Re: The free will function

2012-02-29 Thread 1Z
On Feb 27, 10:11 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg

Re: The free will function

2012-02-29 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 29, 4:56 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 27, 10:11 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: You are thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the observers within are subject to truths outside of the simulation

Re: The free will function

2012-02-28 Thread 1Z
On Feb 27, 6:40 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 27.02.2012 17:47 John Clark said the following: On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote: There is no simulation of red. Red is only red. But red itself is a simulation. Electromagnetic

Re: The free will function

2012-02-27 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: There is no simulation of red. Red is only red. But red itself is a simulation. Electromagnetic waves a length of 700 nanometers can produce the quale red in the minds of most (but not all) human beings if it enters

Re: The free will function

2012-02-27 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi
On 27.02.2012 17:47 John Clark said the following: On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote: There is no simulation of red. Red is only red. But red itself is a simulation. Electromagnetic waves a length of 700 nanometers can produce the quale red in the

Re: The free will function

2012-02-27 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: You are thinking that because you

Re: The free will function

2012-02-27 Thread Craig Weinberg
Couple of Free Will studies: Laypersons' belief in free will may foster a sense of thoughtful reflection and willingness to exert energy, thereby promoting helpfulness and reducing aggression, and so disbelief in free will may make behavior more reliant on selfish, automatic impulses and

Re: The free will function

2012-02-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Feb 2012, at 20:01, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/25/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2012, at 22:59, acw wrote: On 2/24/2012 12:59, David Nyman wrote: On 24 February 2012 11:52, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote: I look at it like this, there's 3 notions: Mind (consciousness,

Re: The free will function

2012-02-26 Thread Stephen P. King
On 2/26/2012 12:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2012, at 20:01, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/25/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2012, at 22:59, acw wrote: On 2/24/2012 12:59, David Nyman wrote: On 24 February 2012 11:52, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote: I look at it like

Re: The free will function

2012-02-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 26 Feb 2012, at 20:37, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/26/2012 12:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2012, at 20:01, Stephen P. King wrote: snip Likewize Bp Dt, and Bp Dt p, are other important variants. I will say more when I get more time, but by searching 'S4Grz' or

Re: The free will function

2012-02-25 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Feb 2012, at 22:59, acw wrote: On 2/24/2012 12:59, David Nyman wrote: On 24 February 2012 11:52, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote: I look at it like this, there's 3 notions: Mind (consciousness, experience), (Primitive) Matter, Mechanism. Those 3 notions are incompatible, but we have

Re: The free will function

2012-02-25 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Marty, On 25 Feb 2012, at 01:51, marty684 wrote: Why should probability depend on us; on what we 'know or cannot know' ? On what is 'observable' to us? It seems to me that you are defining probability by that which is relative to our 'actual states'. Why can't we inhabit a

Re: The free will function

2012-02-25 Thread marty684
Thanks, I'll give it another shot. All the best,   marty a. From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, February 25, 2012 5:05:35 AM Subject: Re: The free will function Hi Marty, On 25 Feb 2012, at 01:51, marty684

Re: The free will function

2012-02-25 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: You are thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the observers within are subject to truths outside of the simulation I don't know what you

Re: The free will function

2012-02-25 Thread Stephen P. King
On 2/25/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2012, at 22:59, acw wrote: On 2/24/2012 12:59, David Nyman wrote: On 24 February 2012 11:52, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote: I look at it like this, there's 3 notions: Mind (consciousness, experience), (Primitive) Matter, Mechanism. Those 3

Re: The free will function (errata)

2012-02-25 Thread Stephen P. King
On 2/25/2012 2:01 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/25/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2012, at 22:59, acw wrote: On 2/24/2012 12:59, David Nyman wrote: On 24 February 2012 11:52, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote: I look at it like this, there's 3 notions: Mind (consciousness,

Re: The free will function

2012-02-25 Thread 1Z
On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: You are thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the observers

Re: The free will function

2012-02-24 Thread acw
On 2/21/2012 02:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 20, 2:53 pm, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote: On 2/20/2012 18:37, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote: On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb

Re: The free will function

2012-02-24 Thread David Nyman
On 24 February 2012 11:52, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote: I look at it like this, there's 3 notions: Mind (consciousness, experience), (Primitive) Matter, Mechanism. Those 3 notions are incompatible, but we have experience of all 3, mind is the sum of our experience and thus is the most direct

Re: The free will function

2012-02-24 Thread 1Z
On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: You are thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the observers within are subject to truths outside of the simulation I don't know what you mean by subject to. They may well not be able to

Re: The free will function

2012-02-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 23 Feb 2012, at 15:12, marty684 wrote: From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, February 23, 2012 4:48:10 AM Subject: Re: The free will function On 22 Feb 2012, at 18:17, marty684 wrote: Bruno, If everything is made of numbers

Re: The free will function

2012-02-24 Thread marty684
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, February 24, 2012 11:58:51 AM Subject: Re: The free will function On 23 Feb 2012, at 15:12, marty684 wrote: From: Bruno Marchal marc

Re: The free will function

2012-02-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Feb 2012, at 18:17, marty684 wrote: Bruno, If everything is made of numbers (as in COMP) Nothing is made of. Everything appears in the mind of Universal numbers relatively to universal numbers, with hopefully reasonable relative statistics. Think about a dream. If

Re: The free will function

2012-02-23 Thread marty684
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, February 23, 2012 4:48:10 AM Subject: Re: The free will function On 22 Feb 2012, at 18:17, marty684 wrote: Bruno, If everything is made of numbers

Re: The free will function

2012-02-23 Thread 1Z
On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The simulation has no access to extra-simulatory information, it is a complete sub-universe. It's logic is the

Re: The free will function

2012-02-23 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The simulation has no access to extra-simulatory

Re: The free will function

2012-02-23 Thread 1Z
On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The simulation has no access to extra-simulatory

Re: The free will function

2012-02-23 Thread 1Z
On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:     Why would Gods be supernatural?    Why would bachelors be married? This is your argument, not mine. My whole point is that God becomes

Re: The free will function

2012-02-23 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 23, 3:51 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: That's because you aren't taking the simulation seriously. Or because I am taking truth seriously. Seriously and literally are two different things. You are thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the observers

Re: The free will function

2012-02-23 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 23, 3:57 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:     Why would Gods be supernatural?    Why would bachelors be married? This is your

Re: The free will function

2012-02-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Feb 2012, at 17:53, meekerdb wrote: On 2/21/2012 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Negative amplitude of probability comes from the formula p-[]p satisfied by the sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (that is the UD). How does that work? By using a theorem of Goldblatt which shows that:

Re: The free will function

2012-02-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Feb 2012, at 19:26, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/21/2012 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Feb 2012, at 17:02, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 3:32 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Now comp makes almost all (not any) UMs' physics identical. That is not a weak assumption.

Re: The free will function

2012-02-22 Thread marty684
Bruno, If everything is made of numbers (as in COMP) which can express states to an arbitrary degree of precision, is there any room for chance or probability? And if so, how do they arise?   (If you've been over this before, please refer me to the relevant posts, thanks.) 

Re: The free will function

2012-02-22 Thread acw
On 2/22/2012 17:17, marty684 wrote: Bruno, If everything is made of numbers (as in COMP) which can express states to an arbitrary degree of precision, is there any room for chance or probability? And if so, how do they arise? (If you've been over this before, please refer me to

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Feb 2012, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial simulation or not. I am sorry, but I think this is false. I would say that comp says that we are in infinitely

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote: On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote: ..

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 5:38 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: There could an infinite number of the Many Worlds with all kinds of Gods. But then why did you say There is something that prevents infinite nonsense

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 1:45 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I don;t have to agree that essentiallytechnological control means god or supernaural You don't

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/2/20 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com He said and I quote and emphasis: Now comp makes **almost all** (not any) UMs' physics identical. Note that there will still be an infinite variety of HP/WR physics even if it is a small

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/2/21 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com On Feb 20, 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/2/20 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com He said and I quote and emphasis: Now comp makes **almost all** (not any) UMs' physics identical. Note that there will still be an infinite variety

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread Stephen P. King
On 2/21/2012 5:41 AM, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 1:45 pm, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I don;t have to agree that essentiallytechnological control means god or

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Feb 2012, at 17:02, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 3:32 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Feb 2012, at 14:03, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/2/21 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com On Feb 20, 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/2/20 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com He said and I quote and emphasis: Now comp makes **almost all** (not any) UMs' physics identical.

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread meekerdb
On 2/21/2012 5:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: I think that you are missing a point here. COMP is showing us how there is no inherent bias on what we can believe ourselves to be, thus it is throwing open the options. This is a good with with regards to Free Will for without the multiplicity

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread meekerdb
On 2/21/2012 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Negative amplitude of probability comes from the formula p-[]p satisfied by the sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (that is the UD). How does that work? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread Stephen P. King
On 2/21/2012 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Feb 2012, at 17:02, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 3:32 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote: On

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread Stephen P. King
On 2/21/2012 11:45 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/21/2012 5:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: I think that you are missing a point here. COMP is showing us how there is no inherent bias on what we can believe ourselves to be, thus it is throwing open the options. This is a good with with regards

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 21, 5:21 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Right, but true = a true reflection of the simulation. No. True = true of unsimulated reality. Where is there unsimulated reality in comp? If I make a simulation where

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: You are natural. How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial simulation or not. That doens't make you supernatural. Why would I be? I'm not the administrator of a virtual universe. You can fire a horse

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread 1Z
On Feb 21, 8:03 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 21, 5:21 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Right, but true = a true reflection of the simulation. No. True = true of unsimulated reality. Where is

Re: The free will function

2012-02-21 Thread 1Z
On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial simulation or not. That doens't make you supernatural. Why would I be? I'm not the administrator of

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Comp says that any UM's experience is indistinguishable from

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Why would Gods be supernatural? Why would bachelors be married? That's begging the question. There is no logical basis to claim that the word supernatural

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread acw
On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote: .. Believable falsehoods are falsehoods and convincing illusions still aren't reality It doesn't matter if they believe in the

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Comp says that any UM's

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 3:32 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 10:57 pm,

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: If the physicists at CERN announced that all life including human life was created by the Klogknee Field but didn't even attempt to explain how it had done this miraculous thing would you be satisfied? I wouldn't be. They

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: There could an infinite number of the Many Worlds with all kinds of Gods. But then why did you say There is something that prevents infinite nonsense universes? How did you find this out, did you somehow check on

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 4:48 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, why do you think - if there are indeed many universes - that they are identical and like ours? It isn't a question of what I think. There are different multiversal theories. Some say all the universes are bound by a set of

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote: On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com  wrote: On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com  wrote: .. Believable falsehoods are falsehoods and convincing illusions still aren't

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Feb 2012, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Why would Gods be supernatural? Why would bachelors be married? That's begging the question. There is no logical basis to

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread acw
On 2/20/2012 18:37, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote: On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.comwrote: On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote: .. Believable falsehoods are

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 20, 2:48 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Sorry, I resend this because there was a little mistake: On 20 Feb 2012, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Why

Re: The free will function

2012-02-20 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 20, 2:53 pm, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote: On 2/20/2012 18:37, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote: On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.comwrote: On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
John, On 18 Feb 2012, at 22:54, John Mikes wrote: A bit from 'outside the box': the 'religious' ideas emerged from the 'awe' how very ancient apes looked at the world. It went through innumerable changes to reach a tribe with writing skills and the Bible was established saving positive

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 18, 1:35 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's not trying to explain how God did it though, it gets around that by collapsing all whats and hows into a single overarching Who and Why. Exactly, religion

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 18, 5:36 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state in every particle

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread 1Z
On Feb 19, 4:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 18, 5:36 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation of

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 19, 4:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 18, 5:36 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to suggest that if MWI is

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state in every particle

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread meekerdb
On 2/19/2012 5:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation of

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 19, 8:29 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/19/2012 5:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com  wrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to suggest that if MWI is

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread meekerdb
On 2/19/2012 7:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 8:29 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/19/2012 5:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.comwrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: What you suggest in saying that no event can be known to be supernatural is the same as saying that all video games would have to have the same basic rules. No all MWI have the same basic rules.  MWI is an interpretation of

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Comp says that any UM's experience is indistinguishable from primitive physics, right? Computaionalism or Bruno's comp? -- You received this message because you are

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread acw
On 2/20/2012 03:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: If I am a simulation, and a programmer watches 'me' and can intervene and change my program and the program of my universe at will, then to me they are a true God, and I would be well advised to pray to them. I think you might be misunderstanding

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 19, 10:59 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread 1Z
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 10:59 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg

Re: The free will function

2012-02-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote: On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Comp says that any UM's experience is indistinguishable from primitive physics, right? Computaionalism or Bruno's comp? We have

Re: The free will function

2012-02-18 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's not trying to explain how God did it though, it gets around that by collapsing all whats and hows into a single overarching Who and Why. Exactly, religion takes everything we don't understand and puts it into a box, it

Re: The free will function

2012-02-18 Thread John Mikes
A bit from 'outside the box': the 'religious' ideas emerged from the 'awe' how very ancient apes looked at the world. It went through innumerable changes to reach a tribe with writing skills and the Bible was established saving positive attitudes of the Super Naturals (whatever THEY were) as 'Good

Re: The free will function

2012-02-18 Thread Richard Ruquist
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state in every particle interaction is realized in one parallel world/universe or another,

Re: The free will function

2012-02-18 Thread meekerdb
On 2/18/2012 2:36 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is where every quantum state in every particle interaction is

Re: The free will function

2012-02-18 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/18/2012 2:36 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics,

Re: The free will function

2012-02-17 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine. Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed, that is to say the God hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in understanding anything; it makes no attempt at

Re: The free will function

2012-02-17 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:  if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine. Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed, that is to say the God hypothesis is of no help

Re: The free will function

2012-02-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 Feb 2012, at 18:57, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine. Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed, that is to say the God hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in

Re: The free will function

2012-02-17 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: How and why did evolution or physics or statistical laws come to be? How is that really different from the God hypothesis? Neither can explain why there is something rather than nothing, but the Evolution theory can explain how

Re: The free will function

2012-02-17 Thread meekerdb
On 2/17/2012 11:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote: if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine. Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed,

Re: The free will function

2012-02-17 Thread meekerdb
On 2/17/2012 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Feb 2012, at 18:57, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine. Even if it's not true God is

Re: The free will function

2012-02-17 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 17, 3:59 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: How and why did evolution or physics or statistical laws come to be? How is that really different from the God hypothesis? Neither can explain why there is something

Re: The free will function

2012-02-17 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I see you defend the conception of God given by the Christians. By God I mean an omnipotent being that created all the matter and energy in the universe, and logic and mathematics and morality and everything else; when I want to talk

Re: The free will function

2012-02-16 Thread ronaldheld
Another comment on the paper: arXiv:1202.3395v1 [physics.hist-ph} Ronald On Feb 15, 10:27 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: can a virtual typhoon makes you wet? I don't know, it depends on whether you are

Re: The free will function

2012-02-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Feb 2012, at 23:33, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 14, 3:41 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: All computers are

Re: The free will function

2012-02-16 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Yes. But it is science only as far as we present the theory in clear hypothetical way. The rest is pseudo-religion or insanity. Or it could expand the scope of science. There was progress before science, so it is not true that

Re: The free will function

2012-02-15 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: can a virtual typhoon makes you wet? I don't know, it depends on whether you are in the same level of reality as the typhoon. I do know for certain that a real typhoon can't make the laws of physics wet because they exist at

Re: The free will function

2012-02-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/2/11 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will run the same loop over and over forever if you program them to

  1   2   >