Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Hi Alberto G. Corona My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe, so it does not include the world of mind. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 14:14:51 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind (1p) In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty Viewed from above in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion. But viewing the block universe from above, simply they are correlations. There is no causality but local phenomenons. I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind, creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist (because we don'nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it). 2013/2/2 Roger Clough Hi Alberto G. Corona Does your version of mind actually do anything ? - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54 Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of the line of life) But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on these laws and these experiences. 2013/1/31 Roger Clough Hi Bruno Marchal The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: > A block universe does not allow for consciousness. With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the mindscape as seen from inside. > The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, > means that our universe is not completely blocked, From inside. > although the deviations from "block" may be minor > and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega points. By using the self-reference logics we got all the nuances we need (3p, 1p, 1p-plural, communicable, sharable, observable, etc.). Bruno > Richard. > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb > wrote: >> Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between >> what is >> provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable. Maybe this is >> a place >> where COMP could contribute to the understanding of QM. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> Lessons from the Block U
Re: Topical combination
Hi John Mikes It says "The Fabric of Eternity is the author's personal view of the Universe that allows for science and theology to explore the wonders of creation in peaceful unison.' IMHO that is completely misguided, because the worlds they understand are separate magisteria, to use Stephan Jay Gould's phrase. Science deals with the physical world, and theology deals with the nonphysical world. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 11:45:07 Subject: Topical combination In view of the list-posts lately combining different worldviews I want to draw attention to a new booklet written by a chemist - computer scientist working in bio-protein simulations. The booklet makes connection between the author's religious thoughts and some of modern physic's concepts. The combination is interesting - not fitting my theoretical worldview, but in the sense how a different mindset could view the (controversial?) topics. The URL including bio-data of the author: http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Eternity-Scientists-Works-Providence/dp/0988571706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359236564&sr=8-1&keywords=kolossvary ?- it includes the title and the authors name in brief. the text can be downloaded from Amazon etc., or bought in book-form. ? John Mikes ? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Roger, I think the block universe (not quite accurate terminology) is actually the 4-dimensional quantum mind and in it is written all possible futures and pasts based on comp and quantum mechanics as well as info on what became physical and is now in the past. Richard PS: Quantum mechanics, and I think string theory, is of course derived from comp. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Alberto G. Corona > > My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe, > so it does not include the world of mind. > > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Alberto G. Corona > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-02-02, 14:14:51 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe > > In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes > everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind > (1p) > > In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty Viewed from above > in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is > a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and > voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as > causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion. > But viewing the block universe from above, simply they are correlations. > There is no causality but local phenomenons. > > I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time > qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind, > creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he > would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the > end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that > we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist > (because we don′nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it). > > > 2013/2/2 Roger Clough >> >> Hi Alberto G. Corona >> >> Does your version of mind actually do anything ? >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Alberto G. Corona >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54 >> Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe >> >> I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The >> objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D >> geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, >> in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are >> unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure >> mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce >> psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains >> along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these >> brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural >> selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories >> where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical >> signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of >> the line of life) >> >> But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which >> includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because >> everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the >> block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the >> world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws >> and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection >> of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and >> coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared >> experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on >> these laws and these experiences. >> >> >> >> >> 2013/1/31 Roger Clough >>> >>> Hi Bruno Marchal >>> >>> The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, >>> for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or >>> mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Bruno Marchal >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 >>> Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe >>> >>> On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> >>> > A block universe does not allow for consciousness. >>> >>> With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. >>> >>> There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the >>> mindscape as seen from inside. >>> >>> >>> >>> > The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, >>> > means that our universe is not completely blocked, >>> >>> From inside. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > although the deviations from "block" may be minor >>> > and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. >>> >>> The comp mind-body problems can be restate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Hi Richard Ruquist The 4 dimensional or even the 11 dimensional universe cannot contain mind, because mind is nonphysical and they are physical. So the block universe is a waste of time. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-03, 07:19:51 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe Roger, I think the block universe (not quite accurate terminology) is actually the 4-dimensional quantum mind and in it is written all possible futures and pasts based on comp and quantum mechanics as well as info on what became physical and is now in the past. Richard PS: Quantum mechanics, and I think string theory, is of course derived from comp. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Alberto G. Corona > > My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe, > so it does not include the world of mind. > > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Alberto G. Corona > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-02-02, 14:14:51 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe > > In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes > everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind > (1p) > > In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty Viewed from above > in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is > a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and > voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as > causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion. > But viewing the block universe from above, simply they are correlations. > There is no causality but local phenomenons. > > I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time > qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind, > creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he > would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the > end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that > we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist > (because we don'nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it). > > > 2013/2/2 Roger Clough >> >> Hi Alberto G. Corona >> >> Does your version of mind actually do anything ? >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Alberto G. Corona >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54 >> Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe >> >> I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The >> objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D >> geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, >> in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are >> unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure >> mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce >> psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains >> along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these >> brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural >> selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories >> where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical >> signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of >> the line of life) >> >> But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which >> includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because >> everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the >> block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the >> world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws >> and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection >> of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and >> coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared >> experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on >> these laws and these experiences. >> >> >> >> >> 2013/1/31 Roger Clough >>> >>> Hi Bruno Marchal >>> >>> The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, >>> for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or >>> mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Bruno Marchal >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 >>> Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe >>> >>> On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> >>> > A block universe does not allow for consciousness. >>> >>> With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. >>> >>> There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Dear Roger, Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up thru quantum mechanics. Only 4 dimensions for example of the 11d universe are physical. The 4d-block mindspace (more accurate terminology) contains a reflection of 3d physical space as a slice of the 4d quantum mind. The 4th space dimension of the quantum mind is timelike in the sense that it contains the flux on which the arithmetic computations of all future possibilities are written, as well as which ones became physical. In MWI they all become physical- all possibilities become physical- which makes the 4d-block mindspace deterministic and thereby eliminates the need for time and consciousness. In comp, 1-p reintroduces time and consciousness. In string theory, time is a given physical dimension but otherwise rather mysterious. I suggest that whoever designed this mind/body duality put time in explicitly to allow for consciousness from the beginning rather than wait for it to evolve. You may call the designer, god. And I think it's a useful catchall word. But we should be careful not to do to theology what we do to global warming- that is to give it human characteristics. I come from the perspective of having practiced every major religion in the world. In fact I practice the major elements of all of them on a daily basis, what I call yanniruism. I started with protestant christianity, then catholic christianity, then years of atheism, then a decade of judaism, and finally atheistic buddhism, sufism and atheistic hinduism. BTW reform judaism turned out to be basically atheistic. Regarding who the designer is, the best answer I know of comes from sufism. Their ultimate god is known by a sound, "hu", and the objective of all sufi practices seems to be to get to hear that sound. It is what the blood rushing thru your brain sounds like. In yanniruism, Hu is the platonic source of mathematics from which form derives. I think there is also a sound for the father god and the son god, respectively "Ho" and "Ha". I get this from the Hindu mantra for the 3rd eye chakra, om na ma ye ho va, and from the hindu mantra for the heart chakra, om na ma ya weh ha. I associate the Ha god with the universe and the Ho god with the 4d block mindspace of the Metaverse. Please consider this paragraph as my bio. The Metaverse is perhaps an infinite 3D-space that includes the 3D-spaces of all existing universes. Each universe contains a cubic lattice of Calabi-Yau compact-manifold particles, a 3D-subspace that I consider to be the comp machine of the universe. It regulates all physical particle interactions based on inherent laws and constants and gives us a universal consciousness based on its incompleteness. But where do the laws and constants come from? A higher-order source of comp is required. Hence the function of the Metaverse. Here it is useful to introduce the total number of possible bits of information thought to be available in a holographic universe, 10^120, the so-called Lloyd limit. I accept Martin Rees suggestion that when a physical process requires more bits than this number, the process may become emergent, like consciousness is emergent due to incompleteness. Processes in the universe are I think incomplete because of the Lloyd limit of information. It's a function of the surface area of the universe. The 10^120 is based on the observable universe (radius 46 BLY) but the actual holographic universe could be much larger. Penrose suggests an upper limit of 10^122 bits. I suggest that this is not enough for comp to develop physical laws, constants and matter. For that I think we need the Metaverse which even if finite has a superabundance of bits for computation purposes. Therefore I conclude that the laws and constants of physics are comp derived in the Metaverse and written on the 4D-block mindspace of the Metaverse. Indeed for comp to control how each universe inflates by way of flux compactification, there must be a source of comp outside the universe. Using the old adage that what's up is down, but also from the viewpoint of Metaverse/universe compatibility, I conjecture that the Metaverse also contains a 4D-spacetime, separate from the universe, at least outside of the universe, plus a 3D-subspace containing most likely a cubic lattice of Calabi-Yau compact-manifold particles, the ultimate comp machine. However, because of the size and nearly infinite completeness of Meta-comp, there is some question if it could be consciousness. Yet it can predict the consciousness that exists in each universe. So in some sense it, the quantum mind, knows about consciousness but may not itself be capable of consciousness- quantum deism.. I suspect that the Meta-comp machine joins with the uni-comp machine within each universe, or at least they act in concert, perhaps resulting in a subspace full of 12d-particles that could control both physical and psychological
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > Well, I am not an atheist. Sorry to hear about your mind virus, but don't despair, even rabies can sometimes be cured. I am an agnostic. I think that a serious scientist has to be agnostic on any ontological commitment, be it God or Matter. Then with comp I explain that Matter (primitive matter) does not make much sense, and that physicalism cannot work. > Evolution have programmed us to believe, or to take very seriously our environment, Yes because that program works. And Evolution also programmed us to believe almost everything adults told us when we were children and no doubt somebody told you that atheist were bad people so although you've managed to free yourself from the God idea (and I congratulate you for that) you still want to make the "I am not an atheist" noise with your mouth so you redefine the word "God" and thus all related words like "atheist". I just do research. My personal belief are private. My point is that the real debate is between the Aristotelian view, where Matter is primary and everything else emerges from material combinations, and the platonist view, where matter is secondary and emerge itself, statistically, in the mind of arithmetical beings. Today both Christians (with exceptions) and atheists (with fewer exception) have adopted the Aristotelian view, more or less imposed to us by authority since 1500 years, by the Church, but also by many kind of materialist philosophies. > What do you believe in? Well, I believe that Tallahassee is the capital of Florida for one thing. I believe in all sorts of other things too, I just don't believe in God. It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like "is God a person" can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. In the "machine theology" god is arithmetical truth, and I am pretty sure that you do believe in that God. It is a good notion of God for the machines (as seen from outside, as the machine itself will not been able to even define "arithmetical truth"). Indeed it obeys to the two main fundamental attributes: it is not definable, and it is responsible for the machine dreams (from which the sharble "physical" realities should emerge (as provable or arguable (at least) once e take comp seriously enough. > You don't believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and Guilty as charged. > for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it was the only one. I throw out all Gods who are beings that are responsible for the multiverse; I don't throw out a hypothetical vastly powerful being, Good. With comp, arithmetical truth is enough (even a tiny part of it). I'm a agnostic on that, but such a being would not be a God just a comic book superhero or supervillan. ? > Vocabulary discussion. Just to define your God, which is actually a christian simplification of Aristotle's third God: primary matter. In my opinion Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived, certainly nobody has harmed the subject more. No. It was an excellent physicist. Perhaps the first one. He was wrong basically on all points. OK. But this we can know thanks to the fact that he made precise statements and serious research. He was a good theologian, he invented logic and modal logic notably to argue in metaphysics and theology. But he seems to be also wrong, in that field, at least with respect to the comp hyp. >God looks like Santa Klaus to me too, and that is exactly why theology has no more substance to it than Santaklausology. > This is so ridiculous. I don't see why you believe Santaklausology is more ridiculous than theology, one is about a invisible man who lives at the north pole and the other about a invisible man who lives in the sky. Read books written by O'meara, on the revival of Pythagoras with the neoplatonists, or read his book on Plotinus. Study the Platonists theology, because comp, in which you believe, implies us to bactrack a lot, which is not hard to guess given the lasting use of argument of authority in the field. You can' compare the concept of God in Plato with a sort of Santa Klaus in the sky. > It is pretty ridiculous to throw out a concept because of a word. It's even more ridiculous to throw out a concept but stay loyal to the word for it. Because it is the one used by most, before and around Christians. Notably by Plato, on which I try to point. >> you're going to have to invent a new word for it, let's call it "Fluberblast". > The fact that you reject "one" which is the quite standard term in neoplatonism shows
Re: Why Peirce's triad is more complete than 1p->3p
On 01 Feb 2013, at 18:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Good. And I should have said, rather than "I cannot prove that", instead, "i don't need to prove that any more than that, as an infant, in fact I trusted my mother." The error is never in the perception (Firstness) , for that is what you actually perceive or feel, the error is always in Secondness, what you make of it. Or as a lie or deliberate distortion in Thirdness, thta being what you tell others you have seen or felt. Your firstness, if it concerns perception is given in 3p, with comp, by Bp & Dt & p. It is the 5th hypostases. I will stick on the most common use of first person and third person. But as you see we can peobably make sense of Peirce in the comp theory. So Firstness is always true because it contains no words. Always true means I think Platonia. The first person has a link with platonia (truth), but is not platonia. Secondness can contain an error. Your secondness is already 3p. Contingency. Thirdness can be a lie. Lie are the proposition of the type Bf, or BBf, etc. But with comp (and the classical theory of knowledge, so are "dreams", "error" and "death", curiously enough. Which may help to explain why I believe Peirce's triad to be necessary if you want completeness. No problem. Machines might follow Peirce's intuition. But with different vocabulary. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-01, 10:38:04 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 30 Jan 2013, at 11:55, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Theology is an objective, derivative. human pursuit based on reason, and reason, acccording to my Lutheran beliefs, being objective (3p), cannot be free of error. OK. Only the consciousness root of our subjectivity is undoubtable and cannot been made wrong. The objective is what is doubtable, and indeed science progresses by refuting the objective theories. Only faith (1p), being doubly subjective (guided by the HS), cannot be free of error. OK. But not all the subjective. On some point the subjective can be wrong too. Obviously I cannot prove that. Comp can prove that for all ideally correct machines, there are true but non expressible fact. And also that there are true, expressible, but non justifiable facts. Machine's subjectivity is very rich and variate. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? Hi Roger, On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:42, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO. But then why separate them? Why not allowing seriousness in theology. To ease our fear of death? That's the local goal, and it makes sense locally, but it leads to more problems, especially if everyone can access it: no need of authoritative argument. The bible is a venerable human text, but like all prose, it does not need literal interpretation, or we get insane, and let fight between big-enders and small-enders (cf Voltaire). Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and all-- Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world, yhe point is to escape from the world of science into the world of Mind. Those worlds are not necessarily separated. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist > wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrot
Re: There are no reasons to believe in God
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > While I agree with your view, and Carlin's view on the toxic absurdity > of organized religion, I don't see the connection between a child's > tendency to accept the beliefs of their parents with the assumption of > evolutionary origin of the God concept itself. Some people hear voices in their head, not most but some, and some of those people think God is the source of those voices. When those people have children they will tell them that God is real and can talk to them and they will believe it because they are children. So even if the percentage of people who suffer from this hallucination is quite small the belief that such things are true will grow with each generation. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like "is God a person" can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by "God". The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Together their adherents constitute 54% of those who believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and agnostics use the same definition, then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
On Sunday, February 3, 2013 9:37:42 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > > Dear Roger, > > Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is > non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up > thru quantum mechanics. Only 4 dimensions for example of the 11d > universe are physical. > Except that my non-physical intentions cause my physical matter to exert energy. If the non-physical and physical can directly influence each other, can the separation really be said to be complete? At the very least private experience should be trans-physical or tele-physical as non-physical doesn't leave any room for interaction. Of course, I see everything as physical, with time-based experience being private physics and the addition of space-based realism being public physics. Craig -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Depend on what you mean by physical. For me , the block universes is a manifold, a pure mathematical structure which may not contain the minds but somehow contain their history and determine their lawful and communicable experiences. The physical world, what we see, with his causalities, his time, his 3d space, his macroscopical laws, is a product of the mind when he contemplate the mathematical structure from inside. 2013/2/3 Roger Clough > Hi Alberto G. Corona > > My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe, > so it does not include the world of mind. > > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Alberto G. Corona > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 14:14:51 > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe > > In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes > everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind > (1p) > > In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty Viewed from above > in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there > is a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection > and voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as > causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful > fashion. But viewing the block universe from above, simply they are > correlations. There is no causality but local phenomenons. > > I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time > qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind, > creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he > would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the > end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena > that we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not > exist (because we don′nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it). > > > 2013/2/2 Roger Clough > >> Hi Alberto G. Corona >> Does your version of mind actually do anything ? >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> *From:* Alberto G. Corona >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2013-02-02, 04:43:54 >> *Subject:* Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe >> >> I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. >> The objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D >> geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the >> mind, in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are >> unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure >> mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce >> psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of >> brains along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as >> time. these brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of >> natural selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just >> trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and >> electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until >> the end of the line of life) >> >> But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which >> includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because >> everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the >> block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the >> world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws >> and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection >> of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and >> coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared >> experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on >> these laws and these experiences. >> >> >> >> >> 2013/1/31 Roger Clough >> >>> Hi Bruno Marchal >>> The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, >>> for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or >>> mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> *From:* Bruno Marchal >>> *Receiver:* everything-list >>> *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 >>> *Subject:* Re: Lessons from the Block Universe >>> >>>On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> >>> > A block universe does not allow for consciousness. >>> >>> With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. >>> >>> There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the >>> mindscape as seen from inside. >>> >>> >>> >>> > The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, >>> > means that our universe is not completely blocked, >>> >>> From inside. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > although the deviations from "block" may be minor >>> > and inconsequential regarding t
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 2/3/13, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all >> correct machines >> believes in God, and in some theories question like "is God a person" can >> be an open >> problem. >> >> But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut >> with your >> education which has impose to you only one notion of God. > > Why should there be more than one notion designated by "God". Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to designate its own God or Gods? To choose one sect of one religion's God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is favoritism. Why do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists, or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history? You say it is because it is the most popular. Even if that were so, Atheism isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods. You would have to be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every person's) notion of God. > The Abrahamic > religions use > the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, > benevolent creator > person who wants us to worship him. Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities. > Together their adherents constitute 54% > of those who > believe in a theist god. And if we take your view that atheists and > agnostics use the > same definition, then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some > other notion, > why not call it something else. > The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? Why then, should there be only one meaning of God? This is not to say the word is meaningless. There are commonalities between different religions and belief systems. In nearly all, it can be said that God serves the role as an ultimate explanation. Whether it is the Platonic God, the Hindu God, the Sikh God, or the Arbrahamic God, this property is almost universal. In this respect, it is perfectly natural for Bruno to say under the arithmetical/CTM belief system, God (the ultimate explanation) is arithmetical truth. Under Aristotelianism, the ultimate explanation is matter (The buck stops there), and so matter is the God of Aristotelianism. Would we be better off had we abandoned the word "Earth" or "World" merely because we discovered it is round instead of flat, instead of amending our notion of what the "Earth" or "World" really is? Jason -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Straw dog there is no mention of a separation On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Sunday, February 3, 2013 9:37:42 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: >> >> Dear Roger, >> >> Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is >> non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up >> thru quantum mechanics. Only 4 dimensions for example of the 11d >> universe are physical. > > > Except that my non-physical intentions cause my physical matter to exert > energy. If the non-physical and physical can directly influence each other, > can the separation really be said to be complete? At the very least private > experience should be trans-physical or tele-physical as non-physical doesn't > leave any room for interaction. > > Of course, I see everything as physical, with time-based experience being > private physics and the addition of space-based realism being public > physics. > > Craig > > -- > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
