Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

Thank you Telmo for your kind words. Appreciate it!

You ask 'please respect mine' - I do not know what your faith and beliefs
are, and if I have unknowingly shown any disrespect, I apologise to you for
it and pray to Allah for forgiveness.

I do not ask anyone to believe the Quran to be among the divinely revealed
scriptures because of my faith in it. Rather, I attempt to show that it is
a factually accurate text (http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/ ) and thus
must be taken seriously!

This email list has been pondering, discussing and debating machine
theology, the mind-body problem, 1P, 3P, and so on. You understand the
relationship between the software and the hardware. Who then can better
appreciate the scriptures when they speak of the WORD preceding everything,
that is, the CODE which generated the entire creation and everyone and
everything in it?! Who then can better understand that it is the COMMAND
which effects changes in the PROGRAM, and the COMMAND is generated by the
PROGRAMMER (God)?! Who then knows that even what appears RANDOM is
generated by CODE?! Who then can better relate to the concepts of NAFS (1P)
and OBSERVERS & WITNESSES (3P)?! Who then can better realise that if a CODE
was originally conceived and has been WRITTEN, then repeating the CODE to
RECREATE it is far easier?! And, especially, who then can better understand
that tampering with the PERFECT CODE only corrupts it?!

*Quran 30:30*  So direct your
face toward the religion, inclining to truth. [Adhere to] *the fitrah of
Allah upon which He has created [all] people*. *No change should there be
in the creation of Allah* . *That is the correct religion*, but most of the
people do not know.

And who better to realise that a PROGRAM is WRITTEN and EXECUTED for a
PURPOSE?!

*Quran 42:51  *And it was not
(vouchsafed) to any mortal that Allah should speak to him unless (it be) by
revelation or from behind a veil, or (that) He sendeth a messenger to
reveal what He will by His leave. Lo! He is Exalted, Wise. And thus have We
inspired in thee (Muhammad) a Spirit of Our command. [Q42:52
] Thou knewest not what the
Scripture was, nor what the Faith. But We have made it a light whereby We
guide whom We will of Our bondmen. And lo! thou verily dost guide unto a
right path, [Q42:53 ] The path of
Allah, unto Whom belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is
in the earth. Do not all things reach Allah at last?
[Translator: Pickthall]

*Quran 27:82 * warns us that: ‘And when the word is
fulfilled concerning them, We shall bring forth a *beast* of the earth to
speak unto them because mankind had not faith in Our revelations.’

With advances in computing and genetic engineering, we are fast approaching
the foretold terrible outcome of tampering with creation. Please think
about it.


Samiya



On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

> Dear Samya,
>
> I am sorry to tell you but you are infected by a thought virus. I hope you
> are cured from it eventually.
>
> You state that the Quran is the ultimate source of truth. Many people
> claim, and have claimed, throughout the ages, that X is the ultimate source
> of truth. You are claiming that all of these people are wrong, but you are
> right. Why?
>
> I see two possibilities:
>
> a) [I suspect you will start here...] Because the Quran says so. The
> problem is that there are many other sources that make that claim for
> themselves. Why believe the Quran and not these other sources?
>
> b) [...and then you will escape here] Because you *know inside you* that
> the Quran is the truth. Ok, I have no argument to make against that, but I
> don't feel that way. Trying to convince me to feel such things like you is
> insane. I have my own life and experiences. My own sources of
> transcendence. I respect yours, please respect mine, anything else is
> insanity and leads to the horrors that we all know about.
>
> I think you are a very polite and well-meaning person, and I am sorry that
> you are stuck in this mental loop. I hope you manage to get out of it soon.
>
> Best,
> Telmo.
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Samiya Illias 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 Hi Samya,

 I already told you that Soufism is, in Islam, and from the theological
 point of view, the closer to the machine's theology, which is not
 astonishing given that they are closer to Neoplatonism too (and I have
 explained that the mathematical theology of the universal machine is close
 to Neoplatonism, and also to the Neopythagoreanism of the earlier
 centuries).

 I have discovered the Alevi Bektashi sec

Re: Aharanov-Bohm non-locality is an artifact of invoking classical potentials

[John Mikes]

Saibal wrote:
*"The Universe,as we perceive it at least, seems to behave in a regular
way, it is describable in terms of laws of physics that can be formulated
using only a few bits of information."*

...'as we perceive it' ...'seems'... 'that CAN BE formulated' ... cautious
words.
My feeling is that our science (physical in the first place) puts the
carriage before the horse and uses those few bits we *THINK* we know of
into a frame- work that can be manipulated into - mostly not immediately
false - 'laws'.
However: look back a few millennia and try to apply your present thinking
onto the knowledge-base of those times - you may be disappointed. Alas, I
cannot offer the opposite, to try to apply the 'bits of information' from
3000 years in the future in a similar experiment. (30,000 years? 3 million?)

The strained mental efforts for understanding 'information obtained about
the World' seek a concentration into applicable laws for describing as much
(and as well) whatever we think is describable. Physically, mathematically
etc.

Of course I am starting from my agnostic views, believing that all we MAY
know today is a tiny-tiny part of the infinite complexity of the Entirety.
I condone the positive results of our science and technology without which
we would still live on trees (or in the waters). I consider it a step into
even more (partial???) knowledge about the World (not the Universe, mind
you) with the attached doubt of going the wrong way.
Our observations result in knowledge adjusted to our present capabilities
of the mind. That we try to order into usability.

JM


On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:39 PM, smitra  wrote:

>
> On 20-04-2016 21:16, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Dear Saibal,
>>
>> what makes you think that we can deduct (know??) anything rightfully
>> about the REAL WORLD into our feable human mind? You may LIKE more the
>> QM than the classical versions, but that is no verification.
>>
>> We obtain(ed) SOME input about the 'WORLD' and deposited it adjusted
>> to the capabilities of the human mind (at THAT time) APPLYING human
>> logic (math?) and the content earlier deposited on the subjects.
>>
>
> The Universe,as we perceive it at least, seems to behave in a regular way,
> it is describable in terms of laws of physics that can be formulated using
> only a few bits of information.
>
> Saibal
>
>
>> John Mikes
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:08 PM, smitra  wrote:
>>
>> The real world is quantum-mechanical, no classical. At the
>>> macroscopic level, quantum mechanics does not become equivalent to
>>> classical physics at all (there is no way an infinite dimensional
>>> Hilbert space will somehow reduce to a classical phase space), what
>>> happens is that the results of computations can be performed by
>>> pretending that classical mechanics is correct, with impunity.
>>>
>>> So, whenever classical concepts are introduced, the results may be
>>> good enough for the physical quantities that one computes, for
>>> interpretational issues there can be problems.
>>>
>>> As pointed out by Vaidman here:
>>>
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6169 [1]
>>>
>>> This is also the case for the Aharonov-Bohm effect. So, the effect
>>> is obviously real, but the purported non-locality is just an
>>> artifact of classical reasoning.
>>>
>>> Saibal
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
>>> [2].
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].
>>>
>>
>>  --
>>  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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
>> [2].
>>  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> --
>> [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6169
>> [2] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
>> [3] https://groups.google.com/d/optout
>>
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from 

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Telmo Menezes]

Dear Samya,

I am sorry to tell you but you are infected by a thought virus. I hope you
are cured from it eventually.

You state that the Quran is the ultimate source of truth. Many people
claim, and have claimed, throughout the ages, that X is the ultimate source
of truth. You are claiming that all of these people are wrong, but you are
right. Why?

I see two possibilities:

a) [I suspect you will start here...] Because the Quran says so. The
problem is that there are many other sources that make that claim for
themselves. Why believe the Quran and not these other sources?

b) [...and then you will escape here] Because you *know inside you* that
the Quran is the truth. Ok, I have no argument to make against that, but I
don't feel that way. Trying to convince me to feel such things like you is
insane. I have my own life and experiences. My own sources of
transcendence. I respect yours, please respect mine, anything else is
insanity and leads to the horrors that we all know about.

I think you are a very polite and well-meaning person, and I am sorry that
you are stuck in this mental loop. I hope you manage to get out of it soon.

Best,
Telmo.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Samya,
>>>
>>> I already told you that Soufism is, in Islam, and from the theological
>>> point of view, the closer to the machine's theology, which is not
>>> astonishing given that they are closer to Neoplatonism too (and I have
>>> explained that the mathematical theology of the universal machine is close
>>> to Neoplatonism, and also to the Neopythagoreanism of the earlier
>>> centuries).
>>>
>>> I have discovered the Alevi Bektashi sects since, and they confirmed my
>>> feeling, not only with respect to the theological science, but also with
>>> respect to practice and their openness to other religion (which *is* a sign
>>> of genuine faith in the machine's faith).
>>>
>>> Do you know them?
>>>
>>
>> I didn't know about this sect, but just read it up on Wikipedia. There
>> are several sects in Islam, as in all other religions. Though I disagree
>> with their beliefs, I will not comment upon it or criticise it, as I am
>> held back by these verses of the Quran:
>>
>> Indeed, those who divide their religion and become sects, you are not
>> with them in anything. Only their affair (is) with Allah, then He will
>> inform them of what they used to do.
>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/159/
>>
>> And hold firmly to (the) rope (of) Allah all together and (do) not be
>> divided. And remember (the) Favor (of) Allah on you when you were enemies
>> then He made friendship between your hearts then you became by His Favor
>> brothers. And you were on (the) brink (of) pit of the Fire then He saved
>> you from it. Thus Allah makes clear for you His Verses so that you may (be)
>> guided.
>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/3/103/
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I realise also that Ataturk made a big mistake. Wanting to eliminate the
>>> weight of religion in Turkey, he persecuted them and installed the Sunni
>>> instead, which are rarely open to other religion and can often use the
>>> "argument" of force (as we can see today in some countries, alas).
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2340/the-bektashi-alevi-continuum-from-the-balkans-to
>>>
>>> On the french wikipedia, they assert also that the veil is not
>>> obligatory,
>>>
>>
>> I agree that the veil is not obligatory. It is not even ordained to
>> ordinary Muslims in the Quran. The veil or partition was ordained upon the
>> believers as regards to the Prophet's wives in Chapter 33:
>>
>> O you who believe! (Do) not enter (the) houses (of) the Prophet except
>> when permission is given to you for a meal, without awaiting its
>> preparation. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten,
>> then disperse and not seeking to remain for a conversation. Indeed, that
>> was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of (dismissing) you. But Allah is
>> not shy of the truth. *And when you ask them (for) anything then ask
>> them from behind a screen. That (is) purer for your hearts and their
>> hearts.* And not is for you that you trouble (the) Messenger (of) Allah
>> and not that you should marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that is
>> near Allah an enormity.
>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/53/
>>
>> Consider the above in the light of these verses which precede verse 53 in
>> the same chapter:
>>
>> The Prophet (is) closer to the believers than their own selves, and his
>> wives (are) their mothers. And possessors (of) relationships, some of them
>> (are) closer to another in (the) Decree (of) Allah than the believers and
>> the emigrants, except that you do to your friends a kindness. That is in
>> the Book written.
>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/6/
>>
>> O 

R: Q&A Aaronson

['scerir' via Everything List]

  
  
Excellent interview of Scott Aaronson



http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scott-aaronson-answers-every-ridiculously-big-question-i-throw-at-him/

# Yes, there is another one - about "truth" - here   
http://closertotruth.com/node/4733





-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Samya,
>>
>> I already told you that Soufism is, in Islam, and from the theological
>> point of view, the closer to the machine's theology, which is not
>> astonishing given that they are closer to Neoplatonism too (and I have
>> explained that the mathematical theology of the universal machine is close
>> to Neoplatonism, and also to the Neopythagoreanism of the earlier
>> centuries).
>>
>> I have discovered the Alevi Bektashi sects since, and they confirmed my
>> feeling, not only with respect to the theological science, but also with
>> respect to practice and their openness to other religion (which *is* a sign
>> of genuine faith in the machine's faith).
>>
>> Do you know them?
>>
>
> I didn't know about this sect, but just read it up on Wikipedia. There are
> several sects in Islam, as in all other religions. Though I disagree with
> their beliefs, I will not comment upon it or criticise it, as I am held
> back by these verses of the Quran:
>
> Indeed, those who divide their religion and become sects, you are not with
> them in anything. Only their affair (is) with Allah, then He will inform
> them of what they used to do.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/159/
>
> And hold firmly to (the) rope (of) Allah all together and (do) not be
> divided. And remember (the) Favor (of) Allah on you when you were enemies
> then He made friendship between your hearts then you became by His Favor
> brothers. And you were on (the) brink (of) pit of the Fire then He saved
> you from it. Thus Allah makes clear for you His Verses so that you may (be)
> guided.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/3/103/
>
>
>>
>> I realise also that Ataturk made a big mistake. Wanting to eliminate the
>> weight of religion in Turkey, he persecuted them and installed the Sunni
>> instead, which are rarely open to other religion and can often use the
>> "argument" of force (as we can see today in some countries, alas).
>>
>>
>> http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2340/the-bektashi-alevi-continuum-from-the-balkans-to
>>
>> On the french wikipedia, they assert also that the veil is not
>> obligatory,
>>
>
> I agree that the veil is not obligatory. It is not even ordained to
> ordinary Muslims in the Quran. The veil or partition was ordained upon the
> believers as regards to the Prophet's wives in Chapter 33:
>
> O you who believe! (Do) not enter (the) houses (of) the Prophet except
> when permission is given to you for a meal, without awaiting its
> preparation. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten,
> then disperse and not seeking to remain for a conversation. Indeed, that
> was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of (dismissing) you. But Allah is
> not shy of the truth. *And when you ask them (for) anything then ask them
> from behind a screen. That (is) purer for your hearts and their hearts.*
> And not is for you that you trouble (the) Messenger (of) Allah and not that
> you should marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that is near Allah an
> enormity.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/53/
>
> Consider the above in the light of these verses which precede verse 53 in
> the same chapter:
>
> The Prophet (is) closer to the believers than their own selves, and his
> wives (are) their mothers. And possessors (of) relationships, some of them
> (are) closer to another in (the) Decree (of) Allah than the believers and
> the emigrants, except that you do to your friends a kindness. That is in
> the Book written.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/6/
>
> O wives (of) the Prophet! You are not like anyone among the women. If you
> fear (Allah), then (do) not be soft in speech, lest should be moved with he
> who, in his heart (is) a disease, but say a word appropriate. And stay in
> your houses and (do) not display yourselves (as was the) display (of the
> times of) ignorance the former. And establish the prayer and give zakah and
> obey Allah and His Messenger. Only Allah wishes to remove from you the
> impurity, (O) People (of) the House! And to purify you (with thorough)
> purification. And remember what is recited in your houses of (the) Verses
> (of) Allah and the wisdom. Indeed, Allah is All-Subtle, All-Aware. Indeed,
> the Muslim men and the Muslimen, and the believing men and the believing
> women, and the obedient men and the obedient women, and the truthful men
> and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women, and the
> humble men and the humble women, and the men who give charity and the women
> who give charity and the men who fast and the women who fast, and the men
> who guard their chastity and the women who guard (it), and the men who
> remember Allah much and the women who remember Allah has prepared for them
> forgiveness and a reward great.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/32/ ;
> http://islamawakened.com/

Q&A Aaronson

[Brent Meeker]

Excellent interview of Scott Aaronson

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scott-aaronson-answers-every-ridiculously-big-question-i-throw-at-him/

/
//Scott Aaronson on utopia: “I love when the human race gains new 
knowledge, in math or history or anything else.  I love when important 
decisions fall into the hands of people who constantly second-guess 
themselves and worry that their own ‘tribe’ might be mistaken, who are 
curious about science and have a sense of the ironic and absurd.  I love 
when society’s outcasts, like Alan Turing or Michael Burry (who 
predicted the subprime mortgage crisis), force everyone else to pay 
attention to them by being inconveniently right.  And whenever I read 
yet another thinkpiece about the problems with ‘narrow-minded STEM 
nerds’—how we’re basically narcissistic children, lacking empathy and 
social skills, etc. etc.—I think to myself, ‘then let everyone else be 
as narrow and narcissistic as most of the STEM nerds I know; I have no 
further wish for the human race.’”


/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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[Jesse Mazer]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> On 22/04/2016 2:46 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
>> On 22/04/2016 12:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett <
>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The point here is that some combinations of results are forbidden. How
>>> can this happen?
>>>
>>
>> By the appropriate matching rules for locally-generated copies in
>> different locations, as in my toy model. There's no reason you can't have
>> something similar in a more general model, which I think is exactly what
>> people like Rubin are presenting.
>>
>>
>> The best I can make of this is that you have some theory that is not
>> quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics does not give any such "matching rules"
>>
>
> It's important to distinguish between theories of physics and the
> mathematical models used to express them--a physical theory is defined
> entirely by the predictions about observable outcomes, not any elements of
> the model that are not directly measurable even in principle. For example,
> curved spacetime is not essential to general relativity as a theory, though
> it is a feature of the most commonly-used mathematical model (there is an
> alternate formulation that only uses flat spacetime, but has a field
> defined on this spacetime which varies the length of rulers and the ticking
> rate of clocks at different points in the spacetime, and physicists would
> still call this 'general relativity'). Likewise, a state vector in Hilbert
> space is not essential to quantum mechanics as a theory. And if one *could*
> come up with a model involving "matching rules" that would be equivalent in
> its predictions about observable measurement results as the existing
> mathematical models, this would merely be a new mathematical model for the
> same physical theory.
>
>
> It would seem that you are not a physicist! What you claim here about
> physics is actually quite contentious. It seems to constitute an extreme
> form of instrumentalism.
>


I don't think that's the case, I'm basically just talking about how
physicists *define* the physical content of a theory. But it would help if
you would define what you mean by "instrumentalism". For example, some
articles I found googling the term seem to say that it suggests we should
not assign any "reality" to elements of the theory beyond the predictions
about empirical measurements; I would say any talk of "reality" beyond
measurements is more of a philosophical issue than a scientific one, but I
don't see anything wrong with having opinions on such philosophical issues.
In particular, if there is an element that seems to show up in *all* our
mathematical models, like the notion of an "electron" which isn't absent
from any formulation of quantum electrodynamics, it certainly makes sense
to me to call it "real". Likewise, although we can't ever get evidence that
space and matter continue beyond the boundary of the observable universe,
it would require a very contrived model to avoid it (one which treated us
as being at the exact center of real space, for example), so disbelieving
it would to me seem like a ridiculous philosophical view, akin to solipsism
(speaking of which, I could also potentially come up with a solipsistic
interpretation of quantum physics in which I and only I am capable of
collapsing the wavefunction with my observations, but this would seem
equally ridiculous despite the fact that I can't come up with any
experiment that would falsify it for me).

Also, it seems from my googling that many instrumentalists would define the
validity of scientific theories solely in terms of what we humans can
actually verify in principle, giving up the notion of any objective truth
about nature independent of what humans know. If so, I am not taking this
position either. I'm saying the physical content of a theory is defined in
terms of the complete set of predictions about things that could *in
principle* be measured by some arbitrarily advanced physical being at the
right place and time (so the fact that we may have no way of verifying most
of the predictions of string theory at any time in the forseeable theory
does not disqualify it as a scientific theory, for example), and I
personally believe there is some objective truth about what mathematical
relationship describes the complete set of in-principle-measurable facts
about our physical universe.

The basic point I was making with my point about physics theories vs.
mathematical models is that I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the modern
physics community would define a physics theory in terms of its predictions
about in-principle-measurable facts, and if two mathematical models can be
proved to be identical in *all* their predictions about such facts, then
they are defined to be different models of the "same theory", not different
theories. Do you disagree with this narrow claim? I

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


Hi Samya,

I already told you that Soufism is, in Islam, and from the  
theological point of view, the closer to the machine's theology,  
which is not astonishing given that they are closer to Neoplatonism  
too (and I have explained that the mathematical theology of the  
universal machine is close to Neoplatonism, and also to the  
Neopythagoreanism of the earlier centuries).


I have discovered the Alevi Bektashi sects since, and they confirmed  
my feeling, not only with respect to the theological science, but  
also with respect to practice and their openness to other religion  
(which *is* a sign of genuine faith in the machine's faith).


Do you know them?

I didn't know about this sect, but just read it up on Wikipedia.  
There are several sects in Islam, as in all other religions. Though  
I disagree with their beliefs, I will not comment upon it or  
criticise it, as I am held back by these verses of the Quran:


Indeed, those who divide their religion and become sects, you are  
not with them in anything. Only their affair (is) with Allah, then  
He will inform them of what they used to do.

http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/159/

And hold firmly to (the) rope (of) Allah all together and (do) not  
be divided. And remember (the) Favor (of) Allah on you when you were  
enemies then He made friendship between your hearts then you became  
by His Favor brothers. And you were on (the) brink (of) pit of the  
Fire then He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes clear for you His  
Verses so that you may (be) guided.

http://islamawakened.com/quran/3/103/


I realise also that Ataturk made a big mistake. Wanting to eliminate  
the weight of religion in Turkey, he persecuted them and installed  
the Sunni instead, which are rarely open to other religion and can  
often use the "argument" of force (as we can see today in some  
countries, alas).


http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2340/the-bektashi-alevi-continuum-from-the-balkans-to

On the french wikipedia, they assert also that the veil is not  
obligatory,


I agree that the veil is not obligatory. It is not even ordained to  
ordinary Muslims in the Quran. The veil or partition was ordained  
upon the believers as regards to the Prophet's wives in Chapter 33:


O you who believe! (Do) not enter (the) houses (of) the Prophet  
except when permission is given to you for a meal, without awaiting  
its preparation. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you  
have eaten, then disperse and not seeking to remain for a  
conversation. Indeed, that was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy  
of (dismissing) you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you  
ask them (for) anything then ask them from behind a screen. That  
(is) purer for your hearts and their hearts. And not is for you that  
you trouble (the) Messenger (of) Allah and not that you should marry  
his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that is near Allah an enormity.

http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/53/

Consider the above in the light of these verses which precede verse  
53 in the same chapter:


The Prophet (is) closer to the believers than their own selves, and  
his wives (are) their mothers. And possessors (of) relationships,  
some of them (are) closer to another in (the) Decree (of) Allah than  
the believers and the emigrants, except that you do to your friends  
a kindness. That is in the Book written.

http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/6/

O wives (of) the Prophet! You are not like anyone among the women.  
If you fear (Allah), then (do) not be soft in speech, lest should be  
moved with he who, in his heart (is) a disease, but say a word  
appropriate. And stay in your houses and (do) not display yourselves  
(as was the) display (of the times of) ignorance the former. And  
establish the prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His  
Messenger. Only Allah wishes to remove from you the impurity, (O)  
People (of) the House! And to purify you (with thorough)  
purification. And remember what is recited in your houses of (the)  
Verses (of) Allah and the wisdom. Indeed, Allah is All-Subtle, All- 
Aware. Indeed, the Muslim men and the Muslimen, and the believing  
men and the believing women, and the obedient men and the obedient  
women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient  
men and the patient women, and the humble men and the humble women,  
and the men who give charity and the women who give charity and the  
men who fast and the women who fast, and the men who guard their  
chastity and the women who guard (it), and the men who remember  
Allah much and the women who remember Allah has prepared for them  
forgiveness and a reward great.
http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/32/ ; http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/33/ 
 ; http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/34/ ; http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/35/


Relevant to the veil is also the issue of He

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

On 20 Apr 2016, at 14:53, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Do you have any essays floating about, that you have written  
concerning machine theology (Lobian machines I am guessing)?


Have you seen my Plotinus paper? Here is a PDF:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf

(It has been published in the proceeding of the CIE meeting of 2007)

There is also my paper "La machine Mystique" (published in french in  
"Logique et Analyse"). I can give you reference, but they are only  
available if you are member of research.gate or academia.edu.  I can  
send you a copy if you ask, but the Plotinus paper is more  
informative. Same for my last papers, but they are more technical. I  
suggest you begin with the Plotinus paper, and I send more if  
interested.


Best,

Bruno








-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Apr 20, 2016 3:21 am
Subject: Bektashi Alevi


Hi Samya,

I already told you that Soufism is, in Islam, and from the  
theological point of view, the closer to the machine's theology,  
which is not astonishing given that they are closer to Neoplatonism  
too (and I have explained that the mathematical theology of the  
universal machine is close to Neoplatonism, and also to the  
Neopythagoreanism of the earlier centuries).


I have discovered the Alevi Bektashi sects since, and they confirmed  
my feeling, not only with respect to the theological science, but  
also with respect to practice and their openness to other religion  
(which *is* a sign of genuine faith in the machine's faith).


Do you know them?

I realise also that Ataturk made a big mistake. Wanting to eliminate  
the weight of religion in Turkey, he persecuted them and installed  
the Sunni instead, which are rarely open to other religion and can  
often use the "argument" of force (as we can see today in some  
countries, alas).


http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2340/the-bektashi-alevi-continuum-from-the-balkans-to

On the french wikipedia, they assert also that the veil is not  
obligatory, and that the bektashi woman can marry without any  
problem a man with another religion. The woman bektashi prays  
together with the man, which is nice, but also religiously serious  
if I can say. Woman are treated like man. They are egalitarian, and  
have often fight against the use of authority in religion and  
politics. Nor do they pray in the direction of the Mecca.


The Alevi (alone) people have originally claim that their religion  
is anterior to Islam, despite close to  Shi'ism after the influence  
of Muhammad and Ali (Muhammad's nephew and sun in law). There are  
obvious link with Zoroastrism (the "mother" of the abrahamic  
religion).


I find them very interesting. The main point closer to machine's  
theology, is that they have a non literal, mystic interpretation of  
the Quran, which is directly reflected in their spiritual  
flexibility and openness to *apparently different* faith. They  
understand that sacred texts are parabola to help the attempt to the  
personal experience of the divine, which is very often discouraged  
if not forbidden once a religion is institutionalized.


Best,

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

['scerir' via Everything List]

Yes, I see. And there are strange effects, like "unidirectional quantum 
steering".
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.01679http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.01231
Difficult (for me) to understand this a-symmetric non-locality in terms of MWI.
s.




Messaggio originale

Da: 'scerir' via Everything List 

Data: 18/04/2016 11.20

A: 

Ogg: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI



Jesse wrote:I don't think this is how it's supposed to work for those who argue 
the MWI is local like Deutsch. Rather the idea is that "splitting" into worlds 
is local, not global; so one experimenter locally splits into copies that see 
|+> and |-> when they measure their particle, likewise the other experimenter 
splits into copies that saw |+'> and |-'>. But until their future light cones 
overlap there are no "worlds" containing facts about what *both* experimenters 
saw.
-
In a Franson interferometer, two (time-energy entangled photons) travel in 
opposite directions from an EPR source. Each photon then enters an *imbalanced* 
Mach-Zehnder interferometer (such that there is
no single-photon interference in each Mach-Zehnder interferometer). 
Detectors measure the outputs of the two identical imbalanced Mach-Zehnder 
interferometers and the
coincidences between the detectors are recorded, showing there is a *two-photon*
interference, that is to say the two entangled potons follow the *same* path
in each (space-like separated) interferometer. A sign of non-locality 
(non-separability) in the "usual"
interpretation. 
I'm trying to figure out how all that works in a *local* MWI ..







-- 

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.