Fw: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
I appear to be wrong about the aether, according to a physicist friend of mine, and the lastest physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories Apparently the Michaelson-Morley experiment has been explained away, and, together with the discovery of dark energy and matter, the theory of the aether is being replaced by new theories. - Have received the following content - Sender: makoilaci Receiver: Roger Clough Time: 2013-01-09, 12:15:42 Subject: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ? just the opposite. general relativity brought aether back, but it is 4-dimensonal. -- On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Bruno, Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment, space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). There is no aether. Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all, suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are nonphysical. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:06 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp). -- Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes ( according to the laws of thermodynamics ) Wrong therefore we think that they have infinite parameters . socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
soc, that truth referring to what Bruno said. may or may not be true. You did not read the thread. Richard On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:00 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Richard Truth is true !!! / Richard / Very good proof. . . . . . . and . . ‘. . by Beauty that beautiful things are beautiful . . . by largeness that large things are large and larger things larger, and by smallness that smaller things ate smaller . . . . . . . by tallness one man is taller than another . . . . . . . and the shorter is shorter by the same ; . . . . .’ about 2500 years ago Plato wrote. =. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Bruno Marchal Sheldrake's morphisms might be thought of as life fields. But I don't think fields themselves are physical, rather they are monadic, descriptions of physical things. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:48:03 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Sheldrake's morphisms would be what John Clark or bruno theorized as God. I don't think so. I have never understood what Sheldrake's morphism are, but they seem physical, from what I can understand. God is not physical, and by definition, the physical needs God, or truth, to exist or make sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 13:01:16 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 1/8/2013 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: GOD means the reality in which you believe. Friends, are you tired of your old job, it's time to change your occupation and make big bucks, amaze your friends, be a hit at parties and become a professional pundit on cable news shows! You too can become a liberal theologian by using the patented John Clark method and it only takes 4 simple steps! STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't matter what it is. STEP 2) Define the word God as meaning that thing whatever it may be. STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. John K Clark Didn't Tillich already copyright that method, John? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Where do ideas come from?
Hi Bruno Marchal The how do ideas form, and what are they ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:50:12 Subject: Re: Where do ideas come from? On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:17, Roger Clough wrote: Penrose's concept of consciousness as quantum wave collapse would seem, at least this morning, to be similar or analogous to my suggestion that ideas are fixed forms of consciousness created by some type of collapse of quntum wave collapse such as photons are formed by the collapse of a wavicle. A nonsensical theory of observation (collapse) needs a nonsensical theory of mind, perhaps. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - -list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
Hi Bruno Marchal Platonism is not at least overtly Berkeley's idealism, but is idealism at least of the type described below. idealism noun \i-'de-(?-)?liz-?m, 'i-(?)de-\ Definition of IDEALISM 1 a (1) : a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena (2) : a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:55:41 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:20, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You say, Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Wouldn't a Platonist say instead that arithmetic arises from mind ? Some Platonist have defended idealism, but the problem then is that we can no more an explanation for mind. With comp, we do get a simple theory of mind (computer science/ mathematical logic), and we can explain both consciousness and the illusion of matter from it, and this leads us back to the root of Platonism: Pythagorism. There is only numbers and numbers computable relations (in the outside view). The inside view get richer, though. All you need is arithmetical realism: the idea that 43 is prime in all possible situation, independently of the existence of humans, aliens, bacteria, etc. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:13:03 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: For the record, Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind: the EM, and quantum waves and, fields; and the body: mainly electrons and photons. We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic. Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in machine's mind. We have some division on if that property extends to the body: like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the duality... No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like mind. Bruno yanniru On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only real part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. .that would act on a body at any given point in that region The word would tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -
Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
Hi Bruno Marchal Could the incompleteness theorem simply be an artifact of wrong-headedly trying to reach the necessary from the realm of contingency ? That is, trying synthesize a system, whereas it is actually already complete if deduced analytically ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 12:10:16 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 09 Jan 2013, at 17:03, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:26, Telmo Menezes wrote: Where does hate, falsehood and ugliness come from? I am not quite sure, but it comes probably from the consistency of inconsistency (that is: G?el's second incompleteness theorem). Doesn't the second incompleteness theorem imply that all knowable truths are local and that absolute truth is unrecognisable? Why? I don't think so. G?el's incompleteness relies on the absoluteness of the elementary arithmetical truth. It only entails that all machine cannot know the whole thing, and not even give it a name. This can be made more precise in model theory, or set theory where we can define absolute and relative. That makes sense with my empirical understanding of realty: there are things that I find beautiful and others find ugly. Hate groups feel that they just have a correct understanding of reality, and so on. I am OK with this, except on elementary arithmetic. You need this just to define formalism, machine, etc. But even such kind of truth cannot be communicate as such, unless we first agree on some axioms, and on what axioms are. Actually it comes from the fact that Bf (inconsistency) gives an evolutionary advantage. Like the true Dt, Bf can be used to prove correct arithmetical propositions, to shorten the proofs of non trivial propositions, etc. I am able to conceive, some day, that all axioms of infinity are of this type (but this is a strong statement). So basically the hate, the falsehood and the ugliness comes from their local evolutionary advantage. A bit like robbing a bank can be justified, when the goal is to make money locally and quickly. A bit like when the first animal decided to feed on a vegetal, which is a form of molecules stealing, at some level. Then other animals steal the molecules of those vegetarians, and so on. This has generated the evolutionary heuristic: to eat or to be eaten, and sometimes that hurts. Ok - at the evolutionary level of abstraction. Well, OK. It still hurts, and the hurting feeling seems to be something absolute. We cannot doubt a feeling of headache, even if we can doubt the primary existence of the head. Bruno In the main line ... Bruno On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group,
misfits of perfect prisms spilled on the floor
Hi Bruno Marchal Could it be -- borrowing from Leibniz's Theodicy-- that in Heaven, all of the forms are perfect, as, say, prisms in a display cabinet, but when you spill the cabinet and try to fit the perfect prisms back together down here on the floor (in this contingent world), there are gaps and misfits ? In other words, from energy (Heaven) to entropy (Earth). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 10:41:37 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 09 Jan 2013, at 14:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes In the Christian tradition, Satan. In the Platonic tradition (which Bruno knows much better than I do), I think the Demiurge. Platonists are not so good on the bad, and the bad is really a complex problem. I suggest an answer in my post to Telmo. To give you a bad example, Plotinus explains that the bad occurs only to bad people. It warns that if you rape a woman, you will be punished. How: by becoming a woman in your next life, and by being raped. This is unfortunate, as it might gives the idea that if a woman attracts you up to the point you will rape her, it is OK, as it can only mean that you are raping some guy who raped a woman in his/her preceding life! But this will only justify and perpetuate the bad. It is not entirely nonsensical, and may be Plotinus was to quick. It can be related to the buddhist notion of karma, but here too, a danger remains to make sick and miserable people, if that was not enough, also feeling guilty. It leads to the idea that whatever bad happens to you comes from bad thing you did in a preceding life, and this means that it is always your fault. Basically, the idea of sin comes from this too. But this can be used by people who want to manipulate you, as history illustrates. With the explanation suggested to Telmo, I would say the bad exists due to its logical closeness to the good. Also good can be a protagorean virtue, meaning that if you try to define the good in some normative way, then the bad will be guarantied to happen. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 07:26:45 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God Where does hate, falsehood and ugliness come from? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Atheists are those that refuse to worship the false gods they invent.
Hi Bruno Marchal Atheists are those that refuse to worship the false gods they invent. They look for truth and untruth from the logic of analogies instead of seeking the Living God of the Bible, who isn't an analogy. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 10:20:25 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. I can be OK with this, but this will not convince an atheist, who will tell you that if beauty is god, then he believes in God, but that is not the God he is talking about when declaring himself an atheist. An atheist is just someone who does not believe in Santa Claus. Really. Some people suggests that comp is two times more atheistic than atheism, because with comp, not only the literal Christian God does not exist, but the myth or a primitive material universe has to be abandoned too. I disagree because comp invite us firmly to come back to the scientific notion of God (transcendental truth at the root of everything, faith in reincarnation). Science is always based on a religion. Scientist who pretend to have no religion are person who take so much their religion for granted that they cannot doubt it, and so becomes pseudo-priest of some sort. It is often the case with the (weak) materialist (as almost all people are still today). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
beauty is the discovery of unity in variety.
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net Somebody once said that beauty is the discovery of unity in variety. That's also what happens in perception. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-10, 01:00:14 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Richard Truth is true !!! / Richard / Very good proof. . . . . . . and . . ?. . by Beauty that beautiful things are beautiful . . . by largeness that large things are large and larger things larger, and by smallness that smaller things ate smaller . . . . . . . by tallness one man is taller than another . . . . . . . and the shorter is shorter by the same ; . . . . .? about 2500 years ago Plato wrote. =. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Is there an aether ?
Hi Bruno Marchal Spacetime is physical, but space is not and time is not. That is, according to Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, and Einstein. That's why I find it hard to accept the revisionist view that the former interpretation of the M-M experiment, that there is no aether, is now obsolete. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Hi meekerdb Coincidence with Newton's laws proves, to me at least, that the earth orbits the sun rather than the inverse. There's too much mass on the sun to have it orbit the earth. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 15:55:18 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 1/9/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! And we know that the Earth orbits the Sun - but there is no mathematical proof of that. Mathematical proofs are always relative to axioms and rules of inference. Empirical proofs can be ostensive. So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common. Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts. Brent But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (G?el 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
Hi Richard Ruquist Sounds a little fantastic to me, but what do I know ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 10:29:00 Subject: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote: Bruno, Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment, space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). Space-time remains physical, here. There is no aether. Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all, suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are nonphysical. Then all forces are non physical. But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are using. All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of) discrete number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it reappears as stable and constant observation pattern valid for all sound universal numbers. Bruno Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that overboard? Richard points and lines word geometry? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Complexity is a sign that you can't get there (necessary reason) from here (contingent reason)
Hi Bruno Marchal Complexity can't (or at least need not) be a feature of Platonism, since all of those equations have already been solved or resolved from above. Complexity is simply an artifact produced by building up from below, without a clue as to what is present above (what is true) Complexity arises from the impossibility of reaching necessary reason starting with contingent reason. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:58:55 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:27, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Am I wrong ? I don't think that complexity and Platonism (top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from bottom-up being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian intellect gets stuck. Complexity arise in numbers due to the intrinsic relation between addition and multiplication, which notably makes possible computations and self-reference, and separate truth (God) from provability (intellect). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:37:48 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the L?ian threshold. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties. In this sense, primitive religion may
What is Idealism ?
Since there has been some discussion of Plato and Leibniz, who are both IMHO Idealists, but of different forms, and since I have argued much against materialism, which is inverse to Idealism, I thought the following might be helpful: Idealism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Not to be confused with Idealism (ethics). This article is about the philosophical notion of idealism. For other uses, see Idealism (disambiguation). The 20th century British scientist Sir James Jeans wrote that the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing. In a sociological sense, idealism emphasizes how human ideas. especially beliefs and values, shape society. [1] As an ontological doctrine, idealism goes further, asserting that all entities are composed of mind or spirit.[2] Idealism thus rejects physicalist and dualist theories that fail to ascribe priority to the mind. The corresponding idea in metaphysics is monism. The earliest extant arguments that the world of experience is grounded in the mental derive from India and Greece. The Hindu idealists in India and the Greek Neoplatonists gave pantheistic arguments for an all-pervading consciousness as the ground or true nature of reality.[3] In contrast, the Yogacara school, which arose within Mahayana Buddhism in India in the 4th century CE,[4] based its mind-only idealism to a greater extent on phenomenological analyses of personal experience. This turn toward the subjective anticipated empiricists such as George Berkeley, who revived idealism in 18th-century Europe by employing skeptical arguments against materialism. Beginning with [Leibniz], Immanuel Kant, German idealists such as ,G. W. F. Hegel, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, and Arthur Schopenhauer dominated 19th-century philosophy. This tradition, which emphasized the mental or ideal character of all phenomena, birthed idealistic and subjectivist schools ranging from British idealism to phenomenalism to existentialism. The historical influence of this branch of idealism remains central even to the schools that rejected its metaphysical assumptions, such as Marxism, pragmatism, and positivism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes ( according to the laws of thermodynamics ) Wrong According to Charle’s law and the consequence of the third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles approaches zero too. ===… -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Atheists are those that refuse to worship the false gods they invent.
It would say that they worship, and worship very hard. But his worship does adopt different forms. All of them primitive, since their impulses are not moderated by an assumption of tradition, so they lack the knowledge of best practices due to previous failures. It is necessary to take into account that a God in the primitive sense hansn´t to be a transcendental. It may be intramundane. It can be an ordinary person. An Emperor for example. Or a actor. When people tell about Hollywood as the Olympus of the stars he does no know up to what level this analogy, that comes from the same locations of the brain than in a ancient greek worshipper of Zeus is not an analogy, but an identity. I do not mix things. People mix them alone because all of them are part of the some single experience, historically perceived in different ways. By what I said in Robotic truth, worship and sacrifices are unavoidable in a social being who has memory and cooperates. worship is the public proclamation of admiration and the commitment to follow a personal entity. The sacrifices are the seal that certifies the adherence of the group principles in the eyes of the fellows. Just like a insurance company demand entry , exit and periodic fees. The sacrifice can be as subtle and venial as to mock rival groups in a public forum, but lacking a transcendental umbrella that embraces humanity, dignity and other things that give meaning and security in life, invariably the tribal cults take care of the whole of the person, and this can not be accomplished without higher payments. And, friends, I have to say that protection from the higher dangers, demands the higher prices in the catalog of your insurance company. That´s why bloody offenses demand blood as sacrifice. The growing quantity of youngters enlisted in urban Gangsta knows that well, and show how our societies are being degraded. The corrupt mafias that dominate each sector of the economy know it too. Every group of well organized delinquents need a cult to the leader and his set of ideas. Sometimes with supernatural powers. for example, the ability to predict global climate, or capable of creating wealth by printing paper money. In this sense christianism gives a freedom from religion. The God that sacrifices for ourselves once and forever instead of us sacrificing for it periodicaly seems like made to liberate us from the deeds of primitive religion, that 2013/1/10 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal Atheists are those that refuse to worship the false gods they invent. They look for truth and untruth from the logic of analogies instead of seeking the Living God of the Bible, who isn't an analogy. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 10:20:25 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. I can be OK with this, but this will not convince an atheist, who will tell you that if beauty is god, then he believes in God, but that is not the God he is talking about when declaring himself an atheist. An atheist is just someone who does not believe in Santa Claus. Really. Some people suggests that comp is two times more atheistic than atheism, because with comp, not only the literal Christian God does not exist, but the myth or a primitive material universe has to be abandoned too. I disagree because comp invite us firmly to come back to the scientific notion of God (transcendental truth at the root of everything, faith in reincarnation). Science is always based on a religion. Scientist who pretend to have no religion are person who take so much their religion for granted that they cannot doubt it, and so becomes pseudo-priest of some sort. It is often the case with the (weak) materialist (as almost all people are still today). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Re: Atheists are those that refuse to worship the false gods they invent.
I meant: That´s why PROTECTION FROM bloody offenses demand blood as sacrifice 2013/1/10 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com That´s why bloody offenses demand blood as sacrifice -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 18:56, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Lol. Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp). and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that overboard? If not taken literally, it can perhaps help. But there is a risk of reifying the particles, or of interpreting the flux densities of infinities in a too much materialist sense. But Bruno, you just said that matter came from infinities of discrete number relations The appearance of matter comes from infinities of discrete number relations. Those appearances themselves are like continuous dream. If you compensate with matrix- or simulacron-like illustration, that will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that those infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it becomes matter appearances only from the number's pov as distributed on the whole UD* or (sigma_1) arithmetical truth. I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that this was just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the Gödelian argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the machine turns such argument in favor of comp. I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of course, *many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least), but at least we have the tools to formulate them precisely. Bruno Are you granting that QM laws are arithmetic theorems on the level as those of Godel and Church? Yes. (I will be explicit on FOAR, on this). But everything is explained on the sane04 paper. The arithmetical quantization is given by []p , with []p = Bp Dt, with D = ~B~, and B = Gödel's *arithmetical* beweisbar (provability) predicate. An arithmetical version of a Bell inequality is []([]A []B) -[]([]A v []B) ([]A v []C) So you can argue from them like they were axioms? Yes. All formula are theorem in Löbian (enough rich, like PA or ZF) arithmetic, from the classical definition of knowledge, that we recover by using Theatetus'definition of knowledge in the arithmetical setting (with believable = provable, which makes sense for the ideally correct machine that we have decided to interview). Bruno Richard Richard points and lines word geometry? Richard Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 09 Jan 2013, at 19:37, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I sense God's presence. That's nice, but how do you know (and more important how do we know) if you are sensing a omnipotent being who created the universe or if you are sensing a bad potato that you ate yesterday? Or the devil imitating God to fail you. Yes. I've never had a mystical experience, but if I did I'd have the courtesy to keep my mouth shut about it if the evidence for its validity was available only to myself. Even if I had discovered a new fact about the nature of reality there would be no way to communicate the truth about it to others. And even if you are certain about it you can't be certain that you should be certain about it, because you can be 100% sure about something and still be dead wrong, in fact it's very common, just look at Muslim suicide bombers. OK. Again this is a theorem in the comp theory. The wise remains mute (on the spiritual matter). But the machine can express some part in the conditional way, like she cannot prove non provable (my- consistency), but she can prove if I am consistent then non provable (my-consistency). Likewise, a part of the spiritual truth can be proved in the form if comp then Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:02, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/1/9 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, I publish this before. It made some physicists rather nervous against me, so that I find worthy to vindicate it. I propose the comp suicide and immortality even well before. OK, this is only anecdote. But you can see that I made the Tegmark point in my 1991 Mechanism and Personal Identity paper, i.e. the point that the witnesses are increasingly astonished, and not the experimenter, who can actually easily predict that astonishment. I made that point to illustrate the relativity of the points of view in the comp setting, and the fact that the HP events (the first person white rabbits) although first person impossible, are still possible and highly probable in the 3p view of the first person of others. David Nyman's heuristic makes me think that they could be zombie, but I am not sure this can work with comp. It is not an important point, as we don't need this for the UDA. a QS machine with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on the experimenter surviving (or not). So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if you bet on him die. What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the experimenter will survive for the following reason: If MWI is true: 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, that make 300$ in your pocket. From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter lives from your POV or not. In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM +collapse, only the 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or win money. OK. But the probabilities for any amount of money that you can win individually remains the same with MWI and collapse. MWI is just more fair ontologically, because all the possible winners exist, and indeed the descendent of the two first win have got something, but they got it with the same probability with the collapse, at each state of the procedure. They just don't exist, in the non lucky collapse scenario. You give only a reason to prefer more, or to fear more (if you think to the bad rare events), the MWI than collapse. What would you say to someone telling you that he prefers collapse, as with collapse, you have 1/100 to win some dollars, and 99/100 to lose, but there will be only one winner possible and only one loser. And in the MWI, there is always one winner and 99 losers! (times infinity!). So if the question is in making more people happy and less people unhappy, may be collapse is preferable at the start (with that kind of reasoning). For the witnesses, your bet is more socially fair, but not in way making possible for them to test MWI or ~MWI. I still stand on repeated improbable outcome implies either MWI or QM false. If it's not the case then a 1/10⁶ probability outcome doesn't mean anything... if you notice 10⁹ validated outcome of a prior probability of 1/10⁶ I would say your prior probability calculus is wrong, if it's from your theory, I would say that your theory has been disprove. The point is in QM+collapse such outcome as 1/10⁶^10⁹ probability of occurence, it could not happen in our current universe lifetime *without* a *very good* explanation principle. Hence if that happened, I would say QM+collapse is falsified. *But* in MWI, such outcome **do** happen, probability calculus is not about happening but about distribution in MWI (contrary to QM+collapse) so it still stand. So if you see such event, you're left choosing between a new theory or MWI... QM+collapse *without* a very good explanation principle for such improbable occurence should
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:56, David Nyman wrote: On 9 January 2013 18:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: David Nyman's heuristic makes me think that they could be zombie, but I am not sure this can work with comp. Don't forget that we are speaking only of a heuristic, or guide for thought. The idea is to evaluate what consequences might follow, for the phenomenon of observation in general, if it were to be considered to be the exclusive property of a single, abstract knower which continuously sampled, one by one, the set of all possible observer moments putatively associable with some underlying 3p system. It is not however, as such, a proposal for a novel mechanism of any sort. Consequently ISTM that any fears relating to zombies would be justified only if one had a principled reason to suppose that observable continuations of very low measure would somehow be inaccessible to such a heuristic. OK. I am still not sure this does not simply add a layer of difficulty, because it is not clear (to me) what can possibly be such a sampling. My contention is that this could not be so, by definition, but that nonetheless such continuations would be highly atypical events in the universal stream of consciousness. OK. By this I don't simply mean that they are unusual in themselves, but rather that any given OM (like the one you are experiencing when you read this) is very unlikely to be such a continuation. In terms of the heuristic, all experiences in the universal stream are alike partitioned from each other by the intrinsic structure of global memory, but some experiences are destined to be remembered much less frequently than others. Of course, in some sense, whatever is being observed is always a zombie (i.e. we cannot discern consciousness by observable phenomena alone) but this should not be understood to mean that the relevant OMs, associated with each zombie avatar, are not accessible in due course and in due measure. OK. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
2013/1/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:02, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/1/9 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, I publish this before. It made some physicists rather nervous against me, so that I find worthy to vindicate it. I propose the comp suicide and immortality even well before. OK, this is only anecdote. But you can see that I made the Tegmark point in my 1991 Mechanism and Personal Identity paper, i.e. the point that the witnesses are increasingly astonished, and not the experimenter, who can actually easily predict that astonishment. I made that point to illustrate the relativity of the points of view in the comp setting, and the fact that the HP events (the first person white rabbits) although first person impossible, are still possible and highly probable in the 3p view of the first person of others. David Nyman's heuristic makes me think that they could be zombie, but I am not sure this can work with comp. It is not an important point, as we don't need this for the UDA. a QS machine with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on the experimenter surviving (or not). So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if you bet on him die. What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the experimenter will survive for the following reason: If MWI is true: 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, that make 300$ in your pocket. From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter lives from your POV or not. In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM+collapse, only the 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or win money. OK. But the probabilities for any amount of money that you can win individually remains the same with MWI and collapse. MWI is just more fair ontologically, because all the possible winners exist, and indeed the descendent of the two first win have got something, but they got it with the same probability with the collapse, at each state of the procedure. They just don't exist, in the non lucky collapse scenario. You give only a reason to prefer more, or to fear more (if you think to the bad rare events), the MWI than collapse. What would you say to someone telling you that he prefers collapse, as with collapse, you have 1/100 to win some dollars, and 99/100 to lose, but there will be only one winner possible and only one loser. And in the MWI, there is always one winner and 99 losers! (times infinity!). So if the question is in making more people happy and less people unhappy, may be collapse is preferable at the start (with that kind of reasoning). For the witnesses, your bet is more socially fair, but not in way making possible for them to test MWI or ~MWI. I still stand on repeated improbable outcome implies either MWI or QM false. If it's not the case then a 1/10⁶ probability outcome doesn't mean anything... if you notice 10⁹ validated outcome of a prior probability of 1/10⁶ I would say your prior probability calculus is wrong, if it's from your theory, I would say that your theory has been disprove. The point is in QM+collapse such outcome as 1/10⁶^10⁹ probability of occurence, it could not happen in our current universe lifetime *without* a *very good* explanation principle. Hence if that happened, I would say QM+collapse is falsified. *But* in MWI, such outcome **do** happen, probability calculus is not about happening but about distribution in MWI (contrary to QM+collapse) so it still stand. So if you see such event, you're left choosing between a new theory or MWI... QM+collapse *without* a very good explanation principle for such improbable occurence should be
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis. That is dishonest in two ways. First, primary matter is not god- like except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian). Why? Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God or many Platonists (the most famous one being Aristotle). Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is already very different for some american and european Christians. That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant. It is not a necessary part of being an atheist. You might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally true. I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already believer in some sort of God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman sense). When atheists judge that there is no God (none at all, not even taoist one, in my neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter into the God, and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make them quite sectarian, arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the inquisition (actually much worst)). We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. ? Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values. But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values. They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to values. What does 'truth' have to do with values? Do I love my children because of some 'truth'? Yes. the truth that you have children, for example. A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and cooperate and effect changes in a shared world. OK. Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with agency. There was no sharp line between science and religion because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and sacrifice, was ubiquitous. Only later did the voice of the dead leader and dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with shamans and priests. A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism developed. Yaweh at first insisted on being the
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 21:55, meekerdb wrote: On 1/9/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! And we know that the Earth orbits the Sun - but there is no mathematical proof of that. Mathematical proofs are always relative to axioms and rules of inference. OK. Empirical proofs can be ostensive. But I prefer not using proof for that. It can only be misleading when we do applied logic. I prefer to call that empirical evidences. So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common. Almost nothing indeed. Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts. I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences of the axioms can be used to test the theory, and refute it, but will never prove it to be true. Bruno Brent But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Is there an aether ?
The problem, in my view, is the term physical. *http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physical* 1.* a. * Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See Synonyms at bodily http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bodily. * b. * Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily activity: a physical dance performance. * c. * *Slang* Involving or characterized by violence: A real cop would get physical (TV Guide). *2. * Of or relating to material things: our physical environment. *3. * Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics. If 'physical' deals with bodies, matter, and energy, then all forces, fields, spaces and times would have to be physical. Matter by definition is measurable spatially, and energy is measurable as functions over time, so you couldn't have physics without them The fussing over physical vs non-physical is to me a red herring, as the more important understanding is the distinction between public presentations (literal sense of matter, space, time, and energy) and private presentations (figurative sense of 'what matters', 'put into place', timing, and qualitative 'energy' (feeling, effort)). When we say that something is a 'big deal', how do we know that we are talking about something of importance? What's the connection between literal size and figurative significance? The answer to that exposes the implicit coherence of sense itself, in all of its monadic/Indra's Net-like granular holism. To me it is abundantly obvious that all forces are private intentions making themselves public, and all fields are public sensations making their private integration public. While matter can be too small or too diffuse to be visible to human beings, no body or particle can be intangible or wavelike on its own level of description. Wherever we find that ambiguity, we have neglected completely the possibility of matter as sensitive agents and have presumed a nonsensical, literalized carrier of 'force' or 'field' across public space. Once we understand that the development of privacy is the fundamental function of physics, then the question of whether something is physical or not becomes absurd. There is nothing that isn't physical, because physics is sensory-motor participation, and there can never be anything which is not a sensory-motor phenomenon. Craig On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:10:07 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Spacetime is physical, but space is not and time is not. That is, according to Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, and Einstein. That's why I find it hard to accept the revisionist view that the former interpretation of the M-M experiment, that there is no aether, is now obsolete. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bG0tolGaLE8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 09 Jan 2013, at 22:03, meekerdb wrote: On 1/9/2013 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. I can be OK with this, but this will not convince an atheist, who will tell you that if beauty is god, then he believes in God, but that is not the God he is talking about when declaring himself an atheist. An atheist is just someone who does not believe in Santa Claus. Really. Some people suggests that comp is two times more atheistic than atheism, because with comp, not only the literal Christian God does not exist, but the myth or a primitive material universe has to be abandoned too. I disagree because comp invite us firmly to come back to the scientific notion of God (transcendental truth at the root of everything, faith in reincarnation). Science is always based on a religion. ?? Surely you mean a scientific theory is always based on a religion by which you probably mean some basic assumptions. But it doesn't follow that science as a whole is based on a (singular?) religion. Yes it is. Science is based on our faith in some stable reality. This is at the root of both Aristotle and Plato Theology. So what's your religion, Bruno? I believe that there is something. What are its tenets that you believe on faith? That there is something different from me. Who are the adherents? The non-solipsistic people. The belief in others is faith, even if partially build in in our mammal brain. This makes us hard to understand that it is faith, but with some work and introspection you can get the point. It is very elementary and widespread religion, and then with comp, it specializes a bit into a doctrine close to Plato, Plotinus, and most mystics. Bruno Brent Scientist who pretend to have no religion are person who take so much their religion for granted that they cannot doubt it, and so becomes pseudo-priest of some sort. It is often the case with the (weak) materialist (as almost all people are still today). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 10 January 2013 15:31, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: *I am still not sure this does not simply add a layer of difficulty, because it is not clear (to me) what can possibly be such a sampling.* Well, as I've said, there need be no mystery about it - it's just a way of examining one's thinking about observation in a very general way. I had a number of motivations for this idea, not the least of which is that it is more-or-less implied by the Deutsch or Barbour view of the multiverse, as Gary has commented on the FOAR list. I realise that this is not necessarily the case for CTM, so it has been interesting to discuss this possibility with you. I am not of course suggesting that individual consciousness is literally consequential on a single knower sampling discrete moments at random (indeed I have no idea what literally would mean in this connection). However I do find it instructive, in certain cases, to consider the matter *as if* this were the case. It helps (me, at least) to analyse issues of extended personal identity that can otherwise be extremely puzzling and difficult to resolve. As an example, think of the interminable argument over who is who after replication. According to Hoyle the answer to which continuation is you in such scenarios is: all of them (to some degree), but not all together. This formulation focuses attention specifically on the momentary and retrospective nature of subjective identification and spatio-temporal localisation, and the context-dependent resolution of questions of before and after. IOW, subjectively speaking, moments just happen and the resolution of such happenings is always retrospective. This way of thinking can be of particular utility with respect to puzzles like Mitra's changing the future by forgetting the past. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
Well Roger, Think of the number infinities that Bruno is always referencing to. Think of the number infinities in terms of a static MWI deterministic Block Universe BU. The number infinities exist in the monad relationships at various levels and places in monad space, the Mind space of the BU One could speak of a static density of monad infinities in Mind space. A. Since it's mathematically true that matter evolves from these infinities, The conjecture is that analog quantum waves and fields are variations in the density of the infinities of the monad number relationships. B. Many strong infinities may occupy a very small region of Mind space. The conjecture is that they may become discrete particles including physical particles, ie., the Mind space is both analog and digital. Such strong infinities may also have the property of 1- dimensional flow. Then the points of strong infinity in Mind space may couple to the flow. resulting in a geometry suggestive of Indra's Net of Pearls. The collapse problem is to get from A to B. A happens in the analog Mind space where the number infinities are continuous. Since the monads in the Mind space are a BEC where thoughts happen instantly for lack of friction, we can imagine that the infinities could collapse instantly. But mathematically it is necessary for all relevant infinities, except those at the point of interaction, to be normalized or cancelled. Feynman metaphorically first quantized the monad number infinities. That is, he allowed all the monad wave function infinities to collapse to every possible quantum particle that could be created by the interaction. Apparently the Mind has the same ability. He then cancelled all of these collapsed quantum particles but one by allowing their anti-particles to come back from the future. So only one particle becomes physical. (If Feynman can renormalize QED, the Quantum Mind certainly can) Because in a Block Universe there is no future. There is no time or consciousness. nothing is happening. Or equivalently we can think of a Quasi-Block Universe QBU, where everything happens instantly in a 1p perspective. There is still no time or consciousness. Time is created when conscious free will choices force the BU to recalculate like your auto GPS. The hard problem is knowing where conscious free will comes from. It could come from Godelian incompleteness or it could come from biological complexity exceeding the universal calculational capacity, But in the end the magic of consciousness requires a 1p leap of faith. NB: if MWI is true all the cancelled quantum particles continue to create measure as if they were never cancelled, So it is one or the other. yanniru On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Sounds a little fantastic to me, but what do I know ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 10:29:00 Subject: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote: Bruno, Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment, space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). Space-time remains physical, here. There is no aether. Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all, suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are nonphysical. Then all forces are non physical. But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are using. All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of) discrete number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it reappears as stable and constant observation pattern valid for all sound universal numbers. Bruno Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that overboard? Richard points and lines word geometry? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Sheldrake's morphisms might be thought of as life fields. What is that supposed to explain? But I don't think fields themselves are physical, rather they are monadic, descriptions of physical things. I am not sure that I understand what you mean by physical. Keep in mind that in the comp theory, the physical is epistemological. (Unless there is a flaw in UDA, etc.) The physical is the content of shared dreams, shared between us with us = all the Löbian entities (machines and divinities (non machines, oracles, etc.)). We belong to a continuum of matrices, consistent with the overall arithmetical truth (which appears to be something quite transcendental with comp). This might be false, and my point is only that this is a testable consequence of comp (and QM rather succeeds well the test up to now). Then I illustrate that the computationalist big picture is closer to Plato (and many others, perhaps Descartes, Kant and Leibniz) than to naturalism, physicalism, or any (weak) materialist doctrine which reifies matter. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:48:03 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Sheldrake's morphisms would be what John Clark or bruno theorized as God. I don't think so. I have never understood what Sheldrake's morphism are, but they seem physical, from what I can understand. God is not physical, and by definition, the physical needs God, or truth, to exist or make sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 13:01:16 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 1/8/2013 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: GOD means the reality in which you believe. Friends, are you tired of your old job, it's time to change your occupation and make big bucks, amaze your friends, be a hit at parties and become a professional pundit on cable news shows! You too can become a liberal theologian by using the patented John Clark method and it only takes 4 simple steps! STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't matter what it is. STEP 2) Define the word God as meaning that thing whatever it may be. STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. John K Clark Didn't Tillich already copyright that method, John? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Where do ideas come from?
On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The how do ideas form, and what are they ? They are intensional numbers, or if you prefer, programs, or generalization about programs, or about generalizations on generalizations on programs, etc, made by programs. (I answer in the comp theory). They are all generated and put in context, by the universal dovetailer, which generates and executes them with a very special redundancy, which plays some role in the measure on our first person possible consistent extensions. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:50:12 Subject: Re: Where do ideas come from? On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:17, Roger Clough wrote: Penrose's concept of consciousness as quantum wave collapse would seem, at least this morning, to be similar or analogous to my suggestion that ideas are fixed forms of consciousness created by some type of collapse of quntum wave collapse such as photons are formed by the collapse of a wavicle. A nonsensical theory of observation (collapse) needs a nonsensical theory of mind, perhaps. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - -list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:13, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Platonism is not at least overtly Berkeley's idealism, but is idealism at least of the type described below. OK. That was my point. With comp we get a pythagorean sort of immaterialist theory. Like in Plotinus, both matter and God are not part of the Being. They do exist, but in a different sense from what exist in the sensible, or intelligible sense. Bruno idealism noun \i-'de-(?-)?liz-?m, 'i-(?)de-\ Definition of IDEALISM 1 a (1) : a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena (2) : a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:55:41 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:20, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You say, Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Wouldn't a Platonist say instead that arithmetic arises from mind ? Some Platonist have defended idealism, but the problem then is that we can no more an explanation for mind. With comp, we do get a simple theory of mind (computer science/ mathematical logic), and we can explain both consciousness and the illusion of matter from it, and this leads us back to the root of Platonism: Pythagorism. There is only numbers and numbers computable relations (in the outside view). The inside view get richer, though. All you need is arithmetical realism: the idea that 43 is prime in all possible situation, independently of the existence of humans, aliens, bacteria, etc. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:13:03 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: For the record, Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind: the EM, and quantum waves and, fields; and the body: mainly electrons and photons. We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic. Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in machine's mind. We have some division on if that property extends to the body: like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the duality... No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like mind. Bruno yanniru On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only real part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. .that would act on a body at any given point in that region The word would tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. [Roger Clough],
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:30, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Could the incompleteness theorem simply be an artifact of wrong-headedly trying to reach the necessary from the realm of contingency ? It is as much an artifact than the fact that there is an infinity of primes. Gödel's theorem concerns all sound machines or theories (or relative numbers). Note also that incompleteness is also a quasi-direct consequence of Church thesis. I often give the proof, and that might happen again :) Bruno That is, trying synthesize a system, whereas it is actually already complete if deduced analytically ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 12:10:16 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 09 Jan 2013, at 17:03, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:26, Telmo Menezes wrote: Where does hate, falsehood and ugliness come from? I am not quite sure, but it comes probably from the consistency of inconsistency (that is: G鰀el's second incompleteness theorem). Doesn't the second incompleteness theorem imply that all knowable truths are local and that absolute truth is unrecognisable? Why? I don't think so. G鰀el's incompleteness relies on the absoluteness of the elementary arithmetical truth. It only entails that all machine cannot know the whole thing, and not even give it a name. This can be made more precise in model theory, or set theory where we can define absolute and relative. That makes sense with my empirical understanding of realty: there are things that I find beautiful and others find ugly. Hate groups feel that they just have a correct understanding of reality, and so on. I am OK with this, except on elementary arithmetic. You need this just to define formalism, machine, etc. But even such kind of truth cannot be communicate as such, unless we first agree on some axioms, and on what axioms are. Actually it comes from the fact that Bf (inconsistency) gives an evolutionary advantage. Like the true Dt, Bf can be used to prove correct arithmetical propositions, to shorten the proofs of non trivial propositions, etc. I am able to conceive, some day, that all axioms of infinity are of this type (but this is a strong statement). So basically the hate, the falsehood and the ugliness comes from their local evolutionary advantage. A bit like robbing a bank can be justified, when the goal is to make money locally and quickly. A bit like when the first animal decided to feed on a vegetal, which is a form of molecules stealing, at some level. Then other animals steal the molecules of those vegetarians, and so on. This has generated the evolutionary heuristic: to eat or to be eaten, and sometimes that hurts. Ok - at the evolutionary level of abstraction. Well, OK. It still hurts, and the hurting feeling seems to be something absolute. We cannot doubt a feeling of headache, even if we can doubt the primary existence of the head. Bruno In the main line ... Bruno On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send
Re: Complexity is a sign that you can't get there (necessary reason) from here (contingent reason)
Davies defines a threshold for consciousness based on biological and/or BEC complexity exceeding the comp capacity of the universe: 10^120 bits. http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0703/0703041.pdf On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Complexity can't (or at least need not) be a feature of Platonism, since all of those equations have already been solved or resolved from above. Complexity is simply an artifact produced by building up from below, without a clue as to what is present above (what is true) Complexity arises from the impossibility of reaching necessary reason starting with contingent reason. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:58:55 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:27, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Am I wrong ? I don't think that complexity and Platonism (top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from bottom-up being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian intellect gets stuck. Complexity arise in numbers due to the intrinsic relation between addition and multiplication, which notably makes possible computations and self-reference, and separate truth (God) from provability (intellect). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:37:48 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the L?ian threshold. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when heated. Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid. Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes ( according to the laws of thermodynamics ) Wrong According to Charle’s law and the consequence of the third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles approaches zero too. ===… -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: misfits of perfect prisms spilled on the floor
On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:46, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Could it be -- borrowing from Leibniz's Theodicy-- that in Heaven, all of the forms are perfect, Like perfect crime. You can say that with perfect means definitely true or false. as, say, prisms in a display cabinet, but when you spill the cabinet and try to fit the perfect prisms back together down here on the floor (in this contingent world), there are gaps and misfits ? OK. But I would say that with comp we are in heaven, but we forget it and and then matter will give the room for gaps and misfits, but also suffering and frustration, insatisfaction, etc. In other words, from energy (Heaven) to entropy (Earth). Hmm... Energy is basically Matter, or Information. For the neoplatonist that's more like hell than heaven. By chance, it is also a temporary illusion (for them). But OK, the emanation of the intelligible, and the soul and matter from the one, and the dual conversion can be related to what you say, perhaps. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 10:41:37 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 09 Jan 2013, at 14:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes In the Christian tradition, Satan. In the Platonic tradition (which Bruno knows much better than I do), I think the Demiurge. Platonists are not so good on the bad, and the bad is really a complex problem. I suggest an answer in my post to Telmo. To give you a bad example, Plotinus explains that the bad occurs only to bad people. It warns that if you rape a woman, you will be punished. How: by becoming a woman in your next life, and by being raped. This is unfortunate, as it might gives the idea that if a woman attracts you up to the point you will rape her, it is OK, as it can only mean that you are raping some guy who raped a woman in his/her preceding life! But this will only justify and perpetuate the bad. It is not entirely nonsensical, and may be Plotinus was to quick. It can be related to the buddhist notion of karma, but here too, a danger remains to make sick and miserable people, if that was not enough, also feeling guilty. It leads to the idea that whatever bad happens to you comes from bad thing you did in a preceding life, and this means that it is always your fault. Basically, the idea of sin comes from this too. But this can be used by people who want to manipulate you, as history illustrates. With the explanation suggested to Telmo, I would say the bad exists due to its logical closeness to the good. Also good can be a protagorean virtue, meaning that if you try to define the good in some normative way, then the bad will be guarantied to happen. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 07:26:45 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God Where does hate, falsehood and ugliness come from? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at
Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:47:26 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: But in the end the magic of consciousness requires a 1p leap of faith. And vice versa.That's because they are the same thing. Consciousness is literally a leap across mechanism, computation, and physics. That is what free will is made of. Free will cheats. Cheating is free will. Math and physics don't cheat because they are built from islands of meaning in a vacuum. Cheating is a private agenda exercised publicly. It only makes sense that could be the case if 1p is primary, so that laws and certainties are circumstantial consequences arising from 1p and not the other way around. Experienced meaning is the plenum within which all spatio-temporal-functional-substantial gaps are generated. Craig Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3x_JpsFl9o0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Well Roger, Think of the number infinities that Bruno is always referencing to. Think of the number infinities in terms of a static MWI deterministic Block Universe BU. The number infinities exist in the monad relationships at various levels and places in monad space, the Mind space of the BU One could speak of a static density of monad infinities in Mind space. A. Since it's mathematically true that matter evolves from these infinities, The conjecture is that analog quantum waves and fields are variations in the density of the infinities of the monad number relationships. B. Many strong infinities may occupy a very small region of Mind space. The conjecture is that they may become discrete particles including physical particles, ie., the Mind space is both analog and digital. Such strong infinities may also have the property of 1- dimensional flow. Then the points of strong infinity in Mind space may couple to the flow. resulting in a geometry suggestive of Indra's Net of Pearls and such points and lines suggest string theory. The collapse problem is to get from A to B. A happens in the analog Mind space where the number infinities are continuous. Since the monads in the Mind space are a BEC where thoughts happen instantly for lack of friction, we can imagine that the infinities could collapse instantly. But mathematically it is necessary for all relevant infinities, except those at the point of interaction, to be normalized or cancelled. Feynman metaphorically first quantized the monad number infinities. That is, he allowed all the monad wave function infinities to collapse to every possible quantum particle that could be created by the interaction. Apparently the Mind has the same ability. He then cancelled all of these collapsed quantum particles but one by allowing their anti-particles to come back from the future. So only one particle becomes physical. (If Feynman can renormalize QED, the Quantum Mind certainly can) Because in a Block Universe there is no future. There is no time or consciousness. nothing is happening. Or equivalently we can think of a Quasi-Block Universe QBU, where everything happens instantly in a 1p perspective. There is still no time or consciousness. Time is created when conscious free will choices force the BU to recalculate like your auto GPS. The hard problem is knowing where conscious free will comes from. It could come from Godelian incompleteness or it could come from biological complexity exceeding the universal calculational capacity, But in the end the magic of consciousness requires a 1p leap of faith. NB: if MWI is true all the cancelled quantum particles continue to create measure as if they were never cancelled, So one or the other is true yanniru On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Sounds a little fantastic to me, but what do I know ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 10:29:00 Subject: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote: Bruno, Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment, space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). Space-time remains physical, here. There is no aether. Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all, suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are nonphysical. Then all forces are non physical. But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are using. All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of) discrete number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it reappears as stable and constant observation pattern valid for all sound universal numbers. Bruno Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that overboard? Richard points and lines word geometry? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
Re: Atheists are those that refuse to worship the false gods they invent.
On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:52, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Atheists are those that refuse to worship the false gods they invent. OK. They look for truth and untruth from the logic of analogies instead of seeking the Living God of the Bible, who isn't an analogy. Here I can't follow you, as I don't believe more in the Bible (and which bible?) than in Alice in Wonderland (one of the deepest spiritual text in my opinion) My willingness to attribute a reference to God in the bible is proportional to the idea that the bible is not a sacred text. Even formal arithmetic has different non-isomorphic interpretations (yet with a common standard part), so the bible is too much prose to see it as a serious reference, with univocal interpretation. I honor the bible as an historical important text(s) in the human development, but I would not refer to it as serious or factually convincing theology. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 10:20:25 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. I can be OK with this, but this will not convince an atheist, who will tell you that if beauty is god, then he believes in God, but that is not the God he is talking about when declaring himself an atheist. An atheist is just someone who does not believe in Santa Claus. Really. Some people suggests that comp is two times more atheistic than atheism, because with comp, not only the literal Christian God does not exist, but the myth or a primitive material universe has to be abandoned too. I disagree because comp invite us firmly to come back to the scientific notion of God (transcendental truth at the root of everything, faith in reincarnation). Science is always based on a religion. Scientist who pretend to have no religion are person who take so much their religion for granted that they cannot doubt it, and so becomes pseudo-priest of some sort. It is often the case with the (weak) materialist (as almost all people are still today). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:47:26 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: But in the end the magic of consciousness requires a 1p leap of faith. And vice versa.That's because they are the same thing. Consciousness is literally a leap across mechanism, computation, and physics. That is what free will is made of. Free will cheats. Cheating is free will. Math and physics don't cheat because they are built from islands of meaning in a vacuum. Cheating is a private agenda exercised publicly. It only makes sense that could be the case if 1p is primary, so that laws and certainties are circumstantial consequences arising from 1p and not the other way around. Experienced meaning is the plenum within which all spatio-temporal-functional-substantial gaps are generated. Craig Craig I have come around to agreeing with you Because in a Block Universe there is no future. There is no time or consciousness. nothing is happening. Only the 1p perspective is dynamic or causes dynamicism- changes in the Block Universe. However, I suspect that the qauntum Mind uses a more or less constant flow of time out of convenience(;) Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3x_JpsFl9o0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 10 Jan 2013, at 14:10, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Spacetime is physical, but space is not and time is not. That is, according to Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, and Einstein. That's why I find it hard to accept the revisionist view that the former interpretation of the M-M experiment, that there is no aether, is now obsolete. See my early comment on the physical. I define the physical by the relatively observable, and this is defined in term of number relations (and collection of number relations). It generalizes relativity theory (like I think QM-Everett already does). In the wiki quote, there is an idea that the quantum vacuum is a sort of aether. I cannot judge as I have no idea of what aether means. There is a suggestion that Dark matter is aether. Well, I have no idea what Dark matter but then it took me 40 years to figure out what matter can be, and not be. We will see. I am not advocating any truth. I just try to share my fascination that with some special hypothesis we can use math to put light on all this. The first shock should be the realization that we are still very ignorant on the fundamental matters. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:42:06 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:47:26 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: But in the end the magic of consciousness requires a 1p leap of faith. And vice versa.That's because they are the same thing. Consciousness is literally a leap across mechanism, computation, and physics. That is what free will is made of. Free will cheats. Cheating is free will. Math and physics don't cheat because they are built from islands of meaning in a vacuum. Cheating is a private agenda exercised publicly. It only makes sense that could be the case if 1p is primary, so that laws and certainties are circumstantial consequences arising from 1p and not the other way around. Experienced meaning is the plenum within which all spatio-temporal-functional-substantial gaps are generated. Craig I have come around to agreeing with you Nice! Because in a Block Universe there is no future. There is no time or consciousness. nothing is happening. Only the 1p perspective is dynamic or causes dynamicism- changes in the Block Universe. That does agree with me. I don't see a block universe, but I do see that 3p is static slices of the totality of 1p. I might say that the uniformity of that 3p static representation in reducing all 1p qualities to positions is block like in it's consistency, but not in the sense of there being a literal universe of all possibilities frozen in a spatial firmament like memory locations. Once you have sense as the foundation, you don't need a future which is fully realized, it can be the case that some aspects of some futures are available sooner or later within specific experiences and narratives. Your intuition of the future, for example, is helping you create (or avoid) that future as much as it is a window into what has already happened in 'the' future. The blocking is more like a 1p jet engine taking in raw batter to cook into 3p pancakes than a wormhole drilling through an eternal pancake. Speculation, obviously... just trying to show one way that sense can change the assumptions which compel Block models. Craig However, I suspect that the qauntum Mind uses a more or less constant flow of time out of convenience(;) Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3x_JpsFl9o0J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/C-EZUTXmrI4J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears to mean existentialist not Christian god, another appearance is not organized religion, which both appear reasonable. Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: what are they talking about? as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever you wanna call these structures primitively) of one sort or another. Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, computational, financial, political, biological, creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum, and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in mind. Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point take a leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis. I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I can't understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in something that transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you can blame me for not differentiating between absolutely static belief and work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them. I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody here can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with atheist. Oddly, I often find the same this I take for granted attitude, that anything else makes me smile condescendingly, that even keeps me from bringing it up. Do you know what theist means? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 1/10/2013 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 19:37, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I sense God's presence. That's nice, but how do you know (and more important how do we know) if you are sensing a omnipotent being who created the universe or if you are sensing a bad potato that you ate yesterday? Or the devil imitating God to fail you. Yes. I've never had a mystical experience, but if I did I'd have the courtesy to keep my mouth shut about it if the evidence for its validity was available only to myself. Even if I had discovered a new fact about the nature of reality there would be no way to communicate the truth about it to others. And even if you are certain about it you can't be certain that you should be certain about it, because you can be 100% sure about something and still be dead wrong, in fact it's very common, just look at Muslim suicide bombers. OK. Again this is a theorem in the comp theory. The wise remains mute (on the spiritual matter). But the machine can express some part in the conditional way, like she cannot prove non provable (my-consistency), but she can prove if I am consistent then non provable (my-consistency). But it's only that *she* cannot prove her consistency. Her consistency may be provable by someone other machine - it's not 'unprovable' in an absolute sense. Brent Likewise, a part of the spiritual truth can be proved in the form if comp then Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 1/10/2013 7:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No, I say it can no more happen in collapse theory without *a very good* explanation principle. I'm sorry but if the theory predict it happens with a 1/10⁹ probability of occurence and every time you test it, it happens... I'd say your prior probability calculus is screwed, so without a *good* explanation, your theory can be said to be falsified. As I said, the *good* explanation with MWI is that *it does* happen. But MWI also predicts P=10^-6. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Complexity is a sign that you can't get there (necessary reason) from here (contingent reason)
On 10 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Complexity can't (or at least need not) be a feature of Platonism, since all of those equations have already been solved or resolved from above. In the outer-god eyes. Perhaps. That makes neoplatonist sense. For God things are easy. But with comp there is a sense that even God is overwhelmed by its creation/emanation. Complexity is simply an artifact produced by building up from below, without a clue as to what is present above (what is true) OK. But it is real, as we are not above (usually). Complexity arises from the impossibility of reaching necessary reason starting with contingent reason. I don't think so. Complexity is intrinsic in the possible behavior of little numbers relatively to little numbers. The panorama is complex. Life and matter develop on the frontiers between the tractable and the non tractable, the computable and the non computable, the finite and the infinities, the equilibrium and the desequilibrium. The frontiers themselves are quite complex, fractals, chaotic. And the inner God (the knower, the universal first person/soul) can add to the mess. Yet, if we cannot reach necessary reason starting only from contingent reasons, we can still reach necessary reason by looking inward, probably because we come from necessary reasons. (That's the faith of the rationalist, which I share). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:58:55 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:27, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Am I wrong ? I don't think that complexity and Platonism (top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from bottom-up being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian intellect gets stuck. Complexity arise in numbers due to the intrinsic relation between addition and multiplication, which notably makes possible computations and self-reference, and separate truth (God) from provability (intellect). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:37:48 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the L?ian threshold. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
Yes but in QM + collapse it is a potentiality which happen according to the probability in mwi it is a proportion, it always happen. If the event always happen your prior probability calculus is severly broken. Mwi is saved because in mwi probability are not about happening but are proportions in qm+collapse it is about happening. Quentin Le 10 janv. 2013 19:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 1/10/2013 7:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No, I say it can no more happen in collapse theory without *a very good* explanation principle. I'm sorry but if the theory predict it happens with a 1/10⁹ probability of occurence and every time you test it, it happens... I'd say your prior probability calculus is screwed, so without a *good* explanation, your theory can be said to be falsified. As I said, the *good* explanation with MWI is that *it does* happen. But MWI also predicts P=10^-6. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Atheists are those that refuse to worship the false gods they invent.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Atheists are those that refuse to worship the false gods they invent. They look for truth and untruth from the logic of analogies instead of seeking the Living God of the Bible, Atheists are those that refuse to worship any God because all of them are not only false they are silly. Atheists look for truth from logic and mathematics and scientific experimentation and not from the myths of a primitive bronze age tribe of 3000 years ago because they are imbecilic. It's really amazing that well into the 21'th century so many otherwise intelligent people can take a really really REALLY stupid book like the Bible seriously. I guess that childhood brainwashing usually does hold for a lifetime and it turns out that the Jesuits, those masters of psychological conditioning, were correct when they said Give me a child for his first seven years and I'll give you the man. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/10/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis. That is dishonest in two ways. First, primary matter is not god-like except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian). Why? Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God or many Platonists (the most famous one being Aristotle). Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is already very different for some american and european Christians. It's not a person, it didn't create the world, it doesn't care what people do, it has not dogma, no temples, no priesthood, no sacred writings. It's not like any god, except the liberal theologians god which can be anything. That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant. It is not a necessary part of being an atheist. You might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally true. I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already believer in some sort of God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman sense). But you've redefined 'God' (in the greek sense) so that anybody who believes anything is a theist? When atheists judge that there is no God (none at all, not even taoist one, in my neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter into the God, How do you know that? Do they worship at a shrine of primary matter? Do they quote primary matter as a reason for legislation? and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make them quite sectarian, arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the inquisition (actually much worst)). It is arrogant and impolite to attribute implicit beliefs to those who disagree with you in order to discredit them. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. ? Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values. But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values. They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to values. What does 'truth' have to do with values? Do I love my children because of some 'truth'? Yes. the truth that you have children, for example. A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and cooperate and effect changes in a shared world. OK. Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . Actually
Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:42:06 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:47:26 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: But in the end the magic of consciousness requires a 1p leap of faith. And vice versa.That's because they are the same thing. Consciousness is literally a leap across mechanism, computation, and physics. That is what free will is made of. Free will cheats. Cheating is free will. Math and physics don't cheat because they are built from islands of meaning in a vacuum. Cheating is a private agenda exercised publicly. It only makes sense that could be the case if 1p is primary, so that laws and certainties are circumstantial consequences arising from 1p and not the other way around. Experienced meaning is the plenum within which all spatio-temporal-functional-substantial gaps are generated. Craig I have come around to agreeing with you Nice! Because in a Block Universe there is no future. There is no time or consciousness. nothing is happening. Only the 1p perspective is dynamic or causes dynamicism- changes in the Block Universe. I should have mentioned that the Mind is a block universe but not necessarily the physical universe(s). That does agree with me. I don't see a block universe, but I do see that 3p is static slices of the totality of 1p. I might say that the uniformity of that 3p static representation in reducing all 1p qualities to positions is block like in it's consistency, but not in the sense of there being a literal universe of all possibilities frozen in a spatial firmament like memory locations. Once you have sense as the foundation, you don't need a future which is fully realized, it can be the case that some aspects of some futures are available sooner or later within specific experiences and narratives. Your intuition of the future, for example, is helping you create (or avoid) that future as much as it is a window into what has already happened in 'the' future. The blocking is more like a 1p jet engine taking in raw batter to cook into 3p pancakes than a wormhole drilling through an eternal pancake. Speculation, obviously... just trying to show one way that sense can change the assumptions which compel Block models. Craig However, I suspect that the qauntum Mind uses a more or less constant flow of time out of convenience(;) Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3x_JpsFl9o0J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/C-EZUTXmrI4J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 1/10/2013 8:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 22:03, meekerdb wrote: On 1/9/2013 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. I can be OK with this, but this will not convince an atheist, who will tell you that if beauty is god, then he believes in God, but that is not the God he is talking about when declaring himself an atheist. An atheist is just someone who does not believe in Santa Claus. Really. Some people suggests that comp is two times more atheistic than atheism, because with comp, not only the literal Christian God does not exist, but the myth or a primitive material universe has to be abandoned too. I disagree because comp invite us firmly to come back to the scientific notion of God (transcendental truth at the root of everything, faith in reincarnation). Science is always based on a religion. ?? Surely you mean a scientific theory is always based on a religion by which you probably mean some basic assumptions. But it doesn't follow that science as a whole is based on a (singular?) religion. Yes it is. Science is based on our faith in some stable reality. This is at the root of both Aristotle and Plato Theology. Ok, I can buy that. It even assumes that we can know about reality in at least some approximate and incomplete sense. So what's your religion, Bruno? I believe that there is something. What are its tenets that you believe on faith? That there is something different from me. But you have evidence for that - if you can figure out what is meant by me. Who are the adherents? The non-solipsistic people. The belief in others is faith, even if partially build in in our mammal brain. This makes us hard to understand that it is faith, but with some work and introspection you can get the point. It is very elementary and widespread religion, and then with comp, it specializes a bit into a doctrine close to Plato, Plotinus, and most mystics. Brent I'm a Solipist, and I must say I'm surprised there aren't more of us. -- letter to Bertrand Russell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears to mean existentialist not Christian god, another appearance is not organized religion, which both appear reasonable. Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: what are they talking about? as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever you wanna call these structures primitively) of one sort or another. Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, computational, financial, political, biological, creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum, and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in mind. Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point take a leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis. I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I can't understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in something that transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you can blame me for not differentiating between absolutely static belief and work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them. I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody here can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with atheist. Oddly, I often find the same this I take for granted attitude, that anything else makes me smile condescendingly, that even keeps me from bringing it up. Do you know what theist means? Brent If you could clarify your question, why you ask, it would be easier. That is so broad: what does anything mean in some absolute sense, or are you playing some specific frame? That broadly though: Greek root theos, so god/transcendental principle + ism, implying a more or less flexible belief, held by adherents. Whether anthropomorphic, interactive, or any other feature of deity in question, the term is used in more or less broad terms to denote belief it one or more supreme beings. And yes you could differentiate endlessly here... but to what end? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 10 Jan 2013, at 17:27, David Nyman wrote: On 10 January 2013 15:31, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I am still not sure this does not simply add a layer of difficulty, because it is not clear (to me) what can possibly be such a sampling. Well, as I've said, there need be no mystery about it - it's just a way of examining one's thinking about observation in a very general way. I had a number of motivations for this idea, not the least of which is that it is more-or-less implied by the Deutsch or Barbour view of the multiverse, as Gary has commented on the FOAR list. I realise that this is not necessarily the case for CTM, so it has been interesting to discuss this possibility with you. I am not of course suggesting that individual consciousness is literally consequential on a single knower sampling discrete moments at random (indeed I have no idea what literally would mean in this connection). However I do find it instructive, in certain cases, to consider the matter *as if* this were the case. It helps (me, at least) to analyse issues of extended personal identity that can otherwise be extremely puzzling and difficult to resolve. Deustch, Barbour, I think Bitbol, still select a particular universal number infer by nature, but CTM says that we have to find the universal numbers in our head, including the physical, then we can compare with nature and if it does not fit, looks elsewhere. I can perhaps relate the samplings with the idea of trying to put oneself at the place of others, a good exercise for the thought experience. But self-sampling is not that easy even on simple domain like W and M, (see some discussions around here) so, sampling on all subjective experiences, which seems to be organized in an unfathomable continuum seems quite difficult. Now, as I said once, it is perhaps equivalent with the first person indeterminacy of the smallest (up to some constant) universal number. But that's not an easy notion. But yes that is quite interesting. As an example, think of the interminable argument over who is who after replication. With John Clark? I think the problem is solved. After the duplication, he stops to put himself at the place of any copy, by looking only to the third person view on the two first person view of the copies. He just abstract himself from the fact that the John Clark with the story WWMWWWMMMW remember not having be able to predict that particular outcome he has lived. he remembers having predicted all of them, yes, but not that one in particular. According to Hoyle the answer to which continuation is you in such scenarios is: all of them (to some degree), Which is correct in the 3p view. but not all together. Which is correct in the 1p view. This formulation focuses attention specifically on the momentary and retrospective nature of subjective identification and spatio- temporal localisation, and the context-dependent resolution of questions of before and after. IOW, subjectively speaking, moments just happen and the resolution of such happenings is always retrospective. This way of thinking can be of particular utility with respect to puzzles like Mitra's changing the future by forgetting the past. Yes, it is the comp erasure, analog of the quantum erasure procedure, on the global (Turing) universal indeterminacy. Of course, thought experiences with memory erasure are more complex, as it is less clear to find simple valid procedure to do so (beyond the mathematics of self-reference). But it is important, it is the fusion or dedifferentiation of the histories. It should be part of the reason why the histories interfere in a wavy way. Bruno David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
You can as well say collapse is saved because P=10^-6 0 and so probability calculus is working just fine. Collapse and MWI use the same probability calculus. Brent On 1/10/2013 10:42 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Yes but in QM + collapse it is a potentiality which happen according to the probability in mwi it is a proportion, it always happen. If the event always happen your prior probability calculus is severly broken. Mwi is saved because in mwi probability are not about happening but are proportions in qm+collapse it is about happening. Quentin Le 10 janv. 2013 19:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 1/10/2013 7:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No, I say it can no more happen in collapse theory without *a very good* explanation principle. I'm sorry but if the theory predict it happens with a 1/10⁹ probability of occurence and every time you test it, it happens... I'd say your prior probability calculus is screwed, so without a *good* explanation, your theory can be said to be falsified. As I said, the *good* explanation with MWI is that *it does* happen. But MWI also predicts P=10^-6. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
2013/1/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net You can as well say collapse is saved because P=10^-6 0 and so probability calculus is working just fine. Collapse and MWI use the same probability calculus. And I repeat again, in MWI probability ***is not*** about happening, in QM+collapse ***it is***. In MWI it ***always always always always always*** happen so low is the probability is *irrelevant*, not in QM+collapse. Quentin Brent On 1/10/2013 10:42 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Yes but in QM + collapse it is a potentiality which happen according to the probability in mwi it is a proportion, it always happen. If the event always happen your prior probability calculus is severly broken. Mwi is saved because in mwi probability are not about happening but are proportions in qm+collapse it is about happening. Quentin Le 10 janv. 2013 19:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 1/10/2013 7:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No, I say it can no more happen in collapse theory without *a very good* explanation principle. I'm sorry but if the theory predict it happens with a 1/10⁹ probability of occurence and every time you test it, it happens... I'd say your prior probability calculus is screwed, so without a *good* explanation, your theory can be said to be falsified. As I said, the *good* explanation with MWI is that *it does* happen. But MWI also predicts P=10^-6. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 1/10/2013 11:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: It's not working just fine if *repeated* occurence of such *extremelly low probability* occurs. But that's exactly what happens in you hypothetical MWI example. If you say it's fine, then you're simply saying probability is meaningless. I wonder what measurement you'll accept to falsify a theory ? The theory is in how the probability is calculated. I'd regard that theory, QM, as falsified in your examples. In fact that has been used (wrongly I think) as a criticism of MWI since it implies infinitely many worlds where QM has been empirically falsified. Brent Regardsn Quentin 2013/1/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net You can as well say collapse is saved because P=10^-6 0 and so probability calculus is working just fine. Collapse and MWI use the same probability calculus. Brent On 1/10/2013 10:42 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Yes but in QM + collapse it is a potentiality which happen according to the probability in mwi it is a proportion, it always happen. If the event always happen your prior probability calculus is severly broken. Mwi is saved because in mwi probability are not about happening but are proportions in qm+collapse it is about happening. Quentin Le 10 janv. 2013 19:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 1/10/2013 7:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No, I say it can no more happen in collapse theory without *a very good* explanation principle. I'm sorry but if the theory predict it happens with a 1/10⁹ probability of occurence and every time you test it, it happens... I'd say your prior probability calculus is screwed, so without a *good* explanation, your theory can be said to be falsified. As I said, the *good* explanation with MWI is that *it does* happen. But MWI also predicts P=10^-6. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 10 Jan 2013, at 16:37, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/1/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:02, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/1/9 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, let us start with the proposed QS experiment by Tegmark, I publish this before. It made some physicists rather nervous against me, so that I find worthy to vindicate it. I propose the comp suicide and immortality even well before. OK, this is only anecdote. But you can see that I made the Tegmark point in my 1991 Mechanism and Personal Identity paper, i.e. the point that the witnesses are increasingly astonished, and not the experimenter, who can actually easily predict that astonishment. I made that point to illustrate the relativity of the points of view in the comp setting, and the fact that the HP events (the first person white rabbits) although first person impossible, are still possible and highly probable in the 3p view of the first person of others. David Nyman's heuristic makes me think that they could be zombie, but I am not sure this can work with comp. It is not an important point, as we don't need this for the UDA. a QS machine with a 99/100 chance of a *perfect* kill (so let's put aside HP failure or whatever so to have either the experimenter is killed with the given probabilities or it is not, no in between, so in 1/100 he is not killed and perfectly well, 99/100 he is killed). You are a witness of such experiment, and you're asked to make a bet on the experimenter surviving (or not). So you bet 100$, if you bet on the experimenter surviving, if he survive, you'll get 200$, if he does not you'll lose your bet, likewise if you bet on him die. What you should do contrary to what seems reasonable, is to bet on the experimenter will survive for the following reason: If MWI is true: 1st Test: in 99/100 worlds you lose 100$ (and the bet ends here, there is no experimenter left for a second round), in 1/100 worlds you win 200$ 2nd Test: well... you cannot play again in the 99/100 worlds where you did lose 100$, so you start already with 200$ in your pocket for this 2nd test, so you should do the same, no here in 99/100 worlds, you did make a draw (you put 100$ in 1st test + 100$ win on the 1st test - 100$ you did lose now because the experimenter is dead), in 1/100 you win again 200$, that make 300$ in your pocket. From the 3rd test on, you can only get richer, weither the experimenter lives from your POV or not. In QM+collapse, if the guy luckily survive two tests, you win money... you'll only lose money if he is killed at the first test. So contrary to what you may think, you should bet the experimenter should live, because in MWI, it is garanteed that you'll win money in a lot branches after only two succeeded test, and as in QM +collapse, only the 99/100 of the first test lose money, all the others either make no loss or win money. OK. But the probabilities for any amount of money that you can win individually remains the same with MWI and collapse. MWI is just more fair ontologically, because all the possible winners exist, and indeed the descendent of the two first win have got something, but they got it with the same probability with the collapse, at each state of the procedure. They just don't exist, in the non lucky collapse scenario. You give only a reason to prefer more, or to fear more (if you think to the bad rare events), the MWI than collapse. What would you say to someone telling you that he prefers collapse, as with collapse, you have 1/100 to win some dollars, and 99/100 to lose, but there will be only one winner possible and only one loser. And in the MWI, there is always one winner and 99 losers! (times infinity!). So if the question is in making more people happy and less people unhappy, may be collapse is preferable at the start (with that kind of reasoning). For the witnesses, your bet is more socially fair, but not in way making possible for them to test MWI or ~MWI. I still stand on repeated improbable outcome implies either MWI or QM false. If it's not the case then a 1/10⁶ probability outcome doesn't mean anything... if you notice 10⁹ validated outcome of a prior probability of 1/10⁶ I would say your prior probability calculus is wrong, if it's from your theory, I would say that your theory has been disprove. The point is in QM+collapse such outcome as 1/10⁶^10⁹ probability of occurence, it could not happen in our current universe lifetime *without* a *very good* explanation principle. Hence if that happened, I would say QM+collapse is falsified. *But* in MWI, such outcome **do** happen, probability calculus is not about happening but about distribution in MWI (contrary to QM+collapse) so it still stand. So if you see such event, you're left choosing between a new theory or
Re: Why you should do the unexpected bet in front of a QS experiment ?
On 1/10/2013 11:39 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/1/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net You can as well say collapse is saved because P=10^-6 0 and so probability calculus is working just fine. Collapse and MWI use the same probability calculus. And I repeat again, in MWI probability ***is not*** about happening, in QM+collapse ***it is***. In MWI it ***always always always always always*** happen so low is the probability is *irrelevant*, not in QM+collapse. It only seems irrelevant because you assume infinitely many MW and so you no longer have a canonical probability measure, but you don't assume infinitely many instances of the collapse scenario. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Fw: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:06:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: I appear to be wrong about the aether, according to a physicist friend of mine, and the lastest physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories Apparently the Michaelson-Morley experiment has been explained away, and, together with the discovery of dark energy and matter, the theory of the aether is being replaced by new theories. As long as people continue to misinterpret energy as phantom of public physics they will always need to invent new kinds of foams, forces, fluxes, and fields to prop it up. Also there will need to continue to be new theories which explain away the enormous chasm between that world of nonsensical ghosts and the universe in which we actually live. - Have received the following content - Sender: makoilaci Receiver: Roger Clough Time: 2013-01-09, 12:15:42 Subject: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ? *just the opposite. general relativity brought aether back, but it is 4-dimensonal. *-- On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Bruno, Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment, space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). There is no aether. Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all, suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are nonphysical. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/YOzwigs0-n0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:08:35 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Only the 1p perspective is dynamic or causes dynamicism- changes in the Block Universe. I should have mentioned that the Mind is a block universe but not necessarily the physical universe(s). I see Mind as the native sense-making experience of an individual human being. If Mind is a block universe, than so is flavor or color. Yes and all other qualia. Here I am more with Bruno than you. I break from Bruno over MWI vs. Feynman Richard That does agree with me. I don't see a block universe, but I do see that 3p is static slices of the totality of 1p. I might say that the uniformity of that 3p static representation in reducing all 1p qualities to positions is block like in it's consistency, but not in the sense of there being a literal universe of all possibilities frozen in a spatial firmament like memory locations. Once you have sense as the foundation, you don't need a future which is fully realized, it can be the case that some aspects of some futures are available sooner or later within specific experiences and narratives. Your intuition of the future, for example, is helping you create (or avoid) that future as much as it is a window into what has already happened in 'the' future. The blocking is more like a 1p jet engine taking in raw batter to cook into 3p pancakes than a wormhole drilling through an eternal pancake. Speculation, obviously... just trying to show one way that sense can change the assumptions which compel Block models. Craig However, I suspect that the qauntum Mind uses a more or less constant flow of time out of convenience(;) Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3x_JpsFl9o0J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/C-EZUTXmrI4J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/A3hU88DEDckJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Quantum Suicide and World War 3
Perhaps the Quantum Suicide experiment has already been performed and on a global scale. After Hugh Everett developed the many Worlds interpretation in his doctoral dissertation he was disappointed at the poor reception it received and never published anything on quantum mechanics again for the rest of his life; instead he became a Dr. Strangelove type character making computer nuclear war games and doing grim operational research for the pentagon about armageddon. Despite his knowledge of the horrors of a nuclear war Everett, like most of his fellow cold warrior colleagues in the 50's and 60's, thought the probability of Thermonuclear war happening was very high and he thought it would probably happen very soon. Although there is no record of it I wonder if Everett used anthropic reasoning and privately deduced that the fact that we live in a world where such a very likely war has not in fact happened was more confirmation that his Many Worlds idea was right. And I must say that it is odd, if you told me right after Nagasaki that in 68 years nuclear weapons would not be used again in anger I would have said you were nuts. Perhaps we are in a bizarrely rare offshoot universe where World War 3 never happened. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:41 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 11:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears to mean existentialist not Christian god, another appearance is not organized religion, which both appear reasonable. Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: what are they talking about? as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever you wanna call these structures primitively) of one sort or another. Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, computational, financial, political, biological, creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum, and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in mind. Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point take a leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis. I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I can't understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in something that transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you can blame me for not differentiating between absolutely static belief and work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them. I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody here can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with atheist. Oddly, I often find the same this I take for granted attitude, that anything else makes me smile condescendingly, that even keeps me from bringing it up. Do you know what theist means? Brent If you could clarify your question, why you ask, it would be easier. That is so broad: what does anything mean in some absolute sense, or are you playing some specific frame? That broadly though: Greek root theos, so god/transcendental principle + ism, implying a more or less flexible belief, held by adherents. Whether anthropomorphic, interactive, or any other feature of deity in question, the term is used in more or less broad terms to denote belief it one or more supreme beings. And yes you could differentiate endlessly here... but to what end? Then you know what atheist means ... to denote nonbelief in one or more... Which entails believing in one or more other things selectively or believing non-belief. Either way, I grasp intuitively what people mean, but it is far from clear to me because of this. Mark -- Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Quantum Suicide and World War 3
Perhaps we must worship Everett. Maybe he is with Einstein in a superdimensional throne of quarks. Aleluya. 2013/1/10 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com Perhaps the Quantum Suicide experiment has already been performed and on a global scale. After Hugh Everett developed the many Worlds interpretation in his doctoral dissertation he was disappointed at the poor reception it received and never published anything on quantum mechanics again for the rest of his life; instead he became a Dr. Strangelove type character making computer nuclear war games and doing grim operational research for the pentagon about armageddon. Despite his knowledge of the horrors of a nuclear war Everett, like most of his fellow cold warrior colleagues in the 50's and 60's, thought the probability of Thermonuclear war happening was very high and he thought it would probably happen very soon. Although there is no record of it I wonder if Everett used anthropic reasoning and privately deduced that the fact that we live in a world where such a very likely war has not in fact happened was more confirmation that his Many Worlds idea was right. And I must say that it is odd, if you told me right after Nagasaki that in 68 years nuclear weapons would not be used again in anger I would have said you were nuts. Perhaps we are in a bizarrely rare offshoot universe where World War 3 never happened. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
Hi Craig, I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite my belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) from a brain, I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that consciousness emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a degree of consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the emergence from complexity idea. Still I feel that you avoid some questions. Maybe it's just my lack of understanding of what you're saying. For example: what is the primary stuff in your theory? In the same sense that for materialists it's subatomic particles and for comp it's N, +, *. What's yours? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 6:18:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, Cool. I actually would have agreed with you and a lot of people here at different times in my life. It's only been lately in the last five years or so that I have put together this other way of understanding everything. It gets lost in the debating, because I feel like I have to make my points about what is different or new about how I see things, but I do understand that other ways of looking at it make a lot of sense too - so much so that I suppose I am drawn only to digging into the weak spots to try to get others to see the secret exit that I think I've found... Ok, this sounds interesting and I'd like to know more. I've been away from the mailing list in the last few years, so maybe you've talked about it before. Would you tell me about that secret exit? The secret exit is to reverse the assumption that consciousness occurs from functions or substances. Even though our human consciousness depends on a living human body (as far as we know for sure), that may be because of the degree of elaboration required to develop a human quality of experience, not because the fundamental capacity to perceive and participate depends on anything at all. Being inside of a human experience means being inside of an animal experience, an organism's experience, a cellular and molecular level experience. The alternative means picking an arbitrary level at which total lack of awareness suddenly changes into perception and participation for no conceivable reason. Instead of hanging on to the hope of finding such a level or gate, the secret is to see that there are many levels and gates but that they are qualitative, with each richer integration of qualia reframing the levels left behind in a particular way, and that way (another key) is to reduce it from a personal, animistic temporal flow of 1p meaning and significant preference to impersonal, mechanistic spatial bodies ruled by cause-effect and chance/probability. 1p and 3p are relativistic, but what joins them is the capacity to discern the difference. Rather than sense i/o being a function or logic take for granted, flip it over so that logic is the 3p shadow of sense. The 3p view is a frozen snapshot of countless 1p views as seen from the outside, and the qualities of the 3p view depend entirely on the nature of the 1p perceiver-partcipant. Sense is semiotic. Its qualitative layers are partitioned by habit and interpretive inertia, just as an ambiguous image looks different depending on how you personally direct your perception, or how a book that you read when you are 12 years old can have different meanings at 18 or 35. The meaning isn't just 'out there', it's literally, physically in here. If this is true, then the entire physical universe doubles in size, or really is squared as every exterior surface is a 3p representation of an entire history of 1p experience. Each acorn is a potential for oak tree forest, an encyclopedia of evolution and cosmology, so that the acorn is just a semiotic placeholder which is scaled and iconicized appropriately as a consequence of the relation of our human quality awareness and that of the evolutionary-historical-possible future contexts which we share with it (or the whole ensemble of experiences in which 'we' are both embedded as strands of the story of the universe rather than just human body and acorn body or cells and cells etc). To understand the common thread for all of it, always go back to the juxtaposition of 1p vs 3p, not *that* there is a difference, but the qualities of *what* those differences are - the sense of the juxtaposition. http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9y9by2XXw1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9y9boN5rP1qe3q3v.jpg That's were I get sense and motive or perception and participation. The symmetry is more primitive than either matter or mind, so that it isn't one which builds a bridge to the other but sense which divides itself on one level while retaining unity on another, creating not just dualism but a continuum of monism, dualism, dialectic, trichotomy, syzygy, etc. Many levels and perspectives on
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 17:03, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:26, Telmo Menezes wrote: Where does hate, falsehood and ugliness come from? I am not quite sure, but it comes probably from the consistency of inconsistency (that is: Gödel's second incompleteness theorem). Doesn't the second incompleteness theorem imply that all knowable truths are local and that absolute truth is unrecognisable? Why? I don't think so. Gödel's incompleteness relies on the absoluteness of the elementary arithmetical truth. It only entails that all machine cannot know the whole thing, and not even give it a name. Local was a poor choice of words. A better term for what I meant would be subjective to the machine. Taking the point of view of the machine: if it can't know certain truths about itself, how can it know any absolute truth? Apart from algebra, since rejecting it would invalidate Godel's theorem? This can be made more precise in model theory, or set theory where we can define absolute and relative. That makes sense with my empirical understanding of realty: there are things that I find beautiful and others find ugly. Hate groups feel that they just have a correct understanding of reality, and so on. I am OK with this, except on elementary arithmetic. You need this just to define formalism, machine, etc. But even such kind of truth cannot be communicate as such, unless we first agree on some axioms, and on what axioms are. Actually it comes from the fact that Bf (inconsistency) gives an evolutionary advantage. Like the true Dt, Bf can be used to prove correct arithmetical propositions, to shorten the proofs of non trivial propositions, etc. I am able to conceive, some day, that all axioms of infinity are of this type (but this is a strong statement). So basically the hate, the falsehood and the ugliness comes from their local evolutionary advantage. A bit like robbing a bank can be justified, when the goal is to make money locally and quickly. A bit like when the first animal decided to feed on a vegetal, which is a form of molecules stealing, at some level. Then other animals steal the molecules of those vegetarians, and so on. This has generated the evolutionary heuristic: to eat or to be eaten, and sometimes that hurts. Ok - at the evolutionary level of abstraction. Well, OK. It still hurts, and the hurting feeling seems to be something absolute. We cannot doubt a feeling of headache, even if we can doubt the primary existence of the head. Bruno In the main line ... Bruno On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: According to Plato, all love, all truth, and all beauty comes from the One (ie God). That being the case, when I experience love, truth or beauty, I sense God's presence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
Re: Quantum Suicide and World War 3
On 1/10/2013 12:43 PM, John Clark wrote: Perhaps the Quantum Suicide experiment has already been performed and on a global scale. After Hugh Everett developed the many Worlds interpretation in his doctoral dissertation he was disappointed at the poor reception it received and never published anything on quantum mechanics again for the rest of his life; instead he became a Dr. Strangelove type character making computer nuclear war games and doing grim operational research for the pentagon about armageddon. Despite his knowledge of the horrors of a nuclear war Everett, like most of his fellow cold warrior colleagues in the 50's and 60's, thought the probability of Thermonuclear war happening was very high and he thought it would probably happen very soon. Although there is no record of it I wonder if Everett used anthropic reasoning and privately deduced that the fact that we live in a world where such a very likely war has not in fact happened was more confirmation that his Many Worlds idea was right. And I must say that it is odd, if you told me right after Nagasaki that in 68 years nuclear weapons would not be used again in anger I would have said you were nuts. Perhaps we are in a bizarrely rare offshoot universe where World War 3 never happened. Everett also famously cared little about his personal health and died young (in this world). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Stanislaw Lem Story
On 1/10/2013 1:36 PM, John Mikes wrote: Stathis: you MUST know betterI suppose. You wrote in the Lem-story about the first straight Polish to English translation: // /_allowing English-speaking readers to finally experience the book as its author intended._/ You may be bilingual (at least?) so my experience may not surprise you (having almost 2 mother-tongues and lived in the (English?) US for more than 4 decades) that */NO TRANSLATION/* gives 'back' the author's original thoughts and phrases. I read books translated and the originals, in languages I master as 'my own' and saw the benevolent mistakes galore. I had an old friend in Hungary, a linguistic professor, who learned Russian on his death-bed because he wanted to read Tolstoy in original. (He taught T earlier for decades). I agree: French is a good transltional interface to change meanings, but English is by no means a medium for a good straight translation (transfiguration?) (especially from POLISH). I find that interesting since my favorite writer and an acknowledged master of english prose, Joesph Conrad, was Polish. He lived in France as a youngster and also spoke French. He said that he choose to write in English because it was more expressive, allowed more metaphors, than French - and if he wrote in Polish nobody would read him. Brent Yours - Suffering from multilinguistic horrors John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On 1/10/2013 1:58 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Craig, I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite my belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) from a brain, I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that consciousness emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a degree of consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the emergence from complexity idea. Do you agree that intelligence requires complexity? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 1:58 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Craig, I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite my belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) from a brain, I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that consciousness emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a degree of consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the emergence from complexity idea. Do you agree that intelligence requires complexity? I'm not sure intelligence and complexity are two different things. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On 1/10/2013 2:28 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 1:58 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Craig, I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite my belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) from a brain, I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that consciousness emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a degree of consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the emergence from complexity idea. Do you agree that intelligence requires complexity? I'm not sure intelligence and complexity are two different things. Of course they're two different things. An oak tree is complex but not intelligent. The question is whether you think something can be intelligent without being complex? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:01 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 2:28 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 1:58 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Craig, I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite my belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) from a brain, I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that consciousness emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a degree of consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the emergence from complexity idea. Do you agree that intelligence requires complexity? I'm not sure intelligence and complexity are two different things. Of course they're two different things. An oak tree is complex but not intelligent. The question is whether you think something can be intelligent without being complex? I don't agree that an oak tree is not intelligent. It changes itself and its environment in non-trivial ways that promote its continuing existence. What's your definition of intelligence? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On 1/10/2013 3:15 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:01 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 2:28 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 1:58 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Craig, I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite my belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) from a brain, I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that consciousness emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a degree of consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the emergence from complexity idea. Do you agree that intelligence requires complexity? I'm not sure intelligence and complexity are two different things. Of course they're two different things. An oak tree is complex but not intelligent. The question is whether you think something can be intelligent without being complex? I don't agree that an oak tree is not intelligent. It changes itself and its environment in non-trivial ways that promote its continuing existence. What's your definition of intelligence? What's yours? I don't care what example you use, trees, rocks, bacteria, sewing machines... Are you going to contend that everything is intelligent and everything is complex, so that the words loose all meaning? Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and use whatever definitions of intelligent and complex you want). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 3:15 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:01 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 2:28 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 1:58 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Craig, I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite my belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) from a brain, I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that consciousness emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a degree of consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the emergence from complexity idea. Do you agree that intelligence requires complexity? I'm not sure intelligence and complexity are two different things. Of course they're two different things. An oak tree is complex but not intelligent. The question is whether you think something can be intelligent without being complex? I don't agree that an oak tree is not intelligent. It changes itself and its environment in non-trivial ways that promote its continuing existence. What's your definition of intelligence? What's yours? I don't care what example you use, trees, rocks, bacteria, sewing machines... If you allow for the concepts of agent, perception, action and goal, my definition is: the degree to which an agent can achieve its goals by perceiving itself and its environment and using that information to predict the outcome of its actions, for the purpose of choosing the actions that has the highest probability of leading to a future state where the goal are achieved. Intelligence can then be quantified by comparing the effectiveness of the agent in achieving its goals to that of an agent acting randomly. But you can only compare intelligence in relation to a set of goals. How do you compare the intelligence of two agents with different goals and environments? Any criteria is arbitrary. We like to believe we're more intelligent because we're more complex, but you can also believe that bacteria are more intelligent because they are more resilient to extinction. Are you going to contend that everything is intelligent and everything is complex, so that the words loose all meaning? I never said that. I do think that intelligence is a mushy concept to begin with, and that's not my fault. Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and use whatever definitions of intelligent and complex you want). A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under my definition. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and use whatever definitions of intelligent and complex you want). A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under my definition. But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about consciousness? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite my belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) from a brain, As long as you have another brain to experience the extracted memories in 1p, then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a 3p transmission of some experiential content from one brain to another. I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that consciousness emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a degree of consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the emergence from complexity idea. Still I feel that you avoid some questions. Maybe it's just my lack of understanding of what you're saying. For example: what is the primary stuff in your theory? In the same sense that for materialists it's subatomic particles and for comp it's N, +, *. What's yours? For me the primary stuff is sensory-motor presence. Particles are public sense representations. N, +, * are private sense representations. Particles represent the experience of sensory-motor obstruction as topological bodies. Integers and arithmetic operators represent the sensory-motor relations of public objects as private logical figures. Craig On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 6:18:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, Cool. I actually would have agreed with you and a lot of people here at different times in my life. It's only been lately in the last five years or so that I have put together this other way of understanding everything. It gets lost in the debating, because I feel like I have to make my points about what is different or new about how I see things, but I do understand that other ways of looking at it make a lot of sense too - so much so that I suppose I am drawn only to digging into the weak spots to try to get others to see the secret exit that I think I've found... Ok, this sounds interesting and I'd like to know more. I've been away from the mailing list in the last few years, so maybe you've talked about it before. Would you tell me about that secret exit? The secret exit is to reverse the assumption that consciousness occurs from functions or substances. Even though our human consciousness depends on a living human body (as far as we know for sure), that may be because of the degree of elaboration required to develop a human quality of experience, not because the fundamental capacity to perceive and participate depends on anything at all. Being inside of a human experience means being inside of an animal experience, an organism's experience, a cellular and molecular level experience. The alternative means picking an arbitrary level at which total lack of awareness suddenly changes into perception and participation for no conceivable reason. Instead of hanging on to the hope of finding such a level or gate, the secret is to see that there are many levels and gates but that they are qualitative, with each richer integration of qualia reframing the levels left behind in a particular way, and that way (another key) is to reduce it from a personal, animistic temporal flow of 1p meaning and significant preference to impersonal, mechanistic spatial bodies ruled by cause-effect and chance/probability. 1p and 3p are relativistic, but what joins them is the capacity to discern the difference. Rather than sense i/o being a function or logic take for granted, flip it over so that logic is the 3p shadow of sense. The 3p view is a frozen snapshot of countless 1p views as seen from the outside, and the qualities of the 3p view depend entirely on the nature of the 1p perceiver-partcipant. Sense is semiotic. Its qualitative layers are partitioned by habit and interpretive inertia, just as an ambiguous image looks different depending on how you personally direct your perception, or how a book that you read when you are 12 years old can have different meanings at 18 or 35. The meaning isn't just 'out there', it's literally, physically in here. If this is true, then the entire physical universe doubles in size, or really is squared as every exterior surface is a 3p representation of an entire history of 1p experience. Each acorn is a potential for oak tree forest, an encyclopedia of evolution and cosmology, so that the acorn is just a semiotic placeholder which is scaled and iconicized appropriately as a consequence of the relation of our human quality awareness and that of the evolutionary-historical-possible future contexts which we share with it (or the whole ensemble of experiences in which 'we' are both embedded as strands of the story of the universe rather than just human body and acorn body or cells and cells etc). To
Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:33:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and use whatever definitions of intelligent and complex you want). A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under my definition. But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about consciousness? Brent I was thinking today that a decent way of defining intelligence is just 'The ability to know what's going on'. This makes it clear that intelligence refers to the degree of sophistication of awareness, not just complexity of function or structure. This is why a computer which has complex function and structure has no authentic intelligence and has no idea 'what's going on'. Intelligence however has everything to do with sensitivity, integration, and mobilization of awareness as an asset, i.e. to be directed for personal gain or shared enjoyment, progress, etc. Knowing what's going on implicitly means caring what goes on, which also supervenes on biological quality investment in experience. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/4H86jbpmVrsJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On 1/10/2013 9:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:33:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and use whatever definitions of intelligent and complex you want). A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under my definition. But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about consciousness? Brent I was thinking today that a decent way of defining intelligence is just 'The ability to know what's going on'. This makes it clear that intelligence refers to the degree of sophistication of awareness, not just complexity of function or structure. This is why a computer which has complex function and structure has no authentic intelligence and has no idea 'what's going on'. Intelligence however has everything to do with sensitivity, integration, and mobilization of awareness as an asset, i.e. to be directed for personal gain or shared enjoyment, progress, etc. Knowing what's going on implicitly means caring what goes on, which also supervenes on biological quality investment in experience. Which is why I think an intelligent machine must be one that acts in its environment. Simply 'being aware' or 'knowing' are meaningless without the ability and motives to act on them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Science is a religion by itself.
Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. ===. What is a primary matter from modern scientific point of view ? It is 'quantum virtual particles' and ' cosmic dark mass and energy' The problem is that nobody explain their concrete physical parameters. I explain this loss link. The ' quantum virtual particles ' have following concrete parameters: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1. ===.. socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On Jan 11, 7:24 am, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. ===. What is a primary matter from modern scientific point of view ? It is 'quantum virtual particles' and ' cosmic dark mass and energy' The problem is that nobody explain their concrete physical parameters. I explain this loss link. The ' quantum virtual particles ' have following concrete parameters: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1. ===.. socratus Pre-universe ( pre-condition) is vacuum : T=0K The Universe ( as a whole) is a double World: next to Material World ( a few % of whole mass of the Universe) exist Vacuum World ( with more than 90% of whole mass of the Universe). = socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
