Danny wrote:
To avoid God are we back to some kind of "primitive physical" idea that there
is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit
intelligence from emulating it?
JM:
I suppose 'our intelligence' is part of 'us' and we are part of the "nature of
reality" (whatever that may be, god, or existence, or...).
My grandparents had a cellar with a trap door to descend, a maid-girl came
crying that the door does not open. As it turned out: she was standing on it
when trying to lift it....
(parable for us understanding 'all' we are part of).
Bruno asked:
God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself?
JM:
whatever WE decide is our restrictive opinion. Bruno accepted that 'we' are
'god' so mu answer to the question is: NO, I as god do not.
I consider QM a product of the product (etc) of that 'reality' we try to assign
to it.
(Sorry,Bruno, I do not start from 'numbers' to build up the existence. So far
they stayed unidentified/able upon the many questions I (and others) asked.
They still seem to be - as Bohm said - products of the human thinking. (See
above: product of the product of the pr...etc.)
Bruno:
It is impossible to build a universal *prover* or knower. But we can build
universal classical or quantum constructor or computer.
JM:
"Build", or "think about it"? (Alice, the builder?)
Bruno:
...I prefer translate the "primitive physical idea" as the idea that there is a
primitive physical world which is responsible for appearances.
JM:
I like the translation into "idea". It implies that an 'idea' cannot be
responsible for appearances we think to receive in our mind. Appearances are
just that. Our - if you prefer - mind's interpretation of 'something' -
"reality".
Still: human thinking.
Question: which one of us (humans) CAN think with anything else than a human
mind? If we accept Bruno's "we are god" then it is a human god. Not capable of
'building' the existence from the existing existence. (Cf: trapdoor)
Danny:
...If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly
argument over semantics.
JM:
If the answer is 'no' or anything, it IS as well. If somebody 'believes' in a
personal relationship with any god-phantom halucination based on ANY selective
hearsay assumption, you cannot make him accept (substitute) a scientific'
scrutiny. (I may elaborate on selective, hearsay, and assumption, if I must).
*
I would be happy to see an expansion of what kind of "assumption" Bruno was
mentioning in the last sentence.
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit :
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's
UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this
question I'll define "God" as an entity capable of creating everything that
would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe.
God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself?
To avoid God are we back to some kind of "primitive physical" idea that
there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit
intelligence from emulating it?
We cannot, knowingly, emulate a first person in any third person way. For
example we can emulate perfectly both the comp and the quantum indeterminacy ..
up to the measurement procedure, which can still be emulate but only by
emulating the observer himself. But this can be done with any classical or
quantum universal machine, but then only serendipitously.
I prefer translate the "primitive physical idea" as the idea that there is a
primitive physical world which is responsible for appearances. But this already
contradict the comp hypothesis (for example by the UDA argument, but you can
also look at Plotinus or Proclus).
That it is impossible even in theory to build a kind of "universal quantum
constructor"?
It is impossible to build a universal *prover* or knower. But we can build
universal classical or quantum constructor or computer.
Or is the idea one that physics will forever prohibit intelligence from
acquiring the resources necessary to achieve such a feat?
Neither math nor physics prohibit this. Math only prohibit universal machine
prover or knower.
How can you have everything, but not have something capable of creating
everything? If you assume for instance the UD in the plenitude (no intelligent
action required), doesn't it eventually describe intelligence with access to
infinite or near infinite resources capable of creating an "artificial" UD?
Sure. But why? The UD is needed in an argument. Real platonic UDs are enough
for the rest. Note that this can and should be tested.
If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly
argument over semantics.
You are quite fuzzy about God, and your basic assumptions. Do you assume a
*primitive* physical universe?
I'll be happy to hear where I'm wrong on all this. Please be kind, I've
been away from these sorts of discussions for quite a while!
No problem, but you could be clearer about your assumption, or I am perhaps
missing something.
Bruno
Danny Mayes
On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
> I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what
> gives meaning. The source of meaning is not "living forever" in time
> (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote
> makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real
> problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the
> first place (other than the so-called "irrefutable" first person:
> "It's all about me").
Why should there be? Values are relative to people. Love is our word. We
invented it to describe what we feel. Having some Platonic form of LOVE out
there is superfluous. You're just making up a requirement for "the really real
ding-an-sich" so that you can say God provides it.
You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the chocolate
fairy". You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be
explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only
the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating
experience.
Stathis Papaioannou
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
