> On 2 Apr 2021, at 16:15, Philip Benjamin <medinucl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > [Philip Benjamin] > First of all, just a cue: most if not all postings here are responses to > the postings of somebody else. I identify certain things, especially > occultist mysticism, as WAMP [Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism)] and not > science, which does not refer to any particular person(s), rather a > self-description or a general observation . Paganism is genuinely germane > here, since civilized and erudite pagan Augustine’s “instant transformation” > pulled the West out from Greco-Roman PAGANISM, philosophies, polytheistic > superstitions and “unknown gods” into a path of knowable universe and > investigative explorations that finally led to the development of science and > technologies which the rest of the pagan world of civilizations and mystic > scholarships could not initiate.
I use the term “pagan” for “non confessional theology”, and in particular the line: Parmenides, Pythagorus, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, Plotinus, Proclus, … Damascius … the Universal Turing machine (the indexical digital mechanist one in particular). I take it as a meliorative. I would say that science somehow ended when theology was taken from science to “religious authoritarian institution”, who use wishful demagogic thinking, authoritative arguments and fairy tales, in place of trying to solve problems. The Renaissance, unlike 13th century Islam, was only half enlightenment, as the main and most fundamental science metaphysics/theology/philosophy has been maintained in charlatanism, literature, politics… > The WAMP is a stealing beneficiary of that Augustinian Trust, including the > Five Day workweek, Sabbaticals, etc. which are uniquely Scriptural and > unheard of in other cultures. That is not “white trash” (N/A to Philip > Benjamin anyway) as some here label, but a hard historical fact. We might both appreciate St-Augustin, but maybe for the exact opposite reason… (I don’t know). > As regards Bruno Marchal’s musings below, some general points need be > enumerated. > 1 . Ones’ worldview is not necessarily science, It is science if the theory is not claimed as true, and is presented in a sufficiently precise way that it is testable/refutable. > even if it be based on scientific observations. Bohr’s Taoism or Jungian > sorceries are not > necessarily sciences. OK. (That can be debated as some of their statements are theorem in the physics derived from the theology (the Solovay G* logic) of the arithmetically sound machines. You might to study some of my papers(*). > They are worldviews based on the notions of particle-wave dualism and the > BOTH & logical fallacy. Wave- > likeness is not waviness. Particles behave like waves which can be > described mathematically by via AS IF logic. I do not assume a physical ontological reality, nor do I assume any theory. I do not doubt about the existence of a physical reality, but I do not take it as the fundamental theory a priori. My work shows how to test such ontological existence, and thanks to “Quantum Mechanics without Wave Collapse”, a rather strong case can be made that Nature favours Descartes’ Mechanism (and its immaterialism and non physicalism) instead of Aristotle ’s physicalism/materialism. I can explain that Mechanism and Materialism, widely confused, are in complete opposition to each others, and inconsistent when taken simultaneously. > 2 . Bio dark-matter is to astrophysical dark-matter, as bio light-matter > (Periodic Table) is to astrophysical light-matter (H & He). One of my goal is to just understand term like “matter” and “physical”, so I avoid to invoke them, before I get enough of them. All I got is a a statistic on relative computational state in arithmetic (in the standard model of arithmetic or in all models of arithmetic: computation is an absolute notion in logic, set theory, etc.) > 3 . laws of chemistry are universal. I expect this as a theorem of arithmetic/machine-theology. > Chemical bonds are spin-governed particle configurations of duets and octets. > > 4 . It is more unethical than unscientific to deny chemistry to 95% of > unknown matter, but accept that for 5% of the known matter. > 5 . Bio dark-matter particles of negligible mass with respect to electrons > may compose of axions, monopoles and/or neutrinos or > something else. > 6 . There is an “Additional Mass” reported on growth, and the same mass > missing on death of organisms grown in hermetically sealed > tubes. > These experiments are reproducible and there is no legitimate reason > why the WAMP do not repeat them for confirmation. > 7 . There is an increase of biophoton emission rate by an order of > magnitude across the taxa (from human cells to plant cells in > Petri-dish). Also, the biophoton emission rates increase with stress > on the cell growth with a burst of biophotons at cell death. > Note: All references to all these experiments have been cited before. My methodology to formulate and solve the mind-body problem makes it impossible to use those 4-> 7 points, unless you show them testable and, either theorem in machine theology, or refuting it. If they are merely consistent, they might belong to geography/history (the contingent first person plural history). You might study my “large public” presentation in Amsterdam in 2004. See blue link below. Since then I do not more mention “arithmetical realism” because it is part of the classical Church-Turing thesis. My work asks for some familiarity with the 1930s discoveries of the logicians: the universal machine, essential incompleteness, non-expressibility of (arithmetical) truth in arithmetic. To be sure Löb’s theorem 1955, and Solovay arithmetical completeness of the modal logic G* in 1976 play an important rôle. By “theology of machine” or “theology of number” I mean mainly the modal logic G1* and its intensional variants. G1 axiomatises completely the provable part of the self-reference logic (By a theorem of Solovay +Visser), and G1* axiomatises the true part (idem). G1 is included in G1*. G1* minus G1, which is not empty (by incompleteness) axiomatises the “surrational” corona in between rational and irrational. The variants of Theaetetus definition of knowledge make sense in this context. The main point is that G* shows them all equivalent (they all “see” the same truth, in fact the sigma_1 truth), but G1 proves none of those equivalence. The self-referentially correct machine believes correctly that they obey very different logics (intuitionist, quantum logic, …). With p sigma_1 we have G* proves p <-> ([]p) <-> ([]p & p) <-> ([]p & <>t) <-> ([]p & <>t & p) But G does not proves any of those equivalence. They all belong in the proper theological part of the theology (which, from the machine perspective transcend its “science” (G)). “[]p” is Gödel’s beweisbar (provable) predicate (<>p is ~[]~p, “~” is the negation), p is an arbitrary partial computable, provable (if true) sentences of arithmetic/computer-science. Bruno (*) Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157 Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993 B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html> Plotinus PDF paper with the link: Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf > Philip Benjamin > > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> <everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 11:45 AM everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg > > > On 26 Feb 2021, at 16:41, Philip Benjamin <medinucl...@hotmail.com > <mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote: > > PB. From a scientific point of view, awakening refers to the extrinsic > energization of the non-electric, non-entropic, bio twin formed from the > moment of conception from bio dark-matter and its chemistries. > > From a scientific point of view that is a (vague) theory. I will wait for the > axioms, and the consequences, and the means of testing. > > If by Pagan you mean the believer in Matter, you seem doubly Pagan to me, as > you assume two sorts of matter. > > Personally I tend to see (weak) Materialism as a lasting superstition. It > will disappear from the natural science, or the science of the observable, > like vitalism has disappeared from biology. > What what I see are universal machine measuring numbers and inferring all > sorts of relation betweens those numbers. And yes, some claim bizarre things > about those things not capturable by numbers, and they are correct on this. > When doing metaphysics with the scientific method, we can use, today, the > tools provided by mathematical logic, to distinguish better the realities > (“models” or “interpretations” in the sense of logician) and the > theories/machines/words/numbers/finite-thing we are tackling about, and can > be talking with, or “in” (standard use). > > I have no idea of your assumptions, and invoking dark matter is very weird, > do you mean a theory with axions? I am not sure anybody have found a theory > of Dark Matter, and I am personally skeptical on any ontological matter, as > there are no evidence for that (despite Newtonian physics would contradict > Mechanism, and be an evidence against mechanism if it were true). > > Gödel’s theorem protects Mechanism from Diagonalisation à la Lucas-Penrose, > and it happens that it protects mechanism from many misuse of quantum > mechanics, that it predicts “semantically” and “syntactlcally”, and this > without ontological commitment, just the usual simple fact of the type 2+2=4 > or KSK = S, ... > > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB4704AABEF2D5F503B0864548A87A9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB4704AABEF2D5F503B0864548A87A9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/0E379B0D-915A-45D5-A386-A5376D432A0C%40ulb.ac.be.
