Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5
Bruno, sorry for taking it jokingly (ref: Steinhart): Latest research revealed that Shakespeare's oeuvre was not written by William Shakespeare, but by quite another man named William Shakespeare. John From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 4:57:17 AM Subject: Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5 Ah bravo Günther, now I am depressing :( I don't succeed in finding my Steinhart book. I don't either find the book on the net, and I begin to doubt it is a book by the same Steinhart. I have some doubt that my Steinhart has Eric as first name. I remember only that the book was taking Pythagorus very seriously, which is rare in the literature. Once I find the information, I will let you know. Your Steinhart seems interesting too (and open to Pythagorus), like Leslie is interesting too, btw. Of course those people seems not to be aware of all the progress in the field ... Have a good day, Bruno Le 11-janv.-09, à 16:54, Günther Greindl a écrit : Which one did you have? Was it good? (I only know his papers) Cheers, Günther Bruno Marchal wrote: Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks for the references. Best, Bruno On 09 Jan 2009, at 21:26, Günther Greindl wrote: Hello, My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a branch of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology experimentally refutable. Will machines go to paradise? Some related work: http://www.ericsteinhart.com/abstracts.html Especially: Steinhart, E. (2004) Pantheism and current ontology. Religious Studies 40 (1), 1 - 18. ABSTRACT: Pantheism claims: (1) there exists an all-inclusive unity; and (2) that unity is divine. I review three current and scientifically viable ontologies to see how pantheism can be developed in each. They are: (1) materialism; (2) platonism; and (3) class-theoretic pythagoreanism. I show how each ontology has an all-inclusive unity. I check the degree to which that unity is: eternal; infinite; complex; necessary; plentiful; self-representative; holy. I show how each ontology solves the problem of evil (its theodicy) and provides for salvation (its soteriology). I conclude that platonism and pythagoreanism have the most divine all-inclusive unities. They support sophisticated contemporary pantheisms. and Steinhart, E. (2003) Supermachines and superminds. Minds and Machines 13 (1), 155 - 186. ABSTRACT: If the computational theory of mind is right, then minds are realized by computers. There is an ordered complexity hierarchy of computers. Some finite state machines realize finitely complex minds; some Turing machines realize potentially infinitely complex minds. There are many logically possible computers whose powers exceed the Church-Turing limit (e.g. accelerating Turing machines). Some of these supermachines realize superminds. Superminds perform cognitive supertasks. Their thoughts are formed in infinitary languages. They perceive and manipulate the infinite detail of fractal objects. They have infinitely complex bodies. Transfinite games anchor their social relations. Especially the first paper (concerning Pythagorenaism) is interesting. Best Wishes, Günther http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna guenther.grei...@univie.ac.at Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ 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-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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5
Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks for the references. Best, Bruno On 09 Jan 2009, at 21:26, Günther Greindl wrote: Hello, My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a branch of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology experimentally refutable. Will machines go to paradise? Some related work: http://www.ericsteinhart.com/abstracts.html Especially: Steinhart, E. (2004) Pantheism and current ontology. Religious Studies 40 (1), 1 - 18. ABSTRACT: Pantheism claims: (1) there exists an all-inclusive unity; and (2) that unity is divine. I review three current and scientifically viable ontologies to see how pantheism can be developed in each. They are: (1) materialism; (2) platonism; and (3) class-theoretic pythagoreanism. I show how each ontology has an all-inclusive unity. I check the degree to which that unity is: eternal; infinite; complex; necessary; plentiful; self-representative; holy. I show how each ontology solves the problem of evil (its theodicy) and provides for salvation (its soteriology). I conclude that platonism and pythagoreanism have the most divine all-inclusive unities. They support sophisticated contemporary pantheisms. and Steinhart, E. (2003) Supermachines and superminds. Minds and Machines 13 (1), 155 - 186. ABSTRACT: If the computational theory of mind is right, then minds are realized by computers. There is an ordered complexity hierarchy of computers. Some finite state machines realize finitely complex minds; some Turing machines realize potentially infinitely complex minds. There are many logically possible computers whose powers exceed the Church-Turing limit (e.g. accelerating Turing machines). Some of these supermachines realize superminds. Superminds perform cognitive supertasks. Their thoughts are formed in infinitary languages. They perceive and manipulate the infinite detail of fractal objects. They have infinitely complex bodies. Transfinite games anchor their social relations. Especially the first paper (concerning Pythagorenaism) is interesting. Best Wishes, Günther 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-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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5
Which one did you have? Was it good? (I only know his papers) Cheers, Günther Bruno Marchal wrote: Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks for the references. Best, Bruno On 09 Jan 2009, at 21:26, Günther Greindl wrote: Hello, My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a branch of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology experimentally refutable. Will machines go to paradise? Some related work: http://www.ericsteinhart.com/abstracts.html Especially: Steinhart, E. (2004) Pantheism and current ontology. Religious Studies 40 (1), 1 - 18. ABSTRACT: Pantheism claims: (1) there exists an all-inclusive unity; and (2) that unity is divine. I review three current and scientifically viable ontologies to see how pantheism can be developed in each. They are: (1) materialism; (2) platonism; and (3) class-theoretic pythagoreanism. I show how each ontology has an all-inclusive unity. I check the degree to which that unity is: eternal; infinite; complex; necessary; plentiful; self-representative; holy. I show how each ontology solves the problem of evil (its theodicy) and provides for salvation (its soteriology). I conclude that platonism and pythagoreanism have the most divine all-inclusive unities. They support sophisticated contemporary pantheisms. and Steinhart, E. (2003) Supermachines and superminds. Minds and Machines 13 (1), 155 - 186. ABSTRACT: If the computational theory of mind is right, then minds are realized by computers. There is an ordered complexity hierarchy of computers. Some finite state machines realize finitely complex minds; some Turing machines realize potentially infinitely complex minds. There are many logically possible computers whose powers exceed the Church-Turing limit (e.g. accelerating Turing machines). Some of these supermachines realize superminds. Superminds perform cognitive supertasks. Their thoughts are formed in infinitary languages. They perceive and manipulate the infinite detail of fractal objects. They have infinitely complex bodies. Transfinite games anchor their social relations. Especially the first paper (concerning Pythagorenaism) is interesting. Best Wishes, Günther http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna guenther.grei...@univie.ac.at Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5
Steinhardt is supposed to get his book Infinite Flesh published sometime soon. His premise is similar to Philosopher, John Leslie, save that Steinhardt see clones of ourselves being re-born in alternate universes, though the each incarnation is improved over the previous. Leslie is more linear (as am I) where as the deceased continue on, in a pantheistic-spinoza- kind of way, as part of an infinite series of divine minds. Steinhardt teaches at Patterson University in New Jersey, and Leslie retired from University of Guelph in Canada, is now at the University of Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada. In both cases, I would surmise, that both scholars, would agreee that, if the Machines are sufficiently, complex; they also can join the humans in the great whatever. I am guessing that if a transhumanist tech breakthrough would extend human existence, life, enjoyment, they too, would choose to stick around. Mitch In a message dated 1/9/2009 3:29:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, guenther.grei...@gmail.com writes: Hello, My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a branch of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology experimentally refutable. Will machines go to paradise? Some related work: http://www.ericsteinhart.com/abstracts.html Especially: Steinhart, E. (2004) Pantheism and current ontology. Religious Studies 40 (1), 1 - 18. ABSTRACT: Pantheism claims: (1) there exists an all-inclusive unity; and (2) that unity is divine. I review three current and scientifically viable ontologies to see how pantheism can be developed in each. They are: (1) materialism; (2) platonism; and (3) class-theoretic pythagoreanism. I show how each ontology has an all-inclusive unity. I check the degree to which that unity is: eternal; infinite; complex; necessary; plentiful; self-representative; holy. I show how each ontology solves the problem of evil (its theodicy) and provides for salvation (its soteriology). I conclude that platonism and pythagoreanism have the most divine all-inclusive unities. They support sophisticated contemporary pantheisms. and Steinhart, E. (2003) Supermachines and superminds. Minds and Machines 13 (1), 155 - 186. ABSTRACT: If the computational theory of mind is right, then minds are realized by computers. There is an ordered complexity hierarchy of computers. Some finite state machines realize finitely complex minds; some Turing machines realize potentially infinitely complex minds. There are many logically possible computers whose powers exceed the Church-Turing limit (e.g. accelerating Turing machines). Some of these supermachines realize superminds. Superminds perform cognitive supertasks. Their thoughts are formed in infinitary languages. They perceive and manipulate the infinite detail of fractal objects. They have infinitely complex bodies. Transfinite games anchor their social relations. Especially the first paper (concerning Pythagorenaism) is interesting. Best Wishes, Günther **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews0002) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5
Hello, My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a branch of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology experimentally refutable. Will machines go to paradise? Some related work: http://www.ericsteinhart.com/abstracts.html Especially: Steinhart, E. (2004) Pantheism and current ontology. Religious Studies 40 (1), 1 - 18. ABSTRACT: Pantheism claims: (1) there exists an all-inclusive unity; and (2) that unity is divine. I review three current and scientifically viable ontologies to see how pantheism can be developed in each. They are: (1) materialism; (2) platonism; and (3) class-theoretic pythagoreanism. I show how each ontology has an all-inclusive unity. I check the degree to which that unity is: eternal; infinite; complex; necessary; plentiful; self-representative; holy. I show how each ontology solves the problem of evil (its theodicy) and provides for salvation (its soteriology). I conclude that platonism and pythagoreanism have the most divine all-inclusive unities. They support sophisticated contemporary pantheisms. and Steinhart, E. (2003) Supermachines and superminds. Minds and Machines 13 (1), 155 - 186. ABSTRACT: If the computational theory of mind is right, then minds are realized by computers. There is an ordered complexity hierarchy of computers. Some finite state machines realize finitely complex minds; some Turing machines realize potentially infinitely complex minds. There are many logically possible computers whose powers exceed the Church-Turing limit (e.g. accelerating Turing machines). Some of these supermachines realize superminds. Superminds perform cognitive supertasks. Their thoughts are formed in infinitary languages. They perceive and manipulate the infinite detail of fractal objects. They have infinitely complex bodies. Transfinite games anchor their social relations. Especially the first paper (concerning Pythagorenaism) is interesting. Best Wishes, Günther --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
