date:20130110



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
 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
 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 e

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  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  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 emai

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-lis

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/ 
>>>

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  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

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.

2013-01-10 Thread socra...@bezeqint.net



On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist  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.

2013-01-10 Thread Alberto G. Corona

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 

> 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 unsu

Re: Atheists are those that refuse to worship the false gods they invent.

2013-01-10 Thread Alberto G. Corona

I meant:

That´s why PROTECTION FROM bloody offenses demand blood as sacrifice

2013/1/10 Alberto G. Corona 

> 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   
wrote:


On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 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!

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, J

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   
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 

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 di

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  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 ?

2013-01-10 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2013/1/10 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:02, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/1/9 Bruno Marchal 
>
>>
>> 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+col

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 insis

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   
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 everything-li

Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-10 Thread Craig Weinberg

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 .
* 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 ] 
> 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 ?

2013-01-10 Thread David Nyman

On 10 January 2013 15:31, Bruno Marchal  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  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  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, se

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   
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   
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 email to e

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  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 ensur

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
 wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist  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, vi

Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?

2013-01-10 Thread Craig Weinberg

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  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  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  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+unsub

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  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 ?