Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Samiya Illias]

> On 23-May-2019, at 10:20 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> You said that you did not want to debate. I read all your post, and reply 
> long ago explains what I am not convinced, and why I think it departs from 
> the sort of truth consistent with my working assumption. 

Yes, you do respond to posts on this list. What I meant to write was that you 
haven’t read my blogposts, since  I do refer to The Bible in a number of my 
blogposts. It is an article of faith to believe that just like The Quran, prior 
scriptures have also been revealed by Allah for guidance. 

> 
> I think we have agreed on where we disagree, but I am open to discuss this 
> further. But your post seems to reflect more Al Ghazali than Averroes (Ibn 
> Rushd). If I am wrong on this, please correct me. To sum up the difference, 
> the difference is in between submitting text to reason (and thus comparison), 
> Avrroès, instead of submitting Reason to Text (Al Ghazali, which leads to 
> literalism, which leads to conflicts). 

I believe that the God who created me and granted me the ability to speak and 
express my self is capable of expressing and communicating perfectly, and thus 
the scriptures must be taken literally. 

I’m delightfully pleased with the factual accuracy of The Quran and share my 
learnings in over a hundred blogposts. 

I have neither read Avrroes nor Al Ghazali. You can draw parallels if you wish. 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/92503E6D-DAA2-45E9-8F94-27B1B559E52B%40gmail.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 11:03:49 AM UTC-5, howardmarks wrote:
>
> Good point on the "Higgs" Boson. Especially when the discoverer said what 
> he said. The experiments at CERN, Fermi Lab, etc. were run with the 
> standard model in mind. They defined the "evidence" they expected a Higgs 
> boson to manifest in residue particles, and, when they found, amongst the 
> subatomic and atomic debris, a particle near the characteristics they 
> expected, they called it a "hit".  There is only indirect evidence. We 
> can't directly observe picometer objects moving at close to the speed of 
> light. We know few things, like the mass to charge ratio and approx kinetic 
> energy...  
> Cheers!
>

My area is physics, and have written on the connection between spacetime or 
gravitation with particle physics. Cosmin wanted to see the Higgs boson, 
and that is about it. It may be disappointing, but the particle only last 
about 10^{-25} seconds on a path 10^{-15}cm long. So we detect this field 
by the particles it decays into. Since it requires a lot of energy the 
machine is large, the detectors are large and it is a major undertaking. I 
don't have Higgs particles in my pocket.

Cosmin might be somewhat earnest in his intent here, or he might just be 
another up and coming hustler trying to get people to follow. If he is 
earnest then he has been hustled. The various attempts to really measure 
these things have always come up with white noise in the statistics. Where 
scientific claims are made it is usually because of the file drawer effect, 
which is data cherry picking. There is nothing here.

LC
 

>
>
> On 5/22/2019 11:20 PM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/22/2019 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 May 2019, at 20:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> The Higgs boson was produced very much "at will".  In fact a lot willing 
> went into it.
>
>
> You mean the Englert-Brout-Higgs boson?
>
> Englert did not want it. He was disappointed. He learned nothing. He said 
> it on TV when he got the prize.
>
> He was used to assume the Standard Model of the particles.
>
> He would have preferred something new. Like a refutation, a surprise, 
> enforcing the change of mind, something needed to progress.
>
>
> All physicists would have preferred something new.  You don't make 
> progress just by confirmation.
>
> Brent
>
>
> So, if you tell me that the Higgs boson appeared by the psychic will of a 
> conspiracy of telepath physicists, (with some help of the engineers, I 
> guess), I don’ think Englert participated in this.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
> On 5/21/2019 1:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> Telepathy doesn't happen necessarily at will. It only happens when certain 
> conditions are being met. Asking someone to produce telepathy on the spot 
> is like asking him to produce Higgs Boson on the spot. So let's do like 
> this: you produce me a Higgs Boson, and I'll produce you a telepathy. If 
> you can't do it, it means Higgs Bosons don't exist. They are just anecdots 
> from a bunch of gurus at CERN.
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50a47b30-407b-497d-a1c4-d84d397f5928%40googlegroups.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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f46186b-156a-8853-fc7d-8e3255df085f%40verizon.net
>  
> 
> .
>
>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/95E57ED8-EDAF-485F-A6F6-57317C1C03EC%40ulb.ac.be
>  
> 
> .
>
>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> 

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 6:08:11 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/23/2019 3:37 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The Torah, Tanach and to a degree as I understand the Christian New 
> Testament are mythic narratives meant to bring meaning to various aspects 
> of inner mental space or psychology.
>
>
> I think you impute to much cleverness there.   A lot it is, or was, 
> intended as real history providing both provenance and justification for 
> whatever ethics was being pushed at the time.
>
> Brent
>

The writers of these narratives were rather clever. These are done in a 
literary "shape-shifter" fashion so that they can be interpreted in a wide 
range of ways. The book of Exodus, or Shemot (שְׁמוֹת) in Hebrew Shem = 
name and Shemot is plural or means the list of names, has the children of 
Israel leave Egypt (Mitzrayim) in the narrow place (Mezaryim), narrow in 
one meaning because of the Nile. They are lead to the Red Sea where the 
water is separated and crash, where red is symbolic of blood. Also remember 
one of the plagues on Egypt was the Nile turned to blood. This is a birth 
motif, and certainly one message is this is a metaphor for the birth of 
Israel. The Torah is packed full of this sort of thing, and it involves a 
lot of word play. 

This is not to say there are not literal meanings as well, which in 
different ages are rather different. The American conservative Protestant 
idea about Christianity is a peculiar redaction on the whole meaning. I 
can't say about the Koran and what Islamic scholars think. It is not a 
subject I have delved into, nor am I ever likely to. Samiya has posted some 
curious stuff that equates Koranic passages with meaning about atoms and at 
one time if I recall about the Higgs boson. So the writers there were 
clever enough to make the narratives and poetry shift metaphors and 
retranslate meaning into different forms as the world learns and matures. 
It really is one reason these scriptures have remained so culturally and 
socially powerful for many centuries.

My religious background is Judaism and Catholicism. I ended up choosing 
Judaism, simply because it is in a way more intellectual, it is more fun, 
and Catholicism has it perks here and there but it is also rather grave and 
grey. I generally consider myself quite agnostic about the idea of an 
infinite disembodied entity that created and controls everything. The idea 
simply runs into contradictions. I can still go to the minion, where it is 
the same reason the fiddler stays on the roof (Issac B Singer) --- 
tradition. If I were Catholic instead I think it would be the same thing. 

LC

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7a7e5caf-76d3-4910-b456-89a18ded0cc4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/23/2019 3:37 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
The Torah, Tanach and to a degree as I understand the Christian New 
Testament are mythic narratives meant to bring meaning to various 
aspects of inner mental space or psychology.


I think you impute to much cleverness there.   A lot it is, or was, 
intended as real history providing both provenance and justification for 
whatever ethics was being pushed at the time.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/10303d3a-8c99-e994-4601-a841579a8ada%40verizon.net.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 12:35:39 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote:
>
> I have just read several messages on various threads in this list about 
> God. I really don't know which one to answer to, nor do I wish to debate 
> the subject. It is God to choose and guide whoever He wills; I can only 
> keep my duty by sharing the ayaat of The Quran and the knowledge I learn 
> therefrom. This page contains links to various aspects of God, which are 
> being theorised in your various posts: matter, energy, consciousness, soul, 
> etc. 
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/p/allah.html  
>

There are similar ideas in Christianity. God chooses who is to have 
paradise, which raises a curious conundrum. If there are those not chosen 
and they die eternally or suffer in flames eternally then it means God has 
effectively selected them for that fate. If this is the case then 
ultimately God creates many humans just so they can suffer eternally. Such 
a God makes Adolf Hitler look benevolent by comparison.

I read a translation of the Koran right after the 9/11 attacks. It is 
heavily marinated with eschatology with flames and suffering. In fact it is 
far more than what exists in the New Testament, which itself is pretty 
threatening along these lines.

A related issue, say with whether God is good, was discussed between 
Socrates and Euthyphro 4 centuries before Christianity and 1000 years 
before Islam. The question is whether God is good because he is inherently 
so and has no choice in matter, or whether God is good because He chooses 
that. In the first case this is a limitation on God's free will, which 
limits his omnipotence. In the second case if God has the choice to be 
good, then what is good, ethically right or morally pure is something 
outside of God and thus God is not omnipresent with all things. 

In fact this sort of thing is the type of paradox that always emerges with 
the matter of God. God is then an infinite unknowable and anything we try 
to define as God or to label as His character runs into contradictions. 
 For this reason the topic is not appropriate for science or a related 
subject where proof, evidence, measurement and empiricism are used.

The Torah, Tanach and to a degree as I understand the Christian New 
Testament are mythic narratives meant to bring meaning to various aspects 
of inner mental space or psychology. I am not sure about the Koran, maybe 
there are similar currents. While we can't disprove the existence of God, 
we can illustrate how certain ideas about God do not match a scientific 
understanding of the world. Also much of these things involve magical 
thinking. Jesus turning water into wine is really much the same idea as 
Cinderella's fairy godmother turning mice and a pumpkin into a carriage 
drawn by a team of horses. It's magical thinking.

LC 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/380546c4-e260-4315-9061-ee07c3f2ec33%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/23/2019 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 23 May 2019, at 11:24, Telmo Menezes > wrote:




On Wed, May 22, 2019, at 07:35, Samiya Illias wrote:
I have just read several messages on various threads in this list 
about God. I really don't know which one to answer to, nor do I wish 
to debate the subject. It is God to choose and guide whoever He 
wills; I can only keep my duty by sharing the ayaat of The Quran and 
the knowledge I learn therefrom. This page contains links to various 
aspects of God, which are being theorised in your various posts: 
matter, energy, consciousness, soul, etc.

https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/p/allah.html


"God is great, chances are
God is good, well I wouldn’t go that far"

-- Nick Cave



The Truth is great, that is quasi obvious, isn’t ? With or without 
Hubble, with or without the axiom of infinity.


Truth is good?  Well, it might be like democracy, the worst thing in 
Town except for all the Lies.


Bruno


"Don't you truth me and I won't truth you."
 --- Kurt Vonnegut, "Cat's Cradle"

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a682e36-cdd6-adbf-d997-502a6385efb8%40verizon.net.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/23/2019 10:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is the original sense of “god” by those who invented theology, 
from which they extracted physics and mathematics as competing theory 
about the fundamental reality (to simplify things a little bit).


Those who invented theology observed many events that affected their 
lives and which involved forces beyond their control and comprehension: 
disease, storms, earthquakes, famine, volcanoes,... So just as they 
attributed the actions of their acquaintances to inner emotions 
reflecting their own, they attributed these forces to spirits, inner 
agents, that acted out of passion and which could be placated as one 
would placate an angry human.  For them there was not the distinction 
that came later between religion, magic, and science.  As science, 
beginning with Thales of Miletus, rejected the idea a agency behind 
events it was split from religion and magic. The failure of magic to 
provide control resulted in religion largely rejecting it and instead 
claiming that the god(s) demanded various moral behaviors favorable to a 
priesthood and control by leaders, and could not be manipulated and 
controlled by magic.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8a798113-26af-cec1-af70-a98952c5bd6a%40verizon.net.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 May 2019, at 11:24, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 22, 2019, at 07:35, Samiya Illias wrote:
>> I have just read several messages on various threads in this list about God. 
>> I really don't know which one to answer to, nor do I wish to debate the 
>> subject. It is God to choose and guide whoever He wills; I can only keep my 
>> duty by sharing the ayaat of The Quran and the knowledge I learn therefrom. 
>> This page contains links to various aspects of God, which are being 
>> theorised in your various posts: matter, energy, consciousness, soul, etc. 
>> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/p/allah.html 
>>   
> 
> "God is great, chances are
> God is good, well I wouldn’t go that far"
> 
> -- Nick Cave


The Truth is great, that is quasi obvious, isn’t ? With or without Hubble, with 
or without the axiom of infinity.

Truth is good?  Well, it might be like democracy, the worst thing in Town 
except for all the Lies.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CANgFmkEg4tUhkRaDgVK8J_TJTTV6jBzHuKqhs54RRWNa2xnbJA%40mail.gmail.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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0dc3cd4d-a97d-4b1c-a08d-e165363b133c%40www.fastmail.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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B43584F0-4025-4164-B8CA-466A883B657C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 May 2019, at 11:20, Samiya Illias  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 23-May-2019, at 1:02 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>> 
>> That is coherent with your will to not debate. But the natural question is 
>> “why the Quran”, and how can you defend the Quran if you don’t try to 
>> compare with all the other texts. Why not the Vedas? Why not, the bible of 
>> Jerusalem, which is somehow praised in the first half of the Quran? 
> 
> Obviously you haven’t read any of my posts. 
> 

You said that you did not want to debate. I read all your post, and reply long 
ago explains what I am not convinced, and why I think it departs from the sort 
of truth consistent with my working assumption.

I think we have agreed on where we disagree, but I am open to discuss this 
further. But your post seems to reflect more Al Ghazali than Averroes (Ibn 
Rushd). If I am wrong on this, please correct me. To sum up the difference, the 
difference is in between submitting text to reason (and thus comparison), 
Avrroès, instead of submitting Reason to Text (Al Ghazali, which leads to 
literalism, which leads to conflicts). 

Islam has open itself to Platonism for a long period, leading them to the 
science, which eventually will lead to to the Renaissance, but the motor of 
science has been destroyed in the Middle-East , in 1248, by the apparition and 
enforcement of the literal interpretation of the texts, leading to notions of 
heresies, exactly like the Christians did in 529, and still used by influent 
trends today.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D7DD5757-E64B-42DD-8CFE-17DBF9243D85%40gmail.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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/BDF3CCF2-80BB-48C4-9BE5-DF16225C28FE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Finitist Set Theory

[Philip Thrift]

If you "combine" Finitist Set Theory with Locally Finite Theories, what you 
get is a version of Axiom of Infinity with "processes" creating bigger and 
bigger sets with gaps in them.

@philipthrift

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 11:34:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> This seems to be a strengthening of elementary finite set theory, which is 
> the theory of Zermelo minus the axiom of infinity.
>
> The theory of Zermelo is ZF without the Replacement Axioms (needed to 
> compare the well-ordering and the ordinals) and without the foundation 
> axioms (when we reject set belonging to themselves).
>
> I would not say that set theory is used for the foundation of mathematics. 
> It is mainly a theory on the infinities, lurking toward the inconsistent 
> big unnameable one. Sort of vertical theological shortcut. 
>
> Elementary finite set theory is Turing complete (Turing universal).
>
>  It is a set theoretic version of something between RA and PA.
>
> It is a universal machinery with its universal machines, and all others.
>
> It is a what I call a universal number. Each one has its application and 
> purpose “in life”.
>
> God loves them all
>
> (I guess)
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> On 22 May 2019, at 22:08, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
> Finitist Set Theory
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitist_set_theory
>
> "The goal of an engineer who applies FST is to select axioms which yield a 
> model that is one-one correlated with a target domain that is to be modeled 
> by FST, such as a range of chemical compounds or social constructions that 
> are found in nature. ... An applied FST model is always the minimal model 
> which satisfies the applied axioms. This guarantees that those and only 
> those elements exist in the applied model which are explicitly constructed 
> by the selected axioms: only those urs [ 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement ] exist which are stated to exist 
> by assigning their number, and only those sets exist which are constructed 
> by the selected axioms; no other elements exist in addition to these."
>
> From:
> Finitist set theory in ontological modeling
> Avril Styrman & Aapo Halko, University of Helsinki
> Applied Ontology  (2018)
>
> Abstract
> "This article introduces finitist set theory (FST) and shows how it can be 
> applied in modeling finite nested structures. Mereology is a 
> straightforward foundation for transitive chains of part-whole relations 
> between individuals but is incapable of modeling antitransitive chains. 
> Traditional set theories are capable of modeling transitive and 
> antitransitive chains of relations, but due to their function as 
> foundations of mathematics they come with features that make them 
> unnecessarily difficult in modeling finite structures. FST has been 
> designed to function as a practical tool in modeling transitive and 
> antitransitive chains of relations without suffering from difficulties of 
> traditional set theories, and a major portion of the functionality of 
> discrete mereology can be incorporated in FST. This makes FST a viable 
> collection theory in ontological modeling."
>
>
> Relation of finitist sets to processes:
>
> The term 'partition level' and the recursive definition of n-member are 
> adapted from: 
> - Seibt, J. (2015) Non-transitive parthood, leveled mereology, and the 
> representation of emergent parts of processes. 
> - Seibt, J. (2009). Forms of emergent interaction in general process 
> theory. 
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220607682_Forms_of_emergent_interaction_in_General_Process_Theory
>
> "General Process Theory (GPT) is a new (non-Whiteheadian) process 
> ontology. According to GPT the domains of scientific inquiry and everyday 
> practice consist of configurations of ‘goings-on’ or ‘dynamics’ that can be 
> technically defined as concrete, dynamic, non-particular individuals called 
> general processes. The paper offers a brief introduction to GPT in order to 
> provide ontological foundations for research programs such as interactivism 
> that centrally rely on the notions of ‘process,’ ‘interaction,’ and 
> ‘emergence.’ I begin with an analysis of our common sense concept of 
> activities, which plays a crucial heuristic role in the development of the 
> notion of a general process. General processes are not individuated in 
> terms of their location but in terms of ‘what they do,’ i.e., in terms of 
> their dynamic relationships in the basic sense of one process being part of 
> another. The formal framework of GPT is thus an extensional mereology, 
> albeit a non-classical theory with a non-transitive part-relation. After a 
> brief sketch of basic notions and strategies of the GPT-framework I show 
> how the latter may be applied to distinguish between causal, mechanistic, 
> functional, self-maintaining, and recursively self-maintaining 
> interactions, all of which involve ‘emergent phenomena’ in various senses 
> of the term."
>
> cf. Locally Finite Theories
> 

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 May 2019, at 10:35, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 3:03:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 22 May 2019, at 07:35, Samiya Illias > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I have just read several messages on various threads in this list about God. 
>> I really don't know which one to answer to, nor do I wish to debate the 
>> subject. It is God to choose and guide whoever He wills; I can only keep my 
>> duty by sharing the ayaat of The Quran and the knowledge I learn therefrom.
> 
> 
> I agree with you that God is the ultimate one guiding us, but God is not 
> “God”, and nobody on Earth can use its name for any temporal spiritual 
> living. It brings automatically the argument per authority, which is 
> catastrophically, especially on he fundamental research.
> 
> 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> You don't agree with J.-P. Sartre that "Existence precedes essence." We are 
> born existentialists, not "guided" by any God.

I use God in the (Neo)platonician sense. God is the ultimate truth/reality that 
we search, with some insight that it is bigger than us.

Yet, with the digital mechanist hypothesis, the arithmetical truth is not 
distinguishable from God for the (finite) creature/machine/number, and a 
machine having stronger induction axioms can somehow study the theology of 
simpler machine, without necessarily lifting that theology on itself (which 
needs extra-caution, universal machine are confronted to a theological trap, 
and the wise machine remains silent on many “true” propositions).

That is the original sense of “god” by those who invented theology, from which 
they extracted physics and mathematics as competing theory about the 
fundamental reality (to simplify things a little bit).


> 
> Dissolving the "free will" question, G. Strawson just says "We have the 
> experience of freedom." That experience in and of itself is enough, 
> regardless of any God or physics or arithmetic.

Yes, free-will is the experience of freedom, and above all, its possible 
personal exploitation, as free-will concerns acts, not just the 
phenomenological sensation associated with it.

It happens when the machine leaves the cocoon of security (enumerable set of 
total computable functions, which always miss some total computable function) 
to insecurity or universality, where all total computable functions are 
available, but mixed in a highly non mechanical manner among the total 
computable.

Free-will require universality, not Löbianity (universality + knowledge of one 
own universality). Nut to know we have free will, this require Löbianity. 
Löbinanity arise from Universality + enough strong mathematical induction 
axiom, like believing that if P is true for 0, and if it is true that P(n) -> 
p(n+1) then it has to be true for all n.

For a platonist, God is what remain when you stop to believe in (ontological) 
physical universe. 

The traditional debate about God and Non-God is like an Aristotelian (weak 
materialist)  trick to make us forget that the original debate of the greek 
theologian was about the existence of the physical universe, seen as primary, 
that is origin of all the rest (consciousness included).



> 
> That experience we do know exists, except for the experience/consciousness 
> deniers.

We all agree in this list that consciousness exist, and that we do know our 
experience.

The problem is how to relate those experience with some reality that we are 
searching, or how to relate the experience and the observation, and what we can 
prove about this, and what is consistent with this or that theory, and how to 
test them.

Your approach is unclear if eventually you will not be the one denying 
consciousness to a large variety of persons or entities, due to the fact that 
they would not have the genuine metaphysical stuff to support their soul.

Bruno




> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cbc5376d-b4c4-49db-80e1-608e4482fac3%40googlegroups.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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2C09F39F-9613-4809-ABC3-6FCE04B6689F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 May 2019, at 11:14, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 
> Are you able to discuss without insulting people every email you're writing ? 
> What do you expect to gain being rude ?

Yes, it is bit distracting. It is not even clear to whom the insult are 
addressed.

Cosmin, ask question, it is simpler that way. You can read the papers also.

Bruno


> 
> Le jeu. 23 mai 2019 à 10:28, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> a écrit :
> I don't understand anything from what you are saying. Probably you are just 
> too smart that few people can understand you. I hope that is the case, and 
> not the second option in which you just randomly say fancy words just to 
> impress people.
> 
> On Friday, 17 May 2019 21:36:50 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com 
>  wrote:
> Complexity challenges us all, and the few are able to successfully rise to 
> the challenge. For me, the mathematically gifted are indeed a successor 
> species!
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Fri, May 17, 2019 8:34 am
> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
> 
> 
>> On 15 May 2019, at 17:41, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> Some years ago, some astronomer or cosmologist introduced the idea of One 
>> Gigantic Universe, but many, many, "domains," which, for me, is the same 
>> thing as Everett's-Deutsch's-Tegmark's multiverses. I am not sure if all 
>> domains followed the identical laws, or varied, or..?
> 
> With mechanism, what exists are the numbers. The (halting) computations are 
> enough for the ontology, and their existence are assured by RA (the weaker 
> Turing universal theory with finitely many axioms).
> 
> To compare with physical brother mathematical notion of multiverse remains to 
> be done by the future generations. It is  complex subject. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bruno Marchal >
>> To: everything-list >
>> Sent: Wed, May 15, 2019 11:31 am
>> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
>> 
>> 
>>> On 13 May 2019, at 08:55, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 9:40:12 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Incompleteness disproves nominalism.  Arithmetical truth was proven not 
>>> only to be not human defined, but to be not human definable.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (This is something I posted a few days ago in another forum.)
>>> 
>>> From Joel David Hamkins @JDHamkins - http://jdh.hamkins.org/ 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "Truths" in the set-theoretic multiverse (slides from a talk last week):
>>> 
>>> http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp- content/uploads/Is-there-more- 
>>> than-one-mathematical- universe.pdf 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The final slides:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Continuum Hypothesis is settled
>>> 
>>> On the multiverse perspective, the CH question is settled.
>>> It is incorrect to describe it as an open question.
>>> 
>>> The answer consists of our detailed understanding of how the
>>> CH both holds and fails throughout the multiverse, of how these
>>> models are connected and how one may reach them from each
>>> other while preserving or omitting certain features.
>>> 
>>> Fascinating open questions about CH remain, of course, but the
>>> most important essential facts are known.
>>> 
>>> Ultimately, the question becomes: do we have just one
>>> mathematical world or many
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mathematics is a language - with multiple dialects.
>>> 
>>>  Each dialect of mathematics has its own syntax (to some extent) 
>>> and semantics!
>> 
>> If it has a semantic, it is not just a language, there is a 
>> reality/model/semantic, and we have to distinguish languages and possible 
>> theories on that reality.
>> 
>> It is obvious (for a mathematical logician) that there are many mathematical 
>> worlds, but like in physics, this does not interfere with realism, on the 
>> contrary. Now, I use only arithmetical realism, on which everybody agree. 
>> The standard arithmetical truth is definable with a bit of set theory, on 
>> which most people agree (as it is the intersection of all models of the 
>> theories RA or PA). That is as acceptable as any theorem in analysis. With 
>> Mechanism, Analysis, and physics, remains full of sense, but have became 
>> phenomenological. 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There is no settled "truth" in mathematics.
>>> 
>>> For example (as Hamkins shows) the CH is true in one dialect (of set 
>>> theory) and false in another.
>> 
>> That was shown by Cohen and Gödel.
>> 
>> Interestingly, ZFC and ZF + CH does not prove more arithmetical propositions 
>> than ZF alone. The arithmetical truth is totally independent of the axiom of 
>> choice or the continuum hypotheses.
>> 
>> Now, ZF proves much more theorems in arithmetic than PA, which proves much 
>> more than RA. 
>> 
>> 

Re: Finitist Set Theory

[Bruno Marchal]

This seems to be a strengthening of elementary finite set theory, which is the 
theory of Zermelo minus the axiom of infinity.

The theory of Zermelo is ZF without the Replacement Axioms (needed to compare 
the well-ordering and the ordinals) and without the foundation axioms (when we 
reject set belonging to themselves).

I would not say that set theory is used for the foundation of mathematics. It 
is mainly a theory on the infinities, lurking toward the inconsistent big 
unnameable one. Sort of vertical theological shortcut. 

Elementary finite set theory is Turing complete (Turing universal).

 It is a set theoretic version of something between RA and PA.

It is a universal machinery with its universal machines, and all others.

It is a what I call a universal number. Each one has its application and 
purpose “in life”.

God loves them all

(I guess)

Bruno




> On 22 May 2019, at 22:08, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> Finitist Set Theory
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitist_set_theory
> 
> "The goal of an engineer who applies FST is to select axioms which yield a 
> model that is one-one correlated with a target domain that is to be modeled 
> by FST, such as a range of chemical compounds or social constructions that 
> are found in nature. ... An applied FST model is always the minimal model 
> which satisfies the applied axioms. This guarantees that those and only those 
> elements exist in the applied model which are explicitly constructed by the 
> selected axioms: only those urs [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement ] 
> exist which are stated to exist by assigning their number, and only those 
> sets exist which are constructed by the selected axioms; no other elements 
> exist in addition to these."
> 
> From:
> Finitist set theory in ontological modeling
> Avril Styrman & Aapo Halko, University of Helsinki
> Applied Ontology  (2018)
> 
> Abstract
> "This article introduces finitist set theory (FST) and shows how it can be 
> applied in modeling finite nested structures. Mereology is a straightforward 
> foundation for transitive chains of part-whole relations between individuals 
> but is incapable of modeling antitransitive chains. Traditional set theories 
> are capable of modeling transitive and antitransitive chains of relations, 
> but due to their function as foundations of mathematics they come with 
> features that make them unnecessarily difficult in modeling finite 
> structures. FST has been designed to function as a practical tool in modeling 
> transitive and antitransitive chains of relations without suffering from 
> difficulties of traditional set theories, and a major portion of the 
> functionality of discrete mereology can be incorporated in FST. This makes 
> FST a viable collection theory in ontological modeling."
> 
> 
> Relation of finitist sets to processes:
> 
> The term 'partition level' and the recursive definition of n-member are 
> adapted from: 
> - Seibt, J. (2015) Non-transitive parthood, leveled mereology, and the 
> representation of emergent parts of processes. 
> - Seibt, J. (2009). Forms of emergent interaction in general process theory. 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220607682_Forms_of_emergent_interaction_in_General_Process_Theory
> 
> "General Process Theory (GPT) is a new (non-Whiteheadian) process ontology. 
> According to GPT the domains of scientific inquiry and everyday practice 
> consist of configurations of ‘goings-on’ or ‘dynamics’ that can be 
> technically defined as concrete, dynamic, non-particular individuals called 
> general processes. The paper offers a brief introduction to GPT in order to 
> provide ontological foundations for research programs such as interactivism 
> that centrally rely on the notions of ‘process,’ ‘interaction,’ and 
> ‘emergence.’ I begin with an analysis of our common sense concept of 
> activities, which plays a crucial heuristic role in the development of the 
> notion of a general process. General processes are not individuated in terms 
> of their location but in terms of ‘what they do,’ i.e., in terms of their 
> dynamic relationships in the basic sense of one process being part of 
> another. The formal framework of GPT is thus an extensional mereology, albeit 
> a non-classical theory with a non-transitive part-relation. After a brief 
> sketch of basic notions and strategies of the GPT-framework I show how the 
> latter may be applied to distinguish between causal, mechanistic, functional, 
> self-maintaining, and recursively self-maintaining interactions, all of which 
> involve ‘emergent phenomena’ in various senses of the term."
> 
> cf. Locally Finite Theories
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/2273942
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> 

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[howardmarks]

Cosmin, I'm not talking about just your girlfriend story -- Every day, 
people have many, many of {what could be interpreted as "wanna be" 
precognition or telepathy} thoughts on events or people - and when 
these many, many "wanna be" thoughts turn out not to resonate with 
reality -- they're almost totally forgotten  but, it seems that you, 
Cosmin, don't count the many, many wanna be's  only the seeming 
"hits" - even if, like your girlfriend story, the details are wrong... 
as she didn't talk about Italy, only castles and street parties --- you 
cheated by twisting what she said and created a rationalization.. 
that is very very far from the scientific method But maybe your 
intuition doesn't need the scientific method - totally available for 
proving or disproving such claims of the paranormal.


In 20 years, Randi's team couldn't find one person that could perform 
under any conditions - and PSICOP, ditto, for 100 years. And then, 
there's Michael Shermer's work, Hyman's, etc.

Cheers! Howard

On 5/22/2019 3:23 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
As I also clearly specified in my post, we don't tell each other 
dreams on a regular basis. So after years of not telling our dreams, 
to one day receiving a message from her telling me her dream, don't 
you find it suspicious ? Oh wait, you don't, the power of 
rationalization in strong within people, so it was just a "coincidence".


Also, contrary to your rationalizations, the dreams matched of course. 
The problem is that you expect from telepathy to be 100% correct, when 
not even experiments in physics are not 100% correct. In QM the 
particles hit the screen all over the place. Based on your 
rationalization, QM is false.


On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 20:45:45 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:

Problem is that people that want to believe - and take one seeming
"hit", like Cosmin's girl friend story - and don't count dozens or
hundreds of total misses.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7c0f2569-bd44-4c20-9222-a73697a09a79%40googlegroups.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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7667a323-4687-7723-b89d-925d077213c2%40doitnow.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, May 22, 2019, at 07:35, Samiya Illias wrote:
> I have just read several messages on various threads in this list about God. 
> I really don't know which one to answer to, nor do I wish to debate the 
> subject. It is God to choose and guide whoever He wills; I can only keep my 
> duty by sharing the ayaat of The Quran and the knowledge I learn therefrom. 
> This page contains links to various aspects of God, which are being theorised 
> in your various posts: matter, energy, consciousness, soul, etc. 
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/p/allah.html 

"God is great, chances are
God is good, well I wouldn’t go that far"

-- Nick Cave

> 
> 
> 

> --
>  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CANgFmkEg4tUhkRaDgVK8J_TJTTV6jBzHuKqhs54RRWNa2xnbJA%40mail.gmail.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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0dc3cd4d-a97d-4b1c-a08d-e165363b133c%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Samiya Illias]

> On 23-May-2019, at 1:02 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> That is coherent with your will to not debate. But the natural question is 
> “why the Quran”, and how can you defend the Quran if you don’t try to compare 
> with all the other texts. Why not the Vedas? Why not, the bible of Jerusalem, 
> which is somehow praised in the first half of the Quran? 

Obviously you haven’t read any of my posts. 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D7DD5757-E64B-42DD-8CFE-17DBF9243D85%40gmail.com.

David Chalmers' path to consciousness (via Hegel's dialectics)

[Philip Thrift]

*Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism*
David J. Chalmers
http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf

"The Hegelian argument gives good reason to take *panpsychism *and 
*panprotopsychism* seriously. if we can find a solution to the combination 
problem. [It's] the most promising solution to the mind–body problem."

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/32f2514d-313e-4137-a5c1-15cc85e3a8e9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Quentin Anciaux]

Are you able to discuss without insulting people every email you're writing
? What do you expect to gain being rude ?

Le jeu. 23 mai 2019 à 10:28, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit :

> I don't understand anything from what you are saying. Probably you are
> just too smart that few people can understand you. I hope that is the case,
> and not the second option in which you just randomly say fancy words just
> to impress people.
>
> On Friday, 17 May 2019 21:36:50 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Complexity challenges us all, and the few are able to successfully rise
>> to the challenge. For me, the mathematically gifted are indeed a successor
>> species!
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bruno Marchal 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Fri, May 17, 2019 8:34 am
>> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
>>
>>
>> On 15 May 2019, at 17:41, spudboy100 via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some years ago, some astronomer or cosmologist introduced the idea of One
>> Gigantic Universe, but many, many, "domains," which, for me, is the same
>> thing as Everett's-Deutsch's-Tegmark's multiverses. I am not sure if all
>> domains followed the identical laws, or varied, or..?
>>
>>
>> With mechanism, what exists are the numbers. The (halting) computations
>> are enough for the ontology, and their existence are assured by RA (the
>> weaker Turing universal theory with finitely many axioms).
>>
>> To compare with physical brother mathematical notion of multiverse
>> remains to be done by the future generations. It is  complex subject.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bruno Marchal 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Wed, May 15, 2019 11:31 am
>> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
>>
>>
>> On 13 May 2019, at 08:55, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 9:40:12 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Incompleteness disproves nominalism.  Arithmetical truth was proven not
>> only to be not human defined, but to be not human definable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (This is something I posted a few days ago in another forum.)
>>
>> From Joel David Hamkins @JDHamkins - http://jdh.hamkins.org/
>>
>> "Truths" in the set-theoretic multiverse (slides from a talk last week):
>>
>> http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp- content/uploads/Is-there-more-
>> than-one-mathematical- universe.pdf
>> 
>>
>>
>> The final slides:
>>
>> 
>>
>> *The Continuum Hypothesis is settled*
>>
>> On the multiverse perspective, the CH question is settled.
>> It is incorrect to describe it as an open question.
>>
>> The answer consists of our detailed understanding of how the
>> CH both holds and fails throughout the multiverse, of how these
>> models are connected and how one may reach them from each
>> other while preserving or omitting certain features.
>>
>> Fascinating open questions about CH remain, of course, but the
>> most important essential facts are known.
>>
>> Ultimately, the question becomes: do we have just one
>> mathematical world or many
>>
>> 
>>
>> Mathematics is a language - with multiple dialects.
>>
>> * Each dialect of mathematics has its own syntax *(to some
>> extent)* and semantics!*
>>
>>
>> If it has a semantic, it is not just a language, there is a
>> reality/model/semantic, and we have to distinguish languages and possible
>> theories on that reality.
>>
>> It is obvious (for a mathematical logician) that there are many
>> mathematical worlds, but like in physics, this does not interfere with
>> realism, on the contrary. Now, I use only arithmetical realism, on which
>> everybody agree. The standard arithmetical truth is definable with a bit of
>> set theory, on which most people agree (as it is the intersection of all
>> models of the theories RA or PA). That is as acceptable as any theorem in
>> analysis. With Mechanism, Analysis, and physics, remains full of sense, but
>> have became phenomenological.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no settled "truth" in mathematics.
>>
>> For example (as Hamkins shows) the CH is true in one dialect (of set
>> theory) and false in another.
>>
>>
>> That was shown by Cohen and Gödel.
>>
>> Interestingly, ZFC and ZF + CH does not prove more arithmetical
>> propositions than ZF alone. The arithmetical truth is totally independent
>> of the axiom of choice or the continuum hypotheses.
>>
>> Now, ZF proves much more theorems in arithmetic than PA, which proves
>> much more than RA.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> 

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 3:03:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 May 2019, at 07:35, Samiya Illias > 
> wrote:
>
> I have just read several messages on various threads in this list about 
> God. I really don't know which one to answer to, nor do I wish to debate 
> the subject. It is God to choose and guide whoever He wills; I can only 
> keep my duty by sharing the ayaat of The Quran and the knowledge I learn 
> therefrom. 
>
>
>
> I agree with you that God is the ultimate one guiding us, but God is not 
> “God”, and nobody on Earth can use its name for any temporal spiritual 
> living. It brings automatically the argument per authority, which is 
> catastrophically, especially on he fundamental research.
>
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
You don't agree with J.-P. Sartre that "Existence precedes essence." We are 
born existentialists, not "guided" by any God.

Dissolving the "free will" question, G. Strawson just says "We have the 
experience of freedom." That experience in and of itself is enough, 
regardless of any God or physics or arithmetic.

That *experience* we do know exists, except for the 
experience/consciousness deniers.


@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cbc5376d-b4c4-49db-80e1-608e4482fac3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I don't understand anything from what you are saying. Probably you are just 
too smart that few people can understand you. I hope that is the case, and 
not the second option in which you just randomly say fancy words just to 
impress people.

On Friday, 17 May 2019 21:36:50 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Complexity challenges us all, and the few are able to successfully rise to 
> the challenge. For me, the mathematically gifted are indeed a successor 
> species!
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Fri, May 17, 2019 8:34 am
> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
>
>
> On 15 May 2019, at 17:41, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Some years ago, some astronomer or cosmologist introduced the idea of One 
> Gigantic Universe, but many, many, "domains," which, for me, is the same 
> thing as Everett's-Deutsch's-Tegmark's multiverses. I am not sure if all 
> domains followed the identical laws, or varied, or..?
>
>
> With mechanism, what exists are the numbers. The (halting) computations 
> are enough for the ontology, and their existence are assured by RA (the 
> weaker Turing universal theory with finitely many axioms).
>
> To compare with physical brother mathematical notion of multiverse remains 
> to be done by the future generations. It is  complex subject. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Wed, May 15, 2019 11:31 am
> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
>
>
> On 13 May 2019, at 08:55, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 9:40:12 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Incompleteness disproves nominalism.  Arithmetical truth was proven not 
> only to be not human defined, but to be not human definable.
>
>
>
>
> (This is something I posted a few days ago in another forum.)
>
> From Joel David Hamkins @JDHamkins - http://jdh.hamkins.org/
>
> "Truths" in the set-theoretic multiverse (slides from a talk last week):
>
> http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp- content/uploads/Is-there-more- 
> than-one-mathematical- universe.pdf 
> 
>
>
> The final slides:
>
> 
>
> *The Continuum Hypothesis is settled*
>
> On the multiverse perspective, the CH question is settled.
> It is incorrect to describe it as an open question.
>
> The answer consists of our detailed understanding of how the
> CH both holds and fails throughout the multiverse, of how these
> models are connected and how one may reach them from each
> other while preserving or omitting certain features.
>
> Fascinating open questions about CH remain, of course, but the
> most important essential facts are known.
>
> Ultimately, the question becomes: do we have just one
> mathematical world or many
>
> 
>
> Mathematics is a language - with multiple dialects.
>
> * Each dialect of mathematics has its own syntax *(to some extent)* 
> and semantics!*
>
>
> If it has a semantic, it is not just a language, there is a 
> reality/model/semantic, and we have to distinguish languages and possible 
> theories on that reality.
>
> It is obvious (for a mathematical logician) that there are many 
> mathematical worlds, but like in physics, this does not interfere with 
> realism, on the contrary. Now, I use only arithmetical realism, on which 
> everybody agree. The standard arithmetical truth is definable with a bit of 
> set theory, on which most people agree (as it is the intersection of all 
> models of the theories RA or PA). That is as acceptable as any theorem in 
> analysis. With Mechanism, Analysis, and physics, remains full of sense, but 
> have became phenomenological. 
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no settled "truth" in mathematics.
>
> For example (as Hamkins shows) the CH is true in one dialect (of set 
> theory) and false in another.
>
>
> That was shown by Cohen and Gödel.
>
> Interestingly, ZFC and ZF + CH does not prove more arithmetical 
> propositions than ZF alone. The arithmetical truth is totally independent 
> of the axiom of choice or the continuum hypotheses.
>
> Now, ZF proves much more theorems in arithmetic than PA, which proves much 
> more than RA. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06ca3480-cdf1-426b-9f38-404bc2fa1550%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .
>  
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from 

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 May 2019, at 07:35, Samiya Illias  wrote:
> 
> I have just read several messages on various threads in this list about God. 
> I really don't know which one to answer to, nor do I wish to debate the 
> subject. It is God to choose and guide whoever He wills; I can only keep my 
> duty by sharing the ayaat of The Quran and the knowledge I learn therefrom.


That is coherent with your will to not debate. But the natural question is “why 
the Quran”, and how can you defend the Quran if you don’t try to compare with 
all the other texts. Why not the Vedas? Why not, the bible of Jerusalem, which 
is somehow praised in the first half of the Quran? 

You might try to answer the post when you feel to disagree, but citing the 
Quran, a bit like giving links, without explanation of why the Quran or why 
those links is not much informative.

As you have probably realise now, I think that Chirstianity ended in 529, and 
Islam died in a large part in 1248. At those moment both have substituted the 
literal fairy tales for the science and forbid the critical thinking an reason, 
with some important exceptions persecuted ever since (Bektashi, Alevi, 
Mutazelit, …).

I agree with you that God is the ultimate one guiding us, but God is not “God”, 
and nobody on Earth can use its name for any temporal spiritual living. It 
brings automatically the argument per authority, which is catastrophically, 
especially on he fundamental research.

God is good, but “God” is the devil. It trains the people to accept argument 
per authority, which leads to the fake certainty and the violence. It leads to 
the feeling of superiority and the condescendance. It makes people blind on 
alternative thinking, and eventually reject the doubt and reason. It becomes 
the nth version of the “the boss is right” theory, which can lakes sense in the 
army, in urgent situation, when lacking the time to use reason, but when it is 
based only on that, it needs the war and the conflicts to sustain itself.

Bruno





> This page contains links to various aspects of God, which are being theorised 
> in your various posts: matter, energy, consciousness, soul, etc. 
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/p/allah.html 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CANgFmkEg4tUhkRaDgVK8J_TJTTV6jBzHuKqhs54RRWNa2xnbJA%40mail.gmail.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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/504D1D10-066A-43F7-ADBD-65042FE6829B%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:30:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/21/2019 11:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 6:51:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/21/2019 2:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> via Hedda Hassel Mørch @heddamorch
>> https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/113048705070737817
>>
>>
>> A lot to read:
>>
>>
>> *On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information theory of 
>> consciousness* 
>> Tim Bayne [ https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/timothy-bayne ]
>> https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2018/1/niy007/5047367
>>
>> *Symposium on Bayne, “On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated 
>> information theory of consciousness”*
>>
>> http://philosophyofbrains.com/2019/05/20/symposium-on-bayne-on-the-axiomatic-foundations-of-the-integrated-information-theory-of-consciousness.aspx
>>
>>
>> includes 
>> Hedda Hassel Mørch (commentary):
>>
>> "[IIT] can also be and is in some ways better interpreted as a form of 
>> Russellian monism, the view that conscious or protoconscious properties 
>> constitute the intrinsic nature of physical properties (which physics 
>> reveals as purely extrinsic and structural), and therefore would not be 
>> (purely) physical. This could be understood as compatible with IIT’s claim 
>> that consciousness is identical with integrated information, which could be 
>> interpreted to say that consciousness is identical with integrated 
>> information understood, not as a purely physical property, but as a 
>> property that may include a non-physical intrinsic nature."
>>
>>
>> But read https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 
>> 
>>  
>> first.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
> I think Scott (who wrote that in 2014) needs to read this symposium 
> article.
>
> He knows something about - and may be considered an expert in - 
> computational complexity (classical and quantum), but he doesn't know much 
> more than anyone else outside his specialty, especially - he doesn't know 
> much about the subject of consciousness.
>
>
> Neither does Tononi.  And Scott knows how to calculate integrated 
> information.
>
> Brent
>


"integrated information" (in the context of consciousness science) is not a 
well-defined term. That was part of what the underlying paper (on "axioms") 
and commentary critical of IIT was all about.

So why doesn't Scott write an update post from the one he wrote 5 years 
ago? Because he is not in the field of conscious science - his field is 
computational complexity, which is pretty useless in contributing anything 
to the subject.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/783fa86d-0778-4f81-9336-6356ea3a0e71%40googlegroups.com.