Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[meekerdb]

On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark > wrote:


On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

>> Determinism is far from "well established".


> It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory.


In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such 
assumption is
made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed 
that
even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in.


I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the 
existence of a multiverse.



Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular.  Everett assumes a multiverse in 
order to make QM determinsitic.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A definition of human consciousness

[meekerdb]

On 12/8/2013 4:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 December 2013 05:52, John Clark > wrote:


On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

> Could you name a materialistic theory that explains consciousness


Consciousness is the feeling information has when it is being processed; if
conscious is fundamental, that is to say it comes at the end of a long line of 
"what
is that?" questions, then after saying that there is just nothing more that 
can be
said about it. And hey, it's just as good as a billion other consciousness 
theories.


Ah yes, Max Tegmark's "theory".These aren't theories, is the problem. One needs a 
rigorous definition of what consciousness is, to start with,


I think that's wrong.  Consciousness is defined ostensively: What you're thinking as you 
read this and similar experiences.  Of course you can define something in a model and say 
this is going to turn out to be consciousness in my model.  This is what Bruno tries to 
do, he takes computation by the UD and then says proving theorems of arithmetic are 
beliefs and other conscious experiences must be in there somewhere.  But it's not that 
much more complete than the one you credit to Tegmark (I think it far preceded him).



and then a theory that explains all its observed features, and makes testable 
predictions. Otherwise all one has is a jumble of words.


And the real gold standard is that it makes a successful and surprising 
prediction.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

About infinity and knowing everything

[Ali Polatel]

I have been following this list for a while and some idea popped up to
my mind today which I'd like to ask/share. I don't know if there are
resources about this and I'd love to read any reference you can direct
me to. (I am eager to learn so I thought finding something to read
about this is a miraculous idea to start :)

- The predictability of a random system is dependent on its limits.
(You roll a dice, the limit is 1-6 so it has a higher predictability
than a dice which has more surfaces and numbers than a common dice.)
- If there is no limit defined for the system to restrict the randomness
and thereby making it predictable to a certain degree it can not be
predicted. No conclusions can be drawn so no rules or knowledge can be.
- If the system is infinite there is no single rule which is absolutely
true because there is no functioning boolean values for the reference
system in question.

If it is possible to deduce:

- When a system is infinite, either it is either an illusion of our
truth determining facility (perception, belief etc.) or anything we
know about it has no absolute true/false value.

Is it possible to determine if anything is infinite?

--
Ali Polatel


pgpoS9g8EbwzN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[meekerdb]

On 12/8/2013 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


No, it's a simple matter of using different words for different things and not muddling 
the distinction.  The Abrahamic religions make a positive virtue of faith:


"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of
his Reason."
  --- Martin Luther


Every machine who want to be simply correct with herself cannot not tear her eyes out of 
his Reason, or if you prefer, cannot avoid discovering the gap between Truth and Proof.


Now, of course, I can recognize that Luther sentence can also be exploited by 
"politics", and that is the whole weakness of theology. But that is a reason to be even 
more rigorous in that field, not less.


A good course in non confessional theology could list the drawback of the theological 
faith, when blind.






“When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else, for we begin by 
believing that there is nothing else  which we have to believe….  I warn people not to 
seek for anything  beyond what they came to believe, for that was all they needed to  
seek for. In the last resort,  however, it is better for you to remain ignorant, for 
fear that you  come to know what you should not know….  Let curiosity give place to  
faith, and glory to salvation.  Let them at least be no hindrance, or  let them keep 
quiet.  To know nothing against the Rule [of faith] is  to know everything.”--- 
Tertullian


Same remark, but here, the "politics" idea seems prevalent (and is bad). the idea to 
separate science from theology is responsible for such use of "bad faith".
Today, after listening to the machines, we would say the contrary. Like "if you have 
faith, never drop reason, as reason can only be extended by faith, and never been 
contradicted. If you feel a contradiction, ask yourself if you have not been abuse by 
some politics who want to manipulate you."





"Those who object to the punishment of heresy are like dogs
and swine,"
  --- John Calvin


Authoritative argument, I guess.







You identify faith with "blind faith". But "blind faith" is something which exist 
because for centuries you were burn alive if you did not have the "blind faith".


Events that were justified and approved by theologians.


Rational Theologians have been persecuted, exiled, banished from science and academies. 
That is why there are "pseudo-theologians" approving authoritative violent method of 
convicting people. That would stop when we will decide to come back on a bit of 
seriousness on the issue. That cannot be done in one day, but listening to the machine 
will help. They have very few prejudice, and can hardly be said to defend a religion, 
except for their belief in classical logic, but nome forbid to also listening to 
intuitionist machine if they want. (That does not make much sense in Platonism, though, 
and is equivalent with listening only to the first person (SAGrz) associated to the 
machine, and not to the "scientist" (G) associated to the machine).






Blind faith is a remnant of terrorist politics, like the religion has become on some 
ground.


No it's a remnant of religion - which inspires and justifies terrorist politics.


A remnant of pseudo-religion, due to the fact that we are not yet free to think in that 
aera. It is forbidden by atheists and fundamentalist alike.


But you evade the point that these three quotes are by theologians who helped found 
religions, Catholocism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism, that are still believed by billions of 
people.  You are calling these "psuedo-religions", which shows how far your have distorted 
common usage.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[LizR]

On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>>> Determinism is far from "well established".
>>>
>>
>> > It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory.
>>
>
> In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such
> assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever
> been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be
> added in.
>

I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by
implying the existence of a multiverse.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A definition of human consciousness

[LizR]

On 9 December 2013 05:52, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> > Could you name a materialistic theory that explains consciousness
>>
>
> Consciousness is the feeling information has when it is being processed;
> if conscious is fundamental, that is to say it comes at the end of a long
> line of "what is that?" questions, then after saying that there is just
> nothing more that can be said about it. And hey, it's just as good as a
> billion other consciousness theories.
>

Ah yes, Max Tegmark's "theory".These aren't theories, is the problem. One
needs a rigorous definition of what consciousness is, to start with, and
then a theory that explains all its observed features, and makes testable
predictions. Otherwise all one has is a jumble of words.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Is the universe driven by mathematics or is it driven by aesthetics

[LizR]

So a rock (or a giant gorilla at the top of the Empire State building)
falls because that's the aesthetic thing for it to do?

"Twas beauty killed the beast..."

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

[LizR]

I'm working on a theory that galaxies are held together by duct tape and
superglue.

It's proving a little tricky. Obviously the tape has to be arranged so the
dark side is facing towards us...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> Telmo Menezes
>
>> > you must also reject the MWI, because you live
>
>
> Who is "you"? Telmo's post was only 63 words long but the pronoun "you" was
> used 8 times, that's almost 13%. When it is necessary to hide behind
> personal pronouns when a philosophical idea regarding duplicating machines
> and personal identity is discussed it's clear that something is wrong.
>
>> > in the first person,
>
>
> Which first person? The first person of John Clark of one hour ago? The
> first person of John Clark standing left of the duplicating machine? The
> first person of John Clark standing right of the duplicating machine?

You're avoiding my question. Why don't you also reject the MWI?

Telmo.

>   John K Clark
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Dec 2013, at 19:41, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch   
wrote:

>> Determinism is far from "well established".

> It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory.

In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such  
assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment  
has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic  
assumption should be added in.


What?

Everett = SWE. The wave evolves deterministically.

It was only when confronted to the explosion of realities that QM  
entails that physicists admitted a (unintelligible) wave reduction  
which introduced indeterminism in the picture, and Einstein never  
bought it at the start.


I bought it, but that was an error of youth, not helped by the  
textbook which dare to add the collapse as an axiom.


Everett is just a coming back to the old but venerable tenant of  
physics: 3p determinacy. Everett indeterminacy is typically 1p  
indeterminacies.


It is not that QM assumes determinacy, it is that Everett shows we  
don't need to assume indeterminacy (which for a logician is a much  
more stronger assumption, even insanity for Einstein).


Somehow Everett shows that Einstein was constantly right on QM. His  
critics was on QM+collapse, if you look close.


Bruno







  John K Clark


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Dec 2013, at 17:24, John Clark wrote:



On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


> Comp is the belief (hope, assumption, theory) that you can survive  
when saying yes to a doctor who proposed to you a digital computer  
brain transplant.


If that were all "comp" meant I would have no problem with it,



Stop playing with word. That is and has always been what it means. You  
have agreed on step 0, 1, 2, and fail to explain to any one what is  
your problem with step 3.





but I know from bitter experience that "comp" also includes all  
sorts of other things (many contradictory)


You have not shown one.




and it includes all the bogus conclusions from your pronoun rich  
erroneous proof.


You are the one making systematically a confusion between the 1-view  
and the 3-view.


Your bad faith becomes blattant. What are you afraid of?




So that is why I refuse to use your homemade term "comp" and don't  
know what you mean when you use it.


I mean what everybody mean by computationalism in the cognitive  
science (with Church-thesis, and the amount of math to make sense of  
Church thesis, notably arithmetic).






> Of course to get this, you should put your shoes in the first  
person picture, and stay in it for awhile,


And that's a good example of such a contradiction right there. If it  
were possible to "put your shoes in the first person picture, and  
stay in it for awhile" then only a fool would say "yes" to a doctor  
in the above definition; but in a world with duplicating machines  
that simply can't be done because you've got 2 identical pairs of  
shoes and no way to know which pair to put your feet into.


We assume comp! So we can put our shoes in them. You have to double  
the effort only, and do it FOR BOTH. The guy in W will say, "gosh, I  
am the one in W, why?", and the guy in M will say "Oh! I am in M, why  
am I the one in M".


In the iterated self-duplication, it is very easy to predict: it is  
white noise. You have 2^n with a big n first person experience to  
consult, but an easy reasoning shows that it is equivalent to a  
Bernouilli experience, with a Gaussian distribution (for such perfect  
protocol).





In all your thought experiments you make the hidden assumption that  
the duplicating machines can make a exact copy of everything in the  
universe


What? No I don't say that. Comp is only that there is a level of copy  
of myself such that I survive.




EXCEPT for a pair of shoes,  and so there is only one unique pair of  
shoes that one can put ones feet into, the mighty original.


On the contrary, if some original was a winner, the statement of the  
others could be forgotten, but we interrogate both of them.


What I did say, is that the first person does not feel has having  
duplicated. Form the first person point you are in one city, and get a  
doppelganger, which looks like you, but is no more "you" in the first  
person immediate sense, and even that you don't know before getting  
some 3p information. As it could be, the reconstitution of the other  
might have been delayed.







But as for me I see nothing special about the original


Of course. His body has been annihilated.



and see no reason shoes can't be duplicated just like everything else.


Not a first person experience FROM the view of the first person  
experience. It is equivalent in Everett of not feeling to be splitted  
and multiplied all the time. It is in that sense that the first person  
experience is not duplicated (in the 1-1-view if you make the pronouns  
precise). Of course, in the 3-view about 1-view (by gentle  
attribution), you can duplicated first person experience, and that is  
what we do also. But the statistic are asked about your expectation on  
the unique singluar person you will feel to be, as you know by comp,  
that they will all feel one, so that the probability that you will  
feel one is 1.


Do you agree with this? That the probability in Helsinki that (you  
will feel to be in one city) is equal to one? (With comp and the  
default hypotheses.


Bruno





  John K Clark



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[John Mikes]

Bruno wrote Dec.06 to John Clark:
*What about comp-immortality? have you an argument which makes you sure
that your consciousness is not related to your computations in arithmetic?
That would be a case you seem to know better than us*.

Excuse mewhat kind of 'argument' do you require to 'prove' the
nonexistence of something that does not exist?
Do you intend me to prove the nonexistence of a version of something I deny
at all?
 John M



On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 06 Dec 2013, at 21:31, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
> > Well John not you nor I are believers in QI but there seem to be plenty
>> on this list.
>>
>
> I neither believe nor disbelieve in quantum immortality, I am not ashamed
> to admit that there are some things I just don't know.  And that makes me
> much wiser than some on this list, at least I know I don't know shit.
>
>
> What about comp-immortality? have you an argument which makes you sure
> that your consciousness is not related to your computations in arithmetic?
> That would be a case you seem to know better than us.
>
> (I know you stop at the step 3, but I still don't see why, except your
> confusion between 1p and 3p. You did not comment the last explanations I
> gave to you).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A definition of human consciousness

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Dec 2013, at 17:52, John Clark wrote:


On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Could you name a materialistic theory that explains consciousness

Consciousness is the feeling information has when it is being  
processed; if conscious is fundamental, that is to say it comes at  
the end of a long line of "what is that?" questions, then after  
saying that there is just nothing more that can be said about it.  
And hey, it's just as good as a billion other consciousness theories.


It's interesting that people love to spin consciousness theories  
because it's so easy to do, but you really have to know what you're  
doing to propose a theory of intelligence and there is no room to  
hide behind muddy unprovable metaphysics or undefined pronouns.  
Unlike consciousness intelligence theories are easy to prove wrong,  
but even if only partially correct they could be good enough to make  
you a billionaire.  All consciousness theories produce is gas.



This is exactly what UDA shows that comp *leads* to a reduction of the  
mind body problem into a body problem in arithmetic.


We don't need to try to define consciousness, but to agree that  
consciousness is invariant for some transformation of the brains, and  
this eventually reduce physics to a measure problem for relative  
computational state in arithmetic.


Please study the reasoning. Cease the rhetoric. If you study step 4,  
you cannot fail to grasp step 3.


You didn't convince any one you refuted the reasoning, given that each  
time you provided a counter-example it was shown  to confuse the first  
and third person views, usually at the last moment. Each time. You say  
that the use of the pronouns is defectuous, but I am the one insisting  
to keep clearly the distinction between pronouns referring to the  
first person and the third person view (as defined with the notion of  
personal diary).


You are in Helsinki, and by comp you know that you will survive one  
and entire in a unique city, and you know you can't know which one  
precisely. It will be one, and if you write W, the first person  
experience of the one in M will refute it.
In the perfect self-duplication in different context, each copies get  
one bit of information.
Comp entanglement is sharing of teleportation (annihilation/ 
reconstitution) boxes.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/8 John Clark 

> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>> > what you assert below is plain lies. While I can agree sometimes with
>> things you say, I cannot let such obvious lies pass through.
>>
> But you've just let "such obvious lies pass through". You haven't
> specifically challenged one word of what I said,
>

I did so much it is useless to do anymore... When you say "I don't know
what comp is..." while comp is just a shortcut for computationalism
and I've said it a thousand times so as Bruno and others and you still
faint you've never heard of it... well, what's left is that you're a
f*g liar... what more can I add ?


> you just made the general charge that I was in the habit of telling a lot
> of lies and left it at that. You haven't even tried to logically refute
> anything I said .
>

I did so much that I'm tired to do it whatever I'll do, you will never
acknowledge it... it's really sad.

Quentin


>
>  John K Clark
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>>> Determinism is far from "well established".
>>
>
> > It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory.
>

In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such
assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever
been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be
added in.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> > what you assert below is plain lies. While I can agree sometimes with
> things you say, I cannot let such obvious lies pass through.
>
But you've just let "such obvious lies pass through". You haven't
specifically challenged one word of what I said, you just made the general
charge that I was in the habit of telling a lot of lies and left it at
that. You haven't even tried to logically refute anything I said .

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[John Clark]

Telmo Menezes

> you must also reject the MWI, because you live


Who is "you"? Telmo's post was only 63 words long but the pronoun "you" was
used 8 times, that's almost 13%. When it is necessary to hide behind
personal pronouns when a philosophical idea regarding duplicating machines
and personal identity is discussed it's clear that something is wrong.

> in the first person,
>

Which first person? The first person of John Clark of one hour ago? The
first person of John Clark standing left of the duplicating machine? The
first person of John Clark standing right of the duplicating machine?

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Quentin Anciaux]

As I've shown numerous times now, what you assert below is plain lies.
While I can agree sometimes with things you say, I cannot let such obvious
lies pass through.  Quentin
Le 8 déc. 2013 17:24, "John Clark"  a écrit :

>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> > Comp is the belief (hope, assumption, theory) that you can survive when
>> saying yes to a doctor who proposed to you a digital computer brain
>> transplant.
>>
>
> If that were all "comp" meant I would have no problem with it, but I know
> from bitter experience that "comp" also includes all sorts of other things
> (many contradictory) and it includes all the bogus conclusions from your
> pronoun rich erroneous proof. So that is why I refuse to use your homemade
> term "comp" and don't know what you mean when you use it.
>
> > Of course to get this, you should put your shoes in the first person
>> picture, and stay in it for awhile,
>>
>
> And that's a good example of such a contradiction right there. If it were
> possible to "put your shoes in the first person picture, and stay in it for
> awhile" then only a fool would say "yes" to a doctor in the above
> definition; but in a world with duplicating machines that simply can't be
> done because you've got 2 identical pairs of shoes and no way to know which
> pair to put your feet into.
>
> In all your thought experiments you make the hidden assumption that the
> duplicating machines can make a exact copy of everything in the universe
> EXCEPT for a pair of shoes,  and so there is only one unique pair of shoes
> that one can put ones feet into, the mighty original. But as for me I see
> nothing special about the original and see no reason shoes can't be
> duplicated just like everything else.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 5:24 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> > Comp is the belief (hope, assumption, theory) that you can survive when
>> > saying yes to a doctor who proposed to you a digital computer brain
>> > transplant.
>
>
> If that were all "comp" meant I would have no problem with it, but I know
> from bitter experience that "comp" also includes all sorts of other things
> (many contradictory) and it includes all the bogus conclusions from your
> pronoun rich erroneous proof. So that is why I refuse to use your homemade
> term "comp" and don't know what you mean when you use it.
>
>> > Of course to get this, you should put your shoes in the first person
>> > picture, and stay in it for awhile,
>
>
> And that's a good example of such a contradiction right there. If it were
> possible to "put your shoes in the first person picture, and stay in it for
> awhile" then only a fool would say "yes" to a doctor in the above
> definition; but in a world with duplicating machines that simply can't be
> done because you've got 2 identical pairs of shoes and no way to know which
> pair to put your feet into.

If you believe in what you said above, there are only two options left:

- you must also reject the MWI, because you live in the first person,
so you must know that it is indeed possible to "put your shoes in the
first person picture, and stay in it for awhile" -- in fact you know
it's the only possibility;
- you are a zombie.

Telmo.

> In all your thought experiments you make the hidden assumption that the
> duplicating machines can make a exact copy of everything in the universe
> EXCEPT for a pair of shoes,  and so there is only one unique pair of shoes
> that one can put ones feet into, the mighty original. But as for me I see
> nothing special about the original and see no reason shoes can't be
> duplicated just like everything else.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A definition of human consciousness

[John Clark]

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Could you name a materialistic theory that explains consciousness
>

Consciousness is the feeling information has when it is being processed; if
conscious is fundamental, that is to say it comes at the end of a long line
of "what is that?" questions, then after saying that there is just nothing
more that can be said about it. And hey, it's just as good as a billion
other consciousness theories.

It's interesting that people love to spin consciousness theories because
it's so easy to do, but you really have to know what you're doing to
propose a theory of intelligence and there is no room to hide behind muddy
unprovable metaphysics or undefined pronouns. Unlike consciousness
intelligence theories are easy to prove wrong, but even if only partially
correct they could be good enough to make you a billionaire.  All
consciousness theories produce is gas.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/7/2013 9:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/7/2013 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> Describe an experience which gives sense to multiverses.
>>
>>
>>  The Young two slits.
>>
>>
>>  Only in some interpretations.
>>
>
>
>  Everett's idea explains the appearance of collapse without supposing it,
> so it is more rightfully called a theory.  It is also the only theory under
> which QM is compatible with the well-established principles of locality,
> causality, and determinism. If you believe in QM, and any of those
> principles, Everett is your only option.
>
>
> Determinism is far from "well established".
>
>
It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory.

What about causality, and locality?  Do you reject those too?

Don't forget about special relativity. Even that seems to be in conflict
with single universe interpretations since Bell. (Many apologists now say
"no useful information" rather than "nothing" can travel faster than light,
just to defend the Bohr-Heisenberg idea of collapse)  How many sacred cows
in physics must be sacrificed to save this poorly defined and ill-conceived
Copenhagen Interpretation?



>
>
> The only reason single-universe ideas haven't already been refuted is that
> they are ambiguously defined.  That is, they make no explicit predictions
> as to when or how collapse happens, so whenever interference is
> demonstrated with larger and larger systems, defenders of collapse just
> adjusting the line.
>
>
> That and the fact that they are unobservable.
>

As Deutsch says, so are Pterodactyls and quarks, but our evidence for the
multiverse is at least as strong as it is for quarks.


>All those phenomena cited to show there is a multiverse, like Young's
> slits, require that the interference happen in this universe - so those
> "other universes" are not so "other".
>

It is better to think of particles as having multi-valued properties,
(including multiple positions), and since we are made of particles, we too
can be in superpositions. And later, from this, you can see how systems can
evolve independent non-interfering paths, which for all intents and
purposes will behave as causally isolated realms. (Which is why they can
then be considered "separate universes").


 I learned recently that later in his life Schrodinger independently
conceived of parallel universes, but didn't publish anything on it.
 According to Deutsch:

About 11 minutes in to this video: http://vimeo.com/5490979

“Schrödinger alsohad the basic idea of parallel universes shortly before
Everett, but he didn't publish it. He mentioned it in a lecture in Dublin,
in which he predicted that the audience would think he was crazy. Isn't
that a strange assertion coming from a Nobel Prize winner—that he feared
being considered crazy for claiming that his equation, the one that he won
the Nobel Prize for, might be true.”


Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[John Clark]

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Comp is the belief (hope, assumption, theory) that you can survive when
> saying yes to a doctor who proposed to you a digital computer brain
> transplant.
>

If that were all "comp" meant I would have no problem with it, but I know
from bitter experience that "comp" also includes all sorts of other things
(many contradictory) and it includes all the bogus conclusions from your
pronoun rich erroneous proof. So that is why I refuse to use your homemade
term "comp" and don't know what you mean when you use it.

> Of course to get this, you should put your shoes in the first person
> picture, and stay in it for awhile,
>

And that's a good example of such a contradiction right there. If it were
possible to "put your shoes in the first person picture, and stay in it for
awhile" then only a fool would say "yes" to a doctor in the above
definition; but in a world with duplicating machines that simply can't be
done because you've got 2 identical pairs of shoes and no way to know which
pair to put your feet into.

In all your thought experiments you make the hidden assumption that the
duplicating machines can make a exact copy of everything in the universe
EXCEPT for a pair of shoes,  and so there is only one unique pair of shoes
that one can put ones feet into, the mighty original. But as for me I see
nothing special about the original and see no reason shoes can't be
duplicated just like everything else.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:46 AM, LizR  wrote:

> Surely Everett's interpretation makes quantum mechanics deterministic.
>

Yes but if the world really isn't deterministic then turning quantum
mechanics into something that was deterministic would be a point against
Everett; and he provides no evidence it is deterministic or even proposes a
way that this proposition could be tested even in theory. I like Everett's
idea for reasons that have nothing to do with determinism, I like it
because Everett says the moon exists even when I'm not looking at it.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/7/2013 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 12/6/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>> A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
>>> religion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>  Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.
>>
>
>  Could you give an example of a religion without dogma ?
>
>
>  Platonism, buddhism branches, taoism, neoplatonism, the individual
> religion of all mystics, and ... the theology of numbers.
>
>
> In other words, what all the rest of the world calls "philosophy".
>
>
>  It can be done with the scientific modest attitude and respect for the
> plausible facts, but then the world call it science. "philosophy" has
> different meaning from university to university.
>
>
> So does theology - and none of them agree with your meaning.
>

I don't have much experience with theologians from the US, I'll admit.

In Europe I find even many catholic theology PhDs recognize the problems
these meanings entail concerning belief, even if they don't write papers or
the department head won't be caught off guard making such statements. It's
like in education: everybody knows how silly the state-of-affairs is, but
the institutionalized reductive machine and useless research continues to
sustain itself and grow for performative reason of keeping jobs, being able
to account for "definite results" of publication, funding for "research"
etc. Again, an effect of prohibition and the docility it entails,
independent of domain of inquiry.

In fact, I just met a catholic school teacher of religion (PhD, since this
seems important to you; don't really know why) who recognizes the problem.
He even seemed to intuit some of comp features just on basis of Platonism
and computers...Will he put his name next to it in public? No, because he
wants to keep his jobs. And with opinions and bigotry floating around even
on this list so often, I cannot blame him.



> How many people do you think there are on this list with a PhD in theology
> or a Doctor of Divinity degree?  How many with a PhD in physics?
>
>
>  I use it for those who defend the truth of some theories, which is
> something we don't do in science, be it in theology or botanic.
>
>
>   Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of
> building,
>
>
>  That's agnosticism. With atheism, the lot is not vacant. (confusion
> between ~[]p and []~p).
>
>
> What do you think is on the lot?
>

On the atheism lot, you mean?

Negation of p (god) is beweisbar and true, without a shadow of a doubt, so
John Clark and Quentin are in same boat on this, justified in defending
their interpretations of relationships between beliefs and science on the
list with profanities, when their belief system encounters objects, code,
or language that are not found within in their homemade bible-belt lot of
proper science; the address problem (world discovery has colonial
connotation with possession complexities and reputation vanities; open
search as implied by negative theologies mentioned here seem more immune to
that stuff) on which they are otherwise mute.

"Because it's true! It's Bs"... yes, yes, I get it. You guys miss how by
swinging to the opposite spectrum of Christianity, you just end up
reinforcing it, like some prohibition action fuels the drug trade.

Citing current usage is linguistically a poor argument for some semantic
interpretation of terms, as semantics is always slippery in language, and
changes with the weather on the popular usage level. No linguist would
ignore history for current usage. Therefore not really convincing,
especially given how taboo and prone to manipulation the belief subject is.


>
> Brent
> "Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color; like OFF is a television
> channel."
> --- George Carlin
>

Even the best comedians can make the above confusion concerning vacancy of
the lot, which is understandable given all the Irish catholic nonsense
Carlin apparently grew up with.

If you don't want to read original texts with an open mind towards comp and
theology, it is clear that you want to miss the connection. So why even
argue? PGC


>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

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

Is the universe driven by mathematics or is it driven by aesthetics

[Roger Clough]

Is the universe driven by mathematics or is it driven by aesthetics ?

One cannot fail to look upward at the beauty of the night sky 
without a feeling of wonder. 

Physicists look for ultimate explanations for the behavior
of the universe in mathematics, and indeed one cannot avoid
mathematics in describing the physical universe. 
Many have remarked at the fact that the universe is so
intellegible. Indeed, Plato at his academy admonished, 
Let no-one ignorant of geometry enter here”, for his cosmology
of the structure of the universe was based on a series
of geometrical forms. Forms. This perhaps suggests, because
of the entrance of beautiful forms into Plato's metaphysics,
an aesthetic aspect to his cosmology. 

Similarly, advancing this a step further, while Leibniz was 
well grounded in mathematics (being a co-discover of the calculus),
and was constantly amazed at the geometrical structures
in nature, his metaphysics also shaped his thinking
due to his a) Principle of Sufficient Reason, in which
there is a reason why every aspect of the universe
is as it is, and b) the  pre-established harmony,
the word "harmony" indicating an aesthetic beyond logic
of relations of parts of the universe into his metaphysics. 

Thus Leibniz viewed the history of the universe as following 
the metaphysics of a "pre-established harmony", ever striving
toward a more perfect harmony or beauty. Now beauty
appears as a unity in diversity, which I have suggested
as moving toward the One from the Many. But
others have suggested that the One is just one, not
unity in diversity. 

Leibniz, through his metaphysics, in which the parts
are related to the whole, suggests that metaphysics,
even aesthetics, rules the universe, not mathematics.   
 



Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Dec 2013, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2013/12/8 Bruno Marchal 

On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/7/2013 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/6/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux  
 wrote:






2013/12/5 Jason Resch 



On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is  
not a religion.




Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.

How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and  
reality? Would you say science the collection of those beliefs,  
or the method for developing the beliefs?


Science is a way to discover the world, nothing is certain,  
what you believe now may be shown wrong tomorrow... that's not  
the case with religion...


So if science is the way, the way to what? Where do the beliefs  
belong?


I would say a more correct definition of religion is a  
collection if beliefs, regardless of how you got them.


Another attempt to sweep everybody into the religion bin.



Some may rely on dogmas if old books, others on newer books and  
articles, but either method, science or stake dogmas can provide  
the basis of one's world view.


Science never provides the final answer, and so to operate in  
this world we must act in our own private beliefs.


And religion is always ready to provide a final answer, one never  
to be questioned,


And that is bad, right, but that will continue as long as you  
forbid to scientist to take a look on the spiritual questions.




What am I doing to forbid anything?  I even cited with approval  
scientific tests of "spritual theories".


Because you are a nice agnostic guy. Not an atheists like those I  
met on my path.










because if it's the right answer then it must always have been  
right.




That is just my take according to my own definitions. You may  
define religion as dogma and come to different cinclusions.


I take 'religion' to mean what people refer to when they say they  
belong to a religion.


Brent
"Atheist   n   A person to be pitied in that he is unable to  
believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus  
deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to  
others."


Again, that is agnosticism, not atheism.


It's a quip, not a serious definition.  But I am an agnostic about  
many things - but not about the God of theism, the Big Daddy in the  
sky


I am atheist too. Most of my Muslim and Christian friends are  
atheists too. All theologians I read are agnostic too. The "big  
Daddy" is an image, a poetical stance, like when Einstein invoke  
"the good lord".
May be billions of people believe literally in the big daddy (or  
pretend, because I find hard to actually believe this), but billions  
of people have believed that the sun moves around the earth, or are  
wrong on Galilee and cannabis. That is not a reason to make them  
right by allowing the absence of rigor in the fundamental question,  
nor to let the health in the politics department.
Health is that last century following the fate of theology during  
that last millennium.





that billions of people worship and give money to support a  
priesthood and sometimes stone those who express doubt.  So I'm an  
a-theist.  You will have to excuse me for holding to a definite  
meaning of the word "theist" so that I can express this fact;  
everybody but you seems to understand me quite well.


I understand you, but that atheism, which I share, has nothing to do  
with the more insidious and violent form of atheism of the  
fundamentalists in Europa.


I live in the same country as you... I'm atheist like Brent is, I've  
never met the kind of fundamentalists atheist you're talking about.


What can I say? You are lucky. I am born in an atheist (secret)  
fundamentalist sect.


Being atheist might have prevented you of seeing how some of them can  
treat non-atheists, or doubter of matter, interested in the  
fundamental subject, perhaps only because I dared to do a thesis on  
that very subject (although some "free-thinkers" were the first to  
encourage it, but also the first to "change" their mind when they saw  
that an influent part of the top (atheists) were quite "shocked", at  
least in appearance).


Since those events on my thesis, many have tried hard to hide even  
more that they have dogma, because that has been too clear and  
disturbing for many. You might have benefited of this, in case you did  
study in the same university.


I can't give name, and I prefer not to develop the "personal" aspects,  
which are fuzzily mixed to their atheism. Since then I have realized  
that such events would not exists if theology had not been separated  
from science, and too a great deal of time to understand the ending of  
neoplatonist in occident in 500 and in Orient in 1100 (about).


Scientists have never had any

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Dec 2013, at 10:46, LizR wrote:


On 8 December 2013 20:58, meekerdb  wrote:
On 12/7/2013 9:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Everett's idea explains the appearance of collapse without  
supposing it, so it is more rightfully called a theory.  It is also  
the only theory under which QM is compatible with the well- 
established principles of locality, causality, and determinism. If  
you believe in QM, and any of those principles, Everett is your  
only option.


Determinism is far from "well established".

Surely Everett's interpretation makes quantum mechanics  
deterministic. So rather than being compatible with it, it makes it  
"well established", well, as far as anything does...


Yes. Both Comp and QM are strictly deterministic in the 3p outer, 0th  
person, view.


Apparently Einstein defined "insanity" by the belief in a (3p, I add)  
indeterminacy on immediate result outcomes. I tend to agree with this.  
3p "abrupt" indeterminacy (as opposed to the prediction of the long  
run time behavior of a program) does not make much sense to me.


Bruno




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/8 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 12/7/2013 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:
>
>   On 12/6/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>  2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>> A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
>>> religion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>  Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.
>>
>>  How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and reality? Would
>> you say science the collection of those beliefs, or the method for
>> developing the beliefs?
>>
>
>  Science is a way to discover the world, nothing is certain, what you
> believe now may be shown wrong tomorrow... that's not the case with
> religion...
>
>
>  So if science is the way, the way to what? Where do the beliefs belong?
>
>  I would say a more correct definition of religion is a collection if
> beliefs, regardless of how you got them.
>
>
> Another attempt to sweep everybody into the religion bin.
>
>
>  Some may rely on dogmas if old books, others on newer books and
> articles, but either method, science or stake dogmas can provide the basis
> of one's world view.
>
>  Science never provides the final answer, and so to operate in this world
> we must act in our own private beliefs.
>
>
> And religion is always ready to provide a final answer, one never to be
> questioned,
>
>
>  And that is bad, right, but that will continue as long as you forbid to
> scientist to take a look on the spiritual questions.
>
>
> What am I doing to forbid anything?  I even cited with approval scientific
> tests of "spritual theories".
>
>
> Because you are a nice agnostic guy. Not an atheists like those I met on
> my path.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  because if it's the right answer then it must always have been right.
>
>
>  That is just my take according to my own definitions. You may define
> religion as dogma and come to different cinclusions.
>
>
> I take 'religion' to mean what people refer to when they say they belong
> to a religion.
>
> Brent
> "Atheist   n   A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe
> things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
> a convenient means of feeling superior to others."
>
>
>  Again, that is agnosticism, not atheism.
>
>
> It's a quip, not a serious definition.  But I am an agnostic about many
> things - but not about the God of theism, the Big Daddy in the sky
>
>
> I am atheist too. Most of my Muslim and Christian friends are atheists
> too. All theologians I read are agnostic too. The "big Daddy" is an image,
> a poetical stance, like when Einstein invoke "the good lord".
> May be billions of people believe literally in the big daddy (or pretend,
> because I find hard to actually believe this), but billions of people have
> believed that the sun moves around the earth, or are wrong on Galilee and
> cannabis. That is not a reason to make them right by allowing the absence
> of rigor in the fundamental question, nor to let the health in the politics
> department.
> Health is that last century following the fate of theology during that
> last millennium.
>
>
>
>
> that billions of people worship and give money to support a priesthood and
> sometimes stone those who express doubt.  So I'm an a-theist.  You will
> have to excuse me for holding to a definite meaning of the word "theist" so
> that I can express this fact; everybody but you seems to understand me
> quite well.
>
>
> I understand you, but that atheism, which I share, has nothing to do with
> the more insidious and violent form of atheism of the fundamentalists in
> Europa.
>

I live in the same country as you... I'm atheist like Brent is, I've never
met the kind of fundamentalists atheist you're talking about.

Quentin


>  They don't reject just god, they reject "consciousness", "mind",
> spirituality, persons, and some are secretly sadist. They believe that
> truth = money = power and that's all: they do what they want (including
> very bad things, and using them manipulate people). They are active
> revisionist, and despite what they pretend, they are the enemy of reason
> and genuine free thinking/interrogation, and of course they are usually not
> aware that they are believer, which would not be the case if Aristotle and
> Plato theology were better taught.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_ou

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Dec 2013, at 23:58, John Mikes wrote:


Telmo asked:

Honest question: isn't "dark matter" a fancy name for failed  
predictions?


I would not be so rude  - just call it an ingenious way to save our  
scientific face in so far developed conventional science.
Then it required 'dark energy' in the dark minds.And ALL had been  
justified by the theories to be justified.



I don't think we can, "justify" our theories. We can feel happy to get  
them, happy to see them working for a while, and we can be doubly  
happy when they are shown wrong, as this means that we will learn  
something.


Dark matter is rather sadly amazing in that respect.

God:   - what are the news?
God's engineer:   -  I am afraid humans have found that galaxies  
structures is inconsistent with the matter they can see!

God:- Gosh! What can we do?
God's engineer:- we can add invisible matter, perhaps.
God:- do that! excellent idea, they will see nothing
God's engineer:- Hmm, they will see it indirectly, through  
lenticular structure, and galaxies nice behaviors,

God:- do we need a lot of them?
God's engineer:- well, 90% of matter needs to be made of that  
invisible stuff ...

God:- damned!shhh . (depression).

;)

Bruno







John M


On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Telmo Menezes  
 wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Jesse Mazer   
wrote:
> Dark matter behaves pretty convincingly like large clumps of  
matter that,
> aside from not interacting with normal matter via non- 
gravitational forces,
> obeys the same sort of dynamical laws as any other form of matter,  
see the
> following for a good quick summary (note particularly the stuff  
about the
> colliding galaxy clusters whose dark matter halos seemed to  
"outshoot" the
> position of the visible clusters themselves, since the visible  
matter like
> stars is slowed down via friction with gas and dust during the  
collision,
> but friction is an electromagnetic interaction so dark matter  
should be

> impervious to it):
>
> 
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/06/24/convincing-a-young-scientist-t/

Thanks Jesse, very nice article.

>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes >

> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Honest question: isn't "dark matter" a fancy name for failed  
predictions?

>>
>> Cheers,
>> Telmo.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the  
Google Groups

>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an

>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups

> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an

> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/7/2013 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/6/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2013/12/5 Jason Resch 



On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is  
not a religion.




Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.

Could you give an example of a religion without dogma ?


Platonism, buddhism branches, taoism, neoplatonism, the  
individual religion of all mystics, and ... the theology of  
numbers.


In other words, what all the rest of the world calls "philosophy".


It can be done with the scientific modest attitude and respect for  
the plausible facts, but then the world call it science.  
"philosophy" has different meaning from university to university.


So does theology - and none of them agree with your meaning.


Not true. Note that when theology is taught in a university, it is due  
to link between some academies and the religious institution, but even  
there people seems to have no problem with the machine theology, or  
its resemblance with Plato (scholar referees coming from there are OK,  
although some told me they would not publicly defend computationalism,  
given the Platonist consequence. They too are under the spell of some  
physicalism).





How many people do you think there are on this list with a PhD in  
theology or a Doctor of Divinity degree?  How many with a PhD in  
physics?


The truth or falsity of an idea has nothing to do with diploma and  
number of people getting the idea.

Anyway, in science we use word by redefining hem all.
The fact that atheists are susceptible on words says something about  
their pseudo-religious stance in the matter.







I use it for those who defend the truth of some theories, which is  
something we don't do in science, be it in theology or botanic.




Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of
building,


That's agnosticism. With atheism, the lot is not vacant. (confusion  
between ~[]p and []~p).


What do you think is on the lot?


The total absence of a divine reality, and most usually, a divine  
reality made of matter. Yes, what is on the lot is inconsistent.





Brent
"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color; like OFF is a  
television channel."


Again that is agnosticism. (I suspect that you are not an atheist in  
the european sense of the word. Those really believe in Matter, and  
that there are no Gods, which is contradictory with the original greek  
definition of god of course).


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Dec 2013, at 22:28, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Good explanation, Professor Marchal, so Comp is the same thing as  
what Roboticist, Hans Moravec wrote about 25 years ago?


He missed the FPI, the reversal, etc. He remains physicalist. But he  
made some point in the good direction, as Daniel Galouye saw this  
earlier, and arguably the Hindo-Greek, like in "the question to King  
Milinda" ).




Followup question. Does Comp provide any conceptualization for,  
bluntly, stating it, resurrection of those who perished, shall I  
say, 100,000 years ago? A Denisovian, or a Neanderthal, perhaps? No,  
is an acceptable answer, but I am always interested in crap like that.


It depends on us. if we have educated our children in some way, we  
might add up to the probability of retrieving the souls of the past,  
so that our (and neanderthal) "after-life" here and now (when we die)  
can depend on that teaching. I mean that this is not entirely  
excluded, and it might only be a postponing of the comp Nirvana, in  
case it exists, and comp is true.


Bruno





Sincerely,
Mitch

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Dec 7, 2013 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


On 07 Dec 2013, at 17:37, John Clark wrote:


On Sat, Dec 7, 2013  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Comp-I = Comp-Immortality.

I know what a bull is and I know what shit is so I know what  
bullshit is. I know what immortality is but I don't know what comp  
is so I don't know what comp-Immortality is.



Fair enough.

Comp is the belief (hope, assumption, theory) that you can survive  
when saying yes to a doctor who proposed to you a digital computer  
brain transplant.


(to use computer science, I add the classical Church thesis. This  
entails that computations are arithmetical objects (indeed sigma_1  
arithmetical).


Universal machine cannot know which universal machine bears them,  
but they can know that below their substitution level, there can  
only be an indetermination among infinities of competition between  
infinitely machines (due to the first person invariance for delayed  
reconstitution (step 2!) .


Of course to get this, you should put your shoes in the first person  
picture, and stay in it for awhile, to finish the step 3, as here  
we  use step seven and eight.


Universal machine cannot distinguish "physical implementation" from  
any diophantine or computable approximation or histories. Comp  
immortality just takes into account the FPI on the whole sigma_1  
complete arithmetical reality.


This is testable, notably by looking if that FPI on a sigma_1  
complete set provides a first person plural quantum computer.

At first sight, from a formal logical view point, it seems it might.

Bruno





  John K Clark


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:11, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/7/2013 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 07 Dec 2013, at 09:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/6/2013 11:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is subjective is the appreciation, or not, of the term  
"theology", and that is subjective indeed, but it could also be  
related to "strategy". My difference with Quentin is on that  
point. But I have already hidden the wording "theology" for a  
long time, and that strategy did not really worked, and so I come  
back to the usual method of choosing word: using the word the  
most applied by those in the fields or appreciating the subject.


But have you really?  Are your papers read and appreciated in the  
theology departments of great universities?  or in the physics  
departments?


It is better appreciated in the biology department (and by few  
logicians). Biologists seems quite open despite they want to use  
UDA as a proof that comp is false, or even that CT is false, and  
are annoyed that comp points on Everett and multi-realities, and  
that physicists are actually debating that kind of things.
Today, *many* people still believe ("religiously") in the existence  
and unicity of a physical primitive universe.


Theologian and physicists might ignore too much of contemporary  
logic. But I should make some try.
Logicians are mostly unconsciously positivist, and like Bruno  
Poizat said: they hate nothing more than metaphysics.


Comp is interdiciplinary, and technical, which makes everyone  
unhappy with it. It is normal.


I notice that you did not mention any interest at all from  
departments of theology.


There is no department of theology in the universities where I  
developed comp, but  some scholar on Platon and neoplatonism were  
interested. And in some catholic universities, where philosophers and  
logicians can interact (unlike in other "a-religious" places), the  
people are interested and have invited me to do many conferences.  
Christians are not so happy with comp, but they see it helps to think  
on the questions, and are open to discussion.

Atheists act like Bill: silence.
I have never met them, and people reports that their only argument is  
shoulder shrugging. No word at all. Just two lines of an atheist  
philosopher personal conviction. More grave defamation has been  
reported too, and some makes me think there are also personal issues  
and susceptibility problems, but they continue to act like if it was  
my lack of atheism which can justify their denies of reason. Some  
really seem to want me accept that "science" is "money", and nothing  
else.



Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Dec 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/7/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:55, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/6/2013 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/5/2013 1:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and  
dangerous religion. And RELIGION CAN NOT BE AVOIDED: you can  
not live without a form of religion or religions like you can  
not live alone.


This is just Paul Tilllich trick to convert everyone to religion  
by redefining religion. People cannot live without trust - they  
can live just fine without faith in religion.


Then why all that fuss by atheists when we show they need faith  
in something beyond what they can prove.


First, because you didn't show that we need faith - only that we  
need trust.  Trust is different than faith; it is tested and earned.



That is a bit of a 1004 fallacy to me.


No, it's a simple matter of using different words for different  
things and not muddling the distinction.  The Abrahamic religions  
make a positive virtue of faith:


"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of
his Reason."
  --- Martin Luther


Every machine who want to be simply correct with herself cannot not  
tear her eyes out of his Reason, or if you prefer, cannot avoid  
discovering the gap between Truth and Proof.


Now, of course, I can recognize that Luther sentence can also be  
exploited by "politics", and that is the whole weakness of theology.  
But that is a reason to be even more rigorous in that field, not less.


A good course in non confessional theology could list the drawback of  
the theological faith, when blind.






“When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe  anything  
else, for we begin by believing that there is nothing else  which we  
have to believe….  I warn people not to seek for anything  beyond  
what they came to believe, for that was all they needed to  seek  
for. In the last resort,  however, it is better for you to remain  
ignorant, for fear that you  come to know what you should not  
know….  Let curiosity give place to  faith, and glory to salvation.   
Let them at least be no hindrance, or  let them keep quiet.  To know  
nothing against the Rule [of faith] is  to know everything.”---  
Tertullian


Same remark, but here, the "politics" idea seems prevalent (and is  
bad). the idea to separate science from theology is responsible for  
such use of "bad faith".
Today, after listening to the machines, we would say the contrary.  
Like "if you have faith, never drop reason, as reason can only be  
extended by faith, and never been contradicted. If you feel a  
contradiction, ask yourself if you have not been abuse by some  
politics who want to manipulate you."





"Those who object to the punishment of heresy are like dogs
and swine,"
  --- John Calvin


Authoritative argument, I guess.







You identify faith with "blind faith". But "blind faith" is  
something which exist because for centuries you were burn alive if  
you did not have the "blind faith".


Events that were justified and approved by theologians.


Rational Theologians have been persecuted, exiled, banished from  
science and academies. That is why there are "pseudo-theologians"  
approving authoritative violent method of convicting people. That  
would stop when we will decide to come back on a bit of seriousness on  
the issue. That cannot be done in one day, but listening to the  
machine will help. They have very few prejudice, and can hardly be  
said to defend a religion, except for their belief in classical logic,  
but nome forbid to also listening to intuitionist machine if they  
want. (That does not make much sense in Platonism, though, and is  
equivalent with listening only to the first person (SAGrz) associated  
to the machine, and not to the "scientist" (G) associated to the  
machine).






Blind faith is a remnant of terrorist politics, like the religion  
has become on some ground.


No it's a remnant of religion - which inspires and justifies  
terrorist politics.


A remnant of pseudo-religion, due to the fact that we are not yet free  
to think in that aera. It is forbidden by atheists and fundamentalist  
alike.





Brent
"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages  
violence."


Anyone who make fuzzy overgeneralization encourages violence indeed.

Some branches of Islam are notoriously intolerant, and I condemn them  
with vigor, but Christians have also gone through quite violent  
periods, and it is up to the believers in some institution to save the  
tolerance, if they want to save their institutions.
The modern catholic clergy is not in so good health either, and  
beside, once you separate theology from the religious institution, it  
will be simpler to prevent the use of pseudo-religion as an instrument  
of hate, and 

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:09, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/7/2013 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But we know already that the universe, whatever it is, cannot  
entirely understand itself, notably because no machine can ever  
completely understand itself.


That depends on it being digital and infinite.


Hmm, almost OK. It depends on "understanding" being a digital process  
(I used comp).


With comp the physical universe has non digital components.

If the universe if finite, it will be harder for it to understand all  
its limitations. It will cycle or stop before.


Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/7/2013 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/6/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux   
wrote:






2013/12/5 Jason Resch 



On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is  
not a religion.




Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.

How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and  
reality? Would you say science the collection of those beliefs,  
or the method for developing the beliefs?


Science is a way to discover the world, nothing is certain, what  
you believe now may be shown wrong tomorrow... that's not the  
case with religion...


So if science is the way, the way to what? Where do the beliefs  
belong?


I would say a more correct definition of religion is a collection  
if beliefs, regardless of how you got them.


Another attempt to sweep everybody into the religion bin.



Some may rely on dogmas if old books, others on newer books and  
articles, but either method, science or stake dogmas can provide  
the basis of one's world view.


Science never provides the final answer, and so to operate in  
this world we must act in our own private beliefs.


And religion is always ready to provide a final answer, one never  
to be questioned,


And that is bad, right, but that will continue as long as you  
forbid to scientist to take a look on the spiritual questions.




What am I doing to forbid anything?  I even cited with approval  
scientific tests of "spritual theories".


Because you are a nice agnostic guy. Not an atheists like those I met  
on my path.










because if it's the right answer then it must always have been  
right.




That is just my take according to my own definitions. You may  
define religion as dogma and come to different cinclusions.


I take 'religion' to mean what people refer to when they say they  
belong to a religion.


Brent
"Atheist   n   A person to be pitied in that he is unable to  
believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus  
deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to  
others."


Again, that is agnosticism, not atheism.


It's a quip, not a serious definition.  But I am an agnostic about  
many things - but not about the God of theism, the Big Daddy in the  
sky


I am atheist too. Most of my Muslim and Christian friends are atheists  
too. All theologians I read are agnostic too. The "big Daddy" is an  
image, a poetical stance, like when Einstein invoke "the good lord".
May be billions of people believe literally in the big daddy (or  
pretend, because I find hard to actually believe this), but billions  
of people have believed that the sun moves around the earth, or are  
wrong on Galilee and cannabis. That is not a reason to make them right  
by allowing the absence of rigor in the fundamental question, nor to  
let the health in the politics department.
Health is that last century following the fate of theology during that  
last millennium.





that billions of people worship and give money to support a  
priesthood and sometimes stone those who express doubt.  So I'm an a- 
theist.  You will have to excuse me for holding to a definite  
meaning of the word "theist" so that I can express this fact;  
everybody but you seems to understand me quite well.


I understand you, but that atheism, which I share, has nothing to do  
with the more insidious and violent form of atheism of the  
fundamentalists in Europa. They don't reject just god, they reject  
"consciousness", "mind", spirituality, persons, and some are secretly  
sadist. They believe that truth = money = power and that's all: they  
do what they want (including very bad things, and using them  
manipulate people). They are active revisionist, and despite what they  
pretend, they are the enemy of reason and genuine free thinking/ 
interrogation, and of course they are usually not aware that they are  
believer, which would not be the case if Aristotle and Plato theology  
were better taught.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/7/2013 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Describe an experience which gives sense to multiverses.


The Young two slits.


Only in some interpretations.


In all interpretations of QM.

You have to change drastically the QM theory to avoid the MW- 
consequences. Like Bohm add a potential, or Copenhague a wave  
reduction, not obeying to QM (SWE). The MW follows from linearity of  
the tensor products, linearity of the SWE solution evolutions, and a  
definition of world by closure through interactions.


Of course here QM confirms the MW related to comp, which is easier to  
justify. the many computations are just there, in arithmetic.


Bruno







Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[LizR]

On 8 December 2013 20:58, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/7/2013 9:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Everett's idea explains the appearance of collapse without supposing it,
> so it is more rightfully called a theory.  It is also the only theory under
> which QM is compatible with the well-established principles of locality,
> causality, and determinism. If you believe in QM, and any of those
> principles, Everett is your only option.
>
>
> Determinism is far from "well established".
>
> Surely Everett's interpretation makes quantum mechanics deterministic. So
rather than being compatible with it, it *makes* it "well established",
well, as far as anything does...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Dec 2013, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/7/2013 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It looks like some atheists are condescending with the people. They  
act like thinking that the people are so stupid that they should be  
allowed to believe in Santa Klaus. But that attitude keep such  
beliefs strongly in the hand of the authoritative power. I think it  
is better that people learn to doubt on the fundamental issues too.


You switched from "allowed" to "learn".


To learn to doubt.



Do you suppose people should *not* be allowed to believe in Santa  
Claus?


That's another topic.
I am thinking of adults here.




Or do you mean they should not be respected for their faith


When adult, normally they should have a cautious faith about what  
parents said, but when they are kids, it is more difficult.
Should kids believe their parents when they said that God has made the  
Universe in six days? Or that God does not exist?




and should be challenged to provide evidence for what they believe?


That would be harsh with the little kids!

Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A definition of human consciousness

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Dec 2013, at 19:26, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Roger Clough   
wrote:


> Materialistic theories of consciousness can only describe  
experience, not deal with experience itself.


Consciousness theories are a dime a dozen and materialistic theories  
explain consciousness every bit as well as non-materialist theories.


Materialist theories use an identity thesis which is non intelligible  
with the computationalist theory of mind. In fact, materiaslist use  
mechanism in a non consistent way.
Also, what is matter? A primitive in the assumption? A convenient  
fiction? Matter has its hard problem of its own, and non materialist  
theories suggests that the illusion of matter can have a rational  
explanation in term of computations coherence.





And in the vastly more difficult matter of coming up with intelligence


Intelligence is very simple. Competence is hard, and has a negative  
feedback on intelligence (as illustrated by all civilisations, I think).


A machine is intelligent if that machine is not stupid.

And there are two kind of stupid machines:
- those which believe/assert that they are intelligent,
- those which believe/assert that they are stupid.

Exercice: show that Dt satisfy this for correct (or just consistent  
actually) machine.







theories materialists are far better and keep getting better every  
year, while non-materialist try to peddle the exact same useless  
religious crap they have for millennium.  So why do otherwise smart  
people believe in this non-materialist claptrap?


My parents were atheists, and I have never bought the (weak)  
materialist crap. Computationalism explains well why such matter is  
more plausibly a myth than a fundamental fact.




One reason and one reason only, their mommy and daddy told them it  
was true when they were still pooping in their pants.


You might believe in primitive matter for similar reason. Nobody has  
ever seen that, it explains nothing about intelligence, consciousness  
and also on the matter appearance. Matter is a failed hypothesis, I  
would say. I am agnostic, but with comp, I explain that "Matter" makes  
no sense at all. It is the ether that we don't need in any comp TOE  
(and weak-comp TOE).


Matter as primitive is a natural extrapolation from the observation,  
but which either eliminates the person and consciousness since 1500  
years, or lead to absurd unintelligible dualist theories of mind/matter.


Bruno







  John K Clark



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.