Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-10-02 Thread Marchal

GLevy wrote:

 [...]
I am fascinated by antiterrorism methods that expose the inconsistency
of terrorists. The problem is that that no matter what rational argument
you could come up with, they will find a way to rationalize their
position. It may be that the root of the problem is emotional and no
amount of rational argument will work. It's like being faced with a
tiger and trying to explain to the tiger that eating you will generate
inconsistency in his set of belief. Unfortunately, it may be that the
only way to show the inconsistency of their terrorist to the terrorists
is by means of the ultimate argument: force.

Mmh... You can and perhaps you should, in some circonstance, use force
for capturing terrorist  Inc, but I doubt you could convince them 
of their inconsistencies by force. Perhaps you mean they will learn
the inconsistencies by accumulation of enemies, war, violent choc. 
Kamikase-like terrorist are enhanced in their paranoid belief by such
accumulation of difficulties. They want prove your own inconsistency,
at the price of their own.  It is perhaps a form of social madness. 

I think more and more we should bet on the reasonableness of most.
And we should be the less violent possible, and then attack the problem
at his roots. My opinion (if you mind) : the inescapable solution could
be international antiprohibition. Americans have known the result of
alcool prohibition, they know antiprohibition is *the* weapon against
mafias and their obscure and unfair financial fluxes. I'm not sure that
it is realist.


I said:

Well, a typical G*-like answer would be: we will get rid of terrorism
when we will stop trying to get rid of terrorism.
This is also in the spirit of Alan Watts The Wisdom of Insecurity.
Terrorist are not inconsistent (although some of their beliefs can be 
inconsistent with our beliefs), but they indeed prove some inherent
and intrinsical possibility of inconsistency of our democraties. But,
that possibility of inconsistency is what we must learn to live with.
For the same deep reason we can expect there will never be universal
vaccin in medecine.

Here is a funny illustration by Tom Tomorrow (from New-York):

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2001/10/01/tomo/index.html

;-)

Bruno





Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-30 Thread George Levy

Hi Charles

Sorry, I am not responsible for these statements. I was only quoting
Bruno Marchal's post or 09/19. However, I agree with Bruno very much. It
seems that as in mathematics, any (religious) belief anchored by a rigid
credo (set of axioms) is bound to be either incomplete or inconsistent.
The fanatic insists that his position is both complete and consistent.
The agnostic accepts the incompleteness of his belief. In fact the
agnostic accepts that his current belief is only temporary and may
evolve depending on new information.

Charles Goodwin wrote:

  Bruno Marchal wrote:

  I just say this because I consider real atheist as very religious
  people, and, what is worth is that most of the time they want us to
  believe they have no religion.
  Only the agnostic can be said not having still made its
  religion (yet).
 
  The problem arises because the modalities []-x and -[]x are confused
  in most natural language.


I am fascinated by antiterrorism methods that expose the inconsistency
of terrorists. The problem is that that no matter what rational argument
you could come up with, they will find a way to rationalize their
position. It may be that the root of the problem is emotional and no
amount of rational argument will work. It's like being faced with a
tiger and trying to explain to the tiger that eating you will generate
inconsistency in his set of belief. Unfortunately, it may be that the
only way to show the inconsistency of their terrorist to the terrorists
is by means of the ultimate argument: force.

While battling terrorism by using consistency methods may not be
applicable directly to the terrorists themselves, they may help win the
heart and mind of those who are sitting on the fence.

 
 Richard Dawkins strikes me as a militant or indeed a religious atheist, for 
example.
 
I don't know enough about Richard Dawkins personal beliefs except for
his generalization of the principle of evolution. Brought to its
ultimate generalization I believe that this principle can bring the
physical world, life and consciousness out of the plenitude. Creation is
converted from creatio ex-nihilo to creatio ex-toto. In other words God
did not have to do anything. Creatio ex-toto just happened. In my
opinion, this does not diminish God in any way. Au contraire! He created
the world by doing nothing! Talk about power and magic! Even if we show
creatio ex-toto, the question of God doesn't go away. It only makes God
greater. The question of God is just moved to a meta level.

In summary, I think that someone can believe in evolution, can believe
that God did nothing and yet be intensely mystical and believe in a
higher God.

George




RE: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-30 Thread Charles Goodwin

 -Original Message-
 From: George Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Friday, 21 September 2001 8:18 a.m.
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: Who is the enemy?
 
 I just say this because I consider real atheist as very religious
 people, and, what is worth is that most of the time they want us to
 believe they have no religion.
 Only the agnostic can be said not having still made its 
 religion (yet).
 
 The problem arises because the modalities []-x and -[]x are confused
 in most natural language.

Richard Dawkins strikes me as a militant or indeed a religious atheist, for 
example.

Charles




Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-27 Thread Marchal


Hi John,  

You wrote (out-of-line)

Bruno FYI here is a private message I submitted today including a copy of
part of a post to a complexity-list yesterday.
(No restriction in using any of it anywhere)
John Mikes   (jamikes).


Thanks for your courageous post where you attempt to define and 
perhaps justify in some way terrorism.


[...]
Terrorism is usually assigned to activities by clandestine preparations to
cause damage both in property and life, many times unselected and randomly
applied.


OK.


What is terrorism?

If we do not include A/ anarchy against ALL power  wealth and
   B/ criminal activity aiming at financial
extortion
then (in most general cases) it is the expression of DESPERATION 


You are the interpreter. It could be you'r right but be careful
it depends of case. Desperation can express itself, although rarely
(but this happens today (27/sept/01) in Switzerland), by terrorist act.
Desperation can aswell expresse itself in songs, literature, etc.


of the
powerless against oppressing and overwhelming power, exercised in the
absence of other possible remedies sometimes up to even self-sacrificing
acts (and I include here hungerstrike and self-setting-on-fire as well) with
the goal of hurting the powerful.
It is alway triggered (except for point A/ and B/ - although A/ may be a
variant)
by action(s) of the powerful and aims at making them suffer.


If that is terrorism, I don't think terrorism exists.
Intellectual left terrorism of the last (20) century was not necessarily
aimed at making people suffering. In Belgium we have known a form
of such terrorism (the CCC cellules combattantes communistes) which
demolished public and private goods, but cared not wounding people. Still
they killed two firemen accidentally and said they regret. Still they
were linked to the Baader German Group and Italian's one, who were 
murdering innocent persons, but not innocent in their mind (sure).
I think they were fighter with a (crazy) purpose, and were using
terrorism has a (unsuccesful) psychological trick to impose their
philosophy or way of life, by threaten life and goods of their enemy,
the bourgeoise classe for exemple.
Most of them were coming from wealthy family and find their inspiration
in book full of hate written by anti-humanist thinker justifying violence
with eloquence. Young people fall easily in that trap, during puberty.

If you read their literature you will see they are aware of the moral
problem of making suffering. making suffer is not the goal. The problem
is that they believe the publicity on their message is worth making 
suffering
or dying innocent people.

I don't see why you put hungerstrike and self-setting-on-fire with 
terrorist.  

Be prudent with your desperation interpretation before revendications
are given. (For exemple, it could be your own desperation that you were 
projecting) .


When and how could we open our eyes that the reason for 'their' fight is to
protect themselves from all these goals of the western world? They see their
institutions and philosophy jeopardized by us, their lifestyle in danger


The western world is a myth. Islam has produced one of the most
genteel and sophisticated civilisation, our western sciences
owes a lot to Islam thinkers especially mathematicians, philosophers.
The civilisations meshed more than one time. Not always violently.
Since christians made crusade and invented christ soldiers, some
Muslims gives the right to defend Islam by killing the crusaders. (normal)
Later some school or  sect (not easy to distinguish) developped literal
interpretation of the coran and variant of it containing the idea
that Islam must rule the world, and that any muslim who kill a 
non-muslim (infidel) go immediately to paradise. It has always been
a minority in Islam traditions.


from the free market global economy and their 'system' (in their view the
only one worthwhile living for) being attacked. They conduct a life/death
struggle, in their view worthwhile dying for the noble cause. For their
culture, which they do not want to give up.


I'm afraid it is not the case in the current affair. In america there are
people who reject modernity including electricity, and nobody really
threaten their philosophy and souls. Those who revived those agressive
version of Islam are decadent intoxicated by petrodollars wanting to
communicates nothing more than hate: no revendication, no signature.
They are not defending the poor. They oppressed them by terror. They
use that nazy trick to use their (originaly real) people frustration for
enhancing hate of a world which exists only in their imagination.
They are sellers of fear and they work hard making grow a collective
paranoia. We tolerate the saoudian school of hate by petrol addiction, and
even used them against the communist. We are indeed paying a price
for a terrible mistake (not realising that the old war rule which
consists in building enemies against 

Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-26 Thread George Levy



Marchal wrote:

 George Levy wrote


 This paradox can easily be solved by falling back on a relativistic
 approach. Each observer has his/her own frame of reference. All
 perceptions are relative to the observer. Period. After all, Einstein's
 Relativity does not use first person and third person.
 
 Yes but Einstein was still confusing the methodological evacuation
 of the subject with the idea that the subject cannot be handled
 scientifically.

I don't understand. Do you mean the methodological evaluation of the
subject...? Which subject was Einstein evaluating or believed could not
be handled scientifically? 

 And I guess you forget I am using comp, and this include that
 the set of provable arithmetical truth is a 3-person sharable
 objective set.

I guess this is the crux of the difference between us. Your starting
point is axiomatic and logical/mathematical and you believe that the set
of provable arithmetical truty is a 3-person sharable objective set. My
starting point is relativistic and I feel comfortable with a
relativistic generalization of the first/third person concept. It would
be nice if we could bridge that gap. 

I guess one way to begin is to specify what are the axiomatic logical
constraints A for a set of provable arithmetical truth to be 3-person
sharable. 
Second question is: Are there several logical modes of A for which this
set is sharable. If yes, then each mode corresponds to a frame of
reference. Observers possessing identical logical modes would belong to
the same frame of reference and would experinece the same arithmetic
truths. Observers in different logical modes would experience different
loogical truths. 

If three such modes can be demonstrated, then the first/third person
concept becomes insufficient to express the relationships between the
observers. We may have to fall back on a relativistic concept. 



 the machines which communicates they are consistent ([]t) == Fanatics
 the machines which communicates they are inconsistent ([][]t) == People
 with terribly poor self esteem
 the mad machine == illogical people   ([]f)
 the the wrong machine = Misled people   ([]f)
 the dreaming machine = Schizophrenics   ([]f)
 
 Note that the fanatics belongs to the type []t, but the arrogant one
 also.
 You should not forget the liar machine, also of type []f, which
 intentionaly
 mislead the others. The worst one, imo, especially in politics. Those who
 lies to their people conducts their people to a
 catastrophe, soon or later, isn't it? (I don't speak about special
 military
 information).
 (G* proves []f - f, unlike  G which does NOT proves []f - f).
 
 So let us add in our search of evil definition the misinformation,
 and most probably too the surinformation (which hides info). OK?


I am fascinated by the parallelism between social systems and axiomatic
systems. Please allow me some poetic license. Each social system becomes
inconsistent given certain conditions. For example, Ghandi showed that
the British system could not possibly be civilized and deal with
non-violent protest in a civilized non-violent manner. By
demonstrating that the British presence in India was inconsistent, he
was able to kick the British out. 

It may be that the rise of christianity in ancient Rome happened when
judaism monotheism exposed the inconsistency of the Roman religious
beliefs.

Modern terrorists take advantage of our freedoms (economic, legal,
etc..) to perform their evil acts. These may be our inconsistencies.  

The big question is this: is it possible to expose the inconsistencies
of terrorists and terrorist organizations? What are their
inconsistencies? What methods should we use to get rid of them, that
will remain consistent with our own system?

George




Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-26 Thread Marchal

George Levy wrote

 [...]
I guess I was talking mostly about the fanatics and the misled people.
One could also argue that these people do not have a rigorous scientific
upbringing and are very much driven by their emotions. 
Therefore, they
may be classified as illogical.

I think emotion are logical. I mean emotions have (meta)logical reasons
and (meta)logical explanations. Of course they are lived from 1-point of
view and are not (scientifically, G) communicable. 


 They definitely are not schizos and do
not suffer from poor self esteem.


Mmmh... I am not sure but imo the fanatics suffer generally from poor
self-esteem. So poor that probably they cannot recognize it for such.
(so that they communication could belong to the arrogant type []t)
(of course some are fanatics because their parents are, and then
they learn at school that the other does not really exist, and they 
developpe all the appearence of over self-esteem, but lives really
with some terrible poor self-esteem of type [][]f.


I have been using first person and third person to accomodate the
vocabulary used in this list. However, there is definitely something
wrong with these concepts. All perceptions have to be first person. 

When the frame of reference are very close to each other first person
and third person perceptions are identical. 

When the frames of reference are too dissimilar as in QS, there is no
objective reality, and therefore, there is no third person. 

In either case the concept of third person is useless. So why use
first person?

This paradox can easily be solved by falling back on a relativistic
approach. Each observer has his/her own frame of reference. All
perceptions are relative to the observer. Period. After all, Einstein's
Relativity does not use first person and third person.


Yes but Einstein was still confusing the methodological evacuation
of the subject with the idea that the subject cannot be handled
scientifically. 
And I guess you forget I am using comp, and this include that
the set of provable arithmetical truth is a 3-person sharable 
objective set.


the machines which communicates they are consistent ([]t) == Fanatics
the machines which communicates they are inconsistent ([][]t) == People
with terribly poor self esteem
the mad machine == illogical people   ([]f)
the the wrong machine = Misled people   ([]f)
the dreaming machine = Schizophrenics   ([]f)


Note that the fanatics belongs to the type []t, but the arrogant one 
also.
You should not forget the liar machine, also of type []f, which 
intentionaly
mislead the others. The worst one, imo, especially in politics. Those who 
lies to their people conducts their people to a 
catastrophe, soon or later, isn't it? (I don't speak about special 
military
information).
(G* proves []f - f, unlike  G which does NOT proves []f - f).

So let us add in our search of evil definition the misinformation,
and most probably too the surinformation (which hides info). OK?

Bruno




Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-26 Thread George Levy


Marchal wrote:

 George Levy wrote


 This paradox can easily be solved by falling back on a relativistic
 approach. Each observer has his/her own frame of reference. All
 perceptions are relative to the observer. Period. After all, Einstein's
 Relativity does not use first person and third person.
 
 Yes but Einstein was still confusing the methodological evacuation
 of the subject with the idea that the subject cannot be handled
 scientifically.

I don't understand. Do you mean the methodological evaluation of the
subject...? Which subject was Einstein evaluating or believed could not
be handled scientifically? 

 And I guess you forget I am using comp, and this include that
 the set of provable arithmetical truth is a 3-person sharable
 objective set.

I guess this is the crux of the difference between us. Your starting
point is axiomatic and logical/mathematical and you believe that the set
of provable arithmetical truty is a 3-person sharable objective set. My
starting point is relativistic and I feel comfortable with a
relativistic generalization of the first/third person concept. It would
be nice if we could bridge that gap. 

I guess one way to begin is to specify what are the axiomatic logical
constraints A for a set of provable arithmetical truth to be 3-person
sharable. 
Second question is: Are there several logical modes of A for which this
set is sharable. If yes, then each mode corresponds to a frame of
reference. Observers possessing identical logical modes would belong to
the same frame of reference and would experinece the same arithmetic
truths. Observers in different logical modes would experience different
loogical truths. 

If three such modes can be demonstrated, then the first/third person
concept becomes insufficient to express the relationships between the
observers. We may have to fall back on a relativistic concept. 



 the machines which communicates they are consistent ([]t) == Fanatics
 the machines which communicates they are inconsistent ([][]t) == People
 with terribly poor self esteem
 the mad machine == illogical people   ([]f)
 the the wrong machine = Misled people   ([]f)
 the dreaming machine = Schizophrenics   ([]f)
 
 Note that the fanatics belongs to the type []t, but the arrogant one
 also.
 You should not forget the liar machine, also of type []f, which
 intentionaly
 mislead the others. The worst one, imo, especially in politics. Those who
 lies to their people conducts their people to a
 catastrophe, soon or later, isn't it? (I don't speak about special
 military
 information).
 (G* proves []f - f, unlike  G which does NOT proves []f - f).
 
 So let us add in our search of evil definition the misinformation,
 and most probably too the surinformation (which hides info). OK?


I am fascinated by the parallelism between social systems and axiomatic
systems. Please allow me some poetic license. Each social system becomes
inconsistent given certain conditions. For example, Ghandi showed that
the British system could not possibly be civilized and deal with
non-violent protest in a civilized non-violent manner. By
demonstrating that the British presence in India was inconsistent, he
was able to kick the British out. 

It may be that the rise of christianity in ancient Rome happened when
judaism monotheism exposed the inconsistency of the Roman religious
beliefs.

Modern terrorists take advantage of our freedoms (economic, legal,
etc..) to perform their evil acts. These may be our inconsistencies.  

The big question is this: is it possible to expose the inconsistencies
of terrorists and terrorist organizations? What are their
inconsistencies? What methods should we use to get rid of them, that
will remain consistent with our own system?

George




Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-24 Thread Marchal

Jacques Mallah wrote:


 (I'm currently in North Dakota, but have lived in NYC most of my life.  I 
did not know anyone who was in the WTC.)

 [BM]: I told you my relief, but I begin to doubt !

What do you mean by that?


...that I was beginning to ask myself if you were not a sort of fanatics,
yourself. Your recent answer reassures me a little bit.


  I did mention that they were also advocates of suicide.


But you know that in our discussion a term like suicide is
not well defined. Personaly I have nothing against suicide (in the
usual folk meaning) with
the fundamental proviso that the one who does it does not
wound other people, physically or morally.


 Bruno, you have an amazing ability to misunderstand what 
I say.  I used 
to think that the problem was that many of the posts on 
this list concern 
arcane philosophical and technical points, so that misunderstanding was 
understandable.  By now I know better.
I could say Coke is better than Pepsi, and you would interpret that to 
mean that I don't know they are both colas.  Further, you would believe that 
the only way to illustrate the relationship between the two drinks is by 
analogy to G and G*.


I never pretend it was the only way.


The sound machine is maximaly humble, she is agnostic on both
her own consistency and her own inconsistency.

Does that imply it is agnostic on any question?


No. The sound machine will be agnostic only on proposition
beginning by a diamond, like consistency t, or on some false
but irrefutable proposition like inconsistency (-t or []f).
The machine will not be agnostic on any provable arithmetical
proposition.


One of these days, I'll 
have to check out what kind of analogy you are making between Godel's 
theorem and belief systems.  Right now I doubt there's much to it.


It is not an analogy. It is provable that all self-referentially
correct machine able to prove enough classical theorems of arithmetic
obeys to G and G*. 
Actually it can be proved that G and G* are still sound (but not
complete) for much more general sort of (non-machine) entity.


 A couple more points.  When I say X is true you can assume 
I mean I 
believe X is very likely to be true, so my Bayesian probability 
of (not X) 
is so low it is best to neglect it.  If I say for example This is 
a chair 
that is what I mean.


Thanks for being precise. This explains probably why there is
so much misunderstanding between us. I believe in arithmetical
truth. In theoretical discussion when I say X is true I
mean it is the case that X.
In *that* frame I isolate a notion of probability in some
indirect way (translating the UDA in arithmetic).
Probability is primary for you, only secondary for me.


Also, if humans have properties that are not shared by your consistent 
machine model, then it is not the humans' fault.  It is not their job to 
describe your model.  It means your model is faulty.


If humans are machine-emulable and if (or when) humans are
self-referentially correct, then they obeys to G/G*.
Of course the consistent machine can become inconsistent. This
is indeed a consequence of G: t - []f. Weird but true,
and provable by the machine!


 Even if I'm not sure of X, I might still want you to believe 
X.


In actual decision process. I can understand. In a theoretical
approach I am less sure. Well I'm sure of the contrary.


It's going to be a war between ordinary people vs. evil. 

I hope so.


 Personally I 
am not too concerned right now with the philosophical differences among the 
ordinary people, be they religious or  intelligent.  This will be serious, I 
fear.


It must be serious. Note that our enemies made a so big
sign of disrespect to the other (us) that no countries can really
protect them without destroying their soul eventually.
The key weapons here will be patience and imagination. 
By killing purposely so much innocent civilians, out of any
military target, the terrorists made a very bad publicity for 
terrorism. They succeed only in reuniting the world against them.
I hope Algerians, Israelians, and all countries so badly attacked
by terrorists will benefit of the revelation that terrorism is
essentially self-defeating. Not defensible.


I'm an atheist, and have no doubts of any significance about it.  I do 
believe that other people should be atheists too, and that on the whole 
religion is an evil.


I don't believe at all religious questioning is an evil. I do
believe that religious institutionalisation can fall in evil trap.
I do believe in something you loose when you give it a name, or
when images are taken too much seriously. I like Alan Watts when
he says a priest should be able to do a wink.
Now you know I think atheism is a religion. 
And the problem with atheist is that they are not aware that
atheism is a religion, so they have a tendancy toward a much
subtil proselitysm I just cannot accept. This tendency is sometimes
linked to the confusion between agnosticism and atheism.
You can 

Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-24 Thread Marchal


Hi Saibal,

I want to add something.  

The Americans, after a traumatic disaster due to fanatics, decide 
to send soldiers, rather courageously, in a far country full of 
dangerous trap.

Something has to been done, and destiny has chosen George Bush
for having the responsability of sending tanks on the eggs.

European, the whole free-world, and even the less free world, cannot 
not support him, and must be ready to help him.

Wherever the enemyness of the enemy comes from. 

Isn't it? I realise this aspect of the thing has perhaps not been 
exagerately clear in my last post.


   This should not, because we are behind the scene, prevent us of
discussing... everything. As George Levy put it, that's our way
fighting the fanatics, of today and tomorrow. 

And we can always ask questions. For exemple, in the 
long run, is not some sort of economical peretstroika necessary? 
Is that realist? Or would it leads to a major breakdown of mondial
economy?

Consider M the money of all the world converted in dollar. What
is the amount of black money? That would correspond to the minimal 
amount of the crack following a straigth and blind economical
transparancy. To minimise that crack we should certainly revise the
definition of crime. To be more honest and more legal at once.
And I would bet more ethical too.

Do you know Taliban makes money with dope?

I would not be astonished if the XXI century end up mondially 
with the Holland or Switzerland solution, in matter of dope.

Bruno




Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-22 Thread George Levy

Who is the enemy?

What is moral? What is not moral?

What is morality in the context of the MWI?

Is Quantum Suicide moral?

Let me propose a conjecture and let us see how far we can go with it:

Morality is the creation, protection and preservation of information.
Immorality is the destruction of information.

In classical religious terms this fits pretty well with the Ten
Commandments. Lying, killing, bearing false witness destroys
information. Adultery messes up social order (information). Honoring
parents, protect and preserves their wisdom and  honors them as creator
(of information). Meta Commandments include observing the Sabbath which
honors creation itself and the first three Commandments which honor the
Creator (of world information). 

As an aside, let me say that in the modern context the destruction of
the environment is immoral because it results in a decrease in
biodeversity (world information). Conversely, work that generates
information is very moral. I like to think that engineers are very moral
individuals (I am one :-)) because they create new thing that do not
exist in nature.  But if you really think about it, any work that
generates a desirable service or product of benefit to society is in
fact adding information to the world and is therefore moral.

In response to Spudboy, we could define murder as killing that results
in the destruction of information. Killing that results in the creation,
preservation or protection of information is not murder. For example, A
lion killing an antelope does so to survive. This action preserves
biodiversity, allows the lions to continue as a specie and shapes the
evolution of lions and antelopes (faster running, better senses of
hearing, sights etc...) In short this action is necessary for the
creation (evolution) of the fauna.

The Taliban destruction of the statues of Buddah, on the other hand was
evil because its aim was to reduce cultural diversity in Afghanistan.
The Holocaust was evil because its aim was to reduce ethnic diversity in
the world. The terrorist action of the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon was evil because its aim was to eliminate a way of life. 

The Taliban operate within a very inflexible system. Bruno would call it
G. Our system on the other hand is much more flexible and adaptable.
Because our way of life allows a continuous adaptation we cannot be
described as a G. -- WE ARE THE TRUE REVOLUTIONARIES! Clearly we present
a threat to the terrorists: OUR WAY OF LIFE SHOWS THAT THEIR G IS
INCONSISTENT! In an evil attempt to restore their consistency, they
attempt to eliminate our way of life. They won't succeed. We shall
adapt. The world will end up better with more information.


Now, how does this conjecture fits with the MWI?

The Plenitude contains zero information. No matter what you do, the
total amount of information will not change. For example, performing a
good action, merely means that you allow your consciousness NAVIGATES
the plenitude to a world where you have performed a good action. Other
branching to counterfactual bad action worlds also exist but YOU have
not NAVIGATED there. Other you's  (Yoush) have navigated there. As you
can see, making decision in the plenitude can be reduced to the concept
of NAVIGATION. You choose a branch, but yoush choose all branches.

Thus the ABSOLUTE information of the world does not change NO MATTER
WHAT YOU DO! 

It seems therefore that just like everything else in our world (all
physical entities) the only type of morality that matters is morality as
seen by the first person. We now enter the realm of first person and
third person perception and relativity. 

To go any further I must now define the concept of objective world in
relative terms. Objective worlds are worlds which share frames of
reference close enough to the first person world as to be
indistinguishable from it. First and third person perceptions are
identical when the third persons live in such objective worlds. First
and third person perceptions differ (as in Quantum Suicide QS or FIN)
when the frames of reference are too far apart.


I would like to make a distinction between absolute morality and
objective morality. As I explained above absolute morality does not
exist - absolute information remains at zero no matter what. Objective
morality on the other hand does because objective worlds do exist.
Objective information can change.

Thus insofar as there are objective worlds, there is objective morality.
Destroying a specie or a person to reduce diversity in the world is
objectively immoral. 

QS or FIN however does not fall within the scope of objective morality
because, in this case, the first and third person worlds are very
significantly different. The only type of morality that applies is first
person morality. It appears that the action of QTI or FIN actually
creates first person information! Since I believe that measure does not
change with QS it appears that QS or FIN is actually moral! This is a

Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-22 Thread Marchal


George Levy wrote:


Let me propose a conjecture and let us see how far we can go with it:

Morality is the creation, protection and preservation of information.
Immorality is the destruction of information.

I agree very much. Even threat of destruction is immoral. I think
pain is linked with anticipation of the destruction of information.
Hidding information can be immoral too in some situation.


In classical religious terms this fits pretty well with the Ten
Commandments. Lying, killing, bearing false witness destroys
information. Adultery messes up social order (information). Honoring
parents, protect and preserves their wisdom and  honors them as creator
(of information). Meta Commandments include observing the Sabbath which
honors creation itself and the first three Commandments which honor the
Creator (of world information). 

As an aside, let me say that in the modern context the destruction of
the environment is immoral because it results in a decrease in
biodeversity (world information). Conversely, work that generates
information is very moral. I like to think that engineers are very moral
individuals (I am one :-)) because they create new thing that do not
exist in nature.  But if you really think about it, any work that
generates a desirable service or product of benefit to society is in
fact adding information to the world and is therefore moral.

In response to Spudboy, we could define murder as killing that results
in the destruction of information. Killing that results in the creation,
preservation or protection of information is not murder. For example, A
lion killing an antelope does so to survive. This action preserves
biodiversity, allows the lions to continue as a specie and shapes the
evolution of lions and antelopes (faster running, better senses of
hearing, sights etc...) In short this action is necessary for the
creation (evolution) of the fauna.

The Taliban destruction of the statues of Buddah, on the other hand was
evil because its aim was to reduce cultural diversity in Afghanistan.


I agree. Making women mute is also a way to destroy or hide information.


The Taliban operate within a very inflexible system. Bruno would call it
G. Our system on the other hand is much more flexible and adaptable.
Because our way of life allows a continuous adaptation we cannot be
described as a G. -- WE ARE THE TRUE REVOLUTIONARIES! Clearly we present
a threat to the terrorists: OUR WAY OF LIFE SHOWS THAT THEIR G IS
INCONSISTENT! In an evil attempt to restore their consistency, they
attempt to eliminate our way of life. They won't succeed. We shall
adapt. The world will end up better with more information.

In term of G/G* the two enemies of the UTM I described were those
machines which communicates they are consistent ([]t), the
machines which communicates they are inconsistent ([][]t). 
And then there are the traditional communicator of the false ([]t).
Among those are the mad machine, the wrong machine the dreaming
machine, and the lier. Your expression their G is ambiguous.
Of course any machine or entity feeling free to ask and talk is a
threat for totalitarian power.

Now, how does this conjecture fits with the MWI?

The Plenitude contains zero information. No matter what you do, the
total amount of information will not change. For example, performing a
good action, merely means that you allow your consciousness NAVIGATES
the plenitude to a world where you have performed a good action. Other
branching to counterfactual bad action worlds also exist but YOU have
not NAVIGATED there. Other you's  (Yoush) have navigated there. As you
can see, making decision in the plenitude can be reduced to the concept
of NAVIGATION. You choose a branch, but yoush choose all branches.

Thus the ABSOLUTE information of the world does not change NO MATTER
WHAT YOU DO!


I am not sure. Locally: I think that making a good action 
augment the probability you and your relative will live in
a branch benefiting the action. From an absolute 3-pov you are right,
but we are not really living at that level.


It seems therefore that just like everything else in our world (all
physical entities) the only type of morality that matters is morality as
seen by the first person. We now enter the realm of first person and
third person perception and relativity.


Ah! OK then.


To go any further I must now define the concept of objective world in
relative terms. Objective worlds are worlds which share frames of
reference close enough to the first person world as to be
indistinguishable from it. 


This is an interesting idea which could help us for defining
the first person plural. I interpret your worlds as histories though.


First and third person perceptions are
identical when the third persons live in such objective worlds. First
and third person perceptions differ (as in Quantum Suicide QS or FIN)
when the frames of reference are too far apart.


I am not sure there could be third person perception. May be I miss

Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-21 Thread Marchal

Saibal Mitra wrote:


Bruno, what did you expect? You should expect Jacques to be a  typical
American. 


The everything list is not a random sample. Unfortunately! 
Because frankly I appreciate the Americans here. 
I find them very sympa.


You know how Americans on opposite sides of an issue tend to
behave.


The champion of biased arguments has been an European!
Note also that Jacques Mallah has never been dishonest. I am
just afraid by its lack of doubt on some fundamental questions.
I keep asking, because I have no prejudice.


E.g. recounting of votes in Florida, 


This is a triumph of democracy ('course, it's not a triumph of 
organisation). In my opinion they should perhaps recount again.
Especially now.  
It is good USA have a lot of allies but then you must listen to
them, and reassure them. Expression like crusade, infinite
justice etc. are diplomatical errors. Worst: they are
strategical errors. Why?
(with comp they are of course G* error: never pretend the
good is on your side, especially when it is obvious).  


pro life versus pro choice...


And Death Penalty! God told them Thou shall not kill, and the
state himself shows the exemple of killing. Shocking. You got a
point. 
But I know there is a lot of Americans shocked by that too.


Unthinkable here in Europe!


Be careful. I'm afraid it is thinkable here in Europe. Perhaps
your country is very open minded, but I am afraid by the last
election in Italy. Even in part of Belgium some election have 
given frightful results. Extremism is not dead in our countries.


Anyway, there is nothing wrong with Jacques, he is behaving 
in a way you should expect from the MWI or your theory.


I don't know. I'm troubled by its persistence to negate the
distinction between first and third person point of view. But
you should not put him so quickly in a box. 


Of course you raise the question are the enemies the americans?.
Of course no. You know that americans are the victims here.
Still you can ask are *some* americans, and more generaly
some occidentals,  responsible?
 
Of course. Islam has begun a secularisation process, with a
begining of separation of state and church, but this has been
stopped by the Wahabit (Saoudian) with the help of the occidentals.
So that the fanatical islamic schools have been favorised and 
are still now favorised, by the occident (who have justify this
by the cold war with the (ex) Soviet Union, but also by the need
of petrol).
But why to continue after the fall of Berlin wall? I don't
understand.
Other questions: when did USA stop supporting the 
Taliban? (After the Buddha destruction? after the 11 sept. ?)

Apparently unrelated, but I'm afraid it is perhaps *the*
central question:
Why is hemp forbidden in most countries? (One century of lies and 
propaganda). The international Petrol/Health politics is criminal 
since a long time.

You can compare the relation between Occident and Middle East
with the relation between the heroin-addict and its dealer.
I'm afraid the real hard dope on this planet could be petrol.

Half-jokingly when Bush administration decides not to respect
the Kyoto protocol (signed by almost all countries in the world),
I told my friends that this was a declaration of war against the
whole planet!

The concrete enemy, I am afraid, is international banditism.
We should depenalize all the dopes, if only to control black
money. Violence is of no use in this war. Its use will always
increase it and make it turn back. They are real technical
international problem which must be solved the most
pacificaly possible.

If Georges Bush drops bombs on Afghanistan, there is a risk he
 will be obliged to drop Bombs on Pakistan, then on Saoudians, then
 ... on Americans, who are the real protector of what happens
to be the roots of the hate of the occidental tolerance.
Let us hope GB will not fall in this diabolical trap.

USA and the whole occident should profit on being victim for doing 
serious inquest in the whole world.

The fanatics are dangerous. The cynics who help them in the
shadow, are much more dangerous. And they are, in part, among us, 
as it is more and more obvious days after days.
Nothing will be simple in this war. But please, in this
conflict the enemy is widespread in all countries. If you say it
is the Afghans, the Americans, the Occidentals, the Muslims,
etc. you will always miss the point.


Bruno







Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-20 Thread Jacques Mallah

From: Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jacques Mallah wrote:
 (I'm currently in North Dakota, but have lived in NYC most of my life.  I 
did not know anyone who was in the WTC.)

I told you my relief, but I begin to doubt !

What do you mean by that?

 Recently, of course, I have been more concerned with the destruction
 caused in NYC by the advocates of suicide and believers in immortality.

I understand your concern with NYC. I share with you the concern
of those terrible and crual 11 sept. events.

Now a pecularity of this war consists in figuring out who
is the enemy, exactly.

It looks like you have solved that problem too. The enemy are the
believers in immortality, the religious people !?!

I did mention that they were also advocates of suicide.

I am fearing amalgamations, like the amalgamations between Muslims and
terrorists (to name one which has been done by some). But you are the
champion: the enemy are all religious people. The war between atheism
and religion !?!

Perhaps I should tell you what are, according to G*, the canonical
enemies of the sound universal machine.

Bruno, you have an amazing ability to misunderstand what I say.  I used 
to think that the problem was that many of the posts on this list concern 
arcane philosophical and technical points, so that misunderstanding was 
understandable.  By now I know better.
I could say Coke is better than Pepsi, and you would interpret that to 
mean that I don't know they are both colas.  Further, you would believe that 
the only way to illustrate the relationship between the two drinks is by 
analogy to G and G*.

The sound machine is maximaly humble, she is agnostic on both
her own consistency and her own inconsistency.

Does that imply it is agnostic on any question?  One of these days, I'll 
have to check out what kind of analogy you are making between Godel's 
theorem and belief systems.  Right now I doubt there's much to it.
A couple more points.  When I say X is true you can assume I mean I 
believe X is very likely to be true, so my Bayesian probability of (not X) 
is so low it is best to neglect it.  If I say for example This is a chair 
that is what I mean.
 Also, if humans have properties that are not shared by your consistent 
machine model, then it is not the humans' fault.  It is not their job to 
describe your model.  It means your model is faulty.

The universal sound machine is forever undecided about any of its possible 
ultimate worldview and, by doubting, never imposes its religion or 
worldview on different machines.

Why not?  Even if I'm not sure of X, I might still want you to believe 
X.  Or, equivalently, I might want your Bayesian probability for X to be 
high even if mine is not.  (Not that I'm that sort though, but some people 
are.)

Today I guess we have still the choice between a war between
moderates and fanatics and a war between fanatics and fanatics.

It's going to be a war between ordinary people vs. evil.  Personally I 
am not too concerned right now with the philosophical differences among the 
ordinary people, be they religious or  intelligent.  This will be serious, I 
fear.

In the second case we loose the war at the start, isn't it?
Do you agree with this last statement? Or are you really, Mister the
Devil's Advocate, a fanatical atheist?

I'm an atheist, and have no doubts of any significance about it.  I do 
believe that other people should be atheists too, and that on the whole 
religion is an evil.  Of the major religions I would say that Islam and 
Christianity are the worst, but the main factor is how seriously the 
believers take it and how radical they are in interpretation.  But again, 
for now I am putting disagreements among non-evil people on the back burner.

 - - - - - - -
   Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
 Physicist  /  Many Worlder  /  Devil's Advocate
I know what no one else knows - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
 My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp




Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-20 Thread George Levy



George Levy wrote:
 
 Wonderful post Bruno! I agree with you 100%.


Oops! I really mean I am 100% sure I do not disagree with you and do not
agree with you.

George :-)



Bruno wrote:
I consider atheism as a form of positive religious belief.
If D represents the proposition God exists (let us say), then

 -the believer says  []D   (I believe in God)
 -the atheist says   []-D  (I believe in the inexistence of God)
 -the agnostic says  -[]D and -[]-D (I don't believe in God and
I don't believe in the inexistence of God)

The agnostic is either indifferent or is awaiting for more information.

I just say this because I consider real atheist as very religious
people, and, what is worth is that most of the time they want us to
believe they have no religion.
Only the agnostic can be said not having still made its religion (yet).

The problem arises because the modalities []-x and -[]x are confused
in most natural language.




Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-19 Thread Saibal Mitra

Bruno, what did you expect? You should expect Jacques to be a  typical
American. You know how Americans on opposite sides of an issue tend to
behave. E.g. recounting of votes in Florida, pro life versus pro choice...
Unthinkable here in Europe!

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with Jacques, he is behaving in a way you
should expect from the MWI or your theory.

Saibal


- Original Message -
From: Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 6:08 PM
Subject: Who is the enemy?



 Jacques Mallah wrote:


 (I'm currently in North Dakota, but have lived in NYC most of my life.  I
 did not know anyone who was in the WTC.)


 I told you my relief, but I begin to doubt ! Look at what you write:


 Recently, of course, I have been more concerned with the destruction
 caused in NYC by the advocates of suicide and believers in immortality.


 I understand your concern with NYC. I share with you the concern
 of those terrible and crual 11 sept. events.

 Now a pecularity of this war consists in figuring out who
 is the enemy, exactly.

 It looks like you have solved that problem too. The enemy are the
 believers in immortality, the religious people !?!

 I am fearing amalgamations, like the amalgamations between Muslims and
 terrorists (to name one which has been done by some). But you are the
 champion: the enemy are all religious people. The war between atheism
 and religion !?!

 Perhaps I should tell you what are, according to G*, the canonical
 enemies of the sound universal machine.

  [ ... and here a very long reasoning with lot of thought experiments,
   or a shorter formal reasoning where the main point consists in
   distinguishing what G and G* say ... I don't want to bore you and
   give you at once the result ...]:

 And it looks like you were almost right.

 The universal sound machines war is between the agnostic and the
 *imposed* religion (whatever that religion is, atheism included).

 The sound machine is maximaly humble, she is agnostic on both
 her own consistency and her own inconsistency. This entails two sort
 of dangerous consistent extensions: 1) meeting a machine (perhaps
 itself) which feels superior, and 2) meeting a machine (perhaps itself)
 which feels inferior.  (Meeting or becoming herself).

 That reminds me a theory of intelligence I developped years ago
 (still from G*):
  a machine is intelligent iff it is not stupid. And a machine is stupid
 iff either the machine believes itself intelligent or the
 machine believes itself stupid.

   [with consistent (resp. inconsistent) in place of
   intelligent (resp. stupid) those sentences are just rephrasing of
   particular instantiation of Godel second incompleteness theorem].

 The universal sound machine is forever undecided about any
 of its possible ultimate worldview and, by doubting, never imposes
 its religion or worldview on different machines. This should not prevent
 her to react against those imposing-view machines. That's just
 self-defense. We can respect only those who respect ourselves, and
 ... reciprocaly.

 With comp any sound machine is condemned to doubt, forever.
 A sound machine can neither be a believer in immortality nor be a
 believer in mortality. The sound machine is forever agnostic on that
 question. That is forever undecided. (and by consequence forever
 undecided about comp of course: they can bet, fear or hope for comp
 and/or for self-soundness, but that's personal). The sound machines
 can also make reasoning with comp *as an hypothesis*.

 This is what I find very humanistic about comp: we are necessarily
 more modest and ignorant about fundamental questions, and thus more
 open and prudent with other's opinions. At the
 same time we get tools for studying the geometry of that ignorance
 and see precisely where matters come from, through the comp act of
 faith.

 Precisely but uncertainly. Like any scientific approaches.
 The consistent computationalist cannot *not* be moderate, like
 the honnest scientific, which is also a professional doubter.

 Some people believe that doubting is a sign of lacking confidence
 in oneself, or even lacking faith. Apparently (with G*) it is
 the contrary. This is coherent with the apparent lack of doubt
 of the fanatics, which above all does not even tolerate sign of doubts.

 Today I guess we have still the choice between a war between
 moderates and fanatics and a war between fanatics and fanatics.
 In the second case we loose the war at the start, isn't it?

 Do you agree with this last statement? Or are you really, Mister the
 Devil's Advocate, a fanatical atheist?


 Bruno






Re: Who is the enemy?

2001-09-19 Thread George Levy

Wonderful post Bruno! I agree with you 100%.

It reminds me of a great book with the title One by Richard Bach the
author of Jonathan Linvingston Seagull, There Is No Such Place As Far
Away and The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah. In One Richard Bach
asks the questions--what if we could meet the people we are destined to
be in twenty years? What if we could confront the people we were in the
past, and those we are right now in parallel lifetimes, in alternate
worlds? He also meets an old man who has a book that holds the Truth.
I won't tell you what happens to the Truth book because that would
spoil the story.

George

Marchal wrote:
 
 Jacques Mallah wrote:
 
 
 (I'm currently in North Dakota, but have lived in NYC most of my life.  I
 did not know anyone who was in the WTC.)
 
 I told you my relief, but I begin to doubt ! Look at what you write:
 
 Recently, of course, I have been more concerned with the destruction
 caused in NYC by the advocates of suicide and believers in immortality.
 
 I understand your concern with NYC. I share with you the concern
 of those terrible and crual 11 sept. events.
 
 Now a pecularity of this war consists in figuring out who
 is the enemy, exactly.
 
 It looks like you have solved that problem too. The enemy are the
 believers in immortality, the religious people !?!
 
 I am fearing amalgamations, like the amalgamations between Muslims and
 terrorists (to name one which has been done by some). But you are the
 champion: the enemy are all religious people. The war between atheism
 and religion !?!
 
 Perhaps I should tell you what are, according to G*, the canonical
 enemies of the sound universal machine.
 
  [ ... and here a very long reasoning with lot of thought experiments,
   or a shorter formal reasoning where the main point consists in
   distinguishing what G and G* say ... I don't want to bore you and
   give you at once the result ...]:
 
 And it looks like you were almost right.
 
 The universal sound machines war is between the agnostic and the
 *imposed* religion (whatever that religion is, atheism included).
 
 The sound machine is maximaly humble, she is agnostic on both
 her own consistency and her own inconsistency. This entails two sort
 of dangerous consistent extensions: 1) meeting a machine (perhaps
 itself) which feels superior, and 2) meeting a machine (perhaps itself)
 which feels inferior.  (Meeting or becoming herself).
 
 That reminds me a theory of intelligence I developped years ago
 (still from G*):
  a machine is intelligent iff it is not stupid. And a machine is stupid
 iff either the machine believes itself intelligent or the
 machine believes itself stupid.
 
   [with consistent (resp. inconsistent) in place of
   intelligent (resp. stupid) those sentences are just rephrasing of
   particular instantiation of Godel second incompleteness theorem].
 
 The universal sound machine is forever undecided about any
 of its possible ultimate worldview and, by doubting, never imposes
 its religion or worldview on different machines. This should not prevent
 her to react against those imposing-view machines. That's just
 self-defense. We can respect only those who respect ourselves, and
 ... reciprocaly.
 
 With comp any sound machine is condemned to doubt, forever.
 A sound machine can neither be a believer in immortality nor be a
 believer in mortality. The sound machine is forever agnostic on that
 question. That is forever undecided. (and by consequence forever
 undecided about comp of course: they can bet, fear or hope for comp
 and/or for self-soundness, but that's personal). The sound machines
 can also make reasoning with comp *as an hypothesis*.
 
 This is what I find very humanistic about comp: we are necessarily
 more modest and ignorant about fundamental questions, and thus more
 open and prudent with other's opinions. At the
 same time we get tools for studying the geometry of that ignorance
 and see precisely where matters come from, through the comp act of
 faith.
 
 Precisely but uncertainly. Like any scientific approaches.
 The consistent computationalist cannot *not* be moderate, like
 the honnest scientific, which is also a professional doubter.
 
 Some people believe that doubting is a sign of lacking confidence
 in oneself, or even lacking faith. Apparently (with G*) it is
 the contrary. This is coherent with the apparent lack of doubt
 of the fanatics, which above all does not even tolerate sign of doubts.
 
 Today I guess we have still the choice between a war between
 moderates and fanatics and a war between fanatics and fanatics.
 In the second case we loose the war at the start, isn't it?
 
 Do you agree with this last statement? Or are you really, Mister the
 Devil's Advocate, a fanatical atheist?
 
 Bruno