Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Apr 2012, at 23:46, Joseph Knight wrote: Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/4/4 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-05 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You can be conscious of being here and now. This is a key element in our disagreement. I maintain that by itself a consciousness has no way to directly tell the difference between the hear and now and the there and then. For example

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-05 Thread meekerdb
On 4/5/2012 1:20 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You can be conscious of being here and now. This is a key element in our disagreement. I maintain that by itself a consciousness has no way to directly tell the

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-05 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Suppose that the environmental conditions were identical only for the first 50min of the hour. Then the split happened after 50min, obviously. And both those consciousness'es could access identical memories of the first

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Apr 2012, at 06:05, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The point is that comp predicts white noise. That something else predicts white noise too is not relevant in the proof. So in the setup the screen changes at RANDOM

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-04 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You confuse consciousness of being here and now with consciousness would be here and now. How in the world could anybody be confused by a idea stated as crystal clearly as you just did ? And the only answer you can

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You confuse consciousness of being here and now with consciousness would be here and now. How in the world could anybody be confused by a idea stated as crystal clearly

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/4/4 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You confuse consciousness of being here and now with consciousness would be here and now. How in the world could anybody be

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-04 Thread meekerdb
On 4/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You confuse consciousness of being here and now with consciousness would be here and now. How in

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Apr 2012, at 20:45, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/4/4 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If any one else can help John K Clark to make his point, please help him. If some people believe, like I begin to believe, that John Clark only fake to not understand, and that I should abandon to

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Apr 2012, at 21:04, David Nyman wrote: On 4 April 2012 18:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If any one else can help John K Clark to make his point, please help him. If some people believe, like I begin to believe, that John Clark only fake to not understand, and that I

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Apr 2012, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote: On 4/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip By comp we can simulate Moscow and Washington precisely enough so that you

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-04 Thread Joseph Knight
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/4/4 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You confuse consciousness of

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Apr 2012, at 18:14, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: you've added tons of bells and whistles but for all the complex convolutions you have not added one single bit of additional information about what is likely to happen. On the

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Apr 2012, at 18:40, meekerdb wrote: On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: If Everett is right the probability must be derived from the statistics of measurements *as described by the wave evolution*. If Everett is right then you can use the square of the absolute value of the

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-03 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The point is that comp predicts white noise. That something else predicts white noise too is not relevant in the proof. So in the setup the screen changes at RANDOM and comp predicts white noise will be the most likely

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-02 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: you've added tons of bells and whistles but for all the complex convolutions you have not added one single bit of additional information about what is likely to happen. On the contrary, comp entails that you should expect white

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-02 Thread meekerdb
On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: If Everett is right the probability must be derived from the statistics of measurements *as described by the wave evolution*. If Everett is right then you can use the square of the absolute value of the Schrodinger Wave Equation to help you

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-01 Thread meekerdb
On 3/31/2012 11:11 AM, David Nyman wrote: The alternative to this analysis is to abandon MWI (or comp) as inconsistent with the empirical facts. This is the tack Kent in fact adopts, proposing a mechanism for the pruning of all but one of the alternative branches, I think he just proposes

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-01 Thread David Nyman
On 1 April 2012 07:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I think he just proposes pruning the density matrix cross-terms by some mechanism.  Once they are gone then the realized branch is just 'selected'  stochasitcally per the Born rule.  I've often contemplated such a move based on the

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-01 Thread David Nyman
On 31 March 2012 01:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: That seems like conjuring a mystery out of nothing. Is your question why is my observational perspective associated with my brain? It's only a mystery out of nothing if you have already accepted as unproblematic the primitive

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hello Stephen, On 31 Mar 2012, at 18:29, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/31/2012 3:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp is just the assumption that we are machine, to said it shortly. Then it is shown as a consequence that not only we cannot neglect the physical reality, but that we have to

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-01 Thread David Nyman
On 1 April 2012 21:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm all in favor of epistemology first.  But that means point-of-view comes first, and only some things happen comes second.  The primitive, micro-physical ensemble is an ontological assumption way down the line. No argument from me

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-04-01 Thread meekerdb
On 4/1/2012 1:28 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 1 April 2012 21:02, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm all in favor of epistemology first. But that means point-of-view comes first, and only some things happen comes second. The primitive, micro-physical ensemble is an ontological assumption

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 30 Mar 2012, at 23:29, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 2:48 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/30/2012 4:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 3:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 31 Mar 2012, at 01:23, David Nyman wrote: On 30 March 2012 19:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The problem with all this (as Kent makes explicit) is that there is nothing in the mathematics of the game physics that corresponds to this kind of momentary selection of subjective

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-31 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You should care to be able to answer the simple question: what do you expect to feel in the multiplication-movie experience I would expect to feel exactly the same as if duplicating chambers and multiple copies of myself were not

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-31 Thread Stephen P. King
On 3/31/2012 3:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp is just the assumption that we are machine, to said it shortly. Then it is shown as a consequence that not only we cannot neglect the physical reality, but that we have to retrieve it from arithmetic, without using any probabilistic

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-31 Thread David Nyman
On 31 March 2012 17:24, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: You should care to be able to answer the simple question: what do you expect to feel in the multiplication-movie experience I would expect to feel exactly the same as if duplicating chambers and multiple copies of myself were

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread meekerdb
On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rovers and I want them to coordinate their movements in order to round up Martian sheep. I can easily distribute the artificial intelligence between the two of them, using data links

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 29 Mar 2012, at 21:47, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Mar 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. I will ask you to do the hairsplitting about that YOU, that you are using here, so

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread Richard Ruquist
David, Selection was even earlier proposed by Leibniz in his Monadology philosophy along with many other principles about half of which have been confirmed by scientific theory and experimentation. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm Richard David Ruquist On

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 3/30/2012 3:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rovers and I want them to coordinate their movements in order to round up Martian sheep. I can easily distribute the artificial intelligence

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread David Nyman
On 30 March 2012 03:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: My reading of Kent is that he rejects MWI.  I don't think he believes there is a single conscious copy and the rest are zombies; he believes there's just one world and it is 'selected' probabilistically. Yes, I understand that. My

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread David Nyman
On 30 March 2012 10:11, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: David, Selection was even earlier proposed by Leibniz in his Monadology philosophy along with many other principles about half of which have been confirmed by scientific theory and experimentation.

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread meekerdb
On 3/30/2012 4:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 3:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rovers and I want them to coordinate their movements in order to round up Martian sheep. I can

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread meekerdb
On 3/30/2012 4:38 AM, David Nyman wrote: The problem with all this (as Kent makes explicit) is that there is nothing in the mathematics of the game physics that corresponds to this kind of momentary selection of subjective localisation. Unfortunately, his own proposal doesn't really solve the

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 3/30/2012 2:48 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/30/2012 4:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 3:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rovers and I want them to coordinate their movements in

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread meekerdb
On 3/30/2012 2:29 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 2:48 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/30/2012 4:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 3:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rovers and I

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread David Nyman
On 30 March 2012 19:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The problem with all this (as Kent makes explicit) is that there is nothing in the mathematics of the game physics that corresponds to this kind of momentary selection of subjective localisation. Unfortunately, his own proposal

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-30 Thread meekerdb
On 3/30/2012 4:23 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 30 March 2012 19:54, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: The problem with all this (as Kent makes explicit) is that there is nothing in the mathematics of the game physics that corresponds to this kind of momentary selection of subjective

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Mar 2012, at 19:29, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If 2 different consciousnesses can not be distinguished in my symmetrical room from the first person point of view or from the third person point of view then it seems

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Identical bodies have identical minds, Yes. but identical minds can have different bodies. Who cares? It's consciousness I'm interested in. The universe does not know you are John Clark. You do. In my symmetrical room example

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Comp (and MWI) is a deterministic theory. Many Worlds is deterministic but I don't know about comp because comp is a homemade term never completely defined and used on this list and nowhere else. I don't even know if I agree with

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 29 Mar 2012, at 18:31, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Identical bodies have identical minds, Yes. but identical minds can have different bodies. Who cares? It's consciousness I'm interested in. We discuss only on the consequence of the

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread meekerdb
On 3/29/2012 10:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. I will ask you to do the hairsplitting about that YOU, that you are using here, so as to convince me and others that it refutes indeed the indeterminacy about the first person experience displayed in the WM duplication

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 29 Mar 2012, at 18:46, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Comp (and MWI) is a deterministic theory. Many Worlds is deterministic but I don't know about comp because comp is a homemade term never completely defined and used on this list

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 29 Mar 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. I will ask you to do the hairsplitting about that YOU, that you are using here, so as to convince me and others that it refutes indeed the indeterminacy about the first

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread meekerdb
On 3/29/2012 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Mar 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. I will ask you to do the hairsplitting about that YOU, that you are using here, so as to convince me and others that it refutes

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread David Nyman
On 29 March 2012 20:47, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: You don't know that.  It's an assumption based on the idea that conscious experience is something a certain physical body, a brain, does.  But if conscious experience is a process then it is certainly possible to create a process

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread meekerdb
On 3/29/2012 6:20 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 March 2012 20:47, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: You don't know that. It's an assumption based on the idea that conscious experience is something a certain physical body, a brain, does. But if conscious experience is a process then it is

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread Stephen P. King
On 3/29/2012 9:20 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 March 2012 20:47, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: You don't know that. It's an assumption based on the idea that conscious experience is something a certain physical body, a brain, does. But if conscious experience is a process then it is

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread meekerdb
On 3/29/2012 7:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/29/2012 9:20 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 March 2012 20:47, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: You don't know that. It's an assumption based on the idea that conscious experience is something a certain physical body, a brain, does. But if

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-29 Thread Stephen P. King
On 3/29/2012 11:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 7:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/29/2012 9:20 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 March 2012 20:47, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: You don't know that. It's an assumption based on the idea that conscious experience is something a

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Mar 2012, at 06:07, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: so you do get the point of the difference of the 3-view and the 1- view, Truer words were never spoken. If 2 different consciousnesses can not be distinguished in my symmetrical

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Mar 2012, at 02:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 26, 11:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Mar 2012, at 22:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: What is it you think my theory wants you not to ask? Where does matter come from? Matter comes from sense, as does 'where' and

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-28 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If 2 different consciousnesses can not be distinguished in my symmetrical room from the first person point of view or from the third person point of view then it seems pointless to insist that there are really 2 and not

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-28 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/3/28 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If 2 different consciousnesses can not be distinguished in my symmetrical room from the first person point of view or from the third person point of view then it seems

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Mar 2012, at 06:14, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Give me a example of 2 conscious beings that are identical by what you call 3-view but NOT identical by what you call 1-view, show they deserve different names, do that

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-27 Thread Joseph Knight
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 3/23/2012 3:44 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 3/21/2012 8:16 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Stephen P.

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Mar 2012, at 06:09, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then what the hell IS the point you are making? That comp entails 1-indeterminacy. Comp entails indeterminacy PERIOD. Comp is widely known as a 3-deterministic theory. Give me a

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Mar 2012, at 21:10, meekerdb wrote: On 3/24/2012 12:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You keep asking who is this you Yes. it is the usual you, as the one you use in your everyday The word you works fine in the usual everyday world, No, please answer the last part of the message.

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Mar 2012, at 21:21, meekerdb wrote: On 3/24/2012 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Google on theaetetus. Socrates asked to Theaetetus to define knowledge. Theatetus gives many definitions that Socrates critizes/refutes, each of them. One of them consists in defining knowledge by

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-26 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 26, 11:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Mar 2012, at 22:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: What is it you think my theory wants you not to ask? Where does matter come from? Matter comes from sense, as does 'where' and 'come from'. Where does sense come from? Everywhere

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-25 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 24, 3:58 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: OK, nice. Many confuse comp (I am a machine) and digital physics (reality is a machine), but comp makes reality, whatever it can be, being NOT a machine, nor the output of a machine. It is more a perspective effect on infinities of

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 23 Mar 2012, at 22:14, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You are still avoiding the WM duplication. There is no spliting in Many Worlds unless something is different, if 2 universes are identical then they have merged and there is now

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-24 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 24, 4:32 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Mar 2012, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote: How does a digital artificial intelligence make sense of it's world without converting or sampling every truth about that world available to it into digital? First, the fact that

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-24 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy, From a 3rd POV there is ALWAYS indeterminacy, we don't know for sure what the thing we're looking at will do. From a 1 POV there is ALWAYS indeterminacy, we don't know for sure

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-24 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/3/24 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy, From a 3rd POV there is ALWAYS indeterminacy, No in the f***ing though experiment you always want to change as you see fit. we

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Mar 2012, at 18:44, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy, From a 3rd POV there is ALWAYS indeterminacy, we don't know for sure what the thing we're looking at will do. From a 1 POV

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-24 Thread meekerdb
On 3/24/2012 12:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: You keep asking who is this you Yes. it is the usual you, as the one you use in your everyday The word you works fine in the usual everyday world, No, please answer the last part of the message. The everyday world

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-24 Thread meekerdb
On 3/24/2012 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Google on theaetetus. Socrates asked to Theaetetus to define knowledge. Theatetus gives many definitions that Socrates critizes/refutes, each of them. One of them consists in defining knowledge by belief, in modern time the mental state, or the

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Mar 2012, at 21:31, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: This illustrates the problem I have with your ideas, it's not your mathematics it's the assumption you make right at the start which is the foundation for everything else. Which

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-23 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 23, 1:08 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/22/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 8:28 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net  wrote: On 3/22/2012 4:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net    wrote: On 3/22/2012 2:53

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-23 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You are still avoiding the WM duplication. There is no spliting in Many Worlds unless something is different, if 2 universes are identical then they have merged and there is now only one universe. the copy and the original agree

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-23 Thread Quentin Anciaux
From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy, we know there will be two you after the duplication. From your 1st POV, even if you know it, you'll (both you) still feel singular, and the you who was asked before the experience what he expect to feel after the duplication was unable to predict which

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-23 Thread Stephen P. King
On 3/23/2012 3:44 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 3/21/2012 8:16 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: How does a digital artificial intelligence make sense of it's world Superbly! A digital AI can make sense of it's world far better than you can; if you doubt that statement just try competing against even a modest

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Mar 2012, at 03:00, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 21, 3:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Mar 2012, at 17:40, Craig Weinberg wrote (partially). It's not just 'we' but our entire participation in the world that is assumed to be digitally interchangeable. A

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: This illustrates the problem I have with your ideas, it's not your mathematics it's the assumption you make right at the start which is the foundation for everything else. Which assumption? Your assumption that if a identical

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread meekerdb
On 3/22/2012 1:31 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: This illustrates the problem I have with your ideas, it's not your mathematics it's the assumption you make right at the start which is the

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 22, 10:46 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: How does a digital artificial intelligence make sense of it's world Superbly! A digital AI can make sense of it's world far better than you can; if you

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread meekerdb
On 3/22/2012 1:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 10:46 am, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote: How does a digital artificial intelligence make sense of it's world Superbly! A digital AI can make

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Then you agree with me: AI cannot make sense out of its world without converting or sampling it digitally. That which it fails to digitize is lost. Sure.  What you don't see you don't see - which is almost all of the EM spectrum.  

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread meekerdb
On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: Then you agree with me: AI cannot make sense out of its world without converting or sampling it digitally. That which it fails to digitize is lost. Sure. What you don't see you don't see -

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 22, 11:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Mar 2012, at 03:00, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 21, 3:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Mar 2012, at 17:40, Craig Weinberg wrote (partially). It's not just 'we' but our entire participation in the world

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net  wrote: Then you agree with me: AI cannot make sense out of its world without converting or sampling it digitally. That which it fails to

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread meekerdb
On 3/22/2012 4:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote: Then you agree with me: AI cannot make sense out of its world without converting or

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 22, 8:28 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/22/2012 4:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net  wrote: On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net    wrote: Then you agree

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-22 Thread meekerdb
On 3/22/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 8:28 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/22/2012 4:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 4:58 pm,

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Mar 2012, at 20:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 20, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Mar 2012, at 17:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 20, 12:01 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: to explain things. But comp is a (scientific, modest) theology, in which

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-21 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 21, 5:12 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Mar 2012, at 20:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 20, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Mar 2012, at 17:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 20, 12:01 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: to

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-21 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: on the 3-view you can have on your two necessary existing 1-views. [...] if you confuse the 1-view on the 1-view, (really still just the 1-view), and some 3-view on 1-views, which is just empathy [...] At the end of UDA, we know it

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-21 Thread Joseph Knight
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: No, my critique is that you seem to not see a problem with the fact that COMP shows that the physical world is epiphenomena and thus unnecessary. I see this as denying the mere possibility of observational

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Mar 2012, at 17:40, Craig Weinberg wrote (partially). It's not just 'we' but our entire participation in the world that is assumed to be digitally interchangeable. A digitizable body can only exist within a digitizable universe. False. The exact contrary has been proved. How has it

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Mar 2012, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: on the 3-view you can have on your two necessary existing 1-views. [...] if you confuse the 1-view on the 1-view, (really still just the 1-view), and some 3-view on 1-views, which is

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-21 Thread Joseph Knight
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Dear Joseph, How do numbers implement that necessary capacity to define each other and themselves? What kind of relational structure is necessary? From what I can tell, it looks like a net of Indra where every

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-21 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 21, 3:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Mar 2012, at 17:40, Craig Weinberg wrote (partially). It's not just 'we' but our entire participation in the world that is assumed to be digitally interchangeable. A digitizable body can only exist within a digitizable

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-20 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Mar 20, 1:52 am, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: might say that the standard of Integers is their truth, but that itself is a measure requiring a standard of its own and, again, a means to compare the standard with the numbers. What is the means of comparison? Hi Stephen, I

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012-03-20 Thread Stephen P. King
On 3/20/2012 8:36 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 20, 1:52 am, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote: might say that the standard of Integers is their truth, but that itself is a measure requiring a standard of its own and, again, a means to compare the standard with the numbers. What

  1   2   >