Hi Roger,
On 17 Dec 2012, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to
"proof" or "theory" . As a scientist, all I have to do is to
weigh myself and report that to you.
Data, in my book at least, always rules over
theory and assumptions.
But data are already in part the result of theoretical constructions,
with millions years old prewired theories in our "Darwinian" brain.
Data are very important, but theories too. We are ourselves sort of
"natural" hypotheses. We are data and theories ourselves, I would say,
and the frontier between what is data and what is not is fuzzy, and
quasi relative. This has to be so from pure theoretical computer
science. I can explain more if you want, but this will be apparent in
some explanations I intend to send (asap, but not so soon) on the FOAR
list.
Keep also in mind the dream argument which explains that we cannot be
sure if any data is a genuine data.
Bruno
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/17/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-16, 09:59:56
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I probably agree, but what is the primitive
physical universe ?
Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its
existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity).
A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose
existence, or appearance, is explained in a theory which does not
assume it.
My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical
universe cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers
"dreams" (computation seen from the 1p view).
Bruno
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/16/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.
1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view
in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can
consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real.
L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
world (the physical world you see and that of science),
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
not real, only its monadic representation is real.
I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).
Atheism is a variant of christinanism.
The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical
universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive
conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it.
I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in
primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is
incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato
(Truth).
Bruno
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28
Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
L's monads have perception.
They sense the entire universe.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough
<rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
>
> God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics,
> it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads)
> afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to
Plato's
> metaphysics.
>
>
>
>
Hi Richard,
Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception.
What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view'
of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a
monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad
must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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
.
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.
