[Philip Benjamin]
Laws are NOT constructs of the human mind. The 'expressions of the Laws'
are indeed human constructs. F=GmM/r^2 = ma is only a human expression of Laws
governing an unknown force called gravity. 'Unknown' here means unknown to
human consciousness that DID NOT and COULD NOT have CREATED 'gravity'. From F =
GmM/r2 = ma, where F is the gravitational force, G is the gravitational
constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of the Earth, and m is
the mass of another object (near the surface of the Earth), GM/r2= a (The m's
canceled out.) which allows solving for M, the mass of the Earth. M = ar^2/G,
where a = 9.8m/sec^2, r = 6.4 x 10^6 m, and G = 6.67 x 10^-11m3/(kg sec^2). M
= 9.8 x (6.4 x 10^6)^2/(6.67 x 10^-11) = 6.0 x 10^24kg. This mass, radius,
gravity and their relationships etc. are not created by human minds!! Greek
Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the earth comparing shadows in wells
during the summer solstice about 230 B.C.
No human mind howsoever brilliant can escape facing the necessity of
aseity of something or other. Only a degree of rationality can be settled here.
What is MORE rational: Eternal dead-matter producing life (consciousness) or E
ternal LIFE producing both dead-matter and life (consciousness)?
Philip Benjamin
everything-list@googlegroups.com <everything-list@googlegroups.com> On Behalf
Of Jason Resch verything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Why Does Anything Exist? On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 5:24 AM Bruno
Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be<mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
I comment both Benjamin and Lawrence.
On 12 Mar 2021, at 16:56, Lawrence Crowell
<goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com<mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote:
[Brent Meeker]
"https://alwaysasking.com/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Falwaysasking.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ce85437ffe6d546fdcfa408d8e6f95056%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637513305755870501%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=xxiBa5jFlmboc103NsaS6z0B7EfKETnwfZBVt%2FMOYSg%3D&reserved=0>why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation"
[Philip Benjamin] If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. "Ex nihilo,
nihil fit" (Parmenides).
OK. Key point.Laws of any kind necessarily requires the existence of a
conscious Law Giver.
But here I disagree. Consciousness will be the non provable truth (about
machine and by machine) related to their belief in some reality including
oneself. Introspective machine/number can't miss it.
What is it that makes the truths concerning consciousness unprovable?
Is it unprovable only by that machine where another entity using another more
powerful system could prove it?
Is it a consequence of self reference?
Is it related to trying to prove statements of a form "Machine X cannot prove
P"?
If I run a simulation of some entity on my computer, could I not prove
statements about the knowledge/information states contained by it's mind?
What exactly are the limits of what can be proved? Is it just about qualia?
Jason
The logical question is: "what is more reasonable?" DEAD MATTER producing life
or LIFE producing both dead matter and life-forms? Only a degree of
rationality can be established here.
Both in the arithmetical reality, and in the physical reality, life is a simple
consequence of the so called second recursion theorem by Kleene. It is the fact
that piece of codes can encode all it needs to protect itself, to reproduce
itself, to grow, develop, organise and evolved...
Now, the physical reality is not a primitive primary reality, but an illusion
common to all relative numbers, in almost all of their consistent histories.
The laws are constructs of the human mind. [Lawrence]
The expression of the laws are constructs of the human mind, but I guess you
are OK that F=GmM/r^2 was as much approximately true before human life appears
on this planet and after. OK?
There may be patterns in nature, and we inductively infer them as laws.
... OK, and we can sometimes deduce some laws from other, and verify with
Nature. Then there are some mathematical laws, that we find by introspection
and dialog with others.
This is neutral with respect to the question of the origin of the physical
reality. With Mechanism, the physical reality does not need to be assumed, and
in fact cannot be assumed if we want get both the quanta and the qualia, as
this requires a much simpler theory, like any Turing universal system/theory.
The idea there must be a mind for anything to exist is silly.
Yes. It is like abandoning to try to explain mind (and matter). It is better to
not assume neither mind nor matter as fundamental. But we have to assume at
least one universal machinery, and the old Pythagorean one works very well
(natural numbers + the laws making it in a Turing universal system).
Where did the mind come from, and if such a mind existed there was then no true
nothingness.
Yes. In fact it is the empty explanation "God made it", which might work,
actually, but only with a mathematically precise theory of God, and an
explanation of it build the physical reality, or how it makes us believe in a
physical reality.
With mechanism we assume only "very elementary arithmetic" (PA without the
induction axioms), and derive from this the existence of the universal numbers,
and get physics from their own notion of observable. Physics becomes a
statistics on the relative experience/dream by numbers emulated in Arithmetic,
in virtue of the laws of + and *.
What people miss is that the notion of computation is purely an arithmetical
notion. See the book by Martin Davis, and its chapter 4, for a proof of this,
but Gödel's 1931 contains it already implicitly. Gödel missed it because he
missed the Church-Turing thesis, and was quite skeptical until 1936 where he
was convinced by Turing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Philip Benjamin]
Civilized, erudite Phoenician, profligate pagan Augustine of Greco-Roman
roots was instantly TRANSFORMED into a non-pagan and pulled the West off
Greco-Roman paganism and superstitions
(https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.midwestaugustinians.org%2Fconversion-of-st-augustine&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ce85437ffe6d546fdcfa408d8e6f95056%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637513305755870501%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=f%2BRNxMlwakbu4TPOUr%2Fbfah8o%2FIO7J%2FqU9dKojA9YPo%3D&reserved=0>).
Thus he was the chief architect of Western Civilization built on the
foundation of the Apostolic discourse at Athenian Mars Hill (Acts 17) where the
Greco-Roman Unknown god was identified as the aseitous Adonai (plural) YHWH
(singular) Elohim (uni-plural) of the Patriarchs, Prophets and the Apostles.
Progressive pagans with un-awakened consciousness cannot escape the
questions of causality, aseity, morality, meaning and telos by simply evading
them or assuming illogically the aseity of Dead Matter.
I think that most "progressive pagans" never really assumed the existence of
Dead Matter, nor even of any Matter, to begin with.
Bruno
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Brent Meeker' Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:38 PM
everyth...@googlegroups.com<mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re:
Why Does Anything Exist?
On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones
<kimj...@ozemail.com.au<mailto:kimj...@ozemail.com.au>> wrote:
What was there before there was nothing?
I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather, there
are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of numbers,
etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define all
computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a result
of these computations creating consciousness observers. See:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Falwaysasking.com%2Fwhy-does-anything-exist%2F%23A_Story_of_Creation&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ce85437ffe6d546fdcfa408d8e6f95056%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637513305755880457%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PSSz%2F%2FSq%2BRD8Q43%2Bx3eQV8LYlRdQPrmgzivDXDxo%2BLo%3D&reserved=0>
But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist". Logical laws,
number, etc are derivative on language. They don't "exist" physically. The
logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate. Any sensible
discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing it has several different
meanings.
Brent
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB4704455AF26299282587E197A86D9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
