Re: Platonia
On 2/17/2011 9:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Stephen Paul King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: Hi All, Question: Why must Platonia exist? How many ways are there to arrange 4 people in a line? If you think the answer 24 is true, regardless of any assumptions of axioms or set theory, etc. then truth has an objective, eternal, causeless existence of its own. No. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ "The common mistake is to assume that truth /has/ a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that 'snow is white' is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there." Brent It is worthy of notice that the sentence 'I smell the scent of violets' has the same content as the sentence 'it is true that I smell the scent of violets'. So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth. --- Frege, 1918 These truths and falsehoods define or depend on the existence of other abstract objects, propositions, theoreticals, etc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Platonia
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi All, > > Question: Why must Platonia exist? > > How many ways are there to arrange 4 people in a line? If you think the answer 24 is true, regardless of any assumptions of axioms or set theory, etc. then truth has an objective, eternal, causeless existence of its own. These truths and falsehoods define or depend on the existence of other abstract objects, propositions, theoreticals, etc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
Peter, Correct me if I am wrong but I think we have established some things we agree on: Consciousness is informational There are more ways to have disorder than order Bayesian reasoning is a good approach in matters of truth The universe could be a second old, and we would have no way of telling White rabbits are not commonly seen This universe appears to follow laws having a short description Evolution requires non-chaotic universes Where I think we disagree is on assumptions related to measure, of a universe's initial conditions vs. a universe's laws. I agree there are very many possibilities for what my next moment of experience might bring, yet of all the strange things I could observe, the universe doesn't often surprise, laws seem to be obeyed. It is as if there is some equation balancing two extremes, and we see the result of who wins: universes with simple laws (few possibilities) but random initial conditions (many possibilities) vs. universes with complex or random laws (many possibilities) but with ordered initial conditions (few possibilities). Universes which are ruled by chaotic or unpredictable laws with white rabbits present probably also prevent life from evolving. However as you mentioned, observers may be part of the initial conditions for such a universe. There are many possibilities for the laws, but few possibilities for the initial conditions. Our universe does not seem to be that way, however, owing to the lack of white rabbits. Our universe's laws seem simple, and life had to evolve from initial conditions for which there could have been many possibilities. The question should then be, which side of the equation wins out most often? Every possible universe has its laws and initial conditions, for which there are many possibilities. The two must be considered together. For this universe the initial conditions were chaotic and unordered, but the laws were simple. You propose that universes with chaotic laws are more likely. The most likely of these would be chaotic laws with chaotic initial conditions, but I think we agree life and observers are not likely to arise in this case, so the remaining possibility is chaotic laws with ordered initial conditions (which can admit observers at the start). If the possibilities for initial conditions wins out by having more combinations than random (yet stable enough to be supportive of observers present at the initial conditions) laws, then this could explain the lack of observed white rabbits in the whole of mathematical reality. Do you agree with the logic at least? > > > Einstein believed this, which is evident in this "The distinction between > > past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion". > > > > See:http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/ > > > > > That our > > > > universe is conceivable as a static four dimensional block is > supportive > > > of > > > > the theory that it is a mathematical object. > > > > > But there is an appearance of flow, and if mind isn't flowing > > > because brain isn't flowing, where is it coming from? > > > > The brain generates the illusion of flow. > > I can't see how it could, when it has no flow itself. > Do you think the subjective perception of time rules out block time, or would you say block time is indistinguishable from 3 spacial dimensions which evolve over time? I have a thought experiment to show a physical flow of time can in no way be necessary for the perception of the flow of time. Let's say there are two theories: Presentism (only the present moment is real, and every moment in time has its chance at being the present) vs. Block time (all points in time exist and are equally real). Presentism makes the appearance of the flow of time obvious. It seems like time is flowing because it is in fact flowing. However, upon deeper consideration you will see that it refutes this relation. If only the present time is real, then what you experience in this moment must have no dependence whatsoever on the existence of prior moments (since they no longer exist). You perceive the existence of time's flow from the existence of this single slice of time. Since the existence of past moments has no bearing on your experience in this moment, however, then it becomes absolutely needless to say the past moment must cease to exist to give the appearance of the flow of time. Rather, if it still continued to exist, it must (according to Presentism) have no impact at all on what you feel now in the present. Therefore even if all moments in time remain real, your experience of the flow of time would be intact. It is, by Occam, simpler to believe that past moments continue to exist, rather than believe some process causes future moments to come into existence, and past moments to disappear from existence, since without such a process, observations will be identical. > It's like saying that a brain with no colour processing > centres can nonetheless halucinate in
Platonia
Hi All, Question: Why must Platonia exist? Onward! Stephen “It is amazing what can be accomplished when nobody cares about who gets the credit.” Robert Yates -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
On Feb 17, 10:38 pm, benjayk wrote: > Brent Meeker-2 wrote: > > > On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote: > > >> Brent Meeker-2 wrote: > > >>> On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote: > > 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote: > > >> 1Z wrote: > > >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at > >> all > >> with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has > >> to > > >> be > > >> reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an > >> invisible > >> epiphenomena. > > > Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent numbers. > > Numbers > > have to exist for the conclusion to follow > > Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is explained > from > > something non physical. > > >>> The anti realist position is not that numbers are some existing non- > >>> physical > >>> thing: it is that they are not existent at all. > > >> If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems very > >> much > >> like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" > >> mean? > > > It's asserting the existence of hands, not numbers. > > You can't have one without the other. > > > Sure you can. You can have an apple and an orange. Whether they > > constitute two of something depends on you thinking of them as fruits. > > I don't think you can conceive of "an apple and and orange" without them > constituting two things. That doesn't mean "two" is a third thing with a separate exisence. >The "and" already implies there are two things > (usually). > > But even if we grant that an apple and an orange are not necessarily two > things THat is not what is at dispute. Two fruit are two fruit, not two fruit and one number. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
On Feb 17, 10:25 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:06 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 16, 10:58 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Feb 16, 3:40 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 8:27 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM, 1Z > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I agree. Although it's interesting that some people with > > > > synasthesia > > > > > > > > > apparently perceive numbers as having various perceptual > > > > properties. > > > > > > > > > Some people "perceive" pink elephants too. However, other > > people > > > > don't > > > > > > > > "perceive" them , leading cynics to suppose that they are not > > > > > > > > really being perceived at all. > > > > > > > > The guy who reported seeing the digits of pi like a vast > > landscape > > > > also > > > > > > > receited over 20,000 digits from memory. That should lend a > > little > > > > more > > > > > > > credence to his claims. > > > > > > > Which are what? I don't think *he* is claiming numbers objectively > > > > > > exist. And isn't the fact that all synaesthetes visualise them > > > > > > differently > > > > > > somehat contrary to *that* claim. > > > > > > > > Sure. Horses are real and unicorns aren't. Didn't you know that? > > > > > > > > Unless you've visited every time period in every corner of > > reality > > > > how > > > > > > can > > > > > > > you assert unicrons don't exist? > > > > > > > The same way I assert everything: the evidence I have is good > > enough. > > > > > > > >The fossile record might suggest they have > > > > > > > never lived on this planet but that hardly rules out their > > existence > > > > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > "Does XYZ exist?" > > > > > > > "Let me look around... I can't see it right now, it must not > > exist!" > > > > > > > > Instead we should take a more humble approach: > > > > > > > > "I've looked around and cannot see it here, it probably doesn't > > exist > > > > > > here, > > > > > > > however I have no idea whether or not it exists in places I > > cannot > > > > see or > > > > > > > have not looked." > > > > > > > > I think Bayesian inference: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference#Evidence_and_changing. > > > > .. > > > > > > > Is particularly useful in answering questions relating to > > existence. > > > > The > > > > > > > question is, what prior probability would you set to a > > proposition > > > > such > > > > > > as > > > > > > > "Other universes not visible to us exist". 1Z and Brent would > > seem > > > > to > > > > > > > assign a rather low probability, but that just means a higher > > > > threshold > > > > > > of > > > > > > > evidence will be required to convince them. Lacking any evidence > > at > > > > all, > > > > > > > the least biased prior probability to begin with is 0.5. If some > > > > > > evidence, > > > > > > > for fine tuning for example, accumulates then you should adjust > > your > > > > > > assumed > > > > > > > probability that the proposition "Other universes not visible to > > us > > > > > > exist" > > > > > > > is true. > > > > > > > > Are you aware of a better or more fair way of addressing such a > > > > question? > > > > > > > I am a fallibilist. You are preaching to the converted. > > > > > > Okay it seems we have a common foundation we agree on. Can you > > explain > > > > why > > > > > you have confidence in the unreality of other possible universes > > rather > > > > than > > > > > uncertainty? What evidence have you seen for or against that > > > > proposition? > > > > Peter, > > > > Thank you for your very detailed and thoughtful response. > > > > > The mathematical multiverse suffers from a double wammy: it is > > > > predicts > > > > too much (white rabbits) and explains too little (time and > > > > consciousness are > > > > not explained). Physical multiverses are a bit more of a nuanced > > > > issue. Many worlds > > > > is not my favourite interpretation of QM, but at the end of the day > > > > there could be > > > > empirical evidence one way or the other. > > > > If universes are mathematical objects, they follows well-defined > > equations. > > > Physical universes will. Mathematical universes need not. Platonia > > will include all the discontinous and non-differentiable functions. > > You > > have to take the rough with the smooth. > > Why couldn't a physical universe be discontinuous? The more discontinuity you have, the less predictability you have. > > > A few, more rare, universe may have an additional law, at time X, in > > > location Y, a white rabbit will pop into existence, but the description > > for > > > such a universe is much longer. > > > Platonia includes eveything that is not seld contradictory, and > > there is no contradiction
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
Brent Meeker-2 wrote: > > On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote: >> >> Brent Meeker-2 wrote: >> >>> On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote: >>> 1Z wrote: > > On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote: > > >> 1Z wrote: >> >> >> >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at >> all >> with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has >> to >> >> >> be >> >> >> reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an >> invisible >> epiphenomena. >> >> >> >> > Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent numbers. > Numbers > have to exist for the conclusion to follow > > >> >> Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is explained from >> >> something non physical. >> >> >>> The anti realist position is not that numbers are some existing non- >>> physical >>> thing: it is that they are not existent at all. >>> >>> >> If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems very >> much >> like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" >> mean? >> >> > It's asserting the existence of hands, not numbers. > > You can't have one without the other. > > Sure you can. You can have an apple and an orange. Whether they > constitute two of something depends on you thinking of them as fruits. I don't think you can conceive of "an apple and and orange" without them constituting two things. The "and" already implies there are two things (usually). But even if we grant that an apple and an orange are not necessarily two things it is harder to deny that we need the number one in order to have one apple/orange/hand. Brent Meeker-2 wrote: > The statement "2 hands exists" requires that "2 of something" (the number 2) exists. >>> It requires that two of something exist, but not that the number itself >>> 2 exist. >>> >> What is the difference between two of something and two? >> > > Two of something exists if the somethings exist. Why can "two" not just mean "two of something existing"? Brent Meeker-2 wrote: > >> Numbers always express quantity of something, even if this something is >> just >> numbers. >> >> It's like writing "2x" and "2". It may be formally different, but I don't >> see a difference in the concept that is expressed. "2" is just shorter >> than >> "2x" or "2*1" or "1+1". >> (I am aware that 2x is of course different than 2 when they are both used >> in >> a common context like in 2x+2=8; but not when all numbers are written >> with >> an x behind them) >> >> >> Brent Meeker-2 wrote: >> >>>In symbolic logic it and be expressed as Ex Ey (Hand(x) + Hand >>> (y) + (x=/=y)), no mention of the number 2. >>> >> You are aware that you just written down TWO "Hand"s? >> You don't need to write "two" to express that 2 is meant. You can write >> "II" >> or "1 plus 1" or "the number of my hands" or "pi/pi + pi/pi" or whatever. >> > > Writing x x is writing two x's, but it's not writing a number. Then you treat a number as a symbol. I would rather call that numeral but OK. I'm refering to the concept of a quantity of two. And "x x" clearly represents a quantity of two. Brent Meeker-2 wrote: > > Actually > I have no objection to supposing the number two exists - so long as its > "existence" is qualified as existing in some completely different sense > than hands exist. I think few would claim that numbers do not exist in a different way then hands. That's hard to argue with. A hand is much more specific than a number, it is material, it is concrete... But that does not mean that numbers exist in a "lesser" way. Brent Meeker-2 wrote: > >> >> Brent Meeker-2 wrote: >> >>> 1Z wrote: > > >> If you have two hands, two does exists, otherwise you couldn't have >> two >> of >> something, right? >> >> > And if you have none of something, none exists. > > Well, so zero exists, I have no problem with that. >>> What if you have no zero? :-) >>> >> Uhm, then I get one out of platonia. I heard they are free there, maybe >> you >> should get some. They are very useful. ;) >> >> >> Brent Meeker-2 wrote: >> >>> 1Z wrote: > > >> Or is it a fictional statement? >> >> >> > Nope. You seem to t
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:06 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 16, 10:58 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Feb 16, 3:40 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 8:27 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM, 1Z > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I agree. Although it's interesting that some people with > > > synasthesia > > > > > > > > apparently perceive numbers as having various perceptual > > > properties. > > > > > > > > > Some people "perceive" pink elephants too. However, other > people > > > don't > > > > > > > "perceive" them , leading cynics to suppose that they are not > > > > > > > really being perceived at all. > > > > > > > > The guy who reported seeing the digits of pi like a vast > landscape > > > also > > > > > > receited over 20,000 digits from memory. That should lend a > little > > > more > > > > > > credence to his claims. > > > > > > > Which are what? I don't think *he* is claiming numbers objectively > > > > > exist. And isn't the fact that all synaesthetes visualise them > > > > > differently > > > > > somehat contrary to *that* claim. > > > > > > > > Sure. Horses are real and unicorns aren't. Didn't you know that? > > > > > > > > Unless you've visited every time period in every corner of > reality > > > how > > > > > can > > > > > > you assert unicrons don't exist? > > > > > > > The same way I assert everything: the evidence I have is good > enough. > > > > > > > >The fossile record might suggest they have > > > > > > never lived on this planet but that hardly rules out their > existence > > > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > > > "Does XYZ exist?" > > > > > > "Let me look around... I can't see it right now, it must not > exist!" > > > > > > > > Instead we should take a more humble approach: > > > > > > > > "I've looked around and cannot see it here, it probably doesn't > exist > > > > > here, > > > > > > however I have no idea whether or not it exists in places I > cannot > > > see or > > > > > > have not looked." > > > > > > > > I think Bayesian inference: > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference#Evidence_and_changing. > > > .. > > > > > > Is particularly useful in answering questions relating to > existence. > > > The > > > > > > question is, what prior probability would you set to a > proposition > > > such > > > > > as > > > > > > "Other universes not visible to us exist". 1Z and Brent would > seem > > > to > > > > > > assign a rather low probability, but that just means a higher > > > threshold > > > > > of > > > > > > evidence will be required to convince them. Lacking any evidence > at > > > all, > > > > > > the least biased prior probability to begin with is 0.5. If some > > > > > evidence, > > > > > > for fine tuning for example, accumulates then you should adjust > your > > > > > assumed > > > > > > probability that the proposition "Other universes not visible to > us > > > > > exist" > > > > > > is true. > > > > > > > > Are you aware of a better or more fair way of addressing such a > > > question? > > > > > > > I am a fallibilist. You are preaching to the converted. > > > > > > Okay it seems we have a common foundation we agree on. Can you > explain > > > why > > > > you have confidence in the unreality of other possible universes > rather > > > than > > > > uncertainty? What evidence have you seen for or against that > > > proposition? > > > > Peter, > > > > Thank you for your very detailed and thoughtful response. > > > > > The mathematical multiverse suffers from a double wammy: it is > > > predicts > > > too much (white rabbits) and explains too little (time and > > > consciousness are > > > not explained). Physical multiverses are a bit more of a nuanced > > > issue. Many worlds > > > is not my favourite interpretation of QM, but at the end of the day > > > there could be > > > empirical evidence one way or the other. > > > > If universes are mathematical objects, they follows well-defined > equations. > > Physical universes will. Mathematical universes need not. Platonia > will include all the discontinous and non-differentiable functions. > You > have to take the rough with the smooth. > Why couldn't a physical universe be discontinuous? > > > A few, more rare, universe may have an additional law, at time X, in > > location Y, a white rabbit will pop into existence, but the description > for > > such a universe is much longer. > > Platonia includes eveything that is not seld contradictory, and > there is no contradiction in randomness and chaos. Moreoever > there must be many disordered sets for every ordered set. > Chaotic mathematical structures may exist, but life seems to require the right balance between complexity and simplicity. Too complex and there is not enough time to adapt to changing r
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote: Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote: 1Z wrote: Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to be reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible epiphenomena. Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent numbers. Numbers have to exist for the conclusion to follow Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is explained from something non physical. The anti realist position is not that numbers are some existing non- physical thing: it is that they are not existent at all. If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems very much like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" mean? It's asserting the existence of hands, not numbers. You can't have one without the other. Sure you can. You can have an apple and an orange. Whether they constitute two of something depends on you thinking of them as fruits. The statement "2 hands exists" requires that "2 of something" (the number 2) exists. It requires that two of something exist, but not that the number itself 2 exist. What is the difference between two of something and two? Two of something exists if the somethings exist. Numbers always express quantity of something, even if this something is just numbers. It's like writing "2x" and "2". It may be formally different, but I don't see a difference in the concept that is expressed. "2" is just shorter than "2x" or "2*1" or "1+1". (I am aware that 2x is of course different than 2 when they are both used in a common context like in 2x+2=8; but not when all numbers are written with an x behind them) Brent Meeker-2 wrote: In symbolic logic it and be expressed as Ex Ey (Hand(x) + Hand (y) + (x=/=y)), no mention of the number 2. You are aware that you just written down TWO "Hand"s? You don't need to write "two" to express that 2 is meant. You can write "II" or "1 plus 1" or "the number of my hands" or "pi/pi + pi/pi" or whatever. Writing x x is writing two x's, but it's not writing a number. Actually I have no objection to supposing the number two exists - so long as its "existence" is qualified as existing in some completely different sense than hands exist. Brent Brent Meeker-2 wrote: 1Z wrote: If you have two hands, two does exists, otherwise you couldn't have two of something, right? And if you have none of something, none exists. Well, so zero exists, I have no problem with that. What if you have no zero? :-) Uhm, then I get one out of platonia. I heard they are free there, maybe you should get some. They are very useful. ;) Brent Meeker-2 wrote: 1Z wrote: Or is it a fictional statement? Nope. You seem to think every word in a true sentence must have a separate referent. However, "and", "or", "is", "not" etc do not have separate referents. A true sentence must refer *as a whole* to some state of affairs. That is the only requirement. Not every word must have an object as referent, but every word implies the existence of an object that is connected to the word. You seem to not understand what "referent" means. The above sentence is self contradictory. I thought referent is that thing which a word refers to. If you allow just objects as referents, then some words have no direct referent. Like "and". One could argue it doesn't directly refer to an object. But nevertheless there are objects that reflect what the word means, like "conjunction". You could say "and" is conjuction and exists in the land of connectives. But this sort of extension of "exists" threatens to blur the use of the word in meaninglessness. Russell's theory of types tried to reconstruct mathematics that way. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk wrote: >> 1Z wrote: >> >> > On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote: >> >> 1Z wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at >> all >> >> >> >> with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has >> to >> >> be >> >> >> >> reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an >> invisible >> >> >> >> epiphenomena. >> >> >> >> > Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent numbers. >> >> >> > Numbers >> >> >> > have to exist for the conclusion to follow >> >> >> >> Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is explained >> from >> >> >> >> >> something non physical. >> >> >> > The anti realist position is not that numbers are some existing non- >> >> > physical >> >> > thing: it is that they are not existent at all. >> >> >> If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems very >> much >> >> like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" mean? >> >> > It's asserting the existence of hands, not numbers. >> >> You can't have one without the other. >> The statement "2 hands exists" requires that "2 of something" (the number >> 2) >> exists. > > The idea that "2 hands exist" implies that 2 exists implies that 3 > things exist (the left hand, the right hand and "two") Right. You just made an argument that ALL numbers do exist. Do you have a problem with that? 1Z wrote: > >> 1Z wrote: >> >> >> If you have two hands, two does exists, otherwise you couldn't have >> two >> >> of >> >> something, right? >> >> > And if you have none of something, none exists. >> >> Well, so zero exists, I have no problem with that. >> >> 1Z wrote: >> >> >> Or is it a fictional statement? >> >> > Nope. You seem to think every word in a true sentence must >> > have a separate referent. However, "and", "or", "is", "not" etc >> > do not have separate referents. A true sentence must refer *as a >> > whole* >> > to some state of affairs. That is the only requirement. >> >> Not every word must have an object as referent, but every word implies >> the >> existence of an object that is connected to the word. > > That's a straight contradiction. I expressed myself badly here... I wanted to express that some words don't seem to have a direct referent in the sense of an object, but that it is possible to objectify them and then they do have a referent. Probably I should just say that every word has a referent. 1Z wrote: > >> If it is meaningful to use the word "and", "something and something" or a >> conjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the word "or", "something >> or >> something" or a disjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the word >> "is", > > To say "there is an existing statue of liberty" says nothing more > that "there is a statue of liberty" That depends how you interpret the sentence. In general I agree, but "there is an existing statue of liberty" might be used with "existing" in the sense of existing in the stable consensus reality. So you could say "there is an existing statue of liberty" (that exists in the consensus reality) in contrast to "there is a 'non-existant' statue of serfdom" (that is absent in the consensus reality; but it does exists in my imagination). Your comment is probably meant to imply there is something wrong with what I wrote, but I don't get what it is. 1Z wrote: > >>"something existing" or simply existence exists, if it is meaningful >> to use the word "not", "something that does not exist" or absence exist >> (existing in the absolute sense and not existing relative to something >> else) >> and if if it is meaningful to use the word "two", "two of something" or >> the >> number 2 exists. > > Nope. To say that two of something exist is not to say two exists. > OK; I don't really get that, but let's say this is so. Then you get the functionally same structure as the numbers, but you don't call them "one, two, three,..." but "one of something, two of something, three of something,...". -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Maudlin---How-many-times-does-COMP-have-to-be-false-before-its-false--tp30792507p30953482.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
Brent Meeker-2 wrote: > > On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote: >> >> 1Z wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote: >>> 1Z wrote: Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to be reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible epiphenomena. >>> Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent numbers. >>> Numbers >>> have to exist for the conclusion to follow >>> >> Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is explained from >> >> something non physical. >> > The anti realist position is not that numbers are some existing non- > physical > thing: it is that they are not existent at all. > If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems very much like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" mean? >>> It's asserting the existence of hands, not numbers. >>> >> You can't have one without the other. >> The statement "2 hands exists" requires that "2 of something" (the number >> 2) >> exists. >> > > It requires that two of something exist, but not that the number itself > 2 exist. What is the difference between two of something and two? Numbers always express quantity of something, even if this something is just numbers. It's like writing "2x" and "2". It may be formally different, but I don't see a difference in the concept that is expressed. "2" is just shorter than "2x" or "2*1" or "1+1". (I am aware that 2x is of course different than 2 when they are both used in a common context like in 2x+2=8; but not when all numbers are written with an x behind them) Brent Meeker-2 wrote: > > In symbolic logic it and be expressed as Ex Ey (Hand(x) + Hand > (y) + (x=/=y)), no mention of the number 2. You are aware that you just written down TWO "Hand"s? You don't need to write "two" to express that 2 is meant. You can write "II" or "1 plus 1" or "the number of my hands" or "pi/pi + pi/pi" or whatever. Brent Meeker-2 wrote: > >> >> 1Z wrote: >> >>> If you have two hands, two does exists, otherwise you couldn't have two of something, right? >>> And if you have none of something, none exists. >>> >> Well, so zero exists, I have no problem with that. >> > > What if you have no zero? :-) Uhm, then I get one out of platonia. I heard they are free there, maybe you should get some. They are very useful. ;) Brent Meeker-2 wrote: > >> >> 1Z wrote: >> >>> Or is it a fictional statement? >>> Nope. You seem to think every word in a true sentence must >>> have a separate referent. However, "and", "or", "is", "not" etc >>> do not have separate referents. A true sentence must refer *as a >>> whole* >>> to some state of affairs. That is the only requirement. >>> >> Not every word must have an object as referent, but every word implies >> the >> existence of an object that is connected to the word. >> > > You seem to not understand what "referent" means. The above sentence is > self contradictory. I thought referent is that thing which a word refers to. If you allow just objects as referents, then some words have no direct referent. Like "and". One could argue it doesn't directly refer to an object. But nevertheless there are objects that reflect what the word means, like "conjunction". -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Maudlin---How-many-times-does-COMP-have-to-be-false-before-its-false--tp30792507p30953304.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote: > >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all > >> >> >> with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to > >> be > >> >> >> reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible > >> >> >> epiphenomena. > > >> >> > Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent numbers. > >> >> > Numbers > >> >> > have to exist for the conclusion to follow > > >> >> Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is explained from > >> > >> >> something non physical. > > >> > The anti realist position is not that numbers are some existing non- > >> > physical > >> > thing: it is that they are not existent at all. > > >> If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems very much > >> like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" mean? > > > It's asserting the existence of hands, not numbers. > > You can't have one without the other. > The statement "2 hands exists" requires that "2 of something" (the number 2) > exists. The idea that "2 hands exist" implies that 2 exists implies that 3 things exist (the left hand, the right hand and "two") > 1Z wrote: > > >> If you have two hands, two does exists, otherwise you couldn't have two > >> of > >> something, right? > > > And if you have none of something, none exists. > > Well, so zero exists, I have no problem with that. > > 1Z wrote: > > >> Or is it a fictional statement? > > > Nope. You seem to think every word in a true sentence must > > have a separate referent. However, "and", "or", "is", "not" etc > > do not have separate referents. A true sentence must refer *as a > > whole* > > to some state of affairs. That is the only requirement. > > Not every word must have an object as referent, but every word implies the > existence of an object that is connected to the word. That's a straight contradiction. > If it is meaningful to use the word "and", "something and something" or a > conjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the word "or", "something or > something" or a disjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the word > "is", To say "there is an existing statue of liberty" says nothing more that "there is a statue of liberty" >"something existing" or simply existence exists, if it is meaningful > to use the word "not", "something that does not exist" or absence exist > (existing in the absolute sense and not existing relative to something else) > and if if it is meaningful to use the word "two", "two of something" or the > number 2 exists. Nope. To say that two of something exist is not to say two exists. > View this message in > context:http://old.nabble.com/Maudlin---How-many-times-does-COMP-have-to-be-f... > Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Templeton: Faith in Science
On 2/17/2011 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear John,
Dear Bruno,
I wonder if you read my essay of 2000 "Science - Religion" upon which
Russell wrote in ire:
"Don't you dare calling my science a religion!" expressing similar
(almost) basis - not in the spirit of this list (or your particular
stance), but visualizing what I call 'conventional' science, the
figment developed over the past millennia upon halfway (maybe less)
understood and partially observed phenomena. - I mean 'THAT'
efficient and miraculous technology, what humanity uses as of
yesterday.
The only difference I can see as fundamental to your present post is
the application of the word: _" T r u t h "_ of which you state:
'there is'. I think: 'there is not'. There is YOUR truth and MY truth
and in our individual mini-solipsism (Colin) certain aspects may
match - giving some sort of communal belief system in scientific
terms as well, so a ('partial') truth has merits, what many may
believe. Or: believe IN.
I am a neoneoplatonist believer, John, I believe in truth, and that is
the motor of my research.
Now what is a truth? In my youth I was rather optimistic and define it
as a queen which wins all wars without any army, but taking sometime
very long detours. I asked my father what he thought about truth, and
he told me that truth is what the men fear the most.
As a scientist, I know I can never offer the truth, but only theories,
and reasoning in those theories, and interpretations (model) of those
theories, themselves depending on other theories. And *all* theories
are conjecture, even the banal theories like "there is a moon out there".
May be you are confusing the 'unknown truth' and the 'inner truth'
(partially known for the best or the worst), when you say that there
is no other truth that "my truth".
The real prospect of science is religious in the sense of "religare"
that is sharing truth with others as a way to link us with others, and
for that, sharing faith, be it faith in a physical universe, faith in
reason, faith in some first principle, in number theory, in plant
and/or animals, in earth, in the sun, or in , etc.
It isn't faith if it's based on evidence (even if it's wrong).
Then courage makes progress possible, when we have to reset the faith
in what is beyond our theories, when we discover that 'we were wrong'.
But faith is exactly what religions forbid one to "reset".
I find it dangerous to include funding from billionaires into
establishing more credit for the hearsay-based so called 'religions'
- there is too much in the world, without it.
I am certainly a bit anxious about that. But it is not the fault of
religion per se that humans pervert the original inquiry.
That is far too generous. Religion is the perversion of inquiry. It is
the substitution of faith and revelation for evidence and
investigation. You write as though religion was something apart from
humans and that it is not humans who define it - or maybe you reserve to
yourself the power to define it?
Theology is obviously the most fundamental science,
It is not obvious to me that the study of gods is a science at all.
and we are still living in an era where it belongs to authoritative
societies. By separating theology from the other sciences, we have
tolerated an unhealthy lack of seriousness in theology and,
altogether, in science. Science itself is made into a pseudo-theology
which hides its status.
Now if Templeton might be open to scientific theology (which means
only that we search truth, but present *only* hypothetical theories,
and actually NEVER pretend to get the truth, as any sincere scientist
is or should be aware), then, why not. Is it not about time to be a
little more serious in such a fundamental subject.
People saying that GOD does not exist will automatically impose on you
their own conception of GOD, be it matter, power, money, politics,
social security, the local guru, whatever.
And the people who say GOD does exist won't impose their conception on
you??? You must not read the world news. Is there a nation where you
can be executed for denying the existence of matter?
It not only stifles free thinking,
Free thinking is always stifled. Always. Even, if not especially by
those who pretend to defend free thinking. Free thinking is a personal
eternal endeavor, needing courage and vigilance. But you have to
believe that 2+2=4, to be free. George Orwell get that point.
I don't think George Orwell knew much about the philosophy of mathematics.
it may give justifiction to aberrant behavior, brutality, wars,
oppression and hate, above all the overpopulation of this Earth in
the name of a "God-given-SOUL" at conception.
(Never mind the animals and the artificial fertilization processes).
Hmm... some chimpanzee are already like that. Men, many apes and
wolves have the problem that apparently they are cabled for following
leaders blindly
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote: 1Z wrote: Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to be reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible epiphenomena. Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent numbers. Numbers have to exist for the conclusion to follow Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is explained from something non physical. The anti realist position is not that numbers are some existing non- physical thing: it is that they are not existent at all. If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems very much like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" mean? It's asserting the existence of hands, not numbers. You can't have one without the other. The statement "2 hands exists" requires that "2 of something" (the number 2) exists. It requires that two of something exist, but not that the number itself 2 exist. In symbolic logic it and be expressed as Ex Ey (Hand(x) + Hand (y) + (x=/=y)), no mention of the number 2. 1Z wrote: If you have two hands, two does exists, otherwise you couldn't have two of something, right? And if you have none of something, none exists. Well, so zero exists, I have no problem with that. What if you have no zero? :-) 1Z wrote: Or is it a fictional statement? Nope. You seem to think every word in a true sentence must have a separate referent. However, "and", "or", "is", "not" etc do not have separate referents. A true sentence must refer *as a whole* to some state of affairs. That is the only requirement. Not every word must have an object as referent, but every word implies the existence of an object that is connected to the word. You seem to not understand what "referent" means. The above sentence is self contradictory. Brent If it is meaningful to use the word "and", "something and something" or a conjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the word "or", "something or something" or a disjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the word "is", "something existing" or simply existence exists, if it is meaningful to use the word "not", "something that does not exist" or absence exist (existing in the absolute sense and not existing relative to something else) and if if it is meaningful to use the word "two", "two of something" or the number 2 exists. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Templeton: Faith in Science
Dear John,
Dear Bruno,
I wonder if you read my essay of 2000 "Science - Religion" upon
which Russell wrote in ire:
"Don't you dare calling my science a religion!" expressing similar
(almost) basis - not in the spirit of this list (or your particular
stance), but visualizing what I call 'conventional' science, the
figment developed over the past millennia upon halfway (maybe less)
understood and partially observed phenomena. - I mean 'THAT'
efficient and miraculous technology, what humanity uses as of
yesterday.
The only difference I can see as fundamental to your present post is
the application of the word: " T r u t h " of which you state:
'there is'. I think: 'there is not'. There is YOUR truth and MY
truth and in our individual mini-solipsism (Colin) certain aspects
may match - giving some sort of communal belief system in scientific
terms as well, so a ('partial') truth has merits, what many may
believe. Or: believe IN.
I am a neoneoplatonist believer, John, I believe in truth, and that is
the motor of my research.
Now what is a truth? In my youth I was rather optimistic and define it
as a queen which wins all wars without any army, but taking sometime
very long detours. I asked my father what he thought about truth, and
he told me that truth is what the men fear the most.
As a scientist, I know I can never offer the truth, but only theories,
and reasoning in those theories, and interpretations (model) of those
theories, themselves depending on other theories. And *all* theories
are conjecture, even the banal theories like "there is a moon out
there".
May be you are confusing the 'unknown truth' and the 'inner
truth' (partially known for the best or the worst), when you say that
there is no other truth that "my truth".
The real prospect of science is religious in the sense of "religare"
that is sharing truth with others as a way to link us with others, and
for that, sharing faith, be it faith in a physical universe, faith in
reason, faith in some first principle, in number theory, in plant and/
or animals, in earth, in the sun, or in , etc.
Then courage makes progress possible, when we have to reset the faith
in what is beyond our theories, when we discover that 'we were wrong'.
I find it dangerous to include funding from billionaires into
establishing more credit for the hearsay-based so called 'religions'
- there is too much in the world, without it.
I am certainly a bit anxious about that. But it is not the fault of
religion per se that humans pervert the original inquiry.
Theology is obviously the most fundamental science, and we are still
living in an era where it belongs to authoritative societies. By
separating theology from the other sciences, we have tolerated an
unhealthy lack of seriousness in theology and, altogether, in
science. Science itself is made into a pseudo-theology which hides its
status.
Now if Templeton might be open to scientific theology (which means
only that we search truth, but present *only* hypothetical theories,
and actually NEVER pretend to get the truth, as any sincere scientist
is or should be aware), then, why not. Is it not about time to be a
little more serious in such a fundamental subject.
People saying that GOD does not exist will automatically impose on you
their own conception of GOD, be it matter, power, money, politics,
social security, the local guru, whatever.
It not only stifles free thinking,
Free thinking is always stifled. Always. Even, if not especially by
those who pretend to defend free thinking. Free thinking is a personal
eternal endeavor, needing courage and vigilance. But you have to
believe that 2+2=4, to be free. George Orwell get that point.
it may give justifiction to aberrant behavior, brutality, wars,
oppression and hate, above all the overpopulation of this Earth in
the name of a "God-given-SOUL" at conception.
(Never mind the animals and the artificial fertilization processes).
Hmm... some chimpanzee are already like that. Men, many apes and
wolves have the problem that apparently they are cabled for following
leaders blindly. It is very plausible that our deeper prejudices are
inherited from our very long history. Our limited current surface only
single out that problem, but the problem is in us, not in the last
"fake god" in fashion. It runs deeper.
With the self-turing-emulability assumption, you can even understand
that the vice is already in the ideally correct Löbian machine. Souls
fall. It is a theorem, in the comp theory (accepting neoplatonist
theology and its theoretical computer's science interpretation through
comp).
I could see a 'difference' between what people call religion vs,
what people call science in the methodology: in the former the
hearsay-provided teaching is believed in faith - while in the so
called (conventional) sciences the hearsay of (poorly-
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
1Z wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote: >> 1Z wrote: >> >> >> >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all >> >> >> with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to >> be >> >> >> reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible >> >> >> epiphenomena. >> >> >> > Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent numbers. >> >> > Numbers >> >> > have to exist for the conclusion to follow >> >> >> Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is explained from >> >> >> something non physical. >> >> > The anti realist position is not that numbers are some existing non- >> > physical >> > thing: it is that they are not existent at all. >> >> If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems very much >> like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" mean? > > It's asserting the existence of hands, not numbers. You can't have one without the other. The statement "2 hands exists" requires that "2 of something" (the number 2) exists. 1Z wrote: > >> If you have two hands, two does exists, otherwise you couldn't have two >> of >> something, right? > > And if you have none of something, none exists. Well, so zero exists, I have no problem with that. 1Z wrote: > >> Or is it a fictional statement? >> > Nope. You seem to think every word in a true sentence must > have a separate referent. However, "and", "or", "is", "not" etc > do not have separate referents. A true sentence must refer *as a > whole* > to some state of affairs. That is the only requirement. Not every word must have an object as referent, but every word implies the existence of an object that is connected to the word. If it is meaningful to use the word "and", "something and something" or a conjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the word "or", "something or something" or a disjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the word "is", "something existing" or simply existence exists, if it is meaningful to use the word "not", "something that does not exist" or absence exist (existing in the absolute sense and not existing relative to something else) and if if it is meaningful to use the word "two", "two of something" or the number 2 exists. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Maudlin---How-many-times-does-COMP-have-to-be-false-before-its-false--tp30792507p30952212.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Come Again?
m.a. and Jason go into philosophy. Firstly: eternal is not a time limit, not even with that questionable figment of "time" we use in our imaging about our universe (for visualizing a 'physical' system). Secondly it does not seem so safe to step out from our restricted and widely accepted solipsism of the so far learned (partially un-understood?) 'physical world' figments - using those terms we deduced from within such system (oscillatory, holographic, etc.). Thirdly: with infinite (not a number) ingredients potentially participating in unlimited Big Bangs (if we suppose such at all in terms of our yesterday's physical knowledge) in unrestricted topical variations - the probability (pardon me for that word what I find immaterial) of a TOTAL match between such events is negligible (call it zero?) And to Jason's "Lastly": I salute your indecisiveness about the term 'time' and its consequences, relativity or not. John M On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:47 PM, m.a. wrote: > >> Given modern physics and cosmology, does Nietzsche's idea of "eternal >> return" have any validity?m.a. >> >> -- > > > In a few ways I think it could be argued that it does. One is the > oscillatory universe idea, which will happen if the mass of the universe is > below a certain threshold or if the expansion rate is not constant and will > decrease. Currently it seems to be accelerating, however. It is theorized > (I think by Loop Quantum Gravity or string theory) that at a point when all > the matter in the universe comes to a single point (or close to that) > gravity will momentarily reverse and cause a new expansion. According to > the holographic principle, there is a finite number of ways the matter in a > finite volume of space can be arranged, so eventually the pattern will > repeat. > > Also, by eternal inflation you could say there are an infinite number of > big-bangs, and again some of them would be duplicates of the observable > universe. > > Lastly, you might argue that relativity's proposal of a 4-dimensional > space-time means we are always in every moment, which perhaps has similar > implications to the idea of living every moment of one's life an infinite > number of times. > > Jason > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Templeton: Faith in Science
Dear Bruno,
I wonder if you read my essay of 2000 "Science - Religion" upon which
Russell wrote in ire:
"Don't you dare calling my science a religion!" expressing similar (almost)
basis - not in the spirit of this list (or your particular stance), but
visualizing what I call 'conventional' science, the figment developed over
the past millennia upon halfway (maybe less) understood and partially
observed phenomena. - I mean 'THAT' efficient and miraculous technology,
what humanity uses as of yesterday.
The only difference I can see as fundamental to your present post is the
application of the word: *" T r u t h "* of which you state: 'there is'. I
think: 'there is not'. There is YOUR truth and MY truth and in our
individual mini-solipsism (Colin) certain aspects may match - giving some
sort of communal belief system in scientific terms as well, so a ('partial')
truth has merits, what many may believe. Or: believe IN.
I find it dangerous to include funding from billionaires into establishing
more credit for the hearsay-based so called 'religions' - there is too much
in the world, without it. It not only stifles free thinking, it may give
justifiction to aberrant behavior, brutality, wars, oppression and hate,
above all the overpopulation of this Earth in the name of a "God-given-SOUL"
at conception.
(Never mind the animals and the artificial fertilization processes).
I could see a 'difference' between what people call religion vs, what people
call science in the methodology: in the former the hearsay-provided teaching
is *believed in faith -* while in the so called (conventional) sciences the
hearsay of (poorly- maybe mis-understood) observences (by lit and reputable
professors) is belived at face value, sometimes re-checked occasionally by a
methodology based on instruments designed FOR such belief system proper,
applying the (re)trospectively occurring (presumable) results for a
(usually mathematical?) match, as the big 'scientific achievement' and
proof(?), before including them into a faithful belief.
John M
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Thanks Brent. But I am s bad in selling and advertizing. I might make
> an attempt because I surely agree we should bring bridges between religion
> and science, although I would say we should not build bridges, but demolish
> instead the artificial wall we have build in between science and religion.
>
> There is no difference at all between science and religion. Both, when
> separated, are pseudo-science or pseudo-religion. There is truth, and we are
> searching it, that's all. Just that politics and short term goal (power)
> interfere with this.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2011, at 01:02, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Need funding, Bruno? "The Theology of Arithmetic" should be a shoo-in.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> Original Message
>>
>> From this week's Nature re: why some scientists are uneasy with Templeton
>>> -
>>>
>>
>> Opening paragraph:
>>
>> "At the headquarters of the John Templeton Foundation, a dozen
>> kilometres outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the late billionaire
>> seems to watch over everything. John Templeton’s larger-than-life
>> bust stands at one end of the main conference room. His life-sized
>> portrait smiles down from a side wall. His face peers out of framed
>> snapshots propped on bookshelves throughout the many offices.
>> It seems fitting that Templeton is keeping an eye on the foundation that
>> he created in 1987, and that consumed so much of his time and energy.
>> With a current endowment estimated at US$2.1 billion, the organization
>> continues to pursue Templeton’s goal of building bridges between science
>> and religion. Each year, it doles out some $70 million in grants, more
>> than $40 million of which goes to research in fields such as cosmology,
>> evolutionary biology and psychology."
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > >> >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all > >> >> with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to be > >> >> reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible > >> >> epiphenomena. > > >> > Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent numbers. > >> > Numbers > >> > have to exist for the conclusion to follow > > >> Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is explained from > >> something non physical. > > > The anti realist position is not that numbers are some existing non- > > physical > > thing: it is that they are not existent at all. > > If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems very much > like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" mean? It's asserting the existence of hands, not numbers. > If you have two hands, two does exists, otherwise you couldn't have two of > something, right? And if you have none of something, none exists. > Or is it a fictional statement? > Nope. You seem to think every word in a true sentence must have a separate referent. However, "and", "or", "is", "not" etc do not have separate referents. A true sentence must refer *as a whole* to some state of affairs. That is the only requirement. > But this is obviously absurd! - Except if you accept that fictional things > are, too, real in a sense, but this would mean that "fictional" > numbers/computation can indeed be what determines the appearance of the > physical. > > Or numbers are material things and numbers give rise to (in this case) the > rest of material things. In this case your sense of material is quite > akward, though. > > -- > View this message in > context:http://old.nabble.com/Maudlin---How-many-times-does-COMP-have-to-be-f... > Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
1Z wrote: > >> >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all >> >> with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to be >> >> reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible >> >> epiphenomena. >> >> > Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent numbers. >> > Numbers >> > have to exist for the conclusion to follow >> >> Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is explained from >> something non physical. > > The anti realist position is not that numbers are some existing non- > physical > thing: it is that they are not existent at all. > If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems very much like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" mean? If you have two hands, two does exists, otherwise you couldn't have two of something, right? Or is it a fictional statement? But this is obviously absurd! - Except if you accept that fictional things are, too, real in a sense, but this would mean that "fictional" numbers/computation can indeed be what determines the appearance of the physical. Or numbers are material things and numbers give rise to (in this case) the rest of material things. In this case your sense of material is quite akward, though. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Maudlin---How-many-times-does-COMP-have-to-be-false-before-its-false--tp30792507p30950437.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
On Feb 16, 10:58 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 16, 3:40 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Feb 16, 8:27 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > > On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree. Although it's interesting that some people with > > synasthesia > > > > > > > apparently perceive numbers as having various perceptual > > properties. > > > > > > > Some people "perceive" pink elephants too. However, other people > > don't > > > > > > "perceive" them , leading cynics to suppose that they are not > > > > > > really being perceived at all. > > > > > > The guy who reported seeing the digits of pi like a vast landscape > > also > > > > > receited over 20,000 digits from memory. That should lend a little > > more > > > > > credence to his claims. > > > > > Which are what? I don't think *he* is claiming numbers objectively > > > > exist. And isn't the fact that all synaesthetes visualise them > > > > differently > > > > somehat contrary to *that* claim. > > > > > > Sure. Horses are real and unicorns aren't. Didn't you know that? > > > > > > Unless you've visited every time period in every corner of reality > > how > > > > can > > > > > you assert unicrons don't exist? > > > > > The same way I assert everything: the evidence I have is good enough. > > > > > >The fossile record might suggest they have > > > > > never lived on this planet but that hardly rules out their existence > > > > > everywhere. > > > > > > "Does XYZ exist?" > > > > > "Let me look around... I can't see it right now, it must not exist!" > > > > > > Instead we should take a more humble approach: > > > > > > "I've looked around and cannot see it here, it probably doesn't exist > > > > here, > > > > > however I have no idea whether or not it exists in places I cannot > > see or > > > > > have not looked." > > > > > > I think Bayesian inference: > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference#Evidence_and_changing. > > .. > > > > > Is particularly useful in answering questions relating to existence. > > The > > > > > question is, what prior probability would you set to a proposition > > such > > > > as > > > > > "Other universes not visible to us exist". 1Z and Brent would seem > > to > > > > > assign a rather low probability, but that just means a higher > > threshold > > > > of > > > > > evidence will be required to convince them. Lacking any evidence at > > all, > > > > > the least biased prior probability to begin with is 0.5. If some > > > > evidence, > > > > > for fine tuning for example, accumulates then you should adjust your > > > > assumed > > > > > probability that the proposition "Other universes not visible to us > > > > exist" > > > > > is true. > > > > > > Are you aware of a better or more fair way of addressing such a > > question? > > > > > I am a fallibilist. You are preaching to the converted. > > > > Okay it seems we have a common foundation we agree on. Can you explain > > why > > > you have confidence in the unreality of other possible universes rather > > than > > > uncertainty? What evidence have you seen for or against that > > proposition? > > Peter, > > Thank you for your very detailed and thoughtful response. > > > The mathematical multiverse suffers from a double wammy: it is > > predicts > > too much (white rabbits) and explains too little (time and > > consciousness are > > not explained). Physical multiverses are a bit more of a nuanced > > issue. Many worlds > > is not my favourite interpretation of QM, but at the end of the day > > there could be > > empirical evidence one way or the other. > > If universes are mathematical objects, they follows well-defined equations. Physical universes will. Mathematical universes need not. Platonia will include all the discontinous and non-differentiable functions. You have to take the rough with the smooth. > A few, more rare, universe may have an additional law, at time X, in > location Y, a white rabbit will pop into existence, but the description for > such a universe is much longer. Platonia includes eveything that is not seld contradictory, and there is no contradiction in randomness and chaos. Moreoever there must be many disordered sets for every ordered set. > In self-similar mathematical structures, > such as the programs generated by the UDA, the simpler structures recur much > more frequently, and so the measure for a particular instantiation of an > observer would have a higher measure in universes with shorter > descriptions/definitions. That applies if the UDA is the only primary structure. However, if your argument for a UDA is that it necessarily exists in Platonia, it has to be an island of order in a sea of chaos. > Further, life cannot evolve in a universe with > unpredictable laws or with laws which constan
Re: Templeton: Faith in Science
Thanks Brent. But I am s bad in selling and advertizing. I might make an attempt because I surely agree we should bring bridges between religion and science, although I would say we should not build bridges, but demolish instead the artificial wall we have build in between science and religion. There is no difference at all between science and religion. Both, when separated, are pseudo-science or pseudo-religion. There is truth, and we are searching it, that's all. Just that politics and short term goal (power) interfere with this. Bruno On 17 Feb 2011, at 01:02, Brent Meeker wrote: Need funding, Bruno? "The Theology of Arithmetic" should be a shoo- in. Brent Original Message From this week's Nature re: why some scientists are uneasy with Templeton - Opening paragraph: "At the headquarters of the John Templeton Foundation, a dozen kilometres outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the late billionaire seems to watch over everything. John Templeton’s larger-than-life bust stands at one end of the main conference room. His life-sized portrait smiles down from a side wall. His face peers out of framed snapshots propped on bookshelves throughout the many offices. It seems fitting that Templeton is keeping an eye on the foundation that he created in 1987, and that consumed so much of his time and energy. With a current endowment estimated at US$2.1 billion, the organization continues to pursue Templeton’s goal of building bridges between science and religion. Each year, it doles out some $70 million in grants, more than $40 million of which goes to research in fields such as cosmology, evolutionary biology and psychology." Brian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Come Again?
On 17 Feb 2011, at 04:39, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:47 PM, m.a. wrote: Given modern physics and cosmology, does Nietzsche's idea of "eternal return" have any validity?m.a. -- In a few ways I think it could be argued that it does. One is the oscillatory universe idea, which will happen if the mass of the universe is below a certain threshold or if the expansion rate is not constant and will decrease. Currently it seems to be accelerating, however. It is theorized (I think by Loop Quantum Gravity or string theory) that at a point when all the matter in the universe comes to a single point (or close to that) gravity will momentarily reverse and cause a new expansion. According to the holographic principle, there is a finite number of ways the matter in a finite volume of space can be arranged, so eventually the pattern will repeat. Also, by eternal inflation you could say there are an infinite number of big-bangs, and again some of them would be duplicates of the observable universe. Lastly, you might argue that relativity's proposal of a 4- dimensional space-time means we are always in every moment, which perhaps has similar implications to the idea of living every moment of one's life an infinite number of times. And in UD-time (defined by the computing steps of the UD) eternal return is guarantied. Nothing is more repeating and innovating than the super-redundant UD* (which makes hope for the elimination of the WR, by inflation of normal "worlds"). people can look at the Mandelbrot set, also. Of course, this is not "given modern physics". It is "given digital mechanism". Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?
On 16 Feb 2011, at 22:36, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/16/2011 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
hat matter adds to a bundle of properties is existence. A non-
existent bundle of properties is a mere concept, a mere possibility.
Thus the concept of matter is very much tied to the idea of
contingency or "somethingism" -- the idea that only certain possible
things exist.
Only certain possible number relations exist. And relatively to a
number there is the provable relations, the consistent relations,
the true relation, and then the combination of those.
I don't understand that? A relation might imply a contradiction and
therefore be impossible.
Yes.
But I would suppose that all possible relations would exist in
Platonia.
Yes. I was perhaps unclear. "Only certain possible relation" =
"possible relation". It was an insistence type of use of "certain".
But "possible" in this context is "consistent for this or that machine
number". Possibility (consistency) applies to theories or machine or
number.
What non-contraditory relations would not exist?
I am glad you accept they all exist.
Sorry for having been unclear.
But even contradictory relation exists relatively to number/theory.
(PA is inconsistent) is consistent with PA, and "(PA + (PA is
inconsistent)" is true, that is, it belongs to arithmetical truth. and
"If PA is consistent then PA + provable('0=1') is consistent" is true
and provable by PA, etc.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
