Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 02 Mar 2015, at 00:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0  
(zero) or { } - the empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not  
just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe  
in set theory or doesn't believe it is basis enough. As Kronecker  
said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist  
Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of  
some atheists who rejected his thesis.  Otherwise he could easily  
use The One or aperion or quintessence other theologically  
neutral terms.


Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a  
temporal beginning. Maybe it should be Logic (and he could throw  
in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)


I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if  
there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top  
of the thread - Why is there something rather than nothing? It  
just changes it to Why is there a creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever  
satisfies its existence predicate is what exists.


Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing  
I've ever come across that actually works on this basis (being  
logically necessary). Otherwise the universe is just a brute fact -  
which of course it may be.


Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between  
concepts we made up - so maybe logically necessary isn't so  
necessary after all.  I find it interesting that a lot of logically  
necessary truths were contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing  
can be in two places at the same time.  Two things can't be in the  
same place at the same time.  The truths of arithmetic seem to me to  
be the same way.  The number of letter in this word plus the  
number of letters in that word is 10 because each has 5 letters.   
Or is it only 5: t h i s a ?  It depends on how you conceptualize  
letters; are they marks on the paper or are those marks on tokens  
of the Platonic letters?



You are free to develop a quantum theory of numbers.

But to convince us that it is a theory, you need to rely on the usual  
arithmetic taught in high school, or anything Turing equivalent.


Numbers themselves are not logical necessities. But if you have enough  
axiom to represent the computable functions in your theory, you are  
under the incompleteness fate. If your initial beliefs is classical  
(contains the classical tautologies), then G and G* will apply to you,  
as far as you reason correctly about yourself at a correct  
substitution level.


As the goal consists in deriving the correct physics, I limit my  
interview to (simple) correct machine, where correctness refer to the  
usual interpretation of the natural numbers.


That is used in virtually all books making the math used by virtually  
of physicists.


And there is no need to make any metaphysical assumption about the  
existence of the numbers. The point is that there is no need, and no  
possible use, of a metaphysical assumption of primary matter, once we  
bet that we are Turing emulable.


I don't propose anything new, I show that an assumption (the primary  
universe) might not be compatible with the idea that our (generalized)  
brain is Turing-emulable.


Note that Turing emulable is an arithmetical concept: you can *define*  
it using only the symbol s, 0, +, x and predicate calculus.


Bruno




Brent

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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 03 Mar 2015, at 21:03, PGC wrote:




On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:32:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:



 As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles
 Übrige ist Menschenwerk.

Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is

Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlwerk.

Hmm, what is the plural of Zahl in german ...

Lol, it's die Zahlen.


Thank you!




Therefore, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist  
Zahlenwerk.


OK. Nice.



But I think we can say god mostly forgives syntax error of this  
sort, without huge danger of blasphemy. PGC


I hope so. At least we can't misspell the name of God, as God has no  
name :)


Bruno







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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Mar 2015, at 23:47, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/8/2015 2:07 PM, LizR wrote:

On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:

I thought P meant P was possible?
In the alethic interpretation of modal logic,  means possible,  
and [] means necessary.


Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions...
Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ?
So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is  
true


In the temporal interpretation of modal logic,  means sometime,  
and [] means always.


p is true implies that p is sometimes true

In the locus interpretation of modal logic,  means somewhere, and  
[] means everywhere.


...somewhere...

In the deontic interpretation of modal logic,  means permitted,  
and [] means obligatory.


p is permitted (by whom?!)

etc.

Note that all  interpretation are form of possibility (alethic,  
temporal, locative, ...).


In our interview of the Löbian machine,  is translated in  
arithmetic with Gödel beweisbar predicate:


In particular: t is consistency.
t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number  
coding the sentence 0 = s(0).


OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then  
that implies that p is consistent - which, roughly speaking, is  
what Godel showed to be wrong.


Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x.  
Proof must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they  
can be coded into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the  
proof named by y and looks if it proves the sentence coded by x.


t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove  
the false, or PA is consistent.


So to summarize you don't want p-[]p as a modal axiom because it  
particularizes to t-[]t which says all true propositions are  
provable, contrary to Godel's theorem.


I guess there are typo error here. You mean p - p.

I just have no choice, p are for arbitrary arithmetical proposition,  
and  is for ~beweisbar ~p.


Now G* proves p - p, and this means that this is true for the  
machine, bu G does not prove it, which means that the machine cannot  
alway justify that fact.


And if you know Gödels theorem, you know that already with t, we don't  
have t - t. If G proves that G would prove t, and the machine  
would prove its consistency, which she can't.




Godel proved PA incompleteness by diagonalization on classes of  
numbers.  But this applies to PA, not to every axiom set.


It applies on every axiom set rich enough to define what is computation.




So why not conclude there is something wrong with PA?


It applies to all recursively enumerable extension of PA. It applies  
to us, by comp, and assuming we are consistent enough (which is the  
case in the ideal case by construction).




To me it seems more intuitively compelling to say p-p than to say  
every number has a successor and deny p-p.


You confuse the non intuitive truth about us, with the intuition of  
the first person. yes, they do oppose, that is why []p, []p  p, []p   
t, []p  t  p, obey different logic.


The first person, S4Grz does prove p - p. And, yes, it is very hard  
to her to bet she is a machine, and she is correct by doing so. So the  
machine's soul, in some sense, is not a machine. I explained this to  
Craig sometimes ago.


But I don't defend comp, I just show that with comp, physics and  
theology become branch of number theory. This makes comp testable,  
just compare the computer-physics with nature.


Bruno






Brent

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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Mar 2015, at 22:07, LizR wrote:


On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:

I thought P meant P was possible?
In the alethic interpretation of modal logic,  means possible, and  
[] means necessary.


Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions...
Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ?
So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is  
true


In the temporal interpretation of modal logic,  means sometime,  
and [] means always.


p is true implies that p is sometimes true


Yes, and in this case, the actual word is called now. You can  
translate:


p is true now implies that p is sometimes true.






In the locus interpretation of modal logic,  means somewhere, and  
[] means everywhere.


...somewhere...


yes, and the actual world is called here.





In the deontic interpretation of modal logic,  means permitted,  
and [] means obligatory.


p is permitted (by whom?!)


permitted by the actual government (say).





etc.

Note that all  interpretation are form of possibility (alethic,  
temporal, locative, ...).


In our interview of the Löbian machine,  is translated in  
arithmetic with Gödel beweisbar predicate:


In particular: t is consistency.
t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number  
coding the sentence 0 = s(0).


OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then  
that implies that p is consistent - which, roughly speaking, is  
what Godel showed to be wrong.


To be true on PA, but non provable by PA. And so it is not a theorem  
of G, as G is a modal logic which axiomatized the arithmetical  
provability.





Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x.  
Proof must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they  
can be coded into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the  
proof named by y and looks if it proves the sentence coded by x.


t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the  
false, or PA is consistent.


Similarly and more generally p means (PA + p) is consistent, or p  
is consistent with PA, or PA does not prove 0= 1 when assuming  
p, ...  as formulated in the language of PA.


PA=Peano arithmetic, yes?


Yes. And RA = Robinson Arithmetic. PA = Robinson Arithmetic + the  
infinitely many induction axioms:


If F(0) and for all x (P(x) - P(s(x)), then for all x F(x).

It means that if a formula F, meant for a proposition or property is  
hereditarily preserved by the successor relation, then, if it is true  
for 0, it is true for all its successors. Like the infinite range of  
dominoes.







So p asserts that p is true relative to PA?


When PA asserts p, it means, strictly speaking, only that PA believes  
p. But *we* are trusting PA, and so we know that it means also that p  
is true (in the usual interpretation of the numbers). If PA asserts
ExEy 2x^2 = y^2, it means that PA believes that there is two numbers n  
and m such that two times the square of

n is equal to the square of m. And that is true, of course, n = m = 0.



If so wouldn't P imply P? Or have I misremembered what P means?

Note that p - p is the contrapositive of [] ~p  -  ~p.

As a axiom, it is valid for all p, so, as an axiom, p - p and []p  
- p are equivalent.


But []p - p cannot be an axiom of the modal logic of provability  
(G), that is when [] is the arithmetical beweisbar, given that []f - 
 f cannot be proven by PA (PA would prove ~[]f, that t, that is,  
its own consistency. PA is consistent, and cannot prove its own  
consistency.


So we don't have []p - p, nor p - p.

Given that p means consistency, yes.


Even, that PA, or the Löbian entity under consideration is consistent.







In fact, by Löb's theorem, we have that []p - p is provable if and  
only p itself is provable. And the machine can prove that: []([]p -  
p) - []p (and the reverse which is trivial, if the machine proves  
p, she can prove that anything implies p).


Consistency of p is a form of possibility.

In fact p - p  *is* true, for all p, but the machine cannot  
prove all such formula, like she can't prove for all p that  []p - p.


This is made nice and precise by saying that []p - p and p -  
p belongs to G* minus G, the corona of the proper theology of the  
machine. It contains all (3p) truth *about* the machine that the  
machine cannot rationally justified, yet that she can intuit or  
produce as true in a high number of different ways.


OK?

Yes, I think so.

It also answers Brent's why can't we just define  differently so  
that... whatever he said - the answer being that redefining   
would mean we got something completely different and probably  
nonsensical.


Yes. I don't use modal logic like an analytical philosopher could do,  
with the goal of formalizing a philosophical, or deontical notions.


Well, I do it when telling that I define (abstractly) knowledge by the  
axiom of S4. Most philosophers 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-08 Thread LizR
On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:

 I thought P meant P was possible?

 In the alethic interpretation of modal logic,  means possible, and []
 means necessary.


Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions...
Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ?
So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is true


 In the temporal interpretation of modal logic,  means sometime, and []
 means always.


p is true implies that p is sometimes true


 In the locus interpretation of modal logic,  means somewhere, and []
 means everywhere.


...somewhere...


 In the deontic interpretation of modal logic,  means permitted, and []
 means obligatory.


p is permitted (by whom?!)


 etc.

 Note that all  interpretation are form of possibility (alethic,
 temporal, locative, ...).

 In our interview of the Löbian machine,  is translated in arithmetic
 with Gödel beweisbar predicate:

 In particular: t is consistency.
 t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number coding the
 sentence 0 = s(0).


OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then that
implies that p is consistent - which, roughly speaking, is what Godel
showed to be wrong.


 Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x. Proof
 must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they can be coded
 into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the proof named by y and
 looks if it proves the sentence coded by x.

 t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the
 false, or PA is consistent.

 Similarly and more generally p means (PA + p) is consistent, or p is
 consistent with PA, or PA does not prove 0= 1 when assuming p, ...  as
 formulated in the language of PA.

 PA=Peano arithmetic, yes? So p asserts that p is true relative to PA?

 If so wouldn't P imply P? Or have I misremembered what P means?

 Note that p - p is the contrapositive of [] ~p  -  ~p.

 As a axiom, it is valid for all p, so, as an axiom, p - p and []p - p
 are equivalent.

 But []p - p cannot be an axiom of the modal logic of provability (G),
 that is when [] is the arithmetical beweisbar, given that []f - f cannot
 be proven by PA (PA would prove ~[]f, that t, that is, its own
 consistency. PA is consistent, and cannot prove its own consistency.

 So we don't have []p - p, nor p - p.


Given that p means consistency, yes.


 In fact, by Löb's theorem, we have that []p - p is provable if and only p
 itself is provable. And the machine can prove that: []([]p - p) - []p
 (and the reverse which is trivial, if the machine proves p, she can prove
 that anything implies p).

 Consistency of p is a form of possibility.

 In fact p - p  *is* true, for all p, but the machine cannot prove all
 such formula, like she can't prove for all p that  []p - p.

 This is made nice and precise by saying that []p - p and p - p
 belongs to G* minus G, the corona of the proper theology of the machine. It
 contains all (3p) truth *about* the machine that the machine cannot
 rationally justified, yet that she can intuit or produce as true in a high
 number of different ways.

 OK?


Yes, I think so.

It also answers Brent's why can't we just define  differently so
that... whatever he said - the answer being that redefining  would mean
we got something completely different and probably nonsensical. We could in
theory define a new whatever-you-call-it however Brent thinks that could be
done (I don't think he filled in that minor detail?). But that would be a
huge exercise, and probably impossible given Godel's theorem, because maths
kicks back. (Of course it maths was just something we made up, this
wouldn't be a problem I guess.)


 Now, that is why the rational believability predicate acts like a
 believability and not a knowability, and that is why to get a knower, we
 need to impose explicitly the link with the truth: that is, we have to
 apply Theaetetus' idea, and get the new operator []p  p. That one, unlike
 the G box (beweisbar), is NOT translatable in the language of the machine.
 The first person has no name, no 3p description, and that explains why it
 match so nicely with Plotinus universal soul or with the greek inner god.

 I can almost hear someone preparing to tell you that the Ancient Greeks
were a bunch of nincompoops. Watch out!


 Bruno





 On 7 March 2015 at 21:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 07 Mar 2015, at 02:51, meekerdb wrote:

  On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist
 context it means true in the standard model of arithmetic, which is this
 reality if you want.

  In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our
 arithmetical context is NOT necessarily among the accessible world, because
 we don't have []p - p). With the logic of provability, we cannot access
 the world we are in. p does not imply p


 I 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-08 Thread meekerdb

On 3/8/2015 2:07 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be 
wrote:



On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:

I thought P meant P was possible?

In the alethic interpretation of modal logic,  means possible, and [] 
means necessary.


Before I get lost in logic, just going by the verbal descriptions...
Am I right in thinking that p means p is true ?
So p - p would mean p is true implies that it's possible p is true

In the temporal interpretation of modal logic,  means sometime, and [] 
means always.


p is true implies that p is sometimes true

In the locus interpretation of modal logic,  means somewhere, and [] 
means everywhere.


...somewhere...

In the deontic interpretation of modal logic,  means permitted, and [] 
means
obligatory.


p is permitted (by whom?!)

etc.

Note that all  interpretation are form of possibility (alethic, 
temporal,
locative, ...).

In our interview of the Löbian machine,  is translated in arithmetic with 
Gödel
beweisbar predicate:

In particular: t is consistency.
t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number coding the 
sentence
0 = s(0).


OK, so this is saying that p - p would mean if p is true then that implies that p is 
consistent - which, roughly speaking, is what Godel showed to be wrong.


Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x. Proof 
must be
mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they can be coded into 
numbers, and
the predicate proof just decode the proof named by y and looks if it proves 
the
sentence coded by x.

t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the false, or 
PA
is consistent.



So to summarize you don't want p-[]p as a modal axiom because it particularizes to t-[]t 
which says all true propositions are provable, contrary to Godel's theorem.  Godel proved 
PA incompleteness by diagonalization on classes of numbers.  But this applies to PA, not 
to every axiom set.  So why not conclude there is something wrong with PA?  To me it seems 
more intuitively compelling to say p-p than to say every number has a successor and 
deny p-p.


Brent

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-08 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:


I thought P meant P was possible?



In the alethic interpretation of modal logic,  means possible, and  
[] means necessary.
In the temporal interpretation of modal logic,  means sometime, and  
[] means always.
In the locus interpretation of modal logic,  means somewhere, and []  
means everywhere.
In the deontic interpretation of modal logic,  means permitted, and  
[] means obligatory.

etc.

Note that all  interpretation are form of possibility (alethic,  
temporal, locative, ...).


In our interview of the Löbian machine,  is translated in arithmetic  
with Gödel beweisbar predicate:


In particular: t is consistency.
t = ~[] f = ~ beweisbar (0 = 1), with 0=1 being a number coding  
the sentence 0 = s(0).


Beweisbar(x) = Ey proof(y, x), that is: it exist a proof (y) of x.  
Proof must be mechanically checkable, and so, like sentences, they can  
be coded into numbers, and the predicate proof just decode the proof  
named by y and looks if it proves the sentence coded by x.


t = ~[] f means intuitively, as said by PA: PA does not prove the  
false, or PA is consistent.


Similarly and more generally p means (PA + p) is consistent, or p  
is consistent with PA, or PA does not prove 0= 1 when assuming  
p, ...  as formulated in the language of PA.





If so wouldn't P imply P? Or have I misremembered what P means?


Note that p - p is the contrapositive of [] ~p  -  ~p.

As a axiom, it is valid for all p, so, as an axiom, p - p and []p - 
 p are equivalent.


But []p - p cannot be an axiom of the modal logic of provability (G),  
that is when [] is the arithmetical beweisbar, given that []f - f  
cannot be proven by PA (PA would prove ~[]f, that t, that is, its  
own consistency. PA is consistent, and cannot prove its own consistency.


So we don't have []p - p, nor p - p.

In fact, by Löb's theorem, we have that []p - p is provable if and  
only p itself is provable. And the machine can prove that: []([]p -  
p) - []p (and the reverse which is trivial, if the machine proves p,  
she can prove that anything implies p).


Consistency of p is a form of possibility.

In fact p - p  *is* true, for all p, but the machine cannot prove  
all such formula, like she can't prove for all p that  []p - p.


This is made nice and precise by saying that []p - p and p - p  
belongs to G* minus G, the corona of the proper theology of the  
machine. It contains all (3p) truth *about* the machine that the  
machine cannot rationally justified, yet that she can intuit or  
produce as true in a high number of different ways.


OK?

Now, that is why the rational believability predicate acts like a  
believability and not a knowability, and that is why to get a knower,  
we need to impose explicitly the link with the truth: that is, we have  
to apply Theaetetus' idea, and get the new operator []p  p. That one,  
unlike the G box (beweisbar), is NOT translatable in the language of  
the machine. The first person has no name, no 3p description, and that  
explains why it match so nicely with Plotinus universal soul or with  
the greek inner god.


Bruno






On 7 March 2015 at 21:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 07 Mar 2015, at 02:51, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist  
context it means true in the standard model of arithmetic, which  
is this reality if you want.


In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our  
arithmetical context is NOT necessarily among the accessible  
world, because we don't have []p - p). With the logic of  
provability, we cannot access the world we are in. p does not  
imply p


I wonder about such definitions of modal operators.  WHY doesn't p  
imply p?  We could define  so that it did.  Is there some good  
reason not to?



The modal logic are imposed by the fact that he box (and thus the  
diamond) are the one describing the self-reference, by Solovay  
theorem. The box is Gödel's beweisbar. It is an arithmetical  
predicate. We really assume only Robinson (and Peano) arithmetic. We  
don't have p - p, because this would mean in particular t - t,  
and if that was a theorem of G, then t would be provable,  
contradicting Gödel's incompleteness.


All modal logics are extracted from arithmetic. They are shortcuts  
provided by Solovay's completeness theorem of G and G*, and the  
Theaetetus' variants.


Bruno






Brent

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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




--
You received this message because 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-07 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 07 Mar 2015, at 02:51, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist  
context it means true in the standard model of arithmetic, which is  
this reality if you want.


In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our  
arithmetical context is NOT necessarily among the accessible world,  
because we don't have []p - p). With the logic of provability, we  
cannot access the world we are in. p does not imply p


I wonder about such definitions of modal operators.  WHY doesn't p  
imply p?  We could define  so that it did.  Is there some good  
reason not to?



The modal logic are imposed by the fact that he box (and thus the  
diamond) are the one describing the self-reference, by Solovay  
theorem. The box is Gödel's beweisbar. It is an arithmetical  
predicate. We really assume only Robinson (and Peano) arithmetic. We  
don't have p - p, because this would mean in particular t - t,  
and if that was a theorem of G, then t would be provable,  
contradicting Gödel's incompleteness.


All modal logics are extracted from arithmetic. They are shortcuts  
provided by Solovay's completeness theorem of G and G*, and the  
Theaetetus' variants.


Bruno






Brent

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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-06 Thread meekerdb

On 3/6/2015 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist context it means true 
in the standard model of arithmetic, which is this reality if you want.


In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our arithmetical context is 
NOT necessarily among the accessible world, because we don't have []p - p). With the 
logic of provability, we cannot access the world we are in. p does not imply p


I wonder about such definitions of modal operators.  WHY doesn't p imply p? We */could/* 
define  so that it did.  Is there some good reason not to?


Brent

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 05 Mar 2015, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/5/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my  
faculties and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study  
of the sciences is not doubt.

Doubt is the lack of faith!


I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the  
matter.


Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of  
everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able  
to doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith  
can build on that.


So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any  
theories, texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is  
definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations,  etc.


The universal machines are confronted to something similar when  
they introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second  
recursion diagonal way).


In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the  
doubt, but without ever needing to abandon faith.


It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all*  
the fables.


So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular?


Why? I didn't say that.


Of course you didn't.  It's ineffable. :-)


Lol.

Of course, I meant the one which has no name/description.









  I can see why a logician would think that way; since he always  
wants to start from axioms he assumes.


Not at all. Humans start from a reality and develop beliefs on that  
reality, and they assume axioms to have their theories, but they  
doubt the theory, as they trust the reality. Fundamental reality  
kicks back all theories, but that is nice, as it is a promise of  
infinite learning and surprises.




But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries  
to operationalize the coherence theory of truth.



Not too bad blaspheme for the practical purpose, although it can't  
really work, but that is another topic.
Fundamentally you should not like it, as it confuse truth and  
reality (possibility/consistency).  It confuses p and p.

It confuses p is true with there is a reality in which p is true.


Does p is true mean p is true in *this* reality, or what?


That might depend on the context. Usually, in our computationalist  
context it means true in the standard model of arithmetic, which is  
this reality if you want.


In the modal context, it means true in this world (which in our  
arithmetical context is NOT necessarily among the accessible world,  
because we don't have []p - p). With the logic of provability, we  
cannot access the world we are in. p does not imply p


Bruno





Brent

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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-05 Thread meekerdb

On 3/5/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence 
for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt.

Doubt is the lack of faith!


I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter.

Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of everything, and so, we 
do trust something. The more we are able to doubt, the more we can see what remains 
undoubtable, and faith can build on that.


So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories, texts, etc. The 
faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations,  etc.


The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they introspect 
themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal way).


In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but without ever 
needing to abandon faith.


It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the fables.


So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular?


Why? I didn't say that.


Of course you didn't.  It's ineffable. :-)





  I can see why a logician would think that way; since he always wants to start from 
axioms he assumes.


Not at all. Humans start from a reality and develop beliefs on that reality, and they 
assume axioms to have their theories, but they doubt the theory, as they trust the 
reality. Fundamental reality kicks back all theories, but that is nice, as it is a 
promise of infinite learning and surprises.




But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries to operationalize the 
coherence theory of truth.



Not too bad blaspheme for the practical purpose, although it can't really work, but that 
is another topic.
Fundamentally you should not like it, as it confuse truth and reality 
(possibility/consistency).  It confuses p and p.

It confuses p is true with there is a reality in which p is true.


Does p is true mean p is true in *this* reality, or what?

Brent

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties  
and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the  
sciences is not doubt.

Doubt is the lack of faith!


I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the  
matter.


Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of  
everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to  
doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can  
build on that.


So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories,  
texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond  
words, texts, theories, equations,  etc.


The universal machines are confronted to something similar when  
they introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion  
diagonal way).


In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt,  
but without ever needing to abandon faith.


It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all*  
the fables.


So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular?


Why? I didn't say that.



  I can see why a logician would think that way; since he always  
wants to start from axioms he assumes.


Not at all. Humans start from a reality and develop beliefs on that  
reality, and they assume axioms to have their theories, but they doubt  
the theory, as they trust the reality. Fundamental reality kicks back  
all theories, but that is nice, as it is a promise of infinite  
learning and surprises.




But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries to  
operationalize the coherence theory of truth.



Not too bad blaspheme for the practical purpose, although it can't  
really work, but that is another topic.
Fundamentally you should not like it, as it confuse truth and reality  
(possibility/consistency).  It confuses p and p.

It confuses p is true with there is a reality in which p is true.

Bruno









Brent

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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties  
and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences  
is not doubt.

Doubt is the lack of faith!


I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter.

Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of  
everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to  
doubt, the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can  
build on that.


So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories,  
texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond  
words, texts, theories, equations,  etc.


The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they  
introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion  
diagonal way).


In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt,  
but without ever needing to abandon faith.


It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the  
fables.


Bruno




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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-04 Thread meekerdb

On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence for 
reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt.

Doubt is the lack of faith!


I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter.

Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of everything, and so, we 
do trust something. The more we are able to doubt, the more we can see what remains 
undoubtable, and faith can build on that.


So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories, texts, etc. The 
faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words, texts, theories, equations,  etc.


The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they introspect 
themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal way).


In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but without ever 
needing to abandon faith.


It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the fables.


So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular?  I can see why a logician 
would think that way; since he always wants to start from axioms he assumes.  But note the 
Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which tries to operationalize the coherence theory 
of truth.


Brent

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-04 Thread John Mikes
This and the next post of yours are classic. In the next one you cast doubt
on our space-based worldview - I was waiting for the next step: the
TIME_BASED doubt.
*
Bruno quoted Samiya concluding: *Doubt is the lack of faith!*  - and I
could not keep my agnostic mind from reversing this into:
*Faith is the lack of doubt*.
*
And I salute your hint to the axioms as startups for logicians' thinking. I
would add tothe 'he assumes' - in order to verify the theories applicable
in (our) science.

Regards
JM

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


  On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:

  My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and
 intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not
 doubt.
 Doubt is the lack of faith!


  I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the matter.

  Science is only doubt. But as Descartes saw, we cannot doubt of
 everything, and so, we do trust something. The more we are able to doubt,
 the more we can see what remains undoubtable, and faith can build on that.

  So, those who have the faith have no problem doubting any theories,
 texts, etc. The faith rises from within, and is definitely beyond words,
 texts, theories, equations,  etc.

  The universal machines are confronted to something similar when they
 introspect themselves (in the sense of Kleene second recursion diagonal
 way).

  In front of the absolute truth, science can only augment the doubt, but
 without ever needing to abandon faith.

  It is the faith in the ineffable which invites the doubt on *all* the
 fables.


 So you must have faith - but not in anything in particular?  I can see why
 a logician would think that way; since he always wants to start from axioms
 he assumes.  But note the Google paper on Knowledge Based Trust which
 tries to operationalize the coherence theory of truth.

 Brent

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


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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2015, at 20:16, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:




On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:


Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for  
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative  
theologians.


God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of  
worship (loving obedience).


That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking  
it go without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said  
by anyone, because you can't really name God so as to be clear  
about what to obey to. Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant,  
to make believe he is the intermediate. That happens very often.






Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points  
to an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection,  
say, at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of  
time and space, and explains the reason of the perception of  
origin, time, space, etc


I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is  
not omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many  
things, including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge  
and ability to change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all  
things, but then unable to change anything, or forgetting and then  
being able to change and move.


Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems  
appropriate to you, however I would suggest that you do not use of  
the term Allah, as the concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly- 
able, perfectly and constantly all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing,  
perfectly-commanding and perfectly-governing being, in control of  
everything


So why worry?

If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is  
Allah will?






and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.


I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.

But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when  
they believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid,  
intermediate between God and humans, for political purpose. I am  
not sure at all, but it does look like blasphemy.






Allah alone is worthy of worship,


Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't  
think any human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I  
think is Allah in arab) has no name.


Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.


The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something  
that set in motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no  
longer involved in the process of creation, forgets, unable to act,  
and so on.



I think that you are not entirely correct on this. Both from a 3p pov,  
and the 1p pov, although what you say might make a bit more sense from  
the 3p view.


Yet, in the 3p view, the initiating (by zero, successor) is easier for  
us to connective like it was a sort of procedure working in time. But  
this is due to our limitation, and if this would be true, (like it is  
in intuitionistic mathematics), it is provably false in classical  
mathematics, where the truth of a sentence is not related to anything  
temporal, and indeed escape entirely the realm of procedure.


Then an internal dynamics appears in the 1-views, distributed in the  
whole arithmetical reality, in a way which is beyond the procedure too.


So, it makes sense in the arithmetical realm, (which is provably  
enough when we assume computationalism) to say that such a truth, like  
God, is present everywhere and acts everywhere. It is open if it has  
will, per se, but we have already suggestion that it acquires  
personality when restricted to machines, or intermediates non-machine  
entities (which exists provably in arithmetic).



That is not the concept of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most  
religions.


I am not sure why you seem so sure about it. If you are correct, given  
that there is only one God, and that this remains true when we assume  
computationalism, if you are correct that would make Islam incoherent  
with computationalism. I tend to believe the contrary, a priori. Only  
a too much literal interpretation of the Quran would make it  
incoherent with computationalism. Many muslims scholars can agree with  
this, at least this is what I get from my reading of them.




That is why I suggested that perhaps what you've discovered is not  
God but rather an origin, a primary creation 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-03 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Mar 2015, at 22:39, LizR wrote:

If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0  
(zero) or { } - the empty set?


I can like 0 and 2 as the primordial Goddesse, enclosing the old  
fashioned male God who thought he was the source of all things, but he  
was just a child playing in the magical garden sustained by the  
goddess of annihilation (0) and the goddess of creation the number 2.


But coming back on being serious, the things the platonist name the  
one is closer to the concept of truth, with the fact that such truth  
is encompassing the machine-believer, and this makes it undefinable  
from the first person perspective. Eventually, it defines the notion  
of first person, which lives at the intersection of belief and God  
([]p  p), according to the definition of Theaetetus).


God is approximated here as the knower of the larger set of true  
sentences about you (or about the universal person) and your relation  
with the rest of what can exist relatively to you (or relatively to  
the universal person. The universal person is the one whose logic of  
truth, belief, knowledge, observable and sensible are described by the  
eight variant of the Gödel-Löbian provability predicate. It is an  
ideal simple rational believer, since Gödel we know it is infinitely  
non trivial, but thanks to Solovay, the propositional logical part are  
decidable.


The intersection of all religion, if you read Aldous Huxley, is in  
that set, if you agree with the plotinus translation in arithmetic.


The universal dovetailer is the sigma_1 truth, to which  
computationalism gives a special role. But God would be, in that  
approximation the union of all sigma_i and pi_i truth. probably the  
analytical truth to, but that is for the internal inside understanding.


For God I use usually truth, but I use God to examplify  
relationship between truth about a machine, truth as conceived by a  
machine, truth as undistinguishbale from the Perenial God, from the  
machine's pov. You need two words to equate God and Truth. I am only  
following the greek (neo)platonist tradition, where God is use for  
concepts and possible first principle.





I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator,


There are none. But there are no evidence for a creation either,  
beyond an extrapolation which ease our lives.


But there are evidence of persistent relation between numbers, and  
between some measurable numbers. There are evidences for persons and  
stories.


There are evidence for some simple but deep truth, related to good and  
bad, life and afterlife, etc.


Using theology is an act of modesty. A way to recall you need faith  
in some religion; here you need at least some faith in a possible type  
of technological reincarnation. (That is entails infinitely  
arithmetical reincarnation is a consequence).




but even if there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question  
at the top of the thread - Why is there something rather than  
nothing? It just changes it to Why is there a creator?



And computationalism changes that question into why there are numbers  
and why do they obey to addition and mutiplication. Since the failure  
of logicism, we know that we cannot derive them from logic alone. That  
is why I ask you to be willing enough to assume that
x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), and an half dozen other obvious  
axioms. (or Kxy = x, and Sxyz = (xz)(yz) which are even simpler).


Then assuming computationalism, that MUST be enough to explain the  
sharable persistant illusions, and in only one way: by the logic of  
the observable (defined by the notion of probability one, or the  
relative measure on infinitely many computations.


And what I find wonderful, is that from assuming x + 0 = 0, etc. It  
can be explained why such beliefs (or Turing equivalent) cannot be  
avoided. It explains why we just cannot explain our faith in the  
numbers addition and multiplication, like it explains alson but  
differently why consciousness and truth are not definable, etc.


The numbers, or the combinators, are the minimal unsolvable mystery.  
It assumes some God already implicitly, like Kronecker guessed perhaps.


Bruno







On 2 March 2015 at 08:16, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com  
wrote:



On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:




On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:


Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for  
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative  
theologians.


God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of  
worship (loving obedience).


That might be true for those who meet 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-03 Thread PGC


On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:32:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:




  As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles   
  Übrige ist Menschenwerk. 

 Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is 

 Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlwerk. 

 Hmm, what is the plural of Zahl in german ... 


Lol, it's die Zahlen. 

Therefore, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist 
Zahlenwerk. 

But I think we can say god mostly forgives syntax error of this sort, 
without huge danger of blasphemy. PGC

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:58, LizR wrote:


On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0  
(zero) or { } - the empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not  
just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in  
set theory or doesn't believe it is basis enough. As Kronecker said,  
Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist  
Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of  
some atheists who rejected his thesis.  Otherwise he could easily  
use The One or aperion or quintessence other theologically neutral  
terms.


Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a  
temporal beginning. Maybe it should be Logic (and he could throw  
in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)


I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if  
there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top  
of the thread - Why is there something rather than nothing? It  
just changes it to Why is there a creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever  
satisfies its existence predicate is what exists.


Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing  
I've ever come across that actually works on this basis (being  
logically necessary). Otherwise the universe is just a brute fact -  
which of course it may be.


I guess you mean the fact that we explain the phenomenological  
existence of god, universe, consciousness, from x+ 0 = 0, etc.


x + 0, etc, are our new brute facts. Together with the  
computationalist hope that comp is true, the doctor competent, and the  
substitution level low enough, in case we practice.
Some can say, like John Clark, doctor, if you exist, I trust you do  
your best.


I am aware that for non logician, it is not that easy to understand  
that x + 0 = x has to be assumed, or equivalent. Formally, most logic  
are very weak, you cannot prove the existence of 0 with them, still  
less of a universal number. Now if you assume the S and K laws, then  
you can prove that x + 0 = 0, accepting combinators definition of  
numbers. For the S and K laws, or from those simple arithmetical  
axiom; you can prove the existence of universal numbers, and of their  
discourse about their multiple phenomenologies (the intensional  
variant. A believer is a believer in such a theory, + the belief of  
the induction axioms, which is what makes them obeying G and G*, when  
self-referentially correct.


I use only the most known elementary, and not so elementary, theorem  
from computer science and mathematical logic.


The key technical things is in the difference between Cantor diagonal  
argument, tarski diagonal argument, Gödel diagonal argument, and, the  
most important of all Kleene diagonal argument.


I will have to go, and as the number of mails seems infinite, I guess  
I have an infinite time to comment them. The month of mars is tightly  
scheduled. Thanks for patience.


Bruno







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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-03 Thread LizR
On 4 March 2015 at 06:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2015, at 22:39, LizR wrote:

 If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
 { } - the empty set?

 I can like 0 and 2 as the primordial Goddesse, enclosing the old fashioned
 male God who thought he was the source of all things, but he was just a
 child playing in the magical garden sustained by the goddess of
 annihilation (0) and the goddess of creation the number 2.


LIKE +1

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-03 Thread LizR
On 4 March 2015 at 09:03, PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

 But I think we can say god mostly forgives syntax error of this sort,
 without huge danger of blasphemy. PGC

 Unless they cause the universe to crash.

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0  
(zero) or { } - the empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not  
just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in  
set theory or doesn't believe it is basis enough.


Yes. There is only one arithmetic of natural numbers on which everyone  
agree. ZF is a nice theory, but there are many different  
interpretations, and worst, many very different theories of set. We do  
have a quasi communicable notion of standard model for arithmetic, but  
not for set.


Also, the quantified qG and qG*, and thus their intensional variants,  
are not immune of Quine Barcan-Marcus critics of predicate modal  
logic, unlike the qG and qG* of arithmetic.


Nobody really believe in set theory. It is the Fortran of formal  
mathematics, if you want. yet, quite useful for handling little set  
naively, and quite useful to climb the more possible on the  
transfinite. But those are in the meta of computer science.




As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles  
Übrige ist Menschenwerk.


Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is

Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlwerk.

Hmm, what is the plural of Zahl in german ...


At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of some atheists who  
rejected his thesis.


Without reading it, and just because it contained the term  
consciousness.




Otherwise he could easily use The One or aperion or quintessence  
other theologically neutral terms.



People would miss the point that computationalism is not theologically  
neutral at all.








I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if  
there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top  
of the thread - Why is there something rather than nothing? It  
just changes it to Why is there a creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary


I guess this is a typo. I insist all the time that since the failure  
of logicism, arithmetic is NOT logically necessary. If it was, I would  
not need to add the arithmetical axioms to the theory. Logic would be  
the theory, but that is not enough. I make clear that I assume x + 0 =  
0, etc.




and therefore whatever satisfies its existence predicate is what  
exists.


There is no existence predicate.





Brent
Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with  
the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.

   --- Ambrose Bierce


That is logic. yes. But the comp TOE is not logic, which is only a  
tool. The TOE is arithmetic, or anything Turing equivalent.



Bruno





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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread John Mikes
Schoppenhauer?

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
 { } - the empty set?

 I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
 such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
 Why is there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is
 there a creator?

 On 2 March 2015 at 08:16, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:



 On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
 (loving obedience).


 That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go
 without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,
 because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to.
 Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the
 intermediate. That happens very often.




 Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


 I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




 From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an
 origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



 I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say,
 at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space,
 and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc

 I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not
 omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,
 including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to
 change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable
 to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move.


 Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to
 you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the
 concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly
 all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and
 perfectly-governing being, in control of everything


 So why worry?

 If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah will?




 and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.


 I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.

 But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they
 believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid, intermediate
 between God and humans, for political purpose. I am not sure at all, but it
 does look like blasphemy.




 Allah alone is worthy of worship,


 Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think any
 human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is Allah in
 arab) has no name.

 Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.


 The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something that
 set in motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no longer
 involved in the process of creation, forgets, unable to act, and so on.
 That is not the concept of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most religions.
 That is why I suggested that perhaps what you've discovered is not God but
 rather an origin, a primary creation of sorts, may be. Feel free to call it
 whatever you like, I was just sharing my thoughts on the matter.

 Samiya




 and all else is creation,



 Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think
 the neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the
 Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.



 and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to Allah.
 Use of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be a good idea.


 Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?

 Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use Allah.
 Logically.

 And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible that
 it is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?

 I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly understand
 that you might not appreciate the doubt about taking literally the talk of
 the prophets (despite we both agree they are human).
 I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might have
 chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and the eleventh
 century in the Middle-East.

 I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:

If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) 
or { } -
the empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a 
beginning,
but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't 
believe it
is basis enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, 
alles
Übrige ist Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye 
of some
atheists who rejected his thesis.  Otherwise he could easily use The One 
or
aperion or quintessence other theologically neutral terms.


Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a temporal beginning. Maybe 
it should be Logic (and he could throw in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)



I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there 
is such
evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread - 
Why is
there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is 
there a
creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever 
satisfies its
existence predicate is what exists.


Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing I've ever come across 
that actually works on this basis (being logically necessary). Otherwise the universe is 
just a brute fact - which of course it may be.


Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we made up - so 
maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all.  I find it interesting that a 
lot of logically necessary truths were contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing can be 
in two places at the same time.  Two things can't be in the same place at the same time.  
The truths of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way.  The number of letter in this 
word plus the number of letters in that word is 10 because each has 5 letters. Or is it 
only 5: t h i s a ?  It depends on how you conceptualize letters; are they marks on the 
paper or are those marks on tokens of the Platonic letters?


Brent

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread LizR
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
{ } - the empty set?

I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
Why is there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is
there a creator?

On 2 March 2015 at 08:16, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:



 On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
 (loving obedience).


 That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go
 without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,
 because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to.
 Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the
 intermediate. That happens very often.




 Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


 I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




 From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an
 origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



 I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say, at
 the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space,
 and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc

 I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not
 omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,
 including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to
 change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable
 to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move.


 Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to
 you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the
 concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly
 all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and
 perfectly-governing being, in control of everything


 So why worry?

 If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah will?




 and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.


 I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.

 But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they
 believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid, intermediate
 between God and humans, for political purpose. I am not sure at all, but it
 does look like blasphemy.




 Allah alone is worthy of worship,


 Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think any
 human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is Allah in
 arab) has no name.

 Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.


 The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something that
 set in motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no longer
 involved in the process of creation, forgets, unable to act, and so on.
 That is not the concept of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most religions.
 That is why I suggested that perhaps what you've discovered is not God but
 rather an origin, a primary creation of sorts, may be. Feel free to call it
 whatever you like, I was just sharing my thoughts on the matter.

 Samiya




 and all else is creation,



 Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think the
 neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the
 Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.



 and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to Allah. Use
 of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be a good idea.


 Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?

 Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use Allah.
 Logically.

 And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible that
 it is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?

 I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly understand
 that you might not appreciate the doubt about taking literally the talk of
 the prophets (despite we both agree they are human).
 I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might have
 chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and the eleventh
 century in the Middle-East.

 I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can also
 understand the worry. No problem, I will use, according to the context the
 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread meekerdb

OOPs  Should written 8 not 10.  Changed my mind about the words without 
changing the number.

Brent

On 3/1/2015 3:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:

If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) 
or { }
- the empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a 
beginning,
but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't 
believe it
is basis enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, 
alles
Übrige ist Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye 
of some
atheists who rejected his thesis. Otherwise he could easily use The One or
aperion or quintessence other theologically neutral terms.


Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a temporal beginning. Maybe 
it should be Logic (and he could throw in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)



I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there 
is such
evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread - 
Why is
there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is 
there a
creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever 
satisfies its
existence predicate is what exists.


Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing I've ever come across 
that actually works on this basis (being logically necessary). Otherwise the universe 
is just a brute fact - which of course it may be.


Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we made up - so 
maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all.  I find it interesting that a 
lot of logically necessary truths were contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing can 
be in two places at the same time.  Two things can't be in the same place at the same 
time.  The truths of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way.  The number of letter in 
this word plus the number of letters in that word is 10 because each has 5 letters.  
Or is it only 5: t h i s a ?  It depends on how you conceptualize letters; are they 
marks on the paper or are those marks on tokens of the Platonic letters?


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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread LizR
On 2 March 2015 at 12:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we
 made up - so maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all.  I
 find it interesting that a lot of logically necessary truths were
 contradicted by quantum mechanics: Nothing can be in two places at the same
 time.  Two things can't be in the same place at the same time.  The truths
 of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way.  The number of letter in
 this word plus the number of letters in that word is 10 because each
 has 5 letters.  Or is it only 5: t h i s a ?  It depends on how you
 conceptualize letters; are they marks on the paper or are those marks on
 tokens of the Platonic letters?


The truths you mention were hypotheses about the nature of the universe. I
don't think QM contradicted any arithmetical truths (if there are such
things). It just showed that some intuitions about the nature of the
universe we inhabit were wrong.

I don't agree with your truths of arithmetic seem to be the same way
argument. At least, not as stated - the example with the letters is merely
a matter of what you're counting - are you counting the total number of
letters, or only how many different letters there are? You get two
different results depending on which of those you choose, but you get the
same result every time for a given choice.

In other words, there's no space for contingency once you've properly
defined the problem. Which means that the truth of the matter does in fact
appear to be logically necessary, unlike the truths about the nature of
the universe (well, until a better contradictory example comes along - any
ideas?)

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2015 4:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 12:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we 
made up -
so maybe logically necessary isn't so necessary after all.  I find it 
interesting
that a lot of logically necessary truths were contradicted by quantum 
mechanics:
Nothing can be in two places at the same time.  Two things can't be in the 
same
place at the same time.  The truths of arithmetic seem to me to be the same way. 
The number of letter in this word plus the number of letters in that word is 10

because each has 5 letters.  Or is it only 5: t h i s a ?  It depends on 
how you
conceptualize letters; are they marks on the paper or are those marks on 
tokens of
the Platonic letters?


The truths you mention were hypotheses about the nature of the universe. I don't think 
QM contradicted any arithmetical truths (if there are such things). It just showed that 
some intuitions about the nature of the universe we inhabit were wrong.


Sure.  But maybe our intuitions about counting are wrong too - at least insofar as they 
apply to the world.




I don't agree with your truths of arithmetic seem to be the same way argument. At 
least, not as stated - the example with the letters is merely a matter of what you're 
counting - are you counting the total number of letters, or only how many different 
letters there are? You get two different results depending on which of those you choose, 
but you get the same result every time for a given choice.


You don't see the No true counting fallacy analogous to No true Scotsman?  There are 
twelve people on our high school basketball team and six people on our tennis team.  When 
they have a banquet do I have to set 18 places?




In other words, there's no space for contingency once you've properly defined the 
problem. Which means that the truth of the matter does in fact appear to be logically 
necessary, unlike the truths about the nature of the universe (well, until a better 
contradictory example comes along - any ideas?)


Right, the necessary truth is a truth in Platonia, a world entirely defined by 
us.

Brent
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality.
-- Albert Einstein

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread Samiya Illias
John, thank you for sharing your thoughts and narrative.
i'm not sure anyone can provide an 'acceptable explanation' of the
Creator/Originator. I think it is simply beyond our comprehension. However,
I do believe that there is an overwhelming evidence of
creation/origination, thus implying a Creator/Originator.

Samiya

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:06 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 Samiya, I am always cautious not to hurt a fellow lister's feelings. Bruno
 is a bit mixed up with religion (uses 'theology', capital G in God, etc.
 etc.) so I do not question his 'faith' beyond what he disclosed already (I
 hope). I was always polite with your preconditions as well.
 Now that you question Creator vs. origin, (I assume you mean Originator)
 the question arises where did such Originator originate from? (I am not
 asking about 'times befor Origination', because I assign our concept of
 time a product of OUR universe (not even World) for ourselves, started with
 the universe (if it ever has been started?). Was there some 'originated'
 oeuvre when our world has been 'created'? - My narrative has a positive
 stance for that: there was an everything (I call it Plenitude) of which
 universes (Pl) were torn out by violation of the universal symmetry
 (Equilibration) of the Plenitude - all in interchange - when some (I call
 them: 'similars) got too close and so developed interactive complexities,
 what I call A Universe. Such violations dissipate (within the no-time
 system) as they form - back into the Plenitude.
 This is something 'beyond us' with no Spiritus Rector involved, except for
 the ground-rule of the total super symmetry among ingredients(?) of the
 Plenitude,
 (call it: relations) what I 'suppose to explain something assigned usually
 to some 'Big Bang' - not without flaws itself.
 I agree with Bruno in the baseless faith of our agnosticism, unless
 somebody shows an acceptable basis. Even then my agnosticism may overwhelm.
 So far I did not get 'acceptable' explanation for neither a 'Creator' nor
 the Numbers.
 We gather (new) information continuously so I am not relying on ideas
 generated many centuries ago. I do not think we reached perfection.
 I used to be a meek religious chap as a youngster 70~90(!) years ago. .

 Best regards
 John M

 On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:



 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
 (loving obedience). Does the One/God of Comp mean as such? From what I've
 gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an origin, not the
 Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?
 Samiya


 Bruno




 Samiya

 On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:

  On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God,
 by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is
 what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical
 thing? A first principle, etc.


 The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not
 assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From
 Wikipedia:

 Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron
 as the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a
 further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to
 the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the
 archaic period (8th-6th century BC).

 So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
 avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
 basis of reality.



 Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning,
 God was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the
 indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron)
 into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the
 notion of bad, or matter.

 If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about
 God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God,
 except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary
 discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).

 I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to
 the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with
 soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth,
 non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not
 distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread Samiya Illias
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
 (loving obedience).


 That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go
 without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,
 because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to.
 Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the
 intermediate. That happens very often.




 Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


 I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




 From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an
 origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



 I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say, at
 the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space,
 and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc

 I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not
 omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,
 including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to
 change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable
 to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move.


Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to
you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the
concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly
all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and
perfectly-governing being, in control of everything and not sharing its
sovereignty or command with anyone. Allah alone is worthy of worship, and
all else is creation, and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits
humbly to Allah. Use of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not
be a good idea.

Samiya



 But it is a very complex subject, and I am extrapolating probably too
 much.  You might read the book by Brian Hines Return to the One
 (subtitled Plotinus' guide To God-Realization). It is not a scholar, but
 it fits rather well with the machine's talk, but to verify this we need to
 climb that Mountain, and if I remember well we are still learning lacing
 the shoes 

 About this, can you tell me if you have a idea of what a set is? And what
 a subset is? How many subsets has the set {0, 1}?

 I hope you indulge my math teaching vocation ... For the greeks,
 mathematics is the preliminary study of theology.

 Bruno




 Samiya


 Bruno




 Samiya

 On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:

  On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by
 definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what
 is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A
 first principle, etc.


 The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not
 assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From
 Wikipedia:

 Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as
 the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a
 further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to
 the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the
 archaic period (8th-6th century BC).

 So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
 avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
 basis of reality.



 Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God
 was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the
 indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron)
 into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the
 notion of bad, or matter.

 If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about
 God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God,
 except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary
 discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).

 I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to
 the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with
 soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth,
 non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not
 distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine.

 BTW, 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or { } - the 
empty set?


I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a beginning, but a 
sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't believe it is basis 
enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist 
Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of some atheists who 
rejected his thesis.  Otherwise he could easily use The One or aperion or quintessence 
other theologically neutral terms.




I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is such evidence 
that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread - Why is there something 
rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is there a creator?


He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever satisfies its existence 
predicate is what exists.


Brent
Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and 
incapacities of the human misunderstanding.

--- Ambrose Bierce

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread LizR
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:

 If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero)
 or { } - the empty set?


 I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a
 beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or
 doesn't believe it is basis enough. As Kronecker said, Die ganze Zahl
 schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk.  At a gut level I
 think he wants to poke the eye of some atheists who rejected his thesis.
 Otherwise he could easily use The One or aperion or quintessence other
 theologically neutral terms.


Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a temporal
beginning. Maybe it should be Logic (and he could throw in a homage to
Leonard Nimoy)


 I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
 such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread -
 Why is there something rather than nothing? It just changes it to Why is
 there a creator?


 He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary and therefore whatever
 satisfies its existence predicate is what exists.


Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing I've ever
come across that actually works on this basis (being logically necessary).
Otherwise the universe is just a brute fact - which of course it may be.

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread Samiya Illias


 On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:
 
 
 
 On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
 
 
 
 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
 
 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O 
 
 
 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the 
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians. 
 
 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship 
 (loving obedience).
 
 That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go 
 without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone, 
 because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey to. 
 Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is the 
 intermediate. That happens very often.
 
 
 
 
 Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?
 
 I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above. 
 
 
 
 
 From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an 
 origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct? 
 
 
 I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say, at 
 the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and space, 
 and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time, space, etc
 
 I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not 
 omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things, 
 including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to 
 change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then unable 
 to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change and move. 
 
 Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems appropriate to 
 you, however I would suggest that you do not use of the term Allah, as the 
 concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-able, perfectly and constantly 
 all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing, perfectly-commanding and 
 perfectly-governing being, in control of everything
 
 So why worry?
 
 If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah will?
 
 
 
 
 and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.
 
 I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.
 
 But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they believe 
 in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid, intermediate between 
 God and humans, for political purpose. I am not sure at all, but it does look 
 like blasphemy.
 
 
 
 
 Allah alone is worthy of worship,
 
 Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think any 
 human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is Allah in arab) 
 has no name. 
 
 Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then. 

The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something that set in 
motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no longer involved in the 
process of creation, forgets, unable to act, and so on. That is not the concept 
of Allah in Islam, nor of God in most religions. That is why I suggested that 
perhaps what you've discovered is not God but rather an origin, a primary 
creation of sorts, may be. Feel free to call it whatever you like, I was just 
sharing my thoughts on the matter. 

Samiya 

 
 
 
 and all else is creation,
 
 
 Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think the 
 neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the 
 Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.
 
 
 
 and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to Allah. Use 
 of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be a good idea.   
 
 Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?
 
 Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use Allah. 
 Logically.
 
 And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible that it 
 is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?
 
 I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly understand that 
 you might not appreciate the doubt about taking literally the talk of the 
 prophets (despite we both agree they are human). 
 I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might have 
 chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and the eleventh 
 century in the Middle-East.
 
 I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can also understand 
 the worry. No problem, I will use, according to the context the more neutral 
 One, or The Truth, or The ultimate reality, or simply God  (the 
 common term used in comparative theology) and not call It/He/She Allah, nor 
 Brahma, nor Tao, nor  
 
 You are right that we cannot comprehend it, but sometimes you do behave like 
 you do comprehend it, somehow, it seems to me.
 
 All 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:


Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for  
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative  
theologians.


God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of  
worship (loving obedience).


That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it  
go without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by  
anyone, because you can't really name God so as to be clear about  
what to obey to. Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make  
believe he is the intermediate. That happens very often.






Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to  
an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection,  
say, at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of  
time and space, and explains the reason of the perception of origin,  
time, space, etc


I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not  
omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,  
including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability  
to change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but  
then unable to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to  
change and move.


Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems  
appropriate to you, however I would suggest that you do not use of  
the term Allah, as the concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly- 
able, perfectly and constantly all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing,  
perfectly-commanding and perfectly-governing being, in control of  
everything


So why worry?

If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is Allah  
will?






and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.


I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.

But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when they  
believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid,  
intermediate between God and humans, for political purpose. I am not  
sure at all, but it does look like blasphemy.






Allah alone is worthy of worship,


Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't think  
any human has a monopoly of a name, as The God (which I think is  
Allah in arab) has no name.


Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.





and all else is creation,



Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I think  
the neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong than the  
Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.




and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to  
Allah. Use of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not be  
a good idea.


Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?

Then, given what I mean by God, you should encourage me to use  
Allah. Logically.


And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible  
that it is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?


I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly  
understand that you might not appreciate the doubt about taking  
literally the talk of the prophets (despite we both agree they are  
human).
I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might  
have chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and  
the eleventh century in the Middle-East.


I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can also  
understand the worry. No problem, I will use, according to the context  
the more neutral One, or The Truth, or The ultimate reality, or  
simply God  (the common term used in comparative theology) and not  
call It/He/She Allah, nor Brahma, nor Tao, nor 


You are right that we cannot comprehend it, but sometimes you do  
behave like you do comprehend it, somehow, it seems to me.


All Names miss the One.

I think. Currently.

Bruno




Samiya


But it is a very complex subject, and I am extrapolating probably  
too much.  You might read the book by Brian Hines Return to the  
One (subtitled Plotinus' guide To God-Realization). It is not a  
scholar, but it fits rather well with the machine's talk, but to  
verify this we need to climb that Mountain, and if I remember well  
we are still learning lacing the shoes 


About this, can you tell me if you have a idea of what a set is? And  
what a subset is? How many subsets has the set {0, 1}?


I hope you indulge my math teaching vocation ... For the greeks,  
mathematics 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-28 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:


  as diehard atheist in every way,


That's me.


  finding any possible transcendental concept of others laughable,


I don't find all transcendental concepts laughable, some are based on logic
and are reasonable or at least semi-reasonable scientific speculation. But
I do find transcendental concepts based on the myths of bronze age tribes
laughable because compared with what we know today the authors were
ignoramuses


  Leave people their transcendent dreams of godhood and miracles, John.


Hey I'm a libertarian, if they want to believe in God and miracles and talk
about it I wouldn't dream of stopping them even if I could, but don't
expect me to agree with what they say or even to respect it if there is
nothing respectable in it.

  John K Clark







 Even if they pretend to be more sophisticated than that. It's all they
 have. Continuously insulting them won't change a thing. That poster won't
 ask for his money back, nor would he think the company obviously scammed
 him. I'd say it's his right to hope and nobody's business to tell him
 otherwise. PGC

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


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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-28 Thread John Mikes
Samiya, I am always cautious not to hurt a fellow lister's feelings. Bruno
is a bit mixed up with religion (uses 'theology', capital G in God, etc.
etc.) so I do not question his 'faith' beyond what he disclosed already (I
hope). I was always polite with your preconditions as well.
Now that you question Creator vs. origin, (I assume you mean Originator)
the question arises where did such Originator originate from? (I am not
asking about 'times befor Origination', because I assign our concept of
time a product of OUR universe (not even World) for ourselves, started with
the universe (if it ever has been started?). Was there some 'originated'
oeuvre when our world has been 'created'? - My narrative has a positive
stance for that: there was an everything (I call it Plenitude) of which
universes (Pl) were torn out by violation of the universal symmetry
(Equilibration) of the Plenitude - all in interchange - when some (I call
them: 'similars) got too close and so developed interactive complexities,
what I call A Universe. Such violations dissipate (within the no-time
system) as they form - back into the Plenitude.
This is something 'beyond us' with no Spiritus Rector involved, except for
the ground-rule of the total super symmetry among ingredients(?) of the
Plenitude,
(call it: relations) what I 'suppose to explain something assigned usually
to some 'Big Bang' - not without flaws itself.
I agree with Bruno in the baseless faith of our agnosticism, unless
somebody shows an acceptable basis. Even then my agnosticism may overwhelm.
So far I did not get 'acceptable' explanation for neither a 'Creator' nor
the Numbers.
We gather (new) information continuously so I am not relying on ideas
generated many centuries ago. I do not think we reached perfection.
I used to be a meek religious chap as a youngster 70~90(!) years ago. .

Best regards
John M

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:



 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the
 general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


 God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship
 (loving obedience). Does the One/God of Comp mean as such? From what I've
 gathered from your explanations, it simply points to an origin, not the
 Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?
 Samiya


 Bruno




 Samiya

 On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:

  On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by
 definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what
 is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A
 first principle, etc.


 The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not
 assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From
 Wikipedia:

 Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as
 the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a
 further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to
 the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the
 archaic period (8th-6th century BC).

 So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
 avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
 basis of reality.



 Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God
 was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the
 indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron)
 into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the
 notion of bad, or matter.

 If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about
 God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God,
 except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary
 discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).

 I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to
 the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with
 soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth,
 non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not
 distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine.

 BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to Templeton.
 How is that going?

 Bruno




 Brent

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-28 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:


Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for  
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative  
theologians.


God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship  
(loving obedience).


That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking it go  
without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said by anyone,  
because you can't really name God so as to be clear about what to obey  
to. Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant, to make believe he is  
the intermediate. That happens very often.






Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?


I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.




From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points to  
an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?



I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection, say,  
at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of time and  
space, and explains the reason of the perception of origin, time,  
space, etc


I think God is more a semantic reason than an origin.  It is not  
omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many things,  
including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge and ability to  
change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all things, but then  
unable to change anything, or forgetting and then being able to change  
and move.


But it is a very complex subject, and I am extrapolating probably too  
much.  You might read the book by Brian Hines Return to the  
One (subtitled Plotinus' guide To God-Realization). It is not a  
scholar, but it fits rather well with the machine's talk, but to  
verify this we need to climb that Mountain, and if I remember well we  
are still learning lacing the shoes 


About this, can you tell me if you have a idea of what a set is? And  
what a subset is? How many subsets has the set {0, 1}?


I hope you indulge my math teaching vocation ... For the greeks,  
mathematics is the preliminary study of theology.


Bruno





Samiya



Bruno





Samiya

On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality,  
because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then  
the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A  
physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc.


The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were  
not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it  
aperion.  From Wikipedia:


Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting  
apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely  
indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous  
existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of  
thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period  
(8th-6th century BC).


So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only  
obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's  
what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality.



Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the  
beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was  
confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they  
make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE,  
and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter.


If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main  
point about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I  
did not use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that  
infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God is just the most  
common quasi-name (pointer).


I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming  
back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically  
concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of  
universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE  
of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from  
arithmetical truth, in case we are machine.


BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to  
Templeton. How is that going?


Bruno





Brent

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

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-28 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:


Why don't you just call it One with a capital O



Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the  
general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians.


Bruno





Samiya

On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality,  
because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then  
the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A  
physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc.


The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were  
not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it  
aperion.  From Wikipedia:


Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting  
apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely 
indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous  
existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of  
thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic period  
(8th-6th century BC).


So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only  
obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what  
the Greeks meant by the basis of reality.



Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the  
beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was  
confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make  
the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE, and  
reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter.


If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point  
about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not  
use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite  
useless vocabulary discussion. God is just the most common quasi- 
name (pointer).


I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming  
back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically  
concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of  
universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of  
Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from  
arithmetical truth, in case we are machine.


BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to  
Templeton. How is that going?


Bruno





Brent

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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




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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-28 Thread Samiya Illias


 On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
 
 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O 
 
 
 Because I use One for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general 
 notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians. 

God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of worship (loving 
obedience). Does the One/God of Comp mean as such? From what I've gathered from 
your explanations, it simply points to an origin, not the Creator of the 
origin(s). Is that correct? 
Samiya 

 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 
 Samiya 
 
 On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:
 
 On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, 
 by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is 
 what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical 
 thing? A first principle, etc.
 
 The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not 
 assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From 
 Wikipedia:
 
 Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as 
 the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a 
 further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to 
 the new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the 
 archaic period (8th-6th century BC).
 
 So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your 
 avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the 
 basis of reality.
 
 
 Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God 
 was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the 
 indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron) 
 into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the 
 notion of bad, or matter.
 
 If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about 
 God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God, 
 except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary 
 discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).
 
 I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to 
 the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with 
 soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth, 
 non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not 
 distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine. 
 
 BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to Templeton. How 
 is that going?
 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 
 Brent
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-27 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Why don't you just call it One with a capital O


How about Bullshit with a capital B? And that's what passes for philosophy
on this list, inventing new ASCII sequences to represent concepts that
already have words (like God) that already do the job.

  John K Clark

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-27 Thread PGC


On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 7:40:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:


 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Samiya Illias samiya...@gmail.com 
 javascript: wrote:

  Why don't you just call it One with a capital O 


 How about Bullshit with a capital B? And that's what passes for philosophy 
 on this list, inventing new ASCII sequences to represent concepts that 
 already have words (like God) that already do the job. 


Ah, you must be referring to somebody's vanity a few weeks ago, when they 
presented themselves as diehard atheist in every way, finding any possible 
transcendental concept of others laughable, but then naively falling for 
some company's advertising that they would freeze up his/her head for some 
cash and subscription fee, with some benevolent, future scientist waking 
them up with technological miracles undreamt of today.

Leave people their transcendent dreams of godhood and miracles, John. 

Even if they pretend to be more sophisticated than that. It's all they 
have. Continuously insulting them won't change a thing. That poster won't 
ask for his money back, nor would he think the company obviously scammed 
him. I'd say it's his right to hope and nobody's business to tell him 
otherwise. PGC  



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because  
God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real  
question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing?  
A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc.


The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not  
assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.   
From Wikipedia:


Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting  
apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely  
indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous existing  
mythical way of thought to the new rational way of thought which is  
the main characteristic of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC).


So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating  
your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks  
meant by the basis of reality.



Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning,  
God was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the  
indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite  
(apeiron) into a possible attribute of the ONE, and reserve the  
indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or matter.


If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point  
about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not  
use God, except in a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless  
vocabulary discussion. God is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).


I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back  
to the scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned  
with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe,  
transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides  
and Plotinus, and it is not distinguishable from arithmetical truth,  
in case we are machine.


BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to  
Templeton. How is that going?


Bruno





Brent

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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-27 Thread Samiya Illias
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O 

Samiya 

 On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:
 
 On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by 
 definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what 
 is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A 
 first principle, etc.
 
 The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not assumed 
 to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From Wikipedia:
 
 Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as 
 the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a 
 further transition from the previous existing mythical way of thought to the 
 new rational way of thought which is the main characteristic of the archaic 
 period (8th-6th century BC).
 
 So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your 
 avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the 
 basis of reality.
 
 
 Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the beginning, God 
 was considered as finite, and the infinite was confused with the indefinite, 
 and almost an insult. Later they make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible 
 attribute of the ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or 
 matter.
 
 If you don't like the term God I will use Allah. The main point about God 
 is that it has no name, so *any* name is wrong. I did not use God, except in 
 a reply which has lead us to that infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God 
 is just the most common quasi-name (pointer).
 
 I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the coming back to the 
 scientific attitude in theology, which is typically concerned with soul, 
 afterlife, (re)incarnation, origin of universe, transcendence, truth, 
 non-nameable, etc. It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not 
 distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine. 
 
 BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to Templeton. How 
 is that going?
 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 
 Brent
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:33:59PM +1300, LizR wrote:
 On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
 
 
  So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
  avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
  basis of reality.
 
 
 I quite like Tao - but some (perhaps not on this list) would no doubt
 find that obfuscatory.
 
 Otherwise an invented word would do, except that then John Clark will
 object that you are making up words.
 

We could always use Spinoza's god. *ducks*

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
John, consider it a working theory that awaits falsification, if it can be 
falsified. You have have great questions, for which there are no great answers. 
What I will claim, is that of all of science, over the last 350 years, computer 
electronics has made the greatest progress, and seems to be exponentiating, as 
opposed to biology, aerospace, energy, medicine-biology, and the like. It is 
the only technology that has not disappointed, plus, the observations of the 
universe by astronomers and physics make the universe appear more and more 
computationalist. It also could easily be something hybrid, a program with 
material output, material with computational output. It's enough to start 
bar/pub fights and tear out our hair. I look to Steinhart as the person, 
perhaps by accident, who best explains, what physicists have uncovered. Hogan, 
out at Fermilab, and Darmstadt, has a team looking to test to see if our 
universe is a hologram or not? If it doesn't work for you, or the idea repels, 
thats all good, there are worse things to have no use for. I don't see it as 
crap, but instead a profound truth and a way to look at physical phenomena. 



-Original Message-
From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 4:02 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?


Spudy, a condition of what??? and WHAT (great!)  program??? what would you 
call 'electric' (not in 101 physix) with 'pulses(?) and 'gaps(?) in between? 
Mainly: what the hell should we call   R E A L  ???
Once you enter the agnostic domain (mind you: not SKEPTIC, which is - like 
atheism - based on a faith we don't (want to) believe) you are on your own. 
With numbers as well. All explanations are retrograde from 'real' conditions 
found in the faith the human mind carries for numbers to begin with. Including 
ZERO. 
 



On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:45 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

Now we are back again, to are numbers real? Do we make them real by observing 
and forming patterns of our brains, or do they pre-exist as a condition of 
nature? Maybe the universe is not simply a simulation, but a great program? 
Yet, since we are part of this program we act as if its real because it is. To 
a subroutine, the world is electric pulses and the gaps between the pulses. 0's 
and 1,s all the way down Dr. Sagan. One of Steinhart's ideas is promotion. 
Promotion of a process or a span to the posited next level up, an upgrade 
reality.Promotion via a pipeline(s). 




-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 9:00 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?



On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 


 skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.



I see, so belief in God  is based on faith and so is doubts about the existence 
of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need to 
point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do 
that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth.


 John K Clark 


 



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




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





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

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like:
 Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
 conceived.


  Which confirms again how much the atheist needs the bible.


As much as a tampon factory needs a sackful of dead rats.


  Fro the greek, the existence of God is [...]


To hell with the no-nothing greeks.


  UDA answers this question in the following way:

And to hell with the Universal Dance Association.

John K Clark

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread meekerdb

On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition, 
is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A 
person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc.


The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which were not assumed to be gods, 
i.e. persons. Anaximander called it aperion.  From Wikipedia:


Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction, adopting apeiron as the origin of 
all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a further transition from the 
previous existing mythical way of thought to the new rational way of thought which is the 
main characteristic of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC).


So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning 
it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality.


Brent

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 25 Feb 2015, at 22:08, LizR wrote:


On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.

I see, so belief in God  is based on faith and so is doubts about  
the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be  
contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT  
based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but  
a noise made by the mouth.


You might have done me the courtesy of giving the entire quote, so  
the context was clear. But I suppose you couldn't do that because it  
would have meant the point you're trying to make would have been  
revealed as a straw man.


Here is that troublesome quote in full.

Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be  
based on faith. It is based on the faith that our present ideologies  
will be preserved by final science. Current physicalism may turn out  
to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology.

-- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms

A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what  
the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. (Brent  
tries to be, for example, as do I). What Mr Steinhart is saying is  
that skeptical atheists as he calls them are making a metaphysical  
assumption about the nature of reality - which is, precisely, an act  
of faith.


Indeed. And in this case, science has refuted it in the comp frame. We  
know today that if computationalism is correct then physicalism cannot  
work. It is the whole point.


We will never know-for-sure if comp is correct, because in (public,  
3p) science we just never know-for-sure anything at all.
Yet, we can know that comp is correct, in the usual theaetetus' sense  
of believing it, in case it is true.


Bruno





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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:55, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/25/2015 1:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com  
wrote:

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.

I see, so belief in God  is based on faith and so is doubts about  
the existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be  
contrast, so your need to point out something, anything, that is  
NOT based on faith. And if you can't do that then faith is  
nothing but a noise made by the mouth.


You might have done me the courtesy of giving the entire quote, so  
the context was clear. But I suppose you couldn't do that because  
it would have meant the point you're trying to make would have been  
revealed as a straw man.


Here is that troublesome quote in full.

Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be  
based on faith. It is based on the faith that our present  
ideologies will be preserved by final science. Current physicalism  
may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology.

-- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms

A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what  
the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. (Brent  
tries to be, for example, as do I). What Mr Steinhart is saying is  
that skeptical atheists as he calls them are making a  
metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality - which is,  
precisely, an act of faith.


Is it an assumption that the god of theism doesn't exist?  Seems to  
me the preponderance of the evidence is on that side.  I see beliefs  
having degrees; which, as Hume said, should be in proportion to the  
evidence.


OK. I agree.



Faith means a belief held independent of evidence, e.g. with no  
evidence or even in the presence of a preponderance of contrary  
evidence.


I disagree. That is blind faith. That exists only because of bandits,  
manipulators, people wanting control you. It has nothing to do with  
religion or science.





Brent
I stop  believing in Santa Klaus and Jesus the same day in my early  
childhood.  I was astonished that my cousins stop to believe in  
Santa Klaus but kept their belief in Jesus.

--- Bruno Marchal

Atheist   n.   A person to be pitied in that he is unable to  
believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus  
deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.

--- Chaz Bufe

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
  --- Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richard's Almanac, 1758)



Theology, the science, is born with the greek, and was not opposed to  
reason. To shut the eye of reason is useful to sell you expensive  
inefficatious medication.


Blind faith exists only because we have separated theology from  
reason, and the reason of this, is manipulation of humans by private  
egocentric interest of some minority.


Faith is more the belief without proof. We need it for the axioms and  
theories. It is not the belief without evidence.


Bruno







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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 26 Feb 2015, at 02:24, John Clark wrote:


On Wed, Feb 25, 2015  LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

  A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about  
what the final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there.


Who are these strawmen scientists who think our current theories are  
the final word on the nature of reality?


 What Mr Steinhart is saying is that skeptical atheists as he  
calls them are making a metaphysical assumption about the nature of  
reality - which is, precisely, an act of faith.


Skeptical means having doubts, so I'm having a little difficulty  
understanding how having doubts about God or about anything else is  
a act of faith unless you've redefined the word faith so from it's  
original meaning that it means everything, which of course is  
equivalent to meaning nothing. By the way, redefining common words  
so that there mean next to nothing is what passes for philosophy  
these days.


But it's true, technically I'm an agnostic in that I can't prove the  
nonexistence of God, but people who go to great pains to point out  
that they're a agnostic not a atheist seem a little silly to me  
because, judging from the equal respect they give to both believers  
and atheists, they incorrectly think both viewpoints are equally  
rational. I am certainly not that sort of agnostic, not even  
technically.


This is what Isaac Asimov had to say in his autobiography and I  
agree with every word:


I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it.  
I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was  
intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it  
assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say  
one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a  
creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an  
atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist,  
but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my  
time.


There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like:

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever  
conceived.



Which confirms again how much the atheist needs the bible. They really  
needs to believe that theology is only the Aristotelian  
reinterpretation of the Abramanic religion, so that they can mock God,  
pretend it does not exists, and keep the real question under the rug.


Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because  
God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real  
question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A  
mathematical thing? A first principle, etc.


In fact the first question is Is there a physical universe (in the  
Aristotelian sense). The platonist said no, like, note, the first  
jews, christians, and muslims. Only-Aristotelism came later.


UDA answers this question in the following way: IF we are machine,  
THEN there is no physical universe (in the aristotelian sense). Non- 
platonism is just not a possible option for the mechanist.


In the aristotelian frame, comp is super-atheist: there is no creator  
and no creation.


In the platonist frame, I am a believer. I have faith that there is  
some unifying scheme. If not I would not be a researcher. And with  
computationalism, any universal system give an unifying ontology, and  
all gives the same physics and the same theology. The physics is  
testable, so the comp faith can be tested. It is not blind faith.


Bruno




  John K Clark






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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread meekerdb

On 2/26/2015 3:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:



So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your 
avowed
meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of 
reality.


I quite like Tao - but some (perhaps not on this list) would no doubt find that 
obfuscatory.


The trouble with Tao is that it has its sacred book, so people will look there for 
the real meaning of Tao.  And also there is a Taoist religion which is kind of polytheistic:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/beliefs/gods.shtml



Otherwise an invented word would do, except that then John Clark will object that you 
are making up words.


It seems to me that aperion fits perfectly - and it's Greek, which Bruno likes, even 
though it's pre-Socratic.


Brent

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-26 Thread LizR
On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


 So I reiterate my objection that using God is not only obfuscating your
 avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the
 basis of reality.


I quite like Tao - but some (perhaps not on this list) would no doubt
find that obfuscatory.

Otherwise an invented word would do, except that then John Clark will
object that you are making up words.

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-25 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Now we are back again, to are numbers real? Do we make them real by observing 
and forming patterns of our brains, or do they pre-exist as a condition of 
nature? Maybe the universe is not simply a simulation, but a great program? 
Yet, since we are part of this program we act as if its real because it is. To 
a subroutine, the world is electric pulses and the gaps between the pulses. 0's 
and 1,s all the way down Dr. Sagan. One of Steinhart's ideas is promotion. 
Promotion of a process or a span to the posited next level up, an upgrade 
reality.Promotion via a pipeline(s). 



-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 9:00 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?



On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 


 skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.



I see, so belief in God  is based on faith and so is doubts about the existence 
of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need to 
point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do 
that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth.


 John K Clark 


 



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

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-25 Thread John Mikes
Spudy, a condition of what??? and WHAT (great!)  program??? what would
you call 'electric' (not in 101 physix) with 'pulses(?) and 'gaps(?) in
between?
Mainly: what the hell should we call   R E A L  ???
Once you enter the agnostic domain (mind you: not SKEPTIC, which is - like
atheism - based on a faith we don't (want to) believe) you are on your own.
With numbers as well. All explanations are retrograde from 'real'
conditions found in the faith the human mind carries for numbers to begin
with. Including ZERO.


On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:45 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Now we are back again, to are numbers real? Do we make them real by
 observing and forming patterns of our brains, or do they pre-exist as a
 condition of nature? Maybe the universe is not simply a simulation, but a
 great program? Yet, since we are part of this program we act as if its real
 because it is. To a subroutine, the world is electric pulses and the gaps
 between the pulses. 0's and 1,s all the way down Dr. Sagan. One of
 Steinhart's ideas is promotion. Promotion of a process or a span to the
 posited next level up, an upgrade reality.Promotion via a pipeline(s).



 -Original Message-
 From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 9:00 pm
 Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
 theory to dialectics?

   On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


  skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.


  I see, so belief in God  is based on faith and so is doubts about the
 existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast,
 so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith.
 And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the
 mouth.

   John K Clark



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

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


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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-25 Thread LizR
On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


  skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.


 I see, so belief in God  is based on faith and so is doubts about the
 existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast,
 so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith.
 And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the
 mouth.


You might have done me the courtesy of giving the entire quote, so the
context was clear. But I suppose you couldn't do that because it would have
meant the point you're trying to make would have been revealed as a straw
man.

Here is that troublesome quote in full.

Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on
 faith. *It is based on the faith that our present ideologies will be
 preserved by final science.* Current physicalism may turn out to be as
 delusory as Abrahamic theology.
 -- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms


A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what the
final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. (Brent tries to be,
for example, as do I). What Mr Steinhart is saying is that skeptical
atheists as he calls them are making a metaphysical assumption about the
nature of reality - which is, precisely, an act of faith.

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-25 Thread meekerdb

On 2/25/2015 1:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:


On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com 
wrote:

 skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.


I see, so belief in God  is based on faith and so is doubts about the 
existence of
God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, so your need 
to point
out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith. And if you can't do 
that then
faith is nothing but a noise made by the mouth.


You might have done me the courtesy of giving the entire quote, so the context was 
clear. But I suppose you couldn't do that because it would have meant the point you're 
trying to make would have been revealed as a straw man.


Here is that troublesome quote in full.

Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on 
faith.
*It is based on the faith that our present ideologies will be preserved by 
final
science.* Current physicalism may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic 
theology.
-- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms


A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what the final science may 
turn out to be, if we ever get there. (Brent tries to be, for example, as do I). What Mr 
Steinhart is saying is that skeptical atheists as he calls them are making a 
metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality - which is, precisely, an act of faith.


Is it an /assumption/ that the god of theism doesn't exist? Seems to me the preponderance 
of the evidence is on that side.  I see beliefs having degrees; which, as Hume said, 
should be in proportion to the evidence.  Faith means a belief held independent of 
evidence, e.g. with no evidence or even in the presence of a preponderance of contrary 
evidence.


Brent
I stop  believing in Santa Klaus and Jesus the same day in my early childhood.  I was 
astonished that my cousins stop to believe in Santa Klaus but kept their belief in Jesus.

--- Bruno Marchal

Atheist   n.   A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which 
there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling 
superior to others.

--- Chaz Bufe

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
  --- Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richard's Almanac, 1758)

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-25 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015  LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

  A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what the
 final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there.


Who are these strawmen scientists who think our current theories are the
final word on the nature of reality?


  What Mr Steinhart is saying is that skeptical atheists as he calls
 them are making a metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality -
 which is, precisely, an act of faith.


Skeptical means having doubts, so I'm having a little difficulty
understanding how having doubts about God or about anything else is a act
of faith unless you've redefined the word faith so from it's original
meaning that it means everything, which of course is equivalent to meaning
nothing. By the way, redefining common words so that there mean next to
nothing is what passes for philosophy these days.

But it's true, technically I'm an agnostic in that I can't prove the
nonexistence of God, but people who go to great pains to point out that
they're a agnostic not a atheist seem a little silly to me because, judging
from the equal respect they give to both believers and atheists, they
incorrectly think both viewpoints are equally rational. I am certainly not
that sort of agnostic, not even technically.

This is what Isaac Asimov had to say in his autobiography and I agree with
every word:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been
an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually
unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that
one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an
agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of
reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove
that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't
want to waste my time.

There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like:

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived.

  John K Clark

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-24 Thread meekerdb

Cue JKC.

Brent

On 2/24/2015 4:48 PM, LizR wrote:
Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. It is 
based on the faith that our present ideologies will be preserved by final science. 
Current physicalism may turn out to be as delusory as Abrahamic theology.


-- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-24 Thread LizR
Or, to put it more epistemically, skeptical atheism appears to be based on
faith. It is based on the faith that our present ideologies will be
preserved by final science. Current physicalism may turn out to be as
delusory as Abrahamic theology.

-- Eric Steinhart, Skeptical and Spiritual Atheisms

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-24 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


  skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith.


I see, so belief in God  is based on faith and so is doubts about the
existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast,
so your need to point out something, anything, that is NOT based on faith.
And if you can't do that then faith is nothing but a noise made by the
mouth.

 John K Clark

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-18 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 17 Feb 2015, at 18:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

If one goes computationalism, and the observing of virtual photons  
arising from nothing, then we can conclude that rather then a value  
of 0, the greater cosmos must be densely packed with energy or  
information, as yet difficult to access by contemporary technology.  
How do we detect what occurs within a Planck Cell? If you go by  
Schmidhuber's teachings which are similar but not as thorough as  
Steinhart has been, beyond all emergences, exists a basic computer,  
allegedy, as opposed to a primary blender, or lawn mower. Since a  
computer is more complex, I will prefer choosing the term computer.


The laws of physic, if you go computationalism, must be derived from  
any universal computing system. I took sigma_1 arithmetic, which is a  
tiny part of the arithmetical reality, which is true/false  
independently of us, by the arithmetical realism (needed to just  
define what a computation is). With computationalism, we cannot  
presupposed physics. There is no ontological physical reality: it is a  
sort of collective hallucination made by universal numbers.


Schmidhuber disbelieved (in this very list) the first person  
indeterminacy (FPI). The physical reality seems to be still a  
computation among others, but this is violated a priori by the FPI.


But then you are right. Like with quantum field theory, the void  
contains a sort of infinite energy. 0 = infinity, somehow. It is a  
form of 0_3p is seen as infinity-1p. Intuitively this is because the  
nothing physical is equivalent with the everything-arithmetical from  
inside: all universal numbers do nothing, *notably*.


We have not yet anything like a Planck cell. What we can extract is a  
collection of quantum logics, and we can hope for braids, unitary  
transformation, a notion of subjective time, but we have not yet  
space, nor physical time, nor particles, waves, etc.


You might perhaps reread the SANE04 paper(*), or others. I don't think  
other author are aware of the FPI, or take it into account.


The point is that the basic computer is given by the laws of  
addition and multiplication of numbers, when we do the theory in an  
explicit way. I could have use lambda expression, or combinators, etc.  
Matter and consciousness are ontological-theory-independent.


The logical dependencies are given by: NUMBERS == CONSCIOUSNESS ==  
PHYSICAL REALITIES, but the mathematical details are given by the  
interview of the Löbian machine (they involved 8 modalities).


Bruno

(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html





-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From  
quantum theory to dialectics?



On 17 Feb 2015, at 13:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


Very good. I do go computationalism myself, but in a weird way.


As long as you are valid, you can be as weird as you want.



I confer that everything we see is running on software, but the  
software yields physical reality, perhaps as a side effect.


Hmm... Computationalism, as I define it, is that *you*, or what you  
can count on you, is run by a software.


Then everything we live and see, including physics (if that exists),  
is a side effect.


But then a priori physics and what we see cannot be Turing emulable.  
The apparent emulability of nature is a problem for the  
computationalists, but with computer science it becomes a  
mathematically formulable problem.



The idea is very simple, once you are aware of some result in  
computer science, notably the fact that once you agree that a tiny  
part of the arithmetical reality, or any other computer-science  
theoretical reality, is independent of you and me.


This is implicitly used in physics, through the use of mathematical  
theories, usually richer than arithmetic, but this is debatable.


But that reality, conceptually much simpler than physics, or physics  
+ a creator, contains the experience you are living here and now.  
That is a *fact*. All executions of all programs can be translated  
into an infinity of purely arithmetical relations, that is the fact,  
but then, once you assume computationalism, you can understand that  
your consciousness is not related to this or that realization by  
this or that universal numbers, but, below your substitution,  
results from the statistics on a infinity of those arithmetical  
realizations of programs execution.





An infinite or near infinite reality, whether you invoke MWI,


We can't a priori assume QM, but semantically and intuitively,  
computationalism forces a similar move than Everett, but not on the  
universal unitary transformation, just on the sigma_1 part of  
arithmetic. The sigma_1 part is the computable part, it is the  
Turing emulable part of the arithmetical reality

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-18 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 18 Feb 2015, at 15:00, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Well, I agree with your ascension of Numbers, Consciousness,Physical  
Realities.



You can understand intuitively why it has to be like that with the  
self-multiplication thought experiment, and you can understand the  
formal result that all ideally correct machine can find that by  
themselves, once believing enough induction axioms.




I will check out the SANE4 learnings, The numbers that we start with  
could just as easily be a statistical process control computation,


To define computations, you need to assume the numbers, or Turing  
equivalent.




that started everything, run by someone is a vastly, upper universe- 
a conjecture.







Mathematician, Louis Crane suspected that universes have been  
started by civilizations creating useful power sources and  
accidentally create other beings within the black hole's cosmos. Do  
I believe this? No.  Getting back to numbers, we are at philosopher  
John Leslie's  concept that numbers consciousness and physical  
realities are part on a series/set of infinite divine minds. This is  
sort of why I like Steinhart's philosophy of computationalism, where  
in the beginning, or in the original  archaic Hebrew, at a  
beginning there was a singular hardware that created the software.


But the software is an arithmetical concept. That follows from one  
half of comp: Church thesis.


And assuming computationalism, that is the idea you can survive  
through a digital emulation done at some level, the question of the  
existence, and definition, of a physical universe is open. We can't  
use a physical universe to singularize consciousness, It is no more  
valid.






More importantly, the guy uses software terms to model the  
universe(s). So in his theology we have pipes and pipelines,  
processes,  and promotions of the software in physical form, which  
everything is, and the data patterns will get moved. It parallels a  
bit your own work.


I have no read it, but it would not be so astonishing, because, like  
Plotinus, all universal machine get it at some point. Simple  
arithmetic can already enlighten itself, with the price that it can  
lost itself, also. No need, nor possible use, of hardware for that.


The use of hardware, or of any universal numbers actually, becomes a  
misuse of a god, as a gap prohibiting question. To save a primary  
matter, you can still develop a non-computationalist theology, but the  
math will be awfully complex, and it would be, given the evidence a  
bit like betting that QM is not really linear, before having any  
evidence.


You need to grasp that by yourself. Study the 8 steps, and ask any  
question. To really understand step 7, you need to understand Church  
thesis, the existence of the universal machine, and the fact that it  
is an arithmetical notion. Step 8 is more demanding in philosophy of  
mind issue.


For the formalization, you need to study a good book in logic and  
computability, or ask enough question. All recreative (and non  
recreative) book by Smullyan can help. I exploit results by Gödel, Löb  
and Solovay (among others) to translate the problem in terms of  
intensional variant of provability, it plays some role that I don't go  
out of arithmetic in doing so.


Computationalism includes Church thesis, and thanks to this, we get  
the math, and precise theories, which even in the simple ideal correct  
case, leads to rich layered mathematical theories for each points of  
view. And the material one is testable (accepting the greek analysis  
of knowledge) and can be compared with the observation (up to now it  
fits).


Bruno









-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 18, 2015 3:40 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From  
quantum theory to dialectics?



On 17 Feb 2015, at 18:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

If one goes computationalism, and the observing of virtual photons  
arising from nothing, then we can conclude that rather then a value  
of 0, the greater cosmos must be densely packed with energy or  
information, as yet difficult to access by contemporary technology.  
How do we detect what occurs within a Planck Cell? If you go by  
Schmidhuber's teachings which are similar but not as thorough as  
Steinhart has been, beyond all emergences, exists a basic computer,  
allegedy, as opposed to a primary blender, or lawn mower. Since a  
computer is more complex, I will prefer choosing the term computer.


The laws of physic, if you go computationalism, must be derived from  
any universal computing system. I took sigma_1 arithmetic, which is  
a tiny part of the arithmetical reality, which is true/false  
independently of us, by the arithmetical realism (needed to just  
define what a computation is). With computationalism, we cannot  
presupposed physics

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-18 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Well, I agree with your ascension of Numbers, Consciousness,Physical Realities. 
I will check out the SANE4 learnings, The numbers that we start with could just 
as easily be a statistical process control computation, that started 
everything, run by someone is a vastly, upper universe-a conjecture. 
Mathematician, Louis Crane suspected that universes have been started by 
civilizations creating useful power sources and accidentally create other 
beings within the black hole's cosmos. Do I believe this? No.  Getting back to 
numbers, we are at philosopher John Leslie's  concept that numbers 
consciousness and physical realities are part on a series/set of infinite 
divine minds. This is sort of why I like Steinhart's philosophy of 
computationalism, where in the beginning, or in the original  archaic Hebrew, 
at a beginning there was a singular hardware that created the software. More 
importantly, the guy uses software terms to model the universe(s). So in his 
theology we have pipes and pipelines, processes,  and promotions of the 
software in physical form, which everything is, and the data patterns will get 
moved. It parallels a bit your own work. 


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 18, 2015 3:40 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?




On 17 Feb 2015, at 18:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


If one goes computationalism, and the observing of virtual photons arising from 
nothing, then we can conclude that rather then a value of 0, the greater cosmos 
must be densely packed with energy or information, as yet difficult to access 
by contemporary technology. How do we detect what occurs within a Planck Cell? 
If you go by Schmidhuber's teachings which are similar but not as thorough as 
Steinhart has been, beyond all emergences, exists a basic computer, allegedy, 
as opposed to a primary blender, or lawn mower. Since a computer is more 
complex, I will prefer choosing the term computer.



The laws of physic, if you go computationalism, must be derived from any 
universal computing system. I took sigma_1 arithmetic, which is a tiny part of 
the arithmetical reality, which is true/false independently of us, by the 
arithmetical realism (needed to just define what a computation is). With 
computationalism, we cannot presupposed physics. There is no ontological 
physical reality: it is a sort of collective hallucination made by universal 
numbers.


Schmidhuber disbelieved (in this very list) the first person indeterminacy 
(FPI). The physical reality seems to be still a computation among others, but 
this is violated a priori by the FPI.


But then you are right. Like with quantum field theory, the void contains a 
sort of infinite energy. 0 = infinity, somehow. It is a form of 0_3p is seen as 
infinity-1p. Intuitively this is because the nothing physical is equivalent 
with the everything-arithmetical from inside: all universal numbers do nothing, 
*notably*.


We have not yet anything like a Planck cell. What we can extract is a 
collection of quantum logics, and we can hope for braids, unitary 
transformation, a notion of subjective time, but we have not yet space, nor 
physical time, nor particles, waves, etc.


You might perhaps reread the SANE04 paper(*), or others. I don't think other 
author are aware of the FPI, or take it into account. 


The point is that the basic computer is given by the laws of addition and 
multiplication of numbers, when we do the theory in an explicit way. I could 
have use lambda expression, or combinators, etc. Matter and consciousness are 
ontological-theory-independent.


The logical dependencies are given by: NUMBERS == CONSCIOUSNESS == PHYSICAL 
REALITIES, but the mathematical details are given by the interview of the 
Löbian machine (they involved 8 modalities). 


Bruno


(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 




 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 12:43 pm
 Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory 
to dialectics?
 
 
 

 
 
On 17 Feb 2015, at 13:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
 

Very good. I do go computationalism myself, but in a weird way.
 

 
 
As long as you are valid, you can be as weird as you want.
 

 
 

 
 
 
 I confer that everything we see is running on software, but the software 
yields physical reality, perhaps as a side effect.
 

 
 
Hmm... Computationalism, as I define it, is that *you*, or what you can count 
on you, is run by a software.
 

 
 
Then everything we live and see, including physics (if that exists), is a side 
effect. 
 

 
 
But then a priori physics and what we see cannot be Turing emulable. The 
apparent emulability of nature is a problem

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 14 Feb 2015, at 19:04, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

In Islam, I have read, is a being called The Doubter, which the  
faithful associate with the devil, they term, iblis. But certainly,  
doubt is the true beginning of wisdom?


No doubt about this (note the pun).

Only those lacking faith fears the doubt. They might lie to  
themselves, but usually  it is just because they want to use religion  
to control others, and they lie to others, knowing well what they do.


Putting doubt on the necessity of doubt is a quasi tradition when a  
religion is institutionalized. One pope said that the doubt is the  
devil. It is a prelude to the use of authoritative argument, in a  
domain where it is the most grave to do so, I think.


Bruno






-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 1:22 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From  
quantum theory to dialectics?


On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Samiya Illias  
samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:


 Your argument is based upon the collective thinking of some human  
thinkers and philosophers, while my arguments are based upon a Book  
which, if numbers matter, a large number of humans believe to be of  
a divine revelation.


I find it interesting that these large number of humans who believe  
in this silly holy book of  yours are not distributed equally around  
the globe as you'd expect if it were due to God's grace, but instead  
religious belief shows an enormously strong geographical  
correlation.  You believe that the Quran is true for the same reason  
nearly all those large number of humans believe it to be true, their  
mommy and daddy told them it was true, and there is nothing deeper  
to it than that.


 Studying scripture or being a Muslim does not limit or forbid  
studying the sciences or other disciplines. Seeking knowledge is  
encouraged.


If Seeking knowledge is encouraged it's very strange that although  
Muslims make up 23% of the world's population since 1900 only one  
Muslim has won a Nobel Prize in science, Ahmed Zewail won for  
chemistry in 1999.  Abdus Salam won for physics in 1979 and his  
tombstone said First Muslim Nobel Laureate, but the Pakistani  
government officially decreed that Ahmed Zewail was NOT a Muslim and  
ordered that the word Muslim be erased from his tombstone.


By the way, Jews are only .19% of the world's population and yet  
they've won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.


 Doubt is the lack of faith!

Exactly true, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.

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

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

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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
 OR  
we are in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an  
infinite amount of energy to lie to us, as they must change our  
minds each time we look at the details of the simulation].


Bruno



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 16, 2015 6:18 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From  
quantum theory to dialectics?



On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Interesting John. In steinharts view the first initiator of reality  
may indeed not have been a super mind, except in power. Kind of  
like gnosticism, maybe.


2+2=4 is enough. No need to add unnecessary metaphysics. This is not  
controversial, although not well known by philosophers, logicians  
know this since Gödel, Kleene, etc.
What is not trivial is that it leads to new equation for  
fundamental physics (given by the FPI, translated in the intensional  
variant of self-reference, making comp testable in some sense).




The succeeding universes and each cosm has a god will be  
succeedingly better.


But this does not make sense. Universe are not things which exists  
ontologically.




People get moved to better universes after croaking, akin to  
processes getting pipelined as with software engineering. We would  
be one on a gigantic processes, aka programs, aka cellular  
automata, that are copied and then initiated later. As with  
Bostrom, steinhart says that these programs, us, eventually begin  
their own sim creations. I got this from steinharts other papers I  
have been studying. So your critique of steinharts 1st mind or god,  
would not find opposition with him, but it would suggest that  
evolution (to me) must be a primary program.  Thanks for your coment.


Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to  
infinities of computations, and the appearance of the universe  
emerges from a statistics on all computations. Bostrom participated  
to this list but seems to not have yet taken into account the first  
person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me at some meeting  
that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still be  
saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR  
we are in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an  
infinite amount of energy to lie to us, as they must change our  
minds each time we look at the details of the simulation].


Bruno







Mitch

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From  
quantum theory to dialectics?




On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 wrote:


 John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars  
Disputandi of an eric steinhart paper, on the theological  
implications of the simulation argument. This is the only copy I  
downloaded of the url, but I was able to do a download and print at  
work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be an atheist, but  
believes there was a creator and now a system of creators above and  
beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but  
don't pray to him.  If you can read this, please give out with the  
feedback. I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will  
guess that you will not see it this way. Which is good with me.


http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart


Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive  
simulations it doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's  
simulating us must be smarter than we are, and it would be a pretty  
poor sort of God if we're smarter than He is. A simulated hurricane  
is smarter at predicting what a real hurricane will do than the  
meteorologist who created the simulation, and a simulated Chess  
grandmaster is smarter at Chess than the real Chess grandmaster who  
wrote the Chess program. And even if the simulation argument is  
true (and the restriction on the number of calculations that can be  
performed in the observable universe may rule out infinite levels,  
unless that restriction was just tacked on by our simulators)  you  
wouldn't have all the knowledge that the infinite number of  
simulations below you have. Steinhart also seems to assume that  
every event have a cause, but I know of no law of logic that  
demands that.


  John K Clark



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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-17 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
If one goes computationalism, and the observing of virtual photons arising from 
nothing, then we can conclude that rather then a value of 0, the greater cosmos 
must be densely packed with energy or information, as yet difficult to access 
by contemporary technology. How do we detect what occurs within a Planck Cell? 
If you go by Schmidhuber's teachings which are similar but not as thorough as 
Steinhart has been, beyond all emergences, exists a basic computer, allegedy, 
as opposed to a primary blender, or lawn mower. Since a computer is more 
complex, I will prefer choosing the term computer.



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?




On 17 Feb 2015, at 13:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


Very good. I do go computationalism myself, but in a weird way.


As long as you are valid, you can be as weird as you want.






 I confer that everything we see is running on software, but the software 
yields physical reality, perhaps as a side effect.


Hmm... Computationalism, as I define it, is that *you*, or what you can count 
on you, is run by a software.


Then everything we live and see, including physics (if that exists), is a side 
effect. 


But then a priori physics and what we see cannot be Turing emulable. The 
apparent emulability of nature is a problem for the computationalists, but with 
computer science it becomes a mathematically formulable problem.




The idea is very simple, once you are aware of some result in computer science, 
notably the fact that once you agree that a tiny part of the arithmetical 
reality, or any other computer-science theoretical reality, is independent of 
you and me.


This is implicitly used in physics, through the use of mathematical theories, 
usually richer than arithmetic, but this is debatable.


But that reality, conceptually much simpler than physics, or physics + a 
creator, contains the experience you are living here and now. That is a *fact*. 
All executions of all programs can be translated into an infinity of purely 
arithmetical relations, that is the fact, but then, once you assume 
computationalism, you can understand that your consciousness is not related to 
this or that realization by this or that universal numbers, but, below your 
substitution, results from the statistics on a infinity of those arithmetical 
realizations of programs execution. 






 An infinite or near infinite reality, whether you invoke MWI, 


We can't a priori assume QM, but semantically and intuitively, computationalism 
forces a similar move than Everett, but not on the universal unitary 
transformation, just on the sigma_1 part of arithmetic. The sigma_1 part is the 
computable part, it is the Turing emulable part of the arithmetical reality, 
which extends considerably in the non computable part.


By the FPI, we are undetermined on that collection of realizations. By computer 
science, it has what is needed for an abstract measure, hopefully with the 
right groups.








or subdomains within an infinite cosmos, would handle the energy issue, quite 
well.


Energy is the constant 0. The nothing physical, which already emulate largely 
the physical reality. But this is from observation, and with computationalism 
(and the mind-body problem in mind) we need to derive even this from the 
arithmetical mind-body problem.


But it works. Things have been done at the propositional level.


And thanks to incompleteness, the notion of truth acts like a notion of God for 
the machine, which makes possible an interpretation of Plotinus.






 It just won't consume an infinite right here, in this universe or domain. In 
fact, energy may just be software, in a level or reality above us. 



With comp you can start from the bottom, you assume only what you need for 
defining your favorite universal reality, and you derive the laws coupling 
minds and stable realities from mathematical logic, and mathematics.


I use arithmetic because it is taught in high school. 


The real debate is not on the existence of God, (which is rather obvious), it 
is on the existence of the Physical Universe. 


Is there a physical universe? Aristotle seems to have believe this.


Plato was open to the idea that the physical universe is only an aspect of a 
simpler deeper reality, and some tradition have defended the idea that the 
deeper reality might be arithmetical or mathematical. Even in that case, 
computationnalism makes it impossible to reduce the whole of truth to a 3p 
reality, so comp prevents even the reduction in that part. It is the price of 
consistency (t).


Consciousness/conscience (t inference) accelerates the path toward truth.


Alas,


Lies ([]f = ~t, or worst []t, can too. Delusions can help, but you cut 
your link with the main deities t, G*, Z1*, X1*. 


Here

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Feb 2015, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/16/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

OUR faith? stories for the believers to sooth their mind.


Possible, but this does not entail that the faith has no object.  
Again, with computationalism, faith is meta-justified by the fact  
that all (Löbian) machines cannot avoid the discovery that truth,  
if it exists, extends vastly what they can justify or explain. It  
is a faith in some truth, and then some people fill it with legend  
and fairy tales, which is perhaps a not bad beginning, unless they  
fall in the trap of literalism, which can transform an inspiring  
guide into an obstacle for the approach toward truth.


I don't know why you refer to it as faith.


I use faith for when we believe something without proof, like the  
belief in axioms, or in undecidable (for me) propositions.



It is provable that there are true but unprovable propositions in  
arithmetic.


For each machine. But different machine can have different undecidable  
propositions. Provability is a relative notion (contrarily to  
computability).




  The faith step is assuming arithmetic.


Yes, ... in assuming some axioms. We might distinguish the faith  
needed for the axioms, and the faith in self-consistency needed to  
give some sense (model, interpretation) of the axioms. It is  
eventually the difference between G and G*, or any []-logic and its  
[]* logic.
Basically faith is belief/assumption without communicable evidence,  
proof or argument, like the faith in the existence of primary matter,  
or of any all-encompassing ontology.


Bruno





Brent

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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Feb 2015, at 20:14, David Nyman wrote:


On 16 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

The faith step is assuming arithmetic.

It's always been clear that Bruno's work is effectively an enquiry  
into whether something as apparently simple as first-order  
arithmetical relations are nonetheless a sufficient ontological  
basis for the full range of observable phenomena. We could argue  
till Kingdom Come about the nature of the 'existence' or otherwise  
of arithmetic and get precisely nowhere, faith or no faith.  
Alternatively we could put the assumption to the test, or perhaps  
more realistically, continue to follow with interest Bruno's  
indefatigable investigation of its possible consequences.


As with any hypothesis, any securely established conflict with the  
empirical facts would suffice to invalidate it. Contrariwise,  
especially given the startling (but certainly not unmotivated)  
simplicity of the assumption, the longer it can resist refutation  
the more interesting it may begin to look. I really don't see that  
it need be any more controversial than that.



Indeed. I don't think that there is any controversy. My work is  
ignored, only. My original enemies did not believe in quantum  
mechanics, artificial intelligence, theoretical computer science, not  
mentioning consciousness, mind, Everett, etc.


I still have no clue if that ignorance is due to ideological reason or  
just due to the will of saving the notoriety of some people who have  
demolish it without even reading it, as they report shows.


It is a very modest work. The only radical thing is that it shows that  
science has not decided between Plato and Aristotle, and some  
scientists have never think about that, because they don't even  
believe in a science of consciousness or mind, despite mechanism and  
computer science. Well, I remember that they did not even believe in  
computer science, and some of them, evn in logic. Some mathematicians  
believe only in analysis. They can be quite conservative. They defend  
corporatism, not ideas, actually.


Bruno




David

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

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


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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-17 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Very good. I do go computationalism myself, but in a weird way. I confer that 
everything we see is running on software, but the software yields physical 
reality, perhaps as a side effect. An infinite or near infinite reality, 
whether you invoke MWI, or subdomains within an infinite cosmos, would handle 
the energy issue, quite well. It just won't consume an infinite right here, in 
this universe or domain. In fact, energy may just be software, in a level or 
reality above us. 


Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to infinities of 
computations, and the appearance of the universe emerges from a statistics on 
all computations. Bostrom participated to this list but seems to not have yet 
taken into account the first person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me 
at some meeting that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still 
be saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR we are 
in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an infinite amount of 
energy to lie to us, as they must change our minds each time we look at the 
details of the simulation].


Bruno





-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 16, 2015 6:18 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?




On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


Interesting John. In steinharts view the first initiator of reality may indeed 
not have been a super mind, except in power. Kind of like gnosticism, maybe. 


2+2=4 is enough. No need to add unnecessary metaphysics. This is not 
controversial, although not well known by philosophers, logicians know this 
since Gödel, Kleene, etc.
What is not trivial is that it leads to new equation for fundamental physics 
(given by the FPI, translated in the intensional variant of self-reference, 
making comp testable in some sense).






The succeeding universes and each cosm has a god will be succeedingly better. 


But this does not make sense. Universe are not things which exists 
ontologically. 






People get moved to better universes after croaking, akin to processes getting 
pipelined as with software engineering. We would be one on a gigantic 
processes, aka programs, aka cellular automata, that are copied and then 
initiated later. As with Bostrom, steinhart says that these programs, us, 
eventually begin their own sim creations. I got this from steinharts other 
papers I have been studying. So your critique of steinharts 1st mind or god, 
would not find opposition with him, but it would suggest that evolution (to me) 
must be a primary program.  Thanks for your coment.


Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to infinities of 
computations, and the appearance of the universe emerges from a statistics on 
all computations. Bostrom participated to this list but seems to not have yet 
taken into account the first person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me 
at some meeting that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still 
be saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR we are 
in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an infinite amount of 
energy to lie to us, as they must change our minds each time we look at the 
details of the simulation].


Bruno












Mitch


Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?


 
  
  
   
   
 On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:   
   


  John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars Disputandi of 
  an eric steinhart paper, on the theological implications of the simulation 
  argument. This is the only copy I downloaded of the url, but I was able to 
  do a download and print at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be 
  an atheist, but believes there was a creator and now a system of creators 
  above and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but 
  don't pray to him.  If you can read this, please give out with the feedback. 
  I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will guess that you will 
  not see it this way. Which is good with me.  
  
 
 
  
   
http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart
  
 


 


 


 Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive simulations it 
doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's simulating us must be smarter than 
we are, and it would be a pretty poor sort of God if we're smarter than He is. 
A simulated

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-16 Thread David Nyman
On 16 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

The faith step is assuming arithmetic.


It's always been clear that Bruno's work is effectively an enquiry into
whether something as apparently simple as first-order arithmetical
relations are nonetheless a sufficient ontological basis for the full range
of observable phenomena. We could argue till Kingdom Come about the nature
of the 'existence' or otherwise of arithmetic and get precisely nowhere,
faith or no faith. Alternatively we could put the assumption to the test,
or perhaps more realistically, continue to follow with interest Bruno's
indefatigable investigation of its possible consequences.

As with any hypothesis, any securely established conflict with the
empirical facts would suffice to invalidate it. Contrariwise, especially
given the startling (but certainly not unmotivated) simplicity of the
assumption, the longer it can resist refutation the more interesting it may
begin to look. I really don't see that it need be any more controversial
than that.

David

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-16 Thread meekerdb

On 2/16/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

OUR faith? stories for the believers to sooth their mind.


Possible, but this does not entail that the faith has no object. Again, with 
computationalism, faith is meta-justified by the fact that all (Löbian) machines 
cannot avoid the discovery that truth, if it exists, extends vastly what they can 
justify or explain. It is a faith in some truth, and then some people fill it with 
legend and fairy tales, which is perhaps a not bad beginning, unless they fall in the 
trap of literalism, which can transform an inspiring guide into an obstacle for the 
approach toward truth.


I don't know why you refer to it as faith.  It is provable that there are true but 
unprovable propositions in arithmetic.  The faith step is assuming arithmetic.


Brent

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Interesting John. In steinharts view the first initiator of reality  
may indeed not have been a super mind, except in power. Kind of like  
gnosticism, maybe.


2+2=4 is enough. No need to add unnecessary metaphysics. This is not  
controversial, although not well known by philosophers, logicians know  
this since Gödel, Kleene, etc.
What is not trivial is that it leads to new equation for fundamental  
physics (given by the FPI, translated in the intensional variant of  
self-reference, making comp testable in some sense).




The succeeding universes and each cosm has a god will be  
succeedingly better.


But this does not make sense. Universe are not things which exists  
ontologically.




People get moved to better universes after croaking, akin to  
processes getting pipelined as with software engineering. We would  
be one on a gigantic processes, aka programs, aka cellular automata,  
that are copied and then initiated later. As with Bostrom, steinhart  
says that these programs, us, eventually begin their own sim  
creations. I got this from steinharts other papers I have been  
studying. So your critique of steinharts 1st mind or god, would not  
find opposition with him, but it would suggest that evolution (to  
me) must be a primary program.  Thanks for your coment.


Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to infinities  
of computations, and the appearance of the universe emerges from a  
statistics on all computations. Bostrom participated to this list but  
seems to not have yet taken into account the first person  
indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me at some meeting that this  
what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still be saved, as  
indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR we are in a  
purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an infinite amount  
of energy to lie to us, as they must change our minds each time we  
look at the details of the simulation].


Bruno







Mitch

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From  
quantum theory to dialectics?




On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 wrote:


 John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars  
Disputandi of an eric steinhart paper, on the theological  
implications of the simulation argument. This is the only copy I  
downloaded of the url, but I was able to do a download and print at  
work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be an atheist, but  
believes there was a creator and now a system of creators above and  
beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but  
don't pray to him.  If you can read this, please give out with the  
feedback. I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will  
guess that you will not see it this way. Which is good with me.


http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart


Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive  
simulations it doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's  
simulating us must be smarter than we are, and it would be a pretty  
poor sort of God if we're smarter than He is. A simulated hurricane  
is smarter at predicting what a real hurricane will do than the  
meteorologist who created the simulation, and a simulated Chess  
grandmaster is smarter at Chess than the real Chess grandmaster who  
wrote the Chess program. And even if the simulation argument is true  
(and the restriction on the number of calculations that can be  
performed in the observable universe may rule out infinite levels,  
unless that restriction was just tacked on by our simulators)  you  
wouldn't have all the knowledge that the infinite number of  
simulations below you have. Steinhart also seems to assume that  
every event have a cause, but I know of no law of logic that demands  
that.


  John K Clark



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

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

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-15 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars Disputandi
 of an eric steinhart paper, on the theological implications of the
 simulation argument. This is the only copy I downloaded of the url, but I
 was able to do a download and print at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart
 seems to be an atheist, but believes there was a creator and now a system
 of creators above and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah
 thers a god, but don't pray to him.  If you can read this, please give out
 with the feedback. I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will
 guess that you will not see it this way. Which is good with me.


 http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart



Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive simulations
it doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's simulating us must be
smarter than we are, and it would be a pretty poor sort of God if we're
smarter than He is. A simulated hurricane is smarter at predicting what a
real hurricane will do than the meteorologist who created the simulation,
and a simulated Chess grandmaster is smarter at Chess than the real Chess
grandmaster who wrote the Chess program. And even if the simulation
argument is true (and the restriction on the number of calculations that
can be performed in the observable universe may rule out infinite levels,
unless that restriction was just tacked on by our simulators)  you wouldn't
have all the knowledge that the infinite number of simulations below you
have. Steinhart also seems to assume that every event have a cause, but I
know of no law of logic that demands that.

  John K Clark

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-15 Thread meekerdb

On 2/15/2015 3:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Any 'practical' advice why I should change my position? Anything I should *KNOW*
about?

Agnostically yours
John M



The practical advice would be to ask yourself how you know where your computer keyboard is 
and how it works.  Then you may try applying that method of knowledge, whatever it is, to 
other questions.


Brent
It ain't so much what you don't know that gets you into trouble, as what you know that 
ain't so.

  --- Josh Billings

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


Subset of N (was Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Feb 2015, at 17:08, Samiya Illias wrote:

You can invoke God to tell to the others what is right and wrong.  
You apply such belief to yourself if you feel it, but it can only  
concern a relation that you have with God, and God can have other  
relations with other people.


Yes, of course.


Of course I meant You can't invoke God to tell the others what is  
right or wrong.


Are you still OK?

On the contrary. I have complete the theory before studying the  
entheogen, I try to see if some experience could refute the theory.  
It is normal when interested in consciousness to explore the other  
consciousness state. I do think that during all night, everyone,  
sometimes, go in some of those places, which are typical rest  
place of the sleep.



May you find the truth, and be pleased with what you find. Amen.





Platonist are immune again literal interpretation of any experience;  
we just don't believe in what we see. Salvia is trickier because the  
experience itself explains that the experience is an hallucination,  
and so as an Epimenidean outlook.


Salvia is classified as a dysphoric (unlike sex, coffee, chocolate,  
tea, opiates, alcohol, cannabis, sugar which are euphoric).

It is not a pleasing experience.

It is not pleasing, but it is instructive in the 1p way. There is  
nothing usable to convince anyone there, but it leads to new questions  
of the type of those we can make precise when assuming computationalism.


Just give me sometime to try to sum up the key things. Do you know  
what is a function from N to N, where N is the set of the natural  
numbers N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ...} ?


Would you prefer I don't ask you question like that ?

It is a good start, but only a start. Finding what is common in all  
those messages can be helpful to eliminate the cultural superstition  
from the important invariants, and possible truth.


Indeed. Perhaps each has some piece of the puzzle.


Ah! :)



Every living thing we know dies and we are constantly witnessing  
birth and death all around.


In a collective dream, perhaps. Seeing someone dying is hardly a  
proof that his first person experience is terminated.


The living cannot communicate with the dying/dead anymore. Don't  
know about the dying/dead person's first person experience. There is  
definitely a 'life-changing' experience there.



We cannot know, but we can reason from assumptions, and if we assume  
digital mechanism, it might be that the experience would corresponds  
with a shifting of consciousness from the mode with t (the Z and X  
logics) to those without (S4Grz, G, G*).




All texts, all theories, all reports, all journals, all books, can  
and should be put in doubt, always, if you are confident enough in  
the search of truth.


Agree in principle, differ in detail.



Hmm...


No.
Thank you for the math lessons.
Best wishes and take care,



Thanks Samya.

Tell me if you understand what follows.

Proposition: an infinite sequence of 1 and 0 defines a subset of N,  
and vice versa.


Explanation

We write the set of all numbers, and below, we write 0 or 1 according  
to the fact the number is a member or not of the subset.


Exemple:

The finite set {0, 1, 2} corresponds to 111000...
The set of even numbers {0, 2, 4, ... } corresponds to 101010101010...
The set of odd numbers {1, 3, 5, ... } corresponds to 0101010101...

OK?

Subset of N and infinite sequences of 0 and 1 are basically the same  
thing, they are characteristic of each other. OK?


Note that the empty set { } corresponds to the sequence 000
And N itself corresponds to the sequence 111...

Tell me if this makes sense to you.

Best,

Bruno








Bruno

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



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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-15 Thread LizR
On 16 February 2015 at 12:01, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 Any 'practical' advice why I should change my position? Anything I should
 *KNOW*
 about?


Being in the same position as you, all I can say is ... I don't know.

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-15 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Interesting John. In steinharts view the first initiator of reality may indeed 
not have been a super mind, except in power. Kind of like gnosticism, maybe. 
The succeeding universes and each cosm has a god will be succeedingly better. 
People get moved to better universes after croaking, akin to processes getting 
pipelined as with software engineering. We would be one on a gigantic 
processes, aka programs, aka cellular automata, that are copied and then 
initiated later. As with Bostrom, steinhart says that these programs, us, 
eventually begin their own sim creations. I got this from steinharts other 
papers I have been studying. So your critique of steinharts 1st mind or god, 
would not find opposition with him, but it would suggest that evolution (to me) 
must be a primary program.  Thanks for your coment.

Mitch
div
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?



div id=AOLMsgPart_2_3e19ce3c-5d69-462e-ae18-078186a4f441

 div dir=ltr
  div class=aolmail_gmail_extra
   

   div class=aolmail_gmail_quote
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
span dir=ltra target=_blank 
href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span
 wrote:
   
   div class=aolmail_gmail_quote


blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex
 John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars Disputandi of 
 an eric steinhart paper, on the theological implications of the simulation 
 argument. This is the only copy I downloaded of the url, but I was able to do 
 a download and print at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be an 
 atheist, but believes there was a creator and now a system of creators above 
 and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but don't 
 pray to him.  If you can read this, please give out with the feedback. I am 
 feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will guess that you will not see 
 it this way. Which is good with me. 
 

  

 
 

  div
   a target=_blank 
href=http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart;http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart/a
  
 /div
/blockquote


 




 




Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive simulations it 
doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's simulating us must be smarter than 
we are, and it would be a pretty poor sort of God if we're smarter than He is. 
A simulated hurricane is smarter at predicting what a real hurricane will do 
than the meteorologist who created the simulation, and a simulated Chess 
grandmaster is smarter at Chess than the real Chess grandmaster who wrote the 
Chess program. And even if the simulation argument is true (and the restriction 
on the number of calculations that can be performed in the observable universe 
may rule out infinite levels, unless that restriction was just tacked on by our 
simulators)  you wouldn't have all the knowledge that the infinite number of 
simulations below you have. Steinhart also seems to assume that every event 
have a cause, but I know of no law of logic that demands that.



 




  John K Clark



 




 

   /div
  /div
 /div 
 p/p -- 
 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
 
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to 
 a target=_blank 
href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a.
 
 To post to this group, send email to 
 a target=_blank 
href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a.
 
 Visit this group at 
 a target=_blank 
href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a.
 
 For more options, visit 
 a target=_blank 
href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout;https://groups.google.com/d/optout/a.
 
 

/div
/div/div

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-14 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars Disputandi of an 
eric steinhart paper, on the theological implications of the simulation 
argument. This is the only copy I downloaded of the url, but I was able to do a 
download and print at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be an 
atheist, but believes there was a creator and now a system of creators above 
and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but don't 
pray to him.  If you can read this, please give out with the feedback. I am 
feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will guess that you will not see it 
this way. Which is good with me. 

divhttp://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 04:46 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?



div id=AOLMsgPart_2_6358d9ed-4934-4055-8f54-a38c31f4effc

 div dir=ltr
  div class=aolmail_gmail_extra
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015  spudboy100 via Everything List 
   span dir=ltra target=_blank 
href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span
 wrote:
   

  
  div class=aolmail_gmail_extra
   div class=aolmail_gmail_quote


blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex
 font color=black face=arial 
  

   font face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif 
style=background-color:transparent In Islam, I have read, is a being called 
The Doubter, which the faithful associate with the devil, they term, 
iblis./font
  /font
/blockquote


 




And in both the Old Testament and the Quran the devil is far more moral than 
God, yes the devil opposes God but he should because in both books God is a 
complete shit*. And even in the New Testament it is the prince of piece himself 
who introduces the concept of eternal damnation, the devil may be a bit rude 
and perform some over the top pranks from time to time but he never came close 
to doing anything THAT evil.



 


   /div
   div class=aolmail_gmail_quote
blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex
 font color=black face=arial
  

   font face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif 
style=background-color:transparent But certainly, doubt is the true 
beginning of wisdom?/font
  /font
/blockquote


 




 Yes but we're talking about religion, something unrelated to wisdom.



 




 John K Clark



 


   /div*During the second world war the novelist Evelyn Waugh (Brideshead 
Revisited)
  /div
  div class=aolmail_gmail_extra
was a commando in Yugoslavia with Winston Churchill's son Randolph. During a 
lull in the fighting Waugh happened to hear him say that he'd never read the 
Bible, so Waugh, who was very religious, said he'd give Randolph 10 pounds if 
he read it cover to cove. Randolph agreed but it didn't have the desired effect 
because during the entire week his reading took he could be repeatedly heard to 
exclaim  GOD IS SUCH A SHIT!. 
   

  /div
 /div 
 p/p -- 
 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
 
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to 
 a target=_blank 
href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a.
 
 To post to this group, send email to 
 a target=_blank 
href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a.
 
 Visit this group at 
 a target=_blank 
href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a.
 
 For more options, visit 
 a target=_blank 
href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout;https://groups.google.com/d/optout/a.
 
 

/div
/div/div

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou


 On 15 Feb 2015, at 1:49 am, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

 I hope you would you also agree with this statement: Science is simply 
 Critical Inquiry, neither doubt not faith.

A scientist would say that he would drop his favoured theory, or at least think 
it less likely to be true, if evidence against it accumulated. So would a jury 
or judge in a court of law, and so would any other fair or intellectually 
honest person. But with revealed religion it is different, because faith - 
belief without evidence - is made a virtue.

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-14 Thread Samiya Illias
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:22 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
  wrote:

  Your argument is based upon the collective thinking of some human
 thinkers and philosophers, while my arguments are based upon a Book which,
 if numbers matter, a large number of humans believe to be of a divine
 revelation.


 I find it interesting that these large number of humans who believe in
 this silly holy book of  yours are not distributed equally around the globe
 as you'd expect if it were due to God's grace, but instead religious belief
 shows an enormously strong geographical correlation.  You believe that the
 Quran is true for the same reason nearly all those large number of humans
 believe it to be true, their mommy and daddy told them it was true, and
 there is nothing deeper to it than that.

  Studying scripture or being a Muslim does not limit or forbid studying
 the sciences or other disciplines. Seeking knowledge is encouraged.


 If Seeking knowledge is encouraged it's very strange that although
 Muslims make up 23% of the world's population since 1900 only one Muslim
 has won a Nobel Prize in science, Ahmed Zewail won for chemistry in 1999.
 Abdus Salam won for physics in 1979 and his tombstone said First Muslim
 Nobel Laureate, but the Pakistani government officially decreed that Ahmed
 Zewail was NOT a Muslim and ordered that the word Muslim be erased from
 his tombstone.


A number of times the Qadiani sect/religion has been referred to in various
conversations pertaining to Islam in this list. Just for clarity, let me
explain it with the Judaism-Christianity analogy. Both believe Moses to be
a prophet of God. Both also believe that the Torah/Old Testament is a
scripture. Christians believe in Jesus where as Jews don't. Christians
believe in the gospels while the Jews don't. Christians do not call
themselves Jews, nor is there any problem with that.
Similarly, the Qadiani sect/religion believes in Muhammad and the Quran,
yet they also believe in another latter prophet. They are free to practice
their religion. its just that a law was passed that they should not call
themselves Muslims.
By the way, Dr Abdus Salam was a Pakistani, and Ahmed Zewail of Egyptian
origin.



 By the way, Jews are only .19% of the world's population and yet they've
 won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.

  Doubt is the lack of faith!


 Exactly true,


I hope you would you also agree with this statement: Science is simply
Critical Inquiry, neither doubt not faith.

Samiya



 but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.

   John k Clark

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


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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-14 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

In Islam, I have read, is a being called The Doubter, which the faithful 
associate with the devil, they term, iblis. But certainly, doubt is the true 
beginning of wisdom? 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 1:22 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?




On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:


 Your argument is based upon the collective thinking of some human thinkers 
 and philosophers, while my arguments are based upon a Book which, if numbers 
 matter, a large number of humans believe to be of a divine revelation.


I find it interesting that these large number of humans who believe in this 
silly holy book of  yours are not distributed equally around the globe as you'd 
expect if it were due to God's grace, but instead religious belief shows an 
enormously strong geographical correlation.  You believe that the Quran is true 
for the same reason nearly all those large number of humans believe it to be 
true, their mommy and daddy told them it was true, and there is nothing deeper 
to it than that.


 Studying scripture or being a Muslim does not limit or forbid studying the 
 sciences or other disciplines. Seeking knowledge is encouraged. 


If Seeking knowledge is encouraged it's very strange that although Muslims make 
up 23% of the world's population since 1900 only one Muslim has won a Nobel 
Prize in science, Ahmed Zewail won for chemistry in 1999.  Abdus Salam won for 
physics in 1979 and his tombstone said First Muslim Nobel Laureate, but the 
Pakistani government officially decreed that Ahmed Zewail was NOT a Muslim and 
ordered that the word Muslim be erased from his tombstone. 


By the way, Jews are only .19% of the world's population and yet they've won 
20% of the Nobel Prizes. 



 Doubt is the lack of faith! 


Exactly true, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. 


  John k Clark



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

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-14 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:47, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:



Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better,  tell me how many times you  
will need to use the second axioms?


Nine times. Here:

1+8=9

Prove: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0= s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)

For x=s(0)

Using axiom 2,

Rewriting for y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))=7

Step 1: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))}


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for  
y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))=6


Step 2: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(0))}]


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(s(0)=5

Step 3: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(0)}]]


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(0=4

Step 4: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(0}]]]


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(0)))=3

Step 5: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(0)))}


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(s(0))=2

Step 6: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(0))}]


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(0)=1

Step 7: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(0)}]]


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=0

Step 8: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+0}]]]


Using axiom 1

Step 9: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)}]]]


Rewriting with round brackets

Step 10: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)



OK.(get the feeling you use axiom 2 only 8 times, but that is a  
detail).


Yes, its eight times.


OK.









Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following  
multiplicative axioms:


3) x * 0 = 0
4) x * s(y) = x + (x * y)

Yes, they hold true when substituted with natural numbers.



Really?

Have you verified for all numbers?

Generalisation ?


Well, I explain to you the type of axioms we need to be able to  
prove such generalization. P(n) means P is some formula of  
arithmetic (made using only the logical symbols and the  
arithmetical symbols: they are s, 0, + and * (together with (,  
), and as I said the logical symbol: we can use only - (and  
define ~A by A - (0 = 1)).


So that we are speaking the same language, please see if the  
following are as you mean them:


s = successor



Intuitively? Yes. But it will be of extreme importance to just use  
that intuition to see if you are OK with the axioms, and then to  
understand that in the formal derivation/computation we do not rely  
on the intuition.


The axioms for s are just:


- for all x ~(0 = s(x))   (for all numbers x, 0 is not the successor  
of x, put simply: 0 is not a successor).
- for all x and y, s(x) = s(y)   -   x = y  (equivalent with x≠y - 
 s(x) ≠ s(y), that is all numbers have only one successor)


We will also use this axioms, to make things easier and straight  
(and get stronger representation theorem later)


- for all x,  (x = 0) or  Ey(x = s(y)). That is all numbers are  
either null, or have a predecessor.


In summary our assumptions are, together with some logical axioms  
that we will need to make precise too:



0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) - x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

This is what I will call RA (for Robinson Arithmetic).

And I will show that IF we are machine, then RA is enough for a  
theory of everything, and I will explain how to derive consciousness  
and appearence of matter from it, without adding any new axioms,  
other than computationalism translated in that theory.





0 = zero

OK. 0 is the usual symbol to denote the number zero (which is not  
a symbol, but a number).


Again, what 0 really means does not concern us. We can considered  
that it is defined implicitly from the axioms above. We need only  
agreement on the axioms, not on the interpretation itself.




+ = plus / and

‘* = times / multiply

- = implies that

~ = all / everything / negation ?



Negation. Those logical connector will also be implicitly define by  
some axioms and rules. Not today.


In fact their semantics is very easy:

(A  B) is true when A is true and B is true, and it is false in the  
other case.
(A v B) is false when A is false and B is false, and it is true in  
the other case.


(A - B) is false when A is true and B is false, and is true  
otherwise (we will come back on this one).


~A is false when A is true, and is true when A is false. OK?




(0=1) ???


It is an example of a false sentence, in arithmetic.

You can verify that

~A has the same truth value than (A - 0 = 1). Of course here 1  
is used as an abbreviation for s(0).





P = prove

Ah, no. P was 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-14 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015  spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 In Islam, I have read, is a being called The Doubter, which the faithful
 associate with the devil, they term, iblis.


And in both the Old Testament and the Quran the devil is far more moral
than God, yes the devil opposes God but he should because in both books God
is a complete shit*. And even in the New Testament it is the prince of
piece himself who introduces the concept of eternal damnation, the devil
may be a bit rude and perform some over the top pranks from time to time
but he never came close to doing anything THAT evil.

 But certainly, doubt is the true beginning of wisdom?


 Yes but we're talking about religion, something unrelated to wisdom.

 John K Clark

*During the second world war the novelist Evelyn Waugh (Brideshead
Revisited)
was a commando in Yugoslavia with Winston Churchill's son Randolph. During
a lull in the fighting Waugh happened to hear him say that he'd never read
the Bible, so Waugh, who was very religious, said he'd give Randolph 10
pounds if he read it cover to cove. Randolph agreed but it didn't have the
desired effect because during the entire week his reading took he could be
repeatedly heard to exclaim  GOD IS SUCH A SHIT!.

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-13 Thread Samiya Illias
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:47, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:


 Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better,  tell me how many times you will
 need to use the second axioms?


 Nine times. Here:

 1+8=9

 Prove: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0= s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)

 For x=s(0)

 Using axiom 2,

 Rewriting for y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))=7

 Step 1: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))}

 Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))=6

 Step 2: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(0))}]

 Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(s(0)=5

 Step 3: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(0)}]]

 Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(0=4

 Step 4: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(0}]]]

 Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(0)))=3

 Step 5: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(0)))}

 Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(s(0))=2

 Step 6: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(0))}]

 Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(0)=1

 Step 7: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(0)}]]

 Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=0

 Step 8: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+0}]]]

 Using axiom 1

 Step 9: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)}]]]

 Rewriting with round brackets
 Step 10: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)



 OK.(get the feeling you use axiom 2 only 8 times, but that is a
 detail).


 Yes, its eight times.


 OK.








 Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following multiplicative
 axioms:

 3) x * 0 = 0
 4) x * s(y) = x + (x * y)


 Yes, they hold true when substituted with natural numbers.



 Really?

 Have you verified for all numbers?


 Generalisation ?


 Well, I explain to you the type of axioms we need to be able to prove
 such generalization. P(n) means P is some formula of arithmetic (made using
 only the logical symbols and the arithmetical symbols: they are s, 0, + and
 * (together with (, ), and as I said the logical symbol: we can use
 only - (and define ~A by A - (0 = 1)).


 So that we are speaking the same language, please see if the following are
 as you mean them:

 s = successor

 Intuitively? Yes. But it will be of extreme importance to just use that
 intuition to see if you are OK with the axioms, and then to understand that
 in the formal derivation/computation we do not rely on the intuition.

 The axioms for s are just:


 - for all x ~(0 = s(x))   (for all numbers x, 0 is not the successor of x,
 put simply: 0 is not a successor).
 - for all x and y, s(x) = s(y)   -   x = y  (equivalent with x≠y - s(x)
 ≠ s(y), that is all numbers have only one successor)

 We will also use this axioms, to make things easier and straight (and get
 stronger representation theorem later)

 - for all x,  (x = 0) or  Ey(x = s(y)). That is all numbers are either
 null, or have a predecessor.

 In summary our assumptions are, together with some logical axioms that we
 will need to make precise too:


 0 ≠ s(x)
 s(x) = s(y) - x = y
 x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
 x+0 = x
 x+s(y) = s(x+y)
 x*0=0
 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

 This is what I will call RA (for Robinson Arithmetic).

 And I will show that IF we are machine, then RA is enough for a theory of
 everything, and I will explain how to derive consciousness and appearence
 of matter from it, without adding any new axioms, other than
 computationalism translated in that theory.



 0 = zero

 OK. 0 is the usual symbol to denote the number zero (which is not a
 symbol, but a number).

 Again, what 0 really means does not concern us. We can considered that
 it is defined implicitly from the axioms above. We need only agreement on
 the axioms, not on the interpretation itself.


 + = plus / and

 ‘* = times / multiply

 - = implies that

 ~ = all / everything / negation ?


 Negation. Those logical connector will also be implicitly define by some
 axioms and rules. Not today.

 In fact their semantics is very easy:

 (A  B) is true when A is true and B is true, and it is false in the other
 case.
 (A v B) is false when A is false and B is false, and it is true in the
 other case.

 (A - B) is false when A is true and B is false, and is true otherwise (we
 will come back on this one).

 ~A is false when A is true, and is true when A is false. OK?



 (0=1) ???

 It is an example of a false sentence, in arithmetic.

 You can verify that

 ~A has the same truth value than (A - 0 = 1). Of course here 1 is
 used as an abbreviation for s(0).



 P = prove

 Ah, no. P was for an arbitrary arithmetical sentence. It was a
 meta-variable, not 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
 On 14 Feb 2015, at 6:40 am, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
javascript:; wrote:

 My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and
intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not
doubt.
Doubt is the lack of faith!

Science considers faith bad and doubt good, revealed religions such as
Islam have the opposite view. You'll just have to agree to disagree - it's
an impasse.




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-13 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Your argument is based upon the collective thinking of some human
 thinkers and philosophers, while my arguments are based upon a Book which,
 if numbers matter, a large number of humans believe to be of a divine
 revelation.


I find it interesting that these large number of humans who believe in this
silly holy book of  yours are not distributed equally around the globe as
you'd expect if it were due to God's grace, but instead religious belief
shows an enormously strong geographical correlation.  You believe that the
Quran is true for the same reason nearly all those large number of humans
believe it to be true, their mommy and daddy told them it was true, and
there is nothing deeper to it than that.

 Studying scripture or being a Muslim does not limit or forbid studying
 the sciences or other disciplines. Seeking knowledge is encouraged.


If Seeking knowledge is encouraged it's very strange that although Muslims
make up 23% of the world's population since 1900 only one Muslim has won a
Nobel Prize in science, Ahmed Zewail won for chemistry in 1999.  Abdus
Salam won for physics in 1979 and his tombstone said First Muslim Nobel
Laureate, but the Pakistani government officially decreed that Ahmed
Zewail was NOT a Muslim and ordered that the word Muslim be erased from
his tombstone.

By the way, Jews are only .19% of the world's population and yet they've
won 20% of the Nobel Prizes.

 Doubt is the lack of faith!


Exactly true, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.

  John k Clark

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-12 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:47, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:



Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better,  tell me how many times you  
will need to use the second axioms?


Nine times. Here:

1+8=9

Prove: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0= s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)

For x=s(0)

Using axiom 2,

Rewriting for y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))=7

Step 1: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))}


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for  
y=(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))=6


Step 2: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(0))}]


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(s(0)=5

Step 3: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(0)}]]


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(s(0=4

Step 4: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(s(0}]]]


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=(s(s(s(0)))=3

Step 5: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(s(0)))}


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(s(0))=2

Step 6: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(s(0))}]


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=s(0)=1

Step 7: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+s(0)}]]


Simplifying the bracket on the right side, for y=0

Step 8: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)+0}]]]


Using axiom 1

Step 9: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s[s[s[s[s[s[s[s{s(0)}]]]

Rewriting with round brackets

Step 10: s(0)+s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 =  
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)



OK.(get the feeling you use axiom 2 only 8 times, but that is a  
detail).


Yes, its eight times.


OK.









Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following  
multiplicative axioms:


3) x * 0 = 0
4) x * s(y) = x + (x * y)

Yes, they hold true when substituted with natural numbers.



Really?

Have you verified for all numbers?

Generalisation ?


Well, I explain to you the type of axioms we need to be able to  
prove such generalization. P(n) means P is some formula of  
arithmetic (made using only the logical symbols and the arithmetical  
symbols: they are s, 0, + and * (together with (, ), and as I  
said the logical symbol: we can use only - (and define ~A by A -  
(0 = 1)).


So that we are speaking the same language, please see if the  
following are as you mean them:


s = successor

Intuitively? Yes. But it will be of extreme importance to just use  
that intuition to see if you are OK with the axioms, and then to  
understand that in the formal derivation/computation we do not rely on  
the intuition.


The axioms for s are just:


- for all x ~(0 = s(x))   (for all numbers x, 0 is not the successor  
of x, put simply: 0 is not a successor).
- for all x and y, s(x) = s(y)   -   x = y  (equivalent with x≠y -  
s(x) ≠ s(y), that is all numbers have only one successor)


We will also use this axioms, to make things easier and straight (and  
get stronger representation theorem later)


- for all x,  (x = 0) or  Ey(x = s(y)). That is all numbers are either  
null, or have a predecessor.


In summary our assumptions are, together with some logical axioms that  
we will need to make precise too:



0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) - x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

This is what I will call RA (for Robinson Arithmetic).

And I will show that IF we are machine, then RA is enough for a theory  
of everything, and I will explain how to derive consciousness and  
appearence of matter from it, without adding any new axioms, other  
than computationalism translated in that theory.





0 = zero

OK. 0 is the usual symbol to denote the number zero (which is not a  
symbol, but a number).


Again, what 0 really means does not concern us. We can considered  
that it is defined implicitly from the axioms above. We need only  
agreement on the axioms, not on the interpretation itself.




+ = plus / and

‘* = times / multiply

- = implies that

~ = all / everything / negation ?



Negation. Those logical connector will also be implicitly define by  
some axioms and rules. Not today.


In fact their semantics is very easy:

(A  B) is true when A is true and B is true, and it is false in the  
other case.
(A v B) is false when A is false and B is false, and it is true in the  
other case.


(A - B) is false when A is true and B is false, and is true otherwise  
(we will come back on this one).


~A is false when A is true, and is true when A is false. OK?




(0=1) ???


It is an example of a false sentence, in arithmetic.

You can verify that

~A has the same truth value than (A - 0 = 1). Of course here 1 is  
used as an abbreviation for s(0).





P = prove

Ah, no. P was for an arbitrary arithmetical sentence. It was a meta- 
variable, not allowed in the formal expression.


An arithmetical formula can 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-12 Thread Samiya Illias
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:





 Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full
 of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely
 many relatively consistent continuations.

 Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an
 observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep
 truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough
 induction axioms. I know you believe in them.

 The lexicon is
 p   truthGod
 []p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
 []p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
 []p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1,
 Z1*)
 []p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)

 You need to study some math,


 I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a
 mountain I would like to climb :)


 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me.


 OK


 Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n.
 Right?


 Right :)
 You suggest I begin with Set Theory?


 No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one
 theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point
 naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will
 never be part of the fundamental assumptions.

 I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the
 following statements (and some other later):

 Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct:


 x + 0 = x

 if x=1, then
 1+0=1


 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y)

 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3


 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom:  x + successor(y) =
 successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y).


 I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the
 natural numbers.


 And use your common intuition. Good.

 The idea now will be to see if the axioms given capture that intuition,
 fully, or in part.






 Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers
 by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for
 successor:

 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...

 If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ...


 We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)),
 s(s(s(0))), ...




 Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements
 just above?

 then 2 + 1 = 3


 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but
 it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms:

 1)  x + 0 = x
 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y)

 Let me show you:

 We must compute:

 s(s(0)) + s(0)

 The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y.
 We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y =
 0. OK?
 So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x  (= s(s(0))) and
 y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives

 s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0   ) OK? (this is a simple substitution,
 suggested by the axiom 2)

 But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right
 side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0))  )

 So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0)))

 OK?


 Yes, thanks!


 You are welcome.




 Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I
 would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose.


 1+8=9
 Translating in successor terms:
 s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
 Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0, and
 y=0,
 s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0)
 Applying axiom 1 to the right side:
 s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
 1+8=9

 Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used axiom
 2 once. Am I missing some basic point?


 Let me see. Axiom 2 says:x + s(y)) = s(x + y). Well, if x = 8, and y
 = 0, we get 8 + 1, and your computation/proofs is correct, in that case.

 So you would have been correct if I was asking you to prove/compute that
 8 + 1 = 9.

 Unfortunately I asked to prove/compute that 1 + 8 = 9.

 I think that you have (consciously?) use the fact that 1 + 8 = 8 + 1,
 which speeds the computation.

 Well, later I ill show you that the idea that for all x and y x + y = y +
 x, is NOT provable with the axioms given (despite that theorey will be
 shown to be already Turing Universal.

 No worry. Your move was clever, but you need to put yourself 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-10 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:







Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life,  
indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to  
provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations.


Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first  
person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an  
independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in  
the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you  
believe in them.


The lexicon is
p   truthGod
[]p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
[]p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
[]p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal  
logic, Z1, Z1*)

[]p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)

You need to study some math,

I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet,  
its a mountain I would like to climb :)


7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me.


OK


Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 =  
n.  Right?


Right :)
You suggest I begin with Set Theory?


No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer  
one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental.  
At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making  
thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions.


I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand  
the following statements (and some other later):

Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct:

x + 0 = x
if x=1, then
1+0=1

x + successor(y) = successor(x + y)
1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3


I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom:  x + successor(y)  
= successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y).


I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables  
with the natural numbers.


And use your common intuition. Good.

The idea now will be to see if the axioms given capture that  
intuition, fully, or in part.









Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the  
numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0.  
Abbreviating s for successor:


0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...
If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ...


We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)),  
s(s(s(0))), ...






Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the  
statements just above?

then 2 + 1 = 3


Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 =  
3, but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms:


1)  x + 0 = x
2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y)

Let me show you:

We must compute:

s(s(0)) + s(0)

The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y.
We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and  
y = 0. OK?
So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x  (=  
s(s(0))) and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives


s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0   ) OK? (this is a simple  
substitution, suggested by the axiom 2)


But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the  
right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0))  )


So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0)))

OK?

Yes, thanks!


You are welcome.





Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case  
I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training  
purpose.


1+8=9
Translating in successor terms:
s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0,  
and y=0,

s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0)
Applying axiom 1 to the right side:
s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
1+8=9

Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used  
axiom 2 once. Am I missing some basic point?


Let me see. Axiom 2 says:x + s(y)) = s(x + y). Well, if x = 8,  
and y = 0, we get 8 + 1, and your computation/proofs is correct, in  
that case.


So you would have been correct if I was asking you to prove/compute  
that 8 + 1 = 9.


Unfortunately I asked to prove/compute that 1 + 8 = 9.

I think that you have (consciously?) use the fact that 1 + 8 = 8 +  
1, which speeds the computation.


Well, later I ill show you that the idea that for all x and y x + y  
= y + x, is NOT provable with the axioms given (despite that theorey  
will be shown to be already Turing Universal.


No worry. Your move was clever, but you need to put yourself in the  
mind of a very stupid machine which understand only the axioms  

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-10 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

I am just reading his stuff, slowly, so I cannot answer your mathematicalism 
versus arithmaticism, well enough for a discussion. I could provide a couple 
links to his papers (Maybe 2 or 3?)  that may highlight your question. However, 
if you think it might harm the flow of discussion here, I will not post them. 
What I have learned is that physicists are fearful from a career point of view, 
of being damaged for publishing physics work that has anything to do with 
speculation about consciousness. But philosophers can get away with it because 
they are removed from pure science. They can ask and peak over physicists 
shoulders, by reviewing their work and not receive criticism.

Mitch
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 9, 2015 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?




On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr. Eric 
Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson University, is the 
US. He was originally a software engineer and is like yourself, a math guy. He 
applies his experience to his philosophy, and after reading your writings here, 
as well as Amoeba, his insights seem to parallel yours.  Also, Clement Vidal's, 
as well. Every heard of him? His papers focus on the origins of the universe(s) 
Platonism, Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy. It's not exactly like 
your work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs 
this topic I think.  




I don't think I know him although the name invke some familiarity. Did he got 
the first person indeterminacy, the mathematicalism or arithmeticallism? 


The mean to test this. You might sum up the idea, if you have the time,


The problem with many scientists is that they stop doing science when doing 
philosophy. It is not a problem, but it can be confusing in that field.






Bruno











 
 

 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm
 Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory 
to dialectics?
 
 
 

 

 
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 

 
 
 
 
On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:
 
 
 

 

 
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 

 
 
On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:
 
 
 
 

 
 

 On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an 
infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many 
relatively consistent continuations.
 

 
 
Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer 
(a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any 
machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I 
know you believe in them.
 

 
 
The lexicon is 
 
p   truthGod 
 
[]p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
 
[]p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
 
[]p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*)
 
[]p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)
 

 
 
You need to study some math, 
 
 
 
 

 
 
I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I 
would like to climb :) 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me. 
 
 
 

 OK 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n.  Right? 
 
 
 
 

 
 Right :)  
You suggest I begin with Set Theory? 
 
 
 

 
 
No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or 
another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set 
theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of 
the fundamental assumptions.
 

 
 
I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following 
statements (and some other later): 
 
 
 
 
Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct:   
 
 
 
 

 
 
x + 0 = x 
 
 
 
 
if x=1, then 
 
1+0=1  
 
 
 
 

 
 
x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 
 
 
 
 
1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom:  x + successor(y) = 
successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). 
 
 
 
 

 
 
I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the 
natural numbers. 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
  
Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their 
degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor:
 

 
 
0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...
 
 
 
 
If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ...
 
 
 
 
 

 
  
We

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of  
Dr. Eric Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson  
University, is the US. He was originally a software engineer and is  
like yourself, a math guy. He applies his experience to his  
philosophy, and after reading your writings here, as well as Amoeba,  
his insights seem to parallel yours.  Also, Clement Vidal's, as  
well. Every heard of him? His papers focus on the origins of the  
universe(s) Platonism, Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy.  
It's not exactly like your work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever  
heard of him? It sort of informs this topic I think.



I don't think I know him although the name invke some familiarity. Did  
he got the first person indeterminacy, the mathematicalism or  
arithmeticallism?


The mean to test this. You might sum up the idea, if you have the time,

The problem with many scientists is that they stop doing science when  
doing philosophy. It is not a problem, but it can be confusing in that  
field.




Bruno










-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From  
quantum theory to dialectics?




On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:







Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life,  
indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to  
provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations.


Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first  
person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an  
independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in  
the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you  
believe in them.


The lexicon is
p   truthGod
[]p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
[]p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
[]p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic,  
Z1, Z1*)

[]p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)

You need to study some math,

I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet,  
its a mountain I would like to climb :)


7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me.


OK


Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 =  
n.  Right?


Right :)
You suggest I begin with Set Theory?


No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer  
one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At  
some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing  
easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions.


I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand  
the following statements (and some other later):

Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct:

x + 0 = x
if x=1, then
1+0=1

x + successor(y) = successor(x + y)
1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3


I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom:  x + successor(y)  
= successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y).


I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables  
with the natural numbers.





Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the  
numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0.  
Abbreviating s for successor:


0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...
If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ...


We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)),  
s(s(s(0))), ...






Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements  
just above?

then 2 + 1 = 3


Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3,  
but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms:


1)  x + 0 = x
2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y)

Let me show you:

We must compute:

s(s(0)) + s(0)

The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y.
We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y  
= 0. OK?
So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x  (= s(s(0)))  
and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives


s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0   ) OK? (this is a simple  
substitution, suggested by the axiom 2)


But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the  
right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0))  )


So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0)))

OK?

Yes, thanks!

Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case  
I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training  
purpose.


1+8=9
Translating in successor terms:
s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-09 Thread Samiya Illias
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:





 Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full
 of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely
 many relatively consistent continuations.

 Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an
 observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep
 truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough
 induction axioms. I know you believe in them.

 The lexicon is
 p   truthGod
 []p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
 []p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
 []p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1,
 Z1*)
 []p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)

 You need to study some math,


 I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a
 mountain I would like to climb :)


 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me.


 OK


 Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n.
 Right?


 Right :)
 You suggest I begin with Set Theory?


 No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one
 theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point
 naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will
 never be part of the fundamental assumptions.

 I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the
 following statements (and some other later):

 Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct:


 x + 0 = x

 if x=1, then
 1+0=1


 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y)

 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3


 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom:  x + successor(y) =
 successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y).


 I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the
 natural numbers.


 And use your common intuition. Good.

 The idea now will be to see if the axioms given capture that intuition,
 fully, or in part.






 Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by
 their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for
 successor:

 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...

 If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ...


 We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)),
 s(s(s(0))), ...




 Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just
 above?

 then 2 + 1 = 3


 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but
 it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms:

 1)  x + 0 = x
 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y)

 Let me show you:

 We must compute:

 s(s(0)) + s(0)

 The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y.
 We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0.
 OK?
 So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x  (= s(s(0))) and
 y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives

 s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0   ) OK? (this is a simple substitution,
 suggested by the axiom 2)

 But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right
 side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0))  )

 So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0)))

 OK?


 Yes, thanks!


 You are welcome.




 Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I
 would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose.


 1+8=9
 Translating in successor terms:
 s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
 Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0, and
 y=0,
 s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0)
 Applying axiom 1 to the right side:
 s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
 1+8=9

 Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used axiom
 2 once. Am I missing some basic point?


 Let me see. Axiom 2 says:x + s(y)) = s(x + y). Well, if x = 8, and y =
 0, we get 8 + 1, and your computation/proofs is correct, in that case.

 So you would have been correct if I was asking you to prove/compute that 8
 + 1 = 9.

 Unfortunately I asked to prove/compute that 1 + 8 = 9.

 I think that you have (consciously?) use the fact that 1 + 8 = 8 + 1,
 which speeds the computation.

 Well, later I ill show you that the idea that for all x and y x + y = y +
 x, is NOT provable with the axioms given (despite that theorey will be
 shown to be already Turing Universal.

 No worry. Your move was clever, but you need to put yourself in the mind
 of a very stupid machine which understand only the axioms given.


I understand


 Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-09 Thread LizR
From Wikipedia I get the idea that he is interested in the technological
singularity, mind uploading and suchlike.

On 10 February 2015 at 09:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

 Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr.
 Eric Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson
 University, is the US. He was originally a software engineer and is like
 yourself, a math guy. He applies his experience to his philosophy, and
 after reading your writings here, as well as Amoeba, his insights seem to
 parallel yours.  Also, Clement Vidal's, as well. Every heard of him? His
 papers focus on the origins of the universe(s) Platonism,
 Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy. It's not exactly like your
 work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs
 this topic I think.



 I don't think I know him although the name invke some familiarity. Did he
 got the first person indeterminacy, the mathematicalism or
 arithmeticallism?

 The mean to test this. You might sum up the idea, if you have the time,

 The problem with many scientists is that they stop doing science when
 doing philosophy. It is not a problem, but it can be confusing in that
 field.



 Bruno









 -Original Message-
 From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm
 Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
 theory to dialectics?



 On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


   On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


  On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:





  Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed
 full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your
 infinitely many relatively consistent continuations.

  Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person),
 an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but
 deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough
 induction axioms. I know you believe in them.

  The lexicon is
 p   truthGod
 []p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
 []p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
 []p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1,
 Z1*)
 []p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)

  You need to study some math,


  I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a
 mountain I would like to climb :)


  7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me.


 OK


  Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n.
 Right?


  Right :)
 You suggest I begin with Set Theory?


  No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one
 theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point
 naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will
 never be part of the fundamental assumptions.

  I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the
 following statements (and some other later):

 Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct:


  x + 0 = x

 if x=1, then
 1+0=1


  x + successor(y) = successor(x + y)

 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3


   I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom:  x + successor(y) =
 successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y).


  I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with
 the natural numbers.



  Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers
 by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for
 successor:

  0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...

 If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ...


  We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)),
 s(s(s(0))), ...




  Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements
 just above?

 then 2 + 1 = 3


  Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3,
 but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms:

  1)  x + 0 = x
 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y)

  Let me show you:

  We must compute:

 s(s(0)) + s(0)

  The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y.
 We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0.
 OK?
 So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x  (= s(s(0))) and
 y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives

  s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0   ) OK? (this is a simple substitution,
 suggested by the axiom 2)

  But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right
 side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0))  )

  So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0)))

  OK?


  Yes, thanks!


  Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I
 would

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-09 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

 Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr.
 Eric Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson
 University, is the US. He was originally a software engineer and is like
 yourself, a math guy. He applies his experience to his philosophy, and
 after reading your writings here, as well as Amoeba, his insights seem to
 parallel yours.  Also, *Clement Vidal*'s, as well. Every heard of him?
 His papers focus on the origins of the universe(s) Platonism,
 Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy. It's not exactly like your
 work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs
 this topic I think.



 I don't think I know him although the name invke some familiarity. Did he
 got the first person indeterminacy, the mathematicalism or arithmeticallism?


The mean to test this. You might sum up the idea, if you have the time,

 The problem with many scientists is that they stop doing science when
 doing philosophy. It is not a problem, but it can be confusing in that
 field.


One of those names at least is familiar to the list because:


On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:25 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:


 To die for Allah is slay for Allah. The reward for the mujahedeen is
 enormous, for to sacrifice ones self, and the opponent of God, is to
 granted immediate entry into paradise (Janah) and its rewards are not
 unsubstantial. One way to change the Umah's mind (if such is even possible)
 would be to make widespread, *Clement Vidal*'s publications, especially,
 The Beginning and the End, The Meaning of Life in a Cosmological
 Perspective. Part of the book details with afterlife concepts in a rational
 sense, as well as much, more. *Vidal* is a colleague of Bruno Marchal at
 Free University, Brussels. * Vidal*'s influence may induce those looking
 for a heavenly, rewards, for head chopping unbelievers, a good think.

 It would also alter our own perspective as well. Make the world a bit more
 peaceful, and provide some reassurance for all.

 Honk! If you all agree ;-)





On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:52 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Bruno might comment on his colleague, at university, *Clement Vidal*. The
 Evo-Devo approach, etc.





On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:46 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:



 Sent from AOL Mobile
  If We remain a sophisticated civilization, we should be able to leave
 space exploration for the robots, until such a time and and place where we
 uncover something dynamically interesting. But this is for another
 generation to decide, and not ours. Which makes things,  seem, our world,
 our times, our worries, seem so temporary. On the other hand I am now
 reading the work by *Clement Vidal*, of Free University, Brussels, a
 colleague, of Bruno Marchal, on the meaning and purpose of intelligence,
 life, and cosmology, leading to the far future-a very, different
 perspective indeed.




On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:55 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Dr. Marchal, do you ever get in conversations with your fellow academician,*
 Clement Vidal*? He's a philosopher at your University? Do you ever get
 into the Evo-Devo view?


So that may be part of the reason the name is slowly becoming familiar
although I wouldn't know, as I can't search the list's archives completely,
nor do I receive/want all posts archived in my Inbox, therefore filtering
and/or ignoring a lot. PGC

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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:







Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life,  
indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to  
provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations.


Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first  
person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an  
independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in  
the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you  
believe in them.


The lexicon is
p   truthGod
[]p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
[]p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
[]p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic,  
Z1, Z1*)

[]p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)

You need to study some math,

I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet,  
its a mountain I would like to climb :)


7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me.


OK


Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 =  
n.  Right?


Right :)
You suggest I begin with Set Theory?


No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer  
one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At  
some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing  
easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions.


I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand  
the following statements (and some other later):

Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct:

x + 0 = x
if x=1, then
1+0=1

x + successor(y) = successor(x + y)
1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3


I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom:  x + successor(y)  
= successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y).


I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables  
with the natural numbers.


And use your common intuition. Good.

The idea now will be to see if the axioms given capture that  
intuition, fully, or in part.









Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the  
numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0.  
Abbreviating s for successor:


0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...
If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ...


We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)),  
s(s(s(0))), ...






Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements  
just above?

then 2 + 1 = 3


Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3,  
but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms:


1)  x + 0 = x
2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y)

Let me show you:

We must compute:

s(s(0)) + s(0)

The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y.
We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y  
= 0. OK?
So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x  (= s(s(0)))  
and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives


s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0   ) OK? (this is a simple  
substitution, suggested by the axiom 2)


But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the  
right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0))  )


So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0)))

OK?

Yes, thanks!


You are welcome.





Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case  
I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training  
purpose.


1+8=9
Translating in successor terms:
s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0,  
and y=0,

s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0)
Applying axiom 1 to the right side:
s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
1+8=9

Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used  
axiom 2 once. Am I missing some basic point?


Let me see. Axiom 2 says:x + s(y)) = s(x + y). Well, if x = 8, and  
y = 0, we get 8 + 1, and your computation/proofs is correct, in that  
case.


So you would have been correct if I was asking you to prove/compute  
that 8 + 1 = 9.


Unfortunately I asked to prove/compute that 1 + 8 = 9.

I think that you have (consciously?) use the fact that 1 + 8 = 8 + 1,  
which speeds the computation.


Well, later I ill show you that the idea that for all x and y x + y =  
y + x, is NOT provable with the axioms given (despite that theorey  
will be shown to be already Turing Universal.


No worry. Your move was clever, but you need to put yourself in the  
mind of a very stupid machine which understand only the axioms given.


Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better,  tell me how many times you will  
need to use the second axioms?









Let me ask you 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-08 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr. Eric 
Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson University, is the 
US. He was originally a software engineer and is like yourself, a math guy. He 
applies his experience to his philosophy, and after reading your writings here, 
as well as Amoeba, his insights seem to parallel yours.  Also, Clement Vidal's, 
as well. Every heard of him? His papers focus on the origins of the universe(s) 
Platonism, Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy. It's not exactly like 
your work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs 
this topic I think. 






-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?






On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:




On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:






On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:






On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:







 




Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an 
infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many 
relatively consistent continuations.


Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer 
(a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any 
machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I 
know you believe in them.


The lexicon is 
p   truthGod 
[]p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
[]p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
[]p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*)
[]p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)


You need to study some math, 




I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I 
would like to climb :) 




7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me. 


OK 




Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n.  Right? 




Right :) 
You suggest I begin with Set Theory? 



No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or 
another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set 
theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of 
the fundamental assumptions.


I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following 
statements (and some other later): 


Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct:   




x + 0 = x 


if x=1, then 
1+0=1  




x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 


1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 





I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom:  x + successor(y) = 
successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). 




I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the 
natural numbers. 










Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their 
degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor:


0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...


If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ...




We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...











Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? 


then 2 + 1 = 3  




Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but it is 
not clear if you proved it using the two axioms:


1)  x + 0 = x
2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y)


Let me show you:


We must compute:
 
s(s(0)) + s(0) 


The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y.
We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0. OK?
So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x  (= s(s(0))) and y (= 
0) in the axiom 2). This gives


s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0   ) OK? (this is a simple substitution, 
suggested by the axiom 2)


But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side 
becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0))  )


So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0)))


OK? 




Yes, thanks!  




Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I would ask 
you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose. 




1+8=9 
Translating in successor terms: 
s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) 
Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0, and y=0, 
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0)  
Applying axiom 1 to the right side: 
s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) 

1+8=9


Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used axiom 2 
once. Am I missing some basic point?  






Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following multiplicative axioms

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-07 Thread Samiya Illias
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:





 Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full
 of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely
 many relatively consistent continuations.

 Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an
 observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep
 truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough
 induction axioms. I know you believe in them.

 The lexicon is
 p   truthGod
 []p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
 []p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
 []p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*)
 []p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)

 You need to study some math,


 I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a
 mountain I would like to climb :)


 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me.


 OK


 Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n.  Right?


 Right :)
 You suggest I begin with Set Theory?


 No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one
 theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point
 naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will
 never be part of the fundamental assumptions.

 I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the
 following statements (and some other later):

 Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct:


 x + 0 = x

 if x=1, then
 1+0=1


 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y)

 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3


 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom:  x + successor(y) =
 successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y).


I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the
natural numbers.



 Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by
 their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for
 successor:

 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...

 If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ...


 We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)),
 s(s(s(0))), ...




 Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just
 above?

 then 2 + 1 = 3


 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but
 it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms:

 1)  x + 0 = x
 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y)

 Let me show you:

 We must compute:

 s(s(0)) + s(0)

 The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y.
 We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0.
 OK?
 So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x  (= s(s(0))) and y
 (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives

 s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0   ) OK? (this is a simple substitution,
 suggested by the axiom 2)

 But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side
 becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0))  )

 So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0)))

 OK?


Yes, thanks!


 Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I
 would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose.


1+8=9
Translating in successor terms:
s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0, and y=0,
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0)
Applying axiom 1 to the right side:
s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)
1+8=9

Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used axiom 2
once. Am I missing some basic point?


 Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following multiplicative
 axioms:

 3) x * 0 = 0
 4) x * s(y) = x + (x * y)


Yes, they hold true when substituted with natural numbers.


 Can you prove that s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(s(s(0)) ?  This is
 of course much longer, and you need all axioms 1), 2), 3) and 4).


I've tried two approaches, but I am getting stuck at the last step. Please
see:

Approach 1:
 Prove s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(s(s(0))
for x=s(s(s(0))) and y=s(0)
Applying axiom 4
Step 1: s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(0))) + (s(s(s(0))) * s(0))
Simplifying the bracket on the right side, again using axiom 4, assuming
x=s(s(s(0))) and y=0
x * s(y)= x + (x*y)
Step 2: s(s(s(0))) * s(0) = s(s(s(0))) + (s(s(s(0))) * 0)
Applying axiom 3
Step 3: s(s(s(0))) * s(0) = s(s(s(0)))
Replacing the value in Step 1:
s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(0))) +  s(s(s(0)))
In number terms, this translates to 3 * 2 = 3 + 3 which is correct but I do
not know how to proceed with the proof.

Approach 2:
 Prove s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(s(s(0))
for 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:






Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed  
full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide  
your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations.


Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first  
person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an  
independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in  
the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you  
believe in them.


The lexicon is
p   truthGod
[]p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
[]p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
[]p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic,  
Z1, Z1*)

[]p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)

You need to study some math,

I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its  
a mountain I would like to climb :)


7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me.


OK


Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n.   
Right?


Right :)
You suggest I begin with Set Theory?


No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer  
one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At  
some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing  
easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions.


I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the  
following statements (and some other later):

Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct:

x + 0 = x
if x=1, then
1+0=1

x + successor(y) = successor(x + y)
1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3


I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom:  x + successor(y) =  
successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y).








Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the  
numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0.  
Abbreviating s for successor:


0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...
If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ...


We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)),  
s(s(s(0))), ...






Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements  
just above?

then 2 + 1 = 3


Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3,  
but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms:


1)  x + 0 = x
2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y)

Let me show you:

We must compute:

s(s(0)) + s(0)

The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y.
We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y =  
0. OK?
So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x  (= s(s(0)))  
and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives


s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0   ) OK? (this is a simple  
substitution, suggested by the axiom 2)


But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right  
side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0))  )


So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0)))

OK?

Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I  
would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose.


Let me ask you this. Are you OK with the two following multiplicative  
axioms:


3) x * 0 = 0
4) x * s(y) = x + (x * y)

Can you prove that s(s(s(0))) * s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(s(s(0)) ?  This  
is of course much longer, and you need all axioms 1), 2), 3) and 4).


If you can do this, Allah already knows that you are Turing universal  
(in some large sense). You can know that too, once we have a  
definition of Turing universal.


With computationalism, except for some purely logical axioms, we have  
already the theory of everything. You can see that it has very few  
assumptions. It does not assume matter or god, nor consciousness. The  
link with consciousness, and Allah, can be made at some metalevel, by  
accepting the idea that the brain or the body is Turing emulable. But  
for this we need to work a little bit more.


Bruno












Samiya

Bruno




Samiya






to see that this give eight quite different view the universal  
machines develop on themselves.


Reminds me of this verse [http://quran.com/69/17 ]:
And the angels are at its edges. And there will bear the Throne  
of your Lord above them, that Day, eight [of them].


It is like that: The four first (plotinian) hypostases live  
harmonically in the arithmetical heaven:



  God

Terrestrial Intelligible   Divine  
Intelligible


   Universal Soul



But then the Universal Soul falls, and you get the (four) matters,  
and the bastard calculus:



Intelligible terrestrial matter   Intelligible  
Divine matter


Sensible terrestrial matter  Sensible Divine  
matter




Here divine means mainly what is 

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-04 Thread Samiya Illias
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:





 Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of
 an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many
 relatively consistent continuations.

 Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an
 observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep
 truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough
 induction axioms. I know you believe in them.

 The lexicon is
 p   truthGod
 []p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
 []p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
 []p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*)
 []p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)

 You need to study some math,


 I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a
 mountain I would like to climb :)


 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me.


 OK


 Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n.  Right?


 Right :)
 You suggest I begin with Set Theory?


 No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one
 theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point
 naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will
 never be part of the fundamental assumptions.

 I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the
 following statements (and some other later):

Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct:


 x + 0 = x

if x=1, then
1+0=1


 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y)

1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3


 Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by
 their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for
 successor:

 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...

If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ...


 Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just
 above?

then 2 + 1 = 3

Samiya


 Bruno



 Samiya






 to see that this give eight quite different view the universal machines
 develop on themselves.


 Reminds me of this verse [http://quran.com/69/17 ]:
 *And the angels are at its edges. And there will bear the Throne of your
 Lord above them, that Day, eight [of them]. *


 It is like that: The four first (plotinian) hypostases live harmonically
 in the arithmetical heaven:


   God

 Terrestrial Intelligible   Divine Intelligible

Universal Soul



 But then the Universal Soul falls, and you get the (four) matters, and the
 bastard calculus:


 Intelligible terrestrial matter   Intelligible Divine
 matter

 Sensible terrestrial matter  Sensible Divine matter



 Here divine means mainly what is true about the machine/number and not
 justifiable by the numbers.






 It provides a universal person, with a soul, consistent extensions,
 beliefs, and some proximity (or not) to God (which is the ultimate
 semantic that the machine cannot entirely figure out by herself (hence the
 faith).


 Interesting!


 All universal machine looking inward discover an inexhaustible reality,
 with absolute and relative aspects.

 Babbage discovered the universal machine, (and understood its
 universality).  The universal machine, the mathematical concept, will be
 (re)discovered and made more precise by a bunch of mathematical logicians,
 like Turing, Post, Church, Kleene.

 You are using such a universal system right now, even plausibly two of
 them: your brain and your computer. They are a key concept in computer
 science. They suffer a big prize for their universality, as it makes them
 possible to crash, be lied, be lost, be deluded. They can know that they
 are universal, and so they can know the consequences.

 The religion which recognizes the universal machine and her classical
 theology might be the one which will spread easily in the galaxy in the
 forthcoming millenaries. (Independently of being true or false, actually).

 Bruno





 Samiya


 If you want to convince me, you have to first convince the universal
 person associated to the Löbian machine, I'm afraid.

 I am not pretending that the machine theology applies to us, but it is a
 good etalon to compare the theologies/religions/reality-conceptions. The
 problem is that we have to backtrack to Plato, where what we see is only
 the border of something, that we can't see, but yet can intuit and talk
 about (a bit like mathematics or music)

 Bruno





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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-02-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:






Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed  
full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide  
your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations.


Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first  
person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an  
independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the  
RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you  
believe in them.


The lexicon is
p   truthGod
[]p  provable Intelligible  (modal logic, G and G*)
[]p  p  the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
[]p  t  intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic,  
Z1, Z1*)

[]p  sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)

You need to study some math,

I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its  
a mountain I would like to climb :)


7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this?  Tell me.


OK


Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n.   
Right?


Right :)
You suggest I begin with Set Theory?


No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one  
theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some  
point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier:  
it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions.


I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the  
following statements (and some other later):


x + 0 = x

x + successor(y) = successor(x + y)

Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers  
by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for  
successor:


0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ...

Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements  
just above?


Bruno




Samiya






to see that this give eight quite different view the universal  
machines develop on themselves.


Reminds me of this verse [http://quran.com/69/17 ]:
And the angels are at its edges. And there will bear the Throne of  
your Lord above them, that Day, eight [of them].


It is like that: The four first (plotinian) hypostases live  
harmonically in the arithmetical heaven:



  God

Terrestrial Intelligible   Divine  
Intelligible


   Universal Soul



But then the Universal Soul falls, and you get the (four) matters,  
and the bastard calculus:



Intelligible terrestrial matter   Intelligible  
Divine matter


Sensible terrestrial matter  Sensible Divine  
matter




Here divine means mainly what is true about the machine/number and  
not justifiable by the numbers.








It provides a universal person, with a soul, consistent  
extensions, beliefs, and some proximity (or not) to God (which is  
the ultimate semantic that the machine cannot entirely figure  
out by herself (hence the faith).


Interesting!



All universal machine looking inward discover an inexhaustible  
reality, with absolute and relative aspects.


Babbage discovered the universal machine, (and understood its  
universality).  The universal machine, the mathematical concept,  
will be (re)discovered and made more precise by a bunch of  
mathematical logicians, like Turing, Post, Church, Kleene.


You are using such a universal system right now, even plausibly two  
of them: your brain and your computer. They are a key concept in  
computer science. They suffer a big prize for their universality,  
as it makes them possible to crash, be lied, be lost, be deluded.  
They can know that they are universal, and so they can know the  
consequences.


The religion which recognizes the universal machine and her  
classical theology might be the one which will spread easily in the  
galaxy in the forthcoming millenaries. (Independently of being true  
or false, actually).


Bruno






Samiya

If you want to convince me, you have to first convince the  
universal person associated to the Löbian machine, I'm afraid.


I am not pretending that the machine theology applies to us, but  
it is a good etalon to compare the theologies/religions/reality- 
conceptions. The problem is that we have to backtrack to Plato,  
where what we see is only the border of something, that we can't  
see, but yet can intuit and talk about (a bit like mathematics or  
music)


Bruno







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

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
You received this message because you are 

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >