Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 07-févr.-07, à 05:55, Brent Meeker a écrit (some time ago) Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of course to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and people do keep different beliefs differently compartmentalized in their head, like your brother-in-law. However, this is *inconsistent*, and inconsistent is even worse than wrong. Stathis Papaioannou I'm not sure I agree with that last. Being consistent means you're either all right or all wrong. :-) I don't think so. By Godel II, [Peano Arithmetic + the axiom that Peano Arithmetic is inconsistent] is consistent. But is wrong (because PA *is* consistent), but not all wrong, because PA + PA is inconsistent does correctly prove that 1+1=2. You can be wrong, and consistent. It is due to the gap between truth and provability. Stathis is right, you (and machine lobian) can be right on something and wrong on another thing, still remaining consistent. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: This study recent published in Nature suggests not only a neural basis for morality, but a specific neural basis for a specific kind of morality: I'd say an irrational morality. I almost always make the utilitarian choice in those hypothetical moral dilemmas (must be damage from one of my motorcycle crashes :-)). I wonder if they surveyed any Inuits, who traditionally killed female infants in a family until a son had been born. Brent Meeker http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05631.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/science/22brain.html?_r=1ref=scienceoref=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/science/22brain.html?_r=1ref=scienceoref=slogin Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
This study recent published in Nature suggests not only a neural basis for morality, but a specific neural basis for a specific kind of morality: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05631.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/science/22brain.html?_r=1ref=scienceoref=slogin Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 15-mars-07, à 01:38, David Nyman a écrit : On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism. Yes, I understand. I guess I'm saying that nevertheless I can conceive of a radical negation in which even Platonic objects have no existence, conceptual or otherwise. Consequently AFAICS arguments for Platonic 'necessity' are in fact derived wholly from contingent states of affairs. True. But the fact that the human conception of platonic necessity is derived from contingent facts does not necessarily change the necessity character of platonic truth. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 15-mars-07, à 17:15, David Nyman a écrit : Yes, in that it makes sense to argue (from a 'contingentist' perspective) that the justification for 'primeness' (or indeed any other concept) derives ultimately from persistent aspects of contingent states of affairs (in this case a degree of persistence we abstract as 'necessity'). So from this perspective 17 is 'necessarily' prime, but this very 'necessity' is limited to the contingent framework that supports the conceptual one. In this view, positing 'platonic primeness' does no further work. This is not to take issue with Bruno's alternative numerical basis for contingency, but rather to see it as just that - an alternative, not a knock-down argument. Please, don't take what I will say here as an authoritative argument. Giving the extreme newness, you have to understand this by yourself, and the UDA is really a construction which aimed at that. But my point is that once we assume the comp hyp in the cognitive science, then, the reversal between matter and mind is not an alternative, it is a necessity. You can still believe in primary matter if you want to, but you just cannot use it to individuate neither mind/person, nor matter. Of course, arithmetical truth as seen from inside is full of relative contingies, generally treated by a modal diamond (having an arithmetical interpretation). For the UDA you need only a passive knowledge of Church thesis. For the lob interview you need more background in mathematical logic and in theoretical computer science. And to believe it, I guess you have to know about the quantum, which is currently still more weird than anything I extract from comp (but that converges as it should). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 15-mars-07, à 19:38, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented any argument for the existence of this ultimate or root. You merely refer to closed science as though that proved something - but it begs the question. You have to show there is something outside science in order to know that it is closed; not just that there is something science has not explained, there's lots of that, but something that science cannot, in-principle explain. Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain where natural numbers come from. That's an insoluble mystery. It makes science open. Forever. I think that depends on what you count as explanation. There are certainly possible evolutionary explanations for why humans invented counting of say sheep instead of looking at each sheep as a unique thing. OK, but we have to distinguish A) the existence of numbers, and B) the discovery of numbers by humans. I can understand how human discovered numbers by mixture of introspection and observation of a physical reality (and struggle of life ...). But to understand the physical reality I need the numbers at the start. But then comp *can* explain (but does not yet provide more than an embryo of explanation, yet already confirmed) where waves and particles come from, and also, unlike physics, why waves and particles can hurt (cf G/G*). But can comp explain why there is einselection of large objects and the world is approximately classical. Normally classical comp implies quantum observation, and quantum theory can explain the emergence of the classical mind (in the Everett, Hartle, Deutsch way). Comp makes qubit emerging from glueing dreams by bits. But our local bits emerge most probably from our local qubits. Bit---Qubit is a two way road, if comp is correct (and if my reasoning is valid, 'course). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Brent: ...No parent expects to receive anything but satisfaction from raising their children - as perfectly well explained by Darwin. And how dare you assert that money I sent to Katrina victims was simply calculated to get something back. There are many possible Darwinian explanations for feelings of altruism; but apparently you haven't bothered to find them... What is this? a mental blockage? How could you forget (disregard) your 1st sentence in the 2nd? Are you a formalistical materialist to expect ONLY monetary rewards for money (or anything else) spent? S a t i s f a c t i o n is not a reward? Feeling good about something? Besides such feelings - indeed - might have developed from 'real' return: raising young means having a community-protection when getting old (as the most primitive idea). As complexity grew such ideas get also more complex. Luv is a composition. Not a primitive John M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:03 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Tom Caylor wrote: On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it provides. I don't like simply saying That isn't so, but nobody can agree on what it provides, referring to the source of ultimate meaning, I was referring to the sufficient source of *morality*. Such a source should be able to provide an unambiguous standard that is so clear everyone agrees - if it existed. is not true. In fact it's very remarkable the consistency, across all kinds of cultures, the basic beliefs of truly normative morality, evidence for their being a source which cannot be explained through closed science alone. Why not? Why isn't Darwin's or Scott Atran's or Richard Dawkin's a *possible* explanation. And how is God did it an explanation of anything? It's just a form of words so ambiguous as to be virtually empty. God meant different things to the crusaders and the 9/11 jihadists, to the Aztecs and the Conquistadores, to the Nazi's and the Jews. So just because they use the same word doesn't mean they are referring to the same thing. We've talked about this before. Darwin cannot explain giving without expecting to receive. Where do you get this nonsense?? Do you just make it up as you need it? No parent expects to receive anything but satisfaction from raising their children - as perfectly well explained by Darwin. And how dare you assert that money I sent to Katrina victims was simply calculated to get something back. There are many possible Darwinian explanations for feelings of altruism; but apparently you haven't bothered to find them. ...skipped the rest... Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented any argument for the existence of this ultimate or root. You merely refer to closed science as though that proved something - but it begs the question. You have to show there is something outside science in order to know that it is closed; not just that there is something science has not explained, there's lots of that, but something that science cannot, in-principle explain. Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain where natural numbers come from. That's an insoluble mystery. It makes science open. Forever. But then comp *can* explain (but does not yet provide more than an embryo of explanation, yet already confirmed) where waves and particles come from, and also, unlike physics, why waves and particles can hurt (cf G/G*). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 14-mars-07, à 07:48, Kim Jones a écrit : Lurking, lurking... This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions, aeons ago on my birthday last year. Thankee, Tom A little refresher now: On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote: Besides the question of how meaning relates to this List, the question of meaning itself can be asked at several different levels, so I'll list a few: 1) Why does the universe exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? 2) Why do human beings in general exist? 3) Why do I exist? 1) We don't know. But assuming the consistency of elementary arithmetic, we can explain why machines will develop exactly such questions. Assuming moreover comp, we can know why *we* are such questions, and why we believe in universes. 2) because all lobian (not necessarily consistent) machine exists. 3) this is equivalent with: why am I in Washington after a self Washington/Moscow duplication. Or, why do I observed a spin up, after a preparation in the complementary base. Here again, with just elementary arithmetic we can explain where such question come from, and with comp, we can explain why we ask and why we will never get an answer. Even a God cannot explain that! Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 3/15/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism. Yes, I understand. I guess I'm saying that nevertheless I can conceive of a radical negation in which even Platonic objects have no existence, conceptual or otherwise. Consequently AFAICS arguments for Platonic 'necessity' are in fact derived wholly from contingent states of affairs. It's something Bruno, in particular, has discussed at length. Is it possible that 17 is only contingently prime? Stathis Papaiaonnou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 14-mars-07, à 08:15, Kim Jones a écrit : I believe that the 'ability to conceive of nothing' - in a Loebian machine context might be forbidden under comp (I could be wrong) The problem with words like nothing and everything is that they have as many meaning than there are theories or philosophical frame. As example, you cannot represent the quantum vacuum by the empty set. Those are completely different and opposite notion of nothingness. The empty set can be simulated by a simple non universal machine. The quantum void is already turing universal. I am not sure that a notion of nothingness can have some absolute meaning. It is rich and interesting, but hardly basic and primitive. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 14-mars-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit : I am not in favor of human omniscience. The more a machine knows, the more she is able to see the bigness of its ignorance. Knowledge for lobian machine is really like a lantern in an infinite room. The more powerful is the lantern, the more bigger the room seems to be. So I certainly agree with you. Meaning: perhaps we are both wrong! Bon week-end, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mar 15, 2:45 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's something Bruno, in particular, has discussed at length. Is it possible that 17 is only contingently prime? Yes, in that it makes sense to argue (from a 'contingentist' perspective) that the justification for 'primeness' (or indeed any other concept) derives ultimately from persistent aspects of contingent states of affairs (in this case a degree of persistence we abstract as 'necessity'). So from this perspective 17 is 'necessarily' prime, but this very 'necessity' is limited to the contingent framework that supports the conceptual one. In this view, positing 'platonic primeness' does no further work. This is not to take issue with Bruno's alternative numerical basis for contingency, but rather to see it as just that - an alternative, not a knock-down argument. David On 3/15/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism. Yes, I understand. I guess I'm saying that nevertheless I can conceive of a radical negation in which even Platonic objects have no existence, conceptual or otherwise. Consequently AFAICS arguments for Platonic 'necessity' are in fact derived wholly from contingent states of affairs. It's something Bruno, in particular, has discussed at length. Is it possible that 17 is only contingently prime? Stathis Papaiaonnou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented any argument for the existence of this ultimate or root. You merely refer to closed science as though that proved something - but it begs the question. You have to show there is something outside science in order to know that it is closed; not just that there is something science has not explained, there's lots of that, but something that science cannot, in-principle explain. Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain where natural numbers come from. That's an insoluble mystery. It makes science open. Forever. I think that depends on what you count as explanation. There are certainly possible evolutionary explanations for why humans invented counting of say sheep instead of looking at each sheep as a unique thing. But then comp *can* explain (but does not yet provide more than an embryo of explanation, yet already confirmed) where waves and particles come from, and also, unlike physics, why waves and particles can hurt (cf G/G*). But can comp explain why there is einselection of large objects and the world is approximately classical. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Thanks for a clear mind, Bruno. But isn't it obvious? We can know about what we don't know ONLY if we do know 'about it'. Copernicus did not know that he does not know radioactivity. Aristotle did not denigrate the linearity of QM because he did not know these items. My 'firm' knowledge of my ignorance stems from earlier memory: I know (remember) not having learnt many things I would have needed later on (by laziness or lack of interest). Nowadays I find myself exposed to other items of my ignorance and feel lazy to start studying things I did not study at 21. Don't even have the time (?) and tutor (school) - plus: I have a suspicious (violent?) mind and start arguing instead of learning. So I stay stupid (but happily so). Have a good weekend you too Machine John PS For some (taste?) reasons I like 'organisation' - or 'organism' - better than 'machine', which carries a notion of a composition (contraption): structural and designed ingredients assembled for some purpose. Loebian machine is different, (I hesitate to call it 'unlimited' or the questionable 'infinite') but the word is not. - J. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:00 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Le 14-mars-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit : I am not in favor of human omniscience. The more a machine knows, the more she is able to see the bigness of its ignorance. Knowledge for lobian machine is really like a lantern in an infinite room. The more powerful is the lantern, the more bigger the room seems to be. So I certainly agree with you. Meaning: perhaps we are both wrong! Bon week-end, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
- Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:34 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life (Brent's question skipped)... BM: Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain where natural numbers come from. That's an insoluble mystery. It makes science open. Forever. But then comp *can* explain (but does not yet provide more than an embryo of explanation, yet already confirmed) where waves and particles come from, and also, unlike physics, why waves and particles can hurt (cf G/G*). Bruno A question in the 1st par: (Not the assuming or not part): it is the nature of that particular type 'science' prohibiting to disclose the origin of ANY numbers. * As evolutionary complexity (and I emphasize this 'comp') goes, the hominid compared things, fingers, etc. and found 2 (two) hands/feet. Paralle to its mental development it realized 5 fingers on each. Compared to children in the cave and as the veins in his neck widened (through increasing holes in the skull etc.) for more blood into the developing neuronal brain, named the 'count', added both hands if there were many kids and so on. I skip the ramifications, counting was developed with 'numbers named' and it is only a quanti developmental difference to arrive at a Hilbert space, or CQD. The growing neural complexity allowed the coordination of hand-muscles to make the hand-ax a projectile, something chimps have not yet achieved. It went in quantitative (no qualitative emergence and no random invention) steps to the spacerocket application. Then, gradually, the human mind became capable of more complexity - to explain natural observation at the level of the time in a quantised (physicalistic) fashion. * In another science-view, if we look at the processes as in a reductionist model separation, the numbers may appear as God, creating the universe. Unexplainably. It is another viewpoint of another form of 'science'. The above is not my obsession, I see it as free thinking. * Bruno, I looked at your 'knots' (my head still spins from them) and agree to their topological - math view, no need of a material input. Which one was Alexander's? Best wishes John M http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 3/15/2007 11:27 AM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Thank you, Russell John - Original Message - From: Russell Standish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life I think high energy physicists talk about colour charge, rather than colour pole, but this is by analogy to electricity with its +ve -ve charges, rather than analogy to magnetism with its north and south poles. However at the level of analogy, which is what your story is, this distinction is unimportant. In the real world, objects tend to be electrically neutral (even when charged, objects have only a slight imbalance between positive and negative charges). This is a not quite analogy to the need for magnets to always have two poles. Incidently, physicists also talk about monopoles, but aside from one isolated experiment, monopoles have never been seen. With the strong force, the colours can never be imbalanced on everyday objects. Only quarks have colour. Bigger objects from protons up are said to be white or colourless. The reason for this is confinement, but I'll let you look that up on Wikipedia if you're interested. Cheers On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:04:59PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I apologize for my flippant quip of yesterday, it was after several hours of reading and replying internet discussion lists. Besides: it was true.G I never considered the features named as distinguishing 'colors' in QCD as poles. Also it is new to me that the strong force has 3 poles. In my usage a 'pole' represents ONE charge of the TWO we know of - the positive and the negative. Well, it seems those non-physicists are simpleminded brutes. It felt so good to 'invent' something (for fun) beyond our grasp. What nature would that 3rd pole present in the strong force? (I ask this question, because I did not read about the 3-pole distinction of it). Cheers John M On 3/12/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as done by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned energy with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math could formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our human mind. The strong force has 3 poles. To think about them in a human fashion, we name them red, green and blue, and the theory describing the strong force is called quantum chromodynamics. It doesn't seem beyond the human mind at all. I dare say if we had a reason to have a theory with four poles, someone will come up with a way of thinking about these too. Prof Russell Standish -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 3/15/2007 11:27 AM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mar 14, 9:44 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/14/07, Kim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is conceivable that the physical world might not exist, or God not exist, or God exist but not make the physical world, but it is not conceivable that circles or integers or the UD not exist as mathematical objects. In what sense 'not conceivable'? I don't find it hard to conceive of mathematical objects not existing, given that nothing else does either. 'Nothing else' here simply but radically entails that whatever you say you can 'conceive', my response is 'not that either'. This 'nothing' precisely is the nothing from which *nothing* can come. Our own existence contingently rules it out, which is what makes it so hard to think about. Such a 'possibility', being in fact necessary in 'all possible worlds', paradoxically abolishes the conceiver at the moment of conception. David A little refresher now: On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote: Besides the question of how meaning relates to this List, the question of meaning itself can be asked at several different levels, so I'll list a few: 1) Why does the universe exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? 2) Why do human beings in general exist? 3) Why do I exist? I think we need more on question 1 Thanks for reminding us of the original questions, it's easy to get lost in a thread this long. For me, one of the more compelling reasons for entertaining some version of the idea that mathematical existence is all there is to apparent physical reality is that it answers this question: physical reality, including God (if he exists, and contra the ontological argument), is contingent; mathematical truths are necessary. It is conceivable that the physical world might not exist, or God not exist, or God exist but not make the physical world, but it is not conceivable that circles or integers or the UD not exist as mathematical objects. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Kim, thanks for your observing 'lurking' about the 'hatchet'. I do not believe that we would have buried it into each others' head, I accepted that Bruno may be irritated (by my question/remark, or by other business). To your choice of Q-#1: recalls my usual doubt in Mark's Plain English: does the why ask for originating history, or for a purpose? In the second case I count myself out. In the 1st meaning I have an answer:- I dunno - and do not think that ANY humanly conceived machine (Loeb?) could come up with an acceptable (for us) history from parts impenetrable for our views (of today).. Even if a 'supernatural and superhuman' comp can come up with something from outside our conceivable system, how could we muster some understanding for it? The best thing is: we '(mis)understand' it for an explanation that may or may not hold water. I am not in favor of human omniscience. Nice to hear from you again. John M On 3/14/07, Kim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lurking, lurking... This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions, aeons ago on my birthday last year. Thankee, Tom A little refresher now: On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote: Besides the question of how meaning relates to this List, the question of meaning itself can be asked at several different levels, so I'll list a few: 1) Why does the universe exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? 2) Why do human beings in general exist? 3) Why do I exist? The purpose of listing these three questions is not to deal with all of them on this thread necessarily, but to show that the question of the meaning of life really is connected to the universal questions that this list tries to address. One's answer to any one of these questions can affect his/her answer to the other questions. It seems that we all have to eventually come to the question of the end of our lives. (Even if immortality, quantum or other kinds, is a reality, the question of the end of our lives is a topic addressed even on this List.) So as one man on United Flight 93 said before giving his life to save others, Let's roll! Tom It was a touching moment when Bruno and John 'buried the hatchet' yesterday ;) I just want to say that this has been the most magnificent and compelling thread I have contributed nothing to that I have ever contributed nothing to nevertheless I think we need more on question 1 Questions 2 and 3 appear to have answers of sorts Kim Jones --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Russell, I apologize for my flippant quip of yesterday, it was after several hours of reading and replying internet discussion lists. Besides: it was true.G I never considered the features named as distinguishing 'colors' in QCD as poles. Also it is new to me that the strong force has 3 poles. In my usage a 'pole' represents ONE charge of the TWO we know of - the positive and the negative. Well, it seems those non-physicists are simpleminded brutes. It felt so good to 'invent' something (for fun) beyond our grasp. What nature would that 3rd pole present in the strong force? (I ask this question, because I did not read about the 3-pole distinction of it). Cheers John M On 3/12/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as done by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned energy with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math could formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our human mind. The strong force has 3 poles. To think about them in a human fashion, we name them red, green and blue, and the theory describing the strong force is called quantum chromodynamics. It doesn't seem beyond the human mind at all. I dare say if we had a reason to have a theory with four poles, someone will come up with a way of thinking about these too. Prof Russell Standish --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
My reply to the topic: The question How to calculate the Universe? by definition is equivalent to the question how to calculate Everything, including the answer to the question what is the meaning of life. It justifies our existence even if we were not to know exactly the meaning of it. :-) Inyuki http://i.tai.lt --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism. Yes, I understand. I guess I'm saying that nevertheless I can conceive of a radical negation in which even Platonic objects have no existence, conceptual or otherwise. Consequently AFAICS arguments for Platonic 'necessity' are in fact derived wholly from contingent states of affairs. David On 3/14/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 14, 9:44 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/14/07, Kim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is conceivable that the physical world might not exist, or God not exist, or God exist but not make the physical world, but it is not conceivable that circles or integers or the UD not exist as mathematical objects. In what sense 'not conceivable'? I don't find it hard to conceive of mathematical objects not existing, given that nothing else does either. 'Nothing else' here simply but radically entails that whatever you say you can 'conceive', my response is 'not that either'. This 'nothing' precisely is the nothing from which *nothing* can come. Our own existence contingently rules it out, which is what makes it so hard to think about. Such a 'possibility', being in fact necessary in 'all possible worlds', paradoxically abolishes the conceiver at the moment of conception. Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
David Nyman wrote: On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism. Yes, I understand. I guess I'm saying that nevertheless I can conceive of a radical negation in which even Platonic objects have no existence, conceptual or otherwise. It's hard to imagine what conceptual existence means anyway. Sort of like non-existent existence. It's just set of non-contradictory property statements. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 12-mars-07, à 16:58, John Mikes a écrit : Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease: The last part: If we accept Bruno's we are god I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is that, assuming comp, the first person inherits God' unanmeability. So the first person has some god attribute. you cannot infer from this that we are God!.Bruno I apologize for misunderstanding what you said. No problem. I hope I was not too much direct, but of course, misunderstandings are the very reason why we are discussing. I tried to find the meaning of the (seemingly mistyped?) unanmeability in your present post - the closest was :'untenability'. Is this what you meant? * Logicians use the term unameability in the sense of undescribable. The most typical example is the notion of truth for any sufficiently complex machine. Such machine, when consistent (not proving 0 ≠ 0) cannot define a notion of truth T(x) and prove that for each sentence x they can prove T(x) iff x. That is, no truth predicate, bearing on a machine, can be defined by that machine. Now let me return to our 'human mind. Reasonably: we are part of a world - The notion of part is misleading, both in comp and in QM. assumably a small portion only - and our mind (whatever you identify as that) is 'part of us' = included into the 'model' we may call 'humans'. Is not the model included in the mind, instead? We have certain exparience-stuff and logical thinking ways, we use that even in trying to 'understand' ideas beyond it - beyond our reach of observation. We do that, but can never be sure of doing it right. OK. In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as done by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned energy with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math could formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our human mind. (It facilitated direct mental contact, manipulation of time, overriding of materially induced space barriers, conscious machines and of course no lights-peed max.) [It was rejected from publishers both in the US and Europe on identical grounds: too much science and insufficient sex and violence] Speaking about such is different from understanding, more so from 'creating'. We would need a bootstrap process to explain our origin (existence) from within our existence. Yes. But comp science is full of possible bootstrap processes. Maybe this is my mental limitation - I have to live with it. Why? If you are really aware of a mental limitation, then you can overcome it. And - of course - I am also guilty of 'human' thinking as you charged. Well I charged you for criticising some idea by only mentionning that there are produced by human thinking. If a human (resp. lobian) really find a personal limitation, then he/she/it can go beyond, with some work. That is the nice aspect of human, and of lobian machine. Loeb created the idea of his machine. It is equipped with superhuman (-natural?) Loeb proved in 1955 that Peano Arithmetic PA has the following weird property. If PA proves that provable(p) implies p, for some proposition p, then PA proves p (Lob theorem). I call a machine, or a any chatty entity Lobian, in case it obeys Loeb theorem. You can see Lob theorem as a statement that some placebo effect could work for PA (and thus by definition on all Lobian Machine). If you convince a Lobian entity that if she ever believes that [if she believes in Santa Klaus existence implies Santa Klaus existence], then she will believe in Santa Klaus. And, of course, if the machine is correct, this will entail the existence of Santa Klaus. capabilities, all identified by a human mind, just as my 3-pole energy was. The idea of a pole is very much from within our (humanly adjusted?) worldview. If it is 2, or 3, or 1457: it is still a (humanly divised) pole. ? I am a believer of 'creativity' so I do not find 'arguing' about 'ideas' superfluous. I am not 'prejudiced' against numbers: I asked so many time to get understandable information and did not. I am agnostic, do not 'cut out' other possibilities unless I see acceptable arguments to do so. (Acceptable to me). And: you are so smart that you do not have to resort to some 'racist' hint which seems to me as an ad hominem link. OK sorry. Sometimes you give me the feeling that you know that machine cannot be the bearer of thought. Here I am again: decided so many times to keep off from arguments where the word god is involved and am bugged down into it, both with you and Danny. The choice of words should not matter, at least in principle. We should bother only on the validity of reasoning. But 'course, it is easier to say than to practice. In mnay situation, I would say the God of the machine X, is the truth *on* the
Re: The Meaning of Life
Kim Jones wrote: Lurking, lurking... This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions, aeons ago on my birthday last year. Thankee, Tom A little refresher now: On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote: Besides the question of how meaning relates to this List, the question of meaning itself can be asked at several different levels, so I'll list a few: 1) Why does the universe exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? 2) Why do human beings in general exist? 3) Why do I exist? The purpose of listing these three questions is not to deal with all of them on this thread necessarily, but to show that the question of the meaning of life really is connected to the universal questions that this list tries to address. One's answer to any one of these questions can affect his/her answer to the other questions. It seems that we all have to eventually come to the question of the end of our lives. (Even if immortality, quantum or other kinds, is a reality, the question of the end of our lives is a topic addressed even on this List.) So as one man on United Flight 93 said before giving his life to save others, Let's roll! Tom It was a touching moment when Bruno and John 'buried the hatchet' yesterday ;) I just want to say that this has been the most magnificent and compelling thread I have contributed nothing to that I have ever contributed nothing to nevertheless I think we need more on question 1 Questions 2 and 3 appear to have answers of sorts Kim Jones What kind of statement would you regard as an answer to why there is something rather than nothing? For example here are some possible answers: 1. What is there? Everything! What isn't there? Nothing! 2. Nothing is unstable (Frank Wilczek, Nobelist physics) 3. Why should Nothing be the default and Something need an explanation? 4. The universe is just Nothing rearranged (Vic Stenger, Yonatan Fishman) I think it's one of those questions that seems as if it should have answer because it is so simple and clear, but which on reflection you find isn't clear at all. What is Nothing? Can you conceive of Nothing? Is absolute Nothing a coherent concept or is Nothing just absence of matter, i.e. empty space. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mar 12, 12:49 am, Danny Mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I'll define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe. The UD contains many recursive instances of itself, and since the UD is a short program these instances should be rather common. Less common in the UD would be progams whose initial conditions were something like AI, but since all programs exist in the UD these necessarily do exist. If this AI has intelligent control over its own program code then it would have infinite computing resources made available to it by the UD. This AI might desire to explore the rest of the UD by running its own instance of it. In this way you have an entity which is capable of creating everything that exists within the UD. To be accurate, it is not really creating anything, only exploring and realizing other parts in the infinite structure of the UD. It is up to you if you wish to call such an intelligence God. If the UD is true, such an entity must exist, infact an infinite number would. To me, the best approximation to a monotheistic God would be the plentiude itself, or perhaps the set of all first person experiences that exist in the UD (or would this be the holy spirit?). To summarize, if everything possible exists then there is something out there which best appoximates anything you might imagine to be God. Does this mean it has control over the universe you are in now? It does in the sense that the universe you are in now exists simultanesouly in an infinite number of instances of the UD created by an infinite number of very different Gods. Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:33, John M a écrit : Still: human thinking. You should subscribe to some alien list, if you are annoyed by us being human. You can answer human thinking to any (human) post. So this does not convey any information, unless you explain what in our human nature prevent us to understand something typically non-human. It will be hard for you, human, to point on such a thing (actually the human thinking critics apply to your own posts). Now, I am the one in the list which says: look we can already interview non-human lobian machine. So, in a sense, I could argue that all the lobian explanation with regard to our fundamental questions are lobian thinking, and a priori, this is not human. You, among the other, should be particularly pleased by this non human intervention in the list, unless you add that whatever the lobian machine says, it is us, human who interpret it, but then, again, we, humans, could stop arguing about anything, and even argue we should not talk with non-human entity given that we will deformed, by our human-ness, all what they talk about. But then we will certainly enforced our human prejudice. My feeling, John, is that you have typically human prejudice against number and machine, 100% similar to any form of racist prejudice: oh those entity are so different from us that we should not even listen to them ... And why do you say human thinking. Why not mammal's thinking? Why not carbon type of life thinking? Why not typical descendent of bacteria prejudices ... If we accept Bruno's we are god I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is that, assuming comp, the first person inherits God' unanmeability. So the first person has some god attribute. you cannot infer from this that we are God!. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease: The last part: If we accept Bruno's we are god I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is that, assuming comp, the first person inherits God' unanmeability. So the first person has some god attribute. you cannot infer from this that we are God!.Bruno I apologize for misunderstanding what you said. I tried to find the meaning of the (seemingly mistyped?) unanmeability in your present post - the closest was :'untenability'. Is this what you meant? * Now let me return to our 'human mind. Reasonably: we are part of a world - assumably a small portion only - and our mind (whatever you identify as that) is 'part of us' = included into the 'model' we may call 'humans'. We have certain exparience-stuff and logical thinking ways, we use that even in trying to 'understand' ideas beyond it - beyond our reach of observation. We do that, but can never be sure of doing it right. In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as done by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned energy with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math could formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our human mind. (It facilitated direct mental contact, manipulation of time, overriding of materially induced space barriers, conscious machines and of course no lights-peed max.) [It was rejected from publishers both in the US and Europe on identical grounds: too much science and insufficient sex and violence] Speaking about such is different from understanding, more so from 'creating'. We would need a bootstrap process to explain our origin (existence) from within our existence. Maybe this is my mental limitation - I have to live with it. And - of course - I am also guilty of 'human' thinking as you charged. Loeb created the idea of his machine. It is equipped with superhuman (-natural?) capabilities, all identified by a human mind, just as my 3-pole energy was. The idea of a pole is very much from within our (humanly adjusted?) worldview. If it is 2, or 3, or 1457: it is still a (humanly divised) pole. I am a believer of 'creativity' so I do not find 'arguing' about 'ideas' superfluous. I am not 'prejudiced' against numbers: I asked so many time to get understandable information and did not. I am agnostic, do not 'cut out' other possibilities unless I see acceptable arguments to do so. (Acceptable to me). And: you are so smart that you do not have to resort to some 'racist' hint which seems to me as an ad hominem link. Here I am again: decided so many times to keep off from arguments where the word god is involved and am bugged down into it, both with you and Danny. I have to control my 'mouse' better. John M On 3/12/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 11-mars-07, à 17:33, John M a écrit : Still: human thinking. You should subscribe to some alien list, if you are annoyed by us being human. You can answer human thinking to any (human) post. So this does not convey any information, unless you explain what in our human nature prevent us to understand something typically non-human. It will be hard for you, human, to point on such a thing (actually the human thinking critics apply to your own posts). Now, I am the one in the list which says: look we can already interview non-human lobian machine. So, in a sense, I could argue that all the lobian explanation with regard to our fundamental questions are lobian thinking, and a priori, this is not human. You, among the other, should be particularly pleased by this non human intervention in the list, unless you add that whatever the lobian machine says, it is us, human who interpret it, but then, again, we, humans, could stop arguing about anything, and even argue we should not talk with non-human entity given that we will deformed, by our human-ness, all what they talk about. But then we will certainly enforced our human prejudice. My feeling, John, is that you have typically human prejudice against number and machine, 100% similar to any form of racist prejudice: oh those entity are so different from us that we should not even listen to them ... And why do you say human thinking. Why not mammal's thinking? Why not carbon type of life thinking? Why not typical descendent of bacteria prejudices ... If we accept Bruno's we are god I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is that, assuming comp, the first person inherits God' unanmeability. So the first person has some god attribute. you cannot infer from this that we are God!. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as done by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned energy with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math could formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our human mind. The strong force has 3 poles. To think about them in a human fashion, we name them red, green and blue, and the theory describing the strong force is called quantum chromodynamics. It doesn't seem beyond the human mind at all. I dare say if we had a reason to have a theory with four poles, someone will come up with a way of thinking about these too. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Danny's God (was: Meaning of Life)
Sorry, Danny, for my convoluted style. Also, for having missed you 'original' explanation of (your) God. I try to concentrate on SOME of the texts, it is getting too much indeed, to memorize week long postings of many.contributors.. You wrote: -- I disagree and think you misunderstood the point of my original post. I don't really have time to get into it in detail now, but I was really trying to get outside of any faith-based aspect of the question. Perhaps the word God should not be used. The question I guess boiled down to its essence is can you have an ensemble theory of any kind (everything exists) that does not end up having intelligence playing an interesting role in the process. For future reference, when I refer to God in a post I will not be referring to anything relating to personal relationships (in the general understood sense that I think you meant) or hallucinations, but will be referring very specifically to an entity capable of emulating or creating in one manner or another the universe we observe, either from a 3rd person viewpoint or from the 1st person viewpoint. The question is can you have ensemble theories without having these entities, and if so, what assumptions do you have to make about our underlying reality (or the ensemble theory) to avoid them. I don't see those types of questions as being exclusive of some type of tentative scientific scrutiny, but I guess you do or perhaps you thought I meant something else when I said God (despite my defining the term in the original post). It may be that I just totally don't understand you John. To be honest I more than occasionally have a difficult time understanding what you are conveying in your posts. Danny -- GOD is a historically overloaded word. Connotations are hard to eliminate. I cannot 'free' the word from a smell of the burnt flesh of witches, or the thousands of cadavers around Darfur, etc. - all in that 'name'. Is there a chance to invent a different group of letters for a different connotation? If we learn your identification, we can learn the word for it as well. The 'faith-based' aspect is not a privilege of 'godly' connotations. it is also part of our mindset, although it irritates some if I assign it to 'science' as well. (Here comes the question WHAT science? Well: THEIRS. - 'Yours ad 'ours' is free, clean cut and objective. I let it go now HOW do we observe the universe? and 'what' is 'underlying' our image of it? Please, let me go free from my mistake to speak into the 'godly' topic what I try to avoid most of the time. I used to be an altar-boy. (Was not abused). Best regards John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Thanks, Russell, 4 Poles may play bridge. John - Original Message - From: Russell Standish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:19 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as done by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned energy with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math could formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our human mind. The strong force has 3 poles. To think about them in a human fashion, we name them red, green and blue, and the theory describing the strong force is called quantum chromodynamics. It doesn't seem beyond the human mind at all. I dare say if we had a reason to have a theory with four poles, someone will come up with a way of thinking about these too. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date: 3/11/2007 9:27 AM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it provides. I don't like simply saying That isn't so, but nobody can agree on what it provides, referring to the source of ultimate meaning, I was referring to the sufficient source of *morality*. Such a source should be able to provide an unambiguous standard that is so clear everyone agrees - if it existed. is not true. In fact it's very remarkable the consistency, across all kinds of cultures, the basic beliefs of truly normative morality, evidence for their being a source which cannot be explained through closed science alone. Why not? Why isn't Darwin's or Scott Atran's or Richard Dawkin's a *possible* explanation. And how is God did it an explanation of anything? It's just a form of words so ambiguous as to be virtually empty. God meant different things to the crusaders and the 9/11 jihadists, to the Aztecs and the Conquistadores, to the Nazi's and the Jews. So just because they use the same word doesn't mean they are referring to the same thing. We've talked about this before. Darwin cannot explain giving without expecting to receive. Where do you get this nonsense?? Do you just make it up as you need it? No parent expects to receive anything but satisfaction from raising their children - as perfectly well explained by Darwin. And how dare you assert that money I sent to Katrina victims was simply calculated to get something back. There are many possible Darwinian explanations for feelings of altruism; but apparently you haven't bothered to find them. Actually that's true love. Only some people believe that God did that. But many other people somehow see the goodness of it. And there is nothing closed about science. Science is perfectly open to the existence of whatever you can demonstrate. People have tried to show that the God who answers prayers exists and they fail. But they could have succeeded; nothing about science prevented their success. They failed because there is no such God. On your first sentence, it also can be said of science that a lot of evil has come that wouldn't have come (at least in the forms it has) if it weren't for advances of science. Quite true. Science helps technology and technology provides power and power can be applied for good and ill. And I'm not knocking down science as being invalid in its own right. I'm just making the point that your statement does not address *root* cause any more than blaming science. But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented any argument for the existence of this ultimate or root. You merely refer to closed science as though that proved something - but it begs the question. You have to show there is something outside science in order to know that it is closed; not just that there is something science has not explained, there's lots of that, but something that science cannot, in-principle explain. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 10, 2:34 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is what I mean by being in charge of it. The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know that you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant place full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a conscious entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle = observed reality). Stathis Papaioannou Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is only half of the equation of the meaning of life. Modern science is only in the left side of the brain of humanity. Do you agree then that science can in principle explain observed reality, to the point where we might be able to assemble a conscious human being from the appropriate chemicals? Stathis Papaioannou If it is true that science is looking at only half of humanity's brain, do you think that science will be able to build a single brain that would truly be part of humanity? I believe that understanding consciousness is at the core of understanding everything. I believe that at the core of consciousness is the question and answer of meaning, goodness, creativity and love. Modern reductionist science that you allude to tries it backwards: try to explain everything in terms of mathematical physics from the bottom up (meaning is only mechanical relationships), then we will understand consciousness. With this bottom-up approach, understanding consciousness seems to be always beyond our reach. Getting back to the plenitude, it seems that the many-worlds interpretation takes bottom-up to the extreme and says, OK we can't figure out how the good stuff happens, so let's just say that everything happens. So this is supposed to take the worship and awe out of it all: It's not a big deal that we are here. We just are, so let's just get on with it and mechanically follow our local wants. There isn't any exciting broadsweeping love story to the universe that has anything to do with our consciousness. We are just an odd very^very rare string of bits in a random meaningless sea. When we feel that we want to talk to someone out there, it is just a mistake. Sorry for bothering you all. I'll let you get back to your local bit flipping ;) Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
I agree that there is in a sense something mysterious about consciousness, but I think that assembling a human being out of the appropriate chemicals would necessarily reproduce this mysterious element as well. I also believe that a human with a computer analogue of a brain would be conscious, unless it turns out that there is something fundamentally non-computational about the brain, which would mean that there is something fundamentally non-computational about chemistry. As for these ideas taking the worship and awe out of it all, I am reminded of the Church's reaction to Copernicus and Galileo. Do you think the revelation that the Earth orbits the Sun had a negative impact on society? Even if it did, do you think it should have been suppressed? I don't see the multiverse idea as essentially different to an extension of the Copernican principle, and I can't understand why even a theist would limit God and insist that he wouldn't have done it this way. Stathis Papaioannou On 3/11/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 10, 2:34 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is what I mean by being in charge of it. The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know that you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant place full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a conscious entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle = observed reality). Stathis Papaioannou Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is only half of the equation of the meaning of life. Modern science is only in the left side of the brain of humanity. Do you agree then that science can in principle explain observed reality, to the point where we might be able to assemble a conscious human being from the appropriate chemicals? Stathis Papaioannou If it is true that science is looking at only half of humanity's brain, do you think that science will be able to build a single brain that would truly be part of humanity? I believe that understanding consciousness is at the core of understanding everything. I believe that at the core of consciousness is the question and answer of meaning, goodness, creativity and love. Modern reductionist science that you allude to tries it backwards: try to explain everything in terms of mathematical physics from the bottom up (meaning is only mechanical relationships), then we will understand consciousness. With this bottom-up approach, understanding consciousness seems to be always beyond our reach. Getting back to the plenitude, it seems that the many-worlds interpretation takes bottom-up to the extreme and says, OK we can't figure out how the good stuff happens, so let's just say that everything happens. So this is supposed to take the worship and awe out of it all: It's not a big deal that we are here. We just are, so let's just get on with it and mechanically follow our local wants. There isn't any exciting broadsweeping love story to the universe that has anything to do with our consciousness. We are just an odd very^very rare string of bits in a random meaningless sea. When we feel that we want to talk to someone out there, it is just a mistake. Sorry for bothering you all. I'll let you get back to your local bit flipping ;) Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
Le 11-mars-07, à 09:40, Tom Caylor wrote in part: Getting back to the plenitude, it seems that the many-worlds interpretation takes bottom-up to the extreme and says, OK we can't figure out how the good stuff happens, so let's just say that everything happens. So this is supposed to take the worship and awe out of it all: It's not a big deal that we are here. We just are, so let's just get on with it and mechanically follow our local wants. Some are using the many-worlds idea like that, but with reasonable hypotheses like comp and /or the QM hypo, we already know that what matter are the relations between the worlds/OM. With comp the multi-OM is structured canonically by each choice of point of views. Even if this is not the correct theory, it is enough to make your inference not valid. QM can be used instead. In particular ultimate meaning is not excluded at all, although (with comp) what is excluded is that the ultimate meaning can be written on a finite piece of paper. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Brunos UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question Ill define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe. God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself? To avoid God are we back to some kind of primitive physical idea that there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit intelligence from emulating it? We cannot, knowingly, emulate a first person in any third person way. For example we can emulate perfectly both the comp and the quantum indeterminacy .. up to the measurement procedure, which can still be emulate but only by emulating the observer himself. But this can be done with any classical or quantum universal machine, but then only serendipitously. I prefer translate the primitive physical idea as the idea that there is a primitive physical world which is responsible for appearances. But this already contradict the comp hypothesis (for example by the UDA argument, but you can also look at Plotinus or Proclus). That it is impossible even in theory to build a kind of universal quantum constructor? It is impossible to build a universal *prover* or knower. But we can build universal classical or quantum constructor or computer. Or is the idea one that physics will forever prohibit intelligence from acquiring the resources necessary to achieve such a feat? Neither math nor physics prohibit this. Math only prohibit universal machine prover or knower. How can you have everything, but not have something capable of creating everything? If you assume for instance the UD in the plenitude (no intelligent action required), doesnt it eventually describe intelligence with access to infinite or near infinite resources capable of creating an artificial UD? Sure. But why? The UD is needed in an argument. Real platonic UDs are enough for the rest. Note that this can and should be tested. If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over semantics. You are quite fuzzy about God, and your basic assumptions. Do you assume a *primitive* physical universe? Ill be happy to hear where Im wrong on all this. Please be kind, Ive been away from these sorts of discussions for quite a while! No problem, but you could be clearer about your assumption, or I am perhaps missing something. Bruno Danny Mayes On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the first place (other than the so-called irrefutable first person: It's all about me). Why should there be? Values are relative to people. Love is our word. We invented it to describe what we feel. Having some Platonic form of LOVE out there is superfluous. You're just making up a requirement for the really real ding-an-sich so that you can say God provides it. You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Stathis Papaioannou http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Danny wrote: To avoid God are we back to some kind of primitive physical idea that there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit intelligence from emulating it? JM: I suppose 'our intelligence' is part of 'us' and we are part of the nature of reality (whatever that may be, god, or existence, or...). My grandparents had a cellar with a trap door to descend, a maid-girl came crying that the door does not open. As it turned out: she was standing on it when trying to lift it (parable for us understanding 'all' we are part of). Bruno asked: God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself? JM: whatever WE decide is our restrictive opinion. Bruno accepted that 'we' are 'god' so mu answer to the question is: NO, I as god do not. I consider QM a product of the product (etc) of that 'reality' we try to assign to it. (Sorry,Bruno, I do not start from 'numbers' to build up the existence. So far they stayed unidentified/able upon the many questions I (and others) asked. They still seem to be - as Bohm said - products of the human thinking. (See above: product of the product of the pr...etc.) Bruno: It is impossible to build a universal *prover* or knower. But we can build universal classical or quantum constructor or computer. JM: Build, or think about it? (Alice, the builder?) Bruno: ...I prefer translate the primitive physical idea as the idea that there is a primitive physical world which is responsible for appearances. JM: I like the translation into idea. It implies that an 'idea' cannot be responsible for appearances we think to receive in our mind. Appearances are just that. Our - if you prefer - mind's interpretation of 'something' - reality. Still: human thinking. Question: which one of us (humans) CAN think with anything else than a human mind? If we accept Bruno's we are god then it is a human god. Not capable of 'building' the existence from the existing existence. (Cf: trapdoor) Danny: ...If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over semantics. JM: If the answer is 'no' or anything, it IS as well. If somebody 'believes' in a personal relationship with any god-phantom halucination based on ANY selective hearsay assumption, you cannot make him accept (substitute) a scientific' scrutiny. (I may elaborate on selective, hearsay, and assumption, if I must). * I would be happy to see an expansion of what kind of assumption Bruno was mentioning in the last sentence. John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I'll define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe. God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself? To avoid God are we back to some kind of primitive physical idea that there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit intelligence from emulating it? We cannot, knowingly, emulate a first person in any third person way. For example we can emulate perfectly both the comp and the quantum indeterminacy .. up to the measurement procedure, which can still be emulate but only by emulating the observer himself. But this can be done with any classical or quantum universal machine, but then only serendipitously. I prefer translate the primitive physical idea as the idea that there is a primitive physical world which is responsible for appearances. But this already contradict the comp hypothesis (for example by the UDA argument, but you can also look at Plotinus or Proclus). That it is impossible even in theory to build a kind of universal quantum constructor? It is impossible to build a universal *prover* or knower. But we can build universal classical or quantum constructor or computer. Or is the idea one that physics will forever prohibit intelligence from acquiring the resources necessary to achieve such a feat? Neither math nor physics prohibit this. Math only prohibit universal machine prover or knower. How can you have everything, but not have something capable of creating everything? If you assume for instance the UD in the plenitude (no intelligent action required), doesn't it eventually describe intelligence with access to infinite or near infinite resources capable of creating an artificial UD? Sure. But why? The UD is needed in an argument. Real platonic UDs are enough for the rest. Note that this can and should be tested. If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over
RE: The Meaning of Life
Danny wrote: To avoid God are we back to some kind of primitive physical idea that there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit intelligence from emulating it? JM: I suppose 'our intelligence' is part of 'us' and we are part of the nature of reality (whatever that may be, god, or existence, or...). My grandparents had a cellar with a trap door to descend, a maid-girl came crying that the door does not open. As it turned out: she was standing on it when trying to lift it (parable for us understanding 'all' we are part of). Bruno asked: God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself? JM: whatever WE decide is our restrictive opinion. Bruno accepted that 'we' are 'god' so mu answer to the question is: NO, I as god do not. I consider QM a product of the product (etc) of that 'reality' we try to assign to it. (Sorry,Bruno, I do not start from 'numbers' to build up the existence. So far they stayed unidentified/able upon the many questions I (and others) asked. They still seem to be - as Bohm said - products of the human thinking. (See above: product of the product of the pr...etc.) I think I agree with you on this. However, numbers are ultimately representations of information. And it seems possible, perhaps probable, that everything can be reduced to information. As with most other things, maybe it is just a matter of perspective. Bruno: It is impossible to build a universal *prover* or knower. But we can build universal classical or quantum constructor or computer. JM: Build, or think about it? (Alice, the builder?) Bruno: ...I prefer translate the primitive physical idea as the idea that there is a primitive physical world which is responsible for appearances. JM: I like the translation into idea. It implies that an 'idea' cannot be responsible for appearances we think to receive in our mind. Appearances are just that. Our - if you prefer - mind's interpretation of 'something' - reality. Still: human thinking. Question: which one of us (humans) CAN think with anything else than a human mind? If we accept Bruno's we are god then it is a human god. Not capable of 'building' the existence from the existing existence. (Cf: trapdoor) Danny: ...If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over semantics. JM: If the answer is 'no' or anything, it IS as well. If somebody 'believes' in a personal relationship with any god-phantom halucination based on ANY selective hearsay assumption, you cannot make him accept (substitute) a scientific' scrutiny. (I may elaborate on selective, hearsay, and assumption, if I must). I disagree and think you misunderstood the point of my original post. I dont really have time to get into it in detail now, but I was really trying to get outside of any faith-based aspect of the question. Perhaps the word God should not be used. The question I guess boiled down to its essence is can you have an ensemble theory of any kind (everything exists) that does not end up having intelligence playing an interesting role in the process. For future reference, when I refer to God in a post I will not be referring to anything relating to personal relationships (in the general understood sense that I think you meant) or hallucinations, but will be referring very specifically to an entity capable of emulating or creating in one manner or another the universe we observe, either from a 3rd person viewpoint or from the 1st person viewpoint. The question is can you have ensemble theories without having these entities, and if so, what assumptions do you have to make about our underlying reality (or the ensemble theory) to avoid them. I dont see those types of questions as being exclusive of some type of tentative scientific scrutiny, but I guess you do or perhaps you thought I meant something else when I said God (despite my defining the term in the original post). It may be that I just totally dont understand you John. To be honest I more than occasionally have a difficult time understanding what you are conveying in your posts. Danny * I would be happy to see an expansion of what kind of assumption Bruno was mentioning in the last sentence. John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Brunos UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question Ill define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe. God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself? To avoid God are we back to some kind
RE: The Meaning of Life
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Brunos UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question Ill define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe. God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself? Bruno, as a starting point, I concede that discussion of things occurring outside the quantum-mechanical multiverse is metaphysical. Certainly other realities can be discussed (Tegmark, and for that matter the UD in the plenitude), but for the purposes of the question I was specifically limiting the subject to the creation of the type of universe we observe, because we are having to work off the laws of physics we know to attempt and answer the question, and the issue is the creation of what we observe, not other realities. So its not that God has to choose QM universes, its that Im only interested in whether an entity capable of creating QM universes (whatever you call it) is an inevitable result of an assumed ensemble theory. Of course, as I described in the original post, the entity does not have to actually create QM universes necessarily. It would achieve the same effect as to observers if it simply understood how to emulate brain states of observers that existed in QM universes. To avoid God are we back to some kind of primitive physical idea that there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit intelligence from emulating it? We cannot, knowingly, emulate a first person in any third person way. For example we can emulate perfectly both the comp and the quantum indeterminacy .. up to the measurement procedure, which can still be emulate but only by emulating the observer himself. But this can be done with any classical or quantum universal machine, but then only serendipitously. I prefer translate the primitive physical idea as the idea that there is a primitive physical world which is responsible for appearances. But this already contradict the comp hypothesis (for example by the UDA argument, but you can also look at Plotinus or Proclus). That it is impossible even in theory to build a kind of universal quantum constructor? It is impossible to build a universal *prover* or knower. But we can build universal classical or quantum constructor or computer. Or is the idea one that physics will forever prohibit intelligence from acquiring the resources necessary to achieve such a feat? Neither math nor physics prohibit this. Math only prohibit universal machine prover or knower. How can you have everything, but not have something capable of creating everything? If you assume for instance the UD in the plenitude (no intelligent action required), doesnt it eventually describe intelligence with access to infinite or near infinite resources capable of creating an artificial UD? Sure. But why? The UD is needed in an argument. Real platonic UDs are enough for the rest. Note that this can and should be tested. If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over semantics. You are quite fuzzy about God, and your basic assumptions. Do you assume a *primitive* physical universe? Ill be happy to hear where Im wrong on all this. Please be kind, Ive been away from these sorts of discussions for quite a while! No problem, but you could be clearer about your assumption, or I am perhaps missing something. Thanks for your responses Bruno, Ill respond as to my assumptions when I have more time. Danny Bruno Danny Mayes On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the first place (other than the so-called irrefutable first person: It's all about me). Why should there be? Values are relative to people. Love is our word. We invented it to describe what we feel. Having some Platonic form of LOVE out there is superfluous. You're just making up a requirement for the really real ding-an-sich so that you can say God provides it. You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Stathis Papaioannou http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems that you are missing my point. I will better explain my point about the whole control loop. Personal tastes and second order feelings about the tastes are all on the *input* side of our system of consciousness. But the input is not the whole system. Instead of saying are personal feelings sufficient as the total input into our decision making system? I should have said are personal feelings (and other interpretations of inputs) sufficient to make up our decision making system, actually our whole system of consciousness? Apparently they are, since that is what in fact happens. Here a diagram would be useful. The reductionist tendency seems to be to lump all of consciousness into the input interpretting box and explain it in terms of smaller parts making up an autonomous machine. Hence, now that it is all explained and we are a machine, there is no room for real morality and we can do whatever we want. (I think I heard an Amen! from Brent.) That's fine for those of us who are older and have one foot still back in the days when our parents believed in something that was based on ultimate meaning and reality. Hence we know what we want. But what about the future generations? The big question for them is, What are we supposed to want? We answer, Whatever you want! See the circularity? By lumping everything into the input interpretting box and explaining it, we have left the output creating box totally undefined. The nobility of humanity is not in how to interpret things alone, but in creating things. If we are trying to eliminate any normative thinking about this creating ability, we have left the creating ability to atrophy without guidance. Freedom must be guided by form, on purpose, in a meaningful way. Most people in the world behave as if there were an ultimate morality, even though logically they might know that there isn't. I think this true even of those with religious beliefs: murder is bad because it's bad, not because it confirms in the Bible that it's bad. This strong sense that there is something to moral behaviour besides evolutionary expediency is what I called a second order feeling, and its utility is that it makes it difficult for us to shrug off morality and do whatever we want. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is what I mean by being in charge of it. The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know that you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant place full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a conscious entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle = observed reality). Stathis Papaioannou Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is only half of the equation of the meaning of life. Modern science is only in the left side of the brain of humanity. Do you agree then that science can in principle explain observed reality, to the point where we might be able to assemble a conscious human being from the appropriate chemicals? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 10-mars-07, à 04:30, Tom Caylor a écrit : Here a diagram would be useful. The reductionist tendency seems to be to lump all of consciousness into the input interpretting box and explain it in terms of smaller parts making up an autonomous machine. Hence, now that it is all explained and we are a machine, there is no room for real morality and we can do whatever we want. (I think I heard an Amen! from Brent.) This is a good description of comp before Gödel and Church's thesis. After, comp makes such interpretations provably wrong or inconsistent. To understand comp + Gödel forces us toward more modesty, including the modesty in front on any self-referentially correct (by constuction) universal machine or entity. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
Le 10-mars-07, à 04:59, Tom Caylor a écrit : Modern science is only in the left side of the brain of humanity. Unlike greek science, if you look carefully. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 10-mars-07, à 09:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Most people in the world behave as if there were an ultimate morality, even though logically they might know that there isn't. Come on, come on, come on com, I think this true even of those with religious beliefs: murder is bad because it's bad, ? not because it confirms in the Bible that it's bad. Certainly! This strong sense that there is something to moral behaviour besides evolutionary expediency is what I called a second order feeling, and its utility is that it makes it difficult for us to shrug off morality and do whatever we want. All right! So there could be an ultimate morality (making bad bad!), it is just that there if there is one, then there is no third person normative theory of it. But, with comp, there is a (machine's) metatheory saying exactly that, that ultimate morality is not normatively describable, if that exists. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [SPAM] Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
Tom, is it not a simple fact, surely, that *meaning*, for a creature with the wherewithal to worry about it, is fundamentally the recognition of relationships amongst the creatures and things perceived in the world, including oneself, and relating these to oneself? Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Tom Caylor wrote: On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is what I mean by being in charge of it. The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know that you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant place full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a conscious entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle = observed reality). Stathis Papaioannou Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is only half of the equation of the meaning of life. Modern science is only in the left side of the brain of humanity. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Actually if all we're talking about is first-person experience and personal tastes, then there would be cause for alarm if someone is claiming that there's some normative rules governing them. I agree: How could any such normative rules ever be verified as being the right way of interpreting things? Not! This is not what I am talking about. You need to look at the *whole* control loop in order to be able to talk about sharable 3rd person meaning. Personal feelings of oo that's good or bleah are fine for what they are, but are they sufficient as the total input into our decision making system? Without real morality the answer *must* be yes. As in Russell Standish's post, the answer *must* be that whatever I *happen* (for no reason that I need to worry about) to feel is good stuff, is good stuff. Marquis de Sade with no escape. It's not just personal tastes, but also second order feelings about the tastes. Consider the importance attached to the Japanese tea ceremony, for example. If there is a strong feeling in the tea ceremony participant that they are not just engaging in a cultural quirk but doing something of profound significance, this does not mean there is a supernatural source for this significance. Psychological factors are necessary and sufficient to explain it, and to explain morality as well. Stathis Papaioannou It seems that you are missing my point. I will better explain my point about the whole control loop. Personal tastes and second order feelings about the tastes are all on the *input* side of our system of consciousness. But the input is not the whole system. Instead of saying are personal feelings sufficient as the total input into our decision making system? I should have said are personal feelings (and other interpretations of inputs) sufficient to make up our decision making system, actually our whole system of consciousness? Here a diagram would be useful. The reductionist tendency seems to be to lump all of consciousness into the input interpretting box and explain it in terms of smaller parts making up an autonomous machine. Hence, now that it is all explained and we are a machine, there is no room for real morality and we can do whatever we want. (I think I heard an Amen! from Brent.) That's fine for those of us who are older and have one foot still back in the days when our parents believed in something that was based on ultimate meaning and reality. Hence we know what we want. But what about the future generations? The big question for them is, What are we supposed to want? We answer, Whatever you want! See the circularity? By lumping everything into the input interpretting box and explaining it, we have left the output creating box totally undefined. The nobility of humanity is not in how to interpret things alone, but in creating things. If we are trying to eliminate any normative thinking about this creating ability, we have left the creating ability to atrophy without guidance. Freedom must be guided by form, on purpose, in a meaningful way. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is what I mean by being in charge of it. The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know that you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant place full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a conscious entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle = observed reality). Stathis Papaioannou Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is only half of the equation of the meaning of life. Modern science is only in the left side of the brain of humanity. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Actually if all we're talking about is first-person experience and personal tastes, then there would be cause for alarm if someone is claiming that there's some normative rules governing them. I agree: How could any such normative rules ever be verified as being the right way of interpreting things? Not! This is not what I am talking about. You need to look at the *whole* control loop in order to be able to talk about sharable 3rd person meaning. Personal feelings of oo that's good or bleah are fine for what they are, but are they sufficient as the total input into our decision making system? Without real morality the answer *must* be yes. As in Russell Standish's post, the answer *must* be that whatever I *happen* (for no reason that I need to worry about) to feel is good stuff, is good stuff. Marquis de Sade with no escape. It's not just personal tastes, but also second order feelings about the tastes. Consider the importance attached to the Japanese tea ceremony, for example. If there is a strong feeling in the tea ceremony participant that they are not just engaging in a cultural quirk but doing something of profound significance, this does not mean there is a supernatural source for this significance. Psychological factors are necessary and sufficient to explain it, and to explain morality as well. Stathis Papaioannou It seems that you are missing my point. I will better explain my point about the whole control loop. Personal tastes and second order feelings about the tastes are all on the *input* side of our system of consciousness. But the input is not the whole system. Instead of saying are personal feelings sufficient as the total input into our decision making system? I should have said are personal feelings (and other interpretations of inputs) sufficient to make up our decision making system, actually our whole system of consciousness? Here a diagram would be useful. The reductionist tendency seems to be to lump all of consciousness into the input interpretting box and explain it in terms of smaller parts making up an autonomous machine. Hence, now that it is all explained and we are a machine, there is no room for real morality and we can do whatever we want. (I think I heard an Amen! from Brent.) That's fine for those of us who are older and have one foot still back in the days when our parents believed in something that was based on ultimate meaning and reality. Hence we know what we want. But what about the future generations? The big question for them is, What are we supposed to want? Wrong question. The question is what do you want? What's going to be a life well lived? What epitaph do you want on your tombstone? We answer, Whatever you want! See the circularity? Yes - you're going around in circles because you think you need ultimate purpose to have any purpose at all. By lumping everything into the input interpretting box and explaining it, we have left the output creating box totally undefined. No, I want to create things. I get a lot my satisfaction in life by creating things. It's part of what I want. Brent Meeker My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can. Frank Zappa --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the first place (other than the so-called irrefutable first person: It's all about me). Why should there be? Values are relative to people. Love is our word. We invented it to describe what we feel. Having some Platonic form of LOVE out there is superfluous. You're just making up a requirement for the really real ding-an-sich so that you can say God provides it. You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Stathis Papaioannou I hope that didn't come across as facetious, Tom. These are serious questions and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with an intelligent and scientifically well-informed theist. Stathis Actually if all we're talking about is first-person experience and personal tastes, then there would be cause for alarm if someone is claiming that there's some normative rules governing them. I agree: How could any such normative rules ever be verified as being the right way of interpreting things? Not! This is not what I am talking about. You need to look at the *whole* control loop in order to be able to talk about sharable 3rd person meaning. Personal feelings of oo that's good or bleah are fine for what they are, but are they sufficient as the total input into our decision making system? Without real morality the answer *must* be yes. As in Russell Standish's post, the answer *must* be that whatever I *happen* (for no reason that I need to worry about) to feel is good stuff, is good stuff. Marquis de Sade with no escape. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Actually if all we're talking about is first-person experience and personal tastes, then there would be cause for alarm if someone is claiming that there's some normative rules governing them. I agree: How could any such normative rules ever be verified as being the right way of interpreting things? Not! This is not what I am talking about. You need to look at the *whole* control loop in order to be able to talk about sharable 3rd person meaning. Personal feelings of oo that's good or bleah are fine for what they are, but are they sufficient as the total input into our decision making system? Without real morality the answer *must* be yes. As in Russell Standish's post, the answer *must* be that whatever I *happen* (for no reason that I need to worry about) to feel is good stuff, is good stuff. Marquis de Sade with no escape. It's not just personal tastes, but also second order feelings about the tastes. Consider the importance attached to the Japanese tea ceremony, for example. If there is a strong feeling in the tea ceremony participant that they are not just engaging in a cultural quirk but doing something of profound significance, this does not mean there is a supernatural source for this significance. Psychological factors are necessary and sufficient to explain it, and to explain morality as well. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is what I mean by being in charge of it. The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know that you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant place full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a conscious entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle = observed reality). Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the first place (other than the so-called irrefutable first person: It's all about me). Why should there be? Values are relative to people. Love is our word. We invented it to describe what we feel. Having some Platonic form of LOVE out there is superfluous. You're just making up a requirement for the really real ding-an-sich so that you can say God provides it. You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the first place (other than the so-called irrefutable first person: It's all about me). Why should there be? Values are relative to people. Love is our word. We invented it to describe what we feel. Having some Platonic form of LOVE out there is superfluous. You're just making up a requirement for the really real ding-an-sich so that you can say God provides it. You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Stathis Papaioannou I hope that didn't come across as facetious, Tom. These are serious questions and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with an intelligent and scientifically well-informed theist. Stathis --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: The Meaning of Life
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I'll define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe. To avoid God are we back to some kind of primitive physical idea that there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit intelligence from emulating it? That it is impossible even in theory to build a kind of universal quantum constructor? Or is the idea one that physics will forever prohibit intelligence from acquiring the resources necessary to achieve such a feat? How can you have everything, but not have something capable of creating everything? If you assume for instance the UD in the plenitude (no intelligent action required), doesn't it eventually describe intelligence with access to infinite or near infinite resources capable of creating an artificial UD? If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over semantics. I'll be happy to hear where I'm wrong on all this. Please be kind, I've been away from these sorts of discussions for quite a while! Danny Mayes On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the first place (other than the so-called irrefutable first person: It's all about me). Why should there be? Values are relative to people. Love is our word. We invented it to describe what we feel. Having some Platonic form of LOVE out there is superfluous. You're just making up a requirement for the really real ding-an-sich so that you can say God provides it. You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over semantics. Danny Mayes A *lot* of the debate over God seems to be a silly argument over semantics. When people ask me if I believe in God, I sometimes ask What precisely do you mean by 'God'?. But only if I'm spoiling for an argument. Otherwise I'll just say something like Not the Christian God, or mind your own business... Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 3/8/07, Danny Mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I'll define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe. To avoid God are we back to some kind of primitive physical idea that there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit intelligence from emulating it? That it is impossible even in theory to build a kind of universal quantum constructor? Or is the idea one that physics will forever prohibit intelligence from acquiring the resources necessary to achieve such a feat? How can you have everything, but not have something capable of creating everything? If you assume for instance the UD in the plenitude (no intelligent action required), doesn't it eventually describe intelligence with access to infinite or near infinite resources capable of creating an artificial UD? If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over semantics. I'll be happy to hear where I'm wrong on all this. Please be kind, I've been away from these sorts of discussions for quite a while! You could have what Russell Standish called a demigod, creating a copy of every physical structure in the Plenitude but powerless, even if he were a supernatural being separate from the Plenitude (i.e. not just arising as a consequence of the many worlds), as far as creating, destroying or changing the Plenitude goes. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 5, 4:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). Your proposal totally erases God from the picture (which is precisely what you want to do, so it is successful, in your view). This leaves the original problem as I've explained: The picture (Everything) is totally blank to begin with. No doubt you will say that the plenitude is not a person and cannot provide love, morality and meaning. Let's assume this is true for the sake of the discussion, and let's assume that there is a separate non-plenitude God who creates a real world imbued with these gifts. But even God can't destroy mathematics, so the plenitude will give rise to creatures in parallel with God's real world. These simulated creatures will not know they are simulated and will not know that there is no overseeing God, no ultimate meaning etc.: they will go about their business in a delusional state just as if they were in the real world. The question is, how can I tell whether I am in the real world or in the godless (or deistic, or pantheistic) plenitude? Stathis Papaioannou You are hypothetically putting God in charge of only part of reality. The point is, God is not in charge of mathematics, even though he might know all mathematics and have chosen the mathematical laws that physical reality will follow. If you accept some version of comp, conscious beings will arise who are beyond his control. But, I suppose, you could avoid all this by saying that only beings specially imbued with souls can be conscious. Stathis Papaioannou You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the meaning of possible for now), or God is in charge of (but not IS) only part of the plenitude. What about God being in charge of Everything (rather like Jason's Everything is in the mind of God)? Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mar 1, 8:17 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a process of growth just like any relationship), so that we aren't just cranking out IF/THEN inferences like a machine, but the Holy Spirit (analogous to All Soul in Bruno/Plotinus term) affirms with our spirit that a certain response or initiative in the current situation is in accord with the Creator's personal character. Thus, there is only so much convincing that one can do in a forum like this. The rest requires actually being shown God's love in a tangible way by another person. Then it is still up to each of us to decide how we respond. OK, but if we skip the question of how we know that God wants us to act in a particular (moral) way, as well as the question of why we should listen to him, we still have the Euthyphro dilemma, as raised by Brent:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma ... I insist that I am not going down the ontological argument path. If you want to categorize my argument from meaning, perhaps it is closest to Kant's argument from morality. In a scientific system, perhaps this is branded as wishful thinking, but I am also insisting that science's basis (anything's basis actually), such as fundamentality, generality, beauty, introspection is also mystical wishful thinking, and naturality is circular, and reproducibility is circular in that its pragmatism begs the question of meaning (IF you want to do this, THEN reproducible experiments have shown that you should do such and such). But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, who doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, containing these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If you're happy to say that God breaks the circularity, why include this extra layer of complication instead of stopping at the universe? Stathis Papaioannou Because the universe doesn't break the circularity (and a plenitude of universes doesn't either for that matter). By the way, I'm not using the moral argument as a proof of the existence of God in the sense of a conclusion inside a closed system of logic. I'm arguing that the personal God of love is the only possible truly sufficient source for real morality and ultimate meaning. A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it provides. I don't like simply saying That isn't so, but nobody can agree on what it provides, referring to the source of ultimate meaning, is not true. In fact it's very remarkable the consistency, across all kinds of cultures, the basic beliefs of truly normative morality, evidence for their being a source which cannot be explained through closed science alone. On your first sentence, it also can be said of science that a lot of evil has come that wouldn't have come (at least in the forms it has) if it weren't for advances of science. And I'm not knocking down science as being invalid in its own right. I'm just making the point that your statement does not address *root* cause any more than blaming science. Conversely, people would still do evil things no matter what the form of their belief in ultimate reality takes. We all (except for nihilists) believe in some form of ultimate reality. I have a feeling that you'll always just come back with another short quip like that. Brent Meeker Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. --- Bertrand Russell- I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the first place (other than the so-called irrefutable first person: It's all about me). I've talked about that plenty already. I just wanted to make the point about unendingness, which is a common caricature of what belief in God is all about (i.e. It's all about me :). Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote: You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the meaning of possible for now), or God is in charge of (but not IS) only part of the plenitude. What about God being in charge of Everything (rather like Jason's Everything is in the mind of God)? Tom There is nothing to be charge of with respect to the whole Plenitude. Everything happens in the plenitude - there's nothing you, God or anyone else can do about it. Only parts of the Plenitude have the possibility of someone being able to change things. This is one of the themes of my book. As I put it: ``Demigods yes, but is there room for God?'' Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it provides. I don't like simply saying That isn't so, but nobody can agree on what it provides, referring to the source of ultimate meaning, I was referring to the sufficient source of *morality*. Such a source should be able to provide an unambiguous standard that is so clear everyone agrees - if it existed. is not true. In fact it's very remarkable the consistency, across all kinds of cultures, the basic beliefs of truly normative morality, evidence for their being a source which cannot be explained through closed science alone. Why not? Why isn't Darwin's or Scott Atran's or Richard Dawkin's a *possible* explanation. And how is God did it an explanation of anything? It's just a form of words so ambiguous as to be virtually empty. God meant different things to the crusaders and the 9/11 jihadists, to the Aztecs and the Conquistadores, to the Nazi's and the Jews. So just because they use the same word doesn't mean they are referring to the same thing. We've talked about this before. Darwin cannot explain giving without expecting to receive. Actually that's true love. Only some people believe that God did that. But many other people somehow see the goodness of it. And there is nothing closed about science. Science is perfectly open to the existence of whatever you can demonstrate. People have tried to show that the God who answers prayers exists and they fail. But they could have succeeded; nothing about science prevented their success. They failed because there is no such God. On your first sentence, it also can be said of science that a lot of evil has come that wouldn't have come (at least in the forms it has) if it weren't for advances of science. And I'm not knocking down science as being invalid in its own right. I'm just making the point that your statement does not address *root* cause any more than blaming science. That's the same criticism that theists make of cosmogonies - and the reply is the same; if God doesn't need a root cause and can just exist uncaused, then why not the universe (or the multiverse). Love and morality don't need a root cause beyond the evolutionary advantages they bestow. Brent Meeker Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. --- Bertrand Russell- I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the first place (other than the so-called irrefutable first person: It's all about me). Why should there be? Values are relative to people. Love is our word. We invented it to describe what we feel. Having some Platonic form of LOVE out there is superfluous. You're just making up a requirement for the really real ding-an-sich so that you can say God provides it. Dealing with our differences would require dealing with the fact that I am a moral realist (hence my appeal to the argument from morality), and you are not. It seems you are a non-cognitivist or emotivist. Perhaps we should just acknowledge our different views of morality. Of course, as a moral realist, I believe that non-cognitivism does not give a sufficient basis for morality. But of course you disagree. If you agreed with moral realism then you would have to deal with the argument from morality. But if, when we say I love you to someone, all we're talking about is our feelings, then morally that is like a stock market bubble, all froth and in danger of collapse, sooner or later. I'm not saying that the speaker doesn't feel something at the time he/she says it, or that they don't have good intentions. I'm saying sooner or later. There is no foundation. Brent Meeker The Christian religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth. --- H. L. Mencken What in the world is this quote talking about? Since I am a follower of Jesus, I am not interested in religion, but I am interested in all of those other things. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 6, 6:07 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote: You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the meaning of possible for now), or God is in charge of (but not IS) only part of the plenitude. What about God being in charge of Everything (rather like Jason's Everything is in the mind of God)? Tom There is nothing to be charge of with respect to the whole Plenitude. Everything happens in the plenitude - there's nothing you, God or anyone else can do about it. Only parts of the Plenitude have the possibility of someone being able to change things. This is one of the themes of my book. As I put it: ``Demigods yes, but is there room for God?'' Cheers -- ---- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au ---- Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is what I mean by being in charge of it. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 10:54:44PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote: Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is what I mean by being in charge of it. Tom I don't see anyone else deciding what the good stuff is except for you and I and every other observer (or person if you desire) out there deciding for themselves. This is anthropic selection. There doesn't seem to be anyone else out there deciding what is good for me. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). Your proposal totally erases God from the picture (which is precisely what you want to do, so it is successful, in your view). This leaves the original problem as I've explained: The picture (Everything) is totally blank to begin with. No doubt you will say that the plenitude is not a person and cannot provide love, morality and meaning. Let's assume this is true for the sake of the discussion, and let's assume that there is a separate non-plenitude God who creates a real world imbued with these gifts. But even God can't destroy mathematics, so the plenitude will give rise to creatures in parallel with God's real world. These simulated creatures will not know they are simulated and will not know that there is no overseeing God, no ultimate meaning etc.: they will go about their business in a delusional state just as if they were in the real world. The question is, how can I tell whether I am in the real world or in the godless (or deistic, or pantheistic) plenitude? Stathis Papaioannou You are hypothetically putting God in charge of only part of reality. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 2, 9:11 am, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2 Mar, 11:54, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). cf Whitehead's Primordial Nature of God. Stathis' proposal is not the same as Whitehead's concept. Stathis' original proposal (the plenitude is God): all that is is God. Whitehead's concept: all that is is IN God, and God is IN all that is. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). Your proposal totally erases God from the picture (which is precisely what you want to do, so it is successful, in your view). This leaves the original problem as I've explained: The picture (Everything) is totally blank to begin with. No doubt you will say that the plenitude is not a person and cannot provide love, morality and meaning. Let's assume this is true for the sake of the discussion, and let's assume that there is a separate non-plenitude God who creates a real world imbued with these gifts. But even God can't destroy mathematics, so the plenitude will give rise to creatures in parallel with God's real world. These simulated creatures will not know they are simulated and will not know that there is no overseeing God, no ultimate meaning etc.: they will go about their business in a delusional state just as if they were in the real world. The question is, how can I tell whether I am in the real world or in the godless (or deistic, or pantheistic) plenitude? Stathis Papaioannou You are hypothetically putting God in charge of only part of reality. The point is, God is not in charge of mathematics, even though he might know all mathematics and have chosen the mathematical laws that physical reality will follow. If you accept some version of comp, conscious beings will arise who are beyond his control. But, I suppose, you could avoid all this by saying that only beings specially imbued with souls can be conscious. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 5, 4:41 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). Your proposal totally erases God from the picture (which is precisely what you want to do, so it is successful, in your view). This leaves the original problem as I've explained: The picture (Everything) is totally blank to begin with. Tom, do you believe that God is omniscient? To me, if God is omniscient, then all possible universes exist within the mind of God. The inhabitants of any of those imagined universes, if perfectly imagined in every detail (perfectly simulated) would also necessarily be conscious, short of accepting a dualist position. Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). No doubt you will say that the plenitude is not a person and cannot provide love, morality and meaning. Let's assume this is true for the sake of the discussion, and let's assume that there is a separate non-plenitude God who creates a real world imbued with these gifts. But even God can't destroy mathematics, so the plenitude will give rise to creatures in parallel with God's real world. These simulated creatures will not know they are simulated and will not know that there is no overseeing God, no ultimate meaning etc.: they will go about their business in a delusional state just as if they were in the real world. The question is, how can I tell whether I am in the real world or in the godless (or deistic, or pantheistic) plenitude? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On 2 Mar, 11:54, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. What about considering God as identical with the plenitude? In a sense, both are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent as well as immanent, outside of time and space, the source of all things, and the plenitude has the additional attribute of necessary existence, which is philosophically contentious in God's case (the ontological argument again). cf Whitehead's Primordial Nature of God. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, who doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, containing these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If you're happy to say that God breaks the circularity, why include this extra layer of complication instead of stopping at the universe? Stathis Papaioannou Because the universe doesn't break the circularity (and a plenitude of universes doesn't either for that matter). Actually, the plenitude does break the circularity, trumping even God. God could create or destroy his own separate physical universe but the infinite and infinitely nested universes of the plenitude, at least matching God's work, would exist regardless. If you don't agree with this statement at which point do you think the analogue of our present universe in the plenitude would fall short of its real counterpart: would stars and planets develop? Life? Zombie humans? Conscious humans but lacking a soul (and if you could explain what that would mean)? By the way, I'm not using the moral argument as a proof of the existence of God in the sense of a conclusion inside a closed system of logic. I'm arguing that the personal God of love is the only possible truly sufficient source for real morality and ultimate meaning. And if multiverses truly don't give us that, then to heck with multiverses. I think I've made my point. Well, I think from what you've said you would have to agree that if you can find a way to prove that ultimate morality and meaning exist, you would also prove that God exists. Is there a way of proving that these entities exist, independent of a separate proof of God's existence? Lastly, on Euthyphro, look at the last reference at the end of the Wikipedia article on the Euthyphro dilemma, especially the last section on whim. The circular logic of Euthyphro is a problem only with self-referencing terms in a closed system of logic. This is the problem with the assumption of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. God's love transcends all closed systems. That reference seems to suggest that there is an extra-God criterion for morality, because as God is all-loving, God's arbitrary commands can't be arbitrary in the sense of being based on whim, but must instead concern behaviour that is in the overall best interests of those involved. through the dark dry barren sky pierced a warm red wet rain can you not see this next new life spring flowing from him -- Song of Longinus Who wrote that? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mar 1, 5:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, who doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, containing these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If you're happy to say that God breaks the circularity, why include this extra layer of complication instead of stopping at the universe? Stathis Papaioannou Because the universe doesn't break the circularity (and a plenitude of universes doesn't either for that matter). Actually, the plenitude does break the circularity, trumping even God. God could create or destroy his own separate physical universe but the infinite and infinitely nested universes of the plenitude, at least matching God's work, would exist regardless. If you don't agree with this statement at which point do you think the analogue of our present universe in the plenitude would fall short of its real counterpart: would stars and planets develop? Life? Zombie humans? Conscious humans but lacking a soul (and if you could explain what that would mean)? God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. By the way, I'm not using the moral argument as a proof of the existence of God in the sense of a conclusion inside a closed system of logic. I'm arguing that the personal God of love is the only possible truly sufficient source for real morality and ultimate meaning. And if multiverses truly don't give us that, then to heck with multiverses. I think I've made my point. Well, I think from what you've said you would have to agree that if you can find a way to prove that ultimate morality and meaning exist, you would also prove that God exists. Is there a way of proving that these entities exist, independent of a separate proof of God's existence? Not proof in the sense of logic in a closed system of course. How can you *prove* something ultimate from something non-ultimate? But as I have said before, I am arguing *from* the fact that meaning and morality are evident to us (my posts on seeing and consciousness), and that you can't have meaning without ultimate meaning of the same nature as the meaning. Lastly, on Euthyphro, look at the last reference at the end of the Wikipedia article on the Euthyphro dilemma, especially the last section on whim. The circular logic of Euthyphro is a problem only with self-referencing terms in a closed system of logic. This is the problem with the assumption of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. God's love transcends all closed systems. That reference seems to suggest that there is an extra-God criterion for morality, because as God is all-loving, God's arbitrary commands can't be arbitrary in the sense of being based on whim, but must instead concern behaviour that is in the overall best interests of those involved. You can't put God's love in a box. Remember that I'm not pushing through to a proof of God's existence. You seem to be assuming that I am. I'm talking about what is evident to us, and the multiverse can't explain. through the dark dry barren sky pierced a warm red wet rain can you not see this next new life spring flowing from him -- Song of Longinus Who wrote that? Stathis Papaioannou I did. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a process of growth just like any relationship), so that we aren't just cranking out IF/THEN inferences like a machine, but the Holy Spirit (analogous to All Soul in Bruno/Plotinus term) affirms with our spirit that a certain response or initiative in the current situation is in accord with the Creator's personal character. Thus, there is only so much convincing that one can do in a forum like this. The rest requires actually being shown God's love in a tangible way by another person. Then it is still up to each of us to decide how we respond. OK, but if we skip the question of how we know that God wants us to act in a particular (moral) way, as well as the question of why we should listen to him, we still have the Euthyphro dilemma, as raised by Brent:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma ... I insist that I am not going down the ontological argument path. If you want to categorize my argument from meaning, perhaps it is closest to Kant's argument from morality. In a scientific system, perhaps this is branded as wishful thinking, but I am also insisting that science's basis (anything's basis actually), such as fundamentality, generality, beauty, introspection is also mystical wishful thinking, and naturality is circular, and reproducibility is circular in that its pragmatism begs the question of meaning (IF you want to do this, THEN reproducible experiments have shown that you should do such and such). But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, who doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, containing these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If you're happy to say that God breaks the circularity, why include this extra layer of complication instead of stopping at the universe? Stathis Papaioannou Because the universe doesn't break the circularity (and a plenitude of universes doesn't either for that matter). By the way, I'm not using the moral argument as a proof of the existence of God in the sense of a conclusion inside a closed system of logic. I'm arguing that the personal God of love is the only possible truly sufficient source for real morality and ultimate meaning. A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it provides. Brent Meeker Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. --- Bertrand Russell --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best guess as to what's going on. This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly disagree on rational grounds. One of the problems with the verification principle of logical positivism was that it, itself, cannot be verified by the verification principle, and hence is subject to the charge of being part of the hated metaphysics (and, I suppose, if it could be verified it would be subject to the charge that it was a circular argument). But I would get around the problem by stating the principles by which science works thus: IF you want to predict the weather, build planes that fly, make sick people better THEN you should do such and such. By putting it in this conditional form there is no metaphysical component. I think you and/or Bruno talked about this internal conditional definition of morality before. But this is just logical inference inside a closed system of facts. IF this is true THEN this is true. There are no real normative statements here, and thus no real moral meaning. IF you want to torture babies, THEN you should do such and such. This definition of morality does not explain why we should want certain things and not others. This definition does not suppport the real noble things of morality such as compassion. Some examples are: IF you want to follow the Creator's path when your enemy strikes you on the cheek, THEN you should turn the other cheek and pray for him/ her. IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice between your benefit and your neighbor's benefit, THEN you act for your neighbor's benefit. IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice between your life and your friend's life, THEN you should give your life. The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a process of growth just like any relationship), so that we aren't just cranking out IF/THEN inferences like a machine, but the Holy Spirit (analogous to All Soul in Bruno/Plotinus term) affirms with our spirit that a certain response or initiative in the current situation is in accord with the Creator's personal character. Thus, there is only so much convincing that one can do in a forum like this. The rest requires actually being shown God's love in a tangible way by another person. Then it is still up to each of us to decide how we respond. ... I insist that I am not going down the ontological argument path. If you want to categorize my argument from meaning, perhaps it is closest to Kant's argument from morality. In a scientific system, perhaps this is branded as wishful thinking, but I am also insisting that science's basis (anything's basis actually), such as fundamentality, generality, beauty, introspection is also mystical wishful thinking, and naturality is circular, and reproducibility is circular in that its pragmatism begs the question of meaning (IF you want to do this, THEN reproducible experiments have shown that you should do such and such). Tom You seem not to appreciate the inconsistency in trying to use someone else's morality, even The Creator's, as your own. Surely you've read Euthyphro. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best guess as to what's going on. This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly disagree on rational grounds. One of the problems with the verification principle of logical positivism was that it, itself, cannot be verified by the verification principle, and hence is subject to the charge of being part of the hated metaphysics (and, I suppose, if it could be verified it would be subject to the charge that it was a circular argument). But I would get around the problem by stating the principles by which science works thus: IF you want to predict the weather, build planes that fly, make sick people better THEN you should do such and such. By putting it in this conditional form there is no metaphysical component. I think you and/or Bruno talked about this internal conditional definition of morality before. But this is just logical inference inside a closed system of facts. IF this is true THEN this is true. There are no real normative statements here, and thus no real moral meaning. IF you want to torture babies, THEN you should do such and such. This definition of morality does not explain why we should want certain things and not others. This definition does not suppport the real noble things of morality such as compassion. Some examples are: IF you want to follow the Creator's path when your enemy strikes you on the cheek, THEN you should turn the other cheek and pray for him/ her. IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice between your benefit and your neighbor's benefit, THEN you act for your neighbor's benefit. IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice between your life and your friend's life, THEN you should give your life. That's fine in its logical form. The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a process of growth just like any relationship), so that we aren't just cranking out IF/THEN inferences like a machine, but the Holy Spirit (analogous to All Soul in Bruno/Plotinus term) affirms with our spirit that a certain response or initiative in the current situation is in accord with the Creator's personal character. Thus, there is only so much convincing that one can do in a forum like this. The rest requires actually being shown God's love in a tangible way by another person. Then it is still up to each of us to decide how we respond. OK, but if we skip the question of how we know that God wants us to act in a particular (moral) way, as well as the question of why we should listen to him, we still have the Euthyphro dilemma, as raised by Brent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma Science is just a systematisation of this process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. So science is a just systematisation of a metaphysical judgment. I agree. However, it's all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: tomorrow pigs might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened before. I would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there is no reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute certainty. A metaphysical position would be that flying pigs are an absurdity or an anathema and therefore pigs absolutely *cannot* fly. But it is arrogant as well as wrong to create absolute certainty, absolute meaning, or absolute anything else by fiat, just because that's what you fancy. If there are some things we can't know with certainty or can't know at all, that may be unfortunate, but it's the way the world is. Stathis Papaioannou Looking over my previous post, I cannot see why you are bringing up absolute certainty. Also I don't know what absolute meaning means, unless it means knowing meaning with absolute certainty in which case I don't hold that view. Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because a closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable. I read into this an implication that God would solve the problem because he could be outside the system, indeed outside all possible systems. But this runs into two problems. The first is that positivists are in fact very modest and make no claim to explain everything; the very opposite, in fact. The second is that the concept of
Re: The Meaning of Life
Thank you, guys, for 2 parts in this post I cherrish most. (I was questioning the endless back-and-forth of these 'bickercussions', but from time to time there is a part that justifies the frustration of reading so much) * I leave the part from Stathis' text which I want to copy to another list (with credit to Stathis and this list - if it is not prohibited, pls advise) between dotted lines. Also: The remark of Brent opened up a little light in my head (aka activated some photons in the neurons?) about refreshing the 'pilot wave' of D. Bohm as coinciding with Robert Rosen's anticipatory principle. (Bohm's priority). * Btw I find 'metaphysics' was a false historical mock-name to reject everything outside the primitive ancient model they called (then) physics (the science). Today's physics is many times 'meta', especially when carrying a Q-name. I can relate to both of yours remarks. ( Theists etc. just wanted to ride that horse in the past. ) The wording that emerges in talks about metaphysics is a mixture of the ancient denigration and the up-to-date ideas. Is it still fruitful to argue about a past misnomer? John M PS. about 'cause' and 'positivists': if we accept the random occurrences in the existence, we just waste any effort to identify ANY order (including math). I don't think the 'positivist' is a right (denigrating?) word for the idea that everything is (deterministically) interconnected/ interinfluencing any occurrence to 'happen' - maybe not 'causing' just 'directing/facilitating' - entailing in some sense. JM - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 6:32 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life I suppose it depends on what is covered by the term metaphysics. Theists sometimes profess absolute certainty in the face of absolute lack of evidence, and are proud of it. I wouldn't lump this in together with the interpretation of quantum mechanics (I'm sure you wouldn't either, but I thought I'd make the point). ... (On /24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:) On Feb 23, 3:59 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Skip * Stathis Papaioannou I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is ultimately based on (and is inescapably in the context of) some kind of metaphysics, since it is in the context of the universe as a whole. There are some ways of sorting out metaphysics. In fact these criteria are mostly the same as how we sort out science (since, again, science is based on metaphysics). These are such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. However, the fact that science conventionally has been limited to the material (whatever that means!) implies that the criteria of naturality (a viscious circle actually!) and reproducibility (another vicious circle) that we have in science cannot be applied to the universe as a whole or to metaphysics. [Side note: But even more important is to recognize that metaphysics, as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This limits more than anything the amount of sense we can make out of Everything.] However the criterion that you are trying to enforce, that of all things having a cause even in the context of Everything and Everyone, is a positivist criteria, treating metaphysics as science. It assumes that Everything has to be part of this closed system of cause and effect. There are plenty of criteria to sort out Everything (as I've mentioned above) without getting into the positivist viscious circle. - The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best guess as to what's going on. Science is just a systematisation of this process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. However, it's all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: tomorrow pigs might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened before. I would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there is no reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute certainty. A metaphysical position would
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is ultimately based on (and is inescapably in the context of) some kind of metaphysics, since it is in the context of the universe as a whole. There are some ways of sorting out metaphysics. In fact these criteria are mostly the same as how we sort out science (since, again, science is based on metaphysics). These are such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. However, the fact that science conventionally has been limited to the material (whatever that means!) implies that the criteria of naturality (a viscious circle actually!) and reproducibility (another vicious circle) that we have in science cannot be applied to the universe as a whole or to metaphysics. [Side note: But even more important is to recognize that metaphysics, as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This limits more than anything the amount of sense we can make out of Everything.] However the criterion that you are trying to enforce, that of all things having a cause even in the context of Everything and Everyone, is a positivist criteria, treating metaphysics as science. It assumes that Everything has to be part of this closed system of cause and effect. There are plenty of criteria to sort out Everything (as I've mentioned above) without getting into the positivist viscious circle. The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best guess as to what's going on. This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly disagree on rational grounds. One of the problems with the verification principle of logical positivism was that it, itself, cannot be verified by the verification principle, and hence is subject to the charge of being part of the hated metaphysics (and, I suppose, if it could be verified it would be subject to the charge that it was a circular argument). But I would get around the problem by stating the principles by which science works thus: IF you want to predict the weather, build planes that fly, make sick people better THEN you should do such and such. By putting it in this conditional form there is no metaphysical component. Science is just a systematisation of this process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. So science is a just systematisation of a metaphysical judgment. I agree. However, it's all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: tomorrow pigs might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened before. I would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there is no reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute certainty. A metaphysical position would be that flying pigs are an absurdity or an anathema and therefore pigs absolutely *cannot* fly. But it is arrogant as well as wrong to create absolute certainty, absolute meaning, or absolute anything else by fiat, just because that's what you fancy. If there are some things we can't know with certainty or can't know at all, that may be unfortunate, but it's the way the world is. Stathis Papaioannou Looking over my previous post, I cannot see why you are bringing up absolute certainty. Also I don't know what absolute meaning means, unless it means knowing meaning with absolute certainty in which case I don't hold that view. Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because a closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable. I read into this an implication that God would solve the problem because he could be outside the system, indeed outside all possible systems. But this runs into two problems. The first is that positivists are in fact very modest and make no claim to explain everything; the very opposite, in fact. The second is that the concept of an entity outside all possible systems, and therefore requiring no cause, design, meaning or any of the other things allegedly necessary for the universe and its components constitutes a restatement of the ontological argument for the existence of God, an argument that is 900 years old and has been rejected as invalid even by most theists. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/24/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is ultimately based on (and is inescapably in the context of) some kind of metaphysics, since it is in the context of the universe as a whole. There are some ways of sorting out metaphysics. In fact these criteria are mostly the same as how we sort out science (since, again, science is based on metaphysics). These are such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. However, the fact that science conventionally has been limited to the material (whatever that means!) implies that the criteria of naturality (a viscious circle actually!) and reproducibility (another vicious circle) that we have in science cannot be applied to the universe as a whole or to metaphysics. [Side note: But even more important is to recognize that metaphysics, as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This limits more than anything the amount of sense we can make out of Everything.] However the criterion that you are trying to enforce, that of all things having a cause even in the context of Everything and Everyone, is a positivist criteria, treating metaphysics as science. It assumes that Everything has to be part of this closed system of cause and effect. There are plenty of criteria to sort out Everything (as I've mentioned above) without getting into the positivist viscious circle. The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best guess as to what's going on. This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly disagree on rational grounds. One of the problems with the verification principle of logical positivism was that it, itself, cannot be verified by the verification principle, and hence is subject to the charge of being part of the hated metaphysics (and, I suppose, if it could be verified it would be subject to the charge that it was a circular argument). But I would get around the problem by stating the principles by which science works thus: IF you want to predict the weather, build planes that fly, make sick people better THEN you should do such and such. By putting it in this conditional form there is no metaphysical component. Science is just a systematisation of this process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. So science is a just systematisation of a metaphysical judgment. I agree. However, it's all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: tomorrow pigs might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened before. I would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there is no reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute certainty. A metaphysical position would be that flying pigs are an absurdity or an anathema and therefore pigs absolutely *cannot* fly. But it is arrogant as well as wrong to create absolute certainty, absolute meaning, or absolute anything else by fiat, just because that's what you fancy. If there are some things we can't know with certainty or can't know at all, that may be unfortunate, but it's the way the world is. Stathis Papaioannou Looking over my previous post, I cannot see why you are bringing up absolute certainty. Also I don't know what absolute meaning means, unless it means knowing meaning with absolute certainty in which case I don't hold that view. Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because a closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable. This is somewhat beside the point anyway. Positivists (and all foundationists) suppose that there are some things known directly, without explanation, usually by direct perception or by introspection. Just as mystics suppose some things are directly intuited or revealed by meditation, e.g. ...such things as fundamentality, generality and
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 2/25/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SP, in response to Tom Caylor]: Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because a closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable. This is somewhat beside the point anyway. Positivists (and all foundationists) suppose that there are some things known directly, without explanation, usually by direct perception or by introspection. Just as mystics suppose some things are directly intuited or revealed by meditation, e.g. ...such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. Brent Meeker But then why value a scientific explanation over a mystical explanation? It's straightforward when we stick to science as a method for making predictions and creating technology (penicillin works better than prayer), but where does this leave the example you raised recently, the interpretation of quantum mechanics? I understand that some journals will not publish papers on this subject on positivist grounds, i.e. that it is metaphysics rather than science. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/25/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SP, in response to Tom Caylor]: Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because a closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable. This is somewhat beside the point anyway. Positivists (and all foundationists) suppose that there are some things known directly, without explanation, usually by direct perception or by introspection. Just as mystics suppose some things are directly intuited or revealed by meditation, e.g. ...such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. Brent Meeker But then why value a scientific explanation over a mystical explanation? Because, as you pointed out, it works. When knowledge is tested against perception and intersubjective agreement on that perception (to rule out hallucinations) it seems to be reliable. When it's based on mystic revelation, it's not. I was referring to Tom's statement you quoted when I said it was somewhat beside the point. It's straightforward when we stick to science as a method for making predictions and creating technology (penicillin works better than prayer), but where does this leave the example you raised recently, the interpretation of quantum mechanics? I understand that some journals will not publish papers on this subject on positivist grounds, i.e. that it is metaphysics rather than science. Some physics journals and proceeding of symposia do publish papers on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. This kind of metaphysics (literally about physics) is useful in guiding the development of new theories. When Einstein developed general relativity he assumed some meta- rules, e.g. no derivatives higher than second. Since there's a conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity at the ontological level, the resolution is likely to require something that is meta- relative to the current theories. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 20, 3:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42 is not prime). In fact the famous quote of Kronecker God created the integers makes this point. I think Bruno takes arithmetic truth as his ultimate source of meaning. If you ask the same positivist questions of arithmetic truth, you also have the same problem. The problem lies in the positivist view that there can be no given truth. Tom This is indeed related to the ontological argument, first formulated by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century: We say that God is a being than which nothing more perfect can be imagined. If God did not exist, then we can imagine an entity just like God, but with the additional attribute of existence - which is absurd, because we would then be imagining something more perfect than that than which nothing more perfect can be imagined. Therefore, God the most perfect being imaginable must necessarily have existence as one of his attributes. Versions of the argument from first cause and the argument from design also reduce to the ontological argument, answering the question who made God? with the assertion that God exists necessarily, with no need for the creator/designer (or, you might add, external source of meaning) that the merely contingents things in the universe need. The problem with defining God in this way as something which necessarily exists is that you can use the same trick to conjure up anything you like: an existent pink elephant can't be non-existent any more than a bachelor can be married. This objection pales a little if we admit that imagined existence (i.e Platonia and the conscious computations therein) is all the existence there is, but I am not sure that you would be happy with this explanation as despite the Kronecker quote (which I always understood as rhetorical anyway) mathematical truths are beyond even God's power to change. Stathis Papaioannou My point in quoting Kronecker was to simply to allude to the fact that the foundations of mathematics are axiomatic in a similar way that ultimate meaning is ultimate. We have a feeling that the foundation of math is ultimately right, even though we can't prove it. In my logical reason (reason #1 a few posts back), I am simply arguing for realism (vs. positivism). Your arguments that you are trying to enforce here would apply equally well (if valid) to realism in general (not just God), and therefore put you in the positivist camp. Tom Positivists don't like metaphysics, but even if you allow that metaphysics isn't all just nonsense, you have to maintain some sort of standards. How do you weed out those metaphysical beliefs which *are* just nonsense? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Feb 23, 3:59 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point in quoting Kronecker was to simply to allude to the fact that the foundations of mathematics are axiomatic in a similar way that ultimate meaning is ultimate. We have a feeling that the foundation of math is ultimately right, even though we can't prove it. In my logical reason (reason #1 a few posts back), I am simply arguing for realism (vs. positivism). Your arguments that you are trying to enforce here would apply equally well (if valid) to realism in general (not just God), and therefore put you in the positivist camp. Tom Positivists don't like metaphysics, but even if you allow that metaphysics isn't all just nonsense, you have to maintain some sort of standards. How do you weed out those metaphysical beliefs which *are* just nonsense? Stathis Papaioannou I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is ultimately based on (and is inescapably in the context of) some kind of metaphysics, since it is in the context of the universe as a whole. There are some ways of sorting out metaphysics. In fact these criteria are mostly the same as how we sort out science (since, again, science is based on metaphysics). These are such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. However, the fact that science conventionally has been limited to the material (whatever that means!) implies that the criteria of naturality (a viscious circle actually!) and reproducibility (another vicious circle) that we have in science cannot be applied to the universe as a whole or to metaphysics. [Side note: But even more important is to recognize that metaphysics, as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This limits more than anything the amount of sense we can make out of Everything.] However the criterion that you are trying to enforce, that of all things having a cause even in the context of Everything and Everyone, is a positivist criteria, treating metaphysics as science. It assumes that Everything has to be part of this closed system of cause and effect. There are plenty of criteria to sort out Everything (as I've mentioned above) without getting into the positivist viscious circle. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is ultimately based on (and is inescapably in the context of) some kind of metaphysics, since it is in the context of the universe as a whole. There are some ways of sorting out metaphysics. In fact these criteria are mostly the same as how we sort out science (since, again, science is based on metaphysics). These are such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. However, the fact that science conventionally has been limited to the material (whatever that means!) implies that the criteria of naturality (a viscious circle actually!) and reproducibility (another vicious circle) that we have in science cannot be applied to the universe as a whole or to metaphysics. [Side note: But even more important is to recognize that metaphysics, as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This limits more than anything the amount of sense we can make out of Everything.] However the criterion that you are trying to enforce, that of all things having a cause even in the context of Everything and Everyone, is a positivist criteria, treating metaphysics as science. It assumes that Everything has to be part of this closed system of cause and effect. There are plenty of criteria to sort out Everything (as I've mentioned above) without getting into the positivist viscious circle. The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best guess as to what's going on. This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly disagree on rational grounds. Science is just a systematisation of this process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. So science is a just systematisation of a metaphysical judgment. I agree. However, it's all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: tomorrow pigs might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened before. I would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there is no reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute certainty. A metaphysical position would be that flying pigs are an absurdity or an anathema and therefore pigs absolutely *cannot* fly. But it is arrogant as well as wrong to create absolute certainty, absolute meaning, or absolute anything else by fiat, just because that's what you fancy. If there are some things we can't know with certainty or can't know at all, that may be unfortunate, but it's the way the world is. Stathis Papaioannou Looking over my previous post, I cannot see why you are bringing up absolute certainty. Also I don't know what absolute meaning means, unless it means knowing meaning with absolute certainty in which case I don't hold that view. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Feb 20, 3:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42 is not prime). In fact the famous quote of Kronecker God created the integers makes this point. I think Bruno takes arithmetic truth as his ultimate source of meaning. If you ask the same positivist questions of arithmetic truth, you also have the same problem. The problem lies in the positivist view that there can be no given truth. Tom This is indeed related to the ontological argument, first formulated by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century: We say that God is a being than which nothing more perfect can be imagined. If God did not exist, then we can imagine an entity just like God, but with the additional attribute of existence - which is absurd, because we would then be imagining something more perfect than that than which nothing more perfect can be imagined. Therefore, God the most perfect being imaginable must necessarily have existence as one of his attributes. Versions of the argument from first cause and the argument from design also reduce to the ontological argument, answering the question who made God? with the assertion that God exists necessarily, with no need for the creator/designer (or, you might add, external source of meaning) that the merely contingents things in the universe need. The problem with defining God in this way as something which necessarily exists is that you can use the same trick to conjure up anything you like: an existent pink elephant can't be non-existent any more than a bachelor can be married. This objection pales a little if we admit that imagined existence (i.e Platonia and the conscious computations therein) is all the existence there is, but I am not sure that you would be happy with this explanation as despite the Kronecker quote (which I always understood as rhetorical anyway) mathematical truths are beyond even God's power to change. Stathis Papaioannou My point in quoting Kronecker was to simply to allude to the fact that the foundations of mathematics are axiomatic in a similar way that ultimate meaning is ultimate. We have a feeling that the foundation of math is ultimately right, even though we can't prove it. In my logical reason (reason #1 a few posts back), I am simply arguing for realism (vs. positivism). Your arguments that you are trying to enforce here would apply equally well (if valid) to realism in general (not just God), and therefore put you in the positivist camp. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that positivism is the right way of viewing everything, even ultimate meaning (at least when meaning is said to be based on God, but not when meaning is said to be based on ourselves). Tom Can you explain that a bit further? I can understand that personal meaning is not necessarily connected to empirical facts. The ancient Greeks believed in the gods of Olympus, built temples to them, wrote songs about them, and so on. They provided meaning to the Greeks, and had an overall positive effect on Greek society even though as a matter of fact there weren't any gods living on Mount Olympus. Just as long as we are clear about that. Stathis Papaioannou It is a given that whatever belief we have falls short of the set of all truth. But here we are talking about different theories behind beliefs in general. Positivism is one such theory or world view. This problematic type of world view in which positivism falls has also been referred to as rationalism in a closed system. In such a world view there is no ultimate meaning. All meaning is a reference to something else which is in turn meaningless except for in reference to yet something else which is meaningless. We can try to hide this problem by putting the end of the meaning dependency line inside each individual person's 1st person point of view. At that point, if we claim that we still have a closed system, then we have to call the 1st person point of view meaningless. Or, if we at that point allow an open system, then we can say that the 1st person point of view has meaning which comes from where-we-know-not. This is just as useless as the meaningless view (in terms of being meaningful ;). This is all opposed to the world view which allows an ultimate source of meaning for persons. If there were such an ultimate source of meaning for persons, then, even though our beliefs would fall short of the full truth of it, it makes sense that there would be some way of seeing or discovering the truth in a sort of progressive or growing process at the personal level. Gotta go. Tom I don't see how ultimate meaning is logically possible (if it is even desirable, but that's another question). What is God's ultimate meaning? If he gets away without one or has one from where-we-know-not then how is this different to the case of the individual human? Saying God is infinite doesn't help because we can still ask for the meaning of the whole infinite series. Defining God as someone who *just has* ultimate meaning as one of his attributes is a rehash of the ontological argument. Stathis Papaioannou Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42 is not prime). In fact the famous quote of Kronecker God created the integers makes this point. I think Bruno takes arithmetic truth as his ultimate source of meaning. If you ask the same positivist questions of arithmetic truth, you also have the same problem. The problem lies in the positivist view that there can be no given truth. Tom This is indeed related to the ontological argument, first formulated by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century: We say that God is a being than which nothing more perfect can be imagined. If God did not exist, then we can imagine an entity just like God, but with the additional attribute of existence - which is absurd, because we would then be imagining something more perfect than that than which nothing more perfect can be imagined. Therefore, God the most perfect being imaginable must necessarily have existence as one of his attributes. Versions of the argument from first cause and the argument from design also reduce to the ontological argument, answering the question who made God? with the assertion that God exists necessarily, with no need for the creator/designer (or, you might add, external source of meaning) that the merely contingents things in the universe need. The problem with defining God in this way as something which necessarily exists is that you can use the same trick to conjure up anything you like: an existent pink elephant can't be non-existent any more than a bachelor can be married. This objection pales a little if we admit that imagined existence (i.e Platonia and the conscious computations therein) is all the existence there is, but I am not sure that you would be happy with this explanation as despite the Kronecker quote (which I always understood as
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that positivism is the right way of viewing everything, even ultimate meaning (at least when meaning is said to be based on God, but not when meaning is said to be based on ourselves). Tom Can you explain that a bit further? I can understand that personal meaning is not necessarily connected to empirical facts. The ancient Greeks believed in the gods of Olympus, built temples to them, wrote songs about them, and so on. They provided meaning to the Greeks, and had an overall positive effect on Greek society even though as a matter of fact there weren't any gods living on Mount Olympus. Just as long as we are clear about that. Stathis Papaioannou It is a given that whatever belief we have falls short of the set of all truth. But here we are talking about different theories behind beliefs in general. Positivism is one such theory or world view. This problematic type of world view in which positivism falls has also been referred to as rationalism in a closed system. In such a world view there is no ultimate meaning. All meaning is a reference to something else which is in turn meaningless except for in reference to yet something else which is meaningless. We can try to hide this problem by putting the end of the meaning dependency line inside each individual person's 1st person point of view. At that point, if we claim that we still have a closed system, then we have to call the 1st person point of view meaningless. Or, if we at that point allow an open system, then we can say that the 1st person point of view has meaning which comes from where-we-know-not. This is just as useless as the meaningless view (in terms of being meaningful ;). This is all opposed to the world view which allows an ultimate source of meaning for persons. If there were such an ultimate source of meaning for persons, then, even though our beliefs would fall short of the full truth of it, it makes sense that there would be some way of seeing or discovering the truth in a sort of progressive or growing process at the personal level. Gotta go. Tom I don't see how ultimate meaning is logically possible (if it is even desirable, but that's another question). What is God's ultimate meaning? If he gets away without one or has one from where-we-know-not then how is this different to the case of the individual human? Saying God is infinite doesn't help because we can still ask for the meaning of the whole infinite series. Defining God as someone who *just has* ultimate meaning as one of his attributes is a rehash of the ontological argument. Stathis Papaioannou Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42 is not prime). In fact the famous quote of Kronecker God created the integers makes this point. I think Bruno takes arithmetic truth as his ultimate source of meaning. If you ask the same positivist questions of arithmetic truth, you also have the same problem. The problem lies in the positivist view that there can be no given truth. Tom I think you mis-state the positivist view; which is that what we can directly perceive can be the referent of true statements. But I take your point. It is strictly parallel to the question of what is reality. It seems pretty clear that we can't know what is real as opposed to what seems real to us; except for our own thoughts. So some people deny there is any reality and we're just making it all up in a dream (solipism) or in a kind of joint dream (mysticism). Others suppose there is a reality but it's completely unknowable. Scientists generally suppose there is a reality, which we can never know with certainity, but which we may know some aspects with varying degrees of confidence through inductive inference. Some on this list suppose that we may be entities in a computer game and so we can never know the really real reality of the programmer. Theists suppose there is a reality that cannot be known through perception but only through revelation (as if the programme r told his creations about the computer). Some seize on the fact that we must know our own thoughts and conclude that reality must consist of observer-moments. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 16, 8:18 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals, laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice to provide meaning? It would not provide ultimate meaning for two reasons... My answer would have been that the beings would have no way of knowing the difference between the provided meaning and ultimate meaning, and would live their lives just as we live our lives, some of them atheists and others theists. In other words, the idea of ultimate meaning can have no objective or subjective consequences: you can honestly, deeply believe in it and this belief can change the way you live your life, but it would do so even if it had no basis in reality. A child might behave well in order to receive presents from Santa Claus, but this has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether Santa Claus exists. 1) Logical reason, but still important and inescapable: If the source of meaning was from within the system, i.e. the observable/ controllable universe, then we can always ask the why question when we find the source. This is not acceptable as part of a scientifically observable causal universe, as it contradicts it. A closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable. This is the old positivism problem. This is actually part of the problem with a straw-man caricature god, in our image, i.e. any thing that we (as part of the universe) can think up. You can always draw a circle around the system + externals and call it a new, larger system: the universe, the multiverse, the plenitude, God + the Plenitude, or whatever. Long before it was a problem for positivism it was a problem for theism: Who made God? Who gives God meaning? Who tells God whether his ethical principles are right or wrong? These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that positivism is the right way of viewing everything, even ultimate meaning (at least when meaning is said to be based on God, but not when meaning is said to be based on ourselves). Tom 2) Spiritual reason, but no less important and inescapable: Perhaps this one is more for people (like Bruno, and Jesse Mazer?) who accept the possible existence of difference levels of reasoning, based on different ways of seeing truth (a la G and G*). We just know somehow that there is something inexplicable about personhood. There is a hunger in us that wants to always ask the question why, a hunger for the meaning behind whatever layer of stuff we just discovered. Perhaps it's like looking for our true home, or for the reason why this is or is not our true home. It's like Neo in the Matrix. And there have been signs the meaning behind this existence poking in this existence now and then, and seen by different people. Yes, we can always imagine how someone could have thought these signs up, or interpretted them up, and thus explain everything back down to the purely logical level, dealing only with repeatable things. Like a 2- dimensional shadow world can make up laws that somehow explain the behavior of shadows and say that there are only shadows, but it is not seeing the whole reality. I agree that there is something fundamentally inexplicable, irreducible about first person experience, but you are basically challenging this idea and saying there *can't* be any inexplicable things, hence God is postulated to explain the inexplicable. But again, you are just delaying the inevitable: how do you explain God's existence? How do you explain the concept of necessary existence? How do you explain why God wanted to have other conscious beings around, and why he decided to give just the amount of evidence of his existence to those beings as he did? There are countless such questions to which the answer is just, I don't know, that's just the way it is. On 2/16/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. Now we're startin' to talk! I don't know much of the language, but I think that when people experience what some may call words like enlightenment, cosmic consciousness, etc. they are experiencing something that is really there. In fact, they use words like seeing reality as it actually is, etc. They speak of wholeness and integralness. Except that people would still have the same experiences whether or not something were really there, just as they would still experience the sky as a dome whether or not it is in fact a dome. In other words, if you imagine a being in a universe without meaning, cosmic consciousness, enlightenment and all the other significant things which are supposed to be there, but with
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 16, 8:18 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals, laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice to provide meaning? It would not provide ultimate meaning for two reasons... My answer would have been that the beings would have no way of knowing the difference between the provided meaning and ultimate meaning, and would live their lives just as we live our lives, some of them atheists and others theists. In other words, the idea of ultimate meaning can have no objective or subjective consequences: you can honestly, deeply believe in it and this belief can change the way you live your life, but it would do so even if it had no basis in reality. A child might behave well in order to receive presents from Santa Claus, but this has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether Santa Claus exists. 1) Logical reason, but still important and inescapable: If the source of meaning was from within the system, i.e. the observable/ controllable universe, then we can always ask the why question when we find the source. This is not acceptable as part of a scientifically observable causal universe, as it contradicts it. A closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable. This is the old positivism problem. This is actually part of the problem with a straw-man caricature god, in our image, i.e. any thing that we (as part of the universe) can think up. You can always draw a circle around the system + externals and call it a new, larger system: the universe, the multiverse, the plenitude, God + the Plenitude, or whatever. Long before it was a problem for positivism it was a problem for theism: Who made God? Who gives God meaning? Who tells God whether his ethical principles are right or wrong? These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that positivism is the right way of viewing everything, even ultimate meaning (at least when meaning is said to be based on God, but not when meaning is said to be based on ourselves). Tom Can you explain that a bit further? I can understand that personal meaning is not necessarily connected to empirical facts. The ancient Greeks believed in the gods of Olympus, built temples to them, wrote songs about them, and so on. They provided meaning to the Greeks, and had an overall positive effect on Greek society even though as a matter of fact there weren't any gods living on Mount Olympus. Just as long as we are clear about that. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that positivism is the right way of viewing everything, even ultimate meaning (at least when meaning is said to be based on God, but not when meaning is said to be based on ourselves). Tom Can you explain that a bit further? I can understand that personal meaning is not necessarily connected to empirical facts. The ancient Greeks believed in the gods of Olympus, built temples to them, wrote songs about them, and so on. They provided meaning to the Greeks, and had an overall positive effect on Greek society even though as a matter of fact there weren't any gods living on Mount Olympus. Just as long as we are clear about that. Stathis Papaioannou It is a given that whatever belief we have falls short of the set of all truth. But here we are talking about different theories behind beliefs in general. Positivism is one such theory or world view. This problematic type of world view in which positivism falls has also been referred to as rationalism in a closed system. In such a world view there is no ultimate meaning. All meaning is a reference to something else which is in turn meaningless except for in reference to yet something else which is meaningless. We can try to hide this problem by putting the end of the meaning dependency line inside each individual person's 1st person point of view. At that point, if we claim that we still have a closed system, then we have to call the 1st person point of view meaningless. Or, if we at that point allow an open system, then we can say that the 1st person point of view has meaning which comes from where-we-know-not. This is just as useless as the meaningless view (in terms of being meaningful ;). This is all opposed to the world view which allows an ultimate source of meaning for persons. If there were such an ultimate source of meaning for persons, then, even though our beliefs would fall short of the full truth of it, it makes sense that there would be some way of seeing or discovering the truth in a sort of progressive or growing process at the personal level. Gotta go. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that positivism is the right way of viewing everything, even ultimate meaning (at least when meaning is said to be based on God, but not when meaning is said to be based on ourselves). Tom Can you explain that a bit further? I can understand that personal meaning is not necessarily connected to empirical facts. The ancient Greeks believed in the gods of Olympus, built temples to them, wrote songs about them, and so on. They provided meaning to the Greeks, and had an overall positive effect on Greek society even though as a matter of fact there weren't any gods living on Mount Olympus. Just as long as we are clear about that. Stathis Papaioannou It is a given that whatever belief we have falls short of the set of all truth. But here we are talking about different theories behind beliefs in general. Positivism is one such theory or world view. This problematic type of world view in which positivism falls has also been referred to as rationalism in a closed system. In such a world view there is no ultimate meaning. All meaning is a reference to something else which is in turn meaningless except for in reference to yet something else which is meaningless. We can try to hide this problem by putting the end of the meaning dependency line inside each individual person's 1st person point of view. At that point, if we claim that we still have a closed system, then we have to call the 1st person point of view meaningless. Or, if we at that point allow an open system, then we can say that the 1st person point of view has meaning which comes from where-we-know-not. This is just as useless as the meaningless view (in terms of being meaningful ;). This is all opposed to the world view which allows an ultimate source of meaning for persons. If there were such an ultimate source of meaning for persons, then, even though our beliefs would fall short of the full truth of it, it makes sense that there would be some way of seeing or discovering the truth in a sort of progressive or growing process at the personal level. Gotta go. Tom I don't see how ultimate meaning is logically possible (if it is even desirable, but that's another question). What is God's ultimate meaning? If he gets away without one or has one from where-we-know-not then how is this different to the case of the individual human? Saying God is infinite doesn't help because we can still ask for the meaning of the whole infinite series. Defining God as someone who *just has* ultimate meaning as one of his attributes is a rehash of the ontological argument. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 2/16/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 13, 11:35 pm, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the primary matter situation. I think you maintain that experience is enough. I maintain that if all you have is relative references, you are having faith that there is ultimately something there. I'm not interested in any straw-man caricature god who decides what is valuable etc. on a whim. I'm interested in the source of the wonderfully unexplainable good in us. In mentioning the idea of God deciding morality on a whim, you perhaps allude to the old counterargument to grounding morality in God in the first place, known as Euthyphro's Dilemma from one of Plato's dialogues--if God *chose* these supposed laws of morality, then they are ultimately arbitrary since God could have chose a completely different set of laws, but if moral truths are in some sense beyond God's ability to change, much like many philosophers would say the laws of mathematics or logic are, then it's not clear why you need God in your explanation at all, you could just cut out the middleman and postulate eternal platonic moral truths in the same way many on this list are prepared to postulate eternal platonic mathematical truths. The only way in which I could see that it would make sense to relate goodness to God is to imagine a sort of pantheist God that represents a sort of ultimate pattern or harmony connecting every individual part of the universe, so goodness would represent some kind of orientation towards the ultimate pattern which encompasses all of us, and which would override individual conflicting interests. A variation on this might be the Omega Point idea that every individual finite being is on some sort of long-term path towards being integrated into an infinite superorganism (perhaps only as a limit that can never actually be reached in finite time), or in the concepts of this list maybe a single infinitely complex observer-moment with memories of every other observer-moment, which could also be seen as an ultimate pattern connecting everything (one might say, as in Frank Tipler's speculations about the Omega Point, that an infinite mind would itself contain simulations of every possible history in every possible universe leading up to it, so that the Omega Point would both be an endpoint of history but also contain all history integrated within it). In this view, every instance of individuals trying to cooperate and to understand and connect with each other is an incremental step in the right direction, so one could ground ultimate goodness in that. I recently came across an interesting interview athttp://www.wie.org/j34/swimme2.asp?%20from=lnk-zaadzdiscussing Teilhard de Chardin's thoughts on the Omega Point, and many on this list will be familiar with Frank Tipler's version which I mention above (even if Tipler's specific ideas about using the Big Crunch to do an infinite amount of computation in a finite time are proven wrong, as a transhumanist I'm still crossing my fingers that intelligence will find some loophole in the laws of physics that will allow it to continue forever without violating the laws of thermodynamics). But neither of these versions of God bears much resemblance to the creator-God separate from the rest of the universe that's imagined by most mainstream religions. Jesse Yes. Now we're startin' to talk! I don't know much of the language, but I think that when people experience what some may call words like enlightenment, cosmic consciousness, etc. they are experiencing something that is really there. In fact, they use words like seeing reality as it actually is, etc. They speak of wholeness and integralness. Except that people would still have the same experiences whether or not something were really there, just as they would still experience the sky as a dome whether or not it is in fact a dome. In other words, if you imagine a being in a universe without meaning, cosmic consciousness, enlightenment and all the other significant things which are supposed to be there, but with otherwise the same physical laws etc., can you think of any reason why such a being would or wouldn't come up with the same ideas as humans have, assuming similar evolutionary provenance? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Feb 13, 11:35 pm, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the primary matter situation. I think you maintain that experience is enough. I maintain that if all you have is relative references, you are having faith that there is ultimately something there. I'm not interested in any straw-man caricature god who decides what is valuable etc. on a whim. I'm interested in the source of the wonderfully unexplainable good in us. In mentioning the idea of God deciding morality on a whim, you perhaps allude to the old counterargument to grounding morality in God in the first place, known as Euthyphro's Dilemma from one of Plato's dialogues--if God *chose* these supposed laws of morality, then they are ultimately arbitrary since God could have chose a completely different set of laws, but if moral truths are in some sense beyond God's ability to change, much like many philosophers would say the laws of mathematics or logic are, then it's not clear why you need God in your explanation at all, you could just cut out the middleman and postulate eternal platonic moral truths in the same way many on this list are prepared to postulate eternal platonic mathematical truths. The only way in which I could see that it would make sense to relate goodness to God is to imagine a sort of pantheist God that represents a sort of ultimate pattern or harmony connecting every individual part of the universe, so goodness would represent some kind of orientation towards the ultimate pattern which encompasses all of us, and which would override individual conflicting interests. A variation on this might be the Omega Point idea that every individual finite being is on some sort of long-term path towards being integrated into an infinite superorganism (perhaps only as a limit that can never actually be reached in finite time), or in the concepts of this list maybe a single infinitely complex observer-moment with memories of every other observer-moment, which could also be seen as an ultimate pattern connecting everything (one might say, as in Frank Tipler's speculations about the Omega Point, that an infinite mind would itself contain simulations of every possible history in every possible universe leading up to it, so that the Omega Point would both be an endpoint of history but also contain all history integrated within it). In this view, every instance of individuals trying to cooperate and to understand and connect with each other is an incremental step in the right direction, so one could ground ultimate goodness in that. I recently came across an interesting interview athttp://www.wie.org/j34/swimme2.asp?%20from=lnk-zaadzdiscussing Teilhard de Chardin's thoughts on the Omega Point, and many on this list will be familiar with Frank Tipler's version which I mention above (even if Tipler's specific ideas about using the Big Crunch to do an infinite amount of computation in a finite time are proven wrong, as a transhumanist I'm still crossing my fingers that intelligence will find some loophole in the laws of physics that will allow it to continue forever without violating the laws of thermodynamics). But neither of these versions of God bears much resemblance to the creator-God separate from the rest of the universe that's imagined by most mainstream religions. Jesse Yes. Now we're startin' to talk! I don't know much of the language, but I think that when people experience what some may call words like enlightenment, cosmic consciousness, etc. they are experiencing something that is really there. In fact, they use words like seeing reality as it actually is, etc. They speak of wholeness and integralness. The dilemmas such as you speak of come from projecting our own incomplete concepts onto Something/Someone who is complete. This is what I meant by a straw-man caricature god. C.S. Lewis said something like, Reach for heaven and you get the earth thrown in too; take only the earth and you get neither. (Can't remember exact quote.) I like the aspect of Chardin's Omega Point that it has a from-the-infinite-back-to-us component. This very much is in line with the Creator God of love, actually. But not a god who is in our image, i.e. from-us-out-to-the-infinite. Have to go, so I'll get back to the other posts later. Along these lines, I finished reading the mathematical logician Smullyan's Who Knows? Some Thoughts on Religious Consciousness (?). Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 14-févr.-07, à 00:27, Tom Caylor a écrit : This is precisely my point. If all that exists is internal meaning (i.e. opinion), then there is no true basis (even in the literal sense of true) for anything more than a dog-eat-dog world (unless the other dog provides 1st person subjective gratification). I would say external meaning is opinion. Internal meaning is private (1-person, incorrigible) knowledge. (or I have to reconsider my understanding of some preceding posts). Would you accept (as a first rough approximation): Truth = Reality = God (be it 'Primary Matter or Jesus or Number or whatever) Intellect = Science = Opinion = Theory = Doubt Soul = (lucky (?) case when) Intellect matches Truth Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. Why do you say we might like to believe Nagel? Why would anyone want it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a million years? In order to think in terms beyond a few generations, we need a basis for meaning that is more universal than explaining and controlling things in our immediate sphere of care abouts, like our animal instincts. But what we care about right now, may include anything we think of - including how things will be a million years from now, including an abstract principle, even including a fine point of theology. Sorry that I don't have much time. I agree with your statement above. However, see below. (Such a local basis does not support doing things like sacrificing your life for others even a couple thousand years in the future.) For the very good reason that one cannot foresee the benefits of such sacrifice so far in the future. But people sacrifice for others that they know all the time. This statement seems to be in conflict with your previous statement. Theology (I'd rather say being in communion with the personal God in from whom we have our personhood, rather than an academic pursuit) is a way of enabling us to see things, expand our consciousness, outside of the immediate sphere of care abouts that are defined by animal instincts, the five senses, etc., and to see things such as the nobility of giving our life for a cause that is greater that this local, supposedly (but not truly) autonomous, sphere. But if we reject the ultimate basis, then it feels good to say that it doesn't matter. Tom If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of this observation is. I don't think it's true. My exhibit A is the Aztecs. I think the significance of Stathis' observation is this. Our local sphere of care abouts mostly has to do with what can I get out of it. It is more immediately obvious that we could possibly gain something from someone else's achievements or ideas, rather than from their wickedness. In fact, it is probably true. Studying goodness is more fruitful than studying wickedness. (Rather lopsided isn't it? How could such a thing be generated from Everything (or Nothing)?) But whoever said that what matters is only about wickedness and not goodness? Brent Meeker There is a certain impertinence in allowing oneself to be burned for an opinion. -- Anatole France This is precisely my point. If all that exists is internal meaning (i.e. opinion), then there is no true basis (even in the literal sense of true) for anything more than a dog-eat-dog world (unless the other dog provides 1st person subjective gratification). Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. Why do you say we might like to believe Nagel? Why would anyone want it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a million years? In order to think in terms beyond a few generations, we need a basis for meaning that is more universal than explaining and controlling things in our immediate sphere of care abouts, like our animal instincts. I never said otherwise. It is you who keep pretending that if we don't worship a sky god we're reduced to animal instincts. You keep bringing up meaning. Do you not see that meaning is reference to something else. Words have meaning because they refer to things that are not words. In order to act you need purpose, an internal thing. You don't need meaning; except by reference to your own purpose. If you act to satisfy someone else's purpose, then you have to answer the question, Why was it your decision, your purpose, to satisfy someone else? But what we care about right now, may include anything we think of - including how things will be a million years from now, including an abstract principle, even including a fine point of theology. Sorry that I don't have much time. I agree with your statement above. However, see below. (Such a local basis does not support doing things like sacrificing your life for others even a couple thousand years in the future.) Depends on what you mean by local basis. You seem to mean animal instincts. But I, here and now, can care about whether democracy survives in the U.S. in 2100, whether global warming kills people in Bangladesh, whether AIDS spreads in Africa, whether a theory of quantum gravity will ever be discovered. For the very good reason that one cannot foresee the benefits of such sacrifice so far in the future. But people sacrifice for others that they know all the time. This statement seems to be in conflict with your previous statement. How? Theology (I'd rather say being in communion with the personal God in from whom we have our personhood, rather than an academic pursuit) is a way of enabling us to see things, expand our consciousness, outside of the immediate sphere of care abouts that are defined by animal instincts, the five senses, etc., and to see things such as the nobility of giving our life for a cause that is greater that this local, supposedly (but not truly) autonomous, sphere. You seem to assume that non-local = good. Tell it to the victims of 9/11. But if we reject the ultimate basis, then it feels good to say that it doesn't matter. Tom If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of this observation is. I don't think it's true. My exhibit A is the Aztecs. I think the significance of Stathis' observation is this. Our local sphere of care abouts mostly has to do with what can I get out of it. It is more immediately obvious that we could possibly gain something from someone else's achievements or ideas, rather than from their wickedness. In fact, it is probably true. Studying goodness is more fruitful than studying wickedness. You're assuming that you have somehow decided what is good and what is wicked. But that's the question isn't it. I know what I value and I can build on that. I don't see how I can build on somebody else's values; how could I let someone else decide for me what is valuable? (Rather lopsided isn't it? How could such a thing be generated from Everything (or Nothing)?) But whoever said that what matters is only about wickedness and not goodness? Brent Meeker There is a certain impertinence in allowing oneself to be burned for an opinion. -- Anatole France This is precisely my point. If all that exists is internal meaning (i.e. opinion), then there is no true basis (even in the literal sense of true) for anything more than a dog-eat-dog world (unless the other dog provides 1st person subjective gratification). Tom You keep assuming that all internal meaning is selfish, short-sighted opinion. This is false. As I said above, it can include anything we think about. Of course we are more likely to care about our children and neighbors than people in Dafur and it's easier to see what will promote our values next year than next century. It is rational to pay more attention to the short term and local, because we can be more certain of
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Feb 13, 5:18 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. Why do you say we might like to believe Nagel? Why would anyone want it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a million years? In order to think in terms beyond a few generations, we need a basis for meaning that is more universal than explaining and controlling things in our immediate sphere of care abouts, like our animal instincts. I never said otherwise. It is you who keep pretending that if we don't worship a sky god we're reduced to animal instincts. You keep bringing up meaning. Do you not see that meaning is reference to something else. Words have meaning because they refer to things that are not words. In order to act you need purpose, an internal thing. You don't need meaning; except by reference to your own purpose. If you act to satisfy someone else's purpose, then you have to answer the question, Why was it your decision, your purpose, to satisfy someone else? I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the primary matter situation. I think you maintain that experience is enough. I maintain that if all you have is relative references, you are having faith that there is ultimately something there. I'm not interested in any straw-man caricature god who decides what is valuable etc. on a whim. I'm interested in the source of the wonderfully unexplainable good in us. But what we care about right now, may include anything we think of - including how things will be a million years from now, including an abstract principle, even including a fine point of theology. Sorry that I don't have much time. I agree with your statement above. However, see below. (Such a local basis does not support doing things like sacrificing your life for others even a couple thousand years in the future.) Depends on what you mean by local basis. You seem to mean animal instincts. But I, here and now, can care about whether democracy survives in the U.S. in 2100, whether global warming kills people in Bangladesh, whether AIDS spreads in Africa, whether a theory of quantum gravity will ever be discovered. But the wonderfully unexplainable good thing is that these cares of yours actually mean something that other people can appreciate, and that what you see as being worthy to pursue or fight against, individually and collectively, can *actually be* worthy, independent of what we may think. For the very good reason that one cannot foresee the benefits of such sacrifice so far in the future. But people sacrifice for others that they know all the time. This statement seems to be in conflict with your previous statement. How? I explained in the following sentences. Theology (I'd rather say being in communion with the personal God in from whom we have our personhood, rather than an academic pursuit) is a way of enabling us to see things, expand our consciousness, outside of the immediate sphere of care abouts that are defined by animal instincts, the five senses, etc., and to see things such as the nobility of giving our life for a cause that is greater that this local, supposedly (but not truly) autonomous, sphere. You seem to assume that non-local = good. Tell it to the victims of 9/11. I'm not assuming that. This prompts me to bring up the Solzhenitsin quote again about the line between good and evil going down the center of every human. This quote is saying something more than I value certain things, and I don't value (or even I am horrified by) other things. This by itself is meaningless unless there is some basis upon which it is good to value some things and be horrified by other things. Solzhenitsin believed in the personal God (who is love), and so he could believe in actual good and evil, and that we each have a choice between them. Without that, we have no choice, we just like what we like and that's that. But if we reject the ultimate basis, then it feels good to say that it doesn't matter. Tom If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of this observation is. I don't think it's true. My exhibit A is the Aztecs. I think the significance
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the primary matter situation. I think you maintain that experience is enough. I maintain that if all you have is relative references, you are having faith that there is ultimately something there. I'm not interested in any straw-man caricature god who decides what is valuable etc. on a whim. I'm interested in the source of the wonderfully unexplainable good in us. In mentioning the idea of God deciding morality on a whim, you perhaps allude to the old counterargument to grounding morality in God in the first place, known as Euthyphro's Dilemma from one of Plato's dialogues--if God *chose* these supposed laws of morality, then they are ultimately arbitrary since God could have chose a completely different set of laws, but if moral truths are in some sense beyond God's ability to change, much like many philosophers would say the laws of mathematics or logic are, then it's not clear why you need God in your explanation at all, you could just cut out the middleman and postulate eternal platonic moral truths in the same way many on this list are prepared to postulate eternal platonic mathematical truths. The only way in which I could see that it would make sense to relate goodness to God is to imagine a sort of pantheist God that represents a sort of ultimate pattern or harmony connecting every individual part of the universe, so goodness would represent some kind of orientation towards the ultimate pattern which encompasses all of us, and which would override individual conflicting interests. A variation on this might be the Omega Point idea that every individual finite being is on some sort of long-term path towards being integrated into an infinite superorganism (perhaps only as a limit that can never actually be reached in finite time), or in the concepts of this list maybe a single infinitely complex observer-moment with memories of every other observer-moment, which could also be seen as an ultimate pattern connecting everything (one might say, as in Frank Tipler's speculations about the Omega Point, that an infinite mind would itself contain simulations of every possible history in every possible universe leading up to it, so that the Omega Point would both be an endpoint of history but also contain all history integrated within it). In this view, every instance of individuals trying to cooperate and to understand and connect with each other is an incremental step in the right direction, so one could ground ultimate goodness in that. I recently came across an interesting interview at http://www.wie.org/j34/swimme2.asp?%20from=lnk-zaadz discussing Teilhard de Chardin's thoughts on the Omega Point, and many on this list will be familiar with Frank Tipler's version which I mention above (even if Tipler's specific ideas about using the Big Crunch to do an infinite amount of computation in a finite time are proven wrong, as a transhumanist I'm still crossing my fingers that intelligence will find some loophole in the laws of physics that will allow it to continue forever without violating the laws of thermodynamics). But neither of these versions of God bears much resemblance to the creator-God separate from the rest of the universe that's imagined by most mainstream religions. Jesse _ Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp007001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=createwx_url=/friends.aspxmkt=en-us --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor writes: I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the primary matter situation. I think you maintain that experience is enough. I maintain that if all you have is relative references, you are having faith that there is ultimately something there. I'm not interested in any straw-man caricature god who decides what is valuable etc. on a whim. I'm interested in the source of the wonderfully unexplainable good in us. If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals, laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice to provide meaning? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Brent Meeker writes: If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of this observation is. I don't think it's true. My exhibit A is the Aztecs. Brent Meeker There is a certain impertinence in allowing oneself to be burned for an opinion. -- Anatole France The Aztecs aren't a million years old. The further removed it is from us (literally and metaphorically), the less we worry about the ethical considerations. If some far future nonhuman civilization dug up the Nazis their children might very well want the equivalent of Adolf Hitler dolls for Christmas, even if their ethical standards turn out to be similar to our own. In the long run, fascination trumps horror. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of this observation is. I don't think it's true. My exhibit A is the Aztecs. Brent Meeker There is a certain impertinence in allowing oneself to be burned for an opinion. -- Anatole France The Aztecs aren't a million years old. The further removed it is from us (literally and metaphorically), the less we worry about the ethical considerations. If some far future nonhuman civilization dug up the Nazis their children might very well want the equivalent of Adolf Hitler dolls for Christmas, even if their ethical standards turn out to be similar to our own. In the long run, fascination trumps horror. Stathis Papaioannou Of course distance, in time or DNA, makes ethical judgments less relevant. It's hard for us to judge chimpanzees and impossible to judge dinosaurs. Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. Why do you say we might like to believe Nagel? Why would anyone want it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a million years? In order to think in terms beyond a few generations, we need a basis for meaning that is more universal than explaining and controlling things in our immediate sphere of care abouts, like our animal instincts. (Such a local basis does not support doing things like sacrificing your life for others even a couple thousand years in the future.) But if we reject the ultimate basis, then it feels good to say that it doesn't matter. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. Why do you say we might like to believe Nagel? Why would anyone want it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a million years? In order to think in terms beyond a few generations, we need a basis for meaning that is more universal than explaining and controlling things in our immediate sphere of care abouts, like our animal instincts. But what we care about right now, may include anything we think of - including how things will be a million years from now, including an abstract principle, even including a fine point of theology. (Such a local basis does not support doing things like sacrificing your life for others even a couple thousand years in the future.) For the very good reason that one cannot foresee the benefits of such sacrifice so far in the future. But people sacrifice for others that they know all the time. But if we reject the ultimate basis, then it feels good to say that it doesn't matter. Tom If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of this observation is. I don't think it's true. My exhibit A is the Aztecs. Brent Meeker There is a certain impertinence in allowing oneself to be burned for an opinion. -- Anatole France --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
