pretend to be more sophisticated than that. It's all they
 have. Continuously insulting them won't change a thing. That poster won't
 ask for his money back, nor would he think the company obviously scammed
 him. I'd say it's his right to hope and nobody's business to tell him
 otherwise. PGC

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


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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 28 Feb 2015, at 16:38, John Clark wrote:



On Fri, Feb 27, 2015Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 To be fair to Bruno, that is not what he claims. The FPI comes  
from the fundamental uncertainty in know which person you are,

^^^

John Clark doesn't understand the question. Which person who is?

 it seems Everett did much the same thing with the MWI.

I disagree for 3 reasons:

1) Everett was trying to explain the strange observations of the  
Quantum world in a logically cohesive way and to show why Quantum  
Mechanics was able to make such good predictions about future  
physical events. Everett said nothing about consciousness because he  
didn't need to, and that is the HUGE advantage Many Worlds has over  
other Quantum interpretations and is the only reason I'm a fan of  
the MWI. In the other Quantum Interpretations consciousness soon  
enters the picture, that would be OK if they could explain  
consciousness but they can't. Everett can't explain consciousness  
either but he doesn't need to because consciousness has nothing to  
do with his theory.




On the contrary. Everett has to make a choice for a theory of mind,  
and its suits him very well to define the first person by its memory  
sequences, but then it needs to remated them through computations. The  
problem is that those machines cannot distinguish the quantum  
computational histories from all computations a priori, so Everett's  
move must be push one step more, and the SWE has to be explained from  
a computationalist theory of the first person person.


Guess what, incompleteness redeems the Theaetetus' definition. So we  
can try. Which I did.






2) Like Everett Bruno is interested in predictions but unlike  
Everett Bruno thinks that good predictions are the key to personal  
identity, and that's just nuts.




That is indeed quite nuts.

Good prediction are the key of the theory of matter. Only.

I have explained a tun of time how the 3p notion of 1p and 3p makes  
possible to avoid us to pronounce ourselves on personal identity.


You might confusing threads, as in some threads I like to discuss on  
personal identity, but I void it in UDA and AUDA, except in separate  
philosophical questioning non relevant to understand step 0 to Step 8,  
and its translation in arithmetic.





The sense of self depends on the past not the future. You remember  
being Russell Standish yesterday so you feel like Russell Standish  
today, but if one of your predictions was false and things didn't  
turn out as you expected (and I imagine that has actually happened  
to you at some point in your life) you'd still feel like Russell  
Standish, you'd just feel that you've made a mistake. Bruno has got  
it backwards, he's trying to push on a string.




?




3) With Everett the meaning of the personal pronoun you is always  
obvious, it is the only person that the laws of physics allow me to  
observe that fits the description of Russell Standish, but in a  
world with matter duplicating machines as in Bruno's thought  
experiments there are 2 (or more) people who fit that description,  
and so the word you is ambiguous and conveys zero information.




This is simply false, once you keep in mind the difference between the  
1p and the 3p. Different people showed you that clearly.




Bruno says he wants to explain the nature of personal identity



Where did I ever say that? I want only explain what can be matter, in  
case we assume our bodies  are Turing emulable at some level.


I expose a problem.

Personal identity, for machine, is what I start from in AUDA. because  
the 3p-self is defined by the second recursion theorem of Kleene in  
very few steps, and the 1p-self, I explain machines recover it by the  
Theaetetus' definition.


You have admit stopping the reading of sane04 at step 3, but you talsk  
like if you have read ... I don't know what imaginary texts.


Quentin is right. This is lying.


but then without a second's pause acts as if the concept of personal  
identity was already crystal clear even though in his thought  
experiments such concepts are stretched about as far as they can go.




This is babbling, hand-waving.




In such circumstances to keep using personal pronouns with abandon  
as Bruno does without giving them a second thought is just ridiculous.




So you have no idea if the delay introduced in step four change or not  
the expectations in helsinki?


I think that at step 3, you stop thinking about the consequences of  
your beliefs. You never completed the thought experiment.
You say that you is ambiguous, but I ask for a W or a M, and if you  
repeat enough the duplication (iterated duplication), as Kim saw,  
children understand the question, and the difference between the 1-you  
and the 3-you


By definition, the first person experience is the content of the  
diaries, and most are random, by simple combinatorics.


I have no clue why you behave like that.

Bruno

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-28 Thread John Mikes

Samiya, I am always cautious not to hurt a fellow lister's feelings. Bruno
is a bit mixed up with religion (uses 'theology', capital G in God, etc.
etc.) so I do not question his 'faith' beyond what he disclosed already (I
hope). I was always polite with your preconditions as well.
Now that you question Creator vs. origin, (I assume you mean Originator)
the question arises where did such Originator originate from? (I am not
asking about 'times befor Origination', because I assign our concept of
time a product of OUR universe (not even World) for ourselves, started with
the universe (if it ever has been started?). Was there some 'originated'
oeuvre when our world has been 'created'? - My narrative has a positive
stance for that: there was an everything (I call it Plenitude) of which
universes (Pl) were torn out by violation of the universal symmetry
(Equilibration) of the Plenitude - all in interchange - when some (I call
them: 'similars) got too close and so developed interactive complexities,
what I call A Universe. Such violations dissipate (within the no-time
system) as they form - back into the Plenitude.
This is something 'beyond us' with no Spiritus Rector involved, except for
the ground-rule of the total super symmetry among ingredients(?) of the
Plenitude,
(call it: relations) what I 'suppose to explain something assigned usually
to some 'Big Bang' - not without flaws itself.
I agree with Bruno in the baseless faith of our agnosticism, unless
somebody shows an acceptable basis. Even then my agnosticism may overwhelm.
So far I did not get 'acceptable' explanation for neither a 'Creator' nor
the Numbers.
We gather (new) information continuously so I am not relying on ideas
generated many centuries ago. I do not think we reached perfection.
I used to be a meek religious chap as a youngster 70~90(!) years ago. .

Best regards
John M

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:



 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
 (loving obedience). Does the One/God of Comp mean as such? From what I've
 gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an origin, not the
 Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?
 Samiya


 Bruno




 Samiya

 On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:

  On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by
 definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what
 is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A
 first principle, etc.


 The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not
 assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From
 Wikipedia:

 Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as
 the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a
 further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to
 the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the
 archaic period (8th-6th century BC).

 So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
 avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
 basis of reality.



 Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God
 was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the
 indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron)
 into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the
 notion of bad, or matter.

 If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about
 God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God,
 except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary
 discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).

 I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to
 the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with
 soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth,
 non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not
 distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine.

 BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to Templeton.
 How is that going?

 Bruno




 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:


Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for  
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative  
theologians.


God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship  
(loving obedience).


That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go  
without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,  
because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey  
to. Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is  
the intermediate. That happens very often.






Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to  
an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say,  
at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and  
space, and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time,  
space, etc


I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not  
omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,  
including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to  
change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then  
unable to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change  
and move.


But it is a very complex subject, and I am extrapolating probably too  
much.  You might read the book by Brian Hines Return to the  
One (subtitled Plotinus' guide To God-Realization). It is not a  
scholar, but it fits rather well with the machine's talk, but to  
verify this we need to climb that Mountain, and if I remember well we  
are still learning lacing the shoes 


About this, can you tell me if you have a idea of what a set is? And  
what a subset is? How many subsets has the set {0, 1}?


I hope you indulge my math teaching vocation ... For the greeks,  
mathematics is the preliminary study of theology.


Bruno





Samiya



Bruno





Samiya

On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality,  
because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then  
the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A  
physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc.


The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were  
not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it  
aperion.  From Wikipedia:


Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting  
apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely  
indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous  
existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of  
thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period  
(8th-6th century BC).


So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only  
obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's  
what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality.



Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the  
beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was  
confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they  
make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE,  
and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter.


If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main  
point about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I  
did not use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that  
infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God is just the most  
common quasi-name (pointer).


I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming  
back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically  
concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of  
universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE  
of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from  
arithmetical truth, in case we are machine.


BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to  
Templeton. How is that going?


Bruno





Brent

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

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:


Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the  
general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


Bruno





Samiya

On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality,  
because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then  
the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A  
physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc.


The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were  
not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it  
aperion.  From Wikipedia:


Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting  
apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely 
indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous  
existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of  
thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period  
(8th-6th century BC).


So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only  
obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what  
the Greeks meant by the basis of reality.



Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the  
beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was  
confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make  
the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE, and  
reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter.


If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point  
about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not  
use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite  
useless vocabulary discussion. God is just the most common quasi- 
name (pointer).


I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming  
back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically  
concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of  
universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of  
Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from  
arithmetical truth, in case we are machine.


BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to  
Templeton. How is that going?


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-28 Thread Jason Resch

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:38 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:


  To be fair to Bruno, that is not what he claims. The FPI comes from the
 fundamental uncertainty in know which person you are,

 ^^^

 John Clark doesn't understand the question. Which person who is?


  it seems Everett did much the same thing with the MWI.


 I disagree for 3 reasons:

 1) Everett was trying to explain the strange observations of the Quantum
 world in a logically cohesive way and to show why Quantum Mechanics was
 able to make such good predictions about future physical events. Everett
 said nothing about consciousness because he didn't need to, and that is the
 HUGE advantage Many Worlds has over other Quantum interpretations and is
 the only reason I'm a fan of the MWI. In the other Quantum Interpretations
 consciousness soon enters the picture, that would be OK if they could
 explain consciousness but they can't. Everett can't explain consciousness
 either but he doesn't need to because consciousness has nothing to do with
 his theory.


There is an implicit unstated assumption in Everett that consciousness is
duplicated with the split. This requires a
physicalist/materialist/mechanism account of mind, rather than idealism or
dualism, where each person has a singular uncopyable soul. Note that
Everett's theory pre-dates functionalism and computationalism as
popularized by Putnam.


 2) Like Everett Bruno is interested in predictions but unlike Everett
 Bruno thinks that good predictions are the key to personal identity, and
 that's just nuts. The sense of self depends on the past not the future. You
 remember being Russell Standish yesterday so you feel like Russell Standish
 today, but if one of your predictions was false and things didn't turn out
 as you expected (and I imagine that has actually happened to you at some
 point in your life) you'd still feel like Russell Standish, you'd just feel
 that you've made a mistake. Bruno has got it backwards, he's trying to push
 on a string.


Personal identity is irrelevant in the FPI. Only personal experience is
considered.

With experiments like the quantum erasure, you are forced to identify your
self with multiple past entities. Why do you seem to have so much trouble
with the same when its in the other direction of time? You admitted earlier
that an AI within a forked computer simulation where one thing differed in
each instance of the simulated environment would experience the fork as
subjective randomness. Keep going from there.


 3) With Everett the meaning of the personal pronoun you is always
 obvious, it is the only person that the laws of physics allow me to observe
 that fits the description of Russell Standish, but in a world with matter
 duplicating machines as in Bruno's thought experiments there are 2 (or
 more) people who fit that description, and so the word you is ambiguous
 and conveys zero information. Bruno says he wants to explain the nature of
 personal identity but then without a second's pause acts as if the concept
 of personal identity was already crystal clear even though in his thought
 experiments such concepts are stretched about as far as they can go. In
 such circumstances to keep using personal pronouns with abandon as Bruno
 does without giving them a second thought is just ridiculous.


 When one starts trying to define you, you get into questions of personal
identity. When one talks about a subjective first-person experiences of two
third-personal identifiable duplicates, there's no need for personal
identity to come into it. What is your mental block that turns you
irrational on this matter?

Jason

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 27 Feb 2015, at 19:50, John Clark wrote:



On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't know about all the peepee stuff but I do know that If  
Everett is right then all experiences exist, and if Everett is right  
nothing is random because the Schrodinger wave equation is not random.


 He means it appears random from any given person's perspective.

Yes, people very often, usually in fact, don't know with certainty  
what the future will bring. Bruno apparently believes he's the first  
to notice that,



I never said that. never. But you made me believe it is a findamental  
discovery not yet understood by many, or, when understood, not being  
taken into account (due in general to people unaware that elementary  
arithmetical truth implement all computations.


Sometimes I make the distinction between the local FPI and the global  
FPI.


The local FPI is the indeterminacy in a WM-duplication (say), where  
all you need to understand is that if you are a machine (at some  
description level), then you are duplicable, and you can't predict  
with certainty the outcome of your future open-the-door experience.


The global FPI involves either arithmetical realism, or the existence  
of a concrete universal dovetailer execution. It is the indeterminacy  
described at step seven.


I think you are the only person I know who does not understand the  
local FPI described in step 3. Yet, only that one explains how  a form  
of subjective randomness appears, and is described in a verifiable way  
in their notebooks. Indeed, by simply duplicating population of  
machines, we can make that indeterminacy first person plural, like it  
seems with QM, except that here we don't start from QM.


I am doing an easy thing here, which just show how hard the mind-body  
problem is with computationalism as the physical reality has to be  
extracted by some limit Global indteerminacy of the universal machine  
in  (sigma_1) arithmetic.


It is easy, as it is a formulation of a problem.

It is shocking only for those who take the physical universe's primary  
character for granted. The religious physicalist, if you want. But  
those betrayes their lack of scientific atitude. They forbid the doubt.



well he is the first to give that concept a pompous sounding  
acronym. As I said, philosophy around here is finding pretentious  
and long words to describe well known but pedestrian ideas.




It is philosophy. OK. But it is also computer science, cognitive  
science, theoretical physics and ... theology (in the sense of Plato,  
Parmenides, Plotinus, Proclus).


It is science.  If you found a mistake, publish it.

John, you must be serious, you have not yet convinced anyone of any  
reason why not trying answering the question in step 4 of the  
Universal Dovetailer Argument.


You play with the word when mocking the simple indexical definition of  
1p and 3p I gave, which makes their job in the UDA. It is pure 3p,  
anyone can undesrtand, and sometimes you do understand (and then say  
this does not deserve the Nobel Prize in Physics, which might be true,  
or false, but is not relevant), as when you do understand it, what  
about step 4?


And, then very patiently, for those who would not implicate themselves  
in a self-duplicating experience, I translated this in pure 3p  
arithmetic, thanks to Gödel's and Solovay's results. Self-duplication  
and self-reference are defined with Kleene second recursion theorem.  
You should study the math part if you stop at step 3. And ask any  
question if something seems unclear, instead of dismissing, injuring,  
insinuating, etc.



Bruno







 John K Clark





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 28 Feb 2015, at 00:06, Russell Standish wrote:


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:50:21PM -0500, John Clark wrote:


Yes, people very often, usually in fact, don't know with certainty  
what the
future will bring. Bruno apparently believes he's the first to  
notice that,
well he is the first to give that concept a pompous sounding  
acronym. As I

said, philosophy around here is finding pretentious and long words to
describe well known but pedestrian ideas.



To be fair to Bruno, that is not what he claims. The FPI comes from
the fundamental uncertainty in know which person you are,


Yes, that is directly the global indeterminacy, like in step seven.  
But it is more which virtual body you have/will-have in the universal  
dovetailing (or in the sigma_1 complete arithmetic).


The first person knows always who she is, even if she cannot gave a  
name or a description.





and
generates genuine randomness within a completely deterministic
system. This is still a shocking result to many people.


But that is in the case of the iterated self-duplication.

But in front of the UD, obviously it can only be on computations which  
married well with gaussian choice below the substitution level. If not  
we have the white noise which blurs the physical stability. White  
rabbits, perhaps Occam catastrophes.






Whether he is first or not is more debatable. Certainly, it seems
Everett did much the same thing with the MWI. Bruno's contribution is
to show the mechanism works within the setting of classical
computationalism via the universal dovetailer.


You can say that Everett uses it first, but miss that it works for  
explaining matter, only if the SWE is extracted from  the self- 
referential variant restricted to the sigma_ 1 reality.


Everett was not working on the mind-body problem, and is not aware of  
the universal turing machine and its löbian limitations.


He missed also that even in QM, the identity thesis is broken in one  
direction. We can attach a mind to a computation, but a mind can  
attach itself only to infinities of computations, in QM too! (Just  
that the situation is worst in arithmetic, or a fortiori in any richer  
everything ontology.


Best,

Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-28 Thread Samiya Illias



 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
 
 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O 
 
 
 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general 
 notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians. 

God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship (loving 
obedience). Does the One/God of Comp mean as such? From what I've gathered from 
your explanations, it simply points to an origin, not the Creator of the 
origin(s). Is that correct? 
Samiya 

 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 
 Samiya 
 
 On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:
 
 On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, 
 by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is 
 what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical 
 thing? A first principle, etc.
 
 The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not 
 assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From 
 Wikipedia:
 
 Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as 
 the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a 
 further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to 
 the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the 
 archaic period (8th-6th century BC).
 
 So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your 
 avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the 
 basis of reality.
 
 
 Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God 
 was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the 
 indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron) 
 into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the 
 notion of bad, or matter.
 
 If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about 
 God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God, 
 except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary 
 discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).
 
 I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to 
 the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with 
 soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth, 
 non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not 
 distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine. 
 
 BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to Templeton. How 
 is that going?
 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 
 Brent
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Sunday, March 1, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Feb 28, 2015  Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com'); wrote:

  Can you clarify where you do and don't have a problem with the pronoun
 you? Presumably there is no problem for you if there is a unique world
 with only one version of you. What about the MWI


 With Everett and with everyday life there is no ambiguity in what the
 personal pronoun You refers to, but matter duplicating machines are not
 in everyday life and there is lots of ambiguity.


  or other multiverse?


 There is no ambiguity, the meaning of you is clear because no observer
 can see more than one John Clark and nobody even knows for sure that more
 than one exists. But in a world with matter duplicating machines it's
 obvious there is more than one John Clark because you're looking at them.


If we discovered some way of communicating with the other worlds, that
would be interesting, but I don't think it would make any difference to how
people think about themselves and probability. Instead of saying I hope I
win the lottery they may say, if they are pedantic, I hope I end up the
version of me that wins the lottery. The only real difference a multiverse
would make to people is that it seems to imply that they can't die because
some version of them always survives.


  What about a branching computer simulation?


 Well you tell me. If when the program reaches point X half the time it
 goes down path Y and half the time down path Z and I start talking about
 what the program will do when it goes down the path as if there were only
 one do you see any ambiguity?

   John K Clark








 --
 Stathis Papaioannou

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');
 .
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list@googlegroups.com');.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');
 .
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list@googlegroups.com');.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

  2) Like Everett Bruno is interested in predictions but unlike Everett
 Bruno thinks that good predictions are the key to personal identity, and
 that's just nuts. The sense of self depends on the past not the future. You
 remember being Russell Standish yesterday so you feel like Russell Standish
 today, but if one of your predictions was false and things didn't turn out
 as you expected (and I imagine that has actually happened to you at some
 point in your life) you'd still feel like Russell Standish, you'd just feel
 that you've made a mistake. Bruno has got it backwards, he's trying to push
 on a string.

  Personal identity is irrelevant in the FPI.


OMG, that means I've forgotten what the P in Bruno's juvenile homemade
acronym stand for, or you have. And what about all the peepee stuff Bruno
is always talking about?


  Only personal experience is considered.


Who's personal experience?

 With experiments like the quantum erasure, you are forced to identify
 your self with multiple past entities.


I don't identify with multiple past entities and I'm quite certain you
don't either, I only remember one.


  Why do you seem to have so much trouble with the same when its in the
 other direction of time?


Because I can remember the past but not the future. Tell me, when things
don't turn out as you expected them to do you feel like you've lost your
personal identity?


  You admitted earlier that an AI within a forked computer simulation
 where one thing differed in each instance of the simulated environment
 would experience the fork as subjective randomness.


Obviously


  Keep going from there.


I need better transportation than that! The vehicle provided is life is
like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'll find and it's
difficult to go very far with a old broken down vehicle like that.

  3) With Everett the meaning of the personal pronoun you is always
 obvious, it is the only person that the laws of physics allow me to observe
 that fits the description of Russell Standish, but in a world with matter
 duplicating machines as in Bruno's thought experiments there are 2 (or
 more) people who fit that description, and so the word you is ambiguous
 and conveys zero information. Bruno says he wants to explain the nature of
 personal identity but then without a second's pause acts as if the concept
 of personal identity was already crystal clear even though in his thought
 experiments such concepts are stretched about as far as they can go. In
 such circumstances to keep using personal pronouns with abandon as Bruno
 does without giving them a second thought is just ridiculous.

  When one starts trying to define you, you get into questions of personal
 identity.


If it has nothing to do with personal identity (!) then when when Bruno
uses the personal pronoun you as he does with reckless abandon in his
proof what is John Clark supposed to make of it?


  When one talks about a subjective first-person experiences of two
 third-personal identifiable duplicates, there's no need for personal
 identity to come into it.


It does when in Bruno's proof he goes on and on about how you will
expect to see this and that but you will not expect to see that and this.


  John K Clark




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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Sunday, March 1, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jasonre...@gmail.com'); wrote:

  2) Like Everett Bruno is interested in predictions but unlike Everett
 Bruno thinks that good predictions are the key to personal identity, and
 that's just nuts. The sense of self depends on the past not the future. You
 remember being Russell Standish yesterday so you feel like Russell Standish
 today, but if one of your predictions was false and things didn't turn out
 as you expected (and I imagine that has actually happened to you at some
 point in your life) you'd still feel like Russell Standish, you'd just feel
 that you've made a mistake. Bruno has got it backwards, he's trying to push
 on a string.

  Personal identity is irrelevant in the FPI.


 OMG, that means I've forgotten what the P in Bruno's juvenile homemade
 acronym stand for, or you have. And what about all the peepee stuff Bruno
 is always talking about?


  Only personal experience is considered.


 Who's personal experience?

  With experiments like the quantum erasure, you are forced to identify
 your self with multiple past entities.


 I don't identify with multiple past entities and I'm quite certain you
 don't either, I only remember one.


  Why do you seem to have so much trouble with the same when its in the
 other direction of time?


 Because I can remember the past but not the future. Tell me, when things
 don't turn out as you expected them to do you feel like you've lost your
 personal identity?


  You admitted earlier that an AI within a forked computer simulation
 where one thing differed in each instance of the simulated environment
 would experience the fork as subjective randomness.


 Obviously


  Keep going from there.


 I need better transportation than that! The vehicle provided is life is
 like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'll find and it's
 difficult to go very far with a old broken down vehicle like that.

  3) With Everett the meaning of the personal pronoun you is always
 obvious, it is the only person that the laws of physics allow me to observe
 that fits the description of Russell Standish, but in a world with matter
 duplicating machines as in Bruno's thought experiments there are 2 (or
 more) people who fit that description, and so the word you is ambiguous
 and conveys zero information. Bruno says he wants to explain the nature of
 personal identity but then without a second's pause acts as if the concept
 of personal identity was already crystal clear even though in his thought
 experiments such concepts are stretched about as far as they can go. In
 such circumstances to keep using personal pronouns with abandon as Bruno
 does without giving them a second thought is just ridiculous.

  When one starts trying to define you, you get into questions of
 personal identity.


 If it has nothing to do with personal identity (!) then when when Bruno
 uses the personal pronoun you as he does with reckless abandon in his
 proof what is John Clark supposed to make of it?


  When one talks about a subjective first-person experiences of two
 third-personal identifiable duplicates, there's no need for personal
 identity to come into it.


 It does when in Bruno's proof he goes on and on about how you will
 expect to see this and that but you will not expect to see that and this.



Can you clarify where you do and don't have a problem with the pronoun
you?

Presumably there is no problem for you if there is a unique world with only
one version of you. What about the MWI or other multiverse? What about a
branching computer simulation?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015  Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:

 Can you clarify where you do and don't have a problem with the pronoun
 you? Presumably there is no problem for you if there is a unique world
 with only one version of you. What about the MWI


With Everett and with everyday life there is no ambiguity in what the
personal pronoun You refers to, but matter duplicating machines are not
in everyday life and there is lots of ambiguity.


  or other multiverse?


There is no ambiguity, the meaning of you is clear because no observer
can see more than one John Clark and nobody even knows for sure that more
than one exists. But in a world with matter duplicating machines it's
obvious there is more than one John Clark because you're looking at them.


  What about a branching computer simulation?


Well you tell me. If when the program reaches point X half the time it goes
down path Y and half the time down path Z and I start talking about what
the program will do when it goes down the path as if there were only one
do you see any ambiguity?

  John K Clark








 --
 Stathis Papaioannou

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


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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-27 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O


How about Bullshit with a capital B? And that's what passes for philosophy
on this list, inventing new ASCII sequences to represent concepts that
already have words (like God) that already do the job.

  John K Clark

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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-27 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't know about all the peepee stuff but I do know that If Everett is
 right then all experiences exist, and if Everett is right nothing is random
 because the Schrodinger wave equation is not random.


  He means it appears random from any given person's perspective.


Yes, people very often, usually in fact, don't know with certainty what the
future will bring. Bruno apparently believes he's the first to notice that,
well he is the first to give that concept a pompous sounding acronym. As I
said, philosophy around here is finding pretentious and long words to
describe well known but pedestrian ideas.

 John K Clark

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-27 Thread PGC



On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 7:40:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:


 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Samiya Illias samiya...@gmail.com 
 javascript: wrote:

  Why don't you just call it One with a capital O 


 How about Bullshit with a capital B? And that's what passes for philosophy 
 on this list, inventing new ASCII sequences to represent concepts that 
 already have words (like God) that already do the job. 


Ah, you must be referring to somebody's vanity a few weeks ago, when they 
presented themselves as diehard atheist in every way, finding any possible 
transcendental concept of others laughable, but then naively falling for 
some company's advertising that they would freeze up his/her head for some 
cash and subscription fee, with some benevolent, future scientist waking 
them up with technological miracles undreamt of today.

Leave people their transcendent dreams of godhood and miracles, John. 

Even if they pretend to be more sophisticated than that. It's all they 
have. Continuously insulting them won't change a thing. That poster won't 
ask for his money back, nor would he think the company obviously scammed 
him. I'd say it's his right to hope and nobody's business to tell him 
otherwise. PGC  



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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-27 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:50:21PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
 
 Yes, people very often, usually in fact, don't know with certainty what the
 future will bring. Bruno apparently believes he's the first to notice that,
 well he is the first to give that concept a pompous sounding acronym. As I
 said, philosophy around here is finding pretentious and long words to
 describe well known but pedestrian ideas.
 

To be fair to Bruno, that is not what he claims. The FPI comes from
the fundamental uncertainty in know which person you are, and
generates genuine randomness within a completely deterministic
system. This is still a shocking result to many people.

Whether he is first or not is more debatable. Certainly, it seems
Everett did much the same thing with the MWI. Bruno's contribution is
to show the mechanism works within the setting of classical
computationalism via the universal dovetailer.

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-27 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because  
God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real  
question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing?  
A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc.


The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not  
assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.   
From Wikipedia:


Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting  
apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely  
indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous existing  
mythical way of thought to the new rational way of thought which is  
the main characteristic of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC).


So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating  
your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks  
meant by the basis of reality.



Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning,  
God was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the  
indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite  
(apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the  
indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter.


If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point  
about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not  
use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless  
vocabulary discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).


I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back  
to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned  
with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe,  
transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides  
and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from arithmetical truth,  
in case we are machine.


BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to  
Templeton. How is that going?


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-27 Thread Samiya Illias

Why don't you just call it One with a capital O 

Samiya 

 On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:
 
 On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by 
 definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what 
 is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A 
 first principle, etc.
 
 The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not assumed 
 to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From Wikipedia:
 
 Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as 
 the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a 
 further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to the 
 new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic 
 period (8th-6th century BC).
 
 So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your 
 avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the 
 basis of reality.
 
 
 Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God 
 was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the indefinite, 
 and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible 
 attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or 
 matter.
 
 If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about God 
 is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God, except in 
 a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God 
 is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).
 
 I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to the 
 scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with soul, 
 afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth, 
 non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not 
 distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine. 
 
 BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to Templeton. How 
 is that going?
 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 
 Brent
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:33:59PM +1300, LizR wrote:
 On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
 
 
  So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
  avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
  basis of reality.
 
 
 I quite like Tao - but some (perhaps not on this list) would no doubt
 find that obfuscatory.
 
 Otherwise an invented word would do, except that then John Clark will
 object that you are making up words.
 

We could always use Spinoza's god. *ducks*

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

John, consider it a working theory that awaits falsification, if it can be 
falsified. You have have great questions, for which there are no great answers. 
What I will claim, is that of all of science, over the last 350 years, computer 
electronics has made the greatest progress, and seems to be exponentiating, as 
opposed to biology, aerospace, energy, medicine-biology, and the like. It is 
the only technology that has not disappointed, plus, the observations of the 
universe by astronomers and physics make the universe appear more and more 
computationalist. It also could easily be something hybrid, a program with 
material output, material with computational output. It's enough to start 
bar/pub fights and tear out our hair. I look to Steinhart as the person, 
perhaps by accident, who best explains, what physicists have uncovered. Hogan, 
out at Fermilab, and Darmstadt, has a team looking to test to see if our 
universe is a hologram or not? If it doesn't work for you, or the idea repels, 
thats all good, there are worse things to have no use for. I don't see it as 
crap, but instead a profound truth and a way to look at physical phenomena. 



-Original Message-
From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 4:02 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?


Spudy, a condition of what??? and WHAT (great!)  program??? what would you 
call 'electric' (not in 101 physix) with 'pulses(?) and 'gaps(?) in between? 
Mainly: what the hell should we call   R E A L  ???
Once you enter the agnostic domain (mind you: not SKEPTIC, which is - like 
atheism - based on a faith we don't (want to) believe) you are on your own. 
With numbers as well. All explanations are retrograde from 'real' conditions 
found in the faith the human mind carries for numbers to begin with. Including 
ZERO. 
 



On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:45 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

Now we are back again, to are numbers real? Do we make them real by observing 
and forming patterns of our brains, or do they pre-exist as a condition of 
nature? Maybe the universe is not simply a simulation, but a great program? 
Yet, since we are part of this program we act as if its real because it is. To 
a subroutine, the world is electric pulses and the gaps between the pulses. 0's 
and 1,s all the way down Dr. Sagan. One of Steinhart's ideas is promotion. 
Promotion of a process or a span to the posited next level up, an upgrade 
reality.Promotion via a pipeline(s). 




-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 9:00 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?



On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 


 skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.



I see, so belief in God  is based on faith and so is doubts about the existence 
of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need to 
point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do 
that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth.


 John K Clark 


 



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




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





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

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like:
 Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
 conceived.


  Which confirms again how much the atheist needs the bible.


As much as a tampon factory needs a sackful of dead rats.


  Fro the greek, the existence of God is [...]


To hell with the no-nothing greeks.


  UDA answers this question in the following way:

And to hell with the Universal Dance Association.

John K Clark

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

FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 26 Feb 2015, at 18:47, John Clark wrote:


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like:
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever  
conceived.


 Which confirms again how much the atheist needs the bible.

As much as a tampon factory needs a sackful of dead rats.



You were the guy citing a text saying that the bible is the most  
potent force for atheism.






 Fro the greek, the existence of God is [...]

To hell with the no-nothing greeks.

 UDA answers this question in the following way:
And to hell with the Universal Dance Association.



Your argument have some punch, I concede that.

***

You know John, your stuck problem at step 3, eventually makes me think  
that you might be right on one point: the discovery of the First  
Person Indeterminacy *is* a major discovery. I should perhaps be less  
modest on that.


I suspect you understood that once we cross step 3, there is no return  
possible and you can't miss the reversal mind/matter.


The First Person Indeterminacy certainly deserves the acronym FPI.

It is very simple. If we are machine, we are duplicable, and in that  
case, using the precise (3p) definition of 3p and 1p pov I have given  
(more than one times), it is an exercise for high school students, as  
Kim explained once, using combinatorics, to show that the 1p  
experiences are random.


Then by duplicating population of machines, we entangle the machine  
states, so that they share linearly the computations, you get a notion  
of first person plural, which can be shown to appear non deterministic  
and non local, but again, without ever leaving the deterministic and  
local realm.


Then, if we want to be able to get the difference between truth, and  
the modalities (believable, knowable, observable, sensible), you need  
just to interview the machine, with a technical shortcut provided by  
Solovay theorem 1: the modal logic G, and its guardian angel, a gift  
offered by Solovay theorem 2: the modal logic G*.  G give the 3p-self- 
reference basic science, and G* gives the truth about that, notably  
the one extending beyond the basic science of the self-referential  
machine.


Yes, the FPI is so simple, and the UDA is so simple, that PA and other  
Lôbian machine get it by themselves. The propositional part of the  
arithmetically sound machine theology is given by scheme of theorems  
in arithmetic, indeed decidable by their representations in G (the  
intensional variants).


Why theology? It is a way to warn people that science, papers,  
discourses, ... cannot guaranty you a correct substitution level, nor  
even its existence. The jump needs some faith.
If not we make G asserting a statement from G* minus G: an  
arithmetical blasphem!


I know you have said yes to a doctor not yet born, so I guess you  
don't care too much on the substitution level, and it is your right to  
do so,, but as a theoretician I need just to be clear and rigorous on  
that point.



Bruno



John K Clark







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 It is very simple. If we are machine, we are duplicable, and in that
 case, using the precise (3p) definition of 3p and 1p pov I have given (more
 than one times), it is an exercise for high school students, as Kim
 explained once, using combinatorics, to show that the 1p experiences are
 random.


I don't know about all the peepee stuff but I do know that If Everett is
right then all experiences exist, and if Everett is right nothing is random
because the Schrodinger wave equation is not random.

 Yes, the FPI is so simple, and the UDA is so simple, that PA and other
 Lôbian machine [...]


OMG, I've never seen a sentence with so much juvenile slang and insular
homemade terms before.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread meekerdb


On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition, 
is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A 
person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc.


The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not assumed to be gods, 
i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From Wikipedia:


Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as the origin of 
all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a further transition from the 
previous existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of thought which is the 
main characteristic of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC).


So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning 
it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality.


Brent

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 25 Feb 2015, at 22:08, LizR wrote:


On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.

I see, so belief in God  is based on faith and so is doubts about  
the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be  
contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT  
based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but  
a noise made by the mouth.


You might have done me the courtesy of giving the entire quote, so  
the context was clear. But I suppose you couldn't do that because it  
would have meant the point you're trying to make would have been  
revealed as a straw man.


Here is that troublesome quote in full.

Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be  
based on faith. It is based on the faith that our present ideologies  
will be preserved by final science. Current physicalism may turn out  
to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology.

-- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms

A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what  
the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. (Brent  
tries to be, for example, as do I). What Mr Steinhart is saying is  
that skeptical atheists as he calls them are making a metaphysical  
assumption about the nature of reality - which is, precisely, an act  
of faith.


Indeed. And in this case, science has refuted it in the comp frame. We  
know today that if computationalism is correct then physicalism cannot  
work. It is the whole point.


We will never know-for-sure if comp is correct, because in (public,  
3p) science we just never know-for-sure anything at all.
Yet, we can know that comp is correct, in the usual theaetetus' sense  
of believing it, in case it is true.


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:55, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/25/2015 1:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com  
wrote:

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.

I see, so belief in God  is based on faith and so is doubts about  
the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be  
contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is  
NOT based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is  
nothing but a noise made by the mouth.


You might have done me the courtesy of giving the entire quote, so  
the context was clear. But I suppose you couldn't do that because  
it would have meant the point you're trying to make would have been  
revealed as a straw man.


Here is that troublesome quote in full.

Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be  
based on faith. It is based on the faith that our present  
ideologies will be preserved by final science. Current physicalism  
may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology.

-- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms

A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what  
the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. (Brent  
tries to be, for example, as do I). What Mr Steinhart is saying is  
that skeptical atheists as he calls them are making a  
metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality - which is,  
precisely, an act of faith.


Is it an assumption that the god of theism doesn't exist?  Seems to  
me the preponderance of the evidence is on that side.  I see beliefs  
having degrees; which, as Hume said, should be in proportion to the  
evidence.


OK. I agree.



Faith means a belief held independent of evidence, e.g. with no  
evidence or even in the presence of a preponderance of contrary  
evidence.


I disagree. That is blind faith. That exists only because of bandits,  
manipulators, people wanting control you. It has nothing to do with  
religion or science.





Brent
I stop  believing in Santa Klaus and Jesus the same day in my early  
childhood.  I was astonished that my cousins stop to believe in  
Santa Klaus but kept their belief in Jesus.

--- Bruno Marchal

Atheist   n.   A person to be pitied in that he is unable to  
believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus  
deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.

--- Chaz Bufe

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
  --- Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richard's Almanac, 1758)



Theology, the science, is born with the greek, and was not opposed to  
reason. To shut the eye of reason is useful to sell you expensive  
inefficatious medication.


Blind faith exists only because we have separated theology from  
reason, and the reason of this, is manipulation of humans by private  
egocentric interest of some minority.


Faith is more the belief without proof. We need it for the axioms and  
theories. It is not the belief without evidence.


Bruno







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?