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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 -
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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 -
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
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,
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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 ?
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
58 matches
Mail list logo
