R: Re: No gravity / no dark matter
Brent: >That depends on what you mean by "God". As I've pointed out at length, >language is defined by usage and usage says that "God" means an immortal >person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be >worshipped. You want to hijack the word and justify it by referring to >a handful of philosophers who also wanted to hijack the word to gain >popular credence for their ideas which actually had nothing in common >with the meaning of "God" except that it was fundamental in some sense. BTW, Freeman Dyson writes: 'My favorite version of the multiverse is a story told by the philosopher Olaf Stapledon, who died in 1950. He taught philosophy at the University of Liverpool. In 1937 he published a novel, Star Maker, describing his vision of the multiverse. The book was marketed as science fiction, but it has more to do with theology than with science. The narrator has a vision in which he travels through space visiting alien civilizations from the past and the future, his mind merging telepathically with some of their inhabitants who join him on his journey. Finally, this “cosmical mind” encounters the Star Maker, an “eternal and absolute spirit” who has created all of these worlds in a succession of experiments. Each experiment is a universe, and as each experiment fails he learns how to design the next experiment a little better. His first experiment is a simple piece of music, a rhythmic drumbeat exploring the texture of time. After that come many more works of art, exploring the possibilities of space and time with gradually increasing complexity.' http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/11/08/what-can-you-really-know/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: No gravity / no dark matter
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:28:17PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:31, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > >On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >>>it's just like seeing the storm as anger of the sky-god. > >>>People experience anger, so they think they have understood > >>>the storm. They don't understand fluid dynamics (at least > >>>until very recently). > >> > >>I recall that such a type of belief does not work. The whole > >>physics prediction power is based on an identity link which does > >>not work. > > > >It works pretty damn well in predicting storms. > > Only by assuming non-computationalism, but then it is contradicted > with evolution theory, biology. It works in practice, but is flawed > at the fundamental level. I am not saying that this or that physics > theory is not working in practice, I am saying that physicalism is I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to explain the predictive power of physics. Particularly when the whole induction process is explained quite neatly with the Solomonoff-Levin universal prior and Bayes theorem over a multiversal set of events that naturally arises in the context of computationalism. > wrong with mechanism/rationalism. To make physics coherent with > physicalism, you need to introduce actual infinities in both mind > and matter, and a univocal link between, which, at the level of > metaphysics or theology becomes as much invalid than an evocation to > God, which makes no sense in any theory, even theology. > > -- Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: No gravity / no dark matter
On 12/13/2016 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:36, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the religionist, trying to keep their comfort and influence,
keep fuzzing up the target and spreading it out because it's center
keeps getting hit by facts.
Atheism is either agnostic, or is a religion: an ontological
commitment in something we have no evidence to explain away a
technical problem. The belief in 0 personal god together with the
belief in one impersonal God, (Primary matter) are religious
commitment, with the large sense of God.
"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color. Atheism is a
religion like OFF is a TV channel. Atheism is a religion like an
empty lot is a building..."
--- George Carlin
Correct for agnostic atheism.
False for the atheists who believe that there is no God (the gnostic
atheists).
That depends on what you mean by "God". As I've pointed out at length,
language is defined by usage and usage says that "God" means an immortal
person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be
worshipped. You want to hijack the word and justify it by referring to
a handful of philosophers who also wanted to hijack the word to gain
popular credence for their ideas which actually had nothing in common
with the meaning of "God" except that it was fundamental in some sense.
Gnostic Atheists use all the time the confusion between ~[]g and []~g.
The difference between ~[]g and []~g is the real fracture between the
fanatic-radicals and the scientific attitude.
Here many confuse the existing evidences for a physical reality with
the non existing evidence for a primary matter. That confusion is
easy to explain by evolution-pressure, but that does not make it
true. Science is born with the doubt that Matter is the explanation.
God exist by definition for a Platonist: it is what the fundamental
researcher is searching: the reality (which is transcendental, we
cannot prove it exists) but can try theories ("first principles" in
the antic terming).
Too bad the Platonist can't be consistent in their skepticism.
Where?
You can't define things into existence.
That is what I just say. But that is what is done by pseudo-scientists
claiming that science is materialist.
A lot of science is materialist. Some science is sociological. Some is
cognitive. As Vic Stenger said, "Science isn't everything, but it's
about everything." Science is a method of obtaining objective (i.e.
sharable) knowledge.
You can search for what is fundamental, but that doesn't prove that
it exists.
We can only start from what we agree on, and to just define digital
mechanism, we must agree that 2+2 = 4, and Ex(x+2=4) and things like
that, taught in high school since a long time.
But that's not the same as agreeing they are fundamental rather than
descriptive.
Then the reasoning explains that matter and mind are phenomenological
appearance emerging, from 2+2=4 and alike. It works and is testable.
Physics works, but use contradictory statement to rely the equation
and the first person verification of the equation.
If it's contradictory then you should be able to prove anything from
it. Let's see you do it.
I have had recently a long discussion with an "atheist" who eventually
was forced, to make his point, to eliminate consciousness from the
picture, like Dennett and the Churchland did. He understood that a
notion of ontological matter simply does not work. It is equivalent
with God made it by violating the rules of logic.
There is no worry. Either digital mechanism is false, or physics will
relies on more solid base than observation and inductive inference.
But that's where Platonist suddenly drop their skepticism. There is no
reason to think logic is a more solid base than observation. Logic said
relativity must be wrong. Logic said quantum mechanics can't be that
way. Logic said there can only be five planets. In fact logic doesn't
"say" anything except "X and not-X" is false. Everything not
contradictory is possible, which is why Platonism is useless even if true.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: No gravity / no dark matter
On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:36, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the religionist, trying to keep their comfort and influence,
keep fuzzing up the target and spreading it out because it's
center keeps getting hit by facts.
Atheism is either agnostic, or is a religion: an ontological
commitment in something we have no evidence to explain away a
technical problem. The belief in 0 personal god together with the
belief in one impersonal God, (Primary matter) are religious
commitment, with the large sense of God.
"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color. Atheism is a
religion like OFF is a TV channel. Atheism is a religion like an
empty lot is a building..."
--- George Carlin
Correct for agnostic atheism.
False for the atheists who believe that there is no God (the gnostic
atheists).
Gnostic Atheists use all the time the confusion between ~[]g and []~g.
The difference between ~[]g and []~g is the real fracture between the
fanatic-radicals and the scientific attitude.
Here many confuse the existing evidences for a physical reality
with the non existing evidence for a primary matter. That confusion
is easy to explain by evolution-pressure, but that does not make it
true. Science is born with the doubt that Matter is the
explanation. God exist by definition for a Platonist: it is what
the fundamental researcher is searching: the reality (which is
transcendental, we cannot prove it exists) but can try theories
("first principles" in the antic terming).
Too bad the Platonist can't be consistent in their skepticism.
Where?
You can't define things into existence.
That is what I just say. But that is what is done by pseudo-scientists
claiming that science is materialist.
You can search for what is fundamental, but that doesn't prove that
it exists.
We can only start from what we agree on, and to just define digital
mechanism, we must agree that 2+2 = 4, and Ex(x+2=4) and things like
that, taught in high school since a long time. Then the reasoning
explains that matter and mind are phenomenological appearance
emerging, from 2+2=4 and alike. It works and is testable. Physics
works, but use contradictory statement to rely the equation and the
first person verification of the equation.
I have had recently a long discussion with an "atheist" who eventually
was forced, to make his point, to eliminate consciousness from the
picture, like Dennett and the Churchland did. He understood that a
notion of ontological matter simply does not work. It is equivalent
with God made it by violating the rules of logic.
There is no worry. Either digital mechanism is false, or physics will
relies on more solid base than observation and inductive inference.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: No gravity / no dark matter
On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:31, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: it's just like seeing the storm as anger of the sky-god. People experience anger, so they think they have understood the storm. They don't understand fluid dynamics (at least until very recently). I recall that such a type of belief does not work. The whole physics prediction power is based on an identity link which does not work. It works pretty damn well in predicting storms. Only by assuming non-computationalism, but then it is contradicted with evolution theory, biology. It works in practice, but is flawed at the fundamental level. I am not saying that this or that physics theory is not working in practice, I am saying that physicalism is wrong with mechanism/rationalism. To make physics coherent with physicalism, you need to introduce actual infinities in both mind and matter, and a univocal link between, which, at the level of metaphysics or theology becomes as much invalid than an evocation to God, which makes no sense in any theory, even theology. And more importantly it can predict not-storms as well - unlike some theories that predict everything. A theory which predicts everything can be said inconsistent and have zero interest, we agree. Thankfully, incompleteness saves Mechanism from predicting everything. On the contrary it predicts many-worlds and quantum logic. (in a large sense of "worlds", as they are only computational histories). 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
