On 12 Jan 2015, at 06:13, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Everyone,
I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of
discussing our ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc.,
And if there is one. Normally, we already have debated that if there
is no magic operating in the brain (another way to assume
computationalism, once we assume Church-Turing thesis), then the
physical universe is a first person plural sort of hallucination, and
we must derived the laws of physics from the laws of thought (Boole
and Boolos, say).
and stop talking about religion so much. It'd be nice if we could
all also provide constructive criticism if we disagree, instead of
insults. If this turns into a religion, hatred, insults type forum,
for me at least, it will have lost the value it had.
I agree. Some use insults, or insinuations, which are not argument.
To start, I'd like to propose the following: We all have
different views on the question "Why there is something rather than
nothing?", if that question even has value, how the universe works,
etc. I think it's safe to say that, unless you're an academic, our
ideas are also routinely ignored, criticized and made fun of by
academics.
Not really. I defended a thesis in mathematics, on the neceesary
mininal common (to all machines) amount of theology, and got no
problem in academies, except for some rare one, known for defending
religious conviction (usually of the atheists type). Those just ignore
facts, proofs, and argument, and I have been unable to ever met them.
But most academicians don't take them seriously, despite some bad
local influence they have on the media.
The only way for amateurs to ever get more traction is if we can
take our ideas on the universe, build them up, and make models and
testable predictions. That's pretty much the scientific method.
Also, if we're discussing metaphysics, metaphysics is the study of
being and existence. Because the universe "be"s and exists, and
physics is the study of how the universe works, the laws of physics
and the universe should be derivable from the principles of
metaphysics.
Yes, and if you accept computationalism, there is a well paved road
for doing that, which consists in interviewing the machine looking
inward. This explains (perhaps incorrectly) the origin of the physical
laws, in term of statistical interference between computations. That
last word is taken in the sense of Post, Turing, Vhurch, and is a
purely mathematical (even arithmetical) notion.
I think many of us are trying to work out the principles of
metaphysics that apply to how the universe works. I call this a
metaphysics-to-physics or philosophical engineering approach. I'd
like to challenge all of us to build models and make predictions
based on our ideas. That's what I'm trying to do in my own
thinking. I've got a very basic beginning model based on my
thinking at my website at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing
in the section called Use of the proposed solution to build a model
of the universe. I look forward to reading about others' models on
this list in the future.
I suggest you read my paper sane04
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
In your text you assume a lot of things, and it is unclear what you
assume, and what you derive. It seems also that you take for granted
(like most people) that there is a primary universe, which would be
made of something, but if we take that view seriously, you will need
to assume actual infinities. That is not entirely obvious. You can
read the paper.
Anyways, even if no one is interested, I'd still vote to get away
from religion. Live and let live, let everyone have their say, and
move on. That's my two cents. Thanks.
The problem is that the debate God/Non-God, hides the fact that
science, today, is build on Aristotle's theology, by habits, and the
facts are on the contrary forcing us to come back to Plato's theology,
where the physical universe is not what exists fundamentally. The
physical universe, for a Platonist, is the border of something else.
This is what math can explain, the fact that the physical reality is a
sort of derivative of the mind, with mind entirely defined in term of
computer science (itself embedable in arithmetic).
Bruno
Roger
--
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.
