On 05 Apr 2017, at 22:17, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>>If you insist on using common English words in non-
standard ways it's your own damn fault if you're constantly
misunderstood!
> I reassure you, I am constantly misunderstood only by people
not reading what I write,
When 99% of the human species observe the ASCII sequence G-O-D
they have a clear mental picture of what that sequence represents,
False! the muslims are required to not have any mental image of the
Unnameable. Taoism too, where the names of the tao hides it.
Then you are very naive. You tell me you don't read book on theology,
and you talk like indeed you know not much. Jason Resh gave you
already a long list of quite different god, and then the notion is
tackle also by philosophers and theologians.
Then why use also the sense of the word given by those who have
systematically banish or burn alive anyone doing personal research or
harboring some doubts on some dogma.
Why are (strong) atheists so much defending the God theory of those
who imposed it by violence. Why continue the violence?
I'm not sure why you mean by that sequence of letters but clearly
it's very different from what most people mean by it.
No. Only the stubborn believers in Matter and no God-at-all-in-any-
sense have a problem.
This confusion could be easily cleared up cleared up by you simply
by using a different ASCII sequence, but you flat out refuse to do
so. Why? I can only think of one reason, if your ideas are muddled
clarity of language is not your friend.
> with mechanism, we have to derive physics from arithmetic,
not from logic. And it works very well until now.
If arithmetic "works very well" why do physicists bother to do
experiments,
Because it is still infinitely more efficacious. To use
computationalism to predict an eclipse would like to use quantum
general relativity theory, assuming we fin it, to weight yourself in
the bathroom.
Keep in mind the goal: to solve the mind-body problem (in the
computationalist frame).
why did they spend 10 billion dollars to build the LHC, why didn't
they just sit in a comfy armchair with nothing but a copy of the
multiplication table and figure out how the physical world
works?
> The laws of physics, in fact any laws assume some logic(s).
I think it would be closer to the truth to say the laws of logic
assume the laws of physics not the other way around.
This is non sense. "laws" assumes logic. If you can formalize a
physical theory without any logic, just do it and show it. I have no
clue how to even make any sense of this.
If the laws of physics were different and whenever 2 rocks (or 2 of
anything) were brought to our attention and then 2 more rocks were
brought to our attention then a extra rock always popped into
existence then the laws of both logic and arithmetic that humans
devised would be quite different from what we have today. Everyone
would say it's intuitively obvious that 2+2=5.
You confuse, like in your preceding post, logic and arithmetic.
>>If we both agree that physics can do things that mathematics
can not it should be obvious which is more fundamental.
> Mathematics can do that, even just arithmetic.
Baloney. Aarithmetic can't derive the laws of physics
nor can it derive a mind, it can't even figure out how much 2+2 is
without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics.
In which theory, with what assumptions. The point is that IF digital
mechanism is true THEN we have to derive the laws of physics without
invoking a physical reality. To use a physical reality in this context
has been shown equivalent with the misuse of God by the creationist
critics of evolution.
I found another interesting quote, there is no question who wrote it
because it's in Hugh Everett's handwriting and you can see a
photograph of his letter on Page 177 of Peter Byrne's
book "The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett":.
You have not given me the reference I asked.
"There is no question about which of the final observers corresponds
to the initial one, since each of them possess the total memory of
the first (Which amoeba is the original one?). The successive memory
sequence of an observer do not form a linear array, but a planar
graph (tree): the TRAJECTORY of a observer forms a line not a TREE."
But this confirms so well that Everett conceived the superposition
like Computationalism conceived the self-duplication. It is what I
have often summarize in the drawing Y = II. take Y representing the
duplication of a person P in H with reconstitution in W an M. Y = II
represents the fact that from both reconstituted person HW and HM
becomes two different lines of memory, each unique in its own
memories. So if you agree with Everett notion of probability in that
situation, the phenomenal one indeed, then please, do the same at step
3.
Bruno
Everett even drew a little diagram so there could be no
misunderstanding, and for emphasis he underlined the words I
capitalized, it's all in the photograph of his handwritten letter.
John K Clark
--
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.
