Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Brun

Re: Against Mechanism

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." >> a good expla

Re: Against Mechanism

On Dec 10, 2012, at 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > From whose perspective is there a single unique result? From my perspective! Whenever I, the simple non-godlike experimenter, send a photon (or electron) through 2 slits and it hits a

Re: Re: Re: Introspection (internal 1p) has been dropped by cognitivescience

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:59:20AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Russell Standish > > Actual introspection is subjective, not objective. > Computers as I understand them can only think objectively. > Two points: 1) Why do you think introspection is subjective? By contrast, I suspect it is o

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." a good explanation. I'm all for finding

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/10/2012 5:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Res

Re: Against Mechanism

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." a > good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a > deterministic one. But simply postulating an ense

Re: Against Mechanism

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:25 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM,

Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Richard, > > On 10 Dec 2012, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> Roger Bruno, >> How is consciousness related to god? >> It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression. > > > God = Truth (Plato). OK? With the CTM, arithmetical t

Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

Richard, On 10 Dec 2012, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger Bruno, How is consciousness related to god? It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression. God = Truth (Plato). OK? With the CTM, arithmetical truth is enough (and a tiny provable part is enough for the ontology).

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." a good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. But simply postulating an ensemble of worlds to make the probabilities "deterministic" in

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

On 12/10/2012 8:33 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. Dear Roger, This is a contradiction of the relations between monads, there cannot be a "special" monad. Just as there is no 'center' on the surf

Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

Roger Bruno, How is consciousness related to god? It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression. Richard On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Stephen P. King > > God is what/who is looking through the supreme mo

Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. Nice! Even closer to CTM(*): God is what/who is looking through the supreme monads, not any supreme monad itself. Bruno (*) Alias comp,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

Hi Roger, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not > an opinion of God. > And this itself was an opinion of god and produced a striking revelation in Leibniz: "Contradiction. I have kicked my own monadology in its supreme gonad

Re: Introspection (internal 1p) has been dropped by cognitivescience

On 10 Dec 2012, at 13:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Actual introspection is subjective, not objective. Computers as I understand them can only think objectively. But now we know better. Computers are champion in introspection, and they have a rich subjective life. Even withou

Re: comp or descriptive cause and effect

On 10 Dec 2012, at 13:27, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As I understand comp cause and effect, one simply describes what happens in an event by completely calculating and describing the system before (1) and after the event (2). If everything is known about these, nature has to have t

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

Hi Richard Ruquist No, the supreme monad is what God sees through and does through, but God is behind or above the supreme monad. Newton's God was something like that in that the universe was, in Newton's words, God's "sensorium". But Newton had no systematic view of the universe-- no supreme mo

Re: Against Mechanism

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason

Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver:

Re: Re: WHOOPS! The Supreme Monad (God) is necessary after all..

Hi Stephen P. King I can't disagree with your comments, which are about reality. Leibniz's metaphysics (monads have no windows) is not a carbon copy of reality, but I intend to stick with him as long as I can. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 "Forever is a long time, especial

Re: Re: Why a supreme monad is necessary

Hi Stephen P. King Yes. I'm getting a lot of flack on what was obviously a poor analogy. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-li

Re: Re: Re: Introspection (internal 1p) has been dropped by cognitivescience

Hi Russell Standish Actual introspection is subjective, not objective. Computers as I understand them can only think objectively. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From:

*****Universal numbers are ~ Turing machines***

Hi Bruno Marchal Exzcellent. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 15:47:31 Subject: Re: An additional obse

****** the eight hypostases etc. and other properties of comp system****

Hi Bruno Marchal Thanks for these: 1) For a numerical system (comp) the supreme monad contains universal numbers. 2) Individual numerical monads have have different intellects, and so forth. 3) your other important specifics [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 "Forever is a lon

Mental causes and effects (those outside of spacetime)

Hi Alberto G. Corona Outside of spacetime there are no physical causes or effects, but there are mental causes and effects. Materialism has no way of dealing with these, but Idealism (such as with Plato, Leibniz) does. No physical forces are involved, at least causally, but actions can occur "a

Re: Hierarchy of beliefs

Stephen, The article illustrates the dangers of a premature modellization of a problem. The urge to have a mathematical model forces to narrow the thing to be modellized and to isolate it artificially from a wider context that is crucial for the understanding of the problem. The result is a fine mo

Re: Against Mechanism

On 10 Dec 2012, at 07:32, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: And without a d

Re: Against Mechanism

On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Qua

Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads

On 09 Dec 2012, at 22:10, John Mikes wrote: OOps#2: I would have to be a super-Gauss to explain the 12/17ary system. The last time I really studied math-rules was in 1948, preparing for my Ph.D. exam, - since then I only forget. 12/17 is surely a value, hopefully applicable in erecting a m