Hi Roger,
On 13 Sep 2012, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
But those mechanims are just mechanisms.
You are just doing the "just" fallacy.
A variant of the "nothing but" fallacy.
They do not know what they do,
We do have serious evidence that some mechanism, actually most of
them, when above a treshold of complexity (Turing sigma_1
completeness, universality, more exactly Löbianity) might be able to
know (something obeying the S4 logic) when looking inward.
They can look inward by the second recursion theorem of Kleene, that
is through the use of the Dx = xx syntactical trick (plausibly already
done by the double RNA strings at the molecular level I think).
There is already a sense for not taking them as zombie.
(philosophical zombie)
that knowing
combined with choice of what to do being
another description of intelligence, which is what
makes a creator greater than his creations.
You are limiting the power of God. With comp, God has not all power,
but He/She/It *can* at least create something/someone more powerful
than He/She/It-Self.
At his God exam, God was asked to chose between two problems:
- to make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it up.
- to make a creature more powerful than itself.
Basically that is what happens in Neoplatonism with:
GOD ==> NOUS ==> SOUL ==> MATTER (sensible + intelligible)
In arithmetic, the machine looking inward suggests a "toy theology",
if you want:
TRUTH ==> PROVABILITY ==> KNOWER ==> MATTER (sensible + intelligible)
Although it is more like
PROVABILITY
MATTER (sensible + intelligible)
TRUTH ==> PROVABILITY ==> KNOWER ==> MATTER (sensible + intelligible)
as the machine distinguishes the provable and non provable but true
parts of those discourses. It is useful to get the difference of
discourse between quanta and qualia.
Bruno
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-12, 13:07:32
Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:00, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Any creator has to be greater than his creations.
Why?
The Universal Dovetailer, is smaller than what it does, and what it
created.
The Mandelbrot program is very small, but it "creates" the most
complex object, full or subtle mixing of order and randomness.
The complexity of the universal machine gives a threshold above
which objects have more complex behavior than their description,
somehow.
It is a surprising, but known phenomenon (by logicians and computer
scientist) that arithmetic, despite very simple elementary beings
(0, and its successors), and laws operating on them, addition and
multiplication, is full of complex mathematical processes,
unsolvable or very hard problems, etc. Just think about the
distribution of the prime numbers, or inform yourself. In
arithmetic, above universality, the creators are all overwhelmed by
their creation. They can even lost themselves in them.
This can be also compared to Plotinus, where the ONE is
fundamentally simple, and can't help itself not letting emanating
from itself, the NOUS, Plato "universal intelligence", which put
order on Platonia, but also makes some mess, and then the inner god,
the universal soul, does not help, and it can hurt.
If we ant keep the fundamental principle on God, like being
responsible for our existence, being unameable, then with comp there
is a God, but It is not omnipotent, nor omniscient, apparently.
Divine knowledge is a body freezer.
The point is that God cannot be used as an explanation of whay we
are here, if it is more complex than its creation. I agree with the
others on this.
It might be that the price to pay for any relative potence is a
selective amnesia and/or consciousness differentiation, like in self-
multiplication (amoeba, WM-duplication, etc.).
I like to quote Sri Aurobindo here:
What, you ask, was the beginning of it all?
And it is this ...
Existence that multiplied itself
For sheer delight of being
And plunged into numberless trillions of forms
So that it might
Find
Itself
Innumerably (Aurobindo)
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-11, 14:55:35
Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
On 11 Sep 2012, at 15:29, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Roger Clough
<rclo...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Intelligence is by (my) definition an autonomous function,
>> so over-layers are not only forbidden, they are not needed.
>>
>> But God does have to follow laws he already created.
>> If you jump off of a building you will fall to your death.
>>
>> I'm missing a possible problem there.
>
> You say that order in the universe is evidence of an intelligent
> designer but you don't say that order in the intelligent designer
is
> evidence of a super-intelligent designer who designed him. If you
say
> the designer was not himself designed then why not also say the
> universe was not itself designed?
>
It is a good point. Craig made a similar one. You need God being
conceptually simpler than its creation, to get something looking like
an explanation.
I think this is what has motivated Plotinus to put the ONE (described
mainly as the SIMPLE by Plotinus) above the NOUS, which is already
the
MANY, very rich intelligible worlds of the ideas.
With comp this is captured by the difference between the factual
simple truth, like Ex( s(0)+x = s(s(s(0))) ), and the intelligible
truth, which in arithmetic will concerned provability predicate by
machine, using G鰀el's arithmetical predicate beweisbar(x). The
simple
"cause" is the number together with their additive and multiplicative
laws, the many is the complex digital machine appearing from those
laws, and their possible histories and coupling with other universal
machines.
Bruno
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
