WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Free will is a bogus issue, something akin to asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Why ? Because in biology at least, the will of any entity only needs to carry out what the entity desires, to survive. If it can't, the entity will die and not be tend to be reproduced. Case

Re: Re: Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Russell Standish According to Leibniz's idealistic metaphysics, nothing is causal, things just appear to happen by cause. Their motions instead occur according to a pre-established (a priori) harmony. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near

Re: Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King OK, let me rephrase the question. If a tree falls in the forest with nobody to observe it, will it end up on the ground ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content

Re: Re: On hearsay

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King OK, you must be talking about physical evidence then. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time:

What causes randomness ?

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King I think Einstein was referring to human intelligence. Personally I don't believe that QM actions are intelligent, rather that they happen according to probability theory. But one might assign intelligence (free choice) to each individual event. Then there is no such

Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE

2012-11-06 Thread Alberto G. Corona
This is the same with some corrections of my bad dyslexic English The modern notion of free will is a nominalist https://www.google.es/search?q=nominalism+oq=nominalism+sugexp=chrome,mod=0sourceid=chromeie=UTF-8one. It redefine free will in physicalist terms, when it ever was a realist

Re: Heraclitus gets his feet wet

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 12:19, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Heraclitus' point was that in this contingent world, nothing remains the same. From the relevant points of view, OK, but a platonist look at the contingencies in both ways. A bit like after a WM duplication you are

Re: 1p=now, 3p = then

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 12:53, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal ALSO, 1p --- now 3p -- then Those are related. You can also write 1p --- here 3p --- there 3-view is descriptive truth, 1-view truth is truth by acquaintance. OK. Descriptive truth is similar to your knowing about

Re: The supreme monad is the only actor, the only agent

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Roger, On 05 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Man's soul, being a monad, includes the physical man, as the physical man must remain associated to its monad. But man-and-his-monad is not an actor, it is a puppet of the supreme monad. Here we have a vocabulary

Re: why IMHO arithmetic is not a theory

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 13:19, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO arithmetic, unlike theory, does not make predictions in the real world, ? It does, but we are blasé. Let me give you example: 1) It predict that if I put two spoon of sugar in my tea, my tea will have more sugar in it.

Re: Is Nietzsche's shade wandering in platonia ?

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 13:43, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal OK, you say propositions might have a contradiction but you might not yet have found the contradictions. That's a profound point. Either we have not yet found the contradiction, or we have not the tool to prevent the existence

Re: Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Alberto G. Corona I'm much indebted to you for bringing this very important observation to my attention. I need very badly to study the issue and am starting right now. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -

Re: The two types of truth

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 13:45, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Is sigma_6 truth truth with only a 6 sigma possibility of error ? let P(x) be a decidable number property. Like being prime. Note that if P(x) is decidable, then ~P(x) is decidable too. P(x), and ~P(x) are said sigma_0

Re: Is Nietzsche's shade wandering in platonia ?

2012-11-06 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Nov 2012, at 13:43, Roger Clough wrote: Shades of Nietzsche ! Tell me it isn't so ! No, it is not so. No worry to have. I am glad we share some uneasiness with Nietzche. I take it for a great poet, but a bad

Re: (mathematical) solipsism

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Isn't strong AI just an assumption ? Yes. Comp too. The existence of the moon also. The fact that I am conscious, can only be an assumption for you, and vice versa. The only thing which is not an assumption is private

Re: Is Nietzsche's shade wandering in platonia ?

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 15:08, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/5/2012 7:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal OK, you say propositions might have a contradiction but you might not yet have found the contradictions. That's a profound point. In other words, one can't ever be sure if a

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 16:14, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: But you know in davance that whatever happen, you will live only one thing. John Clark knows with certainty that John Clark will see Washington, and John Clark knows with certainty

Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 16:17, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/5/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Sirius was there before Paul was born. That position is called realism. Hi Roger, What makes you so sure? Realism assumes infallibility! What You confuse the truth that

I am a realist rather than a nominalist because universal gravity exists.

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Alberto G. Corona If there are physical laws in the universe, such as gravity, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism, as well as dark energy, these laws must be universal or else there would be chaos. There could be no science. That fact refutes the nominalist position that universals do

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:31, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Bruno, I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp there are claims that such and such know or believe or

Re: Re: Heraclitus gets his feet wet

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal How can you be in two places at once ? At least in this universe ? Prisoners in jails would love to be also free. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content -

Re: Re: The supreme monad is the only actor, the only agent

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal Not to worry. The supreme monad acts through the individual monads (men or doughnuts or planets or whatever) in such a way that the actions appear to be perfectly normal. Thus from an outer perspective such as in comp, how the supreme monad acts would be irrelevant

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 19:41, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Again the same main 1-3 confusion. I see nothing I can be confused about because the only point of view I can see is my own first person one, what your second or his third

Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 20:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Love is a qualia and science cannot touch qualia. Science can touch everything. And assuming comp science can explain why qualia are not scientific or communicable. they still remain real phenomena on which science can say

Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality

2012-11-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Nov 2012, at 20:24, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 05.11.2012 16:21 Roger Clough said the following: Hi Richard Ruquist Engineering advantages ? A decade before the Wright brothers flew their airplane, people would have said, You're going to do WHAT ? I guess this is a very good example,

Re: Re: why IMHO arithmetic is not a theory

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal OK. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-06, 07:21:19 Subject: Re: why IMHO arithmetic is

Re: Re: why IMHO arithmetic is not a theory

2012-11-06 Thread Richard Ruquist
Bruno, How has comp explained how there are Many Worlds? I presume you mean MWI and many physical worlds, not just many dream worlds.. Richard On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal OK. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever

Re: Re: The two types of truth

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal Thanks for your patience. Beautiful stuff, it reads like Mozart sounds. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list

Re: Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Stephen, My new understanding of realism is that according to it, what happens in this world is not created by our minds, but created by a higher power. It could have happened without us. That concerns events. Truth, according to realism, is also mind-independent. Roger Clough,

Re: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal My understanding is that qualia are subjective or 1-view, while the realm of science is completely objective (3-view). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content -

Re: Re: Is Nietzsche's shade wandering in platonia ?

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy By poet, I suspect that Bruno was attesting to Nietzsche's ability to think in terms of metaphors (such as Apollo and Dionysius in his Genealogy of Morals. ) Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody

Re: Re: Is Nietzsche's shade wandering in platonia ?

2012-11-06 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
Hi Roger, So what? On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy By poet, I suspect that Bruno was attesting to Nietzsche's ability to think in terms of metaphors (such as Apollo and Dionysius in his Genealogy of Morals. ) Roger

Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 4:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, let me rephrase the question. If a tree falls in the forest with nobody to observe it, will it end up on the ground ? Hi Roger, There is no tree nor forest nor ground nor any action in that condition. Roger Clough,

Re: On hearsay

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 4:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, you must be talking about physical evidence then. Hi Roger, What makes it physical? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the

Re: Lubos Motl's reference frame

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
Hi Richard, There seems to be a deep reason why we observe a classical universe! The point is that MWI is only 'wrong' it how people interpret QM to try to make QM 'just very complicated CM'. There is no unique way to project a classical universe out of a QM wave function of sufficiently

Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 8:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Nov 2012, at 16:17, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/5/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Sirius was there before Paul was born. That position is called realism. Hi Roger, What makes you so sure? Realism assumes

Re: Re: Re: Is Nietzsche's shade wandering in platonia ?

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy So what ? I have no stomach for the revaluation of all values and the other garbage Nietzsche taught. If you are truly a platonist, you would agree with me. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody

Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:10, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/5/2012 10:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Infallibility isn't involved. The typical textbook explanation for realism is, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear

Re: Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King Even Berkeley had to admit that no forest, no whatever.. was foolishness and so said that in that case, God observed it. Get real. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following

Re: Re: On hearsay

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King It's physical evidence if it can help convict a criminal in a court of law. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver:

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:31, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Bruno, I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp there are

Re: Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King How about those that are deaf, dumb and blind ? They've never seen the moon for example. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King

Re: Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an actual woman ? Or mistake fool's gold or gold foiled chocolates for actual gold coins ? Does the world actually become cloudy if I have cataracts ?

Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 9:37 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Stephen, My new understanding of realism is that according to it, what happens in this world is not created by our minds, but created by a higher power. It could have happened without us. Hi Roger, Sure, I would agree if we could be more precise.

Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 9:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: My understanding is that qualia are subjective or 1-view, while the realm of science is completely objective (3-view). Science 'traces' out the observer and wonders why it cannot understand the observer! LOL! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this

Re: Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King So that by believing that God exists, He exists ? Or believing that 2 + 2 = 5 makes it so ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King

Re: Re: Re: Is Nietzsche's shade wandering in platonia ?

2012-11-06 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
Hi Roger, If you want to read him that trivially, go ahead. The constant, eternal revaluation of all values. This is just implied by asking what's going on?. And yes, this is gently consistent with never ending platonic questioning + a popper style negation, even humor, on his own statements,

Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum

2012-11-06 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Everyone: Here are some expansions on my prior post regarding the following three topics: i) Consciousness: Define it for now as the detection by a life entity of the current system energy configuration both internal and external to the life entity sufficient to ensure its adherence to its

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-11-06 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Define John Clark. Define define. the semantic of proper name is the most difficult unsolved problem in philosophy. No it is not, the meaning of pronouns like I and He and you where it is not even known what proper name they

Re: Re: Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems

2012-11-06 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 04:54:00AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish According to Leibniz's idealistic metaphysics, nothing is causal, things just appear to happen by cause. Their motions instead occur according to a pre-established (a priori) harmony. This is not

Re: Lubos Motl's reference frame

2012-11-06 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 07:09:53AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: he fails to mention, as he has previously, that MWI is a means to reduce quantum physics to classical physics. This is a bizarre comment. MWI reintroduces determinism in QM, but does not make it classical. Are you misreading Motl,

your remark to me

2012-11-06 Thread John Mikes
Dear Hal, you indicated a post of yours by date and time - I have no facilities to trace it. Was It the one I copied hereunder? (Topically it may be...) -- See my remarks below. - John M --- *Hal Ruhl:* *Here are some expansions on my prior post regarding the following

Re: Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems

2012-11-06 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 03:46:32PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Hence my snide question about AL: all we know about whatever we call 'life' is only partial and an artificial way to produce it may NOT lead to the real thing (no matter how close we may get to our in-model descriptions). This

Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 11:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Even Berkeley had to admit that no forest, no whatever.. was foolishness and so said that in that case, God observed it. Get real. Hi Roger, Then you are explicitly admitting that God's only purpose is to be an Absolute

Re: On hearsay

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 11:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's physical evidence if it can help convict a criminal in a court of law. So knowledge is limited to the sphere of comprehension of humans? I don't think so! Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long

Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 11:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King How about those that are deaf, dumb and blind ? They've never seen the moon for example. Hi Roger, Can they not feel the effects of the tide? Any interaction acts to define definiteness of properties. You need to think in

Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote: What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an actual woman ? Or mistake fool's gold or gold foiled chocolates for actual gold coins ? Does the world actually become cloudy

Re: Communicability

2012-11-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/6/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King So that by believing that God exists, He exists ? Or believing that 2 + 2 = 5 makes it so ? Do you understand what mutual consistency is? This is not rocket-surgery! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you

Re: Lubos Motl's reference frame

2012-11-06 Thread Richard Ruquist
I will have to find the blog where he made that comment. It was about two months ago. On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 07:09:53AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: he fails to mention, as he has previously, that MWI is a means to

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-11-06 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you are the experimenter what can physics tell you about the particle's half life? It is not implied by the laws of physics because there are

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-11-06 Thread meekerdb
On 11/7/2012 1:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jason Reschjasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you are the experimenter what can physics tell you about the particle's half life? It is not implied by

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-11-06 Thread Jason Resch
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/7/2012 1:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jason Reschjasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you are the experimenter what