On 14 Jan 2017, at 18:10, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
You seem to know so much about that Artifact "GOD"
It is not so much a question of knowing, than sharing some
definitions, and then reason, or read reasoning made by others.
I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest
follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever.
Today's paradigm is that the material/physical reality is that one,
and my point is that this is just logically impossible if we *assume*
the mechanist principle.
Mechanism is the assumption that "my consciousnesss" is invariant for
*some* digital transformation.
I am a scientist, so I know nothing. I just show that mechanism is
incompatible with all aristotelian theologies (the theologies which
assumes the second god of Aristotle usually known as (Primary,
Assumed) Matter.
and that other one: our "subconscious".
I have not used that term. I can use it sometimes to refer to the
process(i am not aware of) occurring in the brain, in some local 3p-
description.
At least you say so about "HER".
Why do you assign the topic to our Solar system to time the 'full
answer' to at least 2 years (Solar, I suppose, otherwise "YEAR" has
no meaning).
?
We talk in human terms/ideas/concepts/logic.I left it open to the
BEYOND. I agree ith your 'natural' world-image.
We talk in Löbian term.
It is "your" problem if you identify yourself with human. I do not, or
only partially.
The universal machine which observe-itself soon or later get the point
of Theillard de Chardin:
"We are not Humans having from times to times Divine Experiences. We
are Divine Beings having from times to times Human Experiences.". With
"human" replaced by *any* particular instanciation of universal
machine (Löbian by theorem, when they believe enough induction axioms,
like PA, ZF, unlike RA).
It goes well with Sri Aurobindo too:
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)
But for the (mathematical/logical/theological) details, Pythagorus,
Parmenides, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus (and its
followers) where the most closer to the Universal (Löbian) Machine's
discourses.
It might be a coincidence, but with computationalism, it just means
they got the mean or the courage to look inward without lying too much
to themselves, as *all* universal machine got it, soon or late.
Sometimes from your post I think you got the main "modest" point, and
just seem to lose it when thinking that humans are superior to the
universal (Löbian) machine.
Keep in mind that your skepticism about machine's ability might be
that "too much human" way-of-believing prejudice.
I don't claim any truth. I just show that mechanism is incompatible
with materialism, and that mechanism (mainly Church-Turing thesis)
entails non-materialism in a constructive verifiable way: physics
becomes a branch of number/machine self-reference, so we can make the
test (and indeed we get intuitoively and formally the quantum sme-
multiplication type of weirdness).
We know nothing communicable.
We just try to figure things out through communicable hypothesis/
theories, and this without hiding consciousness, for a change, .. that
is listening to what the machines already say, as well as to what they
stay silent about, or assert conditionally.
Happy new year John, and Happy New Realms to All of *You* Who believe
You are.!
Bruno
JM
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 29 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote:
I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr
more than one reason:
1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may
be.
You just have to ask God what she is. Then she will answer. But
it may take two years to get the full answer.
1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?)
Yes, God is a person. In the same way as your own personality is
build up by trillions of brain cells, then Gods personality is
build up by billions of human beeings.
The human conception of God can be said to be build up to trillions
of human brain cells, but that is not God, given that by definition
God is the primary cause of the Universe, and you would not say that
the physical universe's primary cause is the human brain cells.
Of course the phsyical universe as we know it is also a human brain
construct, but if we assume mechanism, we can show that it is a
"Turing machine" constructs. the machine themselves are realized in
arithmetic, as all logicians know since 1931.
1,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the
question: How was God originated?)
No, she did not originate the world. She is a result of the
natural selection.
Well, you are not talking about God as the reason of the Universe
and all realities, but on the human conception of the universe. We
could say likewise that the human theory of natural selection is
also only a successful meme of the human brain. The physical
universe can be explained away in the same manner.
Natural selection need Mechanism to work, but with mechanism, the
physical universe cease to exist in any primitive way. So your
explanation becomes circular or wrong.
3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious.
Have you ever M E T
yours? I figure it must be something limitless of which we
fathom only a bit.
Or is all t his rather fitting the Superconscious? we have
some idea about our 'conscious'?
I have talked with my subconscious. I do it every time I pray.
And sometimes my subconscious answer me. And sometimes my
subconscious talks directly to me, she reminds me when I have
forgotten something.
The subconscious can take the form of person in dreams, but I would
not consider it as a person in the waking life, it is part of your
own personhood, I would say.
4. An immortal person? Cf. Wagner's Gotterdammerung.
No, God is not immortal. But God will live much longer than a
human being. God will live as long as the mankind exists.
5. "Supernatural powers"? did you ever define the "natural
ones" (beyond our ever changing concept of a system of our
"physical" explanations?
No, God have no supernatural powers. God can only do what a human
being can do.
With a non-standard definition of God, as this contradict the
general definition of the notion. In this list people have used the
word "God" as the cause or reason (not necessary physical, perhaps
physical, it will depend on the theory) of reality and realities.
We can reject a definition as being too much precise (like God = the
christian God), but we have to keep the basic of the definition: the
reason of everything, including consciousness and matter (real or
appearances).
You do seem have some faith in the second God of Aristotle: a
physical universe. But with mechanism, both God of Aristotle (the
Creator and the Creation) stop making sense. Only Plato abstract
notion continue to make sense, and indeed, Plato took it to
Pythagoras, mainly, and we are driven again toward it after the
discovery of the universal number/machine.
Mechanism is incompatible with both supernatural powers and ...
natural powers. Those who use the mind-brain identity link attribute
without saying some supernatural power to nature, by making nature
able to select computation(s) in arithmetic, and make all other
computations into zombie.
Bruno
John M
--
Torgny
--
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-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
