Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
*Why? "Mathematical" means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists in some Platonic realm. * Brent, What do you mean by that? I do not get your point. Anyway I do not insist that it should be realizable. But I have examples in which we need them! Consider the use of Pythagoras theorem in nature. There are many cases in which the distance between two points should be irrational. -- Mohsen Ravanbakhsh, --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: JOINING post
Dear John,
I feel I understand your view and distinction of "origination point"
and "origination".
"Origination" is entailment of "origination point". "Origination
point" is part of our world ("the item to be originated"). Is that
correct?
Now, my opinion is that there is no "origination" of the "origination
point", because whatever it may be, it is connected to the item to be
originated through causality. What I mean is, if we were to find some
relatively simple rule generating our world, then we could actually
try to reduce it to some even simpler rule.
It is now thought of that some rules governing cellular automata are
irreducible, since there seem to be no simpler rule to produce the
patterns they some cellular automata produce, however, suppose that
our world is governed by some relatively simple rule. In this case,
there is a rule to reduce most if not all of the cellular automata
rules, since it actually produces all the cellular automata that we
know :-). Analogically, if we find that our world is some cellular
automata with the initial state that we do not know, we could try to
find the world produced by an even simpler rule, that eventually
produces the initial state of our world.
Mindaugas Indriunas
On 3/8/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I feel a misunderstanding here:
>
> "origination point" IMO is part of the item to be originated, the pertinent
> 'point' (within and for) the evolving total to grow out from.
> As I used 'origination" refers to the entailment producing such "point" - if
> we use a 'point' to start with.
> Such 'point' is the limit we can go back to, not further to 'its' entailing
> circumstgances we have no access to.
> I tried to adjust to a vocabulary I responded to, not my own and preferred
> one. Hence the misunderstandability. Sorry.
>
> John Mikes
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: 明迪
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: JOINING post
>
> Dear John Mikes, I thought your words 'Origin of (our) universe' are the
> same as the word 'origination-point'.
>
> You said: (1)
>
> > 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know.
> >
>
> And you also said: (2)
>
> > we CANNOT reach to earlier items than the origination-point (whatever it
> may be) of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite precisely).
> >
>
> From (2) claim it logically follows a statement "we can reach to items later
> or equal to origination-point."
>
> I agree (2) statement, but slightly disagree with (1) statement.
>
>
> Mindaugas Indriunas
>
>
> On 3/5/07, John M < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Mindaugas Indriunas,
> > what I meant consists of the worldview that we can use
> >
> > in our speculations only our present cognitive
> > inventory of our existing mind.
> > No information from super(extra)natural sources
> > included. Accoredingly we CANNOT reach to earlier
> > items than the origination-point (whatever it may be)
> > of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite
> > precisely).
> > Nor can a 'valid' ALGORITHM reach back further. Itg
> > cannot 'generate' information about ' no information'
> > topics. All we can speak about are intra-existence
> > items, the rest is fantasy, sci-fi, religion.
> > What I may use in a narrative, but by no means in the
> > conventionally outlined "scientific method".
> >
> > John M
> >
> >
> >
> > --- 明迪 < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear John Mikes.
> > >
> > > I am sorry for the late response. I will reply only
> > > to 1 part of your
> > > letter:
> > >
> > > 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know.
> > >
> > >
> > > If we do come up with an alorythm that actually does
> > > produce the data that
> > > we postdict (predict in the past), we may be able to
> > > (with some certainty)
> > > know it. Even the cellular automaton that is
> > > equivalent to universal turing
> > > machine, has its beginning.
> > >
> > > Mindaugas Indriunas
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: > /All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in > the equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since > calculus is easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that > defining an instantaneous state requires uncountable information. / > > What about the realizability of mathematical concepts. Real numbers are > mathematical, so they should have a counterpart in real world. Why? "Mathematical" means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists in some Platonic realm. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: > On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Tom Caylor wrote: A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it provides. >>> I don't like simply saying "That isn't so," but "nobody can agree >>> on what it provides", referring to the source of ultimate >>> meaning, >> I was referring to the "sufficient source of *morality*". Such a >> source should be able to provide an unambiguous standard that is so >> clear everyone agrees - if it existed. >> >>> is not true. In fact it's very remarkable the consistency, >>> across all kinds of cultures, the basic beliefs of truly >>> normative morality, evidence for their being a source which >>> cannot be explained through closed science alone. >> Why not? Why isn't Darwin's or Scott Atran's or Richard Dawkin's a >> *possible* explanation. And how is "God did it" an explanation of >> anything? It's just a form of words so ambiguous as to be >> virtually empty. "God" meant different things to the crusaders and >> the 9/11 jihadists, to the Aztecs and the Conquistadores, to the >> Nazi's and the Jews. So just because they use the same word >> doesn't mean they are referring to the same thing. >> > > We've talked about this before. Darwin cannot explain giving without > expecting to receive. Where do you get this nonsense?? Do you just make it up as you need it? No parent expects to receive anything but satisfaction from raising their children - as perfectly well explained by Darwin. And how dare you assert that money I sent to Katrina victims was simply calculated to get something back. There are many possible Darwinian explanations for feelings of altruism; but apparently you haven't bothered to find them. > Actually that's true love. Only some people believe that God did > that. But many other people somehow see the goodness of it. > >> And there is nothing "closed" about science. Science is perfectly >> open to the existence of whatever you can demonstrate. People have >> tried to show that the God who answers prayers exists and they >> fail. But they could have succeeded; nothing about science >> prevented their success. They failed because there is no such God. >> >> >>> On your first sentence, it also can be said of science that a lot >>> of evil has come that wouldn't have come (at least in the forms >>> it has) if it weren't for advances of science. Quite true. Science helps technology and technology provides power and power can be applied for good and ill. >>> And I'm not knocking down science as being invalid in its own >>> right. I'm just making the point that your statement does not >>> address *root* cause any more than blaming science. But there is no reason to believe there is any "root" cause that is deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented any argument for the existence of this "ultimate" or "root". You merely refer to "closed science" as though that proved something - but it begs the question. You have to show there is something outside science in order to know that it is "closed"; not just that there is something science has not explained, there's lots of that, but something that science cannot, in-principle explain. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Thanks, Russell, 4 Poles may play bridge. John - Original Message - From: Russell Standish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:19 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: > In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as > done > by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned > "energy" > with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math could > formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our human > mind. The strong force has 3 "poles". To think about them in a human fashion, we name them "red", "green" and "blue", and the theory describing the strong force is called "quantum chromodynamics". It doesn't seem beyond the human mind at all. I dare say if we had a reason to have a theory with four poles, someone will come up with a way of thinking about these too. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date: 3/11/2007 9:27 AM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Danny's God (was: Meaning of Life)
Sorry, Danny, for my convoluted style. Also, for having missed you 'original' explanation of (your) God. I try to concentrate on SOME of the texts, it is getting too much indeed, to memorize week long postings of many.contributors.. You wrote: -- >>>I disagree and think you misunderstood the point of my original post. I don't really have time to get into it in detail now, but I was really trying to get outside of any faith-based aspect of the question. Perhaps the word God should not be used. The question I guess boiled down to its essence is can you have an ensemble theory of any kind (everything exists) that does not end up having intelligence playing an "interesting" role in the process. For future reference, when I refer to "God" in a post I will not be referring to anything relating to personal relationships (in the general understood sense that I think you meant) or hallucinations, but will be referring very specifically to an entity capable of emulating or creating in one manner or another the "universe" we observe, either from a 3rd person viewpoint or from the 1st person viewpoint. The question is can you have ensemble theories without having these entities, and if so, what assumptions do you have to make about our underlying reality (or the ensemble theory) to avoid them. I don't see those types of questions as being exclusive of some type of tentative scientific scrutiny, but I guess you do or perhaps you thought I meant something else when I said "God" (despite my defining the term in the original post). It may be that I just totally don't understand you John. To be honest I more than occasionally have a difficult time understanding what you are conveying in your posts. Danny -- "GOD" is a historically overloaded word. Connotations are hard to eliminate. I cannot 'free' the word from a smell of the burnt flesh of "witches", or the thousands of cadavers around Darfur, etc. - all in that 'name'. Is there a chance to invent a different group of letters for a different connotation? If we learn your identification, we can learn the word for it as well. The 'faith-based' aspect is not a privilege of 'godly' connotations. it is also part of our mindset, although it irritates some if I assign it to 'science' as well. (Here comes the question "WHAT science"? Well: THEIRS. - 'Yours ad 'ours' is free, clean cut and objective. I let it go now HOW do we "observe the universe?" and 'what' is 'underlying' our image of it? Please, let me go free from my mistake to speak into the 'godly' topic what I try to avoid most of the time. I used to be an altar-boy. (Was not abused). Best regards John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: > In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as > done > by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned > "energy" > with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math could > formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our human > mind. The strong force has 3 "poles". To think about them in a human fashion, we name them "red", "green" and "blue", and the theory describing the strong force is called "quantum chromodynamics". It doesn't seem beyond the human mind at all. I dare say if we had a reason to have a theory with four poles, someone will come up with a way of thinking about these too. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease: The last part: "> If we accept Bruno's "we are god"< ">I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is that, assuming comp, the first person inherits "God"' unanmeability. So the first person has some "god" attribute. you cannot infer from this that we are "God!".Bruno<" I apologize for misunderstanding what you said. I tried to find the meaning of the (seemingly mistyped?) "unanmeability" in your present post - the closest was :'untenability'. Is this what you meant? * Now let me return to our 'human mind". Reasonably: we are part of a world - assumably a small portion only - and our mind (whatever you identify as that) is 'part of us' = included into the 'model' we may call 'humans'. We have certain exparience-stuff and logical thinking ways, we use that even in trying to 'understand' ideas beyond it - beyond our reach of observation. We do that, but can never be sure of doing it right. In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as done by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned "energy" with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math could formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our human mind. (It facilitated direct mental contact, manipulation of time, overriding of materially induced space barriers, conscious machines and of course no lights-peed max.) [It was rejected from publishers both in the US and Europe on identical grounds: too much science and insufficient sex and violence] Speaking about such is different from understanding, more so from 'creating'. We would need a bootstrap process to explain our origin (existence) from within our existence. Maybe this is my mental limitation - I have to live with it. And - of course - I am also guilty of 'human' thinking as you charged. Loeb created the idea of his machine. It is equipped with superhuman (-natural?) capabilities, all identified by a human mind, just as my 3-pole energy was. The idea of a "pole" is very much from within our (humanly adjusted?) worldview. If it is 2, or 3, or 1457: it is still a (humanly divised) "pole". I am a believer of 'creativity' so I do not find 'arguing' about 'ideas' superfluous. I am not 'prejudiced' against numbers: I asked so many time to get understandable information and did not. I am agnostic, do not 'cut out' other possibilities unless I see acceptable arguments to do so. (Acceptable to me). And: you are so smart that you do not have to resort to some 'racist' hint which seems to me as an ad hominem link. Here I am again: decided so many times to keep off from arguments where the word "god" is involved and am bugged down into it, both with you and Danny. I have to control my 'mouse' better. John M On 3/12/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Le 11-mars-07, à 17:33, John M a écrit : > > > > > Still: human thinking. > > > > You should subscribe to some alien list, if you are annoyed by us being > human. > You can answer "human thinking" to any (human) post. So this does not > convey any information, unless you explain what in our human nature > prevent us to understand something typically non-human. It will be hard > for you, human, to point on such a thing (actually the "human thinking > critics apply to your own posts). > > Now, I am the one in the list which says: look we can already interview > non-human lobian machine. So, in a sense, I could argue that all the > lobian explanation with regard to our fundamental questions are lobian > thinking, and a priori, this is not human. You, among the other, should > be particularly pleased by this non human intervention in the list, > unless you add that whatever the lobian machine says, it is us, human > who interpret it, but then, again, we, humans, could stop arguing about > anything, and even argue we should not talk with non-human entity given > that we will deformed, by our human-ness, all what they talk about. But > then we will certainly enforced our human prejudice. > My feeling, John, is that you have typically human prejudice against > number and machine, 100% similar to any form of racist prejudice: oh > those entity are so different from us that we should not even listen to > them ... > > And why do you say "human thinking". Why not "mammal's thinking"? Why > not "carbon type of life thinking"? Why not "typical descendent of > bacteria prejudices" ... > > > > > If we accept Bruno's "we are god" > > > I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is > that, assuming comp, the first person inherits "God"' unanmeability. So > the first person has some "god" attribute. you cannot infer from this > that we are "God!". > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.
OK, but it seems that we are using "reductionism" differently. You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; or you could say that it can be reduced to an electron + proton because these two components appropriately juxtaposed are necessary and sufficient to give rise to the hydrogen atom. And if the atom is just a part of UD*, well, that's just another, more impressive reduction. As for knots, can't any particular physical knot be described in a 3D coordinate system? This is similar to describing a particular physical circle or triangle. Only if God issues everyone with immaterial souls at birth, so that reproducing the material or functional structure of the brain fails to reproduce consciousness, would I say that reductionism does not work... unless you add the soul as an element in the reduction. Stathis Papaioannou On 3/12/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Le 11-mars-07, à 17:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain > > it. What's wrong with that? > > > Because, assuming comp, neither matter nor mind (including perception) > can be break up into simpler parts to be explained. That is what UDA is > all about. First person expection (both on mind and matter) are already > global notion relying on the whole UD*. > And empirical physics, currently quantum mechanics, confirms that > indeed, we cannot explain matter by breaking it into parts. That is > what "violation of bell's inequality" or more generally "quantum > information " is all about. This has been my first "confirmation of > comp by nature": non-locality is the easiest consequence of comp. > > A good (and actually very deep) analogy is provided by the structure of > knots (see the table of knots: > > http://www.math.utoronto.ca/~drorbn/KAtlas/Knots/index.html > > A knot is closed in its mathematical definition (unlike shoe tangle). > You cannot break a knot in smaller parts, so that the whole structure > is explained by the parts. Knots, like many topological structure, > contains irreductible global information. The same for the notion of > computations (and indeed those notions have deep relationship, see the > following two impressive papers: > > http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/samson.abramsky/tambook.pdf > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0606114 > > I know that Derek Parfit call "comp" the reductionist view". this is a > very misleading use of vocabulary. Comp is the simplest destroyer of > any reductionist attempt to understand anything, not just humans. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > On 3/12/07, Bruno Marchal < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit : > >> > >> > I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) > >> ... > >> > >> > >> How could science be reductionist? Science is the art of making > >> hypotheses enough clear so as to make them doubtable and eventually > >> testable. > >> > >> No scientist will ever say there is a primitive physical universe or > >> an > >> ultimate God, or anything like that. All theories are hypothetical, > >> including "grandmother's one when asserting that the sun will rise > >> tomorrow. The roots of our confidence in such or such theories are > >> complex matter. > >> > >> Don't confuse science with the human approximation of it. Something > >> quite interesting per se, also, but which develops itself. > >> Lobian approximations of it are also rich of surprise, about > >> "oneself". > >> > >> "Science" or better, the scientific attitude, invites us to listen to > >> what the machine can say and dream of, nowadays. How could such an > >> invitation be reductionist? > >> > >> I would say science is modesty. It is what makes faith necessary and > >> possible. > >> > >> With comp, when science or reason grows polynomially (in a trip from G > >> to G* for example), then faith "has to" grow super-exponentially. > > > > > > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain > it. What's wrong with that? Because, assuming comp, neither matter nor mind (including perception) can be break up into simpler parts to be explained. That is what UDA is all about. First person expection (both on mind and matter) are already global notion relying on the whole UD*. And empirical physics, currently quantum mechanics, confirms that indeed, we cannot explain matter by breaking it into parts. That is what "violation of bell's inequality" or more generally "quantum information " is all about. This has been my first "confirmation of comp by nature": non-locality is the easiest consequence of comp. A good (and actually very deep) analogy is provided by the structure of knots (see the table of knots: http://www.math.utoronto.ca/~drorbn/KAtlas/Knots/index.html A knot is closed in its mathematical definition (unlike shoe tangle). You cannot break a knot in smaller parts, so that the whole structure is explained by the parts. Knots, like many topological structure, contains irreductible global information. The same for the notion of computations (and indeed those notions have deep relationship, see the following two impressive papers: http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/samson.abramsky/tambook.pdf http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0606114 I know that Derek Parfit call "comp" the reductionist view". this is a very misleading use of vocabulary. Comp is the simplest destroyer of any reductionist attempt to understand anything, not just humans. Bruno > > On 3/12/07, Bruno Marchal < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit : >> >> > I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) >> ... >> >> >> How could science be reductionist? Science is the art of making >> hypotheses enough clear so as to make them doubtable and eventually >> testable. >> >> No scientist will ever say there is a primitive physical universe or >> an >> ultimate God, or anything like that. All theories are hypothetical, >> including "grandmother's one when asserting that the sun will rise >> tomorrow. The roots of our confidence in such or such theories are >> complex matter. >> >> Don't confuse science with the human approximation of it. Something >> quite interesting per se, also, but which develops itself. >> Lobian approximations of it are also rich of surprise, about >> "oneself". >> >> "Science" or better, the scientific attitude, invites us to listen to >> what the machine can say and dream of, nowadays. How could such an >> invitation be reductionist? >> >> I would say science is modesty. It is what makes faith necessary and >> possible. >> >> With comp, when science or reason grows polynomially (in a trip from G >> to G* for example), then faith "has to" grow super-exponentially. > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:33, John M a écrit : > Still: human thinking. You should subscribe to some alien list, if you are annoyed by us being human. You can answer "human thinking" to any (human) post. So this does not convey any information, unless you explain what in our human nature prevent us to understand something typically non-human. It will be hard for you, human, to point on such a thing (actually the "human thinking critics apply to your own posts). Now, I am the one in the list which says: look we can already interview non-human lobian machine. So, in a sense, I could argue that all the lobian explanation with regard to our fundamental questions are lobian thinking, and a priori, this is not human. You, among the other, should be particularly pleased by this non human intervention in the list, unless you add that whatever the lobian machine says, it is us, human who interpret it, but then, again, we, humans, could stop arguing about anything, and even argue we should not talk with non-human entity given that we will deformed, by our human-ness, all what they talk about. But then we will certainly enforced our human prejudice. My feeling, John, is that you have typically human prejudice against number and machine, 100% similar to any form of racist prejudice: oh those entity are so different from us that we should not even listen to them ... And why do you say "human thinking". Why not "mammal's thinking"? Why not "carbon type of life thinking"? Why not "typical descendent of bacteria prejudices" ... > If we accept Bruno's "we are god" I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is that, assuming comp, the first person inherits "God"' unanmeability. So the first person has some "god" attribute. you cannot infer from this that we are "God!". Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
