Re: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
Hi Bruno Marchal You can write a chemical equation (theoretically) that will not work in the real world.. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 09:49:53 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe Hi Roger, On 17 Dec 2012, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to "proof" or "theory" . As a scientist, all I have to do is to weigh myself and report that to you. Data, in my book at least, always rules over theory and assumptions. But data are already in part the result of theoretical constructions, with millions years old prewired theories in our "Darwinian" brain. Data are very important, but theories too. We are ourselves sort of "natural" hypotheses. We are data and theories ourselves, I would say, and the frontier between what is data and what is not is fuzzy, and quasi relative. This has to be so from pure theoretical computer science. I can explain more if you want, but this will be apparent in some explanations I intend to send (asap, but not so soon) on the FOAR list. Keep also in mind the dream argument which explains that we cannot be sure if any data is a genuine data. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 09:59:56 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I probably agree, but what is the primitive physical universe ? Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity). A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose existence, or appearance, is explained in a theory which does not assume it. My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical universe cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers "dreams" (computation seen from the 1p view). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > > God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, > it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) > afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's > metaphysics. > > > > Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distingu
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 17 Dec 2012, at 14:28, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 9:59 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Richard, I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X& Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying intentionality on the part of the entity. omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), Same thing. It is implied that "someone" is doing the sensing. and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist. Brent Interesting. Therefore deists do not believe in deities. Sure they. They believe in some person/intelligence is responsible for ordering the world. I'm not sure whether you think of 'the one god of CTM' as being a person or not. If not, I guess you're just a computationalist. Brent By person I guess that you mean something like a human being. I certainly do not believe in that although the one god certainly has consciousness along with a wide variety of natural and supernatural beings that have consciousness and they may all share the same consciousness. I think that being a computationalist is the best label for me that anyone has come up with. I have a stronger believe in the existence of a supernatural world that will some day support my afterlife than I do in an intervening god that judges and punishes, although I do believe that the one god intervenes to manifest one physical world, rather than many, something that Bruno admits that CTM can predict along with an infinity of other possibilities inherent in the universal wave function. Therefore if we do live in a single physical world, it can be understood as being anthropic. CTM suffers from a much bigger landscape than the string landscape (characterized by 10^500 possibilities). Bruno has suggested a CTM landscape on the order of 1024^1600 possibilities. That seems about right. Richard That was for a relative landscape on personal comp continuations. But with comp the physical reality is unique, except for normal (Gaussian) internal simulations, which are testable, too. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
Hi Roger, On 17 Dec 2012, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to "proof" or "theory" . As a scientist, all I have to do is to weigh myself and report that to you. Data, in my book at least, always rules over theory and assumptions. But data are already in part the result of theoretical constructions, with millions years old prewired theories in our "Darwinian" brain. Data are very important, but theories too. We are ourselves sort of "natural" hypotheses. We are data and theories ourselves, I would say, and the frontier between what is data and what is not is fuzzy, and quasi relative. This has to be so from pure theoretical computer science. I can explain more if you want, but this will be apparent in some explanations I intend to send (asap, but not so soon) on the FOAR list. Keep also in mind the dream argument which explains that we cannot be sure if any data is a genuine data. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 09:59:56 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I probably agree, but what is the primitive physical universe ? Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity). A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose existence, or appearance, is explained in a theory which does not assume it. My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical universe cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers "dreams" (computation seen from the 1p view). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > > God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, > it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) > afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's > metaphysics. > > > > Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 17 Dec 2012, at 12:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X & Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying intentionality on the part of the entity. omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), Same thing. It is implied that "someone" is doing the sensing. and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/ person who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist. If comp is correct, we already know how to create such a simulation. We just have to run the universal dovetailer for a long enough time. We might soon have the computational resources to do it, with quantum computers. That wouldn't make us gods: - No omnipotence: He have absolutely no control, we are simulating *everything* - No omniscience: We wouldn't even be able to understand the macro levels of such universes. Decoding the output of the machine is a problem many orders of magnitude greater than building the machine - possibly requiring inimaginable computational power - No omnipresence: we would not be part of the computation in any meaningful way We have already the technology to run a UD, and I have actually run one, in LISP, for a week, in 1991. No improvement in technology can genuinely accelerate it, even quantum computation. A quantum UD is of no use, but this does not mean that the quantum dovetailing, which is "already" emulated by the additive and multiplicative structure of the natural numbers, might not be the "winner" for the battle measure. All this is testable. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent, ominibenevolent, omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and rewards. So I'd say your an atheist - if I were so bold as to say what other people mean when they designate their beliefs. I am truly agnostic on many things, but some things makes more sense than others. I am certainly a sort of atheist as I have lost my faith in Matter, but to be franc I have never really believe in it. And I do think, that the abramanic religions have borrowed the greek ONE, but get the problems due to given it a name, as it has no name. The main problem is not in God but in imposing a notion of God to others. The comp God is a private matter between God, you and your shaman (priest, doctor, etc.). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/16/2012 9:59 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> Hi Richard, >>> I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X& Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), >>> >>> >>> When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally >>> implying >>> intentionality on the part of the entity. >>> omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), >>> >>> >>> Same thing. It is implied that "someone" is doing the sensing. >>> and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), >>> >>> >>> Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. >>> but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? >>> >>> >>> Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. >>> >>> >>> If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, >>> creator/person >>> who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and >>> doesn't >>> care what humans do, then he's a deist. >>> >>> Brent >> >> Interesting. Therefore deists do not believe in deities. > > > Sure they. They believe in some person/intelligence is responsible for > ordering the world. I'm not sure whether you think of 'the one god of CTM' > as being a person or not. If not, I guess you're just a computationalist. > > Brent By person I guess that you mean something like a human being. I certainly do not believe in that although the one god certainly has consciousness along with a wide variety of natural and supernatural beings that have consciousness and they may all share the same consciousness. I think that being a computationalist is the best label for me that anyone has come up with. I have a stronger believe in the existence of a supernatural world that will some day support my afterlife than I do in an intervening god that judges and punishes, although I do believe that the one god intervenes to manifest one physical world, rather than many, something that Bruno admits that CTM can predict along with an infinity of other possibilities inherent in the universal wave function. Therefore if we do live in a single physical world, it can be understood as being anthropic. CTM suffers from a much bigger landscape than the string landscape (characterized by 10^500 possibilities). Bruno has suggested a CTM landscape on the order of 1024^1600 possibilities. That seems about right. Richard > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
Hi Bruno Marchal There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to "proof" or "theory" . As a scientist, all I have to do is to weigh myself and report that to you. Data, in my book at least, always rules over theory and assumptions. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 09:59:56 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I probably agree, but what is the primitive physical universe ? Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity). A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose existence, or appearance, is explained in a theory which does not assume it. My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical universe cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers "dreams" (computation seen from the 1p view). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > > God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, > it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) > afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's > metaphysics. > > > > Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List&quo
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
> > > >> I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X & Z) logically derived >> string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of >> physics), > > > When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally > implying intentionality on the part of the entity. > > >> omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), > > > Same thing. It is implied that "someone" is doing the sensing. > > >> and >> omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), > > > Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. > > >> but not >> necessarily omnibenevolent, >> that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all >> possible universes. What label do I deserve? >> > > Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. > > > If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person > who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and > doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist. > If comp is correct, we already know how to create such a simulation. We just have to run the universal dovetailer for a long enough time. We might soon have the computational resources to do it, with quantum computers. That wouldn't make us gods: - No omnipotence: He have absolutely no control, we are simulating *everything* - No omniscience: We wouldn't even be able to understand the macro levels of such universes. Decoding the output of the machine is a problem many orders of magnitude greater than building the machine - possibly requiring inimaginable computational power - No omnipresence: we would not be part of the computation in any meaningful way -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 12/16/2012 9:59 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Richard, I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X& Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying intentionality on the part of the entity. omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), Same thing. It is implied that "someone" is doing the sensing. and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist. Brent Interesting. Therefore deists do not believe in deities. Sure they. They believe in some person/intelligence is responsible for ordering the world. I'm not sure whether you think of 'the one god of CTM' as being a person or not. If not, I guess you're just a computationalist. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Hi Richard, > >> >> I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X & Z) logically derived >> string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of >> physics), > > > When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying > intentionality on the part of the entity. > >> >> omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), > > > Same thing. It is implied that "someone" is doing the sensing. > >> >> and >> omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), > > > Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. > >> >> but not >> necessarily omnibenevolent, >> that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all >> possible universes. What label do I deserve? > > > Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. > > > If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person > who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't > care what humans do, then he's a deist. > > Brent Interesting. Therefore deists do not believe in deities. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Richard, I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X & Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying intentionality on the part of the entity. omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), Same thing. It is implied that "someone" is doing the sensing. and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
Hi Richard, > I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X & Z) logically derived > string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of > physics), When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying intentionality on the part of the entity. > omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), Same thing. It is implied that "someone" is doing the sensing. > and > omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. > but not > necessarily omnibenevolent, > that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all > possible universes. What label do I deserve? > Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. > Richard > > >> > >> Brent > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "Everything List" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Everything List" group. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> Hi Stephen P. King >> >> OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking >> about L's metaphysics. >> >> 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. >> >> 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual >> atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you >> realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe >> acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view >> in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can >> consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. >> L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol >> world (the physical world you see and that of science), >> but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is >> not real, only its monadic representation is real. >> >> I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but >> a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). >> >> >> Atheism is a variant of christinanism. >> >> The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and >> seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, >> even if it is to deny it. >> >> I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive >> matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with >> that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). >> >> >> But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent, >> ominibenevolent, omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and rewards. >> So I'd say your an atheist - if I were so bold as to say what other people >> mean when they designate their beliefs. > > > ...also, a god that shows a surprising level of interest in what we, puny > humans, do with our genitals. > > I was going to make a very similar comment, but then decided against it. > Bruno is a brilliant philosopher, so I guess it doesn't matter how he labels > himself. I can understand the reluctance to be associated with a type of > close-mindness present in (some) atheists. > >> Telmo, I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X & Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Richard >> >> Brent >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Stephen P. King > > OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking > about L's metaphysics. > > 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. > > 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual > atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you > realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe > acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view > in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can > consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. > L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol > world (the physical world you see and that of science), > but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is > not real, only its monadic representation is real. > > I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but > a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). > > > Atheism is a variant of christinanism. > > The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), > and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian > God, even if it is to deny it. > > I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive > matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with > that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). > > > But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent, > ominibenevolent, omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and rewards. > So I'd say your an atheist - if I were so bold as to say what other people > mean when they designate their beliefs. > ...also, a god that shows a surprising level of interest in what we, puny humans, do with our genitals. I was going to make a very similar comment, but then decided against it. Bruno is a brilliant philosopher, so I guess it doesn't matter how he labels himself. I can understand the reluctance to be associated with a type of close-mindness present in (some) atheists. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent, ominibenevolent, omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and rewards. So I'd say your an atheist - if I were so bold as to say what other people mean when they designate their beliefs. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I probably agree, but what is the primitive physical universe ? Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity). A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose existence, or appearance, is explained in a theory which does not assume it. My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical universe cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers "dreams" (computation seen from the 1p view). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > > God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, > it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) > afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's > metaphysics. > > > > Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
Hi Bruno Marchal I probably agree, but what is the primitive physical universe ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > > God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, > it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) > afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's > metaphysics. > > > > Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > > God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, > it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) > afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's > metaphysics. > > > > Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 12/9/2012 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hmm With CTM it is simple, if our knowledge augment linearly, our ignorance augments non computably. The more we know, the more we can intuit how much we don't know, making us wiser (with some luck). We can jump from big picture to big picture, but we cannot ever be sure, and there is an infinity of surprises awaiting for us. The enemy is not ignorance, it the fake knowledge, the hiding of ignorance, I would say. Dear Bruno, Sure! I don't see a necessary disagreement in our view here. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 09 Dec 2012, at 00:30, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2012 2:28 PM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Stephen, it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except for yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic "explanation" (=a joke). Dear John, ;-) I try hard to stay in a superposed state, somewhere between serious and 'just kidding". We understand each other here. :-) I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I do not detect the concept for such. Exactly! This is partly why I make such a big deal about how people use the concept of 'existence'. It is impossible to deny the existence without first assuming the possibility that it could indeed exist! To avoid this trap, why not pull existence completely away from any dependence on anything else and take it as an ontological primitive. We then say (with Ayn Rand) "existence exists". Full Stop. Also: when you wrote " I am claiming that "local determination/causation' and 'apparent causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or total cause or 'orchestration'." it resonates with my "denial" of classic causation in which it is presumed to know about ALL initiative entailment - what my agnosticism denies from our present knowable. 'What is Knowledge' is almost as difficult a question as 'what is truth'! I really like Bruno's proposed solution, but he seems to have a hard time with my attempt to "parametrize" truth using agreements or mutual consistency in a game theoretical sense. What I propose is no different from the solution to the problem of "perfect knowledge" in game theory! Thinking of knowledge and truth via semantic games has the nice bonus of allowing for a nice extension into statistics and probability. I really like when one mathematical idea connects to another. I am struggling with the 'changes' that occur: the best I can think of is the least obstructed possibility in 'relations' to go for, considering more than we may know within our presently knowable model of the world. OK. What I do to think of this is to ask: "what situation is necessary for the appearance of a type of change to vanish, in some class of related circumstances?" I first noticed that this implies that for a change to be non-vanishing there has to be a non- vanishing means to measure the change or otherwise keep track of its effects. Take away the means to measure change, and what is left? I am also struggling with the driving force behind all 'that' (meaning the infinite complexity) IMO the origination of anything. A have no identification for the 'relations' either. Nor for any 'interchange' - a possible and inevitably occurring 'cause' for violating the (presumed?) infinite symmetry (call it equilibrium?) - generating undefinable "universes" (in my narrative). The way I see it, perfect infinite symmetry is changeless. Why? What would act as the measure of change of the P.I.S.? Nothing! If we some how break the symmetry, we get an immediate potential difference and, check it out, the difference between the perfectly symmetric case and the not so symmetric case is the same kind of difference that we see between the states of a system in a maximum entropy state and a state some distance away from maximum entropy. Voila! We have at least an intuitive way to think of change and a measure of such. Orchestration is a good word, thank you. All I can think of is the 'least obstructed way' of change substituting even for 'evolution'- like processes. Yeah, this is, IMHO, the main reason why people have such a problem understanding the nature of time! The fact that the sequence of events can be mapped to the Real numbers gets all the attention and leads to thoughts that time is a dimension and the question as to "How did the events get sequenced like that in the first place?" gets ignored. The 'Overall Conductor' (God?) is a requirement of human thinking within those limitations we observed over the past millennia. I agree, it is a comforting idea. The 'local governor' is within the model-limitations of yesterday. By no means an 'absolute' denomination (not a 'real entity'). "Take me to your leader", explained the invader. "Whatr is a leader?", asked the native. "None of you rules over the rest?" asked the invader in surprise. "Why should there be such?, "We are all different and have our own unique thoughts, why should some 'one' rule over the rest?". "Oh my!", exclaimed the invader, "I had better rethink my tactics!". I want to press that I do not feel "above" such limitations myself, but at least I try to find wider boundaries. Boundaries are merely horizons to expand. I would not say: "...to imagining that a physical computer can run without a power source." rather push such driving force (see above) into my agnostic ign
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 12/8/2012 2:28 PM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Stephen, it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except for yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic "explanation" (=a joke). Dear John, ;-) I try hard to stay in a superposed state, somewhere between serious and 'just kidding". We understand each other here. :-) I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I do not detect the concept for such. Exactly! This is partly why I make such a big deal about how people use the concept of 'existence'. It is impossible to deny the existence without first assuming the possibility that it could indeed exist! To avoid this trap, why not pull existence completely away from any dependence on anything else and take it as an ontological primitive. We then say (with Ayn Rand) "existence exists". Full Stop. Also: when you wrote */" I am claiming that "local determination/causation' and 'apparent causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or total cause or 'orchestration'."/* */ /* it resonates with my "denial" of classic causation in which it is presumed to know about ALL initiative entailment - what my agnosticism denies from our present knowable. 'What is Knowledge' is almost as difficult a question as 'what is truth'! I really like Bruno's proposed solution, but he seems to have a hard time with my attempt to "parametrize" truth using agreements or mutual consistency in a game theoretical sense. What I propose is no different from the solution to the problem of "perfect knowledge" in game theory! Thinking of knowledge and truth via semantic games has the nice bonus of allowing for a nice extension into statistics and probability. I really like when one mathematical idea connects to another. I am struggling with the 'changes' that occur: the best I can think of is the least obstructed possibility in 'relations' to go for, considering more than we may know within our presently knowable model of the world. OK. What I do to think of this is to ask: "what situation is necessary for the appearance of a type of change to vanish, in some class of related circumstances?" I first noticed that this implies that for a change to be non-vanishing there has to be a non-vanishing means to measure the change or otherwise keep track of its effects. Take away the means to measure change, and what is left? I am also struggling with the driving force behind all 'that' (meaning the infinite complexity) IMO the origination of anything. A have no identification for the 'relations' either. Nor for any 'interchange' - a possible and inevitably occurring 'cause' for violating the (presumed?) infinite symmetry (call it equilibrium?) - generating undefinable "universes" (in my narrative). The way I see it, perfect infinite symmetry is changeless. Why? What would act as the measure of change of the P.I.S.? Nothing! If we some how break the symmetry, we get an immediate potential difference and, check it out, the difference between the perfectly symmetric case and the not so symmetric case is the same kind of difference that we see between the states of a system in a maximum entropy state and a state some distance away from maximum entropy. Voila! We have at least an intuitive way to think of change and a measure of such. *Orchestration *is a good word, thank you. All I can think of is the 'least obstructed way' of *change* substituting even for 'evolution'-like processes. Yeah, this is, IMHO, the main reason why people have such a problem understanding the nature of time! The fact that the sequence of events can be mapped to the Real numbers gets all the attention and leads to thoughts that time is a dimension and the question as to "How did the events get sequenced like that in the first place?" gets ignored. The 'Overall Conductor' (God?) is a requirement of human thinking within those limitations we observed over the past millennia. I agree, it is a comforting idea. The 'local governor' is within the model-limitations of yesterday. By no means an 'absolute' denomination (not a */'real entity'/*). "Take me to your leader", explained the invader. "Whatr is a leader?", asked the native. "None of you rules over the rest?" asked the invader in surprise. "Why should there be such?, "We are all different and have our own unique thoughts, why should some 'one' rule over the rest?". "Oh my!", exclaimed the invader, "I had better rethink my tactics!". I want to press that I do not feel "above" such limitations myself, but at least I try to find wider boundaries. Boundaries are merely horizons to expand. I would not say: */"...to imagining that a physical computer can run without a power source."/* */ /* rather push such driving force (see above) into my agnostic ignorance, Right, does my line of reasoning make sense? Bundle it up with 'energy', 'electr
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 08 Dec 2012, at 13:16, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually an Idealist like me. Hmm... First I am silent on my beliefs. I am just a logician who say if you believe this (that you can survive with an artificial digital brain, Comp or CTM) then you have to believe this (that arithmetic is the realm of everything, then rest are definition and theorems). Then I show that CTM, and the first definition (borrowed to Plato, Theaetetus mainly, and Plotinus, for matter) illustrates a rationalist non Aristotelian conception of "reality" (the physical reality emerge from something else). I prefer to say that CTM leads to neutral monism, instead of idealism. Numbers cannot be taken as "idea" because idea are more complex than numbers, and eventually ideas are defined by the kind of things accessible to universal numbers. Bruno And my apologies for calling you a an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day. You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly, in that you believe in local dermination/causation while I believe that such causation is (and has to be, because ideas aren't causal) only apparent. To go back to my orchestra analogy, you believe that everything is fine as long as each correctly plays his score, while I believe that an overall conductor (the supreme monad) is needed for maintaining coordination and for composing the score in the first place. Your local governor appears to be "a set of relations". L's would also neccesarily include a higher-order governor (the Conductor) to insure that a pre-established harmony exists between sets, as well as insuring that each set ansd its laws are carried out properly. Are synchhronized. In short, you seem to have no means of overall synchronizing the actions of sets. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 14:02:33 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking > about L's metaphysics. > 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. > 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual > atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you > realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe > acts "as if" there's no God. Dear Roger, It is not "atheist/materialist" at all, my way. It is anti- special, in the sense that the potential of the One must be immanent in all of the Omniverse, not to be confined to special occasions/locations. > I have trouble with this view > in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can > consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. Your thoughts are easily seen to be a "mental space" when one understand that a 'space' is just a set plus some structure of relations. > L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenal > world (the physical world you see and that of science), > but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is > not real, only its monadic representation is real. yes, but Monads offer a very different ontological vision. It is not the "atoms in a void" vision at all, and yet allows for the appearance of 'atoms in a void' as a mode of perception. > I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but > a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Actually, Bruno's view is Idealist! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
Dear Stephen, it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except for yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic "explanation" (=a joke). I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I do not detect the concept for such. Also: when you wrote *" I am claiming that "local determination/causation' and 'apparent causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or total cause or 'orchestration'."* * * it resonates with my "denial" of classic causation in which it is presumed to know about ALL initiative entailment - what my agnosticism denies from our present knowable. I am struggling with the 'changes' that occur: the best I can think of is the least obstructed possibility in 'relations' to go for, considering more than we may know within our presently knowable model of the world. I am also struggling with the driving force behind all 'that' (meaning the infinite complexity) IMO the origination of anything. A have no identification for the 'relations' either. Nor for any 'interchange' - a possible and inevitably occurring 'cause' for violating the (presumed?) infinite symmetry (call it equilibrium?) - generating undefinable "universes" (in my narrative). *Orchestration *is a good word, thank you. All I can think of is the 'least obstructed way' of *change* substituting even for 'evolution'-like processes. The 'Overall Conductor' (God?) is a requirement of human thinking within those limitations we observed over the past millennia. The 'local governor' is within the model-limitations of yesterday. By no means an 'absolute' denomination (not a *'real entity'*). I want to press that I do not feel "above" such limitations myself, but at least I try to find wider boundaries. I would not say: *"...to imagining that a physical computer can run without a power source."* * * rather push such driving force (see above) into my agnostic ignorance, Bundle it up with 'energy', 'electricity' and the other zillion marvels our conventional sciences USE, CALCULATE, DIFFERENTIATE, without the foggiest idea WHAT they are and HOW they work. I accept our overall ignorance. Best regards John Mikes On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 12/8/2012 7:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Stephen P. King > > You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually > an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a > an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day. > > > Dear Roger, > > It is OK, we all have our 'bad days'. :-) > > > You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly, > in that you believe in local dermination/causation while > I believe that such causation is (and has to be, because ideas > aren't causal) only apparent. > > > I am claiming that "local determination/causation' and 'apparent > causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or > total cause or 'orchestration'. > > > To go back to my orchestra analogy, > you believe that everything is fine as long as each correctly plays > his score, while I believe that an overall conductor (the supreme > monad) is needed for maintaining coordination and for > composing the score in the first place. > > > Could you consider that this "overall conductor' is an imaginary > entity and not a real entity? > > > > Your local governor appears to be "a set of relations". > > > Yes. > > > L's would also neccesarily include a higher-order governor > (the Conductor) to insure that a pre-established harmony > exists between sets, as well as insuring that each set ansd > its laws are carried out properly. Are synchhronized. > > > Yes, but I am pointing out that this assumption that "a > pre-established harmony exists between sets" is an a priori global > partitioning on the percepts and this is explicitly disallowed for > mathematical reasons. Do you understand the discussion about NP-Hard > problems that I have previously mentioned? > > > > In short, you seem to have no means of overall synchronizing > the actions of sets. > > > Exactly. In order to have an overall synchronization of the actions > there must be a computation of such and this is an infinite NP-hard problem > that simply cannot occur prior to the availability of the resources for the > computation. To think otherwise is equivalent to imagining that a physical > computer can run without a power source. > > > > > [Roger Clough],
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 12/8/2012 7:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day. Dear Roger, It is OK, we all have our 'bad days'. :-) You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly, in that you believe in local dermination/causation while I believe that such causation is (and has to be, because ideas aren't causal) only apparent. I am claiming that "local determination/causation' and 'apparent causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or total cause or 'orchestration'. To go back to my orchestra analogy, you believe that everything is fine as long as each correctly plays his score, while I believe that an overall conductor (the supreme monad) is needed for maintaining coordination and for composing the score in the first place. Could you consider that this "overall conductor' is an imaginary entity and not a real entity? Your local governor appears to be "a set of relations". Yes. L's would also neccesarily include a higher-order governor (the Conductor) to insure that a pre-established harmony exists between sets, as well as insuring that each set ansd its laws are carried out properly. Are synchhronized. Yes, but I am pointing out that this assumption that "a pre-established harmony exists between sets" is an a priori global partitioning on the percepts and this is explicitly disallowed for mathematical reasons. Do you understand the discussion about NP-Hard problems that I have previously mentioned? In short, you seem to have no means of overall synchronizing the actions of sets. Exactly. In order to have an overall synchronization of the actions there must be a computation of such and this is an infinite NP-hard problem that simply cannot occur prior to the availability of the resources for the computation. To think otherwise is equivalent to imagining that a physical computer can run without a power source. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net]> 12/8/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King <mailto:stephe...@charter.net> *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> *Time:* 2012-12-06, 14:02:33 *Subject:* Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking > about L's metaphysics. > 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. > 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual > atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you > realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe > acts "as if" there's no God. Dear Roger, It is not "atheist/materialist" at all, my way. It is anti-special, in the sense that the potential of the One must be immanent in all of the Omniverse, not to be confined to special occasions/locations. > I have trouble with this view > in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can > consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. Your thoughts are easily seen to be a "mental space" when one understand that a 'space' is just a set plus some structure of relations. > L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenal > world (the physical world you see and that of science), > but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is > not real, only its monadic representation is real. yes, but Monads offer a very different ontological vision. It is not the "atoms in a void" vision at all, and yet allows for the appearance of 'atoms in a void' as a mode of perception. > I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but > a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Actually, Bruno's view is Idealist! -- -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
Hi Stephen P. King You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day. You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly, in that you believe in local dermination/causation while I believe that such causation is (and has to be, because ideas aren't causal) only apparent. To go back to my orchestra analogy, you believe that everything is fine as long as each correctly plays his score, while I believe that an overall conductor (the supreme monad) is needed for maintaining coordination and for composing the score in the first place. Your local governor appears to be "a set of relations". L's would also neccesarily include a higher-order governor (the Conductor) to insure that a pre-established harmony exists between sets, as well as insuring that each set ansd its laws are carried out properly. Are synchhronized. In short, you seem to have no means of overall synchronizing the actions of sets. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 14:02:33 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking > about L's metaphysics. > 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. > 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual > atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you > realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe > acts "as if" there's no God. Dear Roger, It is not "atheist/materialist" at all, my way. It is anti-special, in the sense that the potential of the One must be immanent in all of the Omniverse, not to be confined to special occasions/locations. > I have trouble with this view > in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can > consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. Your thoughts are easily seen to be a "mental space" when one understand that a 'space' is just a set plus some structure of relations. > L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenal > world (the physical world you see and that of science), > but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is > not real, only its monadic representation is real. yes, but Monads offer a very different ontological vision. It is not the "atoms in a void" vision at all, and yet allows for the appearance of 'atoms in a void' as a mode of perception. > I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but > a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Actually, Bruno's view is Idealist! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts "as if" there's no God. Dear Roger, It is not "atheist/materialist" at all, my way. It is anti-special, in the sense that the potential of the One must be immanent in all of the Omniverse, not to be confined to special occasions/locations. I have trouble with this view in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. Your thoughts are easily seen to be a "mental space" when one understand that a 'space' is just a set plus some structure of relations. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenal world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. yes, but Monads offer a very different ontological vision. It is not the "atoms in a void" vision at all, and yet allows for the appearance of 'atoms in a void' as a mode of perception. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Actually, Bruno's view is Idealist! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > > God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, > it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) > afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's > metaphysics. > > > > Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.