Sure, if God is purposeless and neither omniscient nor omnipotent. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 10:42 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] new math of complexity
IDK. If by "discussion", you mean co-constructing reality, then I'd agree. But that would contradict the dichotomy of explanatory vs. exploratory (perhaps even render the concept of "mind" incoherent). There are machines that derive things from other machines. Some machines are larger than other machines (https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.03886). Etc. One of the intriguing situations I often find myself in is being presented with seemingly batshit nonsense and wondering *where* it came from. If Marcus is right, then, for example, the garbage spoken by Terrence Howard has a (or several) cause(s). Or if you're a political animal, there are reasons someone might parrot Trumpian bullshit as if it's true. In other words, their "high order" macros cannot be decoupled (completely) from reality even though it sure seems decoupled from reality. I.e. Marcus' rhetoric is an argument for the existence of God ... hedging however much we need to on the definition of God. On 6/14/24 09:49, steve smith wrote: > > Marcus wrote: >> The double slit experiment demonstrates what appears to be nondeterminism, >> but that hasn't prevented development of an accurate model of the phenomena >> that deterministic computers can simulate. I don't have to believe a >> deterministic interpretation of the double slit experiment, but Occam's >> Razor encourages me to. (I can't control the initial conditions of the >> universe.) What is the point of discussions about things that cannot be >> modeled? > Some modeling is explanatory, other is exploratory. Modeling is a > high-order mode of "discussion".... building and testing hypotheses in an > abstract space where (most?) human minds are unable to rigorously keep track > of all the details of the "discussion", but instead defer to a mechanical > device and process which manages all that for us in a manner we believe we > can understand (a given computational/simulation method and framework)? >> These discussions belong in a church. They are not inquiry. > What is FriAM if not a church whose main sermons reflect various inquiries > built on top of the entire(many overlapping subsets actually) canon > math/science and for some philosophy, semiotics, linguistics? >>> On Jun 14, 2024, at 6:20 AM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
