Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 02 Mar 2015, at 00:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0
(zero) or { } - the empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not
just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe
in set theory or doesn't believe it is basis enough. As Kronecker
said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist
Menschenwerk. At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of
some atheists who rejected his thesis. Otherwise he could easily
use The One or aperion or quintessence other theologically
neutral terms.
Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a
temporal beginning. Maybe it should be Logic (and he could throw
in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if
there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top
of the thread - Why is there something rather than nothing? It
just changes it to Why is there a creator?
He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever
satisfies its existence predicate is what exists.
Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing
I've ever come across that actually works on this basis (being
logically necessary). Otherwise the universe is just a brute fact -
which of course it may be.
Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between
concepts we made up - so maybe logically necessary isn't so
necessary after all. I find it interesting that a lot of logically
necessary truths were contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing
can be in two places at the same time. Two things can't be in the
same place at the same time. The truths of arithmetic seem to me to
be the same way. The number of letter in this word plus the
number of letters in that word is 10 because each has 5 letters.
Or is it only 5: t h i s a ? It depends on how you conceptualize
letters; are they marks on the paper or are those marks on tokens
of the Platonic letters?
You are free to develop a quantum theory of numbers.
But to convince us that it is a theory, you need to rely on the usual
arithmetic taught in high school, or anything Turing equivalent.
Numbers themselves are not logical necessities. But if you have enough
axiom to represent the computable functions in your theory, you are
under the incompleteness fate. If your initial beliefs is classical
(contains the classical tautologies), then G and G* will apply to you,
as far as you reason correctly about yourself at a correct
substitution level.
As the goal consists in deriving the correct physics, I limit my
interview to (simple) correct machine, where correctness refer to the
usual interpretation of the natural numbers.
That is used in virtually all books making the math used by virtually
of physicists.
And there is no need to make any metaphysical assumption about the
existence of the numbers. The point is that there is no need, and no
possible use, of a metaphysical assumption of primary matter, once we
bet that we are Turing emulable.
I don't propose anything new, I show that an assumption (the primary
universe) might not be compatible with the idea that our (generalized)
brain is Turing-emulable.
Note that Turing emulable is an arithmetical concept: you can *define*
it using only the symbol s, 0, +, x and predicate calculus.
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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 03 Mar 2015, at 21:03, PGC wrote: On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:32:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk. Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlwerk. Hmm, what is the plural of Zahl in german ... Lol, it's die Zahlen. Thank you! Therefore, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlenwerk. OK. Nice. But I think we can say god mostly forgives syntax error of this sort, without huge danger of blasphemy. PGC I hope so. At least we can't misspell the name of God, as God has no name :) 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 08 Mar 2015, at 23:47, meekerdb wrote: On 3/8/2015 2:07 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote: I thought P meant P was possible? In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, means possible, and [] means necessary. Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions... Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ? So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is true In the temporal interpretation of modal logic, means sometime, and [] means always. p is true implies that p is sometimes true In the locus interpretation of modal logic, means somewhere, and [] means everywhere. ...somewhere... In the deontic interpretation of modal logic, means permitted, and [] means obligatory. p is permitted (by whom?!) etc. Note that all interpretation are form of possibility (alethic, temporal, locative, ...). In our interview of the Löbian machine, is translated in arithmetic with Gödel beweisbar predicate: In particular: t is consistency. t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number coding the sentence 0 = s(0). OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then that implies that p is consistent - which, roughly speaking, is what Godel showed to be wrong. Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x. Proof must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they can be coded into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the proof named by y and looks if it proves the sentence coded by x. t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the false, or PA is consistent. So to summarize you don't want p-[]p as a modal axiom because it particularizes to t-[]t which says all true propositions are provable, contrary to Godel's theorem. I guess there are typo error here. You mean p - p. I just have no choice, p are for arbitrary arithmetical proposition, and is for ~beweisbar ~p. Now G* proves p - p, and this means that this is true for the machine, bu G does not prove it, which means that the machine cannot alway justify that fact. And if you know Gödels theorem, you know that already with t, we don't have t - t. If G proves that G would prove t, and the machine would prove its consistency, which she can't. Godel proved PA incompleteness by diagonalization on classes of numbers. But this applies to PA, not to every axiom set. It applies on every axiom set rich enough to define what is computation. So why not conclude there is something wrong with PA? It applies to all recursively enumerable extension of PA. It applies to us, by comp, and assuming we are consistent enough (which is the case in the ideal case by construction). To me it seems more intuitively compelling to say p-p than to say every number has a successor and deny p-p. You confuse the non intuitive truth about us, with the intuition of the first person. yes, they do oppose, that is why []p, []p p, []p t, []p t p, obey different logic. The first person, S4Grz does prove p - p. And, yes, it is very hard to her to bet she is a machine, and she is correct by doing so. So the machine's soul, in some sense, is not a machine. I explained this to Craig sometimes ago. But I don't defend comp, I just show that with comp, physics and theology become branch of number theory. This makes comp testable, just compare the computer-physics with nature. 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 08 Mar 2015, at 22:07, LizR wrote: On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote: I thought P meant P was possible? In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, means possible, and [] means necessary. Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions... Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ? So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is true In the temporal interpretation of modal logic, means sometime, and [] means always. p is true implies that p is sometimes true Yes, and in this case, the actual word is called now. You can translate: p is true now implies that p is sometimes true. In the locus interpretation of modal logic, means somewhere, and [] means everywhere. ...somewhere... yes, and the actual world is called here. In the deontic interpretation of modal logic, means permitted, and [] means obligatory. p is permitted (by whom?!) permitted by the actual government (say). etc. Note that all interpretation are form of possibility (alethic, temporal, locative, ...). In our interview of the Löbian machine, is translated in arithmetic with Gödel beweisbar predicate: In particular: t is consistency. t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number coding the sentence 0 = s(0). OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then that implies that p is consistent - which, roughly speaking, is what Godel showed to be wrong. To be true on PA, but non provable by PA. And so it is not a theorem of G, as G is a modal logic which axiomatized the arithmetical provability. Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x. Proof must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they can be coded into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the proof named by y and looks if it proves the sentence coded by x. t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the false, or PA is consistent. Similarly and more generally p means (PA + p) is consistent, or p is consistent with PA, or PA does not prove 0= 1 when assuming p, ... as formulated in the language of PA. PA=Peano arithmetic, yes? Yes. And RA = Robinson Arithmetic. PA = Robinson Arithmetic + the infinitely many induction axioms: If F(0) and for all x (P(x) - P(s(x)), then for all x F(x). It means that if a formula F, meant for a proposition or property is hereditarily preserved by the successor relation, then, if it is true for 0, it is true for all its successors. Like the infinite range of dominoes. So p asserts that p is true relative to PA? When PA asserts p, it means, strictly speaking, only that PA believes p. But *we* are trusting PA, and so we know that it means also that p is true (in the usual interpretation of the numbers). If PA asserts ExEy 2x^2 = y^2, it means that PA believes that there is two numbers n and m such that two times the square of n is equal to the square of m. And that is true, of course, n = m = 0. If so wouldn't P imply P? Or have I misremembered what P means? Note that p - p is the contrapositive of [] ~p - ~p. As a axiom, it is valid for all p, so, as an axiom, p - p and []p - p are equivalent. But []p - p cannot be an axiom of the modal logic of provability (G), that is when [] is the arithmetical beweisbar, given that []f - f cannot be proven by PA (PA would prove ~[]f, that t, that is, its own consistency. PA is consistent, and cannot prove its own consistency. So we don't have []p - p, nor p - p. Given that p means consistency, yes. Even, that PA, or the Löbian entity under consideration is consistent. In fact, by Löb's theorem, we have that []p - p is provable if and only p itself is provable. And the machine can prove that: []([]p - p) - []p (and the reverse which is trivial, if the machine proves p, she can prove that anything implies p). Consistency of p is a form of possibility. In fact p - p *is* true, for all p, but the machine cannot prove all such formula, like she can't prove for all p that []p - p. This is made nice and precise by saying that []p - p and p - p belongs to G* minus G, the corona of the proper theology of the machine. It contains all (3p) truth *about* the machine that the machine cannot rationally justified, yet that she can intuit or produce as true in a high number of different ways. OK? Yes, I think so. It also answers Brent's why can't we just define differently so that... whatever he said - the answer being that redefining would mean we got something completely different and probably nonsensical. Yes. I don't use modal logic like an analytical philosopher could do, with the goal of formalizing a philosophical, or deontical notions. Well, I do it when telling that I define (abstractly) knowledge by the axiom of S4. Most philosophers
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote: I thought P meant P was possible? In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, means possible, and [] means necessary. Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions... Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ? So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is true In the temporal interpretation of modal logic, means sometime, and [] means always. p is true implies that p is sometimes true In the locus interpretation of modal logic, means somewhere, and [] means everywhere. ...somewhere... In the deontic interpretation of modal logic, means permitted, and [] means obligatory. p is permitted (by whom?!) etc. Note that all interpretation are form of possibility (alethic, temporal, locative, ...). In our interview of the Löbian machine, is translated in arithmetic with Gödel beweisbar predicate: In particular: t is consistency. t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number coding the sentence 0 = s(0). OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then that implies that p is consistent - which, roughly speaking, is what Godel showed to be wrong. Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x. Proof must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they can be coded into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the proof named by y and looks if it proves the sentence coded by x. t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the false, or PA is consistent. Similarly and more generally p means (PA + p) is consistent, or p is consistent with PA, or PA does not prove 0= 1 when assuming p, ... as formulated in the language of PA. PA=Peano arithmetic, yes? So p asserts that p is true relative to PA? If so wouldn't P imply P? Or have I misremembered what P means? Note that p - p is the contrapositive of [] ~p - ~p. As a axiom, it is valid for all p, so, as an axiom, p - p and []p - p are equivalent. But []p - p cannot be an axiom of the modal logic of provability (G), that is when [] is the arithmetical beweisbar, given that []f - f cannot be proven by PA (PA would prove ~[]f, that t, that is, its own consistency. PA is consistent, and cannot prove its own consistency. So we don't have []p - p, nor p - p. Given that p means consistency, yes. In fact, by Löb's theorem, we have that []p - p is provable if and only p itself is provable. And the machine can prove that: []([]p - p) - []p (and the reverse which is trivial, if the machine proves p, she can prove that anything implies p). Consistency of p is a form of possibility. In fact p - p *is* true, for all p, but the machine cannot prove all such formula, like she can't prove for all p that []p - p. This is made nice and precise by saying that []p - p and p - p belongs to G* minus G, the corona of the proper theology of the machine. It contains all (3p) truth *about* the machine that the machine cannot rationally justified, yet that she can intuit or produce as true in a high number of different ways. OK? Yes, I think so. It also answers Brent's why can't we just define differently so that... whatever he said - the answer being that redefining would mean we got something completely different and probably nonsensical. We could in theory define a new whatever-you-call-it however Brent thinks that could be done (I don't think he filled in that minor detail?). But that would be a huge exercise, and probably impossible given Godel's theorem, because maths kicks back. (Of course it maths was just something we made up, this wouldn't be a problem I guess.) Now, that is why the rational believability predicate acts like a believability and not a knowability, and that is why to get a knower, we need to impose explicitly the link with the truth: that is, we have to apply Theaetetus' idea, and get the new operator []p p. That one, unlike the G box (beweisbar), is NOT translatable in the language of the machine. The first person has no name, no 3p description, and that explains why it match so nicely with Plotinus universal soul or with the greek inner god. I can almost hear someone preparing to tell you that the Ancient Greeks were a bunch of nincompoops. Watch out! Bruno On 7 March 2015 at 21:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Mar 2015, at 02:51, meekerdb wrote: On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist context it means true in the standard model of arithmetic, which is this reality if you want. In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our arithmetical context is NOT necessarily among the accessible world, because we don't have []p - p). With the logic of provability, we cannot access the world we are in. p does not imply p I
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 3/8/2015 2:07 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote: I thought P meant P was possible? In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, means possible, and [] means necessary. Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions... Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ? So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is true In the temporal interpretation of modal logic, means sometime, and [] means always. p is true implies that p is sometimes true In the locus interpretation of modal logic, means somewhere, and [] means everywhere. ...somewhere... In the deontic interpretation of modal logic, means permitted, and [] means obligatory. p is permitted (by whom?!) etc. Note that all interpretation are form of possibility (alethic, temporal, locative, ...). In our interview of the Löbian machine, is translated in arithmetic with Gödel beweisbar predicate: In particular: t is consistency. t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number coding the sentence 0 = s(0). OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then that implies that p is consistent - which, roughly speaking, is what Godel showed to be wrong. Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x. Proof must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they can be coded into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the proof named by y and looks if it proves the sentence coded by x. t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the false, or PA is consistent. So to summarize you don't want p-[]p as a modal axiom because it particularizes to t-[]t which says all true propositions are provable, contrary to Godel's theorem. Godel proved PA incompleteness by diagonalization on classes of numbers. But this applies to PA, not to every axiom set. So why not conclude there is something wrong with PA? To me it seems more intuitively compelling to say p-p than to say every number has a successor and deny p-p. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote: I thought P meant P was possible? In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, means possible, and [] means necessary. In the temporal interpretation of modal logic, means sometime, and [] means always. In the locus interpretation of modal logic, means somewhere, and [] means everywhere. In the deontic interpretation of modal logic, means permitted, and [] means obligatory. etc. Note that all interpretation are form of possibility (alethic, temporal, locative, ...). In our interview of the Löbian machine, is translated in arithmetic with Gödel beweisbar predicate: In particular: t is consistency. t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number coding the sentence 0 = s(0). Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x. Proof must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they can be coded into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the proof named by y and looks if it proves the sentence coded by x. t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the false, or PA is consistent. Similarly and more generally p means (PA + p) is consistent, or p is consistent with PA, or PA does not prove 0= 1 when assuming p, ... as formulated in the language of PA. If so wouldn't P imply P? Or have I misremembered what P means? Note that p - p is the contrapositive of [] ~p - ~p. As a axiom, it is valid for all p, so, as an axiom, p - p and []p - p are equivalent. But []p - p cannot be an axiom of the modal logic of provability (G), that is when [] is the arithmetical beweisbar, given that []f - f cannot be proven by PA (PA would prove ~[]f, that t, that is, its own consistency. PA is consistent, and cannot prove its own consistency. So we don't have []p - p, nor p - p. In fact, by Löb's theorem, we have that []p - p is provable if and only p itself is provable. And the machine can prove that: []([]p - p) - []p (and the reverse which is trivial, if the machine proves p, she can prove that anything implies p). Consistency of p is a form of possibility. In fact p - p *is* true, for all p, but the machine cannot prove all such formula, like she can't prove for all p that []p - p. This is made nice and precise by saying that []p - p and p - p belongs to G* minus G, the corona of the proper theology of the machine. It contains all (3p) truth *about* the machine that the machine cannot rationally justified, yet that she can intuit or produce as true in a high number of different ways. OK? Now, that is why the rational believability predicate acts like a believability and not a knowability, and that is why to get a knower, we need to impose explicitly the link with the truth: that is, we have to apply Theaetetus' idea, and get the new operator []p p. That one, unlike the G box (beweisbar), is NOT translatable in the language of the machine. The first person has no name, no 3p description, and that explains why it match so nicely with Plotinus universal soul or with the greek inner god. Bruno On 7 March 2015 at 21:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Mar 2015, at 02:51, meekerdb wrote: On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist context it means true in the standard model of arithmetic, which is this reality if you want. In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our arithmetical context is NOT necessarily among the accessible world, because we don't have []p - p). With the logic of provability, we cannot access the world we are in. p does not imply p I wonder about such definitions of modal operators. WHY doesn't p imply p? We could define so that it did. Is there some good reason not to? The modal logic are imposed by the fact that he box (and thus the diamond) are the one describing the self-reference, by Solovay theorem. The box is Gödel's beweisbar. It is an arithmetical predicate. We really assume only Robinson (and Peano) arithmetic. We don't have p - p, because this would mean in particular t - t, and if that was a theorem of G, then t would be provable, contradicting Gödel's incompleteness. All modal logics are extracted from arithmetic. They are shortcuts provided by Solovay's completeness theorem of G and G*, and the Theaetetus' variants. 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://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
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist context it means true in the standard model of arithmetic, which is this reality if you want. In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our arithmetical context is NOT necessarily among the accessible world, because we don't have []p - p). With the logic of provability, we cannot access the world we are in. p does not imply p I wonder about such definitions of modal operators. WHY doesn't p imply p? We */could/* define so that it did. Is there some good reason not to? 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 05 Mar 2015, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote: On 3/5/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote: On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote: My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt. Doubt is the lack of faith! I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter. Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can build on that. So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories, texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations, etc. The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal way). In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but without ever needing to abandon faith. It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the fables. So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular? Why? I didn't say that. Of course you didn't. It's ineffable. :-) Lol. Of course, I meant the one which has no name/description. I can see why a logician would think that way; since he always wants to start from axioms he assumes. Not at all. Humans start from a reality and develop beliefs on that reality, and they assume axioms to have their theories, but they doubt the theory, as they trust the reality. Fundamental reality kicks back all theories, but that is nice, as it is a promise of infinite learning and surprises. But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries to operationalize the coherence theory of truth. Not too bad blaspheme for the practical purpose, although it can't really work, but that is another topic. Fundamentally you should not like it, as it confuse truth and reality (possibility/consistency). It confuses p and p. It confuses p is true with there is a reality in which p is true. Does p is true mean p is true in *this* reality, or what? That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist context it means true in the standard model of arithmetic, which is this reality if you want. In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our arithmetical context is NOT necessarily among the accessible world, because we don't have []p - p). With the logic of provability, we cannot access the world we are in. p does not imply p 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 3/5/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote: On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote: My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt. Doubt is the lack of faith! I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter. Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can build on that. So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories, texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations, etc. The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal way). In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but without ever needing to abandon faith. It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the fables. So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular? Why? I didn't say that. Of course you didn't. It's ineffable. :-) I can see why a logician would think that way; since he always wants to start from axioms he assumes. Not at all. Humans start from a reality and develop beliefs on that reality, and they assume axioms to have their theories, but they doubt the theory, as they trust the reality. Fundamental reality kicks back all theories, but that is nice, as it is a promise of infinite learning and surprises. But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries to operationalize the coherence theory of truth. Not too bad blaspheme for the practical purpose, although it can't really work, but that is another topic. Fundamentally you should not like it, as it confuse truth and reality (possibility/consistency). It confuses p and p. It confuses p is true with there is a reality in which p is true. Does p is true mean p is true in *this* reality, or what? 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote: On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote: My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt. Doubt is the lack of faith! I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter. Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can build on that. So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories, texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations, etc. The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal way). In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but without ever needing to abandon faith. It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the fables. So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular? Why? I didn't say that. I can see why a logician would think that way; since he always wants to start from axioms he assumes. Not at all. Humans start from a reality and develop beliefs on that reality, and they assume axioms to have their theories, but they doubt the theory, as they trust the reality. Fundamental reality kicks back all theories, but that is nice, as it is a promise of infinite learning and surprises. But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries to operationalize the coherence theory of truth. Not too bad blaspheme for the practical purpose, although it can't really work, but that is another topic. Fundamentally you should not like it, as it confuse truth and reality (possibility/consistency). It confuses p and p. It confuses p is true with there is a reality in which p is true. 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote: My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt. Doubt is the lack of faith! I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter. Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can build on that. So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories, texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations, etc. The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal way). In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but without ever needing to abandon faith. It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the fables. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote: My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt. Doubt is the lack of faith! I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter. Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can build on that. So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories, texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations, etc. The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal way). In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but without ever needing to abandon faith. It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the fables. So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular? I can see why a logician would think that way; since he always wants to start from axioms he assumes. But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries to operationalize the coherence theory of truth. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
This and the next post of yours are classic. In the next one you cast doubt on our space-based worldview - I was waiting for the next step: the TIME_BASED doubt. * Bruno quoted Samiya concluding: *Doubt is the lack of faith!* - and I could not keep my agnostic mind from reversing this into: *Faith is the lack of doubt*. * And I salute your hint to the axioms as startups for logicians' thinking. I would add tothe 'he assumes' - in order to verify the theories applicable in (our) science. Regards JM On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote: My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt. Doubt is the lack of faith! I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter. Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can build on that. So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories, texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations, etc. The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal way). In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but without ever needing to abandon faith. It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the fables. So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular? I can see why a logician would think that way; since he always wants to start from axioms he assumes. But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries to operationalize the coherence theory of truth. 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 01 Mar 2015, at 20:16, Samiya Illias wrote: On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote: On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote: On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote: Why don't you just call it One with a capital O Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians. God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship (loving obedience). That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone, because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to. Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the intermediate. That happens very often. Does the One/God of Comp mean as such? I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above. From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct? I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say, at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space, and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin. It is not omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things, including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move. Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly- able, perfectly and constantly all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and perfectly-governing being, in control of everything So why worry? If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah will? and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone. I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess. But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid, intermediate between God and humans, for political purpose. I am not sure at all, but it does look like blasphemy. Allah alone is worthy of worship, Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think any human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is Allah in arab) has no name. Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then. The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something that set in motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no longer involved in the process of creation, forgets, unable to act, and so on. I think that you are not entirely correct on this. Both from a 3p pov, and the 1p pov, although what you say might make a bit more sense from the 3p view. Yet, in the 3p view, the initiating (by zero, successor) is easier for us to connective like it was a sort of procedure working in time. But this is due to our limitation, and if this would be true, (like it is in intuitionistic mathematics), it is provably false in classical mathematics, where the truth of a sentence is not related to anything temporal, and indeed escape entirely the realm of procedure. Then an internal dynamics appears in the 1-views, distributed in the whole arithmetical reality, in a way which is beyond the procedure too. So, it makes sense in the arithmetical realm, (which is provably enough when we assume computationalism) to say that such a truth, like God, is present everywhere and acts everywhere. It is open if it has will, per se, but we have already suggestion that it acquires personality when restricted to machines, or intermediates non-machine entities (which exists provably in arithmetic). That is not the concept of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most religions. I am not sure why you seem so sure about it. If you are correct, given that there is only one God, and that this remains true when we assume computationalism, if you are correct that would make Islam incoherent with computationalism. I tend to believe the contrary, a priori. Only a too much literal interpretation of the Quran would make it incoherent with computationalism. Many muslims scholars can agree with this, at least this is what I get from my reading of them. That is why I suggested that perhaps what you've discovered is not God but rather an origin, a primary creation
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 01 Mar 2015, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0
(zero) or { } - the empty set?
I can like 0 and 2 as the primordial Goddesse, enclosing the old
fashioned male God who thought he was the source of all things, but he
was just a child playing in the magical garden sustained by the
goddess of annihilation (0) and the goddess of creation the number 2.
But coming back on being serious, the things the platonist name the
one is closer to the concept of truth, with the fact that such truth
is encompassing the machine-believer, and this makes it undefinable
from the first person perspective. Eventually, it defines the notion
of first person, which lives at the intersection of belief and God
([]p p), according to the definition of Theaetetus).
God is approximated here as the knower of the larger set of true
sentences about you (or about the universal person) and your relation
with the rest of what can exist relatively to you (or relatively to
the universal person. The universal person is the one whose logic of
truth, belief, knowledge, observable and sensible are described by the
eight variant of the Gödel-Löbian provability predicate. It is an
ideal simple rational believer, since Gödel we know it is infinitely
non trivial, but thanks to Solovay, the propositional logical part are
decidable.
The intersection of all religion, if you read Aldous Huxley, is in
that set, if you agree with the plotinus translation in arithmetic.
The universal dovetailer is the sigma_1 truth, to which
computationalism gives a special role. But God would be, in that
approximation the union of all sigma_i and pi_i truth. probably the
analytical truth to, but that is for the internal inside understanding.
For God I use usually truth, but I use God to examplify
relationship between truth about a machine, truth as conceived by a
machine, truth as undistinguishbale from the Perenial God, from the
machine's pov. You need two words to equate God and Truth. I am only
following the greek (neo)platonist tradition, where God is use for
concepts and possible first principle.
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator,
There are none. But there are no evidence for a creation either,
beyond an extrapolation which ease our lives.
But there are evidence of persistent relation between numbers, and
between some measurable numbers. There are evidences for persons and
stories.
There are evidence for some simple but deep truth, related to good and
bad, life and afterlife, etc.
Using theology is an act of modesty. A way to recall you need faith
in some religion; here you need at least some faith in a possible type
of technological reincarnation. (That is entails infinitely
arithmetical reincarnation is a consequence).
but even if there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question
at the top of the thread - Why is there something rather than
nothing? It just changes it to Why is there a creator?
And computationalism changes that question into why there are numbers
and why do they obey to addition and mutiplication. Since the failure
of logicism, we know that we cannot derive them from logic alone. That
is why I ask you to be willing enough to assume that
x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), and an half dozen other obvious
axioms. (or Kxy = x, and Sxyz = (xz)(yz) which are even simpler).
Then assuming computationalism, that MUST be enough to explain the
sharable persistant illusions, and in only one way: by the logic of
the observable (defined by the notion of probability one, or the
relative measure on infinitely many computations.
And what I find wonderful, is that from assuming x + 0 = 0, etc. It
can be explained why such beliefs (or Turing equivalent) cannot be
avoided. It explains why we just cannot explain our faith in the
numbers addition and multiplication, like it explains alson but
differently why consciousness and truth are not definable, etc.
The numbers, or the combinators, are the minimal unsolvable mystery.
It assumes some God already implicitly, like Kronecker guessed perhaps.
Bruno
On 2 March 2015 at 08:16, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative
theologians.
God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of
worship (loving obedience).
That might be true for those who meet
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:32:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk. Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlwerk. Hmm, what is the plural of Zahl in german ... Lol, it's die Zahlen. Therefore, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlenwerk. But I think we can say god mostly forgives syntax error of this sort, without huge danger of blasphemy. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:58, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0
(zero) or { } - the empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not
just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in
set theory or doesn't believe it is basis enough. As Kronecker said,
Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist
Menschenwerk. At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of
some atheists who rejected his thesis. Otherwise he could easily
use The One or aperion or quintessence other theologically neutral
terms.
Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a
temporal beginning. Maybe it should be Logic (and he could throw
in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if
there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top
of the thread - Why is there something rather than nothing? It
just changes it to Why is there a creator?
He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever
satisfies its existence predicate is what exists.
Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing
I've ever come across that actually works on this basis (being
logically necessary). Otherwise the universe is just a brute fact -
which of course it may be.
I guess you mean the fact that we explain the phenomenological
existence of god, universe, consciousness, from x+ 0 = 0, etc.
x + 0, etc, are our new brute facts. Together with the
computationalist hope that comp is true, the doctor competent, and the
substitution level low enough, in case we practice.
Some can say, like John Clark, doctor, if you exist, I trust you do
your best.
I am aware that for non logician, it is not that easy to understand
that x + 0 = x has to be assumed, or equivalent. Formally, most logic
are very weak, you cannot prove the existence of 0 with them, still
less of a universal number. Now if you assume the S and K laws, then
you can prove that x + 0 = 0, accepting combinators definition of
numbers. For the S and K laws, or from those simple arithmetical
axiom; you can prove the existence of universal numbers, and of their
discourse about their multiple phenomenologies (the intensional
variant. A believer is a believer in such a theory, + the belief of
the induction axioms, which is what makes them obeying G and G*, when
self-referentially correct.
I use only the most known elementary, and not so elementary, theorem
from computer science and mathematical logic.
The key technical things is in the difference between Cantor diagonal
argument, tarski diagonal argument, Gödel diagonal argument, and, the
most important of all Kleene diagonal argument.
I will have to go, and as the number of mails seems infinite, I guess
I have an infinite time to comment them. The month of mars is tightly
scheduled. Thanks for patience.
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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 4 March 2015 at 06:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Mar 2015, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
{ } - the empty set?
I can like 0 and 2 as the primordial Goddesse, enclosing the old fashioned
male God who thought he was the source of all things, but he was just a
child playing in the magical garden sustained by the goddess of
annihilation (0) and the goddess of creation the number 2.
LIKE +1
--
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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 4 March 2015 at 09:03, PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: But I think we can say god mostly forgives syntax error of this sort, without huge danger of blasphemy. PGC Unless they cause the universe to crash. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0
(zero) or { } - the empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not
just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in
set theory or doesn't believe it is basis enough.
Yes. There is only one arithmetic of natural numbers on which everyone
agree. ZF is a nice theory, but there are many different
interpretations, and worst, many very different theories of set. We do
have a quasi communicable notion of standard model for arithmetic, but
not for set.
Also, the quantified qG and qG*, and thus their intensional variants,
are not immune of Quine Barcan-Marcus critics of predicate modal
logic, unlike the qG and qG* of arithmetic.
Nobody really believe in set theory. It is the Fortran of formal
mathematics, if you want. yet, quite useful for handling little set
naively, and quite useful to climb the more possible on the
transfinite. But those are in the meta of computer science.
As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles
Übrige ist Menschenwerk.
Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is
Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlwerk.
Hmm, what is the plural of Zahl in german ...
At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of some atheists who
rejected his thesis.
Without reading it, and just because it contained the term
consciousness.
Otherwise he could easily use The One or aperion or quintessence
other theologically neutral terms.
People would miss the point that computationalism is not theologically
neutral at all.
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if
there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top
of the thread - Why is there something rather than nothing? It
just changes it to Why is there a creator?
He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary
I guess this is a typo. I insist all the time that since the failure
of logicism, arithmetic is NOT logically necessary. If it was, I would
not need to add the arithmetical axioms to the theory. Logic would be
the theory, but that is not enough. I make clear that I assume x + 0 =
0, etc.
and therefore whatever satisfies its existence predicate is what
exists.
There is no existence predicate.
Brent
Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with
the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.
--- Ambrose Bierce
That is logic. yes. But the comp TOE is not logic, which is only a
tool. The TOE is arithmetic, or anything Turing equivalent.
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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Schoppenhauer?
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
{ } - the empty set?
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
Why is there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is
there a creator?
On 2 March 2015 at 08:16, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.
God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
(loving obedience).
That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go
without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,
because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to.
Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the
intermediate. That happens very often.
Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?
I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.
From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an
origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?
I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say,
at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space,
and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc
I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin. It is not
omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,
including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to
change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable
to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move.
Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to
you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the
concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly
all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and
perfectly-governing being, in control of everything
So why worry?
If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah will?
and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.
I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.
But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they
believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid, intermediate
between God and humans, for political purpose. I am not sure at all, but it
does look like blasphemy.
Allah alone is worthy of worship,
Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think any
human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is Allah in
arab) has no name.
Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.
The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something that
set in motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no longer
involved in the process of creation, forgets, unable to act, and so on.
That is not the concept of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most religions.
That is why I suggested that perhaps what you've discovered is not God but
rather an origin, a primary creation of sorts, may be. Feel free to call it
whatever you like, I was just sharing my thoughts on the matter.
Samiya
and all else is creation,
Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think
the neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the
Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.
and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to Allah.
Use of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be a good idea.
Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?
Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use Allah.
Logically.
And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible that
it is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?
I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly understand
that you might not appreciate the doubt about taking literally the talk of
the prophets (despite we both agree they are human).
I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might have
chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and the eleventh
century in the Middle-East.
I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero)
or { } -
the empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a
beginning,
but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't
believe it
is basis enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott,
alles
Übrige ist Menschenwerk. At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye
of some
atheists who rejected his thesis. Otherwise he could easily use The One
or
aperion or quintessence other theologically neutral terms.
Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a temporal beginning. Maybe
it should be Logic (and he could throw in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there
is such
evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
Why is
there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is
there a
creator?
He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever
satisfies its
existence predicate is what exists.
Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing I've ever come across
that actually works on this basis (being logically necessary). Otherwise the universe is
just a brute fact - which of course it may be.
Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we made up - so
maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all. I find it interesting that a
lot of logically necessary truths were contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing can be
in two places at the same time. Two things can't be in the same place at the same time.
The truths of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way. The number of letter in this
word plus the number of letters in that word is 10 because each has 5 letters. Or is it
only 5: t h i s a ? It depends on how you conceptualize letters; are they marks on the
paper or are those marks on tokens of the Platonic letters?
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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
{ } - the empty set?
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
Why is there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is
there a creator?
On 2 March 2015 at 08:16, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.
God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
(loving obedience).
That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go
without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,
because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to.
Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the
intermediate. That happens very often.
Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?
I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.
From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an
origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?
I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say, at
the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space,
and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc
I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin. It is not
omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,
including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to
change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable
to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move.
Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to
you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the
concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly
all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and
perfectly-governing being, in control of everything
So why worry?
If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah will?
and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.
I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.
But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they
believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid, intermediate
between God and humans, for political purpose. I am not sure at all, but it
does look like blasphemy.
Allah alone is worthy of worship,
Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think any
human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is Allah in
arab) has no name.
Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.
The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something that
set in motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no longer
involved in the process of creation, forgets, unable to act, and so on.
That is not the concept of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most religions.
That is why I suggested that perhaps what you've discovered is not God but
rather an origin, a primary creation of sorts, may be. Feel free to call it
whatever you like, I was just sharing my thoughts on the matter.
Samiya
and all else is creation,
Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think the
neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the
Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.
and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to Allah. Use
of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be a good idea.
Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?
Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use Allah.
Logically.
And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible that
it is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?
I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly understand
that you might not appreciate the doubt about taking literally the talk of
the prophets (despite we both agree they are human).
I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might have
chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and the eleventh
century in the Middle-East.
I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can also
understand the worry. No problem, I will use, according to the context the
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
OOPs Should written 8 not 10. Changed my mind about the words without
changing the number.
Brent
On 3/1/2015 3:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero)
or { }
- the empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a
beginning,
but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't
believe it
is basis enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott,
alles
Übrige ist Menschenwerk. At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye
of some
atheists who rejected his thesis. Otherwise he could easily use The One or
aperion or quintessence other theologically neutral terms.
Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a temporal beginning. Maybe
it should be Logic (and he could throw in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there
is such
evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
Why is
there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is
there a
creator?
He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever
satisfies its
existence predicate is what exists.
Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing I've ever come across
that actually works on this basis (being logically necessary). Otherwise the universe
is just a brute fact - which of course it may be.
Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we made up - so
maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all. I find it interesting that a
lot of logically necessary truths were contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing can
be in two places at the same time. Two things can't be in the same place at the same
time. The truths of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way. The number of letter in
this word plus the number of letters in that word is 10 because each has 5 letters.
Or is it only 5: t h i s a ? It depends on how you conceptualize letters; are they
marks on the paper or are those marks on tokens of the Platonic letters?
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
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 2 March 2015 at 12:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we made up - so maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all. I find it interesting that a lot of logically necessary truths were contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing can be in two places at the same time. Two things can't be in the same place at the same time. The truths of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way. The number of letter in this word plus the number of letters in that word is 10 because each has 5 letters. Or is it only 5: t h i s a ? It depends on how you conceptualize letters; are they marks on the paper or are those marks on tokens of the Platonic letters? The truths you mention were hypotheses about the nature of the universe. I don't think QM contradicted any arithmetical truths (if there are such things). It just showed that some intuitions about the nature of the universe we inhabit were wrong. I don't agree with your truths of arithmetic seem to be the same way argument. At least, not as stated - the example with the letters is merely a matter of what you're counting - are you counting the total number of letters, or only how many different letters there are? You get two different results depending on which of those you choose, but you get the same result every time for a given choice. In other words, there's no space for contingency once you've properly defined the problem. Which means that the truth of the matter does in fact appear to be logically necessary, unlike the truths about the nature of the universe (well, until a better contradictory example comes along - any ideas?) -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 3/1/2015 4:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 March 2015 at 12:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we made up - so maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all. I find it interesting that a lot of logically necessary truths were contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing can be in two places at the same time. Two things can't be in the same place at the same time. The truths of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way. The number of letter in this word plus the number of letters in that word is 10 because each has 5 letters. Or is it only 5: t h i s a ? It depends on how you conceptualize letters; are they marks on the paper or are those marks on tokens of the Platonic letters? The truths you mention were hypotheses about the nature of the universe. I don't think QM contradicted any arithmetical truths (if there are such things). It just showed that some intuitions about the nature of the universe we inhabit were wrong. Sure. But maybe our intuitions about counting are wrong too - at least insofar as they apply to the world. I don't agree with your truths of arithmetic seem to be the same way argument. At least, not as stated - the example with the letters is merely a matter of what you're counting - are you counting the total number of letters, or only how many different letters there are? You get two different results depending on which of those you choose, but you get the same result every time for a given choice. You don't see the No true counting fallacy analogous to No true Scotsman? There are twelve people on our high school basketball team and six people on our tennis team. When they have a banquet do I have to set 18 places? In other words, there's no space for contingency once you've properly defined the problem. Which means that the truth of the matter does in fact appear to be logically necessary, unlike the truths about the nature of the universe (well, until a better contradictory example comes along - any ideas?) Right, the necessary truth is a truth in Platonia, a world entirely defined by us. Brent As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
John, thank you for sharing your thoughts and narrative. i'm not sure anyone can provide an 'acceptable explanation' of the Creator/Originator. I think it is simply beyond our comprehension. However, I do believe that there is an overwhelming evidence of creation/origination, thus implying a Creator/Originator. Samiya On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:06 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Samiya, I am always cautious not to hurt a fellow lister's feelings. Bruno is a bit mixed up with religion (uses 'theology', capital G in God, etc. etc.) so I do not question his 'faith' beyond what he disclosed already (I hope). I was always polite with your preconditions as well. Now that you question Creator vs. origin, (I assume you mean Originator) the question arises where did such Originator originate from? (I am not asking about 'times befor Origination', because I assign our concept of time a product of OUR universe (not even World) for ourselves, started with the universe (if it ever has been started?). Was there some 'originated' oeuvre when our world has been 'created'? - My narrative has a positive stance for that: there was an everything (I call it Plenitude) of which universes (Pl) were torn out by violation of the universal symmetry (Equilibration) of the Plenitude - all in interchange - when some (I call them: 'similars) got too close and so developed interactive complexities, what I call A Universe. Such violations dissipate (within the no-time system) as they form - back into the Plenitude. This is something 'beyond us' with no Spiritus Rector involved, except for the ground-rule of the total super symmetry among ingredients(?) of the Plenitude, (call it: relations) what I 'suppose to explain something assigned usually to some 'Big Bang' - not without flaws itself. I agree with Bruno in the baseless faith of our agnosticism, unless somebody shows an acceptable basis. Even then my agnosticism may overwhelm. So far I did not get 'acceptable' explanation for neither a 'Creator' nor the Numbers. We gather (new) information continuously so I am not relying on ideas generated many centuries ago. I do not think we reached perfection. I used to be a meek religious chap as a youngster 70~90(!) years ago. . Best regards John M On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote: Why don't you just call it One with a capital O Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians. God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship (loving obedience). Does the One/God of Comp mean as such? From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct? Samiya Bruno Samiya On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc. The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion. From Wikipedia: Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC). So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality. Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter. If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer). I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.
God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
(loving obedience).
That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go
without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,
because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to.
Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the
intermediate. That happens very often.
Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?
I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.
From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an
origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?
I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say, at
the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space,
and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc
I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin. It is not
omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,
including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to
change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable
to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move.
Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to
you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the
concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly
all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and
perfectly-governing being, in control of everything and not sharing its
sovereignty or command with anyone. Allah alone is worthy of worship, and
all else is creation, and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits
humbly to Allah. Use of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not
be a good idea.
Samiya
But it is a very complex subject, and I am extrapolating probably too
much. You might read the book by Brian Hines Return to the One
(subtitled Plotinus' guide To God-Realization). It is not a scholar, but
it fits rather well with the machine's talk, but to verify this we need to
climb that Mountain, and if I remember well we are still learning lacing
the shoes
About this, can you tell me if you have a idea of what a set is? And what
a subset is? How many subsets has the set {0, 1}?
I hope you indulge my math teaching vocation ... For the greeks,
mathematics is the preliminary study of theology.
Bruno
Samiya
Bruno
Samiya
On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by
definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what
is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A
first principle, etc.
The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not
assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion. From
Wikipedia:
Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as
the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a
further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to
the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the
archaic period (8th-6th century BC).
So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
basis of reality.
Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God
was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the
indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron)
into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the
notion of bad, or matter.
If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about
God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God,
except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary
discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).
I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to
the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with
soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth,
non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not
distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine.
BTW,
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or { } - the
empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a beginning, but a
sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't believe it is basis
enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist
Menschenwerk. At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of some atheists who
rejected his thesis. Otherwise he could easily use The One or aperion or quintessence
other theologically neutral terms.
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is such evidence
that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread - Why is there something
rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is there a creator?
He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever satisfies its existence
predicate is what exists.
Brent
Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and
incapacities of the human misunderstanding.
--- Ambrose Bierce
--
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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero)
or { } - the empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a
beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or
doesn't believe it is basis enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl
schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk. At a gut level I
think he wants to poke the eye of some atheists who rejected his thesis.
Otherwise he could easily use The One or aperion or quintessence other
theologically neutral terms.
Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a temporal
beginning. Maybe it should be Logic (and he could throw in a homage to
Leonard Nimoy)
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
Why is there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is
there a creator?
He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever
satisfies its existence predicate is what exists.
Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing I've ever
come across that actually works on this basis (being logically necessary).
Otherwise the universe is just a brute fact - which of course it may 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 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote: On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote: On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote: Why don't you just call it One with a capital O Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians. God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship (loving obedience). That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone, because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to. Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the intermediate. That happens very often. Does the One/God of Comp mean as such? I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above. From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct? I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say, at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space, and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin. It is not omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things, including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move. Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and perfectly-governing being, in control of everything So why worry? If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah will? and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone. I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess. But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid, intermediate between God and humans, for political purpose. I am not sure at all, but it does look like blasphemy. Allah alone is worthy of worship, Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think any human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is Allah in arab) has no name. Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then. The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something that set in motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no longer involved in the process of creation, forgets, unable to act, and so on. That is not the concept of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most religions. That is why I suggested that perhaps what you've discovered is not God but rather an origin, a primary creation of sorts, may be. Feel free to call it whatever you like, I was just sharing my thoughts on the matter. Samiya and all else is creation, Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think the neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the Aristotelians. They are less numerous too. and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to Allah. Use of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be a good idea. Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah? Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use Allah. Logically. And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible that it is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything? I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly understand that you might not appreciate the doubt about taking literally the talk of the prophets (despite we both agree they are human). I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might have chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and the eleventh century in the Middle-East. I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can also understand the worry. No problem, I will use, according to the context the more neutral One, or The Truth, or The ultimate reality, or simply God (the common term used in comparative theology) and not call It/He/She Allah, nor Brahma, nor Tao, nor You are right that we cannot comprehend it, but sometimes you do behave like you do comprehend it, somehow, it seems to me. All
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative
theologians.
God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of
worship (loving obedience).
That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it
go without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by
anyone, because you can't really name God so as to be clear about
what to obey to. Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make
believe he is the intermediate. That happens very often.
Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?
I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.
From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to
an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?
I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection,
say, at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of
time and space, and explains the reason of the perception of origin,
time, space, etc
I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin. It is not
omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,
including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability
to change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but
then unable to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to
change and move.
Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems
appropriate to you, however I would suggest that you do not use of
the term Allah, as the concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-
able, perfectly and constantly all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing,
perfectly-commanding and perfectly-governing being, in control of
everything
So why worry?
If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah
will?
and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.
I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.
But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they
believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid,
intermediate between God and humans, for political purpose. I am not
sure at all, but it does look like blasphemy.
Allah alone is worthy of worship,
Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think
any human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is
Allah in arab) has no name.
Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.
and all else is creation,
Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think
the neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the
Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.
and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to
Allah. Use of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be
a good idea.
Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?
Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use
Allah. Logically.
And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible
that it is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?
I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly
understand that you might not appreciate the doubt about taking
literally the talk of the prophets (despite we both agree they are
human).
I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might
have chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and
the eleventh century in the Middle-East.
I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can also
understand the worry. No problem, I will use, according to the context
the more neutral One, or The Truth, or The ultimate reality, or
simply God (the common term used in comparative theology) and not
call It/He/She Allah, nor Brahma, nor Tao, nor
You are right that we cannot comprehend it, but sometimes you do
behave like you do comprehend it, somehow, it seems to me.
All Names miss the One.
I think. Currently.
Bruno
Samiya
But it is a very complex subject, and I am extrapolating probably
too much. You might read the book by Brian Hines Return to the
One (subtitled Plotinus' guide To God-Realization). It is not a
scholar, but it fits rather well with the machine's talk, but to
verify this we need to climb that Mountain, and if I remember well
we are still learning lacing the shoes
About this, can you tell me if you have a idea of what a set is? And
what a subset is? How many subsets has the set {0, 1}?
I hope you indulge my math teaching vocation ... For the greeks,
mathematics
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: as diehard atheist in every way, That's me. finding any possible transcendental concept of others laughable, I don't find all transcendental concepts laughable, some are based on logic and are reasonable or at least semi-reasonable scientific speculation. But I do find transcendental concepts based on the myths of bronze age tribes laughable because compared with what we know today the authors were ignoramuses Leave people their transcendent dreams of godhood and miracles, John. Hey I'm a libertarian, if they want to believe in God and miracles and talk about it I wouldn't dream of stopping them even if I could, but don't expect me to agree with what they say or even to respect it if there is nothing respectable in it. John K Clark Even if they pretend to be more sophisticated than that. It's all they have. Continuously insulting them won't change a thing. That poster won't ask for his money back, nor would he think the company obviously scammed him. I'd say it's his right to hope and nobody's business to tell him otherwise. 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Samiya, I am always cautious not to hurt a fellow lister's feelings. Bruno is a bit mixed up with religion (uses 'theology', capital G in God, etc. etc.) so I do not question his 'faith' beyond what he disclosed already (I hope). I was always polite with your preconditions as well. Now that you question Creator vs. origin, (I assume you mean Originator) the question arises where did such Originator originate from? (I am not asking about 'times befor Origination', because I assign our concept of time a product of OUR universe (not even World) for ourselves, started with the universe (if it ever has been started?). Was there some 'originated' oeuvre when our world has been 'created'? - My narrative has a positive stance for that: there was an everything (I call it Plenitude) of which universes (Pl) were torn out by violation of the universal symmetry (Equilibration) of the Plenitude - all in interchange - when some (I call them: 'similars) got too close and so developed interactive complexities, what I call A Universe. Such violations dissipate (within the no-time system) as they form - back into the Plenitude. This is something 'beyond us' with no Spiritus Rector involved, except for the ground-rule of the total super symmetry among ingredients(?) of the Plenitude, (call it: relations) what I 'suppose to explain something assigned usually to some 'Big Bang' - not without flaws itself. I agree with Bruno in the baseless faith of our agnosticism, unless somebody shows an acceptable basis. Even then my agnosticism may overwhelm. So far I did not get 'acceptable' explanation for neither a 'Creator' nor the Numbers. We gather (new) information continuously so I am not relying on ideas generated many centuries ago. I do not think we reached perfection. I used to be a meek religious chap as a youngster 70~90(!) years ago. . Best regards John M On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote: Why don't you just call it One with a capital O Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians. God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship (loving obedience). Does the One/God of Comp mean as such? From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct? Samiya Bruno Samiya On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc. The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion. From Wikipedia: Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC). So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality. Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter. If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer). I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine. BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to Templeton. How is that going? 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
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative
theologians.
God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
(loving obedience).
That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go
without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,
because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey
to. Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is
the intermediate. That happens very often.
Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?
I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.
From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to
an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?
I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say,
at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and
space, and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time,
space, etc
I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin. It is not
omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,
including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to
change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then
unable to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change
and move.
But it is a very complex subject, and I am extrapolating probably too
much. You might read the book by Brian Hines Return to the
One (subtitled Plotinus' guide To God-Realization). It is not a
scholar, but it fits rather well with the machine's talk, but to
verify this we need to climb that Mountain, and if I remember well we
are still learning lacing the shoes
About this, can you tell me if you have a idea of what a set is? And
what a subset is? How many subsets has the set {0, 1}?
I hope you indulge my math teaching vocation ... For the greeks,
mathematics is the preliminary study of theology.
Bruno
Samiya
Bruno
Samiya
On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality,
because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then
the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A
physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc.
The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were
not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it
aperion. From Wikipedia:
Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting
apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely
indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous
existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of
thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period
(8th-6th century BC).
So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only
obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's
what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality.
Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the
beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was
confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they
make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE,
and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter.
If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main
point about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I
did not use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that
infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God is just the most
common quasi-name (pointer).
I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming
back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically
concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of
universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE
of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from
arithmetical truth, in case we are machine.
BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to
Templeton. How is that going?
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/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote: Why don't you just call it One with a capital O Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians. Bruno Samiya On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc. The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion. From Wikipedia: Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC). So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality. Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter. If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God is just the most common quasi- name (pointer). I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine. BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to Templeton. How is that going? 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/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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote: Why don't you just call it One with a capital O Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians. God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship (loving obedience). Does the One/God of Comp mean as such? From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct? Samiya Bruno Samiya On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc. The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion. From Wikipedia: Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC). So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality. Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter. If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer). I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine. BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to Templeton. How is that going? 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Why don't you just call it One with a capital O How about Bullshit with a capital B? And that's what passes for philosophy on this list, inventing new ASCII sequences to represent concepts that already have words (like God) that already do the job. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 7:40:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Samiya Illias samiya...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Why don't you just call it One with a capital O How about Bullshit with a capital B? And that's what passes for philosophy on this list, inventing new ASCII sequences to represent concepts that already have words (like God) that already do the job. Ah, you must be referring to somebody's vanity a few weeks ago, when they presented themselves as diehard atheist in every way, finding any possible transcendental concept of others laughable, but then naively falling for some company's advertising that they would freeze up his/her head for some cash and subscription fee, with some benevolent, future scientist waking them up with technological miracles undreamt of today. Leave people their transcendent dreams of godhood and miracles, John. Even if they pretend to be more sophisticated than that. It's all they have. Continuously insulting them won't change a thing. That poster won't ask for his money back, nor would he think the company obviously scammed him. I'd say it's his right to hope and nobody's business to tell him otherwise. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc. The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion. From Wikipedia: Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC). So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality. Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter. If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer). I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine. BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to Templeton. How is that going? 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O Samiya On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc. The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion. From Wikipedia: Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC). So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality. Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter. If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer). I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine. BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to Templeton. How is that going? 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:33:59PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality. I quite like Tao - but some (perhaps not on this list) would no doubt find that obfuscatory. Otherwise an invented word would do, except that then John Clark will object that you are making up words. We could always use Spinoza's god. *ducks* -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.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 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
John, consider it a working theory that awaits falsification, if it can be falsified. You have have great questions, for which there are no great answers. What I will claim, is that of all of science, over the last 350 years, computer electronics has made the greatest progress, and seems to be exponentiating, as opposed to biology, aerospace, energy, medicine-biology, and the like. It is the only technology that has not disappointed, plus, the observations of the universe by astronomers and physics make the universe appear more and more computationalist. It also could easily be something hybrid, a program with material output, material with computational output. It's enough to start bar/pub fights and tear out our hair. I look to Steinhart as the person, perhaps by accident, who best explains, what physicists have uncovered. Hogan, out at Fermilab, and Darmstadt, has a team looking to test to see if our universe is a hologram or not? If it doesn't work for you, or the idea repels, thats all good, there are worse things to have no use for. I don't see it as crap, but instead a profound truth and a way to look at physical phenomena. -Original Message- From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 4:02 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? Spudy, a condition of what??? and WHAT (great!) program??? what would you call 'electric' (not in 101 physix) with 'pulses(?) and 'gaps(?) in between? Mainly: what the hell should we call R E A L ??? Once you enter the agnostic domain (mind you: not SKEPTIC, which is - like atheism - based on a faith we don't (want to) believe) you are on your own. With numbers as well. All explanations are retrograde from 'real' conditions found in the faith the human mind carries for numbers to begin with. Including ZERO. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:45 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Now we are back again, to are numbers real? Do we make them real by observing and forming patterns of our brains, or do they pre-exist as a condition of nature? Maybe the universe is not simply a simulation, but a great program? Yet, since we are part of this program we act as if its real because it is. To a subroutine, the world is electric pulses and the gaps between the pulses. 0's and 1,s all the way down Dr. Sagan. One of Steinhart's ideas is promotion. Promotion of a process or a span to the posited next level up, an upgrade reality.Promotion via a pipeline(s). -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 9:00 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth. 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like: Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. Which confirms again how much the atheist needs the bible. As much as a tampon factory needs a sackful of dead rats. Fro the greek, the existence of God is [...] To hell with the no-nothing greeks. UDA answers this question in the following way: And to hell with the Universal Dance Association. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc. The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion. From Wikipedia: Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC). So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 25 Feb 2015, at 22:08, LizR wrote: On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth. You might have done me the courtesy of giving the entire quote, so the context was clear. But I suppose you couldn't do that because it would have meant the point you're trying to make would have been revealed as a straw man. Here is that troublesome quote in full. Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. It is based on the faith that our present ideologies will be preserved by final science. Current physicalism may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology. -- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. (Brent tries to be, for example, as do I). What Mr Steinhart is saying is that skeptical atheists as he calls them are making a metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality - which is, precisely, an act of faith. Indeed. And in this case, science has refuted it in the comp frame. We know today that if computationalism is correct then physicalism cannot work. It is the whole point. We will never know-for-sure if comp is correct, because in (public, 3p) science we just never know-for-sure anything at all. Yet, we can know that comp is correct, in the usual theaetetus' sense of believing it, in case it is true. 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:55, meekerdb wrote: On 2/25/2015 1:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth. You might have done me the courtesy of giving the entire quote, so the context was clear. But I suppose you couldn't do that because it would have meant the point you're trying to make would have been revealed as a straw man. Here is that troublesome quote in full. Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. It is based on the faith that our present ideologies will be preserved by final science. Current physicalism may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology. -- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. (Brent tries to be, for example, as do I). What Mr Steinhart is saying is that skeptical atheists as he calls them are making a metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality - which is, precisely, an act of faith. Is it an assumption that the god of theism doesn't exist? Seems to me the preponderance of the evidence is on that side. I see beliefs having degrees; which, as Hume said, should be in proportion to the evidence. OK. I agree. Faith means a belief held independent of evidence, e.g. with no evidence or even in the presence of a preponderance of contrary evidence. I disagree. That is blind faith. That exists only because of bandits, manipulators, people wanting control you. It has nothing to do with religion or science. Brent I stop believing in Santa Klaus and Jesus the same day in my early childhood. I was astonished that my cousins stop to believe in Santa Klaus but kept their belief in Jesus. --- Bruno Marchal 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. --- Chaz Bufe The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --- Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richard's Almanac, 1758) Theology, the science, is born with the greek, and was not opposed to reason. To shut the eye of reason is useful to sell you expensive inefficatious medication. Blind faith exists only because we have separated theology from reason, and the reason of this, is manipulation of humans by private egocentric interest of some minority. Faith is more the belief without proof. We need it for the axioms and theories. It is not the belief without evidence. 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 26 Feb 2015, at 02:24, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. Who are these strawmen scientists who think our current theories are the final word on the nature of reality? What Mr Steinhart is saying is that skeptical atheists as he calls them are making a metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality - which is, precisely, an act of faith. Skeptical means having doubts, so I'm having a little difficulty understanding how having doubts about God or about anything else is a act of faith unless you've redefined the word faith so from it's original meaning that it means everything, which of course is equivalent to meaning nothing. By the way, redefining common words so that there mean next to nothing is what passes for philosophy these days. But it's true, technically I'm an agnostic in that I can't prove the nonexistence of God, but people who go to great pains to point out that they're a agnostic not a atheist seem a little silly to me because, judging from the equal respect they give to both believers and atheists, they incorrectly think both viewpoints are equally rational. I am certainly not that sort of agnostic, not even technically. This is what Isaac Asimov had to say in his autobiography and I agree with every word: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time. There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like: Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. Which confirms again how much the atheist needs the bible. They really needs to believe that theology is only the Aristotelian reinterpretation of the Abramanic religion, so that they can mock God, pretend it does not exists, and keep the real question under the rug. Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc. In fact the first question is Is there a physical universe (in the Aristotelian sense). The platonist said no, like, note, the first jews, christians, and muslims. Only-Aristotelism came later. UDA answers this question in the following way: IF we are machine, THEN there is no physical universe (in the aristotelian sense). Non- platonism is just not a possible option for the mechanist. In the aristotelian frame, comp is super-atheist: there is no creator and no creation. In the platonist frame, I am a believer. I have faith that there is some unifying scheme. If not I would not be a researcher. And with computationalism, any universal system give an unifying ontology, and all gives the same physics and the same theology. The physics is testable, so the comp faith can be tested. It is not blind faith. 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 2/26/2015 3:33 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality. I quite like Tao - but some (perhaps not on this list) would no doubt find that obfuscatory. The trouble with Tao is that it has its sacred book, so people will look there for the real meaning of Tao. And also there is a Taoist religion which is kind of polytheistic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/beliefs/gods.shtml Otherwise an invented word would do, except that then John Clark will object that you are making up words. It seems to me that aperion fits perfectly - and it's Greek, which Bruno likes, even though it's pre-Socratic. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality. I quite like Tao - but some (perhaps not on this list) would no doubt find that obfuscatory. Otherwise an invented word would do, except that then John Clark will object that you are making up 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Now we are back again, to are numbers real? Do we make them real by observing and forming patterns of our brains, or do they pre-exist as a condition of nature? Maybe the universe is not simply a simulation, but a great program? Yet, since we are part of this program we act as if its real because it is. To a subroutine, the world is electric pulses and the gaps between the pulses. 0's and 1,s all the way down Dr. Sagan. One of Steinhart's ideas is promotion. Promotion of a process or a span to the posited next level up, an upgrade reality.Promotion via a pipeline(s). -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 9:00 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth. 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Spudy, a condition of what??? and WHAT (great!) program??? what would you call 'electric' (not in 101 physix) with 'pulses(?) and 'gaps(?) in between? Mainly: what the hell should we call R E A L ??? Once you enter the agnostic domain (mind you: not SKEPTIC, which is - like atheism - based on a faith we don't (want to) believe) you are on your own. With numbers as well. All explanations are retrograde from 'real' conditions found in the faith the human mind carries for numbers to begin with. Including ZERO. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:45 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Now we are back again, to are numbers real? Do we make them real by observing and forming patterns of our brains, or do they pre-exist as a condition of nature? Maybe the universe is not simply a simulation, but a great program? Yet, since we are part of this program we act as if its real because it is. To a subroutine, the world is electric pulses and the gaps between the pulses. 0's and 1,s all the way down Dr. Sagan. One of Steinhart's ideas is promotion. Promotion of a process or a span to the posited next level up, an upgrade reality.Promotion via a pipeline(s). -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 9:00 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth. 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth. You might have done me the courtesy of giving the entire quote, so the context was clear. But I suppose you couldn't do that because it would have meant the point you're trying to make would have been revealed as a straw man. Here is that troublesome quote in full. Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. *It is based on the faith that our present ideologies will be preserved by final science.* Current physicalism may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology. -- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. (Brent tries to be, for example, as do I). What Mr Steinhart is saying is that skeptical atheists as he calls them are making a metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality - which is, precisely, an act of faith. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 2/25/2015 1:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth. You might have done me the courtesy of giving the entire quote, so the context was clear. But I suppose you couldn't do that because it would have meant the point you're trying to make would have been revealed as a straw man. Here is that troublesome quote in full. Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. *It is based on the faith that our present ideologies will be preserved by final science.* Current physicalism may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology. -- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. (Brent tries to be, for example, as do I). What Mr Steinhart is saying is that skeptical atheists as he calls them are making a metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality - which is, precisely, an act of faith. Is it an /assumption/ that the god of theism doesn't exist? Seems to me the preponderance of the evidence is on that side. I see beliefs having degrees; which, as Hume said, should be in proportion to the evidence. Faith means a belief held independent of evidence, e.g. with no evidence or even in the presence of a preponderance of contrary evidence. Brent I stop believing in Santa Klaus and Jesus the same day in my early childhood. I was astonished that my cousins stop to believe in Santa Klaus but kept their belief in Jesus. --- Bruno Marchal 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. --- Chaz Bufe The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --- Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richard's Almanac, 1758) -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. Who are these strawmen scientists who think our current theories are the final word on the nature of reality? What Mr Steinhart is saying is that skeptical atheists as he calls them are making a metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality - which is, precisely, an act of faith. Skeptical means having doubts, so I'm having a little difficulty understanding how having doubts about God or about anything else is a act of faith unless you've redefined the word faith so from it's original meaning that it means everything, which of course is equivalent to meaning nothing. By the way, redefining common words so that there mean next to nothing is what passes for philosophy these days. But it's true, technically I'm an agnostic in that I can't prove the nonexistence of God, but people who go to great pains to point out that they're a agnostic not a atheist seem a little silly to me because, judging from the equal respect they give to both believers and atheists, they incorrectly think both viewpoints are equally rational. I am certainly not that sort of agnostic, not even technically. This is what Isaac Asimov had to say in his autobiography and I agree with every word: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time. There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like: Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Cue JKC. Brent On 2/24/2015 4:48 PM, LizR wrote: Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. It is based on the faith that our present ideologies will be preserved by final science. Current physicalism may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology. -- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. It is based on the faith that our present ideologies will be preserved by final science. Current physicalism may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology. -- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 17 Feb 2015, at 18:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: If one goes computationalism, and the observing of virtual photons arising from nothing, then we can conclude that rather then a value of 0, the greater cosmos must be densely packed with energy or information, as yet difficult to access by contemporary technology. How do we detect what occurs within a Planck Cell? If you go by Schmidhuber's teachings which are similar but not as thorough as Steinhart has been, beyond all emergences, exists a basic computer, allegedy, as opposed to a primary blender, or lawn mower. Since a computer is more complex, I will prefer choosing the term computer. The laws of physic, if you go computationalism, must be derived from any universal computing system. I took sigma_1 arithmetic, which is a tiny part of the arithmetical reality, which is true/false independently of us, by the arithmetical realism (needed to just define what a computation is). With computationalism, we cannot presupposed physics. There is no ontological physical reality: it is a sort of collective hallucination made by universal numbers. Schmidhuber disbelieved (in this very list) the first person indeterminacy (FPI). The physical reality seems to be still a computation among others, but this is violated a priori by the FPI. But then you are right. Like with quantum field theory, the void contains a sort of infinite energy. 0 = infinity, somehow. It is a form of 0_3p is seen as infinity-1p. Intuitively this is because the nothing physical is equivalent with the everything-arithmetical from inside: all universal numbers do nothing, *notably*. We have not yet anything like a Planck cell. What we can extract is a collection of quantum logics, and we can hope for braids, unitary transformation, a notion of subjective time, but we have not yet space, nor physical time, nor particles, waves, etc. You might perhaps reread the SANE04 paper(*), or others. I don't think other author are aware of the FPI, or take it into account. The point is that the basic computer is given by the laws of addition and multiplication of numbers, when we do the theory in an explicit way. I could have use lambda expression, or combinators, etc. Matter and consciousness are ontological-theory-independent. The logical dependencies are given by: NUMBERS == CONSCIOUSNESS == PHYSICAL REALITIES, but the mathematical details are given by the interview of the Löbian machine (they involved 8 modalities). Bruno (*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 12:43 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On 17 Feb 2015, at 13:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Very good. I do go computationalism myself, but in a weird way. As long as you are valid, you can be as weird as you want. I confer that everything we see is running on software, but the software yields physical reality, perhaps as a side effect. Hmm... Computationalism, as I define it, is that *you*, or what you can count on you, is run by a software. Then everything we live and see, including physics (if that exists), is a side effect. But then a priori physics and what we see cannot be Turing emulable. The apparent emulability of nature is a problem for the computationalists, but with computer science it becomes a mathematically formulable problem. The idea is very simple, once you are aware of some result in computer science, notably the fact that once you agree that a tiny part of the arithmetical reality, or any other computer-science theoretical reality, is independent of you and me. This is implicitly used in physics, through the use of mathematical theories, usually richer than arithmetic, but this is debatable. But that reality, conceptually much simpler than physics, or physics + a creator, contains the experience you are living here and now. That is a *fact*. All executions of all programs can be translated into an infinity of purely arithmetical relations, that is the fact, but then, once you assume computationalism, you can understand that your consciousness is not related to this or that realization by this or that universal numbers, but, below your substitution, results from the statistics on a infinity of those arithmetical realizations of programs execution. An infinite or near infinite reality, whether you invoke MWI, We can't a priori assume QM, but semantically and intuitively, computationalism forces a similar move than Everett, but not on the universal unitary transformation, just on the sigma_1 part of arithmetic. The sigma_1 part is the computable part, it is the Turing emulable part of the arithmetical reality
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 18 Feb 2015, at 15:00, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Well, I agree with your ascension of Numbers, Consciousness,Physical Realities. You can understand intuitively why it has to be like that with the self-multiplication thought experiment, and you can understand the formal result that all ideally correct machine can find that by themselves, once believing enough induction axioms. I will check out the SANE4 learnings, The numbers that we start with could just as easily be a statistical process control computation, To define computations, you need to assume the numbers, or Turing equivalent. that started everything, run by someone is a vastly, upper universe- a conjecture. Mathematician, Louis Crane suspected that universes have been started by civilizations creating useful power sources and accidentally create other beings within the black hole's cosmos. Do I believe this? No. Getting back to numbers, we are at philosopher John Leslie's concept that numbers consciousness and physical realities are part on a series/set of infinite divine minds. This is sort of why I like Steinhart's philosophy of computationalism, where in the beginning, or in the original archaic Hebrew, at a beginning there was a singular hardware that created the software. But the software is an arithmetical concept. That follows from one half of comp: Church thesis. And assuming computationalism, that is the idea you can survive through a digital emulation done at some level, the question of the existence, and definition, of a physical universe is open. We can't use a physical universe to singularize consciousness, It is no more valid. More importantly, the guy uses software terms to model the universe(s). So in his theology we have pipes and pipelines, processes, and promotions of the software in physical form, which everything is, and the data patterns will get moved. It parallels a bit your own work. I have no read it, but it would not be so astonishing, because, like Plotinus, all universal machine get it at some point. Simple arithmetic can already enlighten itself, with the price that it can lost itself, also. No need, nor possible use, of hardware for that. The use of hardware, or of any universal numbers actually, becomes a misuse of a god, as a gap prohibiting question. To save a primary matter, you can still develop a non-computationalist theology, but the math will be awfully complex, and it would be, given the evidence a bit like betting that QM is not really linear, before having any evidence. You need to grasp that by yourself. Study the 8 steps, and ask any question. To really understand step 7, you need to understand Church thesis, the existence of the universal machine, and the fact that it is an arithmetical notion. Step 8 is more demanding in philosophy of mind issue. For the formalization, you need to study a good book in logic and computability, or ask enough question. All recreative (and non recreative) book by Smullyan can help. I exploit results by Gödel, Löb and Solovay (among others) to translate the problem in terms of intensional variant of provability, it plays some role that I don't go out of arithmetic in doing so. Computationalism includes Church thesis, and thanks to this, we get the math, and precise theories, which even in the simple ideal correct case, leads to rich layered mathematical theories for each points of view. And the material one is testable (accepting the greek analysis of knowledge) and can be compared with the observation (up to now it fits). Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Feb 18, 2015 3:40 am Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On 17 Feb 2015, at 18:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: If one goes computationalism, and the observing of virtual photons arising from nothing, then we can conclude that rather then a value of 0, the greater cosmos must be densely packed with energy or information, as yet difficult to access by contemporary technology. How do we detect what occurs within a Planck Cell? If you go by Schmidhuber's teachings which are similar but not as thorough as Steinhart has been, beyond all emergences, exists a basic computer, allegedy, as opposed to a primary blender, or lawn mower. Since a computer is more complex, I will prefer choosing the term computer. The laws of physic, if you go computationalism, must be derived from any universal computing system. I took sigma_1 arithmetic, which is a tiny part of the arithmetical reality, which is true/false independently of us, by the arithmetical realism (needed to just define what a computation is). With computationalism, we cannot presupposed physics
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Well, I agree with your ascension of Numbers, Consciousness,Physical Realities. I will check out the SANE4 learnings, The numbers that we start with could just as easily be a statistical process control computation, that started everything, run by someone is a vastly, upper universe-a conjecture. Mathematician, Louis Crane suspected that universes have been started by civilizations creating useful power sources and accidentally create other beings within the black hole's cosmos. Do I believe this? No. Getting back to numbers, we are at philosopher John Leslie's concept that numbers consciousness and physical realities are part on a series/set of infinite divine minds. This is sort of why I like Steinhart's philosophy of computationalism, where in the beginning, or in the original archaic Hebrew, at a beginning there was a singular hardware that created the software. More importantly, the guy uses software terms to model the universe(s). So in his theology we have pipes and pipelines, processes, and promotions of the software in physical form, which everything is, and the data patterns will get moved. It parallels a bit your own work. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Feb 18, 2015 3:40 am Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On 17 Feb 2015, at 18:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: If one goes computationalism, and the observing of virtual photons arising from nothing, then we can conclude that rather then a value of 0, the greater cosmos must be densely packed with energy or information, as yet difficult to access by contemporary technology. How do we detect what occurs within a Planck Cell? If you go by Schmidhuber's teachings which are similar but not as thorough as Steinhart has been, beyond all emergences, exists a basic computer, allegedy, as opposed to a primary blender, or lawn mower. Since a computer is more complex, I will prefer choosing the term computer. The laws of physic, if you go computationalism, must be derived from any universal computing system. I took sigma_1 arithmetic, which is a tiny part of the arithmetical reality, which is true/false independently of us, by the arithmetical realism (needed to just define what a computation is). With computationalism, we cannot presupposed physics. There is no ontological physical reality: it is a sort of collective hallucination made by universal numbers. Schmidhuber disbelieved (in this very list) the first person indeterminacy (FPI). The physical reality seems to be still a computation among others, but this is violated a priori by the FPI. But then you are right. Like with quantum field theory, the void contains a sort of infinite energy. 0 = infinity, somehow. It is a form of 0_3p is seen as infinity-1p. Intuitively this is because the nothing physical is equivalent with the everything-arithmetical from inside: all universal numbers do nothing, *notably*. We have not yet anything like a Planck cell. What we can extract is a collection of quantum logics, and we can hope for braids, unitary transformation, a notion of subjective time, but we have not yet space, nor physical time, nor particles, waves, etc. You might perhaps reread the SANE04 paper(*), or others. I don't think other author are aware of the FPI, or take it into account. The point is that the basic computer is given by the laws of addition and multiplication of numbers, when we do the theory in an explicit way. I could have use lambda expression, or combinators, etc. Matter and consciousness are ontological-theory-independent. The logical dependencies are given by: NUMBERS == CONSCIOUSNESS == PHYSICAL REALITIES, but the mathematical details are given by the interview of the Löbian machine (they involved 8 modalities). Bruno (*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 12:43 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On 17 Feb 2015, at 13:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Very good. I do go computationalism myself, but in a weird way. As long as you are valid, you can be as weird as you want. I confer that everything we see is running on software, but the software yields physical reality, perhaps as a side effect. Hmm... Computationalism, as I define it, is that *you*, or what you can count on you, is run by a software. Then everything we live and see, including physics (if that exists), is a side effect. But then a priori physics and what we see cannot be Turing emulable. The apparent emulability of nature is a problem
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
If one goes computationalism, and the observing of virtual photons arising from nothing, then we can conclude that rather then a value of 0, the greater cosmos must be densely packed with energy or information, as yet difficult to access by contemporary technology. How do we detect what occurs within a Planck Cell? If you go by Schmidhuber's teachings which are similar but not as thorough as Steinhart has been, beyond all emergences, exists a basic computer, allegedy, as opposed to a primary blender, or lawn mower. Since a computer is more complex, I will prefer choosing the term computer. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 12:43 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On 17 Feb 2015, at 13:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Very good. I do go computationalism myself, but in a weird way. As long as you are valid, you can be as weird as you want. I confer that everything we see is running on software, but the software yields physical reality, perhaps as a side effect. Hmm... Computationalism, as I define it, is that *you*, or what you can count on you, is run by a software. Then everything we live and see, including physics (if that exists), is a side effect. But then a priori physics and what we see cannot be Turing emulable. The apparent emulability of nature is a problem for the computationalists, but with computer science it becomes a mathematically formulable problem. The idea is very simple, once you are aware of some result in computer science, notably the fact that once you agree that a tiny part of the arithmetical reality, or any other computer-science theoretical reality, is independent of you and me. This is implicitly used in physics, through the use of mathematical theories, usually richer than arithmetic, but this is debatable. But that reality, conceptually much simpler than physics, or physics + a creator, contains the experience you are living here and now. That is a *fact*. All executions of all programs can be translated into an infinity of purely arithmetical relations, that is the fact, but then, once you assume computationalism, you can understand that your consciousness is not related to this or that realization by this or that universal numbers, but, below your substitution, results from the statistics on a infinity of those arithmetical realizations of programs execution. An infinite or near infinite reality, whether you invoke MWI, We can't a priori assume QM, but semantically and intuitively, computationalism forces a similar move than Everett, but not on the universal unitary transformation, just on the sigma_1 part of arithmetic. The sigma_1 part is the computable part, it is the Turing emulable part of the arithmetical reality, which extends considerably in the non computable part. By the FPI, we are undetermined on that collection of realizations. By computer science, it has what is needed for an abstract measure, hopefully with the right groups. or subdomains within an infinite cosmos, would handle the energy issue, quite well. Energy is the constant 0. The nothing physical, which already emulate largely the physical reality. But this is from observation, and with computationalism (and the mind-body problem in mind) we need to derive even this from the arithmetical mind-body problem. But it works. Things have been done at the propositional level. And thanks to incompleteness, the notion of truth acts like a notion of God for the machine, which makes possible an interpretation of Plotinus. It just won't consume an infinite right here, in this universe or domain. In fact, energy may just be software, in a level or reality above us. With comp you can start from the bottom, you assume only what you need for defining your favorite universal reality, and you derive the laws coupling minds and stable realities from mathematical logic, and mathematics. I use arithmetic because it is taught in high school. The real debate is not on the existence of God, (which is rather obvious), it is on the existence of the Physical Universe. Is there a physical universe? Aristotle seems to have believe this. Plato was open to the idea that the physical universe is only an aspect of a simpler deeper reality, and some tradition have defended the idea that the deeper reality might be arithmetical or mathematical. Even in that case, computationnalism makes it impossible to reduce the whole of truth to a 3p reality, so comp prevents even the reduction in that part. It is the price of consistency (t). Consciousness/conscience (t inference) accelerates the path toward truth. Alas, Lies ([]f = ~t, or worst []t, can too. Delusions can help, but you cut your link with the main deities t, G*, Z1*, X1*. Here
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 16 Feb 2015, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote: On 2/16/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OUR faith? stories for the believers to sooth their mind. Possible, but this does not entail that the faith has no object. Again, with computationalism, faith is meta-justified by the fact that all (Löbian) machines cannot avoid the discovery that truth, if it exists, extends vastly what they can justify or explain. It is a faith in some truth, and then some people fill it with legend and fairy tales, which is perhaps a not bad beginning, unless they fall in the trap of literalism, which can transform an inspiring guide into an obstacle for the approach toward truth. I don't know why you refer to it as faith. I use faith for when we believe something without proof, like the belief in axioms, or in undecidable (for me) propositions. It is provable that there are true but unprovable propositions in arithmetic. For each machine. But different machine can have different undecidable propositions. Provability is a relative notion (contrarily to computability). The faith step is assuming arithmetic. Yes, ... in assuming some axioms. We might distinguish the faith needed for the axioms, and the faith in self-consistency needed to give some sense (model, interpretation) of the axioms. It is eventually the difference between G and G*, or any []-logic and its []* logic. Basically faith is belief/assumption without communicable evidence, proof or argument, like the faith in the existence of primary matter, or of any all-encompassing ontology. 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 16 Feb 2015, at 20:14, David Nyman wrote: On 16 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The faith step is assuming arithmetic. It's always been clear that Bruno's work is effectively an enquiry into whether something as apparently simple as first-order arithmetical relations are nonetheless a sufficient ontological basis for the full range of observable phenomena. We could argue till Kingdom Come about the nature of the 'existence' or otherwise of arithmetic and get precisely nowhere, faith or no faith. Alternatively we could put the assumption to the test, or perhaps more realistically, continue to follow with interest Bruno's indefatigable investigation of its possible consequences. As with any hypothesis, any securely established conflict with the empirical facts would suffice to invalidate it. Contrariwise, especially given the startling (but certainly not unmotivated) simplicity of the assumption, the longer it can resist refutation the more interesting it may begin to look. I really don't see that it need be any more controversial than that. Indeed. I don't think that there is any controversy. My work is ignored, only. My original enemies did not believe in quantum mechanics, artificial intelligence, theoretical computer science, not mentioning consciousness, mind, Everett, etc. I still have no clue if that ignorance is due to ideological reason or just due to the will of saving the notoriety of some people who have demolish it without even reading it, as they report shows. It is a very modest work. The only radical thing is that it shows that science has not decided between Plato and Aristotle, and some scientists have never think about that, because they don't even believe in a science of consciousness or mind, despite mechanism and computer science. Well, I remember that they did not even believe in computer science, and some of them, evn in logic. Some mathematicians believe only in analysis. They can be quite conservative. They defend corporatism, not ideas, actually. Bruno David -- 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Very good. I do go computationalism myself, but in a weird way. I confer that everything we see is running on software, but the software yields physical reality, perhaps as a side effect. An infinite or near infinite reality, whether you invoke MWI, or subdomains within an infinite cosmos, would handle the energy issue, quite well. It just won't consume an infinite right here, in this universe or domain. In fact, energy may just be software, in a level or reality above us. Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to infinities of computations, and the appearance of the universe emerges from a statistics on all computations. Bostrom participated to this list but seems to not have yet taken into account the first person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me at some meeting that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still be saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR we are in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an infinite amount of energy to lie to us, as they must change our minds each time we look at the details of the simulation]. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Feb 16, 2015 6:18 am Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Interesting John. In steinharts view the first initiator of reality may indeed not have been a super mind, except in power. Kind of like gnosticism, maybe. 2+2=4 is enough. No need to add unnecessary metaphysics. This is not controversial, although not well known by philosophers, logicians know this since Gödel, Kleene, etc. What is not trivial is that it leads to new equation for fundamental physics (given by the FPI, translated in the intensional variant of self-reference, making comp testable in some sense). The succeeding universes and each cosm has a god will be succeedingly better. But this does not make sense. Universe are not things which exists ontologically. People get moved to better universes after croaking, akin to processes getting pipelined as with software engineering. We would be one on a gigantic processes, aka programs, aka cellular automata, that are copied and then initiated later. As with Bostrom, steinhart says that these programs, us, eventually begin their own sim creations. I got this from steinharts other papers I have been studying. So your critique of steinharts 1st mind or god, would not find opposition with him, but it would suggest that evolution (to me) must be a primary program. Thanks for your coment. Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to infinities of computations, and the appearance of the universe emerges from a statistics on all computations. Bostrom participated to this list but seems to not have yet taken into account the first person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me at some meeting that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still be saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR we are in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an infinite amount of energy to lie to us, as they must change our minds each time we look at the details of the simulation]. Bruno Mitch Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars Disputandi of an eric steinhart paper, on the theological implications of the simulation argument. This is the only copy I downloaded of the url, but I was able to do a download and print at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be an atheist, but believes there was a creator and now a system of creators above and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but don't pray to him. If you can read this, please give out with the feedback. I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will guess that you will not see it this way. Which is good with me. http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive simulations it doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's simulating us must be smarter than we are, and it would be a pretty poor sort of God if we're smarter than He is. A simulated
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 16 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The faith step is assuming arithmetic. It's always been clear that Bruno's work is effectively an enquiry into whether something as apparently simple as first-order arithmetical relations are nonetheless a sufficient ontological basis for the full range of observable phenomena. We could argue till Kingdom Come about the nature of the 'existence' or otherwise of arithmetic and get precisely nowhere, faith or no faith. Alternatively we could put the assumption to the test, or perhaps more realistically, continue to follow with interest Bruno's indefatigable investigation of its possible consequences. As with any hypothesis, any securely established conflict with the empirical facts would suffice to invalidate it. Contrariwise, especially given the startling (but certainly not unmotivated) simplicity of the assumption, the longer it can resist refutation the more interesting it may begin to look. I really don't see that it need be any more controversial than that. David -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 2/16/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OUR faith? stories for the believers to sooth their mind. Possible, but this does not entail that the faith has no object. Again, with computationalism, faith is meta-justified by the fact that all (Löbian) machines cannot avoid the discovery that truth, if it exists, extends vastly what they can justify or explain. It is a faith in some truth, and then some people fill it with legend and fairy tales, which is perhaps a not bad beginning, unless they fall in the trap of literalism, which can transform an inspiring guide into an obstacle for the approach toward truth. I don't know why you refer to it as faith. It is provable that there are true but unprovable propositions in arithmetic. The faith step is assuming arithmetic. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Interesting John. In steinharts view the first initiator of reality may indeed not have been a super mind, except in power. Kind of like gnosticism, maybe. 2+2=4 is enough. No need to add unnecessary metaphysics. This is not controversial, although not well known by philosophers, logicians know this since Gödel, Kleene, etc. What is not trivial is that it leads to new equation for fundamental physics (given by the FPI, translated in the intensional variant of self-reference, making comp testable in some sense). The succeeding universes and each cosm has a god will be succeedingly better. But this does not make sense. Universe are not things which exists ontologically. People get moved to better universes after croaking, akin to processes getting pipelined as with software engineering. We would be one on a gigantic processes, aka programs, aka cellular automata, that are copied and then initiated later. As with Bostrom, steinhart says that these programs, us, eventually begin their own sim creations. I got this from steinharts other papers I have been studying. So your critique of steinharts 1st mind or god, would not find opposition with him, but it would suggest that evolution (to me) must be a primary program. Thanks for your coment. Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to infinities of computations, and the appearance of the universe emerges from a statistics on all computations. Bostrom participated to this list but seems to not have yet taken into account the first person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me at some meeting that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still be saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR we are in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an infinite amount of energy to lie to us, as they must change our minds each time we look at the details of the simulation]. Bruno Mitch Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars Disputandi of an eric steinhart paper, on the theological implications of the simulation argument. This is the only copy I downloaded of the url, but I was able to do a download and print at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be an atheist, but believes there was a creator and now a system of creators above and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but don't pray to him. If you can read this, please give out with the feedback. I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will guess that you will not see it this way. Which is good with me. http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive simulations it doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's simulating us must be smarter than we are, and it would be a pretty poor sort of God if we're smarter than He is. A simulated hurricane is smarter at predicting what a real hurricane will do than the meteorologist who created the simulation, and a simulated Chess grandmaster is smarter at Chess than the real Chess grandmaster who wrote the Chess program. And even if the simulation argument is true (and the restriction on the number of calculations that can be performed in the observable universe may rule out infinite levels, unless that restriction was just tacked on by our simulators) you wouldn't have all the knowledge that the infinite number of simulations below you have. Steinhart also seems to assume that every event have a cause, but I know of no law of logic that demands that. 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/d/optout. -- 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
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 2/15/2015 3:01 PM, John Mikes wrote: Any 'practical' advice why I should change my position? Anything I should *KNOW* about? Agnostically yours John M The practical advice would be to ask yourself how you know where your computer keyboard is and how it works. Then you may try applying that method of knowledge, whatever it is, to other questions. Brent It ain't so much what you don't know that gets you into trouble, as what you know that ain't so. --- Josh Billings -- 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/d/optout.
Subset of N (was Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 15 Feb 2015, at 17:08, Samiya Illias wrote:
You can invoke God to tell to the others what is right and wrong.
You apply such belief to yourself if you feel it, but it can only
concern a relation that you have with God, and God can have other
relations with other people.
Yes, of course.
Of course I meant You can't invoke God to tell the others what is
right or wrong.
Are you still OK?
On the contrary. I have complete the theory before studying the
entheogen, I try to see if some experience could refute the theory.
It is normal when interested in consciousness to explore the other
consciousness state. I do think that during all night, everyone,
sometimes, go in some of those places, which are typical rest
place of the sleep.
May you find the truth, and be pleased with what you find. Amen.
Platonist are immune again literal interpretation of any experience;
we just don't believe in what we see. Salvia is trickier because the
experience itself explains that the experience is an hallucination,
and so as an Epimenidean outlook.
Salvia is classified as a dysphoric (unlike sex, coffee, chocolate,
tea, opiates, alcohol, cannabis, sugar which are euphoric).
It is not a pleasing experience.
It is not pleasing, but it is instructive in the 1p way. There is
nothing usable to convince anyone there, but it leads to new questions
of the type of those we can make precise when assuming computationalism.
Just give me sometime to try to sum up the key things. Do you know
what is a function from N to N, where N is the set of the natural
numbers N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ...} ?
Would you prefer I don't ask you question like that ?
It is a good start, but only a start. Finding what is common in all
those messages can be helpful to eliminate the cultural superstition
from the important invariants, and possible truth.
Indeed. Perhaps each has some piece of the puzzle.
Ah! :)
Every living thing we know dies and we are constantly witnessing
birth and death all around.
In a collective dream, perhaps. Seeing someone dying is hardly a
proof that his first person experience is terminated.
The living cannot communicate with the dying/dead anymore. Don't
know about the dying/dead person's first person experience. There is
definitely a 'life-changing' experience there.
We cannot know, but we can reason from assumptions, and if we assume
digital mechanism, it might be that the experience would corresponds
with a shifting of consciousness from the mode with t (the Z and X
logics) to those without (S4Grz, G, G*).
All texts, all theories, all reports, all journals, all books, can
and should be put in doubt, always, if you are confident enough in
the search of truth.
Agree in principle, differ in detail.
Hmm...
No.
Thank you for the math lessons.
Best wishes and take care,
Thanks Samya.
Tell me if you understand what follows.
Proposition: an infinite sequence of 1 and 0 defines a subset of N,
and vice versa.
Explanation
We write the set of all numbers, and below, we write 0 or 1 according
to the fact the number is a member or not of the subset.
Exemple:
The finite set {0, 1, 2} corresponds to 111000...
The set of even numbers {0, 2, 4, ... } corresponds to 101010101010...
The set of odd numbers {1, 3, 5, ... } corresponds to 0101010101...
OK?
Subset of N and infinite sequences of 0 and 1 are basically the same
thing, they are characteristic of each other. OK?
Note that the empty set { } corresponds to the sequence 000
And N itself corresponds to the sequence 111...
Tell me if this makes sense to you.
Best,
Bruno
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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 16 February 2015 at 12:01, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Any 'practical' advice why I should change my position? Anything I should *KNOW* about? Being in the same position as you, all I can say is ... I don't 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Interesting John. In steinharts view the first initiator of reality may indeed not have been a super mind, except in power. Kind of like gnosticism, maybe. The succeeding universes and each cosm has a god will be succeedingly better. People get moved to better universes after croaking, akin to processes getting pipelined as with software engineering. We would be one on a gigantic processes, aka programs, aka cellular automata, that are copied and then initiated later. As with Bostrom, steinhart says that these programs, us, eventually begin their own sim creations. I got this from steinharts other papers I have been studying. So your critique of steinharts 1st mind or god, would not find opposition with him, but it would suggest that evolution (to me) must be a primary program. Thanks for your coment. Mitch div Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? div id=AOLMsgPart_2_3e19ce3c-5d69-462e-ae18-078186a4f441 div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span wrote: div class=aolmail_gmail_quote blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars Disputandi of an eric steinhart paper, on the theological implications of the simulation argument. This is the only copy I downloaded of the url, but I was able to do a download and print at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be an atheist, but believes there was a creator and now a system of creators above and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but don't pray to him. If you can read this, please give out with the feedback. I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will guess that you will not see it this way. Which is good with me. div a target=_blank href=http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart;http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart/a /div /blockquote Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive simulations it doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's simulating us must be smarter than we are, and it would be a pretty poor sort of God if we're smarter than He is. A simulated hurricane is smarter at predicting what a real hurricane will do than the meteorologist who created the simulation, and a simulated Chess grandmaster is smarter at Chess than the real Chess grandmaster who wrote the Chess program. And even if the simulation argument is true (and the restriction on the number of calculations that can be performed in the observable universe may rule out infinite levels, unless that restriction was just tacked on by our simulators) you wouldn't have all the knowledge that the infinite number of simulations below you have. Steinhart also seems to assume that every event have a cause, but I know of no law of logic that demands that. John K Clark /div /div /div p/p -- 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 a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a. To post to this group, send email to a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a. Visit this group at a target=_blank href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a. For more options, visit a target=_blank href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout;https://groups.google.com/d/optout/a. /div /div/div -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars Disputandi of an eric steinhart paper, on the theological implications of the simulation argument. This is the only copy I downloaded of the url, but I was able to do a download and print at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be an atheist, but believes there was a creator and now a system of creators above and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but don't pray to him. If you can read this, please give out with the feedback. I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will guess that you will not see it this way. Which is good with me. divhttp://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 04:46 PM Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? div id=AOLMsgPart_2_6358d9ed-4934-4055-8f54-a38c31f4effc div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span wrote: div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex font color=black face=arial font face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif style=background-color:transparent In Islam, I have read, is a being called The Doubter, which the faithful associate with the devil, they term, iblis./font /font /blockquote And in both the Old Testament and the Quran the devil is far more moral than God, yes the devil opposes God but he should because in both books God is a complete shit*. And even in the New Testament it is the prince of piece himself who introduces the concept of eternal damnation, the devil may be a bit rude and perform some over the top pranks from time to time but he never came close to doing anything THAT evil. /div div class=aolmail_gmail_quote blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex font color=black face=arial font face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif style=background-color:transparent But certainly, doubt is the true beginning of wisdom?/font /font /blockquote Yes but we're talking about religion, something unrelated to wisdom. John K Clark /div*During the second world war the novelist Evelyn Waugh (Brideshead Revisited) /div div class=aolmail_gmail_extra was a commando in Yugoslavia with Winston Churchill's son Randolph. During a lull in the fighting Waugh happened to hear him say that he'd never read the Bible, so Waugh, who was very religious, said he'd give Randolph 10 pounds if he read it cover to cove. Randolph agreed but it didn't have the desired effect because during the entire week his reading took he could be repeatedly heard to exclaim GOD IS SUCH A SHIT!. /div /div p/p -- 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 a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a. To post to this group, send email to a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a. Visit this group at a target=_blank href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a. For more options, visit a target=_blank href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout;https://groups.google.com/d/optout/a. /div /div/div -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 15 Feb 2015, at 1:49 am, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I hope you would you also agree with this statement: Science is simply Critical Inquiry, neither doubt not faith. A scientist would say that he would drop his favoured theory, or at least think it less likely to be true, if evidence against it accumulated. So would a jury or judge in a court of law, and so would any other fair or intellectually honest person. But with revealed religion it is different, because faith - belief without evidence - is made a virtue. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:22 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Your argument is based upon the collective thinking of some human thinkers and philosophers, while my arguments are based upon a Book which, if numbers matter, a large number of humans believe to be of a divine revelation. I find it interesting that these large number of humans who believe in this silly holy book of yours are not distributed equally around the globe as you'd expect if it were due to God's grace, but instead religious belief shows an enormously strong geographical correlation. You believe that the Quran is true for the same reason nearly all those large number of humans believe it to be true, their mommy and daddy told them it was true, and there is nothing deeper to it than that. Studying scripture or being a Muslim does not limit or forbid studying the sciences or other disciplines. Seeking knowledge is encouraged. If Seeking knowledge is encouraged it's very strange that although Muslims make up 23% of the world's population since 1900 only one Muslim has won a Nobel Prize in science, Ahmed Zewail won for chemistry in 1999. Abdus Salam won for physics in 1979 and his tombstone said First Muslim Nobel Laureate, but the Pakistani government officially decreed that Ahmed Zewail was NOT a Muslim and ordered that the word Muslim be erased from his tombstone. A number of times the Qadiani sect/religion has been referred to in various conversations pertaining to Islam in this list. Just for clarity, let me explain it with the Judaism-Christianity analogy. Both believe Moses to be a prophet of God. Both also believe that the Torah/Old Testament is a scripture. Christians believe in Jesus where as Jews don't. Christians believe in the gospels while the Jews don't. Christians do not call themselves Jews, nor is there any problem with that. Similarly, the Qadiani sect/religion believes in Muhammad and the Quran, yet they also believe in another latter prophet. They are free to practice their religion. its just that a law was passed that they should not call themselves Muslims. By the way, Dr Abdus Salam was a Pakistani, and Ahmed Zewail of Egyptian origin. By the way, Jews are only .19% of the world's population and yet they've won 20% of the Nobel Prizes. Doubt is the lack of faith! Exactly true, I hope you would you also agree with this statement: Science is simply Critical Inquiry, neither doubt not faith. Samiya but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
In Islam, I have read, is a being called The Doubter, which the faithful associate with the devil, they term, iblis. But certainly, doubt is the true beginning of wisdom? -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 1:22 am Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Your argument is based upon the collective thinking of some human thinkers and philosophers, while my arguments are based upon a Book which, if numbers matter, a large number of humans believe to be of a divine revelation. I find it interesting that these large number of humans who believe in this silly holy book of yours are not distributed equally around the globe as you'd expect if it were due to God's grace, but instead religious belief shows an enormously strong geographical correlation. You believe that the Quran is true for the same reason nearly all those large number of humans believe it to be true, their mommy and daddy told them it was true, and there is nothing deeper to it than that. Studying scripture or being a Muslim does not limit or forbid studying the sciences or other disciplines. Seeking knowledge is encouraged. If Seeking knowledge is encouraged it's very strange that although Muslims make up 23% of the world's population since 1900 only one Muslim has won a Nobel Prize in science, Ahmed Zewail won for chemistry in 1999. Abdus Salam won for physics in 1979 and his tombstone said First Muslim Nobel Laureate, but the Pakistani government officially decreed that Ahmed Zewail was NOT a Muslim and ordered that the word Muslim be erased from his tombstone. By the way, Jews are only .19% of the world's population and yet they've won 20% of the Nobel Prizes. Doubt is the lack of faith! Exactly true, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:47, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:
Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better, tell me how many times you
will need to use the second axioms?
Nine times. Here:
1+8=9
Prove: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0= s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
For x=s(0)
Using axiom 2,
Rewriting for y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))=7
Step 1: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))}
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for
y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))=6
Step 2: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(0))}]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(s(0)=5
Step 3: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(0)}]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(0=4
Step 4: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(0}]]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(0)))=3
Step 5: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(0)))}
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(s(0))=2
Step 6: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(0))}]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(0)=1
Step 7: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(0)}]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=0
Step 8: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+0}]]]
Using axiom 1
Step 9: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)}]]]
Rewriting with round brackets
Step 10: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
OK.(get the feeling you use axiom 2 only 8 times, but that is a
detail).
Yes, its eight times.
OK.
Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following
multiplicative axioms:
3) x * 0 = 0
4) x * s(y) = x + (x * y)
Yes, they hold true when substituted with natural numbers.
Really?
Have you verified for all numbers?
Generalisation ?
Well, I explain to you the type of axioms we need to be able to
prove such generalization. P(n) means P is some formula of
arithmetic (made using only the logical symbols and the
arithmetical symbols: they are s, 0, + and * (together with (,
), and as I said the logical symbol: we can use only - (and
define ~A by A - (0 = 1)).
So that we are speaking the same language, please see if the
following are as you mean them:
s = successor
Intuitively? Yes. But it will be of extreme importance to just use
that intuition to see if you are OK with the axioms, and then to
understand that in the formal derivation/computation we do not rely
on the intuition.
The axioms for s are just:
- for all x ~(0 = s(x)) (for all numbers x, 0 is not the successor
of x, put simply: 0 is not a successor).
- for all x and y, s(x) = s(y) - x = y (equivalent with x≠y -
s(x) ≠ s(y), that is all numbers have only one successor)
We will also use this axioms, to make things easier and straight
(and get stronger representation theorem later)
- for all x, (x = 0) or Ey(x = s(y)). That is all numbers are
either null, or have a predecessor.
In summary our assumptions are, together with some logical axioms
that we will need to make precise too:
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) - x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
This is what I will call RA (for Robinson Arithmetic).
And I will show that IF we are machine, then RA is enough for a
theory of everything, and I will explain how to derive consciousness
and appearence of matter from it, without adding any new axioms,
other than computationalism translated in that theory.
0 = zero
OK. 0 is the usual symbol to denote the number zero (which is not
a symbol, but a number).
Again, what 0 really means does not concern us. We can considered
that it is defined implicitly from the axioms above. We need only
agreement on the axioms, not on the interpretation itself.
+ = plus / and
‘* = times / multiply
- = implies that
~ = all / everything / negation ?
Negation. Those logical connector will also be implicitly define by
some axioms and rules. Not today.
In fact their semantics is very easy:
(A B) is true when A is true and B is true, and it is false in the
other case.
(A v B) is false when A is false and B is false, and it is true in
the other case.
(A - B) is false when A is true and B is false, and is true
otherwise (we will come back on this one).
~A is false when A is true, and is true when A is false. OK?
(0=1) ???
It is an example of a false sentence, in arithmetic.
You can verify that
~A has the same truth value than (A - 0 = 1). Of course here 1
is used as an abbreviation for s(0).
P = prove
Ah, no. P was
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: In Islam, I have read, is a being called The Doubter, which the faithful associate with the devil, they term, iblis. And in both the Old Testament and the Quran the devil is far more moral than God, yes the devil opposes God but he should because in both books God is a complete shit*. And even in the New Testament it is the prince of piece himself who introduces the concept of eternal damnation, the devil may be a bit rude and perform some over the top pranks from time to time but he never came close to doing anything THAT evil. But certainly, doubt is the true beginning of wisdom? Yes but we're talking about religion, something unrelated to wisdom. John K Clark *During the second world war the novelist Evelyn Waugh (Brideshead Revisited) was a commando in Yugoslavia with Winston Churchill's son Randolph. During a lull in the fighting Waugh happened to hear him say that he'd never read the Bible, so Waugh, who was very religious, said he'd give Randolph 10 pounds if he read it cover to cove. Randolph agreed but it didn't have the desired effect because during the entire week his reading took he could be repeatedly heard to exclaim GOD IS SUCH A SHIT!. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:47, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:
Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better, tell me how many times you will
need to use the second axioms?
Nine times. Here:
1+8=9
Prove: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0= s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
For x=s(0)
Using axiom 2,
Rewriting for y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))=7
Step 1: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))}
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))=6
Step 2: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(0))}]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(s(0)=5
Step 3: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(0)}]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(0=4
Step 4: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(0}]]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(0)))=3
Step 5: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(0)))}
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(s(0))=2
Step 6: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(0))}]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(0)=1
Step 7: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(0)}]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=0
Step 8: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+0}]]]
Using axiom 1
Step 9: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)}]]]
Rewriting with round brackets
Step 10: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
OK.(get the feeling you use axiom 2 only 8 times, but that is a
detail).
Yes, its eight times.
OK.
Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following multiplicative
axioms:
3) x * 0 = 0
4) x * s(y) = x + (x * y)
Yes, they hold true when substituted with natural numbers.
Really?
Have you verified for all numbers?
Generalisation ?
Well, I explain to you the type of axioms we need to be able to prove
such generalization. P(n) means P is some formula of arithmetic (made using
only the logical symbols and the arithmetical symbols: they are s, 0, + and
* (together with (, ), and as I said the logical symbol: we can use
only - (and define ~A by A - (0 = 1)).
So that we are speaking the same language, please see if the following are
as you mean them:
s = successor
Intuitively? Yes. But it will be of extreme importance to just use that
intuition to see if you are OK with the axioms, and then to understand that
in the formal derivation/computation we do not rely on the intuition.
The axioms for s are just:
- for all x ~(0 = s(x)) (for all numbers x, 0 is not the successor of x,
put simply: 0 is not a successor).
- for all x and y, s(x) = s(y) - x = y (equivalent with x≠y - s(x)
≠ s(y), that is all numbers have only one successor)
We will also use this axioms, to make things easier and straight (and get
stronger representation theorem later)
- for all x, (x = 0) or Ey(x = s(y)). That is all numbers are either
null, or have a predecessor.
In summary our assumptions are, together with some logical axioms that we
will need to make precise too:
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) - x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
This is what I will call RA (for Robinson Arithmetic).
And I will show that IF we are machine, then RA is enough for a theory of
everything, and I will explain how to derive consciousness and appearence
of matter from it, without adding any new axioms, other than
computationalism translated in that theory.
0 = zero
OK. 0 is the usual symbol to denote the number zero (which is not a
symbol, but a number).
Again, what 0 really means does not concern us. We can considered that
it is defined implicitly from the axioms above. We need only agreement on
the axioms, not on the interpretation itself.
+ = plus / and
‘* = times / multiply
- = implies that
~ = all / everything / negation ?
Negation. Those logical connector will also be implicitly define by some
axioms and rules. Not today.
In fact their semantics is very easy:
(A B) is true when A is true and B is true, and it is false in the other
case.
(A v B) is false when A is false and B is false, and it is true in the
other case.
(A - B) is false when A is true and B is false, and is true otherwise (we
will come back on this one).
~A is false when A is true, and is true when A is false. OK?
(0=1) ???
It is an example of a false sentence, in arithmetic.
You can verify that
~A has the same truth value than (A - 0 = 1). Of course here 1 is
used as an abbreviation for s(0).
P = prove
Ah, no. P was for an arbitrary arithmetical sentence. It was a
meta-variable, not
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 14 Feb 2015, at 6:40 am, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt. Doubt is the lack of faith! Science considers faith bad and doubt good, revealed religions such as Islam have the opposite view. You'll just have to agree to disagree - it's an impasse. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Your argument is based upon the collective thinking of some human thinkers and philosophers, while my arguments are based upon a Book which, if numbers matter, a large number of humans believe to be of a divine revelation. I find it interesting that these large number of humans who believe in this silly holy book of yours are not distributed equally around the globe as you'd expect if it were due to God's grace, but instead religious belief shows an enormously strong geographical correlation. You believe that the Quran is true for the same reason nearly all those large number of humans believe it to be true, their mommy and daddy told them it was true, and there is nothing deeper to it than that. Studying scripture or being a Muslim does not limit or forbid studying the sciences or other disciplines. Seeking knowledge is encouraged. If Seeking knowledge is encouraged it's very strange that although Muslims make up 23% of the world's population since 1900 only one Muslim has won a Nobel Prize in science, Ahmed Zewail won for chemistry in 1999. Abdus Salam won for physics in 1979 and his tombstone said First Muslim Nobel Laureate, but the Pakistani government officially decreed that Ahmed Zewail was NOT a Muslim and ordered that the word Muslim be erased from his tombstone. By the way, Jews are only .19% of the world's population and yet they've won 20% of the Nobel Prizes. Doubt is the lack of faith! Exactly true, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:47, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:
Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better, tell me how many times you
will need to use the second axioms?
Nine times. Here:
1+8=9
Prove: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0= s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
For x=s(0)
Using axiom 2,
Rewriting for y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))=7
Step 1: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))}
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for
y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))=6
Step 2: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(0))}]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(s(0)=5
Step 3: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(0)}]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(0=4
Step 4: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(0}]]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(0)))=3
Step 5: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(0)))}
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(s(0))=2
Step 6: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(0))}]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(0)=1
Step 7: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(0)}]]
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=0
Step 8: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+0}]]]
Using axiom 1
Step 9: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)}]]]
Rewriting with round brackets
Step 10: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
OK.(get the feeling you use axiom 2 only 8 times, but that is a
detail).
Yes, its eight times.
OK.
Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following
multiplicative axioms:
3) x * 0 = 0
4) x * s(y) = x + (x * y)
Yes, they hold true when substituted with natural numbers.
Really?
Have you verified for all numbers?
Generalisation ?
Well, I explain to you the type of axioms we need to be able to
prove such generalization. P(n) means P is some formula of
arithmetic (made using only the logical symbols and the arithmetical
symbols: they are s, 0, + and * (together with (, ), and as I
said the logical symbol: we can use only - (and define ~A by A -
(0 = 1)).
So that we are speaking the same language, please see if the
following are as you mean them:
s = successor
Intuitively? Yes. But it will be of extreme importance to just use
that intuition to see if you are OK with the axioms, and then to
understand that in the formal derivation/computation we do not rely on
the intuition.
The axioms for s are just:
- for all x ~(0 = s(x)) (for all numbers x, 0 is not the successor
of x, put simply: 0 is not a successor).
- for all x and y, s(x) = s(y) - x = y (equivalent with x≠y -
s(x) ≠ s(y), that is all numbers have only one successor)
We will also use this axioms, to make things easier and straight (and
get stronger representation theorem later)
- for all x, (x = 0) or Ey(x = s(y)). That is all numbers are either
null, or have a predecessor.
In summary our assumptions are, together with some logical axioms that
we will need to make precise too:
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) - x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
This is what I will call RA (for Robinson Arithmetic).
And I will show that IF we are machine, then RA is enough for a theory
of everything, and I will explain how to derive consciousness and
appearence of matter from it, without adding any new axioms, other
than computationalism translated in that theory.
0 = zero
OK. 0 is the usual symbol to denote the number zero (which is not a
symbol, but a number).
Again, what 0 really means does not concern us. We can considered
that it is defined implicitly from the axioms above. We need only
agreement on the axioms, not on the interpretation itself.
+ = plus / and
‘* = times / multiply
- = implies that
~ = all / everything / negation ?
Negation. Those logical connector will also be implicitly define by
some axioms and rules. Not today.
In fact their semantics is very easy:
(A B) is true when A is true and B is true, and it is false in the
other case.
(A v B) is false when A is false and B is false, and it is true in the
other case.
(A - B) is false when A is true and B is false, and is true otherwise
(we will come back on this one).
~A is false when A is true, and is true when A is false. OK?
(0=1) ???
It is an example of a false sentence, in arithmetic.
You can verify that
~A has the same truth value than (A - 0 = 1). Of course here 1 is
used as an abbreviation for s(0).
P = prove
Ah, no. P was for an arbitrary arithmetical sentence. It was a meta-
variable, not allowed in the formal expression.
An arithmetical formula can
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote: On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the natural numbers. And use your common intuition. Good. The idea now will be to see if the axioms given capture that intuition, fully, or in part. Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? then 2 + 1 = 3 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms: 1) x + 0 = x 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y) Let me show you: We must compute: s(s(0)) + s(0) The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y. We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0. OK? So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x (= s(s(0))) and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0 ) OK? (this is a simple substitution, suggested by the axiom 2) But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0)) ) So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) OK? Yes, thanks! You are welcome. Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose. 1+8=9 Translating in successor terms: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0, and y=0, s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0) Applying axiom 1 to the right side: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) 1+8=9 Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used axiom 2 once. Am I missing some basic point? Let me see. Axiom 2 says:x + s(y)) = s(x + y). Well, if x = 8, and y = 0, we get 8 + 1, and your computation/proofs is correct, in that case. So you would have been correct if I was asking you to prove/compute that 8 + 1 = 9. Unfortunately I asked to prove/compute that 1 + 8 = 9. I think that you have (consciously?) use the fact that 1 + 8 = 8 + 1, which speeds the computation. Well, later I ill show you that the idea that for all x and y x + y = y + x, is NOT provable with the axioms given (despite that theorey will be shown to be already Turing Universal. No worry. Your move was clever, but you need to put yourself
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote: On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the natural numbers. And use your common intuition. Good. The idea now will be to see if the axioms given capture that intuition, fully, or in part. Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? then 2 + 1 = 3 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms: 1) x + 0 = x 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y) Let me show you: We must compute: s(s(0)) + s(0) The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y. We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0. OK? So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x (= s(s(0))) and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0 ) OK? (this is a simple substitution, suggested by the axiom 2) But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0)) ) So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) OK? Yes, thanks! You are welcome. Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose. 1+8=9 Translating in successor terms: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0, and y=0, s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0) Applying axiom 1 to the right side: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) 1+8=9 Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used axiom 2 once. Am I missing some basic point? Let me see. Axiom 2 says:x + s(y)) = s(x + y). Well, if x = 8, and y = 0, we get 8 + 1, and your computation/proofs is correct, in that case. So you would have been correct if I was asking you to prove/compute that 8 + 1 = 9. Unfortunately I asked to prove/compute that 1 + 8 = 9. I think that you have (consciously?) use the fact that 1 + 8 = 8 + 1, which speeds the computation. Well, later I ill show you that the idea that for all x and y x + y = y + x, is NOT provable with the axioms given (despite that theorey will be shown to be already Turing Universal. No worry. Your move was clever, but you need to put yourself in the mind of a very stupid machine which understand only the axioms
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
I am just reading his stuff, slowly, so I cannot answer your mathematicalism versus arithmaticism, well enough for a discussion. I could provide a couple links to his papers (Maybe 2 or 3?) that may highlight your question. However, if you think it might harm the flow of discussion here, I will not post them. What I have learned is that physicists are fearful from a career point of view, of being damaged for publishing physics work that has anything to do with speculation about consciousness. But philosophers can get away with it because they are removed from pure science. They can ask and peak over physicists shoulders, by reviewing their work and not receive criticism. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Feb 9, 2015 3:16 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr. Eric Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson University, is the US. He was originally a software engineer and is like yourself, a math guy. He applies his experience to his philosophy, and after reading your writings here, as well as Amoeba, his insights seem to parallel yours. Also, Clement Vidal's, as well. Every heard of him? His papers focus on the origins of the universe(s) Platonism, Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy. It's not exactly like your work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs this topic I think. I don't think I know him although the name invke some familiarity. Did he got the first person indeterminacy, the mathematicalism or arithmeticallism? The mean to test this. You might sum up the idea, if you have the time, The problem with many scientists is that they stop doing science when doing philosophy. It is not a problem, but it can be confusing in that field. Bruno -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the natural numbers. Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr. Eric Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson University, is the US. He was originally a software engineer and is like yourself, a math guy. He applies his experience to his philosophy, and after reading your writings here, as well as Amoeba, his insights seem to parallel yours. Also, Clement Vidal's, as well. Every heard of him? His papers focus on the origins of the universe(s) Platonism, Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy. It's not exactly like your work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs this topic I think. I don't think I know him although the name invke some familiarity. Did he got the first person indeterminacy, the mathematicalism or arithmeticallism? The mean to test this. You might sum up the idea, if you have the time, The problem with many scientists is that they stop doing science when doing philosophy. It is not a problem, but it can be confusing in that field. Bruno -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the natural numbers. Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? then 2 + 1 = 3 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms: 1) x + 0 = x 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y) Let me show you: We must compute: s(s(0)) + s(0) The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y. We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0. OK? So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x (= s(s(0))) and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0 ) OK? (this is a simple substitution, suggested by the axiom 2) But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0)) ) So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) OK? Yes, thanks! Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose. 1+8=9 Translating in successor terms: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote: On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the natural numbers. And use your common intuition. Good. The idea now will be to see if the axioms given capture that intuition, fully, or in part. Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? then 2 + 1 = 3 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms: 1) x + 0 = x 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y) Let me show you: We must compute: s(s(0)) + s(0) The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y. We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0. OK? So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x (= s(s(0))) and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0 ) OK? (this is a simple substitution, suggested by the axiom 2) But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0)) ) So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) OK? Yes, thanks! You are welcome. Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose. 1+8=9 Translating in successor terms: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0, and y=0, s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0) Applying axiom 1 to the right side: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) 1+8=9 Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used axiom 2 once. Am I missing some basic point? Let me see. Axiom 2 says:x + s(y)) = s(x + y). Well, if x = 8, and y = 0, we get 8 + 1, and your computation/proofs is correct, in that case. So you would have been correct if I was asking you to prove/compute that 8 + 1 = 9. Unfortunately I asked to prove/compute that 1 + 8 = 9. I think that you have (consciously?) use the fact that 1 + 8 = 8 + 1, which speeds the computation. Well, later I ill show you that the idea that for all x and y x + y = y + x, is NOT provable with the axioms given (despite that theorey will be shown to be already Turing Universal. No worry. Your move was clever, but you need to put yourself in the mind of a very stupid machine which understand only the axioms given. I understand Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
From Wikipedia I get the idea that he is interested in the technological singularity, mind uploading and suchlike. On 10 February 2015 at 09:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr. Eric Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson University, is the US. He was originally a software engineer and is like yourself, a math guy. He applies his experience to his philosophy, and after reading your writings here, as well as Amoeba, his insights seem to parallel yours. Also, Clement Vidal's, as well. Every heard of him? His papers focus on the origins of the universe(s) Platonism, Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy. It's not exactly like your work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs this topic I think. I don't think I know him although the name invke some familiarity. Did he got the first person indeterminacy, the mathematicalism or arithmeticallism? The mean to test this. You might sum up the idea, if you have the time, The problem with many scientists is that they stop doing science when doing philosophy. It is not a problem, but it can be confusing in that field. Bruno -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the natural numbers. Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? then 2 + 1 = 3 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms: 1) x + 0 = x 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y) Let me show you: We must compute: s(s(0)) + s(0) The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y. We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0. OK? So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x (= s(s(0))) and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0 ) OK? (this is a simple substitution, suggested by the axiom 2) But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0)) ) So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) OK? Yes, thanks! Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I would
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr. Eric Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson University, is the US. He was originally a software engineer and is like yourself, a math guy. He applies his experience to his philosophy, and after reading your writings here, as well as Amoeba, his insights seem to parallel yours. Also, *Clement Vidal*'s, as well. Every heard of him? His papers focus on the origins of the universe(s) Platonism, Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy. It's not exactly like your work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs this topic I think. I don't think I know him although the name invke some familiarity. Did he got the first person indeterminacy, the mathematicalism or arithmeticallism? The mean to test this. You might sum up the idea, if you have the time, The problem with many scientists is that they stop doing science when doing philosophy. It is not a problem, but it can be confusing in that field. One of those names at least is familiar to the list because: On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:25 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: To die for Allah is slay for Allah. The reward for the mujahedeen is enormous, for to sacrifice ones self, and the opponent of God, is to granted immediate entry into paradise (Janah) and its rewards are not unsubstantial. One way to change the Umah's mind (if such is even possible) would be to make widespread, *Clement Vidal*'s publications, especially, The Beginning and the End, The Meaning of Life in a Cosmological Perspective. Part of the book details with afterlife concepts in a rational sense, as well as much, more. *Vidal* is a colleague of Bruno Marchal at Free University, Brussels. * Vidal*'s influence may induce those looking for a heavenly, rewards, for head chopping unbelievers, a good think. It would also alter our own perspective as well. Make the world a bit more peaceful, and provide some reassurance for all. Honk! If you all agree ;-) On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:52 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Bruno might comment on his colleague, at university, *Clement Vidal*. The Evo-Devo approach, etc. On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:46 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Sent from AOL Mobile If We remain a sophisticated civilization, we should be able to leave space exploration for the robots, until such a time and and place where we uncover something dynamically interesting. But this is for another generation to decide, and not ours. Which makes things, seem, our world, our times, our worries, seem so temporary. On the other hand I am now reading the work by *Clement Vidal*, of Free University, Brussels, a colleague, of Bruno Marchal, on the meaning and purpose of intelligence, life, and cosmology, leading to the far future-a very, different perspective indeed. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:55 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Dr. Marchal, do you ever get in conversations with your fellow academician,* Clement Vidal*? He's a philosopher at your University? Do you ever get into the Evo-Devo view? So that may be part of the reason the name is slowly becoming familiar although I wouldn't know, as I can't search the list's archives completely, nor do I receive/want all posts archived in my Inbox, therefore filtering and/or ignoring a lot. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote: On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the natural numbers. And use your common intuition. Good. The idea now will be to see if the axioms given capture that intuition, fully, or in part. Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? then 2 + 1 = 3 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms: 1) x + 0 = x 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y) Let me show you: We must compute: s(s(0)) + s(0) The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y. We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0. OK? So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x (= s(s(0))) and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0 ) OK? (this is a simple substitution, suggested by the axiom 2) But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0)) ) So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) OK? Yes, thanks! You are welcome. Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose. 1+8=9 Translating in successor terms: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0, and y=0, s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0) Applying axiom 1 to the right side: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) 1+8=9 Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used axiom 2 once. Am I missing some basic point? Let me see. Axiom 2 says:x + s(y)) = s(x + y). Well, if x = 8, and y = 0, we get 8 + 1, and your computation/proofs is correct, in that case. So you would have been correct if I was asking you to prove/compute that 8 + 1 = 9. Unfortunately I asked to prove/compute that 1 + 8 = 9. I think that you have (consciously?) use the fact that 1 + 8 = 8 + 1, which speeds the computation. Well, later I ill show you that the idea that for all x and y x + y = y + x, is NOT provable with the axioms given (despite that theorey will be shown to be already Turing Universal. No worry. Your move was clever, but you need to put yourself in the mind of a very stupid machine which understand only the axioms given. Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better, tell me how many times you will need to use the second axioms? Let me ask you
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr. Eric Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson University, is the US. He was originally a software engineer and is like yourself, a math guy. He applies his experience to his philosophy, and after reading your writings here, as well as Amoeba, his insights seem to parallel yours. Also, Clement Vidal's, as well. Every heard of him? His papers focus on the origins of the universe(s) Platonism, Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy. It's not exactly like your work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs this topic I think. -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the natural numbers. Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? then 2 + 1 = 3 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms: 1) x + 0 = x 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y) Let me show you: We must compute: s(s(0)) + s(0) The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y. We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0. OK? So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x (= s(s(0))) and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0 ) OK? (this is a simple substitution, suggested by the axiom 2) But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0)) ) So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) OK? Yes, thanks! Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose. 1+8=9 Translating in successor terms: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0, and y=0, s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0) Applying axiom 1 to the right side: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) 1+8=9 Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used axiom 2 once. Am I missing some basic point? Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following multiplicative axioms
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the natural numbers. Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? then 2 + 1 = 3 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms: 1) x + 0 = x 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y) Let me show you: We must compute: s(s(0)) + s(0) The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y. We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0. OK? So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x (= s(s(0))) and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0 ) OK? (this is a simple substitution, suggested by the axiom 2) But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0)) ) So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) OK? Yes, thanks! Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose. 1+8=9 Translating in successor terms: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0, and y=0, s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0) Applying axiom 1 to the right side: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) 1+8=9 Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used axiom 2 once. Am I missing some basic point? Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following multiplicative axioms: 3) x * 0 = 0 4) x * s(y) = x + (x * y) Yes, they hold true when substituted with natural numbers. Can you prove that s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(s(s(0)) ? This is of course much longer, and you need all axioms 1), 2), 3) and 4). I've tried two approaches, but I am getting stuck at the last step. Please see: Approach 1: Prove s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(s(s(0)) for x=s(s(s(0))) and y=s(0) Applying axiom 4 Step 1: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(0))) + (s(s(s(0))) * s(0)) Simplifying the bracket on the right side, again using axiom 4, assuming x=s(s(s(0))) and y=0 x * s(y)= x + (x*y) Step 2: s(s(s(0))) * s(0) = s(s(s(0))) + (s(s(s(0))) * 0) Applying axiom 3 Step 3: s(s(s(0))) * s(0) = s(s(s(0))) Replacing the value in Step 1: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(0))) + s(s(s(0))) In number terms, this translates to 3 * 2 = 3 + 3 which is correct but I do not know how to proceed with the proof. Approach 2: Prove s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(s(s(0)) for
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? then 2 + 1 = 3 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms: 1) x + 0 = x 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y) Let me show you: We must compute: s(s(0)) + s(0) The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y. We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0. OK? So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x (= s(s(0))) and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0 ) OK? (this is a simple substitution, suggested by the axiom 2) But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0)) ) So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) OK? Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose. Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following multiplicative axioms: 3) x * 0 = 0 4) x * s(y) = x + (x * y) Can you prove that s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(s(s(0)) ? This is of course much longer, and you need all axioms 1), 2), 3) and 4). If you can do this, Allah already knows that you are Turing universal (in some large sense). You can know that too, once we have a definition of Turing universal. With computationalism, except for some purely logical axioms, we have already the theory of everything. You can see that it has very few assumptions. It does not assume matter or god, nor consciousness. The link with consciousness, and Allah, can be made at some metalevel, by accepting the idea that the brain or the body is Turing emulable. But for this we need to work a little bit more. Bruno Samiya Bruno Samiya to see that this give eight quite different view the universal machines develop on themselves. Reminds me of this verse [http://quran.com/69/17 ]: And the angels are at its edges. And there will bear the Throne of your Lord above them, that Day, eight [of them]. It is like that: The four first (plotinian) hypostases live harmonically in the arithmetical heaven: God Terrestrial Intelligible Divine Intelligible Universal Soul But then the Universal Soul falls, and you get the (four) matters, and the bastard calculus: Intelligible terrestrial matter Intelligible Divine matter Sensible terrestrial matter Sensible Divine matter Here divine means mainly what is
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? then 2 + 1 = 3 Samiya Bruno Samiya to see that this give eight quite different view the universal machines develop on themselves. Reminds me of this verse [http://quran.com/69/17 ]: *And the angels are at its edges. And there will bear the Throne of your Lord above them, that Day, eight [of them]. * It is like that: The four first (plotinian) hypostases live harmonically in the arithmetical heaven: God Terrestrial Intelligible Divine Intelligible Universal Soul But then the Universal Soul falls, and you get the (four) matters, and the bastard calculus: Intelligible terrestrial matter Intelligible Divine matter Sensible terrestrial matter Sensible Divine matter Here divine means mainly what is true about the machine/number and not justifiable by the numbers. It provides a universal person, with a soul, consistent extensions, beliefs, and some proximity (or not) to God (which is the ultimate semantic that the machine cannot entirely figure out by herself (hence the faith). Interesting! All universal machine looking inward discover an inexhaustible reality, with absolute and relative aspects. Babbage discovered the universal machine, (and understood its universality). The universal machine, the mathematical concept, will be (re)discovered and made more precise by a bunch of mathematical logicians, like Turing, Post, Church, Kleene. You are using such a universal system right now, even plausibly two of them: your brain and your computer. They are a key concept in computer science. They suffer a big prize for their universality, as it makes them possible to crash, be lied, be lost, be deluded. They can know that they are universal, and so they can know the consequences. The religion which recognizes the universal machine and her classical theology might be the one which will spread easily in the galaxy in the forthcoming millenaries. (Independently of being true or false, actually). Bruno Samiya If you want to convince me, you have to first convince the universal person associated to the Löbian machine, I'm afraid. I am not pretending that the machine theology applies to us, but it is a good etalon to compare the theologies/religions/reality-conceptions. The problem is that we have to backtrack to Plato, where what we see is only the border of something, that we can't see, but yet can intuit and talk about (a bit like mathematics or music) 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
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): x + 0 = x x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? Bruno Samiya to see that this give eight quite different view the universal machines develop on themselves. Reminds me of this verse [http://quran.com/69/17 ]: And the angels are at its edges. And there will bear the Throne of your Lord above them, that Day, eight [of them]. It is like that: The four first (plotinian) hypostases live harmonically in the arithmetical heaven: God Terrestrial Intelligible Divine Intelligible Universal Soul But then the Universal Soul falls, and you get the (four) matters, and the bastard calculus: Intelligible terrestrial matter Intelligible Divine matter Sensible terrestrial matter Sensible Divine matter Here divine means mainly what is true about the machine/number and not justifiable by the numbers. It provides a universal person, with a soul, consistent extensions, beliefs, and some proximity (or not) to God (which is the ultimate semantic that the machine cannot entirely figure out by herself (hence the faith). Interesting! All universal machine looking inward discover an inexhaustible reality, with absolute and relative aspects. Babbage discovered the universal machine, (and understood its universality). The universal machine, the mathematical concept, will be (re)discovered and made more precise by a bunch of mathematical logicians, like Turing, Post, Church, Kleene. You are using such a universal system right now, even plausibly two of them: your brain and your computer. They are a key concept in computer science. They suffer a big prize for their universality, as it makes them possible to crash, be lied, be lost, be deluded. They can know that they are universal, and so they can know the consequences. The religion which recognizes the universal machine and her classical theology might be the one which will spread easily in the galaxy in the forthcoming millenaries. (Independently of being true or false, actually). Bruno Samiya If you want to convince me, you have to first convince the universal person associated to the Löbian machine, I'm afraid. I am not pretending that the machine theology applies to us, but it is a good etalon to compare the theologies/religions/reality- conceptions. The problem is that we have to backtrack to Plato, where what we see is only the border of something, that we can't see, but yet can intuit and talk about (a bit like mathematics or music) 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Feb 2015, at 06:54, Samiya Illias wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Feb 2015, at 06:37, Samiya Illias wrote: On 02-Feb-2015, at 6:12 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 February 2015 at 00:15, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: There is a difference between advancing a theory in a spirit of agnosticism and being convinced you know the truth and that everyone else is wrong. Hmm... Someday, I hope and pray, when you're blessed with faith, perhaps you'll understand me. As other observed that's close to the worst authority argument. By worst I don't make a moral judgment, but it is worst in the sense that it is not just invalid, but it makes the honest people automatically doubting your message. I am not presenting an argument above. I'm just saying that this is something to do with feeling/experiencing/qualia? so I cannot explain it nor do I expect anyone who doesn't to understand it. I know its not valid. That is why I hope Someday... Note that it *can* be valid as a personal thought, tough. But when you make it public, it is patronizing per-authority argument. Well, I don't know, but that what is the universal machine thinks for herself. And vice versa, if you are blessed with faith in reason. Thanks! :) Reason is the best tool, if not the only tool (at some level) I agree. Reason is a tool, and perhaps the best tool, which is to be used to approach reality. Assuming there is one common to all of us. to survive the unreasonable (arithmetical) reality, and to maximize partial relative control. Unfortunately reason gives the ability to lie and manipulate the others at different levels. Both reason and religion have been abused over and over again Yes, like drugs (medication). It is in he human nature, but I think we do progress, and can still progress. Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? Samiya to see that this give eight quite different view the universal machines develop on themselves. Reminds me of this verse [http://quran.com/69/17 ]: And the angels are at its edges. And there will bear the Throne of your Lord above them, that Day, eight [of them]. It is like that: The four first (plotinian) hypostases live harmonically in the arithmetical heaven: God Terrestrial Intelligible Divine Intelligible Universal Soul But then the Universal Soul falls, and you get the (four) matters, and the bastard calculus: Intelligible terrestrial matter Intelligible Divine matter Sensible terrestrial matter Sensible Divine matter Here divine means mainly what is true about the machine/number and not justifiable by the numbers. It provides a universal person, with a soul, consistent extensions, beliefs, and some proximity (or not) to God (which is the ultimate semantic that the machine cannot entirely figure out by herself (hence the faith). Interesting! All universal machine looking inward discover an inexhaustible reality, with absolute and relative aspects. Babbage discovered the universal machine, (and understood its universality). The universal machine, the mathematical concept, will be (re)discovered and made more precise by a bunch of mathematical logicians, like Turing, Post, Church, Kleene. You are using such a universal system right now, even plausibly two of them: your brain and your computer. They are a key concept in computer science. They suffer a big prize for their universality, as it makes them possible to crash, be lied, be
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Feb 2015, at 06:37, Samiya Illias wrote: On 02-Feb-2015, at 6:12 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 February 2015 at 00:15, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: There is a difference between advancing a theory in a spirit of agnosticism and being convinced you know the truth and that everyone else is wrong. Hmm... Someday, I hope and pray, when you're blessed with faith, perhaps you'll understand me. As other observed that's close to the worst authority argument. By worst I don't make a moral judgment, but it is worst in the sense that it is not just invalid, but it makes the honest people automatically doubting your message. I am not presenting an argument above. I'm just saying that this is something to do with feeling/experiencing/qualia? Feelings, woo-o-o feeling it, woo-o-o, feeling again in my arms Feelings Feelings, nothing more than feelings Trying to forget my feelings of love Teardrops rolling down on my face Trying to forget my feelings of love so I cannot explain it nor do I expect anyone who doesn't to understand it. I know its not valid. That is why I hope Someday... I hope someday, that if something is not valid, you don't pretend as if it were valid... And vice versa, if you are blessed with faith in reason. Thanks! :) Reason is the best tool, if not the only tool (at some level) I agree. Reason is a tool, and perhaps the best tool, which is to be used to approach reality. Depends. Sometimes certain feelings, fanatic types, their books taken literally etc. get in the way. to survive the unreasonable (arithmetical) reality, and to maximize partial relative control. Unfortunately reason gives the ability to lie and manipulate the others at different levels. Both reason and religion have been abused over and over again Sometimes in the name of Feelings, woo-o-o feeling it, woo-o-o, feeling again in my arms... Feelings. 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 03 Feb 2015, at 06:54, Samiya Illias wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Feb 2015, at 06:37, Samiya Illias wrote: On 02-Feb-2015, at 6:12 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 February 2015 at 00:15, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: There is a difference between advancing a theory in a spirit of agnosticism and being convinced you know the truth and that everyone else is wrong. Hmm... Someday, I hope and pray, when you're blessed with faith, perhaps you'll understand me. As other observed that's close to the worst authority argument. By worst I don't make a moral judgment, but it is worst in the sense that it is not just invalid, but it makes the honest people automatically doubting your message. I am not presenting an argument above. I'm just saying that this is something to do with feeling/experiencing/qualia? so I cannot explain it nor do I expect anyone who doesn't to understand it. I know its not valid. That is why I hope Someday... Note that it *can* be valid as a personal thought, tough. But when you make it public, it is patronizing per-authority argument. Well, I don't know, but that what is the universal machine thinks for herself. And vice versa, if you are blessed with faith in reason. Thanks! :) Reason is the best tool, if not the only tool (at some level) I agree. Reason is a tool, and perhaps the best tool, which is to be used to approach reality. Assuming there is one common to all of us. to survive the unreasonable (arithmetical) reality, and to maximize partial relative control. Unfortunately reason gives the ability to lie and manipulate the others at different levels. Both reason and religion have been abused over and over again Yes, like drugs (medication). It is in he human nature, but I think we do progress, and can still progress. Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? to see that this give eight quite different view the universal machines develop on themselves. Reminds me of this verse [http://quran.com/69/17 ]: And the angels are at its edges. And there will bear the Throne of your Lord above them, that Day, eight [of them]. It is like that: The four first (plotinian) hypostases live harmonically in the arithmetical heaven: God Terrestrial Intelligible Divine Intelligible Universal Soul But then the Universal Soul falls, and you get the (four) matters, and the bastard calculus: Intelligible terrestrial matter Intelligible Divine matter Sensible terrestrial matter Sensible Divine matter Here divine means mainly what is true about the machine/number and not justifiable by the numbers. It provides a universal person, with a soul, consistent extensions, beliefs, and some proximity (or not) to God (which is the ultimate semantic that the machine cannot entirely figure out by herself (hence the faith). Interesting! All universal machine looking inward discover an inexhaustible reality, with absolute and relative aspects. Babbage discovered the universal machine, (and understood its universality). The universal machine, the mathematical concept, will be (re)discovered and made more precise by a bunch of mathematical logicians, like Turing, Post, Church, Kleene. You are using such a universal system right now, even plausibly two of them: your brain and your computer. They are a key concept in computer science. They suffer a big prize for their universality, as it makes them possible to crash, be lied, be lost, be deluded. They can know that they are universal, and so they can know the consequences. The religion which recognizes the universal machine and her classical theology might be the one which will spread easily in the galaxy
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Feb 2015, at 06:37, Samiya Illias wrote: On 02-Feb-2015, at 6:12 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 February 2015 at 00:15, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: There is a difference between advancing a theory in a spirit of agnosticism and being convinced you know the truth and that everyone else is wrong. Hmm... Someday, I hope and pray, when you're blessed with faith, perhaps you'll understand me. As other observed that's close to the worst authority argument. By worst I don't make a moral judgment, but it is worst in the sense that it is not just invalid, but it makes the honest people automatically doubting your message. I am not presenting an argument above. I'm just saying that this is something to do with feeling/experiencing/qualia? so I cannot explain it nor do I expect anyone who doesn't to understand it. I know its not valid. That is why I hope Someday... And vice versa, if you are blessed with faith in reason. Thanks! :) Reason is the best tool, if not the only tool (at some level) I agree. Reason is a tool, and perhaps the best tool, which is to be used to approach reality. to survive the unreasonable (arithmetical) reality, and to maximize partial relative control. Unfortunately reason gives the ability to lie and manipulate the others at different levels. Both reason and religion have been abused over and over again Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) to see that this give eight quite different view the universal machines develop on themselves. Reminds me of this verse [http://quran.com/69/17 ]: *And the angels are at its edges. And there will bear the Throne of your Lord above them, that Day, eight [of them]. * It provides a universal person, with a soul, consistent extensions, beliefs, and some proximity (or not) to God (which is the ultimate semantic that the machine cannot entirely figure out by herself (hence the faith). Interesting! Samiya If you want to convince me, you have to first convince the universal person associated to the Löbian machine, I'm afraid. I am not pretending that the machine theology applies to us, but it is a good etalon to compare the theologies/religions/reality-conceptions. The problem is that we have to backtrack to Plato, where what we see is only the border of something, that we can't see, but yet can intuit and talk about (a bit like mathematics or music) 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/d/optout. -- 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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
