Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Nov 2013, at 11:19, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Bruno: No problem, Richard. But then UDA shows that our bodies are  
not machines. You better have to say "no" to the doctor.


Richard: Indeed I would.


OK. That is clear, and makes your work coherent with respect to comp.



But I wonder how UDA shows that our bodies are not machines. What  
else could they be?



Material bodies are persistent mental patterns, in the mind of some  
machines,  which have to appear through the FPI applied to relative  
state of (universal) machine.


It is a easy, but quite tedious (and not that easy, due to little  
traps hidden there, exercise to show that arithmetic (a tiny part of  
arithmetical truth) emulates computations (indeed, like the UD, *all*  
computations).


Then accepting comp, this contains all subjective experiences. UDA  
shows that if we look at ourselves or at our neighborhood, below our  
substitution level, we should see the manifestations of all the  
computations going through our state, and what we take as our bodies,  
is in fact a "summary" of all computations going trough the  
computational states defining our (classical, plausibly) computations.


I took that idea as a refutation of comp, until I read EPR and Everett  
(a long time ago).











Bruno: Then, "physics first", or its idealist counterpart "sense or  
consciousness first" take what I want to understand for granted.


Richard: A "physics first" theory implies an infinite regress as the  
Indra net of numbers implies the need for a higher order net for its  
implication,


OK, but thanks to the arithmetization of meta-arithmetic, arithmetic  
internalizes the higher order. So, ontologically, we don't need to go  
outside of arithmetic.




whereas a "numbers first" theory appears to have a starting point in  
arithmetic and logic


Indeed.




that could be called God, not that God is pejorative.


OK. Like in Kronecker's assertion that God created the integers. It  
means mainly that no one can understand where the integers come from.
It is not an explanation of where the numbers comes from, as the "god"  
notion is far more intricate and complex than numbers.
Wit the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus, that is made clear by  
identifying (even if provisorily) God and (arithmetical) Truth (as did  
Plato/Pythagorus).








My primary concern is also to understand consciousness.


That is nice. There are many scientist who don't genuinely understand  
the problem of consciousness (and others who grasp it a little bit,  
but prefer to forget it or to provide ad hoc solutions).


But I consider that "matter" is also quite mysterious, and that a  
solution of the consciousness/matter problem should explain both at  
once (which is normal with comp, because matter, as we experience it,  
is (at least) an experience of consciousness).






Bruno: Also, your own theory seems to take the number for granted.  
So ..


Richard: Not sure what you mean by that. I say that comp takes  
arithmetic and logic for granted.


That's correct. But all the books I have on String theory (not much, I  
have three books on String Theory) assumes the intuition of numbers.  
(And even sometimes Ramanujan type of intuition, like 1+2+3+... =  
-1/12, which I love, but is demanding to understand the meaning).





I suggest that the real difference between us, other than the fact  
that you have developed a theory whereas my model is entirely  
conjecture, is that I conjecture a Metaverse (or Megaverse) that is  
sufficiently "complete" to compute physical matter along with a  
Universe (for which comp seems to apply) that computes a MWI dream- 
world that is conscious and interacts (rather than coheres) with the  
pre-existing SWI matter-world in a mind-matter dualism.


That is interesting, and who know, perhaps correct. It is difficult,  
because String Theory, by itself, is very difficult. And it is  
"Bohmian", in the sense that I suspect that you add complexity to  
avoid the many-mutiplication, which for a computationalist, is as  
natural as the many-numbers, which we learn in high school.


May I ask you what you think about this work:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0051

Take your time, (it is not an easy read), but that might also relate  
comp and string theory in some non trivial way, ... or it is trivial,  
but I can't judge.


Bruno





Thank you for your continuing interest.


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Pierz  wrote:
Come on Craig, admit you wrote that. It's the last paragraph that is  
the dead give-away.



On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:07:59 PM UTC+11, Craig Weinberg  
wrote:
A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here  
probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.


Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are  
you conscious as yourself?
The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots,  
without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this i

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Richard Ruquist]

Bruno: No problem, Richard. But then UDA shows that our bodies are not
machines. You better have to say "no" to the doctor.

Richard: Indeed I would. But I wonder how UDA shows that our bodies are not
machines. What else could they be?

Bruno: Then, "physics first", or its idealist counterpart "sense or
consciousness first" take what I want to understand for granted.

Richard: A "physics first" theory implies an infinite regress as the Indra
net of numbers implies the need for a higher order net for its implication,
whereas a "numbers first" theory appears to have a starting point in
arithmetic and logic that could be called God, not that God is pejorative.

My primary concern is also to understand consciousness.

Bruno: Also, your own theory seems to take the number for granted. So ..

Richard: Not sure what you mean by that. I say that comp takes arithmetic
and logic for granted.

I suggest that the real difference between us, other than the fact that you
have developed a theory whereas my model is entirely conjecture, is that I
conjecture a Metaverse (or Megaverse) that is sufficiently "complete" to
compute physical matter along with a Universe (for which comp seems to
apply) that computes a MWI dream-world that is conscious and interacts
(rather than coheres) with the pre-existing SWI matter-world in a
mind-matter dualism.

Thank you for your continuing interest.


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Pierz  wrote:

> Come on Craig, admit you wrote that. It's the last paragraph that is the
> dead give-away.
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:07:59 PM UTC+11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here
>> probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.
>>
>>
>>> Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you
>>> conscious as 
>>> yourself?
>>> The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots,
>>> without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is true and we are
>>> conscious, then does it logically follow that all chemical reactions have
>>> "consciousness" to some degree? If the human mind is just an extremely
>>> advanced computer, then at what point does "consciousness" occur?
>>>
>>
>> We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious, but if they were,
>> then it makes sense that the entire universe would also be unconscious. It
>> is very tricky to examine the issue of consciousness and to draw parallels
>> within common experience without unintentionally smuggling in our own
>> expectations from consciousness itself. This is the Petito principii or
>> circular reasoning which derails most fair considerations of consciousness
>> before they even begin in earnest.
>>
>> Unlike a clock which is made up of gears, or a particular sized pile of
>> hay, the addition of consciousness has no conceivable consequence to the
>> physical function of a body. While we can observe a haystack burst into
>> flames because it has grown too hot, we cannot look at the behavior of a
>> human body see any special difference from the behavior of any other
>> physical body. There is complexity, but complexity alone need not point to
>> anything beyond an adjacency of simple parts and isolated chains of effects.
>>
>> Just as no degree of complication within a clock’s mechanism would
>> suddenly turn into a Shakespearean sonnet, the assumption of universal
>> substitution is not necessarily appropriate for all phenomena, and for
>> consciousness in particular. To get a color image, for instance, we need to
>> print in colored dots, not black and white. Color TV programs cannot be
>> broadcast over a monochrome display without losing their color.
>>
>> Unlike chemical or mechanical transformation, the nature of awareness is
>> not implicated in the shuffling of material particles from one place or
>> another. Any natural force can be used to do that. We have no scientific
>> reason to insist that conscious participation and aesthetic appreciation is
>> derived from some simpler functioning of complex systems. To the contrary,
>> ‘complexity’, and ‘system’ can only make sense in the context of a window
>> of perception and attention. Without some teleological intent to see one
>> part as part of a whole, and to compare remembered events with current
>> perceptions, there is no such thing as ‘function’ at all.
>>
>> There are several important points wrapped up in this question, which I
>> will try to sum up.
>>
>> *1. The failure to consider consciousness metaphysically.*
>>
>> This is the most important and most intractable issue, for three reasons:
>>
>>
>>- because it is difficult for anyone to try to put their mind outside
>>of mind. It’s annoying, and winds up feeling foolish and disoriented.
>>- because it is difficult in particular for the very people who need
>>most to get past 

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Pierz]

Come on Craig, admit you wrote that. It's the last paragraph that is the 
dead give-away.

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:07:59 PM UTC+11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here 
> probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.
>  
>
>> Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you 
>> conscious as 
>> yourself?
>> The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots, 
>> without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is true and we are 
>> conscious, then does it logically follow that all chemical reactions have 
>> "consciousness" to some degree? If the human mind is just an extremely 
>> advanced computer, then at what point does "consciousness" occur? 
>>
>
> We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious, but if they were, 
> then it makes sense that the entire universe would also be unconscious. It 
> is very tricky to examine the issue of consciousness and to draw parallels 
> within common experience without unintentionally smuggling in our own 
> expectations from consciousness itself. This is the Petito principii or 
> circular reasoning which derails most fair considerations of consciousness 
> before they even begin in earnest. 
>
> Unlike a clock which is made up of gears, or a particular sized pile of 
> hay, the addition of consciousness has no conceivable consequence to the 
> physical function of a body. While we can observe a haystack burst into 
> flames because it has grown too hot, we cannot look at the behavior of a 
> human body see any special difference from the behavior of any other 
> physical body. There is complexity, but complexity alone need not point to 
> anything beyond an adjacency of simple parts and isolated chains of effects.
>
> Just as no degree of complication within a clock’s mechanism would 
> suddenly turn into a Shakespearean sonnet, the assumption of universal 
> substitution is not necessarily appropriate for all phenomena, and for 
> consciousness in particular. To get a color image, for instance, we need to 
> print in colored dots, not black and white. Color TV programs cannot be 
> broadcast over a monochrome display without losing their color. 
>
> Unlike chemical or mechanical transformation, the nature of awareness is 
> not implicated in the shuffling of material particles from one place or 
> another. Any natural force can be used to do that. We have no scientific 
> reason to insist that conscious participation and aesthetic appreciation is 
> derived from some simpler functioning of complex systems. To the contrary, 
> ‘complexity’, and ‘system’ can only make sense in the context of a window 
> of perception and attention. Without some teleological intent to see one 
> part as part of a whole, and to compare remembered events with current 
> perceptions, there is no such thing as ‘function’ at all. 
>
> There are several important points wrapped up in this question, which I 
> will try to sum up.
>
> *1. The failure to consider consciousness metaphysically.*
>
> This is the most important and most intractable issue, for three reasons:
>
>
>- because it is difficult for anyone to try to put their mind outside 
>of mind. It’s annoying, and winds up feeling foolish and disoriented.
>- because it is difficult in particular for the very people who need 
>most to get past the difficulty. I have found that most people who are 
> good 
>with logic and scientific reasoning are not necessarily capable of doing 
>what others can. The skillset appears to be neurological, like handedness 
>or gender orientation.
>- because those who do have difficulty with thinking this way are 
>often not used to intellectual challenges that escape their grasp, their 
>reaction is so defensive that they react with intolerance. It’s not their 
>fault, but it cannot be cured it seems. Some people cannot see 3-D Magic 
>Eye art. Some cannot program their way out of a paper bag. In this case it 
>is the ability to consider consciousness from a prospective rather than a 
>retrospective view which can prove so inaccessible to so many people, that 
>frothing at the mouth and babbling about unicorns, magic, and the 
>supernatural is considered a reasonable and scientific, skeptical 
> response. 
>Of course, it is none of those things, but it takes a lot of patience and 
>courage to be able to recognize one’s own prejudices, especially when we 
>are used to being the ones telling others about their biases.
>
>
> *2. The taboo against metaphysics, panpsychism, and transrationality*
>
> Long after Einstein, Gödel, and Heisenberg shattered the Humpty Dumpty 
> certainties of classical math and physics, we are still trying to piece him 
> back together. Regardless of how much we learn ab

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Oct 2013, at 19:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Bruno: It is the Indra net of universal numbers reflecting  
themselves which exists as consequences of the laws of addition or  
multiplication.


Richard: Very Platonic and that is perhaps what programs the  
Metaverse number net.
But from my Aristotelian viewpoint, it is the Indra net of universal  
numbers that institutes the laws of addition and multiplication.  
Physics first.


No problem, Richard. But then UDA shows that our bodies are not  
machines. You better have to say "no" to the doctor.


Then, "physics first", or its idealist counterpart "sense or  
consciousness first" take what I want to understand for granted.


Also, your own theory seems to take the number for granted. So ...

Bruno





On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 30 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Richard: Here are a few quotes from http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php 
 that indicate that the current discussion of quantum physics,  
string physics and cosmology is really all about whether or not  
there is a god creator. Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer  
MWI (Many World Interpretation of quantum mechanics) which predicts  
a multiverse of overlapping, parallel, unobservable universes. But  
many if not most scientists find such a notion anathema even though  
it seems to be the only way to make sense out of quantum theory. I  
find it interesting that comp seemingly supports the Hindu concept  
of maya as well as MWI.


Without MWI, I would have never have believed in comp, nor in  
Hinduism perhaps. Hard to say.






Excerpts:
Needless to say, many theologically-minded persons view the  
multiverse as a futile and pathetic attempt to avoid the notion  
that God is the Designer of the universe. Philosopher-theologian  
Neil Manson described the multiverse as "the last resort for the  
desperate atheist" [Davies2007, pg. 265].


Yes, but then there is the two slits experiments, and the many- 
dreams in arithmetic, is an arithmetical reality (be them weird  
zombie-full histories, or conscious one).






Paul Davies: Davies, a leading physicist, notes that the multiverse  
represents an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor --  
postulating an enormous ensemble of essentially unobservable  
universes, just to explain our own. What's more, if the multiverse  
exists, then not only would universes like ours exist, but also  
vastly more universes where advanced technological civilizations  
acquire the power to simulate universes like ours on computer. Thus  
our entire universe, including all "intelligent" residents, are  
merely avatars in some computer simulation. In that case, how can  
we possibly take the "laws of nature" seriously? [Davies2007, pg.  
179-185].


David Gross: As a leading string theorist, he invokes Winston  
Churchill in urging fellow researchers to "Never, ever, ever, ever,  
ever, ever, ever, ever give up" in seeking a single, compelling  
theory that eliminates the need for anthropic/multiverse arguments  
[Susskind2005,

 pg. 355].

Joseph Polchinski: Polchinski is one of the leading researchers in  
string theory, but he sees no alternative to the multiverse- 
anthropic view [Susskind2005, pg. 350].


Steven Weinberg: "For what it is worth, I hope that [the multiverse- 
anthropic view] is not the case. As a theoretical physicist, I  
would like to see us able to make precise predictions, not vague  
statements that certain constants have to be in a range that is  
more or less favorable to life. I hope that string theory really  
will provide a basis for a final theory and that this theory will  
turn out to have enough predictive power to be able to prescribe  
values for all the constants of nature including the cosmological  
constant. We shall see." [Weinberg1993, pg. 229].


Richard: I assumed digital physics (ie., creation from math  
computations) in a quantum holographic string universe and  
metaverse in the hope to avoid both a creator and a MWI multiverse.  
It turned out that the computational machine of the metaverse  
(based on string theory) is somewhat like a god that creates a host  
of big bang universes containing matter and energy, but is an  
entirely natural (or supernatural) phenomenon, assuming of course  
that the Metaverse has a nature. But I am at a loss to say what  
creates or programs the Metaverse, unless it is turtles all the way  
down.


It is the Indra net of universal numbers reflecting themselves which  
exists as consequences of the laws of addition or multiplication. If  
I can survive with a digital brain, it has to be something like that.


Bruno







On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:
A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here  
probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.


Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are  
you conscious as yourself?

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Richard Ruquist]

Bruno: It is the Indra net of universal numbers reflecting themselves which
exists as consequences of the laws of addition or multiplication.

Richard: Very Platonic and that is perhaps what programs the Metaverse
number net.
But from my Aristotelian viewpoint, it is the Indra net of universal
numbers that institutes the laws of addition and multiplication. Physics
first.


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 30 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Richard: Here are a few quotes from
> http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php that indicate
> that the current discussion of quantum physics, string physics and
> cosmology is really all about whether or not there is a god creator.
> Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer MWI (Many World Interpretation of
> quantum mechanics) which predicts a multiverse of overlapping, parallel,
> unobservable universes. But many if not most scientists find such a notion
> anathema even though it seems to be the only way to make sense out of
> quantum theory. I find it interesting that comp seemingly supports the
> Hindu concept of maya as well as MWI.
>
>
> Without MWI, I would have never have believed in comp, nor in Hinduism
> perhaps. Hard to say.
>
>
>
>
> Excerpts:
> Needless to say, many theologically-minded persons view the multiverse as
> a futile and pathetic attempt to avoid the notion that God is the Designer
> of the universe. Philosopher-theologian Neil Manson described the
> multiverse as "the last resort for the desperate atheist" 
> [Davies2007,
> pg. 265].
>
>
> Yes, but then there is the two slits experiments, and the many-dreams in
> arithmetic, is an arithmetical reality (be them weird zombie-full
> histories, or conscious one).
>
>
>
> *
> *
> *Paul Davies*: Davies, a leading physicist, notes that the multiverse
> represents an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor --
> postulating an enormous ensemble of essentially unobservable universes,
> just to explain our own. What's more, if the multiverse exists, then not
> only would universes like ours exist, but also vastly more universes where
> advanced technological civilizations acquire the power to *simulate* universes
> like ours on computer. Thus our entire universe, including all
> "intelligent" residents, are merely avatars in some computer simulation. In
> that case, how can we possibly take the "laws of nature" seriously? [
> Davies2007,
> pg. 179-185].
> *
> *
> *David Gross*: As a leading string theorist, he invokes Winston Churchill
> in urging fellow researchers to "Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever,
> ever give up" in seeking a single, compelling theory that eliminates the
> need for anthropic/multiverse arguments 
> [Susskind2005
> ,
>  pg. 355].
> *
> *
> *Joseph Polchinski*: Polchinski is one of the leading researchers in
> string theory, but he sees no alternative to the multiverse-anthropic view [
> Susskind2005,
> pg. 350].
> *
> *
> *Steven Weinberg*: "For what it is worth, I hope that [the
> multiverse-anthropic view] is not the case. As a theoretical physicist, I
> would like to see us able to make precise predictions, not vague statements
> that certain constants have to be in a range that is more or less favorable
> to life. I hope that string theory really will provide a basis for a final
> theory and that this theory will turn out to have enough predictive power
> to be able to prescribe values for all the constants of nature including
> the cosmological constant. We shall see." 
> [Weinberg1993,
> pg. 229].
>
> Richard: I assumed digital physics (ie., creation from math computations)
> in a quantum holographic string universe and metaverse in the hope to avoid
> both a creator and a MWI multiverse. It turned out that the computational
> machine of the metaverse (based on string theory) is somewhat like a god
> that creates a host of big bang universes containing matter and energy, but
> is an entirely natural (or supernatural) phenomenon, assuming of course
> that the Metaverse has a nature. But I am at a loss to say what creates or
> programs the Metaverse, unless it is turtles all the way down.
>
>
> It is the Indra net of universal numbers reflecting themselves which
> exists as consequences of the laws of addition or multiplication. If I can
> survive with a digital brain, it has to be something like that.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>  A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here
>> probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.
>>
>>
>>>

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Richard: Here are a few quotes from http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php 
 that indicate that the current discussion of quantum physics,  
string physics and cosmology is really all about whether or not  
there is a god creator. Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer MWI  
(Many World Interpretation of quantum mechanics) which predicts a  
multiverse of overlapping, parallel, unobservable universes. But  
many if not most scientists find such a notion anathema even though  
it seems to be the only way to make sense out of quantum theory. I  
find it interesting that comp seemingly supports the Hindu concept  
of maya as well as MWI.


Without MWI, I would have never have believed in comp, nor in Hinduism  
perhaps. Hard to say.






Excerpts:
Needless to say, many theologically-minded persons view the  
multiverse as a futile and pathetic attempt to avoid the notion that  
God is the Designer of the universe. Philosopher-theologian Neil  
Manson described the multiverse as "the last resort for the  
desperate atheist" [Davies2007, pg. 265].


Yes, but then there is the two slits experiments, and the many-dreams  
in arithmetic, is an arithmetical reality (be them weird zombie-full  
histories, or conscious one).






Paul Davies: Davies, a leading physicist, notes that the multiverse  
represents an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor --  
postulating an enormous ensemble of essentially unobservable  
universes, just to explain our own. What's more, if the multiverse  
exists, then not only would universes like ours exist, but also  
vastly more universes where advanced technological civilizations  
acquire the power to simulate universes like ours on computer. Thus  
our entire universe, including all "intelligent" residents, are  
merely avatars in some computer simulation. In that case, how can we  
possibly take the "laws of nature" seriously? [Davies2007, pg.  
179-185].


David Gross: As a leading string theorist, he invokes Winston  
Churchill in urging fellow researchers to "Never, ever, ever, ever,  
ever, ever, ever, ever give up" in seeking a single, compelling  
theory that eliminates the need for anthropic/multiverse arguments  
[Susskind2005,

 pg. 355].

Joseph Polchinski: Polchinski is one of the leading researchers in  
string theory, but he sees no alternative to the multiverse- 
anthropic view [Susskind2005, pg. 350].


Steven Weinberg: "For what it is worth, I hope that [the multiverse- 
anthropic view] is not the case. As a theoretical physicist, I would  
like to see us able to make precise predictions, not vague  
statements that certain constants have to be in a range that is more  
or less favorable to life. I hope that string theory really will  
provide a basis for a final theory and that this theory will turn  
out to have enough predictive power to be able to prescribe values  
for all the constants of nature including the cosmological constant.  
We shall see." [Weinberg1993, pg. 229].


Richard: I assumed digital physics (ie., creation from math  
computations) in a quantum holographic string universe and metaverse  
in the hope to avoid both a creator and a MWI multiverse. It turned  
out that the computational machine of the metaverse (based on string  
theory) is somewhat like a god that creates a host of big bang  
universes containing matter and energy, but is an entirely natural  
(or supernatural) phenomenon, assuming of course that the Metaverse  
has a nature. But I am at a loss to say what creates or programs the  
Metaverse, unless it is turtles all the way down.


It is the Indra net of universal numbers reflecting themselves which  
exists as consequences of the laws of addition or multiplication. If I  
can survive with a digital brain, it has to be something like that.


Bruno







On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Craig Weinberg  
 wrote:
A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here  
probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.


Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are  
you conscious as yourself?
The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots,  
without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is true and  
we are conscious, then does it logically follow that all chemical  
reactions have "consciousness" to some degree? If the human mind is  
just an extremely advanced computer, then at what point does  
"consciousness" occur?


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



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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[LizR]

On 31 October 2013 16:46, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:53:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:

 This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than
 nothing" etc.

>>>
>>> That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that
>>> something has about the absence of everything.
>>>
>>> Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they
>> would claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and that the
>> existence of those causes the appearance of something else existing.
>>
>
> That could only be true if by "nothing" we really mean "anything we want".
> I only tolerate an absolutely literal definition of "no-thing", otherwise
> why bother even using a word? Nothing cannot lead to anything, or else it
> is really "the potential for something in particular, at the very least".
> True nothing is "can never be related to anything in any way, even
> potentially or theoretically".
>

No, by nothing they mean "only that which must exist from logical
necessity."

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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Oct 2013, at 03:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 10/30/2013 6:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg   
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather  
than nothing" etc.


That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that  
something has about the absence of everything.


Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they  
would claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and  
that the existence of those causes the appearance of something else  
existing.


Nothing: Nothing is an awe-inspiring yet essentially undigested
concept, highly esteemed by writers of a mystical or
existentialist tendency, but by most others regarded with
anxiety, nausea, or panic.
  --- The Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"What is there?  Everything! So what isn't there?  Nothing!"
 --- Norm Levitt, after W. V. O. Quine

"In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said,
'Let there be light.' and there was still nothing, but now
you could see it."
--- Terry Pratchet

"The reason that there is Something rather than Nothing is that
Nothing is unstable."
  -- Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate, phyiscs 2004

The universe is just nothing, rearranged.
--- Yonatan Fishman



Nothing and everything are epistemologically at the same level of  
difficulty to define. "No" and "every" is easy. the difficulty is in  
defining or choosing the elementary "thing".  Comp implies that any  
term of a Turing complete theory will do, like natural numbers,  
combinators, real-waves, etc.


Bruno






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

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


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



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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Oct 2013, at 02:53, LizR wrote:

On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg   
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than  
nothing" etc.


That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that  
something has about the absence of everything.


Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they  
would claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and  
that the existence of those causes the appearance of something else  
existing.


Abstract, or just immaterial. Nothing is more concrete than 0, s(0),  
s(s(0)), ... , and the many dreams.

Those are elementary immaterial token.

Bruno






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

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


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



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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Oct 2013, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:

A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here  
probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.


Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are  
you conscious as yourself?


The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots,  
without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is true and  
we are conscious, then does it logically follow that all chemical  
reactions have "consciousness" to some degree? If the human mind is  
just an extremely advanced computer, then at what point does  
"consciousness" occur?



Before it begins to dream about matter, and after it get enough self- 
reference ability.


You are quoting someone believing that comp is compatible with  
materialism, but we should know better.


Bruno



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



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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here probably,
> but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.
>
>
>> Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you
>> conscious as 
>> yourself?
>>
>>
I think the question itself derives from extrapolating the explanatory
power of reductionism too far.  It is like trying to explain the saltiness
of potato chips by assuming there must be some more fundamental salt-like
quality inherent in the quarks that make up the potato chip.  This would be
wrong, saltiness can only arise at levels much higher than those of
individual quarks and electrons.  You would not expect to find saltiness in
a quark, so why expect to find consciousness in a molecule?

Jason

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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:53:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg 
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than 
>>> nothing" etc.
>>>
>>
>> That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something 
>> has about the absence of everything.
>>
>> Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they would 
> claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and that the 
> existence of those causes the appearance of something else existing.
>

That could only be true if by "nothing" we really mean "anything we want". 
I only tolerate an absolutely literal definition of "no-thing", otherwise 
why bother even using a word? Nothing cannot lead to anything, or else it 
is really "the potential for something in particular, at the very least". 
True nothing is "can never be related to anything in any way, even 
potentially or theoretically".

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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[LizR]

On 31 October 2013 15:19, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 10/30/2013 6:53 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>>  On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than
>>> nothing" etc.
>>>
>>
>> That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something
>> has about the absence of everything.
>>
>>   Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they
> would claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and that the
> existence of those causes the appearance of something else existing.
>
> Oh, and Russell Standish, obviously! (Oops!)

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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[meekerdb]

On 10/30/2013 6:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg > wrote:


On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:

This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than 
nothing" etc.


That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something 
has about
the absence of everything.

Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they would claim that 
nothing exists except for abstract entities, and that the existence of those causes the 
appearance of something else existing.


Nothing: Nothing is an awe-inspiring yet essentially undigested
concept, highly esteemed by writers of a mystical or
existentialist tendency, but by most others regarded with
anxiety, nausea, or panic.
  --- The Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"What is there?  Everything! So what isn't there?  Nothing!"
 --- Norm Levitt, after W. V. O. Quine

"In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said,
'Let there be light.' and there was still nothing, but now
you could see it."
--- Terry Pratchet

"The reason that there is Something rather than Nothing is that
Nothing is unstable."
  -- Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate, phyiscs 2004

The universe is just nothing, rearranged.
--- Yonatan Fishman

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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[LizR]

On 31 October 2013 14:46, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than
>> nothing" etc.
>>
>
> That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something
> has about the absence of everything.
>
> Buddhists, Bruno and Max Tegmark would perhaps beg to differ - they would
claim that nothing exists except for abstract entities, and that the
existence of those causes the appearance of something else existing.

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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:00:58 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than 
> nothing" etc.
>

That one is easy. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing is an idea that something 
has about the absence of everything.
 

>
>
> On 31 October 2013 12:35, Stathis Papaioannou 
> > wrote:
>
>> On 30 October 2013 16:07, Craig Weinberg > 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious...
>>
>> The brain is chemical reactions and consciousness seems to happen when
>> these chemical reactions happen, and not when they don't happen. This
>> we know. We don't know if consciousness of a strange type happens when
>> a hammer hits a nail, for example. It might, it might not. The hammer
>> might also have free will: "I hit the nail because I decided to hit
>> the nail. If I didn't decide to hit the nail I wouldn't have hit it.
>> Sure, my action could be ascribed to a series of mechanistic events,
>> but these mechanistic events follow from my decision, not the other
>> way around."
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:35:26 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 30 October 2013 16:07, Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote: 
>
> > We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious... 
>
> The brain is chemical reactions and consciousness seems to happen when 
> these chemical reactions happen, and not when they don't happen. 


You are talking about *our personal consciousness*. I am not. It is as if 
you were telling me that because the lights go off when you turn off the 
switch, there can be no such thing as the power grid.
 

> This 
> we know. We don't know if consciousness of a strange type happens when 
> a hammer hits a nail, for example. It might, it might not. The hammer 
> might also have free will: "I hit the nail because I decided to hit 
> the nail. If I didn't decide to hit the nail I wouldn't have hit it. 
> Sure, my action could be ascribed to a series of mechanistic events, 
> but these mechanistic events follow from my decision, not the other 
> way around." 
>

To project your own free will onto an inanimate object facetiously is not 
an argument against the fact that you have free will to begin with to 
project. Arguing against free will is meaningless. If you are right, then 
your opinion is involuntary and it doesn't matter whether anyone agrees or 
not because they have no choice either. Only someone with free will can 
participate in an argument and care about the outcome.

Craig
 

>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[LizR]

This is one of the "big questions" along with "something rather than
nothing" etc.


On 31 October 2013 12:35, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

> On 30 October 2013 16:07, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
> > We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious...
>
> The brain is chemical reactions and consciousness seems to happen when
> these chemical reactions happen, and not when they don't happen. This
> we know. We don't know if consciousness of a strange type happens when
> a hammer hits a nail, for example. It might, it might not. The hammer
> might also have free will: "I hit the nail because I decided to hit
> the nail. If I didn't decide to hit the nail I wouldn't have hit it.
> Sure, my action could be ascribed to a series of mechanistic events,
> but these mechanistic events follow from my decision, not the other
> way around."
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 30 October 2013 16:07, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious...

The brain is chemical reactions and consciousness seems to happen when
these chemical reactions happen, and not when they don't happen. This
we know. We don't know if consciousness of a strange type happens when
a hammer hits a nail, for example. It might, it might not. The hammer
might also have free will: "I hit the nail because I decided to hit
the nail. If I didn't decide to hit the nail I wouldn't have hit it.
Sure, my action could be ascribed to a series of mechanistic events,
but these mechanistic events follow from my decision, not the other
way around."


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Richard Ruquist]

For me your philosophy is un-understandable poetry.
Now that I finally have some understanding of the import of Bruno's comp
perhaps I should try to understand your concept of sense.
Richard


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:35:57 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> Richard: Here are a few quotes from http://www.**
>> sciencemeetsreligion.org/**physics/multiverse.php
>>  that **indicate that the current discussion of quantum physics, string
>> physics and cosmology is really all about whether or not there is a god
>> creator. Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer MWI (Many World
>> Interpretation of quantum mechanics) which predicts a multiverse of
>> overlapping, parallel, unobservable universes. But many if not most
>> scientists find such a notion anathema even though it seems to be the only
>> way to make sense out of quantum theory. I find it interesting that comp
>> seemingly supports the Hindu concept of maya as well as MWI.
>>
>>
>> Excerpts:
>>
>> Needless to say, many theologically-minded persons view the multiverse as
>> a futile and pathetic attempt to avoid the notion that God is the Designer
>> of the universe. Philosopher-theologian Neil Manson described the
>> multiverse as "the last resort for the desperate atheist" 
>> [Davies2007,
>> pg. 265].
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> *Paul Davies*: Davies, a leading physicist, notes that the multiverse
>> represents an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor --
>> postulating an enormous ensemble of essentially unobservable universes,
>> just to explain our own. What's more, if the multiverse exists, then not
>> only would universes like ours exist, but also vastly more universes where
>> advanced technological civilizations acquire the power to *simulate* 
>> universes
>> like ours on computer. Thus our entire universe, including all
>> "intelligent" residents, are merely avatars in some computer simulation. In
>> that case, how can we possibly take the "laws of nature" seriously? [
>> Davies2007,
>> pg. 179-185].
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> *David Gross*: As a leading string theorist, he invokes Winston
>> Churchill in urging fellow researchers to "Never, ever, ever, ever, ever,
>> ever, ever, ever give up" in seeking a single, compelling theory that
>> eliminates the need for anthropic/multiverse arguments 
>> [Susskind2005
>> ,
>>
>>  pg. 355].
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> *Joseph Polchinski*: Polchinski is one of the leading researchers in
>> string theory, but he sees no alternative to the multiverse-anthropic view [
>> Susskind2005,
>> pg. 350].
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> *Steven Weinberg*: "For what it is worth, I hope that [the
>> multiverse-anthropic view] is not the case. As a theoretical physicist, I
>> would like to see us able to make precise predictions, not vague statements
>> that certain constants have to be in a range that is more or less favorable
>> to life. I hope that string theory really will provide a basis for a final
>> theory and that this theory will turn out to have enough predictive power
>> to be able to prescribe values for all the constants of nature including
>> the cosmological constant. We shall see." 
>> [Weinberg1993,
>> pg. 229].
>>
>>
>> Richard: I assumed digital physics (ie., creation from math
>> computations) in a quantum holographic string universe and metaverse in the
>> hope to avoid both a creator and a MWI multiverse. It turned out that the
>> computational machine of the metaverse (based on string theory) is somewhat
>> like a god that creates a host of big bang universes containing matter and
>> energy, but is an entirely natural (or supernatural) phenomenon, assuming
>> of course that the Metaverse has a nature. But I am at a loss to say what
>> creates or programs the Metaverse, unless it is turtles all the way down.
>>
>
> If the primordial identity is sense, then we don't need a Metaverse which
> exhausts possibilities with literal creation. Instead, possibilities are
> driven by nested intention. Sense is elliptical. Unlike a computation,
> sense does not need to repeat itself in order to get the point. It can
> deliver a set of associations through a broad gesture that is multivalent
> and meta-phoric. Through gravity (entropy squared), the universe is reigned
> in and Occam's catastrophe is ground to insignificance and crushed into
> black holes. The universe is not only singular, it is absolute singularity
> itself. The essence of boundaryless simplicity, unrepeatability, and
> uniqueness.
>
> Craig
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:35:57 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> Richard: Here are a few quotes from 
> http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php that indicate 
> that the current discussion of quantum physics, string physics and 
> cosmology is really all about whether or not there is a god creator. 
> Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer MWI (Many World Interpretation of 
> quantum mechanics) which predicts a multiverse of overlapping, parallel, 
> unobservable universes. But many if not most scientists find such a notion 
> anathema even though it seems to be the only way to make sense out of 
> quantum theory. I find it interesting that comp seemingly supports the 
> Hindu concept of maya as well as MWI.
>
>
> Excerpts:
>
> Needless to say, many theologically-minded persons view the multiverse as 
> a futile and pathetic attempt to avoid the notion that God is the Designer 
> of the universe. Philosopher-theologian Neil Manson described the 
> multiverse as "the last resort for the desperate atheist" 
> [Davies2007,
>  
> pg. 265].
>
> *
> *
>
> *Paul Davies*: Davies, a leading physicist, notes that the multiverse 
> represents an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor -- 
> postulating an enormous ensemble of essentially unobservable universes, 
> just to explain our own. What's more, if the multiverse exists, then not 
> only would universes like ours exist, but also vastly more universes where 
> advanced technological civilizations acquire the power to *simulate* 
> universes 
> like ours on computer. Thus our entire universe, including all 
> "intelligent" residents, are merely avatars in some computer simulation. In 
> that case, how can we possibly take the "laws of nature" seriously? [
> Davies2007,
>  
> pg. 179-185].
>
> *
> *
>
> *David Gross*: As a leading string theorist, he invokes Winston Churchill 
> in urging fellow researchers to "Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, 
> ever give up" in seeking a single, compelling theory that eliminates the 
> need for anthropic/multiverse arguments 
> [Susskind2005
> ,
>
>  pg. 355].
>
> *
> *
>
> *Joseph Polchinski*: Polchinski is one of the leading researchers in 
> string theory, but he sees no alternative to the multiverse-anthropic view [
> Susskind2005,
>  
> pg. 350].
>
> *
> *
>
> *Steven Weinberg*: "For what it is worth, I hope that [the 
> multiverse-anthropic view] is not the case. As a theoretical physicist, I 
> would like to see us able to make precise predictions, not vague statements 
> that certain constants have to be in a range that is more or less favorable 
> to life. I hope that string theory really will provide a basis for a final 
> theory and that this theory will turn out to have enough predictive power 
> to be able to prescribe values for all the constants of nature including 
> the cosmological constant. We shall see." 
> [Weinberg1993,
>  
> pg. 229].
>
>
> Richard: I assumed digital physics (ie., creation from math computations) 
> in a quantum holographic string universe and metaverse in the hope to avoid 
> both a creator and a MWI multiverse. It turned out that the computational 
> machine of the metaverse (based on string theory) is somewhat like a god 
> that creates a host of big bang universes containing matter and energy, but 
> is an entirely natural (or supernatural) phenomenon, assuming of course 
> that the Metaverse has a nature. But I am at a loss to say what creates or 
> programs the Metaverse, unless it is turtles all the way down.
>

If the primordial identity is sense, then we don't need a Metaverse which 
exhausts possibilities with literal creation. Instead, possibilities are 
driven by nested intention. Sense is elliptical. Unlike a computation, 
sense does not need to repeat itself in order to get the point. It can 
deliver a set of associations through a broad gesture that is multivalent 
and meta-phoric. Through gravity (entropy squared), the universe is reigned 
in and Occam's catastrophe is ground to insignificance and crushed into 
black holes. The universe is not only singular, it is absolute singularity 
itself. The essence of boundaryless simplicity, unrepeatability, and 
uniqueness.

Craig
 

>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>  A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here 
>> probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.
>>  
>>
>>> Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you 
>>> conscious as 
>>> yourself?

Re: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you conscious as yourself?

[Richard Ruquist]

Richard: Here are a few quotes from
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/multiverse.php that indicate
that the current discussion of quantum physics, string physics and
cosmology is really all about whether or not there is a god creator.
Atheistic scientists like Hawking prefer MWI (Many World Interpretation of
quantum mechanics) which predicts a multiverse of overlapping, parallel,
unobservable universes. But many if not most scientists find such a notion
anathema even though it seems to be the only way to make sense out of
quantum theory. I find it interesting that comp seemingly supports the
Hindu concept of maya as well as MWI.


Excerpts:

Needless to say, many theologically-minded persons view the multiverse as a
futile and pathetic attempt to avoid the notion that God is the Designer of
the universe. Philosopher-theologian Neil Manson described the multiverse
as "the last resort for the desperate atheist"
[Davies2007,
pg. 265].

*
*

*Paul Davies*: Davies, a leading physicist, notes that the multiverse
represents an inconceivably flagrant violation of Occam's razor --
postulating an enormous ensemble of essentially unobservable universes,
just to explain our own. What's more, if the multiverse exists, then not
only would universes like ours exist, but also vastly more universes where
advanced technological civilizations acquire the power to *simulate* universes
like ours on computer. Thus our entire universe, including all
"intelligent" residents, are merely avatars in some computer simulation. In
that case, how can we possibly take the "laws of nature" seriously? [
Davies2007,
pg. 179-185].

*
*

*David Gross*: As a leading string theorist, he invokes Winston Churchill
in urging fellow researchers to "Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever,
ever give up" in seeking a single, compelling theory that eliminates the
need for anthropic/multiverse arguments
[Susskind2005
,

 pg. 355].

*
*

*Joseph Polchinski*: Polchinski is one of the leading researchers in string
theory, but he sees no alternative to the multiverse-anthropic view [
Susskind2005,
pg. 350].

*
*

*Steven Weinberg*: "For what it is worth, I hope that [the
multiverse-anthropic view] is not the case. As a theoretical physicist, I
would like to see us able to make precise predictions, not vague statements
that certain constants have to be in a range that is more or less favorable
to life. I hope that string theory really will provide a basis for a final
theory and that this theory will turn out to have enough predictive power
to be able to prescribe values for all the constants of nature including
the cosmological constant. We shall see."
[Weinberg1993,
pg. 229].


Richard: I assumed digital physics (ie., creation from math computations)
in a quantum holographic string universe and metaverse in the hope to avoid
both a creator and a MWI multiverse. It turned out that the computational
machine of the metaverse (based on string theory) is somewhat like a god
that creates a host of big bang universes containing matter and energy, but
is an entirely natural (or supernatural) phenomenon, assuming of course
that the Metaverse has a nature. But I am at a loss to say what creates or
programs the Metaverse, unless it is turtles all the way down.




On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here
> probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.
>
>
>> Philosophy: If human beings are nothing more than matter, why are you
>> conscious as 
>> yourself?
>> The implication of materialism is that we are in essence wet robots,
>> without free will, just chemical reactions. But if this is true and we are
>> conscious, then does it logically follow that all chemical reactions have
>> "consciousness" to some degree? If the human mind is just an extremely
>> advanced computer, then at what point does "consciousness" occur?
>>
>
> We don’t know that chemical reactions are unconscious, but if they were,
> then it makes sense that the entire universe would also be unconscious. It
> is very tricky to examine the issue of consciousness and to draw parallels
> within common experience without unintentionally smuggling in our own
> expectations from consciousness itself. This is the Petito principii or
> circular reasoning which derails most fair considerations of consciousness
> before they even begin in earnest.
>
> Unlike a clock which is made up of gears, or a particular sized pil