Re: Hitch
On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:59, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Now the converse, where atheism is taken to mean rejection of all gods, rather than one, is not meaningless. You keep using the term rejection. If by rejection you mean failure to credence that's OK. But you seem to imply assertion of non-existence. An atheist may be asserting the non-existence of the God of Catholicism, while merely failing to believe in the god of deism; and in fact that is explicitly what Vic Stenger and Richard Dawkins have said. Then they are no more atheists in the sense of the atheists I have problem with. I use atheists in the (Google) sense of B~g. ~Bg is agnosticism (in the mundane common sense). Some atheists seem to oscillate between the two definitions, opportunistically. Anyway, as I said (on FOAR), I define theology of the machine M by the truth about the machine M/ The proper theology is defined by the truth which is unprovable by the machine, yet conceivable by it. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 10 Jul 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: UDA shows why and we have to extract physics from that (making comp testable), and how we can do that using the mathematical machine's theology. You're really saying we have to extract physics from comp IN ORDER that it be testable. Notably. But comp has other consequences, but they are more difficult to test as clearly as physics. You've said that comp implies QM, although I don't see how; I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some familiarity in logic. Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure on relative computational continuations, and the logic explains already the statistical interferences. but if that's the case perhaps you can infer from comp the answer to the interesting question in theoretical physics, is the evolution of a black hole unitary? This is not on the near horizon. But we have no choice if we bet on comp. So far every theory that assumes unitarity seems to violate the equivalence principle of general relativity. Yes, QM + GR is in trouble. I guess GR has to be changed, as QM is very solid. But in comp, there are many open problem in arithmetic to solve before we can decide. Now comp is a theory of consciousness and matter. QM and GR don't aboard the mind-body problem. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: the love torture
On 10 Jul 2013, at 23:05, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I do not exactly agree. since religion is a natural inclination, and atheists have no organized religion It depends on which atheist sect you talk about. It is an hard subject because those sect are secret. I know them as I leave them, and like all sect, it is a difficult task to say the least. then the religious way of thinking permeate all their lives. I´m not trying to be pejorative. But the religious instinct in the primitive sense is not about love and compassion, but the contrary it is about fanaticism and exclusion of these that are not in agreement. Yes. And it is about sacrifices to demonstrate the worthiness of each one for the sectarian group. Chiristianity in this sense gives freedom from this primitive, sectarian, sacrifice demanding instinct and canalizes it in positive ways. There too it will depend on which sect or branch of christianity you talk about. Bruno 2013/7/10 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net I am amazed these days at the antagonism atheists hold against religion. I suppose it has to be that way, for there is a natural draw of men toward religion. And if their rejection weren't so oversized, they might fall victim to religion-- that is, to learn humility, and be filled, without any worth or work on their own, with faith, hope, and love. How torturous. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: the love torture
I quote myself: But the religious instinct in the primitive sense is not about love and compassion, but the contrary it is about fanaticism and exclusion of these that are not in agreement. This is incomplete: the fanaticism and the exclusion is there for well stablished game theoretical reasons: to create a strong boundary between collaborators and non collaborators, and thus to reinforce collaboration. Reasoning in terms of game theory sacrifice is the unavoidable requirement for stablishing that boundary. Unavoidably, when there social capital is reduced to this group and there is no other form of spiritual union beyond the sect, the sacrifices become stronger and stronger, since even the life depend on the group , to be safe from the attack of other groups. The first and the last sacrifice is, of course, human sacrifices. to kill non sectarians. and to demonstrate that one has the will and the disposition to kill. That is what the sacrifice of Christ free us from, and it is the unavoidable destiny of a society that leave their Christian beliefs. This happened in a few years in Germany and communist countries for only a matter of example. 2013/7/11 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 10 Jul 2013, at 23:05, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I do not exactly agree. since religion is a natural inclination, and atheists have no organized religion It depends on which atheist sect you talk about. It is an hard subject because those sect are secret. I know them as I leave them, and like all sect, it is a difficult task to say the least. then the religious way of thinking permeate all their lives. I´m not trying to be pejorative. But the religious instinct in the primitive sense is not about love and compassion, but the contrary it is about fanaticism and exclusion of these that are not in agreement. Yes. And it is about sacrifices to demonstrate the worthiness of each one for the sectarian group. Chiristianity in this sense gives freedom from this primitive, sectarian, sacrifice demanding instinct and canalizes it in positive ways. There too it will depend on which sect or branch of christianity you talk about. Bruno 2013/7/10 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net I am amazed these days at the antagonism atheists hold against religion. I suppose it has to be that way, for there is a natural draw of men toward religion. And if their rejection weren't so oversized, they might fall victim to religion-- that is, to learn humility, and be filled, without any worth or work on their own, with faith, hope, and love. How torturous. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: the love torture
On 11 Jul 2013, at 14:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I quote myself: But the religious instinct in the primitive sense is not about love and compassion, but the contrary it is about fanaticism and exclusion of these that are not in agreement. I might believe the contrary. What you say could make sense for very local religion and we might argue on what a religion is, but I am universalist on this matter, and religion is what can unite people and help to recognize oneself in the others. It cannot exclude the others and it go in the direction of love and compassion, but also circumspection toward dividing ideas. This is incomplete: the fanaticism and the exclusion is there for well stablished game theoretical reasons: to create a strong boundary between collaborators and non collaborators, and thus to reinforce collaboration. Reasoning in terms of game theory sacrifice is the unavoidable requirement for stablishing that boundary. I understand this at the level of biology, where such boundaries are needed. But the divine, if used for identity and boundaries purpose seems to be closer to blasphemy and pseudo-religion. Unavoidably, when there social capital is reduced to this group and there is no other form of spiritual union beyond the sect, the sacrifices become stronger and stronger, since even the life depend on the group , to be safe from the attack of other groups. The first and the last sacrifice is, of course, human sacrifices. to kill non sectarians. and to demonstrate that one has the will and the disposition to kill. Hmm... That looks again more like the terrestrial game of life. That is what the sacrifice of Christ free us from, and it is the unavoidable destiny of a society that leave their Christian beliefs. I am not sure I understand. This happened in a few years in Germany and communist countries for only a matter of example. You might elaborate because I feel like I am missing something. Bruno 2013/7/11 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 10 Jul 2013, at 23:05, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I do not exactly agree. since religion is a natural inclination, and atheists have no organized religion It depends on which atheist sect you talk about. It is an hard subject because those sect are secret. I know them as I leave them, and like all sect, it is a difficult task to say the least. then the religious way of thinking permeate all their lives. I´m not trying to be pejorative. But the religious instinct in the primitive sense is not about love and compassion, but the contrary it is about fanaticism and exclusion of these that are not in agreement. Yes. And it is about sacrifices to demonstrate the worthiness of each one for the sectarian group. Chiristianity in this sense gives freedom from this primitive, sectarian, sacrifice demanding instinct and canalizes it in positive ways. There too it will depend on which sect or branch of christianity you talk about. Bruno 2013/7/10 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net I am amazed these days at the antagonism atheists hold against religion. I suppose it has to be that way, for there is a natural draw of men toward religion. And if their rejection weren't so oversized, they might fall victim to religion-- that is, to learn humility, and be filled, without any worth or work on their own, with faith, hope, and love. How torturous. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: Hitch
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and atheism. 1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea of God, although some don't have the courage to also dismiss the word G-O-D. Atheists differ on this. Some indeed dismiss the idea of God, and dismiss as much Hindhuism and Christianism, Aristotle Gods and Platonic Gods. But then they believ in Matter, the thrid God of Aristotle. But they want you to believe it is not a God, and seems unable to understand that IF everything comes from primitive matter, it does play the role usually attributed to God. No one has ever seen primitive matter, nor explain how it proceeds, etc. Primitive matter is an etraoplation of the SENSES to number relations inferred from experiences. That's just your rhetoric, Bruno. Neither you nor anyone else thinks that primitive matter plays the role usually attributed to the theist God. No one suggests we worship matter or look to matter for ethical rules. There are no churches collecting donations for matter. There are no dogmas of matter written on stone tablets. Ecologists / Global warming Vegetarianism / Veganism Biological foods Recycling Work hard / employment is good Democracy These are all common dogmatic beliefs amongst a certain class of people who reject traditional religion. I'm not judging: they might all be true and reasonable. Traditional religion is most certainly not true nor reasonable. What I am saying is that, you known and I know that evidence against any of these things would not change the opinion of most of their proponents. These are dogma attached to organisations that collect donations and label people who oppose them as heretics. They _want_ these things to be true. They derive a moral code from them. There are purification rituals: eat a certain type of food (stay pure), look down on those who eat at McDonald's or drive a big truck. They are worshipping matter. It's materialistic puritanism. Those unnamed physicists that you keep accusing of holding the primitivity of matter as dogma conduct research to find something more primitive and in fact construct theories in which matter is reduced to abstractions like a ray in a Hilbert space. 2) Christopher Hitchens said What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence Very good. So we can right at the start dismiss the God Matter. There's overwhelming evidence for matter. There's nothing in physics that requires it to be primitive or to be worshiped. Brent The subsiding of faith might have been foreseeable as soon as the newly remapped sky left no plausible site for heaven. But people are good at living with contradictions, just so long as their self-importance isn't directly insulted. --- Fredrick Crews, Saving Us from Darwin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential equations I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence. It seems odd that now you're the one complaining that the word God is too ambiguous, I thought you were fine with words meaning whatever and whenever you personally want them to mean whenever. You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then, in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a equation describes the future behavior of that thing. And if experiment showed that there was actually something that corresponded to such a solution then I would be a believer in God. Of course in this case the meaning of the English letters G-O-D would not necessarily be the same, or even be vaguely similar, to the meaning of that sequence of ASCII characters as used in common language, but if words can mean whatever you want them to mean that is no problem. you restraint the English language God to the post-523 occidental use of the term. After decrypting the above enigmatic statement as near as I can tell you are complaining that the common meaning of the English word God, the meaning of the word that I have been using, has only been in common usage for 1490 years. Have I got that about right? Is that what you're complaining about? You confirm again and again that atheists defends the uniqueness of the God notion: That is correct. Atheists know that the God notion is indeed unique because atheists are logical and have deduced that there can be only one greatest being who created the universe because that's what another English word greatest means. Many Christians have already a larger view. Many Christians are morons. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.com wrote: This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions, Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more than one type of infinity, that something can be true but have no proof, that complex animals are developed by random mutation and natural selection, that the key to the heredity process is DNA and it's entirely digital, and that the universe is not only expanding but is accelerating. And the people who write philosopher in the occupation box of their tax returns continue to argue over the dictionary definition of words. Pitiful. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 7/10/2013 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Why does atheist put so much energy in defending all the time the roman christian God. Because they know what they don't believe, yet other people want them to believe in *something* called God and those people keep adjusting and expanding and obfuscating the meaning of the word in order to claim that atheists are mistaken not to believe in love, or the ground-of-all-being, or the-source-of-morality, or... Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If we call that new number tau (t). Then Euler's identity becomes: e^(t * i) = 1 There is no disputing matters of taste but I think the original equation is more beautiful because it shows a relationship between 5 of the most important numbers in all of mathematics. Your new equation only has 4 important numbers, it doesn't include zero, it has the multiplicative identity but not the additive identity. If you want to see all the constants at once there is an easy correction: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0 Then it has the additive identity but not the multiplicative identity and I still prefer Euler's original. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: computationalism as a form of magic
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I see computationalism as a form of magic. The only difference is that one works and the other doesn't. Extispicy (using animal entrails to predict the future) makes use of magic and it doesn't work at all; Newton used computation to predict the future position of planets and it worked beautifully, and that gives us some reason to believe that computation may be a better tool in figuring out how the world works than magic, although I did think Harry Potter was fun. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some familiarity in logic. Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure on relative computational continuations, and the logic explains already the statistical interferences. QM is deterministic and there is only one 'computational continuation'; so it's not clear to me how comp reproduces (or approximates?) this. Nor do I see what you mean by statistical interferences. QM is a theory in complex Hilbert space; do you refer to the interference of amplitudes in Feynman path integrals? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 7/10/2013 11:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: The same logical that says bad things happen because all things happen also promises all good things happen as well. As life gains greater control over its environment, the proportion of good things to bad things will only increase. I suppose it may improve for the life-form that gains control - maybe not so good for the passenger pigeon, the wooly mammoth, homo neanderthalis,... The ideas that I have pointed out, and which science suggests are possible and perhaps even probable, are far more hopeful and inspiring than the world-view you seem to have. And that's the only reason for believing them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and atheism. 1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea of God, although some don't have the courage to also dismiss the word G-O-D. Atheists differ on this. Some indeed dismiss the idea of God, and dismiss as much Hindhuism and Christianism, Aristotle Gods and Platonic Gods. But then they believ in Matter, the thrid God of Aristotle. But they want you to believe it is not a God, and seems unable to understand that IF everything comes from primitive matter, it does play the role usually attributed to God. No one has ever seen primitive matter, nor explain how it proceeds, etc. Primitive matter is an etraoplation of the SENSES to number relations inferred from experiences. That's just your rhetoric, Bruno. Neither you nor anyone else thinks that primitive matter plays the role usually attributed to the theist God. No one suggests we worship matter or look to matter for ethical rules. There are no churches collecting donations for matter. There are no dogmas of matter written on stone tablets. Ecologists / Global warming Vegetarianism / Veganism Biological foods Recycling Work hard / employment is good Democracy These are all common dogmatic beliefs amongst a certain class of people who reject traditional religion. It ain't dogmatic if you go with the preponderance of the evidence. I'm not judging: they might all be true and reasonable. And the people that hold those views might be quite willing to change them given different evidence - which is not the case for religious people who make a virtue of faith. Traditional religion is most certainly not true nor reasonable. What I am saying is that, you known and I know that evidence against any of these things would not change the opinion of most of their proponents. I don't know that. Go to realclimate.org and see if you think Gavin Schmidt holds his opinions on faith. These are dogma attached to organisations that collect donations and label people who oppose them as heretics. Sure, there are Libertarians and Wiccans and Racists - but they don't worship matter. They _want_ these things to be true. They derive a moral code from them. There are purification rituals: eat a certain type of food (stay pure), look down on those who eat at McDonald's or drive a big truck. They are worshipping matter. Really? Have you asked them? I'll bet you that they'll say they are spiritual and not materialists. It's materialistic puritanism. That's just pejorative rhetoric. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/10/2013 11:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: The same logical that says bad things happen because all things happen also promises all good things happen as well. As life gains greater control over its environment, the proportion of good things to bad things will only increase. I suppose it may improve for the life-form that gains control - maybe not so good for the passenger pigeon, the wooly mammoth, homo neanderthalis,... The ideas that I have pointed out, and which science suggests are possible and perhaps even probable, are far more hopeful and inspiring than the world-view you seem to have. And that's the only reason for believing them. Now you are just being dogmatic. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If we call that new number tau (t). Then Euler's identity becomes: e^(t * i) = 1 There is no disputing matters of taste but I think the original equation is more beautiful because it shows a relationship between 5 of the most important numbers in all of mathematics. Your new equation only has 4 important numbers, it doesn't include zero, it has the multiplicative identity but not the additive identity. If you want to see all the constants at once there is an easy correction: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0 Then it has the additive identity but not the multiplicative identity and I still prefer Euler's original. What is the mutliplicative identity in the original that is missing from this one? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you want to see all the constants at once there is an easy correction: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0 Then it has the additive identity but not the multiplicative identity and I still prefer Euler's original. What is the mutliplicative identity in the original that is missing from this one? 1. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:28, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential equations I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence. It seems odd that now you're the one complaining that the word God is too ambiguous, I thought you were fine with words meaning whatever and whenever you personally want them to mean whenever. You confuse large sense and vague sense. It is not the same. You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then, in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a equation describes the future behavior of that thing. God would be more like the one knowing the solution of the wave equation, or responsible for the equation itself, hardly the one driven by the equation. A bit like the set of all sets cannot be a set, in most set theories. Here you assume matter and a material God. Even Aristotle did not go that far. And if experiment showed that there was actually something that corresponded to such a solution then I would be a believer in God. Of course in this case the meaning of the English letters G-O-D would not necessarily be the same, or even be vaguely similar, to the meaning of that sequence of ASCII characters as used in common language, but if words can mean whatever you want them to mean that is no problem. Words does not mean what we want them to mean, and you just demolished your own argument. you restraint the English language God to the post-523 occidental use of the term. After decrypting the above enigmatic statement as near as I can tell you are complaining that the common meaning of the English word God, the meaning of the word that I have been using, has only been in common usage for 1490 years. Have I got that about right? Is that what you're complaining about? Not just that. They are used since 1490 years by people prerending to know the truth, and believing in revelation. But the word were used before by inquirer interrogating all prejudices. I point that those question make sense again when we work in the computationalist theory. You confirm again and again that atheists defends the uniqueness of the God notion: That is correct. Atheists know that the God notion is indeed unique because atheists are logical and have deduced that there can be only one greatest being who created the universe because that's what another English word greatest means. You admit you are christian apparently. Many Christians have already a larger view. Many Christians are morons. Many anything are morons. Perhaps. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:50, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.com wrote: This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions, Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more than one type of infinity, Cantor was a mathematician. Yes, he was quite interested in theology, but he published nothing in that field. that something can be true but have no proof, Only that for all theory there is some (arithmetical) truth unprovable. Yes. that complex animals are developed by random mutation and natural selection, That random mutation and natural selection participate in the development, but many things partially already developed participates too. that the key to the heredity process is DNA and it's entirely digital, Relatively to the laws of chemistry or physics, yes. This by itself does not entirely make the process, or DNA itself digital. and that the universe is not only expanding but is accelerating. And the people who write philosopher in the occupation box of their tax returns continue to argue over the dictionary definition of words. Pitiful. You just seem physicalist without knowing that it is an assumption. You have still not anwser how you predict first person expectation for any experience in physics when we assume computationalism. (or more easy: physicalism + a universe robust enough to run the UD). Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:52, meekerdb wrote: On 7/10/2013 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Why does atheist put so much energy in defending all the time the roman christian God. Because they know what they don't believe, yet other people want them to believe in *something* called God and those people keep adjusting and expanding and obfuscating the meaning of the word in order to claim that atheists are mistaken not to believe in love, or the ground-of-all-being, or the-source-of-morality, or... Atheism leads to materialism, and materialism + mechanism leads to nihilism. It is not a coincidence that many materialists are pushed toward person eliminativism. The god of the materialist is Matter, and I don't believe in it. I am agnostic. I search. By pretending it is not a god, they are wrong, or they should show it to us, and provide some arguments, and show it compatible with comp when they use comp. We know that's very difficult, so apparently they just shrug or defamed or insult, etc. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?
1 is in the modified version I provided: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0 Unless you were reading that as e^(t*i) + (-1) = 0 Also, if the more important numbers that can be included, the more beautiful you find the equation, we can also throw in 2, arguably the next most important number: e^(2*t*i) - 1 = 0, but I don't think trying to include as many important numbers into one equation as possible is what makes for an elegant equation. What makes for an elegant equation is showing an important connection between two concepts. e^(t*i) = e^(0) = 1, but t*i != 0. This is much more surprising than if you try the same with Pi, as you will find ln(e^(Pi*i)) = Pi*i, but ln(e^(t*i)) = 0. Jason On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you want to see all the constants at once there is an easy correction: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0 Then it has the additive identity but not the multiplicative identity and I still prefer Euler's original. What is the mutliplicative identity in the original that is missing from this one? 1. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it
relies on some familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure
on relative computational continuations, and the logic explains
already the statistical interferences.
QM is deterministic and there is only one 'computational
continuation';
?
If you measure up+down in the base {up,down}, you get two
computational continuation, unless you add a non deterministic collapse.
so it's not clear to me how comp reproduces (or approximates?) this.
Those two computations exists already in arithmetic.
Nor do I see what you mean by statistical interferences. QM is a
theory in complex Hilbert space; do you refer to the interference of
amplitudes in Feynman path integrals?
No, I refer to the FPI, which when see by the machine itself in
arithmetic appears to obey to a quantum logic, which allows
interference between alternative realities.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then, in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a equation describes the future behavior of that thing. God would be more like the one knowing the solution of the wave equation, Fine, probabilities are good enough for me. If solving the partial differential God equation told me that there was a 40% chance that God would kill all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, and a 35% chance He would create a plague of locusts, and a 25% chance He would part the Red Sea and one of those things actually happened then I would become a theist, provided of course that future solutions of the God Equation produced a similar pattern of successful predictions. You confirm again and again that atheists defends the uniqueness of the God notion: That is correct. Atheists know that the God notion is indeed unique because atheists are logical and have deduced that there can be only one greatest being who created the universe because that's what another English word greatest means. You admit you are christian apparently. Yes that's what I thought, you are fine with words meaning whatever you want them to mean whenever you want them to mean it. And that makes communication rather difficult. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 11 Jul 2013, at 19:21, meekerdb wrote: On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and atheism. 1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea of God, although some don't have the courage to also dismiss the word G-O-D. Atheists differ on this. Some indeed dismiss the idea of God, and dismiss as much Hindhuism and Christianism, Aristotle Gods and Platonic Gods. But then they believ in Matter, the thrid God of Aristotle. But they want you to believe it is not a God, and seems unable to understand that IF everything comes from primitive matter, it does play the role usually attributed to God. No one has ever seen primitive matter, nor explain how it proceeds, etc. Primitive matter is an etraoplation of the SENSES to number relations inferred from experiences. That's just your rhetoric, Bruno. Neither you nor anyone else thinks that primitive matter plays the role usually attributed to the theist God. No one suggests we worship matter or look to matter for ethical rules. There are no churches collecting donations for matter. There are no dogmas of matter written on stone tablets. Ecologists / Global warming Vegetarianism / Veganism Biological foods Recycling Work hard / employment is good Democracy These are all common dogmatic beliefs amongst a certain class of people who reject traditional religion. It ain't dogmatic if you go with the preponderance of the evidence. I'm not judging: they might all be true and reasonable. And the people that hold those views might be quite willing to change them given different evidence - which is not the case for religious people who make a virtue of faith. There is no problem with faith. There is problems only with *bad faith*, whose symptoms are the insults and the arguments by violence or per authority. Bruno Traditional religion is most certainly not true nor reasonable. What I am saying is that, you known and I know that evidence against any of these things would not change the opinion of most of their proponents. I don't know that. Go to realclimate.org and see if you think Gavin Schmidt holds his opinions on faith. These are dogma attached to organisations that collect donations and label people who oppose them as heretics. Sure, there are Libertarians and Wiccans and Racists - but they don't worship matter. They _want_ these things to be true. They derive a moral code from them. There are purification rituals: eat a certain type of food (stay pure), look down on those who eat at McDonald's or drive a big truck. They are worshipping matter. Really? Have you asked them? I'll bet you that they'll say they are spiritual and not materialists. It's materialistic puritanism. That's just pejorative rhetoric. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more than one type of infinity, Cantor was a mathematician. Yes. Some say that philosophy hasn't found anything new and interesting in a thousand years but that is untrue, it's just that philosophers haven't found anything new or interesting in a thousand years. Yes, he was quite interested in theology True, the poor man went completely insane and died in a looney bin. You have still not anwser how you predict first person expectation for any experience in physics when we assume computationalism. Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what an external purely deterministic system will do, all we can do is watch it and see; and as for the first person expectation we've known for much much longer than 80 years that often (perhaps usually) we don't know what we are going to do until we do it. (or more easy: physicalism + a universe robust enough to run the UD). You've forgotten IHA. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some
familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure on relative
computational continuations, and the logic explains already the statistical interferences.
QM is deterministic and there is only one 'computational continuation';
?
If you measure up+down in the base {up,down}, you get two computational continuation,
unless you add a non deterministic collapse.
No, you only get one in which the measuring device state (including you) is entangled with
the system measured. To get two you have to treat measurement as some non-unitary
operator. That's the puzzle that Everett addressed by throwing out the collapse
postulate and assuming only one kind of continuation. Since that seemed like an
attractive idea the problem has become how to explain the experience of one thing
happening and another not.
Brent
so it's not clear to me how comp reproduces (or approximates?) this.
Those two computations exists already in arithmetic.
Nor do I see what you mean by statistical interferences. QM is a theory in complex
Hilbert space; do you refer to the interference of amplitudes in Feynman path integrals?
No, I refer to the FPI, which when see by the machine itself in arithmetic appears to
obey to a quantum logic, which allows interference between alternative realities.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3204/6483 - Release Date: 07/11/13
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 7/11/2013 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is no problem with faith. There is problems only with *bad faith*, whose symptoms are the insults and the arguments by violence or per authority. Are you not aware of the couple who has had two children die of easily treated infections because they had faith in prayer healing? Or that George Bush had faith that God wanted him to invade Iraq? Having faith means not wanting to find out. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 7/11/2013 1:07 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more than one type of infinity, Cantor was a mathematician. Yes. Some say that philosophy hasn't found anything new and interesting in a thousand years but that is untrue, it's just that philosophers haven't found anything new or interesting in a thousand years. Yes, he was quite interested in theology True, the poor man went completely insane and died in a looney bin. Newton was also very interested in theology and wrote more on that subject than on the behavior of matter. And if he had only written the former nobody would even know his name today. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: 1 is in the modified version I provided: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0 I only see a -1. 1* X is always equal to X but -1*X is never equal to X unless X=0. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:23 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: 1 is in the modified version I provided: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0 I only see a -1. 1* X is always equal to X but -1*X is never equal to X unless X=0. Perhaps this suits you better then: e^(t*i) = 1 + 0 Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:07, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more than one type of infinity, Cantor was a mathematician. Yes. Some say that philosophy hasn't found anything new and interesting in a thousand years but that is untrue, it's just that philosophers haven't found anything new or interesting in a thousand years. Yes, he was quite interested in theology True, the poor man went completely insane and died in a looney bin. There is no evidence that this is related to its lifelong interest in theology, which has driven his discoveries of the transfinite. You have still not anwser how you predict first person expectation for any experience in physics when we assume computationalism. Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what an external purely deterministic system will do, In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning of its parts. Yes. We might not know if the machine will stop or not, but whatever happens is determined by the initial digital conditions. That has nothing to do with the First Person Indeterminacy (FPI), nor the quantum indeterminacy. all we can do is watch it and see; and as for the first person expectation we've known for much much longer than 80 years that often (perhaps usually) we don't know what we are going to do until we do it. So when you put water on the gas, your theory to predict what you will experience is just wait and see? (or more easy: physicalism + a universe robust enough to run the UD). You've forgotten IHA. UD is for Universal Dovetailer. So please try to answer question. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Hitch
On 11 Jul 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then, in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a equation describes the future behavior of that thing. God would be more like the one knowing the solution of the wave equation, Fine, probabilities are good enough for me. If solving the partial differential God equation told me that there was a 40% chance that God would kill all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, and a 35% chance He would create a plague of locusts, and a 25% chance He would part the Red Sea and one of those things actually happened then I would become a theist, provided of course that future solutions of the God Equation produced a similar pattern of successful predictions. You confirm again and again that atheists defends the uniqueness of the God notion: That is correct. Atheists know that the God notion is indeed unique because atheists are logical and have deduced that there can be only one greatest being who created the universe because that's what another English word greatest means. You admit you are christian apparently. Yes that's what I thought, you are fine with words meaning whatever you want them to mean whenever you want them to mean it. And that makes communication rather difficult. You are the one saying that God means in english the christian god, when god is also an english term used for what can be common in many different spiritual approaches, like fundamental truth that we can search, for example. You don't need such concept to do physics, but you need it to be able to doubt the physicalist doctrine, when working on difficult problem like the mind-body problem. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
