John Mikes wrote:
(Brent):
But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable
physics. The two are not separable.
(Bruno):
Exactly, that is why we can derive physics from the "self-
referentially correct" machine theory.
...
The entire train of sophistication is based on 'human logic' as
derived on
Planet Earth for "us". If I allow contents 'more' and 'so far
unaccessed' in the Entirety, "our" the sophistication may reduce to a
flimsy explanatory ignorance. Including physics,
universal (self-referentially correct) machine, etc.
Theory of Everything is spellable 'h o a x', since 'everything'
TOGETHER(?) may be a balanced and inseparable - well - 'Entirety',
of which we got glimpses of details only
and used our extremely sophisticated brains (!) to explain it all to
less sophisticated
believers (scientists?).
One more: there were several questions about a fitting ID of super-
intelligence.
I would start with a 'fitting ID' of "intelligence" and then decide if
the one we are talking
about is 'super' indeed.
I proposed the Latin origination of 'reading between the lines' (inter-
lego) i.o.w. to
consider more than the plain dictionary definition for concepts
spelled out. In such
respect 'Watson' would be a good example. We do it simpler(?) in our
brain. IFFF?
Considering our 'intelligence' we are still at human levels. The
reason, why I went
with 'consciousness' a step further to consider responses
(unidentified nature) upon
relations (unidentified and unrestricted) over the entire Entirety.
Most of the discussion on this (and other?) lists restrict both
concepts to humans
(machines).
With agnostically restricted intelligence (consciousness)
>>
John, you cannot use agnosticism to criticize the search of a theory,
be it on atoms, persons, or everything.
You can criticize the lack of modesty and foolishness of the pseudo-
scientists who would pretend we know the truth of this or that theory,
but you cannot use agnosticism to forbid attempt to theorize on
anything, including on everything.
If you do that you introduce a separation between science and
theology, and this is what will make people stopping modestly
theorizing, and taking the first pseudo-scientist or guru for granted.
If you decide that all theory of everything are hoaxes, only hoaxes
will develop. But we can propose precise theories, in the modest way
(that is never pretending they are true, even when not yet refuted)
and then test them empirically, like with any other subject matter.
Without naïve things, like the Atom of Bohr, we can't progress. To do
theology scientifically, is just the right to propose wrong, but
improvable, theories, in that realm.
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.
