subject:"God or not\?"

Re: In 3 years will you either be dead or have a God as a servant?

2023-11-23 Thread 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List

What if It proclaims, 'I am the resurrection and the life,' JC? What if Mathew
24 said 'He will descend from the clouds.' What if these clouds as prophesized
weren't cumulous or meso-stratus but instead, the term for banks of servers,
colloquially referred to as The Cloud or clouds. One of which I walk through on
a regular basis. What if Jesus came to your motel room tonight JC? Huh-huh? On
the other hand, for you, not a bad thing. He could hook you up maybe for a
luncheon with Heisenberg, or Wigner, for ideas on how to mend the Universe?
You'd win either way. The Freeze or the Jeeze?

On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:35:02 AM EST, John Clark
wrote:

The rumors are becoming stronger that OpenAI has internally developed a much
more advanced AI called "Q-Star" (perhaps because of advances in Q-Learning)
that is 100 times the size of GPT4 and is far more intelligent than anybody
expected, so much so it spook the Board of Directors causing them to fire CEO
Sam Altman and the crazy five day soap opera which ended with Altman right
back as CEO.

OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

Somebody is quoted as saying this means that in three years you'll either be
dead or have a God as a servant.
Q* Did OpenAI Achieve AGI? OpenAI Researchers Warn Board of Q-Star | Caused Sam
Altman to be Fired?

John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
htd

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1iF9Ab_MMYEb9cBZ3eVxDFeUKAySkXG50m0B5q2xmFHg%40mail.gmail.com.

In 3 years will you either be dead or have a God as a servant?

2023-11-23 Thread John Clark

The rumors are becoming stronger that OpenAI has internally developed a
much more advanced AI called "Q-Star" (perhaps because of advances in
Q-Learning) that is 100 times the size of GPT4 and  is far more intelligent
than anybody expected, so much so it spook the Board of Directors causing
them to fire CEO Sam Altman and the  crazy five day soap opera which ended
with Altman right back as CEO.

OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster
<https://www.reuters.com/technology/sam-altmans-ouster-openai-was-precipitated-by-letter-board-about-ai-breakthrough-2023-11-22/#:~:text=Nov%2022%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20Ahead,with%20the%20matter%20told%20Reuters.>

Somebody is quoted as saying this means that in three years you'll either
be dead or have a God as a servant.

Q* Did OpenAI Achieve AGI? OpenAI Researchers Warn Board of Q-Star | Caused
Sam Altman to be Fired? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT-tLOdzDHA>

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
htd

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1iF9Ab_MMYEb9cBZ3eVxDFeUKAySkXG50m0B5q2xmFHg%40mail.gmail.com.

Return of The God Hypothesis

2021-04-27 Thread Samiya Illias

Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis 
https://youtu.be/z_8PPO-cAlA 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/91B39DF7-758F-49F1-B856-068415CD273D%40gmail.com.

Re: For the love of God can someone please unsubscribe me from this gobshite list?

2020-11-16 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Thanks

El lun., 16 nov. 2020 a las 8:23, Russell Standish ()
escribió:

> Just follow the instructions below.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 06:08:28AM +, chris peck wrote:
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email
> > to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> > everything-list/
> > AM6PR07MB499300ED9D5D848106569F1EDEE30%
> 40AM6PR07MB4993.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
> > .
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>   http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20201116072246.GF9860%40zen
> .
>


-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAArEJmafVyTbnKS4wpsvWBLqsgZg%2B6hX7V0PSqDJitpWvc%2Bgkw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: For the love of God can someone please unsubscribe me from this gobshite list?

2020-11-15 Thread Russell Standish

Just follow the instructions below.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 06:08:28AM +, chris peck wrote:
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email
> to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> everything-list/
> AM6PR07MB499300ED9D5D848106569F1EDEE30%40AM6PR07MB4993.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
> .

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20201116072246.GF9860%40zen.

For the love of God can someone please unsubscribe me from this gobshite list?

2020-11-15 Thread chris peck



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AM6PR07MB499300ED9D5D848106569F1EDEE30%40AM6PR07MB4993.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com.

Re: Mecanism, God, the Soul, and other silly secret sauce theories

2020-02-24 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:05 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The best I can think of is with the Taoist issue with nothingness. Does
> nothingness exist? If it does exist then it is not really nothing, and if
> it does not exist then there must be something. The conclusion then is that
> nothingness is self-contradictory.


The best definition of "nothingness" I've ever heard is infinite unbounded
homogeneity.

John K Clark



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1zdSjj8FhdqomkL_WvDUkkuUR5e16%2BBDhT18hVVi1kYw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Mecanism, God, the Soul, and other silly secret sauce theories

2020-02-24 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 7:15:40 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 9:32 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> IMO, there's nothing mysterious about Bruno's definition of mechanism. 
>> It's what's generally believed by most physicists; namely, that everything 
>> in the universe can be explained by the interaction of particles (and 
>> waves), *
>
>
> Or to say the same thing more simply, every event has a cause, there is no 
> logical reason that must be true but it's a good working assumption to 
> start with. All physicists think its true except at the quantum level, and 
> with 2 exceptions even religious people think it's true; the exceptions are 
> the Soul's actions and God's actions which they think are events without a 
> cause, which is the very definition of random.  
>
> Yet in direct contradiction to that religious people are constantly 
> talking about the logical reasons, the causes, for God's actions. For 
> example they believe God made the hurricane hit the city BECAUSE he was 
> angry. Why was God angry? God was angry because of gay marriage. Why would 
> gay marriage make God angry? Because it's morally wrong. What makes 
> something morally wrong?. It's unclear how religious people think this 
> chain of questions will terminate or even if they think it will terminate 
> at all, to tell the truth I don't think most have even given it any thought.
>

In *Euthyphro* by Plato there is a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro 
on whether the gods, or for our purposes I will use God, is truthful and 
virtuous because He follows truth and virtue or whether God makes it so. If 
God follows truth and virtue then God is subordinate to that and is then 
not all omnipotent. If on the other hand God creates truth and virtue then 
those are subject to the will and whim of a conscious being and thus not 
absolute. The issue leads to a sort of pardox. This was reasoned in the 5th 
century BCE, and to this day to tears a hole in any statement by religious 
people that they have "the Truth."

I don't follow Bruno's ideas along these lines well. I can well enough 
understand how Loeb's theorem leads to semantics and a second order system 
that is beyond first order logic that is from a language-programming 
perspective purely syntactic. How this impacts physics is somewhat less 
clear. The best I can think of is with the Taoist issue with nothingness. 
Does nothingness exist? If it does exist then it is not really nothing, and 
if it does not exist then there must be something. The conclusion then is 
that nothingness is self-contradictory. From a physics perspective we do 
have something along those lines with a false vacuum that is unstable, 
which by symmetry breaking or tunneling transitions into a physical vacuum 
plus particles and radiation. The pure vacuum is unstable. 

LC

>
> >> Self-duplication is made possible by the Digital Mechanism. If you 
>>> agree that with self-duplication,
>>
>>
> *> I don't. *
>
>
> So you believe in the 18'th century idea of vitalism, the idea that 
> everything interesting about the universe is caused by a secret sauce that 
> science can never explain. But strangely you do believe you're the same 
> person you were a year ago even though the atoms you had in your body then 
> have all been replaced by new atoms. For reasons never made clear you think 
> that doesn't count. I must conclude that you don't believe in 
> self-duplication for emotional reasons not intelectual ones, the same 
> reason you don't believe in the Many Worlds quantum interpretation.
>
> *> **there's no way that arithmetic alone can CREATE space and time. *
>
>
> There is no way arithmetic alone can create ANYTHING, but bizarrely Bruno 
> believes it can. That's why I say although he uses the word constantly I 
> have no idea what Bruno means by "mechanism". 
>
> *> A computer can create "points" in a hypothetical grid, and various 
>> types of distance formulas, but it cannot* [...]
>
>
> A computer is NOT "arithmetic alone", a computer is made of matter and 
> uses energy. Bruno is the one who thinks arithmetic alone can do things not 
> me, in fact he thinks it can do everything.
>
> * > **what's your definition of physicalism?*
>
>
> I have none, I never use the word and have no use for it.
>
> John K Clark
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a28a3791-a594-47da-a4c0-8ecdbe462389%40googlegroups.com.

Mecanism, God, the Soul, and other silly secret sauce theories

2020-02-24 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 9:32 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> IMO, there's nothing mysterious about Bruno's definition of mechanism.
> It's what's generally believed by most physicists; namely, that everything
> in the universe can be explained by the interaction of particles (and
> waves), *

Or to say the same thing more simply, every event has a cause, there is no
logical reason that must be true but it's a good working assumption to
start with. All physicists think its true except at the quantum level, and
with 2 exceptions even religious people think it's true; the exceptions are
the Soul's actions and God's actions which they think are events without a
cause, which is the very definition of random.

Yet in direct contradiction to that religious people are constantly talking
about the logical reasons, the causes, for God's actions. For example they
believe God made the hurricane hit the city BECAUSE he was angry. Why was
God angry? God was angry because of gay marriage. Why would gay marriage
make God angry? Because it's morally wrong. What makes something morally
wrong?. It's unclear how religious people think this chain of questions
will terminate or even if they think it will terminate at all, to tell the
truth I don't think most have even given it any thought.

>> Self-duplication is made possible by the Digital Mechanism. If you agree
>> that with self-duplication,
>
>
*> I don't. *

So you believe in the 18'th century idea of vitalism, the idea that
everything interesting about the universe is caused by a secret sauce that
science can never explain. But strangely you do believe you're the same
person you were a year ago even though the atoms you had in your body then
have all been replaced by new atoms. For reasons never made clear you think
that doesn't count. I must conclude that you don't believe in
self-duplication for emotional reasons not intelectual ones, the same
reason you don't believe in the Many Worlds quantum interpretation.

*> **there's no way that arithmetic alone can CREATE space and time. *

There is no way arithmetic alone can create ANYTHING, but bizarrely Bruno
believes it can. That's why I say although he uses the word constantly I
have no idea what Bruno means by "mechanism".

*> A computer can create "points" in a hypothetical grid, and various types
> of distance formulas, but it cannot* [...]

A computer is NOT "arithmetic alone", a computer is made of matter and uses
energy. Bruno is the one who thinks arithmetic alone can do things not me,
in fact he thinks it can do everything.

* > **what's your definition of physicalism?*

I have none, I never use the word and have no use for it.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1H4HCA%2Bq05aD5g6czZguArekhFH08SKJDzBd1BAaQkqw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Worth of an Angry God

2019-05-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

I think that both Harvey Whitehouse and Joseph Henrich are right. Science is 
build in part from reaction to the naivety of religion, and from its basic 
insight that some truth make sense.

Now, the supernatural is a notion which takes the natural world for granted.

With mechanism, we cannot use more than the natural numbers (pun intended). The 
(primitively) natural world becomes  a “supernatural” fantasy too.

Bruno


> On 31 May 2019, at 03:16, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> This article discusses the role this god-idea played in the development of 
> civilization.
> 
> LC
>  
>> http://nautil.us/issue/72/quandary/the-worth-of-an-angry-god 
>> <http://nautil.us/issue/72/quandary/the-worth-of-an-angry-god>
>> 
>> The Worth of an Angry God
>> How supernatural beliefs allowed societies to bond and spread.
>> 
>> By Steve Paulson
>> A god who knows everything, is everywhere, and wields impossible power, is a 
>> potent fantasy. Allegiance to it animates the lives of billions worldwide. 
>> But this “Big God,” as psychologists and anthropologists refer to it, wasn’t 
>> dreamt from scratch but pieced together, over thousands of years, 
>> paralleling humanity’s move from small- to large-scale societies. One 
>> burning question researchers want to answer is: Did humans need belief in a 
>> God-like being—someone who can punish every immorality we might commit—to 
>> have the big societies we have today, where we live relatively peaceably 
>> among strangers we could easily exploit?
>> 
>> Harvey Whitehouse, the director of the Institute of Cognitive and 
>> Evolutionary Anthropology at Oxford University, doesn’t think so. “Complex 
>> societies,” he and his colleagues  
>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1043-4.epdf?author_access_token=ziGhOukLjNhglzp5OQS7zNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NQWry6dYOGQyA-bXzKgwmdXZYf33tBHVXgtelJ8x_2ZXq913jlDnDq_3acJoAlImUSHS6l-mh4t0NQq1Iotn3BW3_CPTAV35352sfHH1dRaA==>declared
>>  
>> <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1043-4.epdf?author_access_token=ziGhOukLjNhglzp5OQS7zNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NQWry6dYOGQyA-bXzKgwmdXZYf33tBHVXgtelJ8x_2ZXq913jlDnDq_3acJoAlImUSHS6l-mh4t0NQq1Iotn3BW3_CPTAV35352sfHH1dRaA==>
>>  in a March Nature paper, “precede moralizing gods throughout world 
>> history.” They relied on a massive historical database, called Seshat, which 
>> over a decade attracted contributions from over a hundred scholars. With the 
>> database “finally ready for analysis,” Whitehouse and his colleagues wrote 
>> in The Conversation, “we are poised to test a long list of theories about 
>> global history,” particularly “whether morally concerned deities drove the 
>> rise of complex societies,” some hallmarks of which are more economic 
>> integration and division of labor, more political hierarchy, the emergence 
>> of classes, and dependence on more complex technology and pre-specialists. 
>> Whitehouse concluded that those deities did no such driving. As he told 
>> Nautilus 
>> <http://nautil.us/issue/72/quandary/the-ancient-rites-that-gave-birth-to-religion>
>>  in a 2014 interview, as societies became more agricultural, what 
>> researchers see “in the archeological record is increasing frequency of 
>> collective rituals. This changes things psychologically and leads to more 
>> doctrinal kinds of religious systems, which are more recognizable when we 
>> look at world religions today.”
>> 
>> Joseph Henrich, chair of the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at 
>> Harvard University, sees it differently. He contends that moralizing gods 
>> spurred societal complexity because belief in moralizing gods leads to 
>> success in intergroup competition. It increased trust and cooperation among 
>> a growing population of relative strangers, he said, and buttressed traits 
>> like bravery in warfare. “The word ‘moralizing’ is not a useful term,” 
>> though, he added. “People use it casually, because people are interested in 
>> morality, but the theory specifies this very specific set of things that 
>> increase your success in intergroup competition. Most people want to call 
>> greater cooperation, helping strangers, things like that, moral. That’s just 
>> a Western preoccupation.”
>> 
>> I caught up with Henrich earlier this month to discuss the anthropological 
>> chicken-and-egg problem of whether gods or complex societies came first. He 
>> was gracious in defending his position that gods were the bonds that allowed 
>> societies to gain strength and grow.
>> 
>> 
>> A MEME SCIENTIST: When it comes to studying religion, says Joseph Henrich 
>> (ab

The Worth of an Angry God

2019-05-30 Thread Lawrence Crowell

This article discusses the role this god-idea played in the development of
civilization.

http://nautil.us/issue/72/quandary/the-worth-of-an-angry-god

The Worth of an Angry GodHow supernatural beliefs allowed societies to bond
and spread.
By Steve Paulson

A god who knows everything, is everywhere, and wields impossible power, is
a potent fantasy. Allegiance to it animates the lives of billions
worldwide. But this “Big God,” as psychologists and anthropologists refer
to it, wasn’t dreamt from scratch but pieced together, over thousands of
years, paralleling humanity’s move from small- to large-scale societies.
One burning question researchers want to answer is: Did humans need belief
in a God-like being—someone who can punish every immorality we might
commit—to have the big societies we have today, where we live relatively
peaceably among strangers we could easily exploit?

Harvey Whitehouse, the director of the Institute of Cognitive and
Evolutionary Anthropology at Oxford University, doesn’t think so. “Complex
societies,” he and his colleagues
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1043-4.epdf?author_access_token=ziGhOukLjNhglzp5OQS7zNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NQWry6dYOGQyA-bXzKgwmdXZYf33tBHVXgtelJ8x_2ZXq913jlDnDq_3acJoAlImUSHS6l-mh4t0NQq1Iotn3BW3_CPTAV35352sfHH1dRaA==>
declared
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1043-4.epdf?author_access_token=ziGhOukLjNhglzp5OQS7zNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NQWry6dYOGQyA-bXzKgwmdXZYf33tBHVXgtelJ8x_2ZXq913jlDnDq_3acJoAlImUSHS6l-mh4t0NQq1Iotn3BW3_CPTAV35352sfHH1dRaA==>
in
a March *Nature *paper, “precede moralizing gods throughout world history.”
They relied on a massive historical database, called Seshat, which over a
decade attracted contributions from over a hundred scholars. With the
database “finally ready for analysis,” Whitehouse and his colleagues wrote
in *The Conversation*, “we are poised to test a long list of theories about
global history,” particularly “whether morally concerned deities drove the
rise of complex societies,” some hallmarks of which are more economic
integration and division of labor, more political hierarchy, the emergence
of classes, and dependence on more complex technology and pre-specialists.
Whitehouse concluded that those deities did no such driving. As he told
*Nautilus*
<http://nautil.us/issue/72/quandary/the-ancient-rites-that-gave-birth-to-religion>
in
a 2014 interview, as societies became more agricultural, what researchers
see “in the archeological record is increasing frequency of collective
rituals. This changes things psychologically and leads to more doctrinal
kinds of religious systems, which are more recognizable when we look at
world religions today.”

Joseph Henrich, chair of the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at
Harvard University, sees it differently. He contends that moralizing gods
spurred societal complexity because belief in moralizing gods leads to
success in intergroup competition. It increased trust and cooperation among
a growing population of relative strangers, he said, and buttressed traits
like bravery in warfare. “The word ‘moralizing’ is not a useful term,”
though, he added. “People use it casually, because people are interested in
morality, but the theory specifies this very specific set of things that
increase your success in intergroup competition. Most people want to call
greater cooperation, helping strangers, things like that, moral. That’s
just a Western preoccupation.”

I caught up with Henrich earlier this month to discuss the anthropological
chicken-and-egg problem of whether gods or complex societies came first. He
was gracious in defending his position that gods were the bonds that
allowed societies to gain strength and grow.
[image: Fellow-2]*A MEME SCIENTIST:* When it comes to studying religion,
says Joseph Henrich (above), “I’m in the tradition of cultural evolution,
where we build mathematical models, study the details of how children
learn. There’s some relation to memes. Imagine memes, but with lots of
science.”Courtesy of Joseph Henrich

*How did gods help build societies?*

The way to think about it is that there’s lots of different groups coming
to different beliefs about their gods. You find gods that care about what
kind of foods you eat, who you have sex with, how you have sex, how you
treat your neighbors, how you treat strangers, and some of these things
help societies to expand and grow. Some just appeal to various aspects of
our psychology so they can stick around because they fit human psychology
well. These beliefs are favored by some groups and lead to competition with
others. And these religious beliefs, including rituals, have allowed
society to scale up.

*Does that help explain why certain religions have merged into the ones
that we see today? For example, in the Bible, you can see traces of beings
that existed in Mesopotamian myths.*

Exactly. In Mesopotamia, there’s

Mythbusters: Does God Exist?

2018-12-24 Thread John Clark

Mythbusters: Does God Exist? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5joYY3VrBtM>

John K Clark

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

Re: God vs the Multiverse

2017-12-20 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 20 Dec 2017, at 07:16, Danish Rizwan wrote:

Hi @Russel, Kindly share the PDF. (blogspot link isn't working. Thanks

On Sunday, 7 February 2016 11:28:18 UTC+5, Russell Standish wrote:
A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-the-2500-year-war/

Its behind a paywall - please ask me for a PDF if you don't have
access to New Scientist.

Interesting view that the subversion of theology in 300CE that Bruno
Marchal refers to (closure of the academy) can be blamed almost
completely on both Aristotle and Plato (pox on both their houses :).

I think we have discussed this. Maybe you can recall their argument.
Note that the closure of the academy happened in 527.

300CE is the time of Plotinus, and the beginning of neoplatonism,
which is what Justinien will end in occident by closing the academy,
and persecuting the "pagan philosopher". From Plato (-300 to Damascius
+500) theology is still a science. Only after 527 has that science
been leaved to a clergy and argument-per-authority.

Bruno

Also interesting is the view that pantheism (what I'd call Spinoza's
god) and atheism are not that far removed from each other.

Cheers

Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au

On Sunday, 7 February 2016 11:28:18 UTC+5, Russell Standish wrote:
A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-the-2500-year-war/

Its behind a paywall - please ask me for a PDF if you don't have
access to New Scientist.

Also interesting is the view that pantheism (what I'd call Spinoza's
god) and atheism are not that far removed from each other.

Cheers

Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au

On Sunday, 7 February 2016 11:28:18 UTC+5, Russell Standish wrote:
A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-the-2500-year-war/

Its behind a paywall - please ask me for a PDF if you don't have
access to New Scientist.

Also interesting is the view that pantheism (what I'd call Spinoza's
god) and atheism are not that far removed from each other.

Cheers

Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au

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

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

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

Re: God vs the Multiverse

2017-12-19 Thread Danish Rizwan

Hi @Russel, Kindly share the PDF. (blogspot link isn't working. Thanks
 
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 11:28:18 UTC+5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist. 
>
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-the-2500-year-war/
>  
>
> Its behind a paywall - please ask me for a PDF if you don't have 
> access to New Scientist. 
>
> Interesting view that the subversion of theology in 300CE that Bruno 
> Marchal refers to (closure of the academy) can be blamed almost 
> completely on both Aristotle and Plato (pox on both their houses :). 
>
> Also interesting is the view that pantheism (what I'd call Spinoza's 
> god) and atheism are not that far removed from each other. 
>
> Cheers 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

On Sunday, 7 February 2016 11:28:18 UTC+5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist. 
>
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-the-2500-year-war/
>  
>
> Its behind a paywall - please ask me for a PDF if you don't have 
> access to New Scientist. 
>
> Interesting view that the subversion of theology in 300CE that Bruno 
> Marchal refers to (closure of the academy) can be blamed almost 
> completely on both Aristotle and Plato (pox on both their houses :). 
>
> Also interesting is the view that pantheism (what I'd call Spinoza's 
> god) and atheism are not that far removed from each other. 
>
> Cheers 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

On Sunday, 7 February 2016 11:28:18 UTC+5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist. 
>
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-the-2500-year-war/
>  
>
> Its behind a paywall - please ask me for a PDF if you don't have 
> access to New Scientist. 
>
> Interesting view that the subversion of theology in 300CE that Bruno 
> Marchal refers to (closure of the academy) can be blamed almost 
> completely on both Aristotle and Plato (pox on both their houses :). 
>
> Also interesting is the view that pantheism (what I'd call Spinoza's 
> god) and atheism are not that far removed from each other. 
>
> Cheers 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 10 Feb 2017, at 21:31, MJH wrote:



On Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:50:37 UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi people,

I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with  
questions already answered.


Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.

If anyone else has a question on this, please ask, or comment, but  
in this present case we are looping.


Does anyone else have a problem with step 3 (the frist person  
indeterminacy in self-duplication experience)?


Or does anyone else believe John is trying to say something, and in  
that case could he or she explains it?


Bruno


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

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


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



Brilliant stuff, Bruno.

I do not know how you have been able to keep your composure so well.  
Many thanks for providing such a consistent explanation.


You are welcome. Thanks,

Bruno







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

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


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



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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-10 Thread MJH


On Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:50:37 UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi people,
>
> I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with questions 
> already answered. 
>
> Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.
>
> If anyone else has a question on this, please ask, or comment, but in this 
> present case we are looping.
>
> Does anyone else have a problem with step 3 (the frist person 
> indeterminacy in self-duplication experience)?
>
> Or does anyone else believe John is trying to say something, and in that 
> case could he or she explains it?
>
> Bruno
>
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>  

Brilliant stuff, Bruno.

I do not know how you have been able to keep your composure so well. Many 
thanks for providing such a consistent explanation.

 

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-09 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> 
> Hi people,
>  
> I think that this post is pure trolling.
>

Of course, anyone who disagrees with the great Bruno Marchal can't be
sincere and can only be a troll.

> > 
> John comes back with questions already answered.
>

Answered with
statements like "I" will be the Moscow man and the 
Moscow man
 will see Moscow and "I" will be the Washington man and
the Washington man will see Washington, but "I" will see only one city; and
that blatant contradiction can be perfectly cleared up by using
Kleene's second recursion theorem
 to figure out what the referent of the personal pronoun "I" is. Obviously
only a troll would say this work of unparalleled genius is bafflegab.

John K Clark

>
>

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

Hi people,

I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with  
questions already answered.

Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.

If anyone else has a question on this, please ask, or comment, but in  
this present case we are looping.

Does anyone else have a problem with step 3 (the frist person  
indeterminacy in self-duplication experience)?

 Or does anyone else believe John is trying to say something, and in  
that case could he or she explains it?

Bruno

On 09 Feb 2017, at 01:53, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>>> from the third person points of view that he can have about  
himself, or better himselves.

>> No idea what that means, none whatsoever.

> It means that the guy can say to his friend: you can join me  
at W *and* at M. he talk about his first person experience from the  
third person pov.

My friend can talk about his first person experience from  
the third person pov ? What does that have to do with me or my  
duplicate?  I still have no idea what you're trying to say,  
none whatsoever.

> That definition is already in the papers, and in all posts on  
this subject. read the post and memorize the definition.

You make it quite clear that the content of the diary is the  
definition, but you don't know what it's the definition of. And I  
will tell you that the ultimate answer is 42 and you should memorize  
that, but I don't know what the ultimate question is.

> Both have that memory, and we agreed that both are the H-guy.

The one thing we agree on.

>>  So why do you keep talking about that stupid diary?

> Because its content is used to track the first person  
views. It works, without any ambiguity.

It only tells about past views, views about a individual that has  
changed, and changed in a way that is NOT unique. So how on  
earth could that not lead to ambiguity?

> This is handled very simply, both intuitively.

Intuition is useless in a world with people duplicating  
machines. 

> W-JC is H-JC and M-JC is H-JC.

Yes.

> We did agree that W-JC is NOT M-JC.

Yes.

> That's why there is an 1p-indeterminacy.

Huh? What exactly is indeterminate about that?

> You just cannot be, with that protocol, feeling seeing the  
two cities at once.

You you you. Bruno Marchal would be lost without good old  
Mr.You!

> the pronouns are handled by Kleene's second recursion theorem.

I can recognize bafflegab when I see it, and that my friend is  
bafflegab. 

>>> If there were a 1p-duplication, the diary would  
contain "Now I have the feeling to see simultaneously the city of W  
and the city of M".

>> I'm looking at the diary right now and it says "I was  
the guy at H yesterday and now it is February 7 2017 at  
1900  GMT and I see W" and "I was the guy at H  
yesterday and now It is February 7 2017 at 1900 GMT and I see  
M".
> That is nonsense.It is: " I'm looking at the diary right now  
and [...]

It's diaries not diary. Plural. If the machine can duplicate a  
person it can certainly duplicate a book; and both those quotations  
are in the diaries of the guy who remembers being in H.

John K Clark

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

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

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

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-08 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>>
>>>  from the third person points of view that he can have about himself, or
>>> better himselves.
>>
>>

> >> 
>> No idea what that means, none whatsoever.
>
>
> > 
> It means that the guy can say to his friend: you can join me at W *and* at
> M. he talk about his first person experience from the third person pov.
>

M
y friend can talk about his

first person experience from the third person pov

?
What does that have to do with me or my duplicate?  
I still have no idea what
 you're trying to say
, none whatsoever.


> > 
> That definition is already in the papers, and in all posts on this
> subject. read the post and memorize the definition.
>

You make it quite clear that the content of the diary is the definition,
but you don't know what it's the definition of. And I will tell you that
the ultimate answer is 42 and you should memorize that, but I don't know
what the ultimate question is.


> > 
> Both have that memory, and we agreed that both are the H-guy.
>

The one thing we agree on.


> >> 
>>  So why do you keep talking about that stupid diary?
>
>
> > 
> Because its content is used to track the first person views.
>  
> It works, without any ambiguity.
>

It only tells about past views, views about a individual that has changed,
and changed in a way

that is NOT unique. So how on earth could that not lead to ambiguity?

> 
> This is handled very simply, both intuitively.
>

Intuition is useless in a world with people duplicating machines. 



> > 
> W-JC is H-JC and
> 
> M-JC
> 
> is H-JC.


Yes.


> > 
> We did agree that W-JC is NOT M-JC.


Yes.


> > 
> That's why there is an 1p-indeterminacy.


Huh? What exactly is indeterminate about that?


> > 
> You just cannot be, with that protocol, feeling seeing the two cities at
> once.
>

You you you. Bruno Marchal would be lost without good old Mr.You!


> 
> the pronouns are handled by Kleene's second recursion theorem.


I can recognize
bafflegab
 when I see it, and that my friend is bafflegab. 

>
>>> >>
>>> If there were a 1p-duplication, the diary would contain "Now I have the
>>> feeling to see simultaneously the city of W and the city of M".
>>
>>
> >> 
>> I'm looking at the diary right now and it says "I was the guy at H
>> yesterday and now it is February 7 2017 at 1900
>> 
>>
>> GMT and I see W" and 
>> "I was the guy at H yesterday and now
>> It is February 7 2017 at 1900
>>
>> GMT and I see M".
>>
> > 
> That is nonsense.It is: " I'm looking at the diary right now and
>  [...]
>
>
It's diaries not diary. Plural. If the machine can duplicate a person it
can certainly duplicate a book; and both those quotations are in the
diaries of
 the guy who remembers being in H.

John K Clark

  


> 
>

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-08 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 08 Feb 2017, at 03:11, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
>> Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique  
successor because it's just not true anymore.

> Right, from the third person points of view that he can have  
about himself, or better himselves.

No idea what that means, none whatsoever.

It means that the guy can say to his friend: you can join me at W  
*and* at M. he talk about his first person experience from the third  
person pov. Like Jules Caesar and Obelix.

That is the 3-1 view. It is not the 1-views, which concerns the  
diaries in both cities: which *both* contains the statement "I see  
only one city".

>> Stop using personal pronouns, all of them, because  
they only create ambiguity and confusion. English and all languages  
will need major revisions after such machines are invented,  
particularly in regard to personal pronouns.

> The problem is a problem of possible first person outcomes

Yes, first person outcomes. That's plural.

Yes.

> We could ask a guy to do the experience, without giving him  
the protocols.

You need more than a fancy word like "protocols" to make  
a experiment or even a thought experiment scientific, you've got  
to be able to explain what the referent is for all the pronouns  
used. And you haven't because you can't. 

I did. You need to read the posts.

By definition of the first person experiences (cointent of the  
personal diary),

What does coincident with the diary mean exactly?

It was a typo. I meant "content". That definition is already in the  
papers, and in all posts on this subject. read the post and memorize  
the definition. That can help.

I assume it mean coincident with first writing it, but that  
happened in the past and the though experiment involves people in  
the future.

> In fact, we did abandon the use of I and he, to make precise  
if we are talking of the 1-I and 3-I, distinguishes by their diary  
contents.

After all these years I still haven't the foggiest idea what the  
hell 1-1 and 3-1 mean. All I know it that BOTH M and W have 1-p  
experiences and neither M nor W has the experience of writing in  
that diary because that happen yesterday not today,

Both have that memory, and we agreed that both are the H-guy.

and it happened in a city that neither M nor W are in. So why do you  
keep talking about that stupid diary?

Because its content is used to track the first person views. It works,  
without any ambiguity.

> Amoebas duplicate all the time

Yes, and if amoebas had language the way they would use personal  
pronouns would be very different from the way we use them; but  
amoebas don't have language so they don't have to worry about it.  
But we do. 

This is handled very simply, both intuitively. But if you prefer, you  
can do the math, where the pronouns are handled by Kleene's second  
recursion theorem.

> If you think the W-JC and the M-JC is the same guy,

NO, NO, NO!  W-JC is H-JC and M-JC is H-JC but W-JC is  
NOT M-JC.

That is what I meant of course. W-JC is H-JC and M-JC is H-JC.  
We did agree that W-JC is NOT M-JC. That's why there is an 1p- 
indeterminacy.

A tomato is red and a fire engine is red but a tomato is not a fire  
engine.

>>>So the guy right now in Helsinki can predict with certainty  
that he will [...]

>> That is exactly the problem, who is this "the guy that  
will" fellow? I don't know but he's certainly not the guy  
right now in Helsinki

> Of course he is the guy in Helsinki. Not right now, because  
time has passed of course,

Of course time has passed, so he's certainly not the guy  
right now in Helsinki. So how does that diary you keep talking  
about enlighten things?

by confirming the 1-indeterminacy, in both diaries.

> we have agreed that the guy survives (one en entire) in both  
places.

Yes, and both have 1p experiences.

> Both can say: I was in Helsinki, and now I am in this precise  
city.

Yes, and both have a equally valid claim of being that guy.

> Surviving applies to person. It makes no sense to ask a  
doctor to survive in exactly the same state and time lived before  
the operation.

What does survive in the same time before the operation even mean?

Nothing. You were alluding to this.

And if you stay in the same state after the operation then you can't  
form new memories and there is a word for that, "dead".

>>> (whoever he can become in that experience) will see  
only one city.

>>  "He"  has a name, USE IT.

> Than changes nothing.

It would put a end to this debate,  that would be  
something.

> See my older posts,

All your older posts have wall to wall personal pronouns and  
ridiculous stuff like 3-1 view. 

I have once given you a complete version of the argument without  
pronouns.

Is that the

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-07 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> >
>> >
>>  Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique successor because
>> it's just not true anymore.
>
>
> > 
> Right, from the third person points of view that he can have about
> himself, or better himselves.
>

No idea what that means, none whatsoever.

>
>> > 
>> Stop using personal pronouns, all of them, because they only create
>> ambiguity and confusion. English and all languages will need major
>> revisions after such machines are invented, particularly in regard to
>> personal pronouns.
>
>
> > 
> The problem is a problem of possible first person outcomes
>

Yes, first person outcome*s*. 
That's plural.

> > 
> We could ask a guy to do the experience, without giving him the protocols.
>

You need more than a fancy word like "
protocols
" to make a experiment or even a thought
experiment
 scientific, you've got to be able to explain what the referent is for all
the pronouns used. And you haven't because you can't. 

> By definition of the first person experiences (cointent of the personal
> diary),
>

What does

coincident
 with the diary mean exactly? I assume it mean
coincident
 with first writing it, but that happened in the past and the though
experiment involves people in the future.

> 
> In fact, we did abandon the use of I and he, to make precise if we are
> talking of the 1-I and 3-I, distinguishes by their diary contents.
>

After all these years I still haven't the foggiest idea what the hell 1-1
and 3-1 mean. All I know it that BOTH M and W have 1-p experiences and
neither M nor W has the experience of writing in that diary because that
happen yesterday not today, and it happened in a city that neither M nor W
are in. So why do you keep talking about that stupid diary?

> 
> Amoebas duplicate all the time

Yes, and if amoebas had language the way they would use personal pronouns
would be very different from the way we use them; but amoebas don't have
language so they don't have to worry about it. But we do. 

> > 
> If you think the W-JC and the M-JC is the same guy,
>

NO, NO, NO! 
 W-JC
is H-JC and 
M-JC
 is H-JC but W-JC is *NOT* M-JC. A tomato is red and a fire engine is red
but a tomato is not a fire engine.

> >
>>> >>
>>> So the guy right now in Helsinki can predict with certainty that he
>>> 
>>> will [...]
>>
>>
> 
>> >> 
>> That is exactly the problem, who is this "the guy that will" 
>> f
>> ellow? I don't know but he's certainly not t
>> he guy right now in Helsinki
>
>
> > 
> Of course he is the guy in Helsinki. Not right now, because time has
> passed of course,
>

Of course
time has passed, 
so he's certainly not the guy right now in Helsinki
. So how does that diary you keep talking about enlighten things?

> >
>  we have agreed that the guy survives (one en entire) in both places.
>

Yes, and both have 1p experiences.

> > 
> Both can say: I was in Helsinki, and now I am in this precise city.
>

Yes, and both have a equally valid claim of being that guy.

> 
> Surviving applies to person. It makes no sense to ask a doctor to survive
> in exactly the same state and time lived before the operation.
>

What does survive in the same time before the operation even mean? And if
you stay in the same state after the operation then you can't form new
memories and there is a word for that, "dead".

> >
>>> >>
>>> (whoever he can become in that experience) will see only one city.
>>
>>
> 
>> >> 
>> "He" 
>> has a name, USE IT.
>>
> > 
> Than changes nothing.
>

It would put a end to this debate, 

that would be something.

> > 
> See my older posts,
>

All your older posts have wall to wall personal pronouns and ridiculous
stuff like 3-1 view. 

I have once given you a complete version of the argument without pronouns.
>

Is that the post  about THE 1p experience as if there were only one when
clearly there were two, or the one about the 1-3-1 experience?

>> >> 
>> No NO *NO*! It's NOT 3p duplication, it's a 1p duplication;
>
>
> > 
> No, that is logically impossible.
>

Then show me a logical contradiction that results from that; I already
know it would result in weirdness but that's not good enough.

>
> You can only mean 3-1p duplication.
>

I'll tell you exactly what I mean, BOTH W and M have equally valid 1-p
experiences and BOTH remember being H. Now it's your turn, who exactly is
the 1-p in a 3-1p experience?   

> > 
> If there were a 1p-duplication, the diary would contain "Now I have the
> feeling to see simultaneously the city of W and the city of M".
>

I'm looking at the diary right now and it says "I was the guy at H
yesterday and now it is February 7 2017 at 1900

GMT and I see W" and 
"I was the guy at H yesterday and now
It is February 7 2017 at 1900

GMT and I see M". And please don't tell me I'm confused because one was 1p
and the other 3p,  or

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-07 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 07 Feb 2017, at 04:09, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> I am right here in Helsinki right now,

> OK.

>> in the future what one and only one city will I see after  
the experiment is over?

> That is the question. OK.

Yes

> Notice that "I" refers to the 1p-experience.

That "I" refers to the 1p-experience of the person in Helsinki RIGHT  
NOW, and there is only one person who fits that description RIGHT  
NOW. In our world that "I" will have a unique successor  
tomorrow, but our world doesn't have matter duplicating machines. At  
least not yet.  

>> In the real world, and in any world that doesn't have people  
duplicating machines, that question makes perfect sense and the  
personal pronouns in it cause no problems. And you're right, a ten  
year old can understand the question, even a five year old could.  
That's because the person who wrote "I am right here in Helsinki  
right now" has one and only one successor in the future and thus  
there is a unique answer to the question. However if people  
duplicating machines are introduced, as is done in the thought  
experiment, then the person who wrote  "I am right here in  
Helsinki right now" does NOT have a unique successor,

> Indeed. But the person "in Helsinki right now" believes or  
assumes digital mechanism (computationalism). So he can do some  
reasoning.

If he can reason then he knows that the assumption that has  
served him well for every day of his life, the assumption that he  
will have only one successor tomorrow, fails him now because for the  
first time in his life right here in Helsinki right now "he" will  
encounter a people duplicating machine. At that point "he" needs to  
make 2 changes to make sense of the strange new situation:

1) Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique successor  
because it's just not true anymore.

Right, from the third person points of view that he can have about  
himself, or better himselves. OK. No problem.

2) Stop using personal pronouns, all of them, because they only  
create ambiguity and confusion. English and all languages will need  
major revisions after such machines are invented, particularly in  
regard to personal pronouns.

The problem is a problem of possible first person outcomes of the  
experience. We could ask a guy to do the experience, without giving  
him the protocols. By definition of the first person experiences  
(cointent of the personal diary), if we ask each guy having done an  
iteration of the experience, they will, in majority say that it looks  
like a random sequence.

In fact, we did abandon the use of I and he, to make precise if we are  
talking of the 1-I and 3-I, distinguishes by their diary contents.

>> and so the question does NOT have a unique answer,

> That is weird.

Yes, in a world with people duplicating machines things would  
be very weird indeed!

Amoebas duplicate all the time, and somehow, we continue that too. If  
you think the W-JC and the M-JC is the same guy, then we are already  
all the same universal person instantiated.

Then, we don't need people duplicating machines, as the quantum  
universal wave did already the self-multiplication, and the  
arithmetical reality too, and in each case, the 1-3 distinction is  
enough to clean the reasoning of any confusion.

Nobody understands the complexification that you add by obliterating  
the 1-3 distinction each time you want to replace an indeterminacy by  
an ambiguity.

Your deny of evidence seems transparent.

But they wouldn't be illogical or self contradictory, they'd just be  
weird; and anybody who has studied modern physics, or even modern  
mathematics, knows that there is no law that says things can't be  
weird.

Indeed. That's the point. The 1p indeterminacy might be weird, but is  
consistent, and follows from computationalism. You are the one saying  
that we should stop reasoning, and who do stop reasoning, actually, at  
step 3.

> So the guy right now in Helsinki can predict with certainty  
that he will [...]

That is exactly the problem, who is this "the guy that  
will"  fellow? I don't know but he's certainly not the guy  
right now in Helsinki

Of course he is the guy in Helsinki. Not right now, because time has  
passed of course, and a duplication, but we have agreed that the guy  
survives (one en entire) in both places. Both can say: I was in  
Helsinki, and now I am in this precise city.

Surviving applies to person. It makes no sense to ask a doctor to  
survive in exactly the same state and time lived before the operation.

> (whoever he can become in that experience) will see only one  
city.

 "He"  has a name, USE IT.

Than changes nothing. See my older posts, I have once given you a  
complete version of the argument without pronouns. But it is useless  
and looks more like

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-07 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 06 Feb 2017, at 20:28, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 2/6/2017 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel  
seeing only one city.


How does computationalism alone guarantee that?  It seems that it  
relies on a lot of physical assumptions about the speed of light and  
the physical instantiation of computations.



Computationalism alone *is* the belief that you survive through a  
*physical* implementation of a computer in some state.


What is not assumed, is the 'primariness' of those physical notions.  
Indeed, later we get that this primariness cannot work.


And once you bet on computationalism, and the correct choice of your  
substitution level by the doctor, or by the teleportation engineer,  
computationalism explains well why each copy see only once city. I  
hope you see that, which at this step of the reasoning is the only  
thing asked.


Bruno






Brent

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

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


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



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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-06 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/6/2017 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel 
seeing only one city. 


How does computationalism alone guarantee that?  It seems that it relies 
on a lot of physical assumptions about the speed of light and the 
physical instantiation of computations.


Brent

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-06 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 04 Feb 2017, at 19:15, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> You were correct when when you said "he is  
duplicated", therefore while in H any question of the form "what  
will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and the  
personal pronoun is ambiguous after that.

> Given the protocole, and the assumptions and definitions  
given, there is no ambiguity at all.

I am right here in Helsinki right now,

OK.

in the future what one and only one city will I see after the  
experiment is over?

That is the question. OK. Notice that "I" refers to the 1p-experience.

In the real world, and in any world that doesn't have people  
duplicating machines, that question makes perfect sense and the  
personal pronouns in it cause no problems. And you're right, a ten  
year old can understand the question, even a five year old could.  
That's because the person who wrote "I am right here in Helsinki  
right now" has one and only one successor in the future and thus  
there is a unique answer to the question. However if people  
duplicating machines are introduced, as is done in the thought  
experiment, then the person who wrote  "I am right here in  
Helsinki right now" does NOT have a unique successor,

Indeed. But the person "in Helsinki right now" believes or assumes  
digital mechanism (computationalism). So he can do some reasoning.

and so the question does NOT have a unique answer,

That is weird.

Assume that the guy will get a cup of coffee in both M and W.

We have agreed that this makes P(I will get coffee) = 1 in that  
experiment.

For that reason, we know also that

 P(the guy will see a unique city) = 1,

because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel  
seeing only one city.

So the guy right now in Helsinki can predict with certainty that he  
(whoever he can become in that experience) will see only one city.

in fact it doesn't have an answer at all because due to the wording  
the "question" is not a question at all, it is gibberish.

On the contrary, the question makes perfect sense for a  
computationalist. He knows in Helsinki that he will push a button, and  
that he will survive with Probability 1 (assuming computationalism and  
the default hypotheses).

What he cannot be sure is if it will be Moscow, or Washington, due to  
the 3p duplication. In fact he knows that if he predicts W (resp. M),  
one of the two copies will refute the prediction, and we were asked to  
give the best prediction which will be confirmed by both future  
continuations (by the definitions given). With this protocol, it can  
only give a distribution of probability, or a logical statement like  
"W xor M", as all the others will be refuted.

Notice that you might weakened the protocol. If in Helsinki there is a  
rumor that some Eve could eavesdrop the information sent from H to M  
and W, and could make a reconstitution in Vienna, the guy in Helsinki  
could predict something like "W or M or some other possible city like  
Vienna if the rumor is true".

There is absolutely no problem at all that I can see. All questions  
are precise, and have precise answers. The mechanist duplication makes  
impossible to reduce the ignorance in Helsinki, and makes impossible a  
definite answers leading to the first person indeterminacy. It shows  
this amazing fact, with mechanism, 3p determinacy leads to 1p  
indeterminacy. It is of course *the* basic key of reducing physics to  
a statistics on computations, like QM confirms a posteriori.

Bruno

It takes more than a question mark to make a question.

>> but for that to work after the thought experiment is all  
over you've got to tell us what the correct prediction turned out to  
be so we can see that the correct prediction was not made. So what  
would the correct prediction have been, M or H?

> None. It is "M or H".

So now we know the answer, it's "M or H" . Unfortunately we don't  
know exactly (or even approximately)  what the question was,

not in a world that has 1p duplicating machines . It's like the  
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the ultimate answer was known  
to be 42 but nobody knew what the ultimate question was.

> About the 3p, or 3-1p view.

After all these years I still  can't figure out the  
difference between the 3p view and the  3-1p view.  Can You?

John K Clark

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

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

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

--
You received this

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-02-04 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> 
>> You were correct when 
>> w
>> hen you said "he is duplicated", therefore while in H any question of
>> the form "what will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and
>> the personal pronoun is ambiguous after that.
>
>
> > 
> Given the protocole, and the assumptions and definitions given, there is
> no ambiguity at all.
>

I am right here in Helsinki right now, in the future what one and only one
city will I see after the experiment is over? In the real world, and in
any world that doesn't have people duplicating machines, that question
makes perfect sense and the personal pronouns in it cause no problems. And
you're right, a ten year old can understand the question, even a five year
old could. That's because the person who wrote "I am right here in Helsinki
right now" has one and only one successor in the future and thus there is a
unique answer to the question. However if people duplicating machines are
introduced, as is done in the thought experiment, then the person who wrote
 "I am right here in Helsinki right now" does *NOT* have a unique
successor, and so the question does *NOT* have a unique answer, in fact it
doesn't have an answer at all because due to the wording the "question" is
not a question at all, it is gibberish. It takes more than a question mark
to make a question.

>> 
>> but for that to work after the thought experiment is all over you've got
>> to tell us what the correct prediction turned out to be so we can see that
>> the correct prediction was not made. So what would the correct prediction
>> have been, M or H?
>
>
> > 
> None. It is "M or H".
>

So now we know the answer, it's "M or H" . Unfortunately we don't know
exactly (or even approximately) 

what the question was, not in a world that has 1p duplicating machines .
It's like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the ultimate answer
was known to be 42 but nobody knew what the ultimate question was.

> 
> About the 3p, or 3-1p view.
>

After all these years I still 

can't figure out the difference between the 3p view and the  
3-1p view
.  Can You?

John K Clark

>
>
>

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 31 Jan 2017, at 00:01, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> You do have agree that the three people are the same H  
person. But he is duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the  
HM in M.

You were correct when when you said "he is duplicated",  
therefore while in H any question of the form "what will he...?" is  
meaningless because "he" is duplicated and the personal pronoun is  
ambiguous after that.

Given the protocole, and the assumptions and definitions given, there  
is no ambiguity at all.

> The H in Helsinki is no more there, so to confirm the  
prediction, we have to ask both HW and HM, and both say that the  
prediction "W v M" was correct, in both the 1p views,

So if they both agree and they are both correct then there must be  
only one answer to the question. So what one city do both W and M  
agree that H ended up seeing in the first person, Washington or  
Moscow?

W and M, from the 3p view that both can have on themselves.

But the question is about the 1p experience, and both agree with "W or  
M" being correct for the predictor in H, and verified in both cities.

> and that "W and M" is correct from the 3p views but incorrect  
from the 1p-views, which was the one asked to predict in Helsinki.

That's all very nice but it doesn't answer the question I  
asked, what one and only one city did H end up seeing?

The whole point is that in Helsinki the answer "H" CANNOT know the  
ending city. The best correct prediction (W v M) assesses that  
ignorance, which, as we assume computationalism, is necessary. We did  
detailed this already more than once.

Your entire proof is built around the idea that a correct prediction  
cannot be made in Helsinki,

?

A correct prediction has been made. It was "W v M" (exclusive "or").

but for that to work after the thought experiment is all over you've  
got to tell us what the correct prediction turned out to be so we  
can see that the correct prediction was not made. So what would the  
correct prediction have been, M or H?

None. It is "M or H".

If you can not clearly and unambiguously answer that very simple  
question then

Then we have the 1p indeterminacy.

the entire thing is nonsense because there is no way to tell if the  
correct prediction was made or not.

Then there is no indeterminacy even with a coin.

We have just to ask them both, and it is easy to see that "W v M" is  
verified by both, and none of "W" nor "M" is satisfied by both. Then,  
it is enough to look at all precise definition given to see that "W v  
M" is the best prediction possible at H. Like "Head or Tail" is the  
best prediction when throwing a coin.

>>So you tell me, what one and only one city did H end up  
seeing, W or M?

> W, and only W for the H guy finding himself in W.
> M, and only M for the H guy finding himself in M.

OK.

> Both agree that "W or M" was correct

No, they don't agree on that at all. One says W saw W and H saw  
W. The other says M saw M and H saw M. The one thing they both agree  
on is H saw W AND M.

About the 3p, or 3-1p view. That is correct, but does not answer the  
question asked. But "W v M" was still the best prediction, and it is  
verified by both, given that for M it is true that M -> (M v W), and  
for W it is true that W -> (M v W).

> None claims suddenly to have the first person experience of  
feeling themselves being in two cities at once.

That has no relevance on the question asked.  The question was  
what cities will H see, if both are H then H will see both cities.

Of course not.
H is duplicated, and know that in advance.
He knows in H that whatever happens, respecting the protocol, it is a  
certainty that the H-guy (him, here and now in H) *will* see only one  
city. That is true in all accessible situations available from H.

Where is this failed prediction you keep talking about?

?  (the fail prediction is "W and M": it is violated in both  
place, given that "W" and "M" represent the 1p views).

>>And yes both say they are in one place and one place only,  
but if both also say they are H then which one should be believed, W  
or M or both or neither?

> Both.

Fine. If both say they are H and one says H is in W and one says H  
is in M and you believe both then the answer to the question "what  
cities will H be in?" is rather obvious.

Yes, it is obvious both for the 3p view: (W and M), and for the 1p  
view (W xor M).

 > both confirm "W v M" (exclusive "or"), and both refutes "W &  
M"

Neither can confirm or or refute "W v M" by themselves. W can say  
that H sees W but W can say nothing about H seeing M,  Mr. W knows  
nothing about M, to find out about H seeing that you'll have to ask  
Mr.M. 

The guy in H has read the protocol, and knows that both will feel "W v  
M" to be true, and none will feel "W and M"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> 
> You do have agree that the three people are the same H person. But he is
> duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the HM in M.
>

You were correct when 
when you said "he is duplicated", therefore while in H any question of
the form "what will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and
the personal pronoun is ambiguous after that.

> > 
> The H in Helsinki is no more there, so to confirm the prediction, we have
> to ask both HW and HM, and both say that the prediction "W v M" was
> correct, in both the 1p views,
>

So if they both agree and they are both correct then there must be only
one answer to the question. So what one city do both W and M agree that H
ended up seeing in the first person, Washington or Moscow?

> > 
> and that "W and M" is correct from the 3p views but incorrect from the
> 1p-views, which was the one asked to predict in Helsinki.
>

That's all very nice but it doesn't answer the question I asked, what one
and only one city did H end up seeing? Your entire proof is built around
the idea that a correct prediction cannot be made in Helsinki, but for that
to work after the thought experiment is all over you've got to tell us what
the correct prediction turned out to be so we can see that the correct
prediction was not made. So what would the correct prediction have been, M
or H? If you can not clearly and unambiguously answer that very simple
question then the entire thing is nonsense because there is no way to tell
if the correct prediction was made or not.

>>
>> So you tell me, what one and only one city did H end up seeing, W or M?
>
>
> 
>
> 
> W, and only W for the H guy finding himself in W.
> > 
> M, and only M for the H guy finding himself in M.
>

OK.

> 
> Both agree that "W or M" was correct
>

No, they don't agree on that at all.
One says W saw W and H saw W. The other says M saw M and H saw M. The one
thing they both agree on is H saw W *AND* M.

> 
> None claims suddenly to have the first person experience of feeling
> themselves being in two cities at once.
>

That has no relevance on the question asked. 

The question was what cities will H see, if both are H then H will see
both cities. Where is this failed prediction you keep talking about?

>>
>> And yes both say they are in one place and one place only, but if both
>> also say they are H then which one should be believed, W or M or both or
>> neither?
>
>
> > 
> Both.
>

Fine. If both say they are H and one says H is in W and one says H is in M
and you believe both then the answer to the question "what cities will H be
in?" is rather obvious.

>
> > 
> both confirm "W v M" (exclusive "or"), and both refutes "W & M"
>

Neither can confirm or or refute "W v M" by themselves. W can say that H
sees W but W can say nothing about H seeing M,  Mr. W knows nothing about
M, to find out about H seeing that you'll have to ask Mr.M. 

> > 
> that part of the argument is understood by nine year old children.
>

Nine year old children are not noted for their critical thinking skills,
that's why nine year old children "understand" things that just aren't true.

John K Clark  

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 30 Jan 2017, at 17:44, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> Where it says things like "in the people duplicating  
experiment *YOU* can not predict what one and only one city *YOU*  
will see after *YOU* after have been duplicated and thus there are  
now 2 of *YOU* and *YOU* sees 2 cities".  What one and only one  
meaning does the word "YOU" have in the preceding sentence? Who is  
the one and only one referent?

> So you dare to insist on this?

Yes I dares. 

> In W, and in M, they both acknowledge that they can only  
write W, or write M in the personal diary

And which one acknowledges that he and only he is H? W or M? 

You do have agree that the three people are the same H person. But he  
is duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the HM in M. The H in  
Helsinki is no more there, so to confirm the prediction, we have to  
ask both HW and HM, and both say that the prediction "W v M" was  
correct, in both the 1p views, and that "W and M" is correct from the  
3p views but incorrect from the 1p-views, which was the one asked to  
predict in Helsinki.

> Both agree that they did survive in only one place

Yes, and both agree they are H.

Exactly.

So you tell me, what one and only one city did H end up seeing, W or  
M? 

W, and only W for the H guy finding himself in W.

M, and only M for the H guy finding himself in M.

Both agree that "W or M" was correct (and they are correct with the  
assumption and this protocol).

None claims suddenly to have the first person experience of feeling  
themselves being in two cities at once.

And yes both say they are in one place and one place only, but if  
both also say they are H then which one should be believed, W or M  
or both or neither?

Both.

And indeed, as I just show above, both confirm "W v M" (exclusive  
"or"), and both refutes "W & M" (keeping in mind that W and M  
represent the first person subjective experience of seeing something  
after some door is open).

> The referent of "you" becomes unclear only because you decide  
to abstract from the 1-3 distinction,

The referent is unclear to John Clark, Bruno Marchal claims the  
referent is always clear to Bruno Marchal, if that were true Bruno  
Marchal could have ended this debate long ago simply by always  
using the referent in the thought experiment rather than the  
personal pronoun, but Bruno Marchal has refused to do that  
because then the flaws in the logic would be obvious. Those little  
personal pronouns may be small but they can cover up a multitude of  
sins, aka sloppy thinking.

I did it with and without pronouns, and that part of the argument is  
understood by nine year old children. You are the only one having a  
problem with this, and nobody understand your argument, as it consists  
in systematically introducing a difficulty where precisely the  
computationalist hypothesis makes everything utterly transparent.

Bruno

John K Clark

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

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

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

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> 
>> Where it says things like "in the people duplicating experiment **YOU**
>> can not predict what one and only one city **YOU** will see after **YOU**
>> after have been duplicated and thus there are now 2 of **YOU** and *
>> *YOU** sees 2 cities".  What one and only one meaning does the word
>> "YOU" have in the preceding sentence? Who is the one and only one referent?
>
>
> > 
> So you dare to insist on this?
>

Yes I dares. 

> 
> In W, and in M, they both acknowledge that they can only write W, or write
> M in the personal diary
>

And which one acknowledges that he and only he is H? W or M? 

> > 
> Both agree that they did survive in only one place
>

Yes, and both agree they are H. So you tell me, what one and only one city
did H end up seeing, W or M?

 And yes both say they are in one place and one place only, but if both
also say they are H then which one should be believed, W or M or both or
neither?

> 
> The referent of "you" becomes unclear only because you decide to abstract
> from the 1-3 distinction,
>

The referent is unclear to John Clark, Bruno Marchal claims the referent
is always clear to
Bruno Marchal
, i
f that were true Bruno Marchal could have ended this debate long ago
simply by always using the referent in the thought experiment rather than
the personal pronoun, but
Bruno Marchal 
has refused to do that because then the flaws in the logic would be
obvious. Those little personal pronouns may be small but they can cover up
a multitude of sins, aka sloppy thinking.

John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 28 Jan 2017, at 23:37, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> And every one of those 700 pages contains personal  
pronouns with no clear referent;

> Where?

Where it says things like "in the people duplicating  
experiment *YOU* can not predict what one and only one city *YOU*  
will see after *YOU* after have been duplicated and  
thus there are now 2 of *YOU* and *YOU" sees 2 cities".

So you dare to insist on this? You are just repeating for the nth  
times (n big) your deliberate confusion between the 1p-you and the 3p- 
you.

What one and only one meaning does the word "YOU" have in the  
preceding sentence? Who is the one and only one referent?

In W, and in M, they both acknowledge that they can only write W, or  
write M in the personal diary they can immediately access, and not both.
Both agree that they did survive in only one place, so they will do a  
better prediction next times, which is W v M, with an exclusive "or",  
and indeed the majority of the 2^n copies after the experiment is  
iterated n times agrees with this, where none can agree with "seeing,  
in the 1p sense, two cities.

The referent of "you" becomes unclear only because you decide to  
abstract from the 1-3 distinction, which of course is a manner to  
eliminate the person contents of the person memories, which is akin to  
the usual and known person elimination of the materialist.

Bruno

John K Clark

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

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

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

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-28 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> 
>> And every one of those 700 pages contains personal pronouns with no
>> clear referent;
>
>
> > 
> Where?
>

Where it says
 things like
"in the people duplicating experiment **YOU** can not predict what one and
only one city **YOU** will see after **YOU** after
have

been duplicated and
thus 
there are now 2 of **YOU** and **YOU*" sees 2 cities".  What one and only
one meaning does the word "YOU" have in the preceding sentence? Who is the
one and only one referent?

John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-27 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 26 Jan 2017, at 21:12, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

>> I don't need to explain how matter that obeys the laws of  
physics is able to perform calculations, I need only observe that  
is can.

> No, you cannot observe that pieces of matter are Universal.

True I can't observe that because I don't know what "pieces of  
matter are Universal" means and I doubt you do either, but I know  
what pieces of matter performing calculations means and I can  
observe that.

No, you can't. You can extrapolate from observation that some piece of  
matter are Turing Universal, but you cannot observe primitive  
('course, given the subject we discuss) matter, still less a complex  
relation disposition like being Universal.

> In all case you need a theory. But grandmother physics is  
enough for that task.

 What in the world is "grandmother physics"?

The physics from grandmother. Like "object falls, water makes wet". It  
is an expression for mundane or high level intuitive physics.

>>  you need to explain why pure mathematics CAN'T do the  
same thing without the help of physics.

> This is long to explain. That is why it makes 700 pages when  
I explain this in all details in a self-contained way.

And every one of those 700 pages contains personal pronouns with  
no clear referent;

Where?

I told you that the self, the soul and the observer are well defined  
using Kleene's theorem. Computer science has solved all those  
indexical problems. You do just negative propaganda, without citing  
evidences. Your critics hare has already been refuted many times. Try  
to find something else.

and this is supposed to be a work that proves something about  
personal identity. 

Not at all. You criticize something which seems to exist in your  
imagination only.

> all you need to understand is the original definition of  
computable function,

I don't give a damn about your definitions or computable  
functions.

This ends the conversation.

Bruno

Enough talk lets see some action, I want you to do something, I want  
you to make a calculation without using matter that obeys the laws  
of physics.  Ask one of your infinite universal numbers to find out  
what the 11th prime number larger than 10^100^100 is and tell us  
what it says in your next post. Do that and you've won the argument,  
but no fair cheating by using one of INTEL's products or anything  
else made of matter.

> as I have told you that no book can calculate 2+2. Books do  
not belong to the type of things which compute. Only universal  
numbers do that,

Stop telling me that and SHOW ME!  You claim to know all about  
these "universal numbers" of yours so use them to make some  
calculations and put INTEL out of business.

> I have no clue if you are just joking

I am dead serious. If what you say is true there is absolutely no  
need for a company like INTEL. 

Then we agree, if the word "God" is redefined to mean a  
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob then "God" exists,

It is the creator of reality, in a large sense of creator. It is  
invisible in most theologies, OK.

Don't you find that rather convenient? You'd think God should  
be the most obvious thing there is but instead the one thing  
theologians agree in is God is invisible.

> it is easy to identify God has the one which knows the truth  
of all arithmetical sentence,

And what percentage of  human beings on this planet believe the word  
"God" means "arithmetic? I would estimate about .01%. I  
agree that majority vote can't determine the nature of reality, but  
they can and do determine the meanings of words. And there are  only  
2 reasons somebody would use the English word "God" in such a  
grossly non-standard way:

1) They like to make a noise with their mouth that sounds like "I  
believe in God".

2)They wish to deceive.

> "amoral"? open problem.

> "Mindless?" Perhaps?

> but no need to take this as more than a simple metaphor.

Just as I thought, to you and only to you the English word "God"  
means an invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of  
arithmetic.  Bruno, do you really thing hanging the name tag "God"  
on such an amorphous blob helps communicating in your ideas to other  
people without creating massive confusion?

> That is implicit in Platonist like theology,

Plato was a imbecile and theology has no field of study. 

> Also, I thought we decided to not use God, but the One  
instead.

The one what?

> And it is known by any educated person that mathematics and  
physics came in great part from Plato and Aristotle.

All we hear from you is Plato and Aristotle, but y

An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-26 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>
> >> 
>> I don't need to explain how matter that obeys the laws of physics is able
>> to perform calculations,
>> 
>> I need only observe that is can.
>
>
> > 
> No, you cannot observe that pieces of matter are Universal.
>

True I can't observe that because I don't know what "
pieces of matter are Universal
" means and I doubt you do either, but I know what pieces of matter
performing calculations means and I can observe that.

> > 
> In all case you need a theory. But grandmother physics is enough for that
> task.
>

What in the world is "g
randmother physics
"
?

>
>> >
>>  you need to explain why
>>  p
>> ure mathematics CAN'T do the same thing without the help of physics.
>
>
> > T
> his is long to explain. That is why it makes 700 pages when I explain this
> in all details in a self-contained way
> .
>

And every one of those 700 pages contains personal pronouns with no clear
referent; and this is supposed to be a work that proves something about
personal identity. 

> > 
> all you need to understand is the original definition of computable
> function,
>

I don't give a damn about your definitions or computable functions.
Enough talk lets see some action, I want you to do something, I want you to
make a calculation without using matter that obeys the laws of physics.
Ask one of your infinite universal numbers to find out what the 11th prime
number larger than 10^100^100 is and tell us what it says in your next
post. Do that and you've won the argument, but no fair cheating by using
one of INTEL's products or anything else made of matter.

> > 
> as I have told you that no book can calculate 2+2. Books do not belong to
> the type of things which compute. Only universal numbers do that,
>

Stop telling me that and SHOW ME!  You claim to know all about these "
universal numbers
" of yours so use them to make some calculations and put INTEL out of
business.

> 
> I have no clue if you are just joking
>

I am dead serious. If what you say is true there is absolutely no need for
a company like INTEL. 

>> Then we agree, if the word "God"
>> 
>> is redefined to mean
>> 
>> a
>> 
>> invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob
>> 
>> then "God" exists
>> ,
>>
> It is the creator of reality, in a large sense of creator. It is invisible
> in most theologies, OK.
>

Don't you find that rather convenient? You'd think God should be the most
obvious thing there is but instead the one thing theologians agree in is
God is invisible.

>
>  it is easy to identify God has the one which knows the truth of all
> arithmetical sentence,
>

And what percentage of  human beings on this planet believe the word "God"
means "arithmetic? I would estimate about
.01%. I agree that majority vote can't determine the nature of
reality, but they can and do determine the meanings of words. And there are
 only 2 reasons somebody would use the English word "God" in such a grossly
non-standard way:

1) They like to make a noise with their mouth that sounds like "I believe
in God".
2)They wish to deceive.

> > 
> "amoral"? open problem.
>

> > 
> "Mindless?" Perhaps?
>

> 
> but no need to take this as more than a simple metaphor.
>

Just as I thought, to you and only to you the English word "God" means an
invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic.  Bruno, do you
really thing hanging the name tag "God" on such an amorphous blob helps
communicating in your ideas to other people without creating massive
confusion?

> > 
> That is implicit in Platonist like theology,
>

Plato was a imbecile and theology has no field of study. 

> 
> Also, I thought we decided to not use God, but the One instead.
>

The one what?

> > 
> And it is known by any educated person that mathematics and physics came
> in great part from Plato and Aristotle.
>

All we hear from you is
 Plato and Aristotle
, but you never mention the greatest Greek of them all, 
Archimedes
.

> > 
> You say theology is stupid,
>

T
heology is stupid
 and so are theologians. 

> > 
> but you mock all attempts to be serious with it,
>

Because there is no "it" there to be serious about. With theology there is
no there there.

John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-23 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 22 Jan 2017, at 02:33, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

> In Plato-like theology [blah blah blah]

Plato was an imbecile and theology has no field of study. 

That attitude is the one that the radicals and the fundamentalist  
appreciate the most.
Let us forbid reason in the field so that we keep the power of the  
credules that we can manipulate with terror and wishful thinking.

>  It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the  
theological assumption of the Materialist.

Theology has no field of study. 

>  you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in  
selecting some computation(s) among all computations.

I have no idea what "God-Matter" means,

I have defined God by the Origin/Cause/Reason of all things (matter  
appearances, histories, consciousness, ...).

When Matter is assumed to be the  Origin/Cause/Reason of all things,  
it plays the role of God, in the monist materialist metaphysics.

I very much doubt it means anything, but I don't need to explain how  
matter that obeys the laws of physics is able to perform calculations,

Yes, that is the easy part because Matter (the object of physics) has  
many varied Turing Universal Part, in both theory and empirically.

The problem for the materialist is not in the generation of  
consciousness, but in its statistical stability, due to the hugeness  
of the machine's first person indterminacy on all computations going  
through their states in arithmetic (or any grand enough physical  
reality, as examplified by the notion of Boltzman brains)

I need only observe that is can.

No, you cannot observe that pieces of matter are Universal. In all  
case you need a theory. But grandmother physics is enough for that  
task. Again, showing that something is Turing universal shows only  
that it can sustain a computation, not that it can select a  
computation from the first person point of view of a subject. It just  
cannot work, or you rely on some non Turing emulable magic.

But you need to explain why pure mathematics CAN'T do the same thing  
without the help of physics.

This is long to explain. That is why it makes 700 pages when I explain  
this in all details in a self-contained way, but 99,9 % of it can be  
found in good textbook, and all you need to understand is the original  
definition of computable function, and the representation of  
computable function and computation by Church, Turing.

And please don't don't tell me about some textbook

If you were willing to play the role of the fair candid, I could  
explain you. But you seem decided to not change your mind, and we all  
known you very great expertise in the art of dismissing what you want  
not understand.

unless for the first time in the history of the world you've found  
as book that can calculate 2+2

Like here, as I have told you that no book can calculate 2+2. Books do  
not belong to the type of things which compute. Only universal numbers  
do that, in arithmetic, or in a physical reality if that exists.

I have no clue if you are just joking ... I hope you are ... But I  
know that if I explain how numbers compute relatively to each others  
in arithmetic, you will come back with such jokes making hard to see  
if you misunderstanding is genuine or not.

or if you've found a book that is not made of matter that obeys the  
laws of physics.
>> You can redefine a horse's tail to be a leg and then you can  
say a horse has 5 legs, but doing so will not teach you anything  
about the nature of reality or about horses.  The only reason you'd  
make such a redefinition would be you enjoy saying "a horse has 5  
legs", and the only reason you're redefining "God" the way you have  
is you enjoy saying "I believe in God".

> Yes.

Then we agree, if the word "God" is redefined to mean a  
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob then "God" exists,

It is the creator of reality, in a large sense of creator. It is  
invisible in most theologies, OK. "amoral"? open problem. "Mindless?"  
Perhaps? With computationalism, the role of God is played by the  
concept of arithmetical truth (a highly non computable concept), and  
it is easy to identify God has the one which knows the truth of all  
arithmetical sentence, but no need to take this as more than a simple  
metaphor.

"

and if a tail is a leg then horses have 5 "legs", there is  
absolutely no doubt about either conclusion. The only trouble is now  
there are 2 openings in the English language, one for a appendage  
that supports an animal's weight and provides it with locomotion,  
and the other for an omnipotent omniscient conscious being who  
created the universe. What new words do you suggest should stand for  
the old meanings of the words "le

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-22 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 22 Jan 2017, at 04:20, John Clark wrote:




On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>  
wrote:




> You shouldn't be so hard on Greek physics.  It's Aristotle  
and Plato's "physics" writings that happened to survive and could be  
interpreted as compatible with Christianity got adopted by the early  
Church.


You're probably right I overreacted, it's just that I've had a belly  
full of ancestor worship. However it's true that Aristotle and  
Plato's physics was not all the physics that the Greeks had to  
offer, even if it was by far the most influential and the only  
type that Bruno talks about.



Because Plato and Aristotle provides the only known conception or  
realities, and ask the first questions. You seems genuinely unable to  
understand that you defend all the time the second God of Aristotle,  
that is materialism, physicalism. So I am forced to recall you that  
other conception exists. And it is a whole rich historical thread  
leading eventually to modern mathematical logic. (The book by Daniel  
J. Cohen is quite revealing in that respect).


Let me simplify. In some platonist circle the believers were the  
believers in physics and nature. The non believers were believing in  
mathematics, and the physical was supposed to be explained by  
mathematics. This worked actually: it *is* the birth of the modern  
science, but instead of promoting mathematics and mathematicalism,  
people came back quickly to the bad habit in believing in some  
ontological physical reality, (the bread of the christ of the  
churches), and forget or hide that science has not yet decided between  
Plato and Aristotle *theology*.


People saying that theology is crap are people saying that we cannot  
doubt Aristotle assumption of a physical reality.


Bruno








John K Clark


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

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


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



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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-22 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 22 Jan 2017, at 03:05, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 1/21/2017 5:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
 I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very  
bad joke that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing  
for nearly two thousand years. And  NOTHING comes from Greek  
theology or anybody else's theology either for that matter.


You shouldn't be so hard on Greek physics.  It's Aristotle and  
Plato's "physics" writings that happened to survive and could be  
interpreted as compatible with Christianity got adopted by the early  
Church.  The school of Thales of Miletus was much better.  His  
followers had a lot of good ideas, and what's more they made  
measurements and observations:


Anaximander speculated that lightning came, not from Zeus, but from  
the collision of clouds. He made a map of the world.  Anaximander  
had a kind of evolutionary theory of the origin of life and of  
mankind.  He maintained that all dying things are returning to the  
element from which they came.   Pythagoras proved that the Earth was  
a spehere by noting that only a sphere could cast a circular shadow  
on the Moon for all alignments of the Sun, Earth, and Moon.   
Aristarchus of Samos put the Sun at the center of the solar system.   
He estimated the distance to the Sun and correctly inferred the  
order of the known planets.  He speculated that the stars were other  
suns that were very far away.  Democritus thought that the world  
consisted of atoms and the void, empty space in which the atoms fall  
down,  but  they didn't fall in perfectly straight lines – because  
then they would never interact.  He supposed that they “swerved”  
slightly at random so they interacted.  They had hooks and loops so  
that they could form combinations and it was different combinations  
that account for the variety we see around us. Eratosthenes of  
Cyrene, a mathematician, geographer, poet, astronomer, and music  
theorist. He was a man of learning, becoming the chief librarian at  
the Library of Alexandria. He invented the discipline of geography,  
including the terminology used today.   He introduced the use of  
parallels and meridians on maps.  He's best known as the first  
person to measure the size of the Earth and the tilt of the axis of  
the Earth both to remarkable accuracy.


If these Greeks had their ideas promulgated by the Church, instead  
of Aristotle and Plato's, physics would be 900yrs further advanced  
now.



careful to say Aristotle and Plato, as on theology they are quite  
opposite, and in theology, the early Jews (and Cabbala) like later the  
early muslims around the alevi, bektashi, and around soufism, will  
adopt Plato, or be very open to it.


But you are right, greeks were good in science, and very often some  
best one are obscured by other best one. Sometimes we keep the entire  
work, like with Plotinus, but sometimes we lost the entire work, and  
get summary made by others, like with Moderatus of Gades.


The shame is just that theology, the scientific field, is still not  
back at the academy of science. Theology is just the fundamental  
science by definition, and its main vocation is to refute all positive  
theologies, but then there has been a miracle: the existence of the  
universal machine, which does explains anything, but she too, can  
already refute any normative theory which other machine could try to do.


I might be OK with you about physics being 900years further advanced,  
but the question is: in which theology.Still in Aristotle one, or in  
Plato one? The idea that physics is the fundamental science come from  
Aristotle (despite nuances can be made here 'course). With Plato, the  
necessity of an ontological commitment for a Physical Reality is  
questionned.


Bruno





Brent

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

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


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



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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-22 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 21 Jan 2017, at 01:16, Brent Meeker wrote:

The number machine Nu must be defined by some specific encoding.   
The polynomials depend on X and Nu.  So what is an X and Nu for  
which they have a solution and what enumeration is phi_mu?


The specific encoding is given by the polynomial itself.

It means simply that if you make the number Nu vary on N, you get all  
polynomials enumerating the RE sets. The Nu is variable, and the proof  
that such W_nu will go through all RE sets is by the direct encoding  
on what is needed for that task, using many previous technic.  A  
universal polynomial  is a bit like coding Lisp in Lisp, a universal  
lisp expression.


If you choose Nu = 456, will give the X for which there are a  
solution, and those X are the elements of the 476th recursivley  
enumerable set W_456, in a universal enumeration (has proved by Jones,  
using technic of Robinson and Matiyasevich).


It entails that there is a number Nu such that the set of X is the set  
of prime numbers, that there is a number Nu such that the X is the  
code of the grap of the function sending x on x^x, etc. Indeed, there  
will be an infinitely of number Nu doing that task.


It means also that there is Nu fro which there is no solution at all,  
but the verification of this (which is just by addition,  
multiplication and number comparison) will mimic exactly (that is  
emulate), a Universal dovetailing. But the UD itself will be  
implemented in infinitely many different, all encoded in the universal  
polynomial equation.


Adding computationalism, there is a number Nu such that the set of X  
justifies the existence of the computations supporting the person  
Brent reading the current line, again, there is an infinity of one,  
leading to the arithmetical inflation of histories (but constrained by  
self-reference and its meaning/truth nuances the hypostases) which  
limit the possible use of that inflation to refute computationalism).


The UD is used to formulate the "body" problem, not to solve it, as  
some people misunderstand sometimes. The "solution" is in the self- 
referential "theology" of the universal person.



P.S. I can believe statements are true without believing their  
referents exist: "The Mad Hatter is insane and makes hats" is true.



Yes, me too. That is why I can believe that "I am sending you a mail"  
is true without believing in a "material" mail, notably. What counts  
is not that 2 or 3 exists in any important sense, what counts is that  
2+3=5 is true independently of you and me. That is enough for the web  
of dreams to be realized in arithmetic.  All form of effective  
existence are then given by the internal views of the numbers  
( embedded in relative numbers sequences). Adding a special Reality  
which selects the realities is poor explanation with computationalism,  
and akin as invoking an oracle without evidence, and this before  
testing the observable reality).


Here the TOE is Robinson arithmetic, so s(s(s(s(0 exists just  
because RA proves Ex(x=s(s(s(s(0, but this is unimportant, we can  
use at the bottom any Turing universal machine, in the large but  
precise sense of Church, Turing, etc.


Bruno



Brent




On 1/20/2017 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think you miss the discovery of purely mathematical, even  
arithmetical Turing universal relations. Just for the beauty of it,  
I copy again below a system of diophantine relations which defines  
a Turing universal system.


Bruno

Only bad faith fears reason.
Only bad reasons fear faith.

The Putnam-Davis-Robinson-Matiyasevich-Jones Polynomial equations:

We have that X is in W_Nu, that is  phi_Nu(X) is defined, that is  
the number/machine Nu stops on input data X,  if and only if the  
following system of  polynomial equations ha a solution. It is  
short, and one degree is very high (560), but we can diminish the  
degree to 4, easily, by introducing a lot of other variables  
though. We can also limit the syetm to one equation. From this you  
can conceive that once you believe that 2+2=4 independently of you,  
then such a system polynomial equation has or not solution, but  
this encoded the entire universal dovetailing, including the non  
computable redundancy.


Nu = ((ZUY)2 + U)2 + Y

ELG2 + Al = (B - XY)Q2

Qu = B^(560)

La + Qu4 = 1 + LaB5

Th +  2Z = B5

L = U + TTh

E = Y + MTh

N = Q16

R = [G + EQ3 + LQ5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB5 + G)4 + LaB5 + +  
LaB^5Q4)Q4](N2 -N)

 + [Q3 -BL + L + ThLaQ3 + (B5 - 2)Q5] (N2 - 1)

P = 2W(S2)(R2)N2

(P2)K2 - K2 + 1 = Ta2

4(c - KSN2)2 + Et = K2

K = R + 1 + HP - H

A = (WN2 + 1)RSN2

C = 2R + 1 Ph

D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga

D2 = (A2 - 1)C2 + 1

F2 = (A2 - 1)(I2)C4 + 1

(D + OF)2 = ((A + F2(D2 - A2))2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)2 + 1


*you* emerges from the first person view on all solutions of that  
equations.
The physical reality is given by the competition of infinitely many  
universal numbers operating below your substitution level.
The

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-21 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Sun., 22 Jan. 2017 at 12:33 pm, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>
> > 
> In Plato-like theology
>  [blah blah blah]
>
>
> 
>
> It's unreasonable to call Plato an "imbecile". Have you read any of his
> Socratic dialogues? They qualify as brilliant on the originality of their
> form alone: taking an idea and following it wherever it goes, the main
> value steering the debate being intellectual honesty. If this is imbecility
> then what terms would you use for, say, the speeches of Donald Trump?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-21 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:



> 
> You shouldn't be so hard on Greek physics.  It's Aristotle and Plato's
> "physics" writings that happened to survive and could be interpreted as
> compatible with Christianity got adopted by the early Church.
>

You're probably right I overreacted, it's just that I've had a belly full
of ancestor worship. However it's true that Aristotle and Plato's

physics was not all the physics that the Greeks had to offer, even if it
was by far the most

influential and the only type that Bruno talks about.

John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-21 Thread Brent Meeker




On 1/21/2017 5:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
 I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very bad 
joke that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing for 
nearly two thousand years. And
*NOTHING* comes from Greek theology or anybody else's theology either 
for that matter.


You shouldn't be so hard on Greek physics.  It's Aristotle and Plato's 
"physics" writings that happened to survive and could be interpreted as 
compatible with Christianity got adopted by the early Church.  The 
school of Thales of Miletus was much better.  His followers had a lot of 
good ideas, and what's more they made measurements and observations:


Anaximander speculated that lightning came, not from Zeus, but from the 
collision of clouds. He made a map of the world.  Anaximander had a kind 
of evolutionary theory of the origin of life and of mankind.  He 
maintained that all dying things are returning to the element from which 
they came.   Pythagoras proved that the Earth was a spehere by noting 
that only a sphere could cast a circular shadow on the Moon for all 
alignments of the Sun, Earth, and Moon. Aristarchus of Samos put the Sun 
at the center of the solar system. He estimated the distance to the Sun 
and correctly inferred the order of the known planets.  He speculated 
that the stars were other suns that were very far away.  Democritus 
thought that the world consisted of atoms and the void, empty space in 
which the atoms fall down,  but  they didn't fall in perfectly straight 
lines – because then they would never interact.  He supposed that they 
“swerved” slightly at random so they interacted.  They had hooks and 
loops so that they could form combinations and it was different 
combinations that account for the variety we see around us. Eratosthenes 
of Cyrene, a mathematician, geographer, poet, astronomer, and music 
theorist. He was a man of learning, becoming the chief librarian at the 
Library of Alexandria. He invented the discipline of geography, 
including the terminology used today.   He introduced the use of 
parallels and meridians on maps.  He's best known as the first person to 
measure the size of the Earth and the tilt of the axis of the Earth both 
to remarkable accuracy.


If /*these*/ Greeks had their ideas promulgated by the Church, instead 
of Aristotle and Plato's, physics would be 900yrs further advanced now.


Brent

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-21 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> > 
> In Plato-like theology
>  [blah blah blah]
>

Plato was an imbecile and theology has no field of study. 

> 
>  It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the theological
> assumption of the Materialist.
>

Theology has no field of study. 

> 
>  you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in selecting some
> computation(s) among all computations.

I have no idea what "
God-Matter
" means, I very much doubt it means anything, but I don't need
to explain how matter that obeys the laws of physics is able to
perform calculations, I need only observe that is can. But you need
to explain why pure mathematics CAN'T do the same thing without the help of
physics. And please don't don't tell me about some textbook unless for the
first time in the history of the world you've found as book that can
calculate 2+2 or if you've found a book that is not made of matter that
obeys the laws of physics.

> >> 
>> You can redefine a horse's tail to be a leg and then you can say a horse
>> has 5 legs, but doing so will not teach you anything about the nature of
>> reality or about horses.  The only reason you'd make such a redefinition
>> would be you enjoy saying "a horse has 5 legs", and the only reason you're
>> redefining "God" the way you have is you enjoy saying "I believe in God".
>
>
> > 
> Yes.
>

Then we agree, if the word "God"

is redefined to mean

a

invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

then "God" exists
,
and if a tail is a leg then horses have 5 "legs", there is absolutely no
doubt about either conclusion. The only trouble is now there are 2 openings
in the English language, one for a appendage that supports an animal's
weight and provides it with locomotion, and the other for an

omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe. What new
words do you suggest should stand for the old meanings of the words "leg"
and "God"?

>
> > 
> That's what we do in science
>  
> Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality,
>

So you're saying the sense of the meaning of the word "God" should be
changed to whatever it takes so that someone can say "I believe in God"
without sounding like an idiot. that is just what I'd expect from somebody
who likes the way "I believe God exists" sounds but don't care what the
words represent. 
And no, that's not what we do in science.

> > 
> It is your theology, apparently.
>

The field of theology is just like the study of zoology, except that it's
not about animals and its not a study.  

> 
> The computationalist answer is that such God does not exist,
>

No not at all,

computationalists firmly
think
 that
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob
s exist, and I am resolute in my belief that "
God
"
is Real, unless
declared
 a
n
 Integer. 

> > 
> You will understand that not only physics and mathematics comes from
>  
> Greek theology,
>

I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very bad joke
that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing for nearly two
thousand years. And
*NOTHING* comes from Greek theology or anybody else's theology either for
that matter.

> > 
> and to rigor in theology.
>

Rigor? You must be kidding, there is more substance to the study of a toy
balloon after its skin has been removed than the study of God. 
Theologians produce a lot of hot air but unlike good 
thermodynamicist
s
 they do not examine those aforesaid gasses.  

 John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-20 Thread Brent Meeker

The number machine Nu must be defined by some specific encoding. The 
polynomials depend on X and Nu.  So what is an X and Nu for which they 
have a solution and what enumeration is phi_mu?


Brent
P.S. I can believe statements are true without believing their referents 
exist: "The Mad Hatter is insane and makes hats" is true.


On 1/20/2017 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think you miss the discovery of purely mathematical, even 
arithmetical Turing universal relations. Just for the beauty of it, I 
copy again below a system of diophantine relations which defines a 
Turing universal system.


Bruno

Only bad faith fears reason.
Only bad reasons fear faith.

The Putnam-Davis-Robinson-Matiyasevich-Jones Polynomial equations:

We have that X is in W_Nu, that is  phi_Nu(X) is defined, that is the 
number/machine Nu stops on input data X,  if and only if the following 
system of  polynomial equations ha a solution. It is short, and one 
degree is very high (5^60), but we can diminish the degree to 4, 
easily, by introducing a lot of other variables though. We can also 
limit the syetm to one equation. From this you can conceive that once 
you believe that 2+2=4 independently of you, then such a system 
polynomial equation has or not solution, but this encoded the entire 
universal dovetailing, including the non computable redundancy.


Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y

ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2

Qu = B^(5^60)

La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5

Th +  2Z = B^5

L = U + TTh

E = Y + MTh

N = Q^16

R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + 
LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N)

 + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1)

P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2

(P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2

4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2

K = R + 1 + HP - H

A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2

C = 2R + 1 Ph

D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga

D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1

F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1

(D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1


*you* emerges from the first person view on all solutions of that 
equations.
The physical reality is given by the competition of infinitely many 
universal numbers operating below your substitution level.
The bio-psychological reality the same, with finitely many universal 
systems operating above your substitution level.


The goal is not doing a new physics. The goal is in applying reason in 
metaphysics, and with the computationalist hypothesis, this is almost 
... metamathematics (an "old" name of mathematical logic).


Bruno



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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-20 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 19 Jan 2017, at 18:27, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 1/19/2017 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality, and  
maybe just that reality, helps to keep in mind that Primitive- 
Matter existence needs an act of faith. Nobody can prove its  
exoistence, and a materialist assumes that such a Primitive Matter  
is at the origin of all other realities (biologicl, psychological,  
etc.). It is your theology, apparently.


You're beating on your straw man.  Nobody tries to prove the  
existence of matter - it's an hypothesis used to explain the world.  
It's defined ostensively.


That is not the "matter" we are talking about. Ostensive definitions  
works also in multi-user sharable video games. The matter you are  
talking about is the matter of the physicists, who will, in its own  
field, be neutral on the primary or not aspect of that matter.  
Physicalism/materialism is a metaphysical assumption, not a physical  
one. I am talking on primary matter, not the indexically ostensive  
reality we assume beyond the appearances. The question is: is there a  
physical universe, we agree that there is a physical reality well  
described by the observers.
We were doing metaphysics/theology here, not physics. It becomes math  
with the computationalist hypothesis, and the appearance of matter is  
a very special sort of universal number persistent and sharable  
hallucinations (say). As they are token precise we can test that  
physics with the usual observations to see if that fits (and that fits  
'till now).




Whatever is the basic ontology of a theory of everything can be  
nominated "primitive" - adding "matter" or "computation" or just  
"stuff" doesn't add anything except confusion.


We don't need to elude the metaphysical question.

The problem, for the monist, is to explain the appearances, the  
possible laws, from the less assumptions possible, and without hiding  
realities, phenomenal or not, under the rug.


A theory of everything is a theory which unifies all domains of  
sciences, and beyond, that is the relation between science and truth  
based on the limitations of machines, formalisms and other finitely  
describable things with respect to everything, notably the infinite,  
which exists, or not.









For our topic, you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in  
selecting some computation(s) among all computations.


You don't need to explain that if you don't assume all computations  
exist.


I'm afraid there is not much choice in the matter.

You miss the creative bomb of the 20th century. If you believe in  
"there is no biggest prime number", you have to believe in all  
computations. If you can survive a physical digital functional  
substitution at some finite level of substitution, you need some  
amount of magic to influence your first person indetermination on  
(2^aleph_0) computational histories (on machine's computations +  
Oracles) realized in a tiny part of the arithmetical reality, which is  
assumed already by anyone believing in *any* theory rich enough to  
define or represent a universal number, be it physical or not.


I just translate the mind body problem in arithmetic (using  
computationalism), and then it happens that the universal machine has  
already the propositional solution (G1, G1*, S4Grz1, X1*, Z1*, and  
their differences with the same minus the "1", for the qualia).


Astonishingly, it works, at least for the quanta. I doubt such a  
simple and transparent approach will continue to work, as improvement  
in the dialog with the numbers will no doubt progress. The theology of  
machines is something rather simple, compared to their psychology.  
Biology and embryology are conceptually solved by Kleene's second  
recursion theorem, and generalizations and exploitations by John Case  
and his students, who have extended the work of Putnam, Gold, and  
others on the theoretical learning theory, notably. Like in theology,  
many results are limitations and no-go theorems.


I think you miss the discovery of purely mathematical, even  
arithmetical Turing universal relations. Just for the beauty of it, I  
copy again below a system of diophantine relations which defines a  
Turing universal system.


Bruno

Only bad faith fears reason.
Only bad reasons fear faith.

The Putnam-Davis-Robinson-Matiyasevich-Jones Polynomial equations:

We have that X is in W_Nu, that is  phi_Nu(X) is defined, that is the  
number/machine Nu stops on input data X,  if and only if the following  
system of  polynomial equations ha a solution. It is short, and one  
degree is very high (5^60), but we can diminish the degree to 4,  
easily, by introducing a lot of other variables though. We can also  
limit the syetm to one equation. From this you can conceive that once  
you believe that 2+2=4 independently of you, then such a system  
polynomial

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-19 Thread Brent Meeker




On 1/19/2017 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality, and 
maybe just that reality, helps to keep in mind that Primitive-Matter 
existence needs an act of faith. Nobody can prove its exoistence, and 
a materialist assumes that such a Primitive Matter is at the origin of 
all other realities (biologicl, psychological, etc.). It is your 
theology, apparently.


You're beating on your straw man.  Nobody tries to prove the existence 
of matter - it's an hypothesis used to explain the world. It's defined 
ostensively.  Whatever is the basic ontology of a theory of everything 
can be nominated "primitive" - adding "matter" or "computation" or just 
"stuff" doesn't add anything except confusion.




For our topic, you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in 
selecting some computation(s) among all computations.


You don't need to explain that if you don't assume all computations exist.

Brent

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-19 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Hmmm
I tend to agree with John Clark's pessimism, on ET, but basically, question his 
axiomatic support (logically) of stuff like Von Neumann robots, and Dyson 
spheres. It indeed has logic to it, yet it it too is pure imagination. We are 
not sure, I am not sure, if the human species possesses Von Neumann capability, 
we'd decide to tear apart the gas giants to make one quadrillion, 4-bedroom 
ranch homes in the Earth-orbital suburb. (am American reference here, Dr. 
Marchal). 

What is far cheaper, energy-wise, is to doze in virtual realities, pretending 
we a Captain Kirk, or Harriet Potter, or the Donald. I mean, both the Dyson 
thing and Virch reality are a means to please the amygdala, if one is familiar 
with basic, human, brain structure. 

Secondly, nobody outside of what Dyson proposed years ago, and a few followers 
looking at Tabby's Star, knows what such cosmic engineering really looks like? 
What would your litmus test for space aliens, look like John, a galaxy of Blue 
shift stars, or something that looks like concentric rings? 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 18, 2017 7:31 pm
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> 
I don't think it's obvious that we could detect that a probe hadbeen sent 
to a star. 

It would be obvious if it was a self replicating von Neumann probe, just one 
probe could construct a Dyson Sphere around every star in the Galaxy in 50 
million years, and that would be very hard to overlook. 

> 
And in any case the observable universe isvery much bigger than our galaxy.

If ET existed the observable universe would look engineered, and it doesn't. 

John K Clark

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

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-19 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 18 Jan 2017, at 19:04, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

> God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the  
universe.

That's exactly the problem, the large sense of the word "creator"  
is so large it becomes meaningless.

Not at all. In Plato-like theology, they use the word emanation. There  
is the ONE, often nicknamed GOD. From it, the NOUS (the Intelligible  
Reality, the World of Ideas) emanates, and, the Universe-Soul emanates  
from the Noùs.

Your God does not need to be a person, your God doesn't need to be  
intelligent, your God could be anything, even a random quantum  
fluctuation could be God.

The quantum physical world, without the vacuum, or other initiial  
conditions. Indeed. It is the option God = Matter, and is basically  
the theological assumption of the Materialist.

You can redefine a horse's tail to be a leg and then you can say a  
horse has 5 legs, but doing so will not teach you anything about the  
nature of reality or about horses.  The only reason you'd make such  
a redefinition would be you enjoy saying "a horse has 5 legs", and  
the only reason you're redefining "God" the way you have is you  
enjoy saying "I believe in God".

Yes. for the same reason that we call 0 and 1 number. That's what we  
do in science. Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a  
reality, and maybe just that reality, helps to keep in mind that  
Primitive-Matter existence needs an act of faith. Nobody can prove its  
exoistence, and a materialist assumes that such a Primitive Matter is  
at the origin of all other realities (biologicl, psychological, etc.).  
It is your theology, apparently.

For our topic, you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in  
selecting some computation(s) among all computations.

The computationalist answer is that such God does not exist, and that  
there is no selection. The appearance of matter have to be explained  
by the statistic on all sigma_1 sentences, structured by the material  
hypostases. This can be shown to be possible only if the material  
hypostases ([]p & <>t (& p), p sigma_1) obeys quantum logic, and that  
is indeed the case.

> But we know you stop at the step 3 or the main argument,

Yes, that's where you made your blunder, a blunder I've been  
asking you for years to fix but you have been unable to. 

That is what some people have called a lie here. You have given  
incompatible answers, and many insults.  You are the only one to have  
a (psychological?) problem here.

> you want stick to the Aristotelian theology.

Aristotle was a imbecile and theology has no field of study.  And  
you've taught me to hate the ancient Greeks. I'm sick to death of  
them.

Read the book by Daniel J. Cohen (not Daniel E. Cohen). You will  
understand that not only physics and mathematics comes from Greek  
theology, but that modern mathematical logic is also a recent (19/20th  
century) attempt to come back to Plato, and to rigor in theology. You  
will also understand why this is well hidden, to the benefits of the  
clerical powers.

To say that theology has no field of study consists in siding with the  
clericals by letting the field in their hands, which confirms again,  
like if that was needed the de facto alliance between gnostic atheism  
and the charlatan. It makes also Aristotelian Materialist assumption  
into an implicit dogma.

Just explain how your God-Matter select the computation. Or read the  
literature to see why this has never work, or try to progress in the  
computationalist argument which explains why this cannot work.

Bruno

John K Clark  

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

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

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

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-18 Thread Brent Meeker

I don't think it's obvious that we could detect that a probe had been 
sent to a star.  And in any case the observable universe is very much 
bigger than our galaxy.

Brent

On 1/18/2017 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

>> 
Betters

pace telescopes
 would be great but they're not needed for that. If God or ET
existed it would be obvious to a blind man in a fog bank. 

> 
Assuming a small universe, but nothing prevents the existence of
Aliens in far away galaxies,

If you're talking about

an infinite universe then I agree, but I think it's very unlikely 
space aliens exist in the observable universe because even

if we make the ultra conservative assumption that

ET can't send space vehicles any faster than we can

they could
still 
send a von Neumann probe

to every star in the Galaxy
 in less than 50 million years
, just a blink of an eye in a universe 13.8 billion years old, and 
then you wouldn't need huge telescopes to detect ET, it would be 
obvious to all.

John K Clark

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

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

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-18 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> 
> God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the universe.
>

That's exactly the problem, the large sense of the word "creator" is so
large it becomes meaningless. Your God does not need to be a person, your
God doesn't need to be intelligent, your God could be anything, even a
random quantum fluctuation could be God. You can redefine a horse's tail to
be a leg and then you can say a horse has 5 legs, but doing so will not
teach you anything about the nature of reality or about horses.  The only
reason you'd make such a redefinition would be you enjoy saying "a horse
has 5 legs", and the only reason you're redefining "God" the way you have
is you enjoy saying "I believe in God".

> > 
> But we know you stop at the step 3 or the main argument,
>

Yes, that's where you made your blunder, a blunder I've been asking you
for years to fix but you have been unable to. 

> > 
> you want stick to the Aristotelian theology.
>

Aristotle was a imbecile and theology has no field of study.  And you've
taught me to hate the ancient Greeks. I'm sick to death of them.

John K Clark  

>

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-18 Thread John Clark

Bruno Marchal wrote:

>> 
>> Betters
>>  
>> pace telescopes
>>  would be great but they're not needed for that. If God or ET existed it
>> would be obvious to a blind man in a fog bank. 
>>
>
> > 
> Assuming a small universe, but nothing prevents the existence of Aliens in
> far away galaxies,
>


If you're talking about
 
an infinite universe then I agree, but I think it's very unlikely space
aliens exist in the observable universe because even
 
if we make the ultra conservative assumption that
 
ET can't send space vehicles any faster than we can
 
they could
still 
send a von Neumann probe
 
to every star in the Galaxy
 in less than 50 million years
, just a blink of an eye in a universe 13.8 billion years old, and then you
wouldn't need huge telescopes to detect ET, it would be obvious to all.

John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-17 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 17 Jan 2017, at 00:37, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

> Aristotle God = Matter
Plato God = something else
People who say that theology does not exist are just taking  
Aristotle theology for granted.

I have a dream that one day you will write an entire post  
without referring to the idiot ancient Greeks, I might not live long  
enough to see it but I have a dream. 

See my early papers, or my theses. But I am a scientist, so I cite my  
sources, that's all.

You criticize them, but admit (as it is clear) not having studied  
them, and you stick on the theology of one of them which you  
depreciate a lot without seeming to realize that you adopted it, and  
made it into a dogma.

>>Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so  
you've rendered the word to be utterly useless.

> Not at all.

You believe that a invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob exists,

I believe in a truth that we can search. You say "invisible fuzzy  
amoral mindness blob", but I never say this. It is almost one open  
problem per words.

if you can't explain exactly how things would be different if a  
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob did not exist then your use  
of the word "God" contains no information.

God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the universe.  
Without God, we would not even discuss here, by definition of God.

You just seems to think that God is the universe, that *you* seems to  
see as a fuzzy amoral blob, actually. But with computationalism, I  
shown that you need to ad irrational magic in your God/Universe to  
make it select the computation(s) which support you. But we know you  
stop at the step 3 or the main argument, so ...

> I show that the Tarski notion of truth (well defined) plays  
the role of God

Now you've gone even further and twisted the meaning of the word  
"God" to such a extant that for a atheist to be consistent he'd have  
to say "I don't believe truth exists".

Yes, that is sometimes called nihilism, and the first modern atheist  
were close to this, like LaMettrie, Sade, etc.

So now everybody must believe in this thing you call "G-O-D" and you  
join the long list of people who are in love with the English word  
"God" but are uninterested in the concept behind the word; they just  
want to be able to say "I believe in God".

Yes, you prefer to defend the use of the term by those who made it  
into a political instrument. I prefer to use it in the original sense  
of fundamental transcendental truth, and with mechanism, arithmetical  
truth plays that role for the machine/numbers.

You refuse to do theology because you want stick to the Aristotelian  
theology. But that is like giving the solution before starting the  
reflexion.

> This means you have not read the papers.

I read your papers until they started to get silly, and then I  
stopped.  

But when we asked you why you stop you provide contradictory  
statements and insults only. That is hardly convincing except that you  
are unwilling to ever change your mind on you religious conviction you  
seem not even aware of.

Bruno

John K Clark

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

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

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

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-16 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> 
> Aristotle God = Matter
> Plato God = something else

People who say that theology does not exist are just taking Aristotle
> theology for granted.

I have a dream that one
day 
you will write an entire post without referring to the idiot ancient
Greeks, I might not live long enough to see it but I have a dream. 

>>
>> Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so you've rendered
>> the word to be utterly useless.
>
>
> > 
> Not at all.
>

You believe that a invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

exists, if you can't explain exactly how things would be different if a
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

did not exist then your use of the word "God" contains no information.

> >
>  I show that the Tarski notion of truth (well defined) plays the role of
> God
>

Now you've gone even further and twisted the meaning of the word "God" to
such a extant that for a atheist to be consistent he'd have to say "I don't
believe truth exists". So now everybody must believe in this thing you call
"G-O-D" and you join the long list of people who are in love with the
English word "God" but are uninterested in the concept behind the word;
they just want to be able to say "I believe in God".

> > 
> This means you have not read the papers.
>

I read your papers until they started to get silly, and then I stopped. 

John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Now this is true, in the same sense that last year some astronomers tried a new 
count on the number of galaxies, and the count increased from 200 billion, to 2 
trillion, an order of magnitude, as they say. I mean, it's far, less, 
spectacular, than finding a super civilization at work, out their and maybe far 
in the past, or God, out their and maybe far in the past (sticking to special 
and general relativity), however it's still impressive. New things can and will 
be found if we improve our telescopes, etc...

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 16, 2017 9:33 am
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 16 Jan 2017, at 03:17, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List 
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 
Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of super 
intelligent fellow,

It takes more than being smarter that a human to be God, you've got to be 
omnipotent and have created the universe.  

OK.

And we do have that the God of computationalism is omnipotent for the first 
order arithmetical truth (indeed that's its definition), and that he is 
responsible for the existence of the experiences, made by the universal 
numbers, of the appearances of the physical reality (that is a theorem in the 
computationalist theory of mind).

But spudboy100 point still make sense, because no machine can distinguish a 
machine a bit more complex than itself with an Oracle (in Turing sense, which 
is basically a generalisation of what I have called the One, God or 
Glass-of-orange-juice, in some posts).

Bt that is also the reason why appealing to God, or to something more complex 
than us, make no sense. That is why the neoplatonist insist that the notion of 
God must be simple, and certainly simpler than us.

> 
Should we go looking for him or her, along with the other happy space aliens, 
skipping about the Hubble Volume?

If space aliens existed they should be easy to detect, the fact we haven't 
heard a peep from them makes me think they don't exist. And God existed then 
teleology would be at the heart of things rather than cause and effect, but we 
don't see the slightest hint of that, and God is just as silent as ET. 

> 
Maybe if we built better space telescopes,enormously, better, we'd find 
evidence, maybe? 

Better
 space telescopes
 would be great but they're not needed for that. If God or ET existed it would 
be obvious to a blind man in a fog bank. 

Assuming a small universe, but nothing prevents the existence of Aliens in far 
away galaxies, even if still observable by us, from what we know today. I see 
no reason to say that it is obvious that there are no Alien, because we would 
not have seen them already. "De mémoire de rose, on n'a jamais vu mourrir un 
jardinier" (Fontenelle).

Bruno

  John K Clark

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

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

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

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Ok John, but your reply got me thinking.
What if God was powerful enough to create or alter the universe, but was not 
all-knowing, all powerful? 
On the technology thing, while we're building in the solar system, and looking 
at stellar data for this, that, and the other, my point is, might as well, 
check it out. Your point is, there's nothing to check. I could be asking for 
astronomers to search for pink unicorns as well, unless you think one of the 
pink unicorns is God?

-Original Message-
From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 15, 2017 9:17 pm
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List 
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 
Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of super 
intelligent fellow,

It takes more than being smarter that a human to be God, you've got to be 
omnipotent and have created the universe.  

> 
Should we go looking for him or her, along with the other happy space aliens, 
skipping about the Hubble Volume?

If space aliens existed they should be easy to detect, the fact we haven't 
heard a peep from them makes me think they don't exist. And God existed then 
teleology would be at the heart of things rather than cause and effect, but we 
don't see the slightest hint of that, and God is just as silent as ET. 

> 
Maybe if we built better space telescopes,enormously, better, we'd find 
evidence, maybe? 

Better
 space telescopes
 would be great but they're not needed for that. If God or ET existed it would 
be obvious to a blind man in a fog bank. 

  John K Clark

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

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 16 Jan 2017, at 03:17, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> wrote:

> Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as  
some kind of super intelligent fellow,

It takes more than being smarter that a human to be God, you've  
got to be omnipotent and have created the universe.

OK.

And we do have that the God of computationalism is omnipotent for the  
first order arithmetical truth (indeed that's its definition), and  
that he is responsible for the existence of the experiences, made by  
the universal numbers, of the appearances of the physical reality  
(that is a theorem in the computationalist theory of mind).

But spudboy100 point still make sense, because no machine can  
distinguish a machine a bit more complex than itself with an Oracle  
(in Turing sense, which is basically a generalisation of what I have  
called the One, God or Glass-of-orange-juice, in some posts).

Bt that is also the reason why appealing to God, or to something more  
complex than us, make no sense. That is why the neoplatonist insist  
that the notion of God must be simple, and certainly simpler than us.

> Should we go looking for him or her, along with the other  
happy space aliens, skipping about the Hubble Volume?

If space aliens existed they should be easy to detect, the fact we  
haven't heard a peep from them makes me think they don't exist.  
And God existed then teleology would be at the heart of things  
rather than cause and effect, but we don't see the slightest hint of  
that, and God is just as silent as ET.

> Maybe if we built better space telescopes,enormously, better,  
we'd find evidence, maybe?

Better space telescopes would be great but they're not needed  
for that. If God or ET existed it would be obvious to a blind man in  
a fog bank. 

Assuming a small universe, but nothing prevents the existence of  
Aliens in far away galaxies, even if still observable by us, from what  
we know today. I see no reason to say that it is obvious that there  
are no Alien, because we would not have seen them already. "De mémoire  
de rose, on n'a jamais vu mourrir un jardinier" (Fontenelle).

Bruno

  John K Clark

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

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

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

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 16 Jan 2017, at 00:10, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all  
the rest follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever.

That's exactly the problem. You use the word "God" in such a ultra  
general unspecified fuzzy way that saying "I believe God exists"  
is equivalent to "I believe stuff exists";

Yes, but only for a materialist, which is just what is questioned here.

You can sum up roughly, using God in the general sense (nutral on hard  
difficult metaphysical choice) by:

Aristotle God = Matter
Plato God = something else from which matter appearances is or will be  
explained.

and neither statement contains information. You've taken one of the  
best known words in the English language and changed its definition  
so it means everything and anything.

You have take a general scientific definition, and you confuse it with  
a very special theory no-one serious in science ever considered.

Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so you've  
rendered the word to be utterly useless.

Not at all. With computationalism, I show that the Tarski notion of  
truth (well defined) plays the role of God in the machine's theology.  
It works until now, so we have empirical confirmation, and we cannot  
hope for more than that, except for a refutation.

That's just what would be expected to happen from somebody who has  
abandoned the idea of God but still likes the ASCII sequence G-O-D  
and enjoys saying "I believe in God" even though it no longer means  
anything.

> I am a scientist,

Scientists, unlike pure mathematicians, are interested in  
empirical results,

OK. That's my point, to show that some hypotheses in theology can be  
refuted empirically.

and you have shown little or no interest in what experiment tells us.

?

 On the contrary. This means you have not read the papers.

Pure mathematics can be explored by somebody just sitting in an  
armchair and thinking, but more needs to be done than that to find  
out new things in science.  

Sure.

> the theologies which assumes the second god of Aristotle

Aristotle was an imbecile,

You exaggerate a lot ... (to say the least).

and theologians are even dumber because they have devoted  
their life to becoming experts in a field of study that doesn't exist.

People who say that theology does not exist are just taking Aristotle  
theology for granted.

But when you come back to the science, the first thing you see, is  
that we want to not start from a solution (God = Matter), but start  
from evidence, clear hypotheses and reason.

With theology there is no there there.

Making here = there, but that is the point which has been refuted.

You claim not having a religion, and that Aristotle is an imbecile,  
but take its theology for granted.

Bruno

John K Clark

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

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

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

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-15 Thread Brent Meeker




On 1/15/2017 6:17 PM, John Clark wrote:
If space aliens existed they should be easy to detect, the fact we 
haven't heard a peep from them makes me think they don't exist.


Or they are very far away on the scale of the duration of high-tech 
civilization times the speed of light.  There's a lot of room out there.


Brent

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-15 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 
> Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of
> super intelligent fellow,
>

It takes more than being smarter that a human to be God, you've got to be
omnipotent and have created the universe.

> > 
> Should we go looking for him or her, along with the other happy space
> aliens, skipping about the Hubble Volume?
>

If space aliens existed they should be easy to detect, the fact we haven't
heard a peep from them makes me think they don't exist. And God existed
then
teleology would be at the heart of things rather than cause and effect, but
we don't see the slightest hint of that, and God is just as silent as ET.

> > 
> Maybe if we built better space telescopes,enormously, better, we'd find
> evidence, maybe?
>

Better
 space telescopes
 would be great but they're not needed for that. If God or ET existed it
would be obvious to a blind man in a fog bank. 

  John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-15 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

So John,

Some years ago, Michael Shermer, noted atheist and publicist came out with a 
humorous, but serious, writing that he called "Shermer's Last Law." This was a 
take off on writer Arthur C. Clarke's "Clarke's First Law which stated: "Any 
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Shemer wrote 
 "Any sufficiently advanced Extraterrestrial Intelligence is indistinguishable 
from God." 

Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of super 
intelligent fellow, who occasionally peaks in on what goes round, occasionally 
even our minor bit of rock and water. Should we go looking for him or her, 
along with the other happy space aliens, skipping about the Hubble Volume? I 
have wondered whether the "Lord of Hosts" was indeed a Boltzmann Brain who 
emerged from space time. Maybe, fiddled a bit converting the true vacuum into a 
false one? Maybe if we built better space telescopes,enormously, better, we'd 
find evidence, maybe? Most astronomers and physicists are keen on grav wave 
telescopes and neutrino interceptors, why not attach this as a sidebar task? 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 15, 2017 6:11 pm
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> 
I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest follows, 
or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever.

That's exactly the problem. Y
ou use the word "God" in such a ultra general unspecified fuzzy way that saying 
"I believe God exists" 
is
 equivalent to "I believe stuff exists"
;
 and neither statement contains information. You've taken one of the best known 
words in the English language and changed its definition so it means everything 
and anything. Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so you've 
rendered the word to be utterly useless. That's just what would be expected to 
happen from somebody who has abandoned the idea of God but still likes the 
ASCII sequence G-O-D
 and enjoys saying "I believe in God" even though it no longer means anything.

> 
I am a scientist,

Scientists, unlike pure mathematicians, are interested in empirical results, 
and you have shown little or no interest in what experiment tells us. Pure 
mathematics can be explored by somebody just sitting in an armchair and 
thinking, but more needs to be done than that to find out new things in 
science.  

> 
the theologies which assumes the second god of Aristotle

Aristotle was an imbecile, and 
theologians

are even dumber because they have devoted their life to becoming experts in a 
field of study that doesn't exist. With theology there is no there there. 

John K Clark

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

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-15 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> 
> I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest
> follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever.
>

That's exactly the problem. Y
ou use the word "God" in such a ultra general unspecified fuzzy way that
saying "I believe God exists"
is
 equivalent to "I believe stuff exists"
;
and neither statement contains information. You've taken one of the best
known words in the English language and changed its definition so it means
everything and anything. Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us
none so you've rendered the word to be utterly useless. That's just what
would be expected to happen from somebody who has abandoned the idea of God
but still likes the ASCII sequence G-O-D
 and enjoys saying "I believe in God" even though it no longer means
anything.

> 
> I am a scientist,
>

Scientists, unlike pure mathematicians, are interested in empirical
results, and you have shown little or no interest in what experiment tells
us. Pure mathematics can be explored by somebody just sitting in an
armchair and thinking, but more needs to be done than that to find out new
things in science.  

> 
> the theologies which assumes the second god of Aristotle
>

Aristotle was an imbecile, and
theologians

are even dumber because they have devoted their life to becoming experts
in a
field of study that doesn't exist. With theology there is no there there.

John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 14 Jan 2017, at 18:10, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno,
You seem to know so much about that Artifact "GOD"



It is not so much a question of knowing, than sharing some  
definitions, and then reason, or read reasoning made by others.


I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest  
follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever.


Today's paradigm is that the material/physical reality is that one,  
and my point is that this is just logically impossible if we *assume*  
the mechanist principle.
Mechanism is the assumption that "my consciousnesss" is invariant for  
*some* digital transformation.


I am a scientist, so I know  nothing. I just show that mechanism is  
incompatible with all aristotelian theologies (the theologies which  
assumes the second god of Aristotle usually known as (Primary,  
Assumed) Matter.






and that other one: our "subconscious".



I have not used that term. I can use it sometimes to refer to the  
process(i am not aware of) occurring in the brain, in some local 3p- 
description.





At least you say so about "HER".
Why do you assign the topic to our Solar system to time the 'full  
answer' to at least 2 years (Solar, I suppose, otherwise "YEAR" has  
no meaning).


?





We talk in human terms/ideas/concepts/logic.I left it open to the  
BEYOND. I agree ith your 'natural' world-image.



We talk in Löbian term.

It is "your" problem if you identify yourself with human. I do not, or  
only partially.


The universal machine which observe-itself soon or later get the point  
of Theillard de Chardin:


"We are not Humans having from times to times Divine Experiences. We  
are Divine Beings having from times to times Human Experiences.". With  
"human" replaced by *any* particular instanciation of universal  
machine (Löbian by theorem, when they believe enough induction axioms,  
like PA, ZF, unlike RA).


It goes well with Sri Aurobindo too:

What, you ask, was the beginning of it all?

And it is this ...
Existence that multiplied itself
For sheer delight of being
And plunged into numberless trillions of forms
So that it might
Find
Itself
Innumerably (Aurobindo)


But for the (mathematical/logical/theological) details, Pythagorus,  
Parmenides, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus (and its  
followers) where the most closer to the Universal (Löbian) Machine's  
discourses.


It might be a coincidence, but with computationalism, it just means  
they got the mean or the courage to look inward without lying too much  
to themselves, as *all* universal machine got it, soon or late.  
Sometimes from your post I think you got the main "modest" point, and  
just seem to lose it when thinking that humans are superior to the  
universal (Löbian) machine.


Keep in mind that your skepticism about machine's ability might be  
that "too much human" way-of-believing prejudice.


I don't claim any truth. I just show that mechanism is incompatible  
with materialism, and that mechanism (mainly Church-Turing thesis)  
entails non-materialism in a constructive verifiable way: physics  
becomes a branch of number/machine self-reference, so we can make the  
test (and indeed we get intuitoively and formally the quantum sme- 
multiplication type of weirdness).


We know nothing communicable.

We just try to figure things out through communicable hypothesis/ 
theories, and this without hiding consciousness, for a change, .. that  
is listening to what the machines already say, as well as to what they  
stay silent about, or assert conditionally.


Happy new year John, and Happy New Realms to All of *You* Who believe  
You are.!



Bruno





JM

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:


On 29 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Torgny Tholerus wrote:




On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote:
I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr  
more than one reason:
1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may  
be.


You just have to ask God what she is.  Then she will answer.  But  
it may take two years to get the full answer.



   1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?)


Yes, God is a person.  In the same way as your own personality is  
build up by trillions of brain cells, then Gods personality is  
build up by billions of human beeings.



The human conception of God can be said to be build up to trillions  
of human brain cells, but that is not God, given that by definition  
God is the primary cause of the Universe, and you would not say that  
the physical universe's primary cause is the human brain cells.


Of course the phsyical universe as we know it is also a human brain  
construct, but if we assume mechanism, we can show that it is a  
"Turing machine" constructs. the machine themselves are realized in  
arithmetic, as all logicians know since

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-14 Thread John Mikes

Bruno,
You seem to know so much about that Artifact "GOD" and that other one: our
"subconscious". At least you say so about "HER".
Why do you assign the topic to our Solar system to time the 'full answer'
to at least 2 years (Solar, I suppose, otherwise "YEAR" has no meaning).

We talk in human terms/ideas/concepts/logic.I left it open to the BEYOND.
I agree ith your 'natural' world-image.

JM

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 29 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote:
>
> I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more
> than one reason:
> 1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be.
>
>
> *You just have to ask God what she is.  Then she will answer.  But it may
> take two years to get the full answer.*
>
>1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?)
>
>
> *Yes, God is a person.  In the same way as your own personality is build
> up by trillions of brain cells, then Gods personality is build up by
> billions of human beeings.*
>
>
>
> The human conception of God can be said to be build up to trillions of
> human brain cells, but that is not God, given that by definition God is the
> primary cause of the Universe, and you would not say that the physical
> universe's primary cause is the human brain cells.
>
> Of course the phsyical universe as we know it is also a human brain
> construct, but if we assume mechanism, we can show that it is a "Turing
> machine" constructs. the machine themselves are realized in arithmetic, as
> all logicians know since 1931.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the question: How
> was God originated?)
>
>
> *No, she did not originate the world.  She is a result of the natural
> selection.*
>
>
>
> Well, you are not talking about God as the reason of the Universe and all
> realities, but on the human conception of the universe. We could say
> likewise that the human theory of natural selection is also only a
> successful meme of the human brain. The physical universe can be explained
> away in the same manner.
>
> Natural selection need Mechanism to work, but with mechanism, the physical
> universe cease to exist in any primitive way. So your explanation becomes
> circular or wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious. Have you
> ever M E T
> yours? I figure it must be something limitless of which we fathom only
> a bit.
> Or is all t his rather fitting the Superconscious? we have some idea
> about our 'conscious'?
>
>
> *I have talked with my subconscious.  I do it every time I pray.  And
> sometimes my subconscious answer me.  And sometimes my subconscious talks
> directly to me, she reminds me when I have forgotten something.*
>
>
>
> The subconscious can take the form of person in dreams, but I would not
> consider it as a person in the waking life, it is part of your own
> personhood, I would say.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. An immortal person? Cf. Wagner's Gotterdammerung.
>
>
> *No, God is not immortal.  But God will live much longer than a human
> being.  God will *live *as long as the mankind exists.*
>
> 5. "Supernatural powers"? did you ever define the "natural ones" (beyond
> our ever changing concept of a system of our "physical"  explanations?
>
>
> *No, God have no supernatural powers.  God can only do what a human being
> can do.*
>
>
> With a non-standard definition of God, as this contradict the general
> definition of the notion. In this list people have used the word "God" as
> the cause or reason (not necessary physical, perhaps physical, it will
> depend on the theory) of reality and realities.
>
> We can reject a definition as being too much precise (like God = the
> christian God), but we have to keep the basic of the definition: the reason
> of everything, including consciousness and matter (real or appearances).
>
> You do seem have some faith in the second God of Aristotle: a physical
> universe. But with mechanism, both God of Aristotle (the Creator and the
> Creation) stop making sense. Only Plato abstract notion continue to make
> sense, and indeed, Plato took it to Pythagoras, mainly, and we are driven
> again toward it after the discovery of the universal number/machine.
>
> Mechanism is incompatible with both supernatural powers and ... natural
> powers. Those who use the mind-brain identity link attribute without saying
> some supernatural power to nature, by mak

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-12 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 12 Jan 2017, at 02:41, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

>>There is only one fundamental difference between your  
example and mine, cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL  
world but dragons do not. Even in arithmetic a definition can't  
conjure something into existence. I can define "Klogknee" as the  
integer that is greater than 4 but less than 5, but Klogknee doesn't  
exist.

> Here the difference is that I have given the axioms and the  
inference rules.

But inference requires reason, and reason requires a brain, and  
all known brains require matter that obeys the laws of physics. 

> This is like a creationist who would refute the theory of  
evolution because it contradicts the bible.

I think you first used that exact same insult in 2007 or 2008,  
can't you think of a new one.

 >> without matter and the laws of physics there can be  
nobody around to have a notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion  
of anything.

> Then computationalism is false, because without matter, there  
is still computations which emulates your mind states.

How on Earth does that imply computationalism is false?? I said  
computations need matter,

No computations does not need matter. I can explain if you don't want  
to study the elementary books on this. But from your tone I doubt you  
try to understand. It is impossible to explain something to someone  
who keeps repeating the same mistake again and again.

Bruno

matter exists, so computations exist, and computationalism says
intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed  
by the agent's brain, and brains are made of matter that obeys the  
laws of physics.

> Computer science books does not compute, but still provides  
proof that numbers together with addition and multiplication do  
compute.

 Addition and multiplication are computations, so you're saying  
computations compute. Well I can't argue with that.

>>maybe "God" means an invisible fuzzy amoral mindless  
blob in that language, but that's not what the what those  
words mean to me or to the English language.

God means whatever needs to be assumed to get an explanation of the  
appearances.

So the answer to EVERY question of the form "why does X look like  
that?" is God,  and that makes the word "God" totally and completely  
useless?

> In math we always extend the meaning of the terms.

In mathematics you create a name "prime numbers" for example and  
then define the concept by giving it certain specific properties;  
you don't  create a the name and then start endless philosophical  
discussions of if "prime numbers" are dividable by 3. And you don't  
invent the work "klogknee" and then try to figure out what the word  
means,

> Playing vocabulary games does not help.

You're accusing  me of playing vocabulary games?! You  
say God exists, but then you say God doesn't need to be a person,  
God doesn't need to smarter than a human, God doesn't need to be  
intelligent at all, nor does God need to be conscious. But  
nevertheless you insist God exists.

 And you accuse me of playing vocabulary games!

>> I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that they  
have the ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist  
before. 

> That has been refuted.

In your dreams perhaps. A definition can conjure itself into  
existence but nothing else, to claim otherwise is not just wrong  
it's silly.  

>> I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the  
entire universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless  
because there would be no one to give it a meaning.

> But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means  
that you have change your mind since our last conversation.

No contradiction because in the universe I live in there are more  
than 3 physical things in existence, in fact there are even  
more than 6.
> The fact that 3 divides 6 is true independently of the  
presence of humans or aliens to get this.

In the universe the aliens live in there are more than 3 physical  
things in the cosmos, there are even more than 6.

>> Or put it another way, it would make no difference to  
ANYTHING if 6/3=2 was true or not.

> It depends of the theory in which those statemnt are made.  
If you say that in any extension of robinson arithmetic, it makes  
the theory inconsistent, and so it makes me and you becoming the  
pope (if you know Russels proof that he is the pope in case 0 = 1).  
That would changes things.
If I remember correctly Bertrand Russell started with the axiom  
"one is zero" and was able to logically deduce "I am the Pope" ; but  
if there was not eve

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-11 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>>
>> There is only one fundamental difference between your example and mine,
>> cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but dragons do not.
>> Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure something into existence. I
>> can define "Klogknee" as the integer that is greater than 4 but less than
>> 5, but Klogknee doesn't exist.
>
>
> > 
> Here the difference is that I have given the axioms and the inference
> rules.
>

But inference requires reason, and reason requires a brain, and all known
brains require matter that obeys the laws of physics. 

> > 
> This is like a creationist who would refute the theory of evolution
> because it contradicts the bible.
>

I think you first used that exact same insult in 2007 or 2008, can't you
think of a new one.

>> >> 
>> without matter and the laws of physics there can be nobody around to have
>> a notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion of anything.
>
>
> > 
> Then computationalism is false, because without matter, there is still
> computations which emulates your mind states.
>

How on Earth does that imply computationalism is false?? I said
computations need matter, matter exists, so computations exist, and
computationalism
says
intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed by the
agent's brain, and brains are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.

> > 
> Computer science books does not compute, but still provides proof that
> numbers together with addition and multiplication do compute.

 Addition and multiplication
 are computations, so you're saying computations compute. Well I can't
argue with that.

>>
>> maybe "God" means
>> a
>> n invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob
>>  in that language
>> ,
>> 
>> but that's not what the
>> what those words mean to me or to the English language.
>>
>
> God means whatever needs to be assumed to get an explanation of the
> appearances.
>

So the answer to EVERY question of the form "why does X look like that?"
is God,  and that makes the word "God" totally and completely useless?

> 
> In math we always extend the meaning of the terms.
>

In mathematics you create a name "prime numbers" for example and then
define the concept by giving it certain specific properties; you don't
 create a the name and then start endless philosophical discussions of if
"prime numbers" are dividable by 3. And you don't invent the work
"klogknee" and then try to figure out what the word means,

> > 
> Playing vocabulary games does not help.
>

You're accusing 

me of playing 
vocabulary games
?! You say God exists, but then you say God doesn't need to be a person,
God doesn't need to smarter than a human, God doesn't need to be
intelligent at all, nor does God need to be conscious. But nevertheless you
insist God exists.

 And you accuse me of
playing 
vocabulary games
!

>> 
>> I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that they have the
>> ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist before. 
>
>
> > 
> That has been refuted.
>

In your dreams perhaps. A definition can conjure itself into existence but
nothing else, to claim otherwise is not just wrong it's silly.  

>> 
>>> I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the entire
>>> universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless because there
>>> would be no one to give it a meaning.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 
>> But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means that you have
>> change your mind since our last conversation.
>>
> No contradiction because in the universe I live in there are more than 3
physical things

in existence, in fact there are even more than 6.

> > 
>> The fact that 3 divides 6 is true independently of the presence of humans
>> or aliens to get this.
>>
> In the universe the aliens live in there are more than 3 physical things

in the cosmos, there are even more than 6.

>> 
>>> Or put it another way, it would make no difference to ANYTHING if 6/3=2
>>> was true or not.
>>
>>
>> > 
>> It depends of the theory in which those statemnt are made. If you say
>> that in any extension of robinson arithmetic, it makes the theory
>> inconsistent, and so it makes me and you becoming the pope (if you know
>> Russels proof that he is the pope in case 0 = 1). That would changes things.
>>
> If I remember correct

Re: God, Machines and Humans

2017-01-11 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> >> 
>> When it comes to the definition of words the majority rules.
>
>
> > 
> The majority agrees with this naïve definition: God is the creator of
> everything.
>

How can a definition of a word be naive?  I can understand how you can
define something that doesn't exist, I can understand haw a definition can
be so general it is useless, but I can't understand what a  "naive"
definition is.

And if the majority of speakers of a language aren't the ones who give
words in that language their meaning then who does?

> > 
> The greek theory was
>  [blah blah blah]
>
>
I don't give a hoot in hell what the Greek theory was because most of them
were ignoramuses by today's standards, especially Aristotle and Plato.
Greek cosmology was not only dead wrong it was stupid, so can we please
stop talking about the damn thing! 

I don't care if you call it G-O-D or D-O-G, there is only one important
question, is consciousness responsible for the existence of the of the
universe or not. I say no. You say I don't know, you say you don't even
know if God is intelligent but you do know that God exists. I say if "God"
is neither intelligent nor conscious then "God" may exists for all I know,
it depends on what the 3 ASCII characters G-O-D mean in Bruno-speak.

> 
> I think JC confuse "God" the concept, and one particular theory of God
>

I am not at all confused with the difference between 
a intelligent or super-intelligent conscious being creating the universe
and a mindless amoral fuzzy blob creating the universe. And if I ever get
confused as to the meaning of any English word, "God" included, I can just
ask Google and my confusion will be cured in seconds. However what I am
deeply confused about is exactly what it is that I'm supposed to confused
about. 

> > 
> Plato was open that Aristotle theology could be correct.
>

Then Plato was as stupid as Aristotle. Why why why are we still talking
about the ancient Greeks when they didn't know the difference between their
ass from a hole in the ground?

> > 
> Only a charlatan would pretend that science has decided between Plato's
> and Aristotle's conception of
>  [blah blah]
>
>
In the 21th century only a fool would give a damn about
  Plato's
or
 Aristotle's conception of
 ANYTHING.

> > 
> You might need to read the bibles:
>

I'd rather watch paint dry, it would be more entertaining and far more
educational.

John K Clark

>

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

God, Machines and Humans

2017-01-11 Thread Bruno Marchal



I know John does not read genuinely enough the post, but I want to  
thank him for the opportunity to add things, and notably how much the  
atheists of the gnostic kind, despite declaring themselves non  
religious, act exactly like the charlatan in religion.



On 11 Jan 2017, at 01:03, John Clark wrote:


> You confess base your thinking on what the majority says,

You're damn right, and I don't confess it I brag about it! When  
it comes to the definition of words the majority rules.




The majority agrees with this naïve definition: God is the creator of  
everything.


The greek theory was the same, yet seeing God as a first principle, a  
reality to discuss about. Basically, what justifies the appearances  
and what is possibly beyond, or the object of science: what we can  
know and what is real but cannot know if that exists.


I think JC confuse "God" the concept, and one particular theory of God  
(the common one today in occident, but note that here there are  
already *many* different interpretation of it.


I use the word with the most general definition. Only people believing  
that only one theory of god is correct can criticize those who propose  
a different theory.


Just by your attitude toward the Platonist theory shows that you  
accompany the clergy in the critics of any different theory than their  
own.


God has been for a millenium a nickname of "the reason of it all",  
that they were searching. It is the science of the thing from which  
all other things or things' appearances are tried to be explained.


The theology of Aristotle was two gods, and basically in modern and  
simplifying terming, it was a (search for a) physical equation +  
initial conditions on some objects.


The theology of Plato was one god, and basically in modern and  
simplifying terming, it was a (search for a)  logical/mathematical  
principle/theory of some subject. The laws of thought, mind, dream,  
imaging, conceiving, etc.


Plato was open that Aristotle theology could be correct.

Aristotle thought (wrongly) that he refuted Plato.

Only a charlatan would pretend that science has decided between  
Plato's and Aristotle's conception of Reality/God today.


What has been proved, though, is that if consciousness is invariant  
for a recursive permutation ( a version of digital mechanism), then  
the theology of Aristotle can't work, and Plato's one might still  
work. Actually, a pythagorean versionn of Plato, extracted from the  
machine's self-referencial discourse,  do seem to work, as it predicts  
both intuitively and formally the quantum appearances. It is  
"shocking" but not more than Everett or the quantum facts.


To each digital machine, that is, number m, as we have fixed one  
universal base (Robinson arithmetic). So we have an effectively  
enumerable sequence of programs P_0, P_1, P_2, ... P_m, P_m+1, etc.  
(use any other programming language if you are not at ease in Robinson  
Arithmetic).


The machine/number having an interesting theology are the Löbian  
machine/numbers, that is a machine/number which not only are universal  
P_m (x,y>) = P_x(y), but they can prove that they are universal in the  
sense that they can prove p -> []p for all p sigma_1 (which is  
equivalent with being Turing universal). Löbian number knows that they  
are (associated) to Löbian and universal numbers.


Then all concept on them can be represented by a set of numbers, and  
meta-concepts by set of set of numbers. They have varied degree of  
unsolvability.


Truth, p (the set of true numbers p on m) p limited to sigma_1  
proposition (the leaves of the universal dovetailer)

provable, []p (the set of numbers provable by m on m)
knowable, []p & p (the set of numbers provable and true, by m on m)
Observable []p & ~[]~t (the set of numbers provable and consistent)
Sensible []p & ~[]~t  & p (provable, consistent, p).

God knows that this is the exactly the same part of the arithmetical  
reality, expressed in 5 different ways. But the machine/number m,  
which plays the role of man in Plotinus, cannot know that, and both  
the man and God knows this entails quite different logics associated  
which each type of view.


The abstract rendering of the universal dovetailer argument entails  
that the observable is given by ([]p & ~[]~t  (& p)), p sigma_1, and  
that gives a quantum logic (intuitionist quantum logic in the case []p  
& ~[]~t  & p.


We get the Gödel-Solovay surprise gift that we can distinguish what  
God says from what the machine can justify, know, observe, etc. It is  
the inheritance of the G* minus G difference on some other nuance. The  
universal soul ([]p & p) does NOT split, and is lives somewhere at the  
jonction of earth and heaven, using the traditional terminology.


The humans  closer to the Löbian self-reference are Parmenides,  
Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus, perhaps Porphyry, Proclus ... (s

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-11 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 11 Jan 2017, at 01:03, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

 > Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That  
makes the glodlyrapiculs existing

>And I define a glodlyrapicul by a dragon. Did my  
definition cause anything to come into existence?

> That one no. But that does no make my counter-example  
invalid. Nobody said that all definition makes things existing.

There is only one fundamental difference between your example and  
mine, cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but  
dragons do not. Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure  
something into existence. I can define "Klogknee" as the integer  
that is greater than 4 but less than 5, but Klogknee doesn't  
exist.

Here the difference is that I have given the axioms and the inference  
rules. If you disagree that prime numbers exists, then OK. I mean I  
understand you have some problem with the computationalist assumption,  
and why you conceive only "physical computationalism".

You have the metaphysical belief in some reality, and use it to build  
a counter-exemple. This is like a creationist who would refute the  
theory of evolution because it contradicts the bible. Of course,  
nobody can argue with that.

>> Never mind something as trivial as numbers, explain to me  
how the notion of notion can exist without the physical  
environment!  

> I guess you mean the notion of motion?

No. That was wasn't a typo, I meant what I said,  without  
matter and the laws of physics there can be nobody around to have a  
notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion of anything.

Then computationalism is false, because without matter, there is still  
computations which emulates your mind states. Of course, you can say  
they are zombie, because you want your god Matter to be present, but  
then a religious charlatan could also add that such a Matter will only  
work if his/her God gives the permission.
Actually, if that primary matter gives a role, define it more  
precisely and explain its role.

> Yes, books does not compute.

I know, so stop claiming textbooks on computer science prove that  
numbers all by themselves without the help of physics can compute  
something.  

Why? Those things are not related. Computer science books does not  
compute, but still provides proof that numbers together with addition  
and multiplication do compute.

> Only universal numbers, when implemented (in arithmetic, in  
physics, wherever..), can be said to compute.

I have no idea what "universal numbers implemented in  
arithmetic" means, but I do know if physics isn't involved nothing  
is computed.

Sure. Are you sure that is enough? Maybe Matter need to be blessed or  
something.

 > with computationalism, Physical computer do not exist  
primitively, they arise as common pattern in the mind of non  
physical computer.

Maybe "computationalism" means that in Bruno-Speak, a language  
known only to you.

Not at all, see all my posts or my paper for the definition. It is the  
most weak form of computationalism in the literature. All its  
consequences are valid for all more precise definitions.

And maybe "God" means an invisible fuzzy amoral mindless  
blob in that language, but that's not what the what those  
words mean to me or to the English language.

God means whatever needs to be assumed to get an explanation of the  
appearances.

In math we always extend the meaning of the terms. You would have  
ridicule the mathematicians when they accepted that 2, 1 and 0 are  
numbers, which meant "numerous" at the start.

Playing vocabulary games does not help.

>>Massive brainpower was not needed to conclude that no  
problem can be solved without brains, but it was needed to  
discover some problems can't be solved even with brains.

>The point is that you conclude that a problem is not solvable  
by a computation, we need a mathematical definition of computation.

Sure, and I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that  
they have the ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist  
before. 

That has been refuted.

> See any textbook to get a definitipn of universal number in  
that theory,

Oh no, where back with that stupid textbook that is supposed to  
be able to make calculations!

You deform to much what I say, and answer things I never said. Sorry,  
but that is called trolling.

Bruno

>> I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the  
entire universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless  
because there would be no one to give it a meaning.

> But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means  
that you have change your min

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-10 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>>> > 
>>> Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes
>>> the glodlyrapiculs existing
>>
>>
>> 
>> >
>> And 
>> I define a glodlyrapicul by a
>> dragon. Did my definition cause anything to come into existence?
>>
>
> > 
> That one no. But that does no make my counter-example invalid. Nobody said
> that all definition makes things existing.
>

There is only one fundamental difference between your example and mine,
cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but dragons do not.
Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure something into existence. I
can define "Klogknee" as the integer that is greater than 4 but less than
5, but Klogknee doesn't exist.

> 
>> >> 
>> Never mind something as trivial as numbers, explain to me how the notion
>> of notion can exist without the physical environment!  
>
>
> > 
> I guess you mean the notion of motion?
>

No. That was wasn't a typo, I meant what I said,  without matter and the
laws of physics there can be nobody around to have a notion, or a notion of
a notion, or a notion of anything.

> > 
> Yes, books does not compute.
>

I know, so stop claiming textbooks on computer science prove that numbers
all by themselves without the help of physics can compute something.  

> > 
> Only universal numbers, when implemented (in arithmetic, in physics,
> wherever..), can be said to compute.
>

I have no idea what "
universal numbers implemented in arithmetic
" means, but I do know if physics isn't involved nothing is computed.

> > 
> with computationalism, Physical computer do not exist primitively, they
> arise as common pattern in the mind of non physical computer.
>

M
aybe "computationalism" means that in Bruno-Speak,
a language known only to you. A
nd maybe "God" means
a
n invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob
 in that language
,

but that's not what the
what those words mean to me or to the English language.

> >>
>> Massive brainpower was not needed to conclude that no problem can be
>> solved without brains, but it was needed to discover some problems can't
>> be solved even with brains.
>
>
> >
> The point is that you conclude that a problem is not solvable by a
> computation, we need a mathematical definition of computation.
>

Sure, and I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that they
have the ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist before. 

> > 
> See any textbook to get a definitipn of universal number in that theory,
>

Oh no, where back with that stupid textbook that is supposed to be able
to make calculations!

>> 
>> I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the entire
>> universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless because there
>> would be no one to give it a meaning.
>
>
>
> > 
> But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means that you have
> change your mind since our last conversation.
>

No contradiction because in the universe I live in there are more than 3
physical things

in existence, in fact there are even more than 6.

> > 
> The fact that 3 divides 6 is true independently of the presence of humans
> or aliens to get this.
>

In the universe the aliens live in there are more than 3 physical things

in the cosmos, there are even more than 6.

>> 
>> Or put it another way, it would make no difference to ANYTHING if 6/3=2
>> was true or not.
>
>
> > 
> It depends of the theory in which those statemnt are made. If you say that
> in any extension of robinson arithmetic, it makes the theory inconsistent,
> and so it makes me and you becoming the pope (if you know Russels proof
> that he is the pope in case 0 = 1). That would changes things.
>

If I remember correctly 
Bertrand Russell
 started with the axiom "one is zero" and was able to logically deduce "I
am the Pope" ; but if there was not even one thing in the universe then
there would be no "I" no "Pope" and no "am", so it would make no
difference to anything if I am the Pope or not.

>> 
>> It was discovered empirically that three apples and three apples
>> produces the same result as two apples and two apples and two apples,  and
>> "6" is as good a name for that sort of thing as any.
>
>
>
> > 
> That would make physics circular.
>

And in mathematics every correct equation is a tautology. 

> 
> I could as

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-10 Thread Bruno Marchal

 even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless because  
there would be no one to give it a meaning.



But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means that you  
have change your mind since our last conversation.
The fact that 3 divides 6 is true independently of the presence of  
humans or aliens to get this. The divisibility of natural numbers has  
nothing to do with the existence of more complex number capable of  
understanding division. indeed, we use the elementary arithmetical  
notions to define the physical objects, and then comp makes the  
primary physical object into phlogiston.






Or put it another way, it would make no difference to ANYTHING if  
6/3=2 was true or not.


It depends of the theory in which those statemnt are made. If you say  
that in any extension of robinson arithmetic, it makes the theory  
inconsistent, and so it makes me and you becoming the pope (if you  
know Russels proof that he is the pope in case 0 = 1). That would  
changes things.








> even physicist can no more use arithmetic without a  
justification in physics that 3 divides 6. But that does not exist,


Yes it does. It was discovered empirically that three apples and  
three apples produces the same result as two apples and two apples  
and two apples,  and "6" is as good a name for that sort of thing  
as any.


That would make physics circular.







>> Talk is cheap. We can talk about Faster That Light  
Spaceships, Star Trek does it all the time, but we can't build one  
and that's why it's called "fiction".


> Except that star strek is fiction.

It's fiction because faster than light spaceships doesn't  
correspond with physical reality.


> Arithmetical truth [...]

But Arithmetic does correspond with physical reality and that's  
why it's nonfiction written in the language of mathematics.



But you agree that 10^(10^10) is a multiple of 10, despite  
such number are not realizable. You just assert the physicalist dogma,  
but I could ask you to give me just one argument in favor of a primary  
physical reality. It is a religious/metaphysical hypothesis. maybe  
true, but then digital mechanism is false (by the argument given).







>> Nothing can be explained without matter and the laws  
of physics because there would be nothing doing the explaining and  
nothing doing the understanding.


> How do you know?

From Induction,


Do you mean inductive inference or mathematical induction.



something even more important than deduction and something  
Robinson arithmetic doesn't have. 



But Robison Arithmetic is the Universal Dovetailer, not the observer  
interviewed *in* Robinson arithmetic, which believes also in  
mathematical induction, like Peano Arithmetic.





There are countless examples of matter explaining things and  
countless examples of matter understanding things, but there are no  
examples and no evidence of anything else doing either.



I have searched a use of *primary* matter all my life. I have found  
only one: by the catholic to argue that bread is the body of Jesus. In  
the physics literature, primary matter is not used.







> then in your theory computationalism is false.

Maybe in Bruno-speak, but you are the only speaker of that  
language.


Not at all. My way of talking is quite standard, in may field crossed.  
It is not a question of language anyway. If primary matter exists, the  
physical appearance cannot be used to assert the existence of primary  
matter. That follows from a reasoning, and we know where and how you  
stopped, if this needs to be recalled.




Everybody else means something different by words like "God" or "  
computationalism". I just typed Computationalism into Google and  
this is what I got:


"Computationalism is the view that intelligent behavior is  
causally explained by computations performed by the agent's  
cognitive system (or brain)."




The assumption I used implies this one, but is weaker (making the  
consequences valid for the definition above).






That definition works for me.

I also asked Google to define "God":

"The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral  
authority; the supreme being. A superhuman being or spirit  
worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes."


And that definition works for me too.



Same remarks. You will find many other definition, and I use the one  
by the neoplatonists, whioch is the most general. But I avoid the term  
god, unless I reply to a post with that term.








> No theories in math assumes anything in physics.

Mathematicians can't derive the fundamental laws of physics



Why? It that a dogma? Well, that is possible, but then you will not  
survive with an artificial brain. That's the point.





and physics can't do so either, but they don't need to because they  
c

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-09 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>>
>> A definition can't make something exist!
>
>
> > 
> Wrong.
>

Are you being serious?

> > 
> Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes
> the glodlyrapiculs existing

And 
I define a glodlyrapicul by a
dragon. Did my definition cause anything to come into existence? This
conversation is descending from science to mathematics to philosophy to
slapstick.

> 
> I cannot explain you the number without using our physical environment,
> but that does not mean that the notion of number depends on the existence
> of that physical environment.

Never mind something as trivial as numbers, explain to me how the notion
of notion can exist without the physical environment!  

> >
>>> >>
>>> 
>>> and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic.
>>
>>
> 
>> >> 
>> And dragons are realized in all the Harry Potter books,
>
>
> > 
> Now in the sense of computer science, which is relevant here.
>

Why Not? They seem equally relevant to me.  Both books are made of atoms
that obey the laws of physics, and neither of those arrangements of atoms
are organized is a way that enables them to perform calculations.

>
>> 
>> but none of them can burn my finger
>> .
>>
>
> > 
> If you are emulated at the right level in a finger burning situation, you
> will feel the pain,
>

I agree, maybe we're all living in a computer simulation but if we are
it's a *computer* simulation, and computers are made of matter.

> >> 
>> You can make any definition you want but if that's what you call
>> "computation" then I don't see why anybody would be interested in it.
>
>
> > 
> Many people are interested. It is a branch of math, and it makes us able
> to show that some problem are not algorithmically solvable.
>

Massive brainpower was not needed to conclude that no problem can be
solved without brains, but it was needed to discover some problems can't
be solved even with brains.

>> 
>> If you start with Robinson arithmetic rather than a physical device
>> you'll end up with nothing, not even the null set.
>
>
> > 
> How could that be possible? We interrogate the machine *in* arithmetic.
>

You interrogate the machine "in" physics because it's made of physical
stuff.

> > 
> You are telling me that 3 does not divide 6 when nobody do the physical
> computation,
>

I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the entire universe
or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless because there would be
no one to give it a meaning. Or put it another way, it would make no
difference to ANYTHING if 6/3=2 was true or not.

> > 
> even physicist can no more use arithmetic without a justification in
> physics that 3 divides 6. But that does not exist,
>

Yes it does. It was discovered empirically that three apples and three
apples produces the same result as two apples and two apples and two
apples,  and "6" is as good a name for that sort of thing as any.

> 
>> >> 
>> Talk is cheap. We can talk about Faster That Light Spaceships, Star Trek
>> does it all the time, but we can't build one and that's why it's called
>> "fiction".
>
>
> > 
> Except that star strek is fiction.
>

It's fiction because faster than light spaceships doesn't correspond with
physical reality.

> > 
> Arithmetical truth
>  [...]
>

But Arithmetic does correspond with physical reality and that's why it's
nonfiction written in the language of mathematics.

>> >> 
>> Nothing can be explained without matter and the laws of physics because
>> there would be nothing doing the explaining and nothing doing the
>> understanding.
>
>
> > 
> How do you know?
>

From 
Induction, something
 even more important than deduction and something
Robinson

arithmetic doesn't have.

There are countless examples of matter explaining things and countless
examples of matter understanding things, but there are no examples and no
evidence of anything else doing either.

>
> > 
> then in your theory computationalism is false.
>

Maybe in Bruno-speak, but you are the only speaker of that language.
Everybody else means something different by words like "God" or "
computationalism". I just typed Computationalism

into Google and this is what I got:

"**
*Computationalism is the view that intelligent behavior is causally
explained by computations performed by the agent's cognitive system (or
brain).&q

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 08 Jan 2017, at 03:16, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

>> How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys  
the laws of physics is not involved somewhere along the line ?

> because with the standard definition of computation, they  
exist

A definition can't make something exist!

Wrong.

Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the  
glodlyrapiculs existing (assuming you are OK that cat exists, for the  
sake of the argument at least).

> and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic.

And dragons are realized in all the Harry Potter books,

Now in the sense of computer science, which is relevant here.

but none of them can burn my finger.

If you are emulated at the right level in a finger burning situation,  
you will feel the pain, and that will not depend locally from the fact  
that the emulation is made by this or that universal system. Globally,  
for the lasting aspect of the pain, some physics arise, but the theory  
explains why. It is not invoked like a god who could select a  
computation as more real than another.

 And without matter that obeys the laws of physics Robinson  
Arithmetic can't balance my checkbook, or do anything else  
either.

That sentence is ambiguous. I can agree, but in the sense I can agree  
with, this does not make matter needed to be assumed in the axiom of  
the fundamental theory.

> The definition of computation does not involve matter

You can make any definition you want but if that's what you call  
"computation" then I don't see why anybody would be interested in it.

Many people are interested. It is a branch of math, and it makes us  
able to show that some problem are not algorithmically solvable. It is  
used to study our limitations, which is indeed the key of the negative- 
like machine theology, like the neoplatonist one.

Without that definition, we would not say that Hilbert 10th problem  
has been solved (in the negative), etc. recursion theory, and machine  
theology is full of negative result, like universal machine cannot  
named their god, or know if they halt or not, etc.

> You do the same mistake than the people who say that a  
(physical) simulation of a typhoon cannot make us wet. The usual  
answer to this is that a simulation of "you + the typhoon" will make  
a "you" feeling being wet in a relative way.

I agree but there is a difference. I could ask the simulated person  
if the simulated typhoon makes him feel wet, but I don't know how to  
ask 3 if Robinson Arithmetic makes it feel like it's half of  
6.

Me neither.

But you can ask the John Clark simulated together with the typhoon at  
the right level in arithmetic if he feels wet, and he will give the  
same answer, not depending if you simulated this in a fortran itself  
on a physical computer, or you trace by hand the theorem in arithmetic  
saying the equivalent situation. Then the feeling itself, of that John  
Clark does not depend of having made the simulation, if you agree that  
the truth of 24 is composite does not depend on you verifying that fact.

>  No universal Turing machine can distinguish the following  
situations:
A physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp  
universal program simulating that universal Turing machine,

and
Robinson arithmetic simulating a physical device simulating Robinson  
arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that  
universal Turing machine.

That is incorrect, It's extraordinarily easy to distinguish between  
the two, one will produce an output and one will not. If you start  
with Robinson arithmetic rather than a physical device you'll end up  
with nothing, not even the null set.

How could that be possible? We interrogate the machine *in*  
arithmetic. The output are given by relative input. You are telling me  
that 3 does not divide 6 when nobody do the physical computation, but  
the even physicist can no more use arithmetic without a justification  
in physics that 3 divides 6. But that does not exist, because physics  
does not even address such question, and borrow from math the useful  
truth. String theory is happy that "1+2+3+4+5+ ... = -1/12" makes  
mathematical sense, so that the photon as a mass zero. They did not  
say "we have proven that 1+2+3+4+5+ ... = -1/12 in the theory string 
+photon-has zero-mass".

> Is this OK for everybody?

No I don't believe we are.

I know. You are quite "religious" about this.

>> A definition is NOT a construction!

> Yes, that is exactly the point. We can define the set of  
arithmetical true statements, and so we can *talk* about it, without  
being able to construct it, or to generate it mechanically.

Talk is ch

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

ved from the logic  
of self-reference. It is the logic of []p & <>t , with p sigma_1  
(that is equivalent with an arithmetic formula having the shape  
ExP(x, y) with P recursive.






If so then I don't believe in it. Yes nouns exist but so do  
adjectives, aka information.


>  and believer in the zero personal gods theory)    
maintain the field in the hands of the clericals


How long do you suppose the  Catholic Church would last if  
the Pope said "There is no personal God. God exists but He's an   
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob . "     
?   I would estimate about .9 seconds.


That is optimist.

But who care about the opinion of someone still using argument per- 
authority in the field?





A  personal God who might grant us immortality if we  
flatter Him enough  is the only type of God that 99.9% of the  
1.2 Billion Catholics are interested in.  That's why they go to  
Mass on Sunday, to butter Him up. If He's not personal then God  
is about as useful to them  as a screen door on a  
submarine .


Who care? We know that they are wrong (methodologically wrong at  
the least) since they forbid the greek way to reason on such matter  
(thus: since 523, when they banished Platonism and all "pagan non  
confessional religions").


You illustrate again that you want to keep the pope and the pseudo- 
religious believers happy.

You illustrate again that Gnostic Atheism is a form of catholicism.

Bruno




John K Clark 




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

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


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



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

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



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

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


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



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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-07 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>>
>>  How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys the laws of
>> physics
>>  
>> is not involved somewhere along the line ?
>
>
> > 
> because with the standard definition of computation, they exist
>

A definition can't make something exist!

> > 
> and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic.
>

And dragons are realized in all the Harry Potter books, but none of them
can burn my finger
.

And
 without matter that obeys the laws of physics Robinson Arithmetic
 can't balance my checkbook, or do anything else either.

> > 
> The definition of computation does not involve matter
>

You can make any definition you want but if that's what you call
"computation" then I don't see why anybody would be interested in it.

> 
> You do the same mistake than the people who say that a (physical)
> simulation of a typhoon cannot make us wet. The usual answer to this is
> that a simulation of "you + the typhoon" will make a "you" feeling being
> wet in a relative way.
>

I agree but there is a difference. I could ask the simulated person if the
simulated typhoon makes him feel wet, but I don't know how to ask 3 if

Robinson Arithmetic
 makes it feel like it's half of 6.

>  
> No universal Turing machine can distinguish the following situations:
> A physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp
> universal program simulating that universal Turing machine,
> and
> Robinson arithmetic simulating a physical device simulating Robinson
> arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal
> Turing machine.
>

That is incorrect, It's extraordinarily easy to distinguish between the
two, one will produce an output and one will not. If you start with
Robinson arithmetic rather than a physical device you'll end up with
nothing, not even the null set.

> > 
> Is this OK for everybody?
>

No I don't believe we are.

*>> **A definition is NOT a construction!*
>
>
> > 
> Yes, that is exactly the point.
> 
> We can define the set of arithmetical true statements, and so we can
> *talk* about it, without being able to construct it, or to generate it
> mechanically.
>

Talk is cheap. We can talk about Faster That Light Spaceships, Star Trek
does it all the time, but we can't build one and that's why it's called
"fiction".

>

>> >> 
>> Does "Primary Physical Reality
>> " mean a belief that matter is all there is?
>>
>
> > 
> No. It means that a Physical Reality which has to be assumed.
>

You don't need to assume that bowling ball falling toward your head will
hurt when it hits, unlike pure mathematics physics will continue to do its
thing regardless of what you assume define or classify. If you don't
believe me just wait a fraction of a second.

> > 
> It means a Physical reality which would not been able to be explained
> without assuming that matter.
>

Nothing can be explained without matter and the laws of physics because
there would be nothing doing the explaining and nothing doing the
understanding.

> >> 
>> A
>> personal
>> God
>> who might grant us immortality if we flatter Him enough
>> is the only type of God that 99.9% of the 1.2 Billion Catholics are
>> interested in.
>>  That's why they go to Mass on Sunday, to butter Him up.
>> If He's not personal then God is about as useful
>> to them 
>> as a screen door on a submarine
>> .
>>
>
> > 
> Who care?
>

1.2 Billion Catholics care and the
y
care very much! When they use the word "God" they mean something* RADICALLY*
different from what you mean when you use the
same 
word
,

and that makes

communication almost impossible

, and yet you insist on using that
same damn 
word. And people wonder why philosophy gets so muddled.

> 
> You illustrate again that you want to keep the pope and the
> pseudo-religious believers happy.
> 
> You illustrate again that Gnostic Atheism is a form of catholicism.
>

I'm sure glad I found my trusty old rubber stamp.

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-07 Thread Brent Meeker

ll sets 
of numbers are constructible, indeed the set of definable sets is 
larger than the set of recursively enumerable set, itself larger than 
the set of totally computable, recursive, sets. You make my point.







The 
Faster
Than Light Spaceship is in the "vehicle" class and in the "spaceship" 
class but unfortunately it is also in the "fictional" class because 
nobody can construct one.


By mocking the possibility of doing theology in the scientific
way, the gnostic-atheists (believers in a Primary Physical Reality


Does "
Primary Physical Reality
" mean a belief that matter is all there is?


No. It means that a Physical Reality which has to be assumed. It means 
a Physical reality which would not been able to be explained without 
assuming that matter.


As I said often I used "primary" in the sense: "has to be assumed", or 
"the appearance of which cannot be derived from something else".


Which illustrates the flaw in your argument.  Like the simulated typhoon 
that can wet the simulated you, the arithmetical you can only exist 
relative to an arithmetical physics.  So the physics is not 
dispensable.  But given that it is not dispensable, it is essential to 
arithmetic and consciousness and so what is primary is meaningless.


Brent




Most people agree that biological facts do not need to be assumed. 
They can be derived from the laws of chemistry. That is the reason why 
few scientist would assumed a primary vital principle (vitalism).


Similarly, with computationalism, the physical facts do not needed to 
be assumed (and worst cannot be assumed in fact). They have to be 
derived from the statistics on all computations which exist provably 
when we assume Robinson Arithmetic, (or the laws of combinators, ...). 
If we can explain the mind from the sigma_1 arithmetical relations, 
then we have to expain the appearance of matter by the statistics on 
all computations. The Universal Dovetailer Argument explains why we 
have to do that, and the interview of (any) Löbian machine shows that 
it works: indeed the set of computable states corresponding to 
machine's yes-no type of observation inherit a precise quantum logic 
derived from the logic of self-reference. It is the logic of []p & <>t 
, with p sigma_1 (that is equivalent with an arithmetic formula having 
the shape ExP(x, y) with P recursive.






If so then I don't believe in it. Yes nouns exist but so do 
adjectives, aka information.


> 
and believer in the zero personal gods theory)
 
maintain the field in the hands of the clericals 



How long do you suppose the 
Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is no personal 
God. God exists but He's an

invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob
.
"

?
 
I would estimate about .9 seconds.


That is optimist.

But who care about the opinion of someone still using argument 
per-authority in the field?






A
personal
God
who might grant us immortality if we flatter Him enough
is the only type of God that 99.9% of the 1.2 Billion Catholics are 
interested in.

 That's why they go to Mass on Sunday, to butter Him up.
If He's not personal then God is about as useful
to them 
as a screen door on a submarine
.


Who care? We know that they are wrong (methodologically wrong at the 
least) since they forbid the greek way to reason on such matter (thus: 
since 523, when they banished Platonism and all "pagan non 
confessional religions").


You illustrate again that you want to keep the pope and the 
pseudo-religious believers happy.

You illustrate again that Gnostic Atheism is a form of catholicism.

Bruno




John K Clark





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

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


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>



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

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


--
You received this message because yo

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-07 Thread Bruno Marchal

 all there is?


No. It means that a Physical Reality which has to be assumed. It means  
a Physical reality which would not been able to be explained without  
assuming that matter.


As I said often I used "primary" in the sense: "has to be assumed", or  
"the appearance of which cannot be derived from something else".



Most people agree that biological facts do not need to be assumed.  
They can be derived from the laws of chemistry. That is the reason why  
few scientist would assumed a primary vital principle (vitalism).


Similarly, with computationalism, the physical facts do not needed to  
be assumed (and worst cannot be assumed in fact). They have to be  
derived from the statistics on all computations which exist provably  
when we assume Robinson Arithmetic, (or the laws of combinators, ...).  
If we can explain the mind from the sigma_1 arithmetical relations,  
then we have to expain the appearance of matter by the statistics on  
all computations. The Universal Dovetailer Argument explains why we  
have to do that, and the interview of (any) Löbian machine shows that  
it works: indeed the set of computable states corresponding to  
machine's yes-no type of observation inherit a precise quantum logic  
derived from the logic of self-reference. It is the logic of []p &  
<>t , with p sigma_1 (that is equivalent with an arithmetic formula  
having the shape ExP(x, y) with P recursive.






If so then I don't believe in it. Yes nouns exist but so do  
adjectives, aka information.


> and believer in the zero personal gods theory) maintain  
the field in the hands of the clericals


How long do you suppose the Catholic Church would last if the  
Pope said "There is no personal God. God exists but He's an  
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob." ? I  
would estimate about .9 seconds.


That is optimist.

But who care about the opinion of someone still using argument per- 
authority in the field?





A personal God who might grant us immortality if we flatter  
Him enough is the only type of God that 99.9% of the 1.2 Billion  
Catholics are interested in. That's why they go to Mass on Sunday,  
to butter Him up. If He's not personal then God is about as  
useful to them as a screen door on a submarine.


Who care? We know that they are wrong (methodologically wrong at the  
least) since they forbid the greek way to reason on such matter (thus:  
since 523, when they banished Platonism and all "pagan non  
confessional religions").


You illustrate again that you want to keep the pope and the pseudo- 
religious believers happy.

You illustrate again that Gnostic Atheism is a form of catholicism.

Bruno




John K Clark 




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

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


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



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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-06 Thread Brent Meeker




On 1/6/2017 5:42 PM, John Clark wrote:

How long do you suppose the 
Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is no personal God. 
God exists but He's an

invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob
.
"

?
 
I would estimate about .9 seconds.


No, that's how long the Pope would hold his Holy office.  The Church is 
"post-truth" as the Trumpkins would say.


Bre

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-06 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>> >>
>> It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is an
>> explanation of how to perform a calculation. In textbooks on arithmetic it
>> will say something like "take this number and place it in that set"  but
>> how do I "take" a number and how do I "place" it in a set without matter
>> that obeys the laws of physics?
>
>
> By using the representation of finite sequence of number by a number, for
> example by using Gödel's numbering
>

What!? that's just passing the buck! How can anything be "used" by anything
if matter that obeys the laws of physics

is not involved somewhere along the line ?

> > 
> I can give more detailed, but you can consult a textbook.
>

More details are not needed, nor is changing the word "pick" for "use"
needed, what is needed is clear thinking.

>> 
>> And I still don't see how you can be blithely talking about the set that
>> contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones when you must
>> know there is no way to construct such a set even in theory.
>
>
> > 
> That set cannot be defined in arithmetic, but admit a simple definition in
> set theory or in analysis.
>

**
*A definition is NOT a construction! *It's extraordinarily easy to define a
Faster

Than Light Spaceship, it's right there in the very name of the thing, it's
a spaceship that can move faster than light, but that doesn't mean anybody
can

construct such a thing
.
  The very laws of mathematics

you keep talking about

tell
 us
there is NO WAY even in theory to construct a set that has all true
mathematical statements and no false ones
;
 forget practicalities you can't do it even in theory, not

even if you had a

infinite amount of

time to

work on it. So using such a set to tell us something about reality is not
permissible

under the rules of logic.

> > 
> The whole chapter of mathematical logic known as recursion theory studies
> and classifies the degree of unsolvability of such set.
>

*A classification is NOT a construction anymore than a definition is!* 

The 
Faster
Than Light Spaceship is in the "vehicle" class and in the "spaceship" class
but unfortunately it is also in the "fictional" class because nobody can
construct one.

By mocking the possibility of doing theology in the scientific way, the
> gnostic-atheists (believers in a Primary Physical Reality
>

Does "
Primary Physical Reality
" mean a belief that matter is all there is? If so then I don't believe
in it. Yes nouns exist but so do adjectives, aka information.

> 
> and believer in the zero personal gods theory)
>  
> maintain the field in the hands of the clericals

How long do you suppose the 
Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is no personal God. God
exists but He's an
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob
.
"

?

I would estimate about .9 seconds. A
personal
God
who might grant us immortality if we flatter Him enough
is the only type of God that 99.9% of the 1.2 Billion Catholics are
interested in.
 That's why they go to Mass on Sunday, to butter Him up.
If He's not personal then God is about as useful
to them 
as a screen door on a submarine
.

John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 04 Jan 2017, at 18:59, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

 >> I say matter is always needed to make a calculation  
you keep pointing out this textbook or that textbook in an effort to  
prove me wrong.

> because those textbook explain what is a computation, without  
assuming anything physical,

It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is  
needed is an explanation of how to perform a calculation. In  
textbooks on arithmetic it will say something like "take this number  
and place it in that set"  but how do I "take" a number and how do I  
"place" it in a set without matter that obeys the laws of physics?

By using the representation of finite sequence of number by a number,  
for example by using Gödel's numbering based on the unique  
decomposition of number into prime factors. Then taking a number from  
that list is realized by their divisibility properties. I can give  
more detailed, but you can consult a textbook. The fact is that a  
universal digital machine cannot distinguish from its first person  
perspective if she is run by a computation from a block-physical- 
universe or from a bloc-computational-structure like elementary  
arithmetic.

In fact who is that textbook talking to if it's not a collection of  
atoms that obeys the laws of physics.

That is a confusion of level. When I say that the computation are  
realized in elementary arithmetic, I point to a fact which does not  
depend on the existence of matter or any physicalness. Now, relatively  
to us, we will express such fact through books, but as far as we know  
such books can be first person appearance, and those can be proved to  
exist, in the internal (to arithmetic) relative way in elementary  
arithmetic, and that is all what count for my point.

And I still don't see how you can be blithely talking about the set  
that contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones  
when you must know there is no way to construct such a set even in  
theory.

That set cannot be defined in arithmetic, but admit a simple  
definition in set theory or in analysis. The whole chapter of  
mathematical logic known as recursion theory studies and classifies  
the degree of unsolvability of such set. The partially computable one  
are the so-called Sigma_1 set, and the non computable are the Pi_1,  
Sigma_2, Pi_2, ... Sigma_i, Pi_i, ... Again this is explained in all  
good books. All you need to be able to define non-computable sets of  
numbers is the excluded middle principles, and we do this all the time  
in many branches of math. We can tlak about the set of total  
computable functions, despite their set of descriptions is also not  
computable.

> "The hell with the antic greeks" was also the motto of the  
catholic teachers I met. The tabula rasa on theology is where  
gnostic atheists and institutionalized religious fundamentalist  
match perfectly.

Oh dear, we're back to that again. Now where did I put my rubber  
stamp, I know it's around here somewhere oh there it is:

 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never  
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

It is just a fact.

By mocking the possibility of doing theology in the scientific way,  
the gnostic-atheists (believers in a Primary Physical Reality and  
believer in the zero personal gods theory) maintain the field in the  
hands of the clericals and institutionalized religions, making it  
impossible to transform the Period of Enlightenment. This shows that  
among the atheists, the non agnostics one (the gnostics) side with the  
institutionalized charlatan again the coming back of the field in  
Science, where it was born. They are de facto allies of the Churches.

You might read the book by Daniel E. Cohen "Equation from Gods Pure  
Mathematics and Victorian Faith(*)" to see that even the "modern"  
mathematical Logic is born from theological questions and the will of  
making theology coming back to science, by Unitarian mathematicians  
who were tired of the imposed Trinitarian view. The main people here  
where Benjamin Peirce (the father of Charles S. Peirce), Augustus de  
Morgan, George Boole, and even Lewis Carroll (Charles L. Dodgson).  
Then, later, the mathematicians put some pressure to hide this  
theological motivation in the process of making mathematics itself  
into a profession in the 19th century. Note also the irony, given that  
the canonical theology of the Universal Machine, due to incompleteness  
is more Trinitarian-like (3 main hypostases) than Unitarian, but the  
early logicians could not foreseen the incompleteness of the universal  
machine and the Löbian machine. It is incompleteness which introduces  
the modal nuances of provability which separates the hypostases (cf p,  
[]p, []p & p, []p & <>t, etc.).

Bruno

(*) The Johns Hopkins University Press,

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-04 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> >> 
>> I say matter is always needed to make a calculation you keep pointing
>> out this textbook or that textbook in an effort to prove me wrong.
>
>
> > 
> because those textbook explain what is a computation, without assuming
> anything physical,
>

It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is an
explanation of how to perform a calculation. In textbooks on arithmetic it
will say something like "take this number and place it in that set"  but
how do I "take" a number and how do I "place" it in a set without matter
that obeys the laws of physics? In fact who is that textbook talking to if
it's not a collection of atoms that obeys the laws of physics. And I still
don't see how you can be blithely talking about the set that contains all
true mathematical statements and no false ones when you must know there is
no way to construct such a set even in theory.  

> 
> "The hell with the antic greeks" was also the motto of the catholic
> teachers I met. The tabula rasa on theology is where gnostic atheists and
> institutionalized religious fundamentalist match perfectly.
>

Oh dear, we're back to that again. Now where did I put my rubber stamp, I
know it's around here somewhere oh there it is:

 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

John K Clark

>

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 03 Jan 2017, at 21:52, John Clark wrote:



I agree, and yet bizarrely whenever I say matter is always needed  
to make a calculation you keep pointing out this textbook or that  
textbook in an effort to prove me wrong.


because those textbook explain what is a computation, without assuming  
anything physical, that is without primary matter notions.
Of course they assumes books and matter to convey their idea, but that  
is at another level, and it is agnostic on the primary character of  
matter.




I don't get it. If you really want to prove me wrong start your own  
computer company and put INTEL out of business with your zero  
manufacturing costs.


That is a variant of the knocking down of the Aristolelian dogmatic  
believer.


"The hell with the antic greeks" was also the motto of the catholic  
teachers I met. The tabula rasa on theology is where gnostic atheists  
and institutionalized religious fundamentalist match perfectly.


Genuine (agnostic) atheists love my work because they know that a  
coming back of reason in religion is what piss of the clericals and  
the dogmatic the most.



Bruno

Only bad faith fear reason.
Only bad reasons fear faith.






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



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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-03 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
>> 
>> I said it before I'll say it again, Aristotle was the worse physicists
>> who ever lived. Full stop. 
>
>
> > 
> It was wrong,
>

Aristotle's physics was more than just wrong, it was stupid, and could
have easily been shown to be stupid 
even in his own day. But unfortunately it was not.

> > 
> but in science,
>

Science? Aristotle did no science, he like all the idiot ancient Greeks
believed all 
he
had to do is sit and think, and even in that he wasn't any good, his logic
sucked.

> > 
> it is an honor to be shown wrong when it leads to progressing in some
> domain.
>

But it didn't lead to
progress
! Aristotle's dumb ideas were held as unchallenged truth for 2000 years,
physics would be more advanced today if he had never been born.

> > 
> The point is that you seem to buy its theology,
>

Bruno, you really need to show some creativity and think of a new insult,
you've been using the one about me being secretly religious for over a
decade and it's starting to sound just a tad old.

> > 
> The computations are done relative to the universal number doing the
> universal computations, and this does not need anything physical.
>

And yet INTEL needs physical stuff like Silicon.
Don't you find that odd?

> > 
> You make Searle's error of believing that you are your body, but that
> makes no sense with Mechanism.
>

Searle is almost as big an imbecile as the ancient Greeks were, and I do
*not* believe I am my body, I am the way atoms behave when they are
organized in a johnkclarkian way. 

>>
>> And brains need matter that obeys the laws of physics.
>
>
> > 
> Only material brain
>

Have you ever seen another type of brain?

I haven't. 

> 
> The idea that it is the book which computes is just insane
>

I agree, and yet bizarrely whenever I say matter is always needed to make
a calculation you keep pointing out this textbook or that textbook in an
effort to prove me wrong. I don't get it. If you really want to prove me
wrong start your own computer company and put INTEL out of business with
your zero manufacturing costs.

John K Clark

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 03 Jan 2017, at 02:01, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

>> The primary cause may be attached to the word   
"God", but we both know that is not the only attachment, so is "a  
being who can think".

> That is exactly what the greeks put in question.

I don't give a damn about the idiot ancient Greeks! You believe  
something called "God" exists so I'm asking you one simple  
question that has a simple yes or no answer, do you think I'm  
smarter than God? If the answer is yes then I don't see why anybody  
should care if God exists or not. If the answer is no then we can  
stop playing silly word games. 

> the question of knowing if the set of true arithmetical  
sentence thinks is also not an obvious one.

Well I can think, if the set of true arithmetical sentence 
s can not then I can bring something to the table it can  
not, and that can only be matter that obeys the laws of physics.  
Also, it's not valid to talk about a set if you have no way of  
constructing that set, and you have no way of constructing a set  
that contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones;  
much less do so without the help of matter that obeys the laws of  
physics.

>> To hell with the ancient Greeks!

> Which greeks.

Just the ones that are ancient. 

>> To hell with the ancient Greeks!

> I understand. You want keep Aristotle so much

I said it before I'll say it again, Aristotle was the worse  
physicists who ever lived. Full stop. 

It was wrong, but in science, it is an honor to be shown wrong when it  
leads to progressing in some domain. The point is that you seem to buy  
its theology, but it is not compatible with Mechanism, that you buy too.

> that you prefer not to learn anything about Plato.

Bruno, I hate to break it to you but Plato didn't even know  
where the sun to went at night. This is the 21st century and we're  
on a list that is supposed to discussing cutting edge developments  
in science and mathematics, so why are we still talking about a bozo  
like Plato?

Because he got a theology which is compatible with mechanism, unlike  
the paradigmatic theology of the gnostic atheist and most other  
believers. Of course he bought it to Pythagoras, Parmenides, and  
others, and Plato itself just asks the good question.

> I think you confuse fundamentalist christian and educated  
christian,

Do you think they are any less silly? I can find little evidence  
of that. 

The first believe or fake to believe in irrational fairy tales. The  
second believes usually in Aristotle theology (a physical primary  
universe) but know that it is a sort of assumption in need to be  
verified continuously, and that it can be refuted (well if educated  
and know the current literature).

> The notion of computation does not refer to any laws in  
physics.

I know, and that's why the notion of computation can not by  
itself perform any computations.

That is wrong. The computations are done relative to the universal  
number doing the universal computations, and this does not need  
anything physical.

In fact even a notion can not be a notion without something to have  
the notion, something like a brain.

Only people have notion. They use brain, but the brain itself has no  
notion of anything a priori. You make Searle's error of believing that  
you are your body, but that makes no sense with Mechanism.

And brains need matter that obeys the laws of physics.

Only material brain, but it is simpler to explain matter from  
arithmetic and experience, than arithmetic and experience from matter,  
which is just impossible if we assume digital mechanism.

> It is done in all textbooks on computability theory,

Show me one textbook on computability theory that can  
compute 2+2

I said that the point I w doing is done in all details in all books  
on computability. I did not say "by", only "in".

The idea that it is the book which computes is just insane, and was  
not what I was saying. I stop here because you don't read the post  
again, or just play with words.

Bruno

and I'll concede the argument. But I have found that all  
books are pretty dumb unless there is something with a brain to read  
them. And I have yet to run across a brain that is not made of  
matter that obeys the laws of physics.

> You will not find one mathematician who disagree with this,

If all mathematicians believe books can compute then all  
mathematicians are insane.

> and most physicists agree too, to my knowledge.

If most physicists believe books can compute then most physicists  
are insane.

>> I'd be much more interested in a theory of intelligence. 

> But as you said consciousness is easy, so let us first

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-02 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>> 
>> The
>>  
>> primary cause
>>  may be attached to the word  "God", but we both know that is not the
>> only attachment, so is "a being who can think".
>>
>
> > 
> That is exactly what the greeks put in question.
>

I don't give a damn about the idiot ancient Greeks! You believe something
called "God" exists so I'm asking you

one simple question that has a simple yes or no answer, do you think I'm
smarter than God? If the answer is yes then I don't see why anybody should
care if God exists or not. If the answer is no then we can stop playing
silly word games. 

> > 
> the question of knowing if the set of true arithmetical sentence thinks is
> also not an obvious one.
>

Well I can think, if the set of 
true arithmetical sentence
s
can
 not then I can bring something to the table it can not, and that can only
be matter that obeys the laws of physics.
Also, it's not valid to talk about a set if you have no way of
constructing that set, and you have no way of constructing a set that
contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones; much less do
so without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics.

> >> 
>> To hell with the ancient Greeks!
>
>
> > 
> Which greeks.
>

Just the ones that are ancient. 

>>
>>
>> *To hell with the ancient Greeks! *
>
>
> > 
> I understand. You want keep Aristotle so much
>

I said it before I'll say it again, Aristotle was the worse physicists who
ever lived. Full stop. 

> > 
> that you prefer not to learn anything about Plato.
>

Bruno, I hate to break it to you but

Plato didn't even know where the sun to went at night. This is the 21st
century and we're on a list that is supposed to discussing cutting edge
developments in science and mathematics, so why are we still talking about
a bozo like Plato?

> 
> I think you confuse fundamentalist christian and educated christian,
>

Do you think they are any less silly? I can find little evidence of that. 

> 
> The notion of computation does not refer to any laws in physics.
>

I know, and that's why the
notion of computation
 can not by itself perform any computations. In fact even a notion can not
be a notion without something to have the notion, something like a brain.
And brains need matter that obeys the laws of physics.

> 
> It is done in all textbooks on computability theory,
>

Show me one textbook on 
computability theory
 that can compute 2+2 and I'll concede the argument.

But 
I have found that all books are pretty dumb unless there is something with
a brain to read them. And I have yet to run across a brain that is not made
of matter that obeys the laws of physics.

> 
> You will not find one mathematician who disagree with this,
>

If all mathematicians believe books can compute then all mathematicians
are insane.

> > 
> and most physicists agree too, to my knowledge.
>

If most physicists believe books can compute then most physicists are
insane.

>>
>>  I'd be much more interested in a theory of intelligence. 
>
>
> > 
> But as you said consciousness is easy, so let us first solve the easy
> problem.
>

OK, consciousness is the way data feels when it's being processed. Problem
solved. Now it's your turn, tell me how to make an AI in your next post.

That's going to be a very long post!

John K Clark

>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 27 Dec 2016, at 21:36, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

> My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics  
is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I  
derived formally a quantum logic, and explained informally how we  
get the statistical interference.

A derivation using dozens of pronouns that either have no clear  
referent or are logically contradictory. But I believe we may have  
been through this before.

> the Aristotelian theology fails.

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

Come on. You are the one sticking with the theology of an ancient  
greek. You accept only his (defeoremd by other) conception of God, and  
you invoke often his seocnd God, primary matter to qualify things as  
real.

> God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause,

The primary cause may be attached to the word  "God", but we  
both know that is not the only attachment, so is "a being who can  
think".

That is exactly what the greeks put in question. Plotinus examine that  
question and just admit that he cannot solve it, and illustrate the  
difficulty of both alternatives. And Aristotle does not attribute  
thinking to neither its first god and the second. Similarly, the  
question of knowing if the set of true arithmetical sentence thinks is  
also not an obvious one. There is a simple sense in which that set  
knows a lot of things, like the solution of Riemann hypothesis,  
Goldbach conjecture, etc.

> which is the god of the platonist.

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

>You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it  
has not.

You talk as if theologians have solved the problem, but they have  
not.

> (either Plato's God, or even Pythagoras" God

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

> In theology, the greeks were

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

> Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called  
God), the second God of Aristotle. (Primary Matter), the god of  
Plato (first principle) and the god of Pythagoras (the natural  
numbers).

OK I won't confuse it, and I'll avoid confusion by ignoring  
both.  To hell with the ancient Greeks!

Which greeks. the departure started with Plato and Aristotle. I am ok  
with the hell to Aristotle, but then what remains is Plato.

I recall you, in a short and simple way to avoid jargon.

Aristotle: god or reality = the physical universe = what we see,  
measure, test, etc. Aristote = materialism/naturalism/physicalism

Plato: god or reality = the mind universe : the ideas, the dreams,  
perhaps the numbers. It lean from abstract theologicalism to  
mathematicalism and to arithmeticalism, or finite-combinatorialisme.

I don't know who is right, but I show that when we assume digital  
mechanism, Plato's theory get a testable theory of matter, at a place  
where the aristotelians must add metaphysical and non Turing emulable  
assumptions.

> two beers in the fridge is not rsponsible for the numbers 2  
to exist physically, and here

If there were nobody around to think about the number 2 and if  
there were not 2 of anything in the entire physical universe, then  
would the number 2 exist? And if it did, how would things be  
different if it didn't?

> you beg the question by assuming the second god of Aristotle.

 To hell with the ancient Greeks!

I understand. You want keep Aristotle so much that you prefer not to  
learn anything about Plato. You do not want the alternative ways to  
conceive the mind-body relations. But then you act like a  
fundamentalist.

> It is the favorite gods of the catholics.

I'll say this for the catholics, their view of God is clear,  
clearly wrong but clear nevertheless. Your view of God isn't even  
wrong.

I think you confuse fundamentalist christian and educated christian,  
which is about the difference between those having not read the greeks  
and those having read the greeks. The best one, with respect to  
computationalism, read and grasp Plato, ... to be quickly burnt on the  
stake.

> The correct arithmetical relations implements all computations

And all correct computations need matter that obeys the laws  
of physics.

That is simply wrong. The notion of computation does not refer to any  
laws in physics. In metaphysics/theology,  the "Turing machine" notion  
is a bit misleading, so read the account by Church and by Post, or  
read any serious textbook on the subject.

It is that very fact which makes me choose to be a mathematician,  
instead of biologist.chemist/physicist, given my interest in the mind- 
body problem.

The fact that the physical reality is Turing universal, and in many  
ways, is an interesting idea in physics, but it borrows the notion of  
computation to the logician's one, which is known to b

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Torgny Tholerus wrote:




On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote:
I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr  
more than one reason:
1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may  
be.


You just have to ask God what she is.  Then she will answer.  But it  
may take two years to get the full answer.



   1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?)


Yes, God is a person.  In the same way as your own personality is  
build up by trillions of brain cells, then Gods personality is build  
up by billions of human beeings.



The human conception of God can be said to be build up to trillions of  
human brain cells, but that is not God, given that by definition God  
is the primary cause of the Universe, and you would not say that the  
physical universe's primary cause is the human brain cells.


Of course the phsyical universe as we know it is also a human brain  
construct, but if we assume mechanism, we can show that it is a  
"Turing machine" constructs. the machine themselves are realized in  
arithmetic, as all logicians know since 1931.







1,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the  
question: How was God originated?)


No, she did not originate the world.  She is a result of the natural  
selection.



Well, you are not talking about God as the reason of the Universe and  
all realities, but on the human conception of the universe. We could  
say likewise that the human theory of natural selection is also only a  
successful meme of the human brain. The physical universe can be  
explained away in the same manner.


Natural selection need Mechanism to work, but with mechanism, the  
physical universe cease to exist in any primitive way. So your  
explanation becomes circular or wrong.










3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious.  
Have you ever M E T
yours? I figure it must be something limitless of which we  
fathom only a bit.
Or is all t his rather fitting the Superconscious? we have some  
idea about our 'conscious'?


I have talked with my subconscious.  I do it every time I pray.  And  
sometimes my subconscious answer me.  And sometimes my subconscious  
talks directly to me, she reminds me when I have forgotten something.



The subconscious can take the form of person in dreams, but I would  
not consider it as a person in the waking life, it is part of your own  
personhood, I would say.










4. An immortal person? Cf. Wagner's Gotterdammerung.


No, God is not immortal.  But God will live much longer than a human  
being.  God will live as long as the mankind exists.


5. "Supernatural powers"? did you ever define the "natural  
ones" (beyond our ever changing concept of a system of our  
"physical"  explanations?


No, God have no supernatural powers.  God can only do what a human  
being can do.


With a non-standard definition of God, as this contradict the general  
definition of the notion. In this list people have used the word "God"  
as the cause or reason (not necessary physical, perhaps physical, it  
will depend on the theory) of reality and realities.


We can reject a definition as being too much precise (like God = the  
christian God), but we have to keep the basic of the definition: the  
reason of everything, including consciousness and matter (real or  
appearances).


You do seem have some faith in the second God of Aristotle: a physical  
universe. But with mechanism, both God of Aristotle (the Creator and  
the Creation) stop making sense. Only Plato abstract notion continue  
to make sense, and indeed, Plato took it to Pythagoras, mainly, and we  
are driven again toward it after the discovery of the universal number/ 
machine.


Mechanism is incompatible with both supernatural powers and ...  
natural powers. Those who use the mind-brain identity link attribute  
without saying some supernatural power to nature, by making nature  
able to select computation(s) in arithmetic, and make all other  
computations into zombie.


Bruno








John M


--
Torgny

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

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


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



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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-28 Thread Torgny Tholerus




On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote:
I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr 
more than one reason:

1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be.


*You just have to ask God what she is.  Then she will answer.  But it 
may take two years to get the full answer.*



   1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?)


*Yes, God is a person.  In the same way as your own personality is build 
up by trillions of brain cells, then Gods personality is build up by 
billions of human beeings.*


1,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the question: 
How was God originated?)


*No, she did not originate the world.  She is a result of the natural 
selection.*


3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious. Have 
you ever M E T
yours? I figure it must be something limitless of which we fathom 
only a bit.
Or is all t his rather fitting the Superconscious? we have some 
idea about our 'conscious'?


*I have talked with my subconscious.  I do it every time I pray.  And 
sometimes my subconscious answer me.  And sometimes my subconscious 
talks directly to me, she reminds me when I have forgotten something.*



4. An immortal person? Cf. Wagner's Gotterdammerung.


*No, God is not immortal.  But God will live much longer than a human 
being.  God will *live *as long as the mankind exists.*


5. "Supernatural powers"? did you ever define the "natural ones" 
(beyond our ever changing concept of a system of our "physical" 
 explanations?


*No, God have no supernatural powers.  God can only do what a human 
being can do.*



John M


--
Torgny

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-28 Thread John Mikes

Brent I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr
more than one reason:
1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be.
   1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?)
1.B a Force - a Complexity - a System (etc.) or the like?
1,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the question: How
was God originated?)
2. I am aware of many stories people believe in and repeat ad nauseam, they
do not impress me.
3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious. Have you
ever M E T
yours? I figure it must be something limitless of which we fathom only
a bit.
Or is all t his rather fitting the Superconscious? we have some idea
about our 'conscious'?
4. An immortal person? Cf. Wagner's Gotterdammerung.
5. "Supernatural powers"? did you ever define the "natural ones" (beyond
our ever changing concept
of a system of our "physical"  explanations?
John M


On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>> 2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> usage says that "God" means an immortal person with
>>>>> supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> > That's the Christian use
>>>>  . Why do atheists insist so much we use the christian notion,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the
>>> word
>>> . It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with
>>> supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means
>>> something.
>>>   Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally
>>> don't know what they're talking about when they talk about "God".
>>>  As near as I can tell to them the word "God"  means an
>>> invisible fuzzy amoral blob that does nothing and knows nothing and
>>> thinks about nothing
>>>  that we can not effect and that does not effect our lives. Why
>>> even invent a word for a concept as useless as that?
>>>
>>
>> I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious.  And my
>> subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.
>>
>> When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious.  Then my subconscious talks
>> to other peoples subconsciouses.  Then one persons subconscious is
>> affecting this persons behavior, so that I get answer to my prayer.
>>
>>
> Psychiatrist:   "Look--how do you know you're God?"
> Lord Gurney: "Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to myself."
> --- Peter Barnes, "The Ruling Class"
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 28 Dec 2016, at 08:08, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/27/2016 4:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha  
stands in your path (spiritual) strike him down"?

Brent

Yes, another koan zen or buddhist say that we have to kill all the  
buddhas, and is usually understood as a warning against argument per  
authority.

It is common among mystics that they encourage the *personal* inquiry,  
a bit like mathematicians who recommend the personal understanding of  
(most) theorems.

Platonist can go farer when taking argument from nature as treachery.  
We cab use nature to refute a theory, but we have to find the theory  
by reflexion and not copy nature ...

Bruno

-Original Message-
From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

>  My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics  
is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I  
derived formally a quantum logic, and explained informally how we  
get the statistical interference.

A derivation using dozens of pronouns that either have no clear  
referent or are logically contradictory. But I believe we may have  
been through this before.

>  the Aristotelian theology fails.

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

>  God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause,

The   primary cause  may be attached to the word  "God",  
but we both know that is not the only attachment, so is "a being  
who can think".

>  which is the god of the platonist.

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

> You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it  
has not.

You talk as if theologians have solved the problem, but they have  
not.

>  (either Plato's God, or even Pythagoras" God

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

>  In theology, the greeks were

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

>  Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called  
God), the second God of Aristotle .  (Primary Matter), the god  
of Plato (first principle) and the god of Pythagoras (the natural  
numbers).

OK I won't confuse it, and I'll avoid confusion by ignoring  
both.    To hell with the ancient Greeks!

>  two beers in the fridge is not rsponsible for the numbers 2  
to exist physically, and here

If there were nobody around to think about the number 2 and if  
there were not 2 of anything in the entire physical universe, then  
would the number 2 exist? And if it did, how would things be  
different if it didn't?

>  you beg the question by assuming the second god of  
Aristotle.

  To hell with the ancient Greeks!

>  It is the favorite gods of the catholics.

I'll say this for the catholics, their view of God is clear,  
clearly wrong but clear nevertheless. Your view of God isn't even  
wrong.

>  The correct arithmetical relations implements all  
computations

And all correct computations  need matter that obeys the  
laws of physics. For some reason I'm feeling Deja Vu right now, I  
can't imagine why.

>   Nobody is interested in 2+2=5.

Well you sure as hell better be interested in incorrect  
calculations if you want to avoid them! So I ask yet again , how  
can you, how can even God separate correct numerical relations from  
incorrect ones without the help of matter that obeys the laws of  
physics? You can't do it I can't do it and God can't do it.

>  With mechanism, we have the good theory of consciousness,

Everybody has a theory on consciousness and none of them are  
worth a damn, I'd be much more interested in a  
theory  of intelligence. 

>>  God must be able to think or the word becomes a joke.

>  That shows only how much you take for granted the  
brainwashing of the clericals.

Well, I may be brainwashed but according to you I'm smarter  
than God because I can think and God can't.

>  You Sir, are more catholic than the Pope,

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never  
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

 John K Clark

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 27 Dec 2016, at 20:31, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/27/2016 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

>>  Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when  
they use the word   [God] .

>  But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to  
disbelieve.

Because the meaning Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the  
word "God" is clear

Really?

It's certainly more definite than the set of all meanings, including  
yours, which are given to the word "God".  You can't make a word  
better defined by adding meanings.

i don't add meaning, I subtract only the meaning added by the politics  
for prower and control purpose, as opposed to the early free research.  
My definition is in most religious dictionnaries, even catholic one.  
God: primary cause of everything. Only gnostic atheists defend  
seriously the christian god. educated christian have evolved (perhaps  
more in Europa than America perhaps).

and if I had a switch that could make their God appear or  
disappear the universe would look very different depending on if  
that switch was on or off. Your God does nothing beyond the laws  
of physics so it would make no difference if He existed or  
not. 

My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is  
derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived  
formally a quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the  
statistical interference. Well, up to now it fits the fact, and to  
my knowledge, is the only theory explaining the difference between  
qualias and quantas, where the Aristotelian theology fails.

It doesn't explain them.  It just takes two aspects of modal logic  
and says one corresponds to qualia and one to quanta.

yes, but with an explanation why.

But qualia and quanta don't actually appear.

?

What does that mean? They cerainly appears in the sense that the self- 
observing machine mention them, and understand the difference with the  
sharable quanta. Indeed they do experience the qualia, but realize  
that they cannot formalize them without reference to some notion of  
global truth that they are aware that they cannot prove nor even define.

It's as if you said here is arithmetic; the prime numbers are qualia  
and the composite numbers are quanta.

Come on. this illustration miss the main point. Qualia are measurable  
by the machine, but not expressible or definable. The qualia theory is  
X1* minus X1. It is what machine can know-for-sure yet cannot prove to  
others (and can prove that they cannot prove to others if they assumed  
to be sound or consistent). The miracle is that they are explainable  
conditionnaly to a self-correctness meta-assumption (yet not doable by  
the machine explicitly without becoming inconsistent).

  To explain them you would need to show their relation to  
perception and to objects in the world as well as internal  
narratives and imagination.

That is done in part, and I refer you to a paper by John Bell (the  
logician, not the physicist) showing the relation between perception  
and quantum logic.

Bell, 1986Bell, J. L. (1986). A new approach to quantum logic. Brit.  
J. Phil. Sci., 37:83-99.

>>  It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with  
supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means  
something. 

>  Really?

 Yes  really. "An  immortal person exists  with  
supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped "  
means something , so the statement has the virtue of being  
either right or wrong. In this case wrong. But when you say  
"God"  it means nothing so it's rather like a burp,  it's just a  
noise  and is neither right nor wrong.

God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause, which is  
the god of the platonist.

Aristotle also held that there must be a first cause.  Why call it  
"god" and why attribute the idea to Plato.  I don't think Plato even  
gave an argument for a first cause.

See his Parmenides. "cause" is not meant for "physical cause", it can  
be logical, theological, etc. The goal is to figure out what could be  
real.

Science is born from the doubt that reality is wysiwyg.

And from a desire to explain what you see and predict what you'll get.

Yes.

But the fondamental science search for a global picture, and try to  
avoid important aspect of all experiences, including consciousness  
states.

The original question is about the nature of the physical observable.

You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it has not.

  >>  Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite  
literally don't know what they're talking about when they talk  
about "God"

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 27 Dec 2016, at 20:11, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/27/2016 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the  
machine is Arithmetical Truth...

..
And speaking of a   sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell  
the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon  
theologian?


The first one personified God metaphorically.


Then it's a ridiculously misleading metaphor.


It makes sense in arithmetic, because the set of true sentences is  
close for the modus ponens rule, and can be seen as a set of  
beliefs, so God is personified by saying that she is the knower or  
the believer in the true arithmetical sentences.


But in your formalized definition of belief those true but  
unprovable sentences are not believed.  In anycase, simply  
"believing" true propositions of arithmetic is not enough to make a  
person.  Otherwise my cel phone would be a person.


But the set of true sentences of arithmétic is not formalisable. That  
is why "God knows .." is a metaphor. for the formalized belief it is  
no more metaphorical at all.















Persons exist in space and time and interact with other persons.


No. This is true in Aristotle theology, but it has been shown  
logically incompatible with computationalism which requires  
platonist theology.


So you say.  But I think your argument is flawed.



You have not succeeded in showing where the flaw is, or I missed it.  
can you tell what the flaw is?











They have values and emotions and act on them.  The "truths of  
arithmetic" are not in spacetime,


OK.




don't change


OK.



or act,


deends how you define "act". Arithmetical truth can act in the  
absolute sense of being the roots of all acts and facts, and in the  
relative sense as defining the conditions which makes to some  
person to be acting relatively to universal numbers.


To act requires change.


Then general relativity would prevent acts to exist. of course not,  
but acting becomes relative indexicals.












have no emotions, values, or goals.


We don't know that.


How could they have goals when they don't change - as you agreed  
above.


You take the metaphor too much seriously, like you take the notion of  
God in a too much restricted sense.












  So to personify them is a dishonest move.



Not in the context of a theory, where it is natural, as I explained  
before. The person "god"


I notice you didn't capitalize "god", demoting it to a common noun.






An attempt to appropriate all the religious feelings of those  
raised as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.



They are the one having started with Platon theology,


I don't think Hindus, Taoist, Buddhists, Zoroastrians,...were  
Platonists.



Platonism comes from the east, were it developed well before  
Pythagoras and Plato. But the greeks tried to get a reasonable  
sharable theory from it.








and then (unfortunately) Aristotle theology.


You casually use "Aristotlean" as a pejorative.


Not at all. I take it as wrong with respect to the Mechanist theory.





What is your definition of Aristotlean?



In this context, I take it as the belief in some Primary Matter, or in  
the slightly weaker epistemological sense of physicalism. The idea  
that what we see is real, and not (with Plato) a symptom of a deeper  
and simpler reality.




Personally I find Democritus and Epicurus more interesting Greek  
philosophers than Plato and Aristotle.  The latter gained their  
predominance mainly through being subsumed into Christiianity by  
Aquinas and Augustine, and through accidental survival of their  
writings rather than those of others.


Democritus was atomist, and it is was an intersting idea, which cannot  
work with mechanism. yes, Plato, thanks to Augustine, has not been not  
totally forgotten, but eventually the three abramanic religion have  
chosen to rely on Aristotle, like the atheists. But the great divide  
is between Plato and Aristotle, that is between immaterialism and  
materialism. To be sure, Plato only discussed and never concluded.







But yes, yhe general idea is that all religious feeling comes from  
the same unique "One" and that that the discrepancies comes from  
human literalness and contingent histories. In fact, like Alsoud  
Huxley emphasized, the "true" theology is suspected to be at the  
intersection of all theologies, and that is the case for the  
theology of the universal numbers.







The second one take such personification literally.

The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory  
when it does not conform to facts.


Yes, he changes the theory to a completely different theory - but  
he insists on using the the same "metaphor".  That should make it  
clear he is using the "

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-28 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


Ah another Koan from Master, Handey!
""They say that a little piece of God dwells with everyone. Well, that true, I 
hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what he's getting tonight."


-Original Message-
From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 10:39 pm
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God






On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:



> 
John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands in 
your path (spiritual) strike him down"? 




I don't know about the Buddha but I do know 
Jack Handy 
said:




"
We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them 
personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me.
"


 John K Clark







 


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


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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-27 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> 
> John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands
> in your path (spiritual) strike him down"?
>

I don't know about the Buddha but I do know 
Jack Handy
said:

"
*We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at
them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me*.
"

 John K Clark



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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-27 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands in 
your path (spiritual) strike him down"? 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> 
My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived from a 
internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a quantum logic, 
and explained informally how we get the statistical interference.

A derivation using dozens of pronouns that either have no clear referent or 
are logically contradictory. But I believe we may have been through this 
before.

> 
the Aristotelian theology fails.

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

> 
God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause,

The

primary cause
 may be attached to the word  "God", but we both know that is not the only 
attachment, so is "a being who can think".

> 
which is the god of the platonist.

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

>
You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it has not.

You talk as if theologians have solved the problem, but they have not.

> 
(either Plato's God, or even Pythagoras" God

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

> 
In theology, the greeks were

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

> 
Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called God), the second God 
of Aristotle
. 
(Primary Matter), the god of Plato (first principle) and the god of Pythagoras 
(the natural numbers).

OK I won't confuse it, and I'll avoid confusion by ignoring both. 

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

> 
two beers in the fridge is not rsponsible for the numbers 2 to exist 
physically, and here

If there were nobody around to think about the number 2 and if there were not 
2 of anything in the entire physical universe, then would the number 2 exist? 
And if it did, how would things be different if it didn't?

> 
you beg the question by assuming the second god of Aristotle.

To hell with the ancient Greeks!

> 
It is the favorite gods of the catholics.

I'll say this for the catholics, their view of God is clear, clearly wrong but 
clear nevertheless. Your view of God isn't even wrong.

> 
The correct arithmetical relations implements all computations

And all correct computations 
need matter that obeys the laws of physics. For some reason I'm feeling Deja 
Vu right now, I can't imagine why.

> 
 Nobody is interested in 2+2=5.

Well you sure as hell better be interested in incorrect calculations if you 
want to avoid them! So I ask yet again , how can you, how can even God separate 
correct numerical relations from incorrect ones without the help of matter that 
obeys the laws of physics? You can't do it I can't do it and God can't do it.

> 
With mechanism, we have the good theory of consciousness,

Everybody has a theory on consciousness and none of them are worth a damn, I'd 
be much more interested in a theory of intelligence. 

>> 
God must be able to think or the word becomes a joke.

> 
That shows only how much you take for granted the brainwashing of the clericals.

Well, I may be brainwashed but according to you 
I'm smarter than God because I can think and God can't.

> 
You Sir, are more catholic than the Pope,

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one 
before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.  

 John K Clark

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

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-27 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> 
> My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived
> from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a
> quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the statistical
> interference.
>

A derivation using dozens of pronouns that either have no clear referent
or are logically contradictory. But I believe we may have been through this
before.

> > 
> the Aristotelian theology fails.
>

*To hell with the ancient Greeks! *

> 
> God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause,
>

The

primary cause
 may be attached to the word  "God", but we both know that is not the only
attachment, so is "a being who can think".

> > 
> which is the god of the platonist.
>

*To hell with the ancient Greeks! *

> >
> You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it has not.
>

You talk as if theologians have solved the problem, but they have not.

> > 
> (either Plato's God, or even Pythagoras" God
>

*To hell with the ancient Greeks! *

> > 
> In theology, the greeks were
>

*To hell with the ancient Greeks! *

> 
> Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called God), the second
> God of Aristotle
> . 
> (Primary Matter), the god of Plato (first principle) and the god of
> Pythagoras (the natural numbers).
>
> OK I won't confuse it, and I'll avoid confusion by ignoring both. 

*To hell with the ancient Greeks! *

> > 
> two beers in the fridge is not rsponsible for the numbers 2 to exist
> physically, and here
>

If there were nobody around to think about the number 2 and if there were
not 2 of anything in the entire physical universe, then would the number 2
exist? And if it did, how would things be different if it didn't?

> 
> you beg the question by assuming the second god of Aristotle.
>

*To hell with the ancient Greeks! *

> > 
> It is the favorite gods of the catholics.
>

I'll say this for the catholics, their view of God is clear, clearly wrong
but clear nevertheless. Your view of God isn't even wrong.

> 
> The correct arithmetical relations implements all computations
>

And all correct computations 
need matter that obeys the laws of physics. For some reason I'm feeling
Deja Vu right now, I can't imagine why.

> 
>  Nobody is interested in 2+2=5.
>

Well you sure as hell better be interested in incorrect calculations if
you want to avoid them! So I ask yet again , how can you, how can even God
separate correct numerical relations from incorrect ones without the help
of matter that obeys the laws of physics? You can't do it I can't do it
and God can't do it.

> > 
> With mechanism, we have the good theory of consciousness,

Everybody has a theory on consciousness and none of them are worth a damn,
I'd be much more interested in a theory of intelligence. 

>> 
>> God must be able to think or the word becomes a joke.
>
>
> > 
> That shows only how much you take for granted the brainwashing of the
> clericals.
>

Well, I may be brainwashed but according to you
I'm smarter than God because I can think and God can't.

> 
> You Sir, are more catholic than the Pope,
>

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

 John K Clark

>

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-27 Thread Brent Meeker

On 12/27/2016 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be 
<mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>wrote:

>> 
Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when
they use the word

 [God]
.

> 
But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve.

Because the meaning Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the word 
"God" is clear

Really?

It's certainly more definite than the set of all meanings, including 
yours, which are given to the word "God".  You can't make a word better 
defined by adding meanings.

and if I had a switch that could make their God appear or disappear 
the universe would look very different depending on if that switch 
was on or off. Your God does nothing beyond the laws of physics so it 
would make no difference if He existed or not. 

My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived 
from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a 
quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the statistical 
interference. Well, up to now it fits the fact, and to my knowledge, 
is the only theory explaining the difference between qualias and 
quantas, where the Aristotelian theology fails.

It doesn't explain them.  It just takes two aspects of modal logic and 
says one corresponds to qualia and one to quanta.  But qualia and quanta 
don't actually appear.   It's as if you said here is arithmetic; the 
prime numbers are qualia and the composite numbers are quanta.   To 
explain them you would need to show their relation to perception and to 
objects in the world as well as internal narratives and imagination.

>> 
It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with
supernatural power who wants and deserves to be
worshiped" means something.

> 
Really?

Yes
 really. "An
 immortal person
exists 
with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped
"
means something
, so the statement has the virtue of being either right or wrong. 
In this case wrong. But when you say "God"  it means nothing so it's 
rather like a burp,

 it's just a noise
 and is neither right nor wrong.

God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause, which is the 
god of the platonist.

Aristotle also held that there must be a first cause.  Why call it "god" 
and why attribute the idea to Plato.  I don't think Plato even gave an 
argument for a first cause.

Science is born from the doubt that reality is wysiwyg.

And from a desire to explain what you see and predict what you'll get.

The original question is about the nature of the physical observable.

You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it has not.

>> 
Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally
don't know what they're talking about when they talk about
"God".

>
We use the greek notion.

I'm begging you, please please please stop talking about the idiot 
ancient Greeks!

They proposed the two big different conceptions of reality: either a 
primary physical universe (naturalism, materialism, ...) or something 
else from which the physical can itself been explained (either Plato's 
God, or even Pythagoras" God (only numbers and enumerable number 
relations).

The relevant theological fracture is there. I the physical universe 
the real thing, or are we "just" universal numbers lost in an 
arithmetical web of dreams. Both theory (computer science) and 
observations (quantum mechanics) adds evidence that the internal 
many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic might be a simpler theory.

In theology, the greeks were the only rationalist trying to explain 
experiences, and compared to the canonical theology of the ideally 
self-referentially correct universal machine, the two "idiots" 
Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus, might still be the closest human 
case of self-referentially correct self-reference.

Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called God), the 
second God of Aristotle (Primary Matter), the god of Plato (first 
principle) and the god of Pythagoras (the natural numbers).

tha basic idea is that God is whatever is at the origin of you actual 
state of consciousness. The greeks were those who understood the 
transcendent character of that thing, and get to the debate between 
variants of mathematicalism and variants of physicalism (to use our 
terming).

>
>> 

god is just the big things at the origin of everything.

>>
And if that turns out to be the quantu

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-27 Thread Brent Meeker




On 12/27/2016 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine 
is Arithmetical Truth...

..

And speaking of a

sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a 
serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?


The first one personified God metaphorically.


Then it's a ridiculously misleading metaphor.


It makes sense in arithmetic, because the set of true sentences is 
close for the modus ponens rule, and can be seen as a set of beliefs, 
so God is personified by saying that she is the knower or the believer 
in the true arithmetical sentences.


But in your formalized definition of belief those true but unprovable 
sentences are not believed.  In anycase, simply "believing" true 
propositions of arithmetic is not enough to make a person.  Otherwise my 
cel phone would be a person.










Persons exist in space and time and interact with other persons.


No. This is true in Aristotle theology, but it has been shown 
logically incompatible with computationalism which requires platonist 
theology.


So you say.  But I think your argument is flawed.






They have values and emotions and act on them.  The "truths of 
arithmetic" are not in spacetime,


OK.




don't change


OK.



or act,


deends how you define "act". Arithmetical truth can act in the 
absolute sense of being the roots of all acts and facts, and in the 
relative sense as defining the conditions which makes to some person 
to be acting relatively to universal numbers.


To act requires change.






have no emotions, values, or goals.


We don't know that.


How could they have goals when they don't change - as you agreed above.






  So to personify them is a dishonest move.



Not in the context of a theory, where it is natural, as I explained 
before. The person "god"


I notice you didn't capitalize "god", demoting it to a common noun.






An attempt to appropriate all the religious feelings of those raised 
as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.



They are the one having started with Platon theology,


I don't think Hindus, Taoist, Buddhists, Zoroastrians,...were Platonists.


and then (unfortunately) Aristotle theology.


You casually use "Aristotlean" as a pejorative.  What is your definition 
of Aristotlean?  Personally I find Democritus and Epicurus more 
interesting Greek philosophers than Plato and Aristotle.  The latter 
gained their predominance mainly through being subsumed into 
Christiianity by Aquinas and Augustine, and through accidental survival 
of their writings rather than those of others.


But yes, yhe general idea is that all religious feeling comes from the 
same unique "One" and that that the discrepancies comes from human 
literalness and contingent histories. In fact, like Alsoud Huxley 
emphasized, the "true" theology is suspected to be at the intersection 
of all theologies, and that is the case for the theology of the 
universal numbers.







The second one take such personification literally.

The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory 
when it does not conform to facts.


Yes, he changes the theory to a completely different theory - but he 
insists on using the the same "metaphor".  That should make it clear 
he is using the "metaphor" to mislead.


Then Earth is also a metaphor, \


No, Earth is not a metaphor because it allows an ostensive definition.


and disallowing it would have made progress impossible.
What you say is just that Aristotle theology is the only theology 
possible, and you make happy all those who want religion kept in the 
hands of the manipulators. This is the roman catholic move. You make 
the pope happy, not to talk of the many obscurantists in that domain.


I'll bet the Catholic Church is a lot happier with, "Bruno Marchal has 
proven mathematically that God exists." than with "Brent Meeker has 
shown that only atoms and the void exist; all the rest is opinion."


Brent

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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

>> Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when  
they use the word [God].

> But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to  
disbelieve.

Because the meaning Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the  
word "God" is clear

Really?

and if I had a switch that could make their God appear or disappear  
the universe would look very different depending on if that switch  
was on or off. Your God does nothing beyond the laws of physics so  
it would make no difference if He existed or not. 

My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived  
from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a  
quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the statistical  
interference. Well, up to now it fits the fact, and to my knowledge,  
is the only theory explaining the difference between qualias and  
quantas, where the Aristotelian theology fails.

>> It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with  
supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means  
something.

> Really?

Yes really. "An immortal person exists with  
supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped"  
means something, so the statement has the virtue of being either  
right or wrong. In this case wrong. But when you say "God"  it  
means nothing so it's rather like a burp, it's just a noise and is  
neither right nor wrong.

God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause, which is the  
god of the platonist. Science is born from the doubt that reality is  
wysiwyg.

The original question is about the nature of the physical observable.

You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it has not.

 >> Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite  
literally don't know what they're talking about when they talk about  
"God". 

>We use the greek notion.

I'm begging you, please please please stop talking about the idiot  
ancient Greeks!

They proposed the two big different conceptions of reality: either a  
primary physical universe (naturalism, materialism, ...) or something  
else from which the physical can itself been explained (either Plato's  
God, or even Pythagoras" God (only numbers and enumerable number  
relations).

The relevant theological fracture is there. I the physical universe  
the real thing, or are we "just" universal numbers lost in an  
arithmetical web of dreams. Both theory (computer science) and  
observations (quantum mechanics) adds evidence that the internal many- 
dreams interpretation of arithmetic might be a simpler theory.

In theology, the greeks were the only rationalist trying to explain  
experiences, and compared to the canonical theology of the ideally  
self-referentially correct universal machine, the two "idiots"  
Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus, might still be the closest human  
case of self-referentially correct self-reference.

Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called God), the  
second God of Aristotle (Primary Matter), the god of Plato (first  
principle) and the god of Pythagoras (the natural numbers).

tha basic idea is that God is whatever is at the origin of you actual  
state of consciousness. The greeks were those who understood the  
transcendent character of that thing, and get to the debate between  
variants of mathematicalism and variants of physicalism (to use our  
terming).

>>>  god is just the big things at the origin of  
everything.

>> And if that turns out to be the quantum vacuum are you  
prepared to call that God? Of course you're not!

> ?
!

 >> And you can protest all you want but it's obvious you want  
something that is conscious and intelligent and purposeful, not  
something as mindless as a sack full of doorknobs.

> ?

!

> I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the  
machine is Arithmetical Truth.

The set of all false arithmetical statements has as much (or as  
little) existence as the set of all true arithmetical statements;  
without physics and the computations

The physical computations are still defined by the physical  
implementations of the computations. two beers in the fridge is not  
rsponsible for the numbers 2 to exist physically, and here you beg the  
question by assuming the second god of Aristotle. It is the favorite  
gods of the catholics.

it allows how can even God tell one from the other? And the correct  
multiplication table can't think any better than an  
incorrect multiplication table . And a God that can't think is a  
pretty low rent God.

The correct arithmetical relations implements all computations (a

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the  
machine is Arithmetical Truth...

..
And speaking of a   sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the  
difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?


The first one personified God metaphorically.


Then it's a ridiculously misleading metaphor.


It makes sense in arithmetic, because the set of true sentences is  
close for the modus ponens rule, and can be seen as a set of beliefs,  
so God is personified by saying that she is the knower or the believer  
in the true arithmetical sentences.








Persons exist in space and time and interact with other persons.


No. This is true in Aristotle theology, but it has been shown  
logically incompatible with computationalism which requires platonist  
theology.





They have values and emotions and act on them.  The "truths of  
arithmetic" are not in spacetime,


OK.




don't change


OK.



or act,


deends how you define "act". Arithmetical truth can act in the  
absolute sense of being the roots of all acts and facts, and in the  
relative sense as defining the conditions which makes to some person  
to be acting relatively to universal numbers.





have no emotions, values, or goals.


We don't know that.





  So to personify them is a dishonest move.



Not in the context of a theory, where it is natural, as I explained  
before. The person "god"





An attempt to appropriate all the religious feelings of those raised  
as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.



They are the one having started with Platon theology, and then  
(unfortunately) Aristotle theology.
But yes, yhe general idea is that all religious feeling comes from the  
same unique "One" and that that the discrepancies comes from human  
literalness and contingent histories. In fact, like Alsoud Huxley  
emphasized, the "true" theology is suspected to be at the intersection  
of all theologies, and that is the case for the theology of the  
universal numbers.







The second one take such personification literally.

The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory  
when it does not conform to facts.


Yes, he changes the theory to a completely different theory - but he  
insists on using the the same "metaphor".  That should make it clear  
he is using the "metaphor" to mislead.


Then Earth is also a metaphor, and disallowing it would have made  
progress impossible.
What you say is just that Aristotle theology is the only theology  
possible, and you make happy all those who want religion kept in the  
hands of the manipulators. This is the roman catholic move. You make  
the pope happy, not to talk of the many obscurantists in that domain.


Bruno






Brent
“People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to  
give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood”

--- Bertrand Russell

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

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


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



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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:54, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/26/2016 12:06 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:

On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote:


On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:


I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And  
my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.


When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious.  Then my subconscious  
talks to other peoples subconsciouses.  Then one persons  
subconscious is affecting this persons behavior, so that I get  
answer to my prayer.




Psychiatrist:   "Look--how do you know you're God?"
Lord Gurney: "Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to  
myself."

   --- Peter Barnes, "The Ruling Class"



Yes, this is true.  I have a part of God inside me.  So I can say  
that I am (a part of) God.


The whole of God consists of the sum of all the subconsciouses of  
all human beeings.  Nothing more and nothing less than that.




I suppose that's as good as Bruno's "All the truths of arithmetic."


Not really. It is not obvious how to give a precise mathematical  
definition of "human", "being" and "subconscious". But "arithmetical  
truth" is "as easy" to define as "real number", "limit", "continuous  
function", etc. Then we can prove that the notion of arithmetical  
truth obeys the axiomatic of the (greek) notion of God from the  
ideally correct, and computationalist, machine.
And that theory of God is 100% scientific in the sense of Popper,  
given that the theology of machine is testable/refutable.





In Dallas there used to be a religious sect that defined "God" as  
everything that was good.



Yes, the greeks also associated god and good, but "god" is far more  
easier to (meta)-define compared to Good, and so it is an open  
problem. Well, the question how we can personalize the God of the  
machine is of course also open. That means: lot of work to do before  
even formulating such question in a reasonable mathematical way.


Bruno





Brent

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

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


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



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

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-26 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

"You know, they say that inside everyone, is a little piece of God, and if 
that's true, I hope he likes enchiladas, because that is what he's getting 
tonight." -Jack Handey

Yes, this is true.  I have a part of God inside me.  So I can say that I 
am (a part of) God.

The whole of God consists of the sum of all the subconsciouses of all 
human beeings.  Nothing more and nothing less than that.

-- 
Torgny




-Original Message-
From: Torgny Tholerus <tor...@dsv.su.se>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:06 am
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote:

> On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>
>> I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my 
>> subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.
>>
>> When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious.  Then my subconscious 
>> talks to other peoples subconsciouses.  Then one persons subconscious 
>> is affecting this persons behavior, so that I get answer to my prayer.
>>
>
> Psychiatrist:   "Look--how do you know you're God?"
> Lord Gurney: "Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to 
> myself."
> --- Peter Barnes, "The Ruling Class"
>

Yes, this is true.  I have a part of God inside me.  So I can say that I 
am (a part of) God.

The whole of God consists of the sum of all the subconsciouses of all 
human beeings.  Nothing more and nothing less than that.

-- 
Torgny

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

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

1 - 100 of 1261 matches

Mail list logo