Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

 It is impossible using particle accelerators to understand
god-particles and the ultimate truth of nature as physicists hope.
=.
To create particle accelerators is needed reference frame of vacuum.
(!)
It means that physicists take vacuum as a reflector of  the real (!)
structure of nature: the space between billions and billions galaxies.

But on the other hand,  today's  physicists refuse to take vacuum
 T=0K as real fundament of Universe.
‘ It is true  . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
 reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
 simple have no meaning.’
/ Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’  Page 138.
By Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
=.
Question:
Does one physicist hand know that the other hand makes?
=.
( maybe without vacuum the CERN is good place for formula-I
 competition . . ? ! )
=.
Socratus



On Feb 5, 3:43 pm, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:
>   I think that it is possible to understand the universe
> using usual common logical thought.
> We need only understand in which zoo (reference frame )
> physicists found higgs-boson and 1000 its elementary brothers.
>
> socratus
>
> .

-- 
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 can intelligence be physical ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:05:30 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:13:40 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Craig Weinberg  
>>> wrote: 
>>>
>>> > Maybe if there was a computer which was not specifically designed to 
>>> deceive 
>>> > our senses... which would mean that it was one which occurred 
>>> naturally and 
>>> > did not include anything which was ever designed or programmed by a 
>>> human 
>>> > being. 
>>>
>>> Which contradicts your original claim that we can just "sense" that 
>>> other people are conscious without any logical analysis. 
>>>
>>
>> No because we also realize intuitively that computers are unconscious 
>> without any logical analysis. That's why behaving 'like a robot' or a 
>> machine is synonymous with mindless repetitive action. Just because we can 
>> make an optical illusion which fools our eye into seeing three dimensional 
>> perspective in a 2D painting doesn't mean that we can't authentically tell 
>> when something natural is 3D.
>>
>
> You're saying that a robot behaving like a human may fool you, but how do 
> you know that your apparently fellow humans are not robots? 
>

Because I live in 2013 AD, where I now need to reboot my office telephone 
if I want the headset to work. It's pretty easy to tell when something is a 
piece of digital technology built by human beings, because it is constantly 
breaking. Besides that though, you can tell because of the uncanny valley 
feeling. Even when a simulation of a person is good enough to elicit a 
positive response beyond the uncanny valley, it doesn't mean that we are 
completely fooled by it, even if we report that we are.

If we consider that the Libet experiments show that we are making decisions 
without knowing it, and Blindsight shows that we are able to see without 
being conscious of it, then there is no reason why we should suddenly trust 
our own reporting of what we think that we know about the sense of 
interacting with a living person. A true Turing test would require a 
face-to-face interaction, so that none of our natural sensory capabilities 
would be blocked as they would with just a text or video interaction. 

I think that it is important to remember that in theory, logically, 
consciousness cannot exist. It is only through our own undeniable 
experience of consciousness that we feel the need to justify it with logic 
- but so far we have only projected the religious miracles of the past into 
a science fiction future. If it was up to logic alone, there could not, and 
would not every be a such thing as experience.

Craig

 

> You're going by their behaviour. 
>
>
> -- Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
>

-- 
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.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 10:00:05 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: 
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013  PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>   
>>
>>>  > Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. 
>>>  
>>
>> A religion is just a cult with good PR.
>>  
>
> It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established 
> religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, 
>
>
> What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government 
> recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that 
> they sought the recognition.  And all that you can consider 'established' 
> have sought adherents.  But "legitimacy"??  I'm not sure how that world can 
> be attached to "religion".
>

Not necessarily a government recognition, but community acceptance. 
Something enjoyed by Episcopalians but not the Satanic church. Some Wiccans 
seem to be seeking a more conventional status within the community, i.e 
petitioning the military to provide a choice for Wiccan symbols on 
gravestones. 

Craig
 

>
> Brent
>
>  or if it's more of an inevitable consequence of surviving long enough to 
> seem ancient. Are their ancient cults (other than those intentionally 
> shrouded in secrecy)?
>
> Craig
>
>   
>>   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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
>  
>  
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6070 - Release Date: 01/31/13
>
>
>  

-- 
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.

How can intelligence be physical ?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:13:40 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Craig Weinberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe if there was a computer which was not specifically designed to
>> deceive
>> > our senses... which would mean that it was one which occurred naturally
>> and
>> > did not include anything which was ever designed or programmed by a
>> human
>> > being.
>>
>> Which contradicts your original claim that we can just "sense" that
>> other people are conscious without any logical analysis.
>>
>
> No because we also realize intuitively that computers are unconscious
> without any logical analysis. That's why behaving 'like a robot' or a
> machine is synonymous with mindless repetitive action. Just because we can
> make an optical illusion which fools our eye into seeing three dimensional
> perspective in a 2D painting doesn't mean that we can't authentically tell
> when something natural is 3D.
>

You're saying that a robot behaving like a human may fool you, but how do
you know that your apparently fellow humans are not robots? You're going by
their behaviour.


-- Stathis Papaioannou


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

[meekerdb]

On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013  PM, Craig Weinberg > 
wrote:

> Unpopular religions are denounced as cults.


A religion is just a cult with good PR.


It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion 
intentionally sought legitimacy at some point,


What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government recognition of religion 
(and probably tax breaks) the answer would be that they sought the recognition.  And all 
that you can consider 'established' have sought adherents.  But "legitimacy"??  I'm not 
sure how that world can be attached to "religion".


Brent

or if it's more of an inevitable consequence of surviving long enough to seem ancient. 
Are their ancient cults (other than those intentionally shrouded in secrecy)?


Craig


  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.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6070 - Release Date: 01/31/13



--
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.

[meekerdb]

On 2/5/2013 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote:


> You've agreed there is a single definite result (even in MW) after making 
some
measurement.


Yes.

> You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment


Not true, there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees Washington 
and Moscow.


> because "you have been duplicated."


It is beyond dispute that "you" has indeed been duplicated, so if that personal pronoun 
is used in a question with no additional information on which "you" is being referred to 
then no answer can be given because the question is ambiguous.


It seems that part of the problem is that in English "you" is both second person singular 
*and* plural.  Being from the south I suggest that the experiment be expressed as "You 
have been duplicated and y'all see Washington and Moscow.


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: Topical combination

[meekerdb]

On 2/5/2013 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>


On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi meekerdb
There's nothing wrong with science as science.
But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.
Two completely different worlds.


That's indeed a point where string atheists agree with string christian. 
Let us try
to be not serious on theology, so we can assert the fairy tales. Strong 
Christian
are happy because they feel like they can contradict the scientific 
evidences, and
the atheists are happy so they can continue to mock the christians, and 
continue to
sleep on their own (materialist) dogma.


You put meaning in atheism which is not there... an atheist can perfectly be an 
idealist... materialism is not part of the definition of atheism.


Definition here are often contradictory. Some years ago, the definition keep 
changing.

Can you give me the name of an atheist who is idealist?


Almost all of them by my definition of a-theist, e.g. Bosanquet, Fichte, McTaggart,...  Of 
course by your definition, hardly anyone is an atheist since it would be denying there is 
anything fundamental; something like "It's turtles all the way down."


Brent



Bruno





Quentin


That does not give much place for the genuine inquiry, I think.

Bruno




- Receiving the following content -
*From:* meekerdb 
*Receiver:* everything-list 
*Time:* 2013-02-04, 13:48:50
*Subject:* Re: Topical combination

On 2/4/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Feb 2013, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:


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燼re
separate magisteria, to use�
Stephan Jay Gould's phrase.� Science deals with the physical world, and
theology deals with
the nonphysical world.


Only an Aristotelian can say "science deals with the physical world". 
This
sums up physicalism.

A Platonist says that science is just the modest tool/method to deal 
with any
subject.


Except it was Plato who thought he could understand the world by just 
thinking
about it, while it was Aristotle who went out to observe and let the 
world
teach him.� So who was modest and who was arrogant?

Brent


Allowing the abandon of science in the theological field can only be an
invitation to the bad faith in there, and to the "don't ask" mentality.

Bruno



/*DreamMail*/ - The first mail software supporting source tracking
www.dreammail.org 

-- 
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 




-- 
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.





--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

--
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.g

Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:13:40 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> > 
> wrote: 
>
> > Maybe if there was a computer which was not specifically designed to 
> deceive 
> > our senses... which would mean that it was one which occurred naturally 
> and 
> > did not include anything which was ever designed or programmed by a 
> human 
> > being. 
>
> Which contradicts your original claim that we can just "sense" that 
> other people are conscious without any logical analysis. 
>

No because we also realize intuitively that computers are unconscious 
without any logical analysis. That's why behaving 'like a robot' or a 
machine is synonymous with mindless repetitive action. Just because we can 
make an optical illusion which fools our eye into seeing three dimensional 
perspective in a 2D painting doesn't mean that we can't authentically tell 
when something natural is 3D.

Craig

  

>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
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 can intelligence be physical ?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> Maybe if there was a computer which was not specifically designed to deceive
> our senses... which would mean that it was one which occurred naturally and
> did not include anything which was ever designed or programmed by a human
> being.

Which contradicts your original claim that we can just "sense" that
other people are conscious without any logical analysis.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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 can intelligence be physical ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 8:02:41 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> > 
> wrote: 
>
> > I question whether it is possible to ask whether your fellow human 
> beings 
> > have minds without resorting to sophistry. I say that not because I am 
> > incapable of questioning naive reasoning, but because it does not 
> accurately 
> > represent the reality of the situation. Just as our 'belief' in our own 
> mind 
> > is an a prori ontological condition which cannot be questioned without 
> > incurring a paradox (whatever disbelieves in its own mind is by 
> definition a 
> > mind), the belief that our fellow human beings have minds does not 
> > necessarily require a logical analysis to arrive at. We know that we 
> have 
> > access to information beyond what we can consciously understand, and 
> part of 
> > that may very well include a capacity to sense, on some level, the 
> > authenticity of another mind, barring any prejudices which might 
> interfere. 
>
> So you're saying that we can somehow sense the reality of other minds, 
> beyond any reasoning? Would you agree then that if someone sensed that 
> a computer had a mind it would have a mind? 
>

Maybe if there was a computer which was not specifically designed to 
deceive our senses... which would mean that it was one which occurred 
naturally and did not include anything which was ever designed or 
programmed by a human being.

Craig
 

>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
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 can intelligence be physical ?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> I question whether it is possible to ask whether your fellow human beings
> have minds without resorting to sophistry. I say that not because I am
> incapable of questioning naive reasoning, but because it does not accurately
> represent the reality of the situation. Just as our 'belief' in our own mind
> is an a prori ontological condition which cannot be questioned without
> incurring a paradox (whatever disbelieves in its own mind is by definition a
> mind), the belief that our fellow human beings have minds does not
> necessarily require a logical analysis to arrive at. We know that we have
> access to information beyond what we can consciously understand, and part of
> that may very well include a capacity to sense, on some level, the
> authenticity of another mind, barring any prejudices which might interfere.

So you're saying that we can somehow sense the reality of other minds,
beyond any reasoning? Would you agree then that if someone sensed that
a computer had a mind it would have a mind?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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 can intelligence be physical ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:00:17 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM, John Clark 
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013  Telmo Menezes > >wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind. 
>>>
>>
>> Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
>>
>
> Yes (weakly). Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, 
> then, for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me 
> (with a mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to 
> believe that all human beings have a mind, although I know I will never be 
> able to prove it.
>

I question whether it is possible to ask whether your fellow human beings 
have minds without resorting to sophistry. I say that not because I am 
incapable of questioning naive reasoning, but because it does not 
accurately represent the reality of the situation. Just as our 'belief' in 
our own mind is an a prori ontological condition which cannot be questioned 
without incurring a paradox (whatever disbelieves in its own mind is by 
definition a mind), the belief that our fellow human beings have minds does 
not necessarily require a logical analysis to arrive at. We know that we 
have access to information beyond what we can consciously understand, and 
part of that may very well include a capacity to sense, on some level, the 
authenticity of another mind, barring any prejudices which might interfere.

Craig
 

>  
>
>>
>>   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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Stephen P. King]

On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




2013/2/5 Stephen P. King >


Hi,

ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p
sense is to make it meaningless.


That´s it.


But to insist into make the question in 3p may  force the introduction 
of an implicit  1p that contemplate the 3p, that is,  a metamind , 
with a metatime etc. (To avoid pavlovian responses, i don´t mention 
the G. world). That is the meaning of my previous response.


Hi Alberto,

But the meta versions would be 1p's in their own right, no?




On 2/5/2013 6:23 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie not
really.

Cheers

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:

So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely
a dominant FUNCTION? The blind exercise of function
doesn't seem to me to include the global concept of
purpose. The use of this word is about my only gripe with
it. I could be wrong.

Cheers,

K







--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:53 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013  Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> > You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment
>>
>
> Not true, there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark
> sees Washington and Moscow.
>

But under MWI you agreed you see the photon hit the left or the right
plate, not the left side and the right side.  So which is it?

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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Stephen P. King]

On 2/5/2013 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:53:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi,

 ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p
sense is
to make it meaningless.


Yeah, I don't see how noting that the 3p mechanism of probabilistic 
replication implies any 1p significance.


Things replicate. Some replications persist for longer than others. So 
what? What is the purpose of persistence? How did the principles of 
probability and and repetition evolve or appear?


Craig


Hi Craig,

I don't think that there is a 'purpose' per se to persistence. It 
either occurs or does not. But think of what persistence implies. When 
we say that X persists, we are effectively saying that multiple 1p 
versions of it can exist that are, somehow, different from each other 
and yet 'point to' one and the same X. Maybe they don't point to the 
'same' X but they point to different versions of X that are, within some 
error limit, indistinguishable.
Purpose is a strange word that needs to be carefully defined! 
Intentionality 


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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: Again, why the triad is necessary--> 1p, 2p,and 3p as types of knowledge

[Russell Standish]

Sorry for appearing thick, but I missed the "garbage in" bit. :)

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 08:17:09AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Telmo Menezes 
> 
> Garbage in, garbage out. 
> 
> 
> - Receiving the following content - 
> From: Telmo Menezes 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-02-04, 17:19:36
> Subject: Re: Again, why the triad is necessary--> 1p, 2p,and 3p as types of 
> knowledge
> 
> 
> Hi Roger,
> 
> 
> 1p/3p is a label for a very specific idea. You might disagree with the idea, 
> and that's fine, but it's useful to label ideas so that we know what we're 
> talking about. Otherwise how can you tell us that you disagree with it?
> 
> 
> If you succeed in forcing 2p in there, you effectively end up with two labels 
> for one idea and zero labels for another idea. Do you see the problem?
> 
> 
> Best,
> Telmo.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 can intelligence be physical ?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
> > I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
>>
>
> Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
>

Yes (weakly). Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then,
for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me (with a
mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe
that all human beings have a mind, although I know I will never be able to
prove it.


>
>   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.
>
>
>

-- 
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.

[meekerdb]

On 2/5/2013 6:04 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote:




2013/2/5 Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>



On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On 2/3/13, meekerdbmailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
 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?


Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism.


So are you also an a-deist?  What about an a-Brahmanist, or
a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist?



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.


Not at all.  All the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more 
likely
to exist than a theist god.


They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%.



You would have to
be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, 
every
person's) notion of God.


I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just 
fail to put
any credence in them.


How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put 
any
credence in them?




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.


Not all what do? 



Not all Christians define God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent 
creator
person who wants us to worship him.


Then they're not Christians... christianity is defined by a set of dogmas 
(hey dogma
is what define religions), so if you doubt the basic dogmas of 
christianity, why
would you call yourself a christian ??


So Thomas Aquinas was not a christian, because he understood the incompatibility of 
omniscience and omnipotence.


He understood there could be a conflict and he proceeded to redefine 'omnipotence' to 
meand 'do anything not self-contradictory', then you could invoke the 'nature of God' to 
say that some things, e.g. sinning, would be contradictory.


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: multiverses and quantum computers

[Telmo Menezes]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 04 Feb 2013, at 23:21, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi Bruno,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>

 On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes

 Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
 a quantum has infinite paths available between
  points A and B without invoking another universe.


 Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other
 quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition
 of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different
 of other universes?

>>>
>>> The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states
>>> on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the
>>> idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that
>>> making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity.
>>> People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the
>>> resulting model.
>>>
>>>
>>> Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite
>>> palatable.
>>>
>>
>> But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural states,
>> not that it emerges or is caused by them, correct?
>>
>>
>>
>> UDA (including MGA = step 8) shows that comp (I can survive a digital
>> brain transplant) entails that eventually the brains and bodies supervene
>> on sequences of computational states, which are actually arithmetical
>> relation. (having chosen arithmetic for the ontology, anything Turing
>> universal theorey will do).
>>
>> MGA throws out the physical supervenience thesis: the idea that
>> consciousness relies on this or that (physical or not) implementations of a
>> computations. Consciousness is associated to all computation in arithmetic.
>> This can be related with the first person indeterminacy.
>>
>
> Ok, I'm more familiar with the UDA than the MGA.
>
>
>
> If you are interested, I will come back on this soon. Perhaps not on this
> list(*).
>  I will tell here when I will come back on MGA on the FOAR list.
>

I am, cool.


>
> (*) MGA has already been discussed on this list:
> http://old.nabble.com/MGA-1-td20566948.html
>

I think I was there around that time, but possibly stressing with writing
my thesis.


>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this,
>>> and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life.
>>>
>>> I think we agree,
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

 Bruno



 So no problem.

  - Receiving the following content -
  *From:* Telmo Menezes 
 *Receiver:* everything-list 
  *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
  *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger,

 In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
 quantum computers come from?


 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

>  Hi Telmo Menezes
>  IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
>
>  - Receiving the following content -
>  *From:* Telmo Menezes 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
>  *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
>
>   Hi Roger,
>
>  I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
> number, whatever it is?
>
>
>  On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough 
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Stephen P. King
>>  It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than
>> infinite universes.
>>
>>  - Receiving the following content -
>>  *From:* Stephen P. King 
>>  *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>  *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
>> *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
>>
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
>>
>>  About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
>>  Francisco Jos Soler 
>> Gil
>> , Manuel 
>> Alfonseca
>>  (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 ),
>> last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
>>
>> This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and
>> Br

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

[Simon Forman]

On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>  
>
>> but there is a self reference when we try to imagine how the brain or a 
>> computer process geometry, and we imagine them embedded in the space and 
>> time that they create, which is not a correct intuition. we must imagine it 
>> in no time and no space. IMHO.
>>
>
> That's what I think too, geometry without space isn't geometry, so that 
> there is no reason to assume that mathematics produces geometric 
> presentations, or that it could possibly produce them. If we want 
> mathematics to occupy space, we have to pull that possibility out of thin 
> air, as well as the capacity for numbers to suddenly do that (and why would 
> they need to?)
>
> Craig
>
>

Doesn't the quantum physical reality of information mean that all math *is* 
geometry?

Put another way, math without a substratum would be in some platonic world, 
and not the real one, so aren't you basically asking if there's some way to 
do math without form?

Forgive me if I'm being an idoit. ;)

~Simon

-- 
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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:27:27 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King >
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to 
>> make it meaningless.
>>
>>
>> That´s it.
>
>
> But to insist into make the question in 3p may  force the introduction of 
> an implicit  1p that contemplate the 3p, that is,  a metamind , with a 
> metatime etc. (To avoid pavlovian responses, i don´t mention the G. world). 
> That is the meaning of my previous response.
>

Why doesn't the metamind need a metamind?
 

>  
>>
>> On 2/5/2013 6:23 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>>> Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie not really.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
>>>
 So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely a dominant 
 FUNCTION? The blind exercise of function doesn't seem to me to include the 
 global concept of purpose. The use of this word is about my only gripe 
 with 
 it. I could be wrong.

 Cheers,

 K


  
>>
>> -- 
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@**googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to 
>> everyth...@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
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Alberto. 
>

-- 
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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Alberto G. Corona]

2013/2/5 Stephen P. King 

> Hi,
>
> ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to
> make it meaningless.
>
>
> That´s it.


But to insist into make the question in 3p may  force the introduction of
an implicit  1p that contemplate the 3p, that is,  a metamind , with a
metatime etc. (To avoid pavlovian responses, i don´t mention the G. world).
That is the meaning of my previous response.

>
>
> On 2/5/2013 6:23 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie not really.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>> So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely a dominant
>>> FUNCTION? The blind exercise of function doesn't seem to me to include the
>>> global concept of purpose. The use of this word is about my only gripe with
>>> it. I could be wrong.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> K
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@**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
> .
>
>
>


-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013  PM, Craig Weinberg  >wrote:
>  
>
>>  > Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. 
>>
>
> A religion is just a cult with good PR.
>

It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established 
religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, or if it's more of 
an inevitable consequence of surviving long enough to seem ancient. Are 
their ancient cults (other than those intentionally shrouded in secrecy)?

Craig


>   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 can intelligence be physical ?

[John Clark]

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
>

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

  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: Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 , Roger Clough  wrote:

> I define intelligence as the ability to make choices or selctions
> completely on one's own.
>

Such as roulette wheels.

> Adding free will to the requirements, it rules out computers
>

Because free will is gibberish and computers are not.

>  free will and autonomous choice are all nonphysical.

And nonsensical too.

   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: Fw: RE: The internet takeover

[Richard Ruquist]

Roger is on another list, the Mind/Brain forum which allows anything
to be discussed and even allows personal attacks. He should just stay
there unless he has something constructive to say. BTW every post he
makes to this list also goes to Mind/Brain
Richard

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> In the interest of helping to bring things back on track and reducing
> irritation, I'll no longer be the first responder on Roger's threads.
>
> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:58:17 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>
>> Roger,
>> Why you persist again and again into initiate discussions that have
>> nothing to do with the list?
>>
>> Don´t you understand that this is annoying?
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/5 Craig Weinberg 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:22:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:


 Perhaps I have misinterpreted what I hear on the news,
 maybe I'm just paranoid, but...

 The president has said that the internet is a RIGHT,
 so everyone must have it, which means to
 him of course that the govt must supply the country with
 wi-fi. I suspect that that will put internet suppliers
 out of business, so you will sign on to the new
 govt-controlled internet.

>>>
>>>
>>> If we had thought about it the way you do, there would be no electric
>>> grid. We could all support private contractor's right to profit on
>>> consumer's having to carry around batteries or else try to find an available
>>> electric outlet supplied by your vendor.
>>>
>>> As for putting internet suppliers out of business, who do you mean? Time
>>> Warner? Verizon? Hahah. Who do you think will be handling any government
>>> internet programs? Who will be doing 100% of the consulting and drafting of
>>> plans?
>>>
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alberto.
>
> --
> 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: Fw: RE: The internet takeover

[Craig Weinberg]

In the interest of helping to bring things back on track and reducing 
irritation, I'll no longer be the first responder on Roger's threads.

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:58:17 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> Roger,
> Why you persist again and again into initiate discussions that have 
> nothing to do with the list? 
>
> Don´t you understand that this is annoying?
>
>
> 2013/2/5 Craig Weinberg >
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:22:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>> Perhaps I have misinterpreted what I hear on the news, 
>>>   maybe I'm just paranoid, but...
>>>  
>>> The president has said that the internet is a RIGHT,
>>> so everyone must have it, which means to
>>> him of course that the govt must supply the country with
>>> wi-fi. I suspect that that will put internet suppliers
>>> out of business, so you will sign on to the new 
>>> govt-controlled internet. 
>>>  
>>>
>>
>> If we had thought about it the way you do, there would be no electric 
>> grid. We could all support private contractor's right to profit on 
>> consumer's having to carry around batteries or else try to find an 
>> available electric outlet supplied by your vendor.
>>
>> As for putting internet suppliers out of business, who do you mean? Time 
>> Warner? Verizon? Hahah. Who do you think will be handling any government 
>> internet programs? Who will be doing 100% of the consulting and drafting of 
>> plans?
>>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
>>  
>>  
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Alberto. 
>

-- 
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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

[John Clark]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013  PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:


> > Unpopular religions are denounced as cults.
>

A religion is just a cult with good PR.

  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: Topical combination

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal 
>
>>
>> On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>  Hi meekerdb
>>
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with science as science.
>> But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.
>>
>> Two completely different worlds.
>>
>>
>> That's indeed a point where string atheists agree with string christian.
>> Let us try to be not serious on theology, so we can assert the fairy tales.
>> Strong Christian are happy because they feel like they can contradict the
>> scientific evidences, and the atheists are happy so they can continue to
>> mock the christians, and continue to sleep on their own (materialist) dogma.
>>
>
> You put meaning in atheism which is not there... an atheist can perfectly
> be an idealist... materialism is not part of the definition of atheism.
>
>
> Definition here are often contradictory. Some years ago, the definition
> keep changing.
>
> Can you give me the name of an atheist who is idealist?
>

I would say I am. Computationalism is a sort of idealistic monism.


>
> Bruno
>

Quoting wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Metaphysical atheism... includes all doctrines that hold to metaphysical
monism (the homogeneity of reality). Metaphysical atheism may be either:

a) absolute — an explicit denial of God's existence associated with
materialistic monism (all materialistic trends, both in ancient and modern
times);

*b) relative* — the implicit denial of God in all philosophies that, while
they accept the existence of an absolute, conceive of the absolute as not
possessing any of the attributes proper to God: transcendence, a personal
character or unity. Relative atheism is associated with idealistic monism
(pantheism, panentheism, deism)."

Regards,
Quentin


>
>
>
> Quentin
>
>>
>> That does not give much place for the genuine inquiry, I think.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* meekerdb 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>  *Time:* 2013-02-04, 13:48:50
>> *Subject:* Re: Topical combination
>>
>>  On 2/4/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>  On 03 Feb 2013, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>   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燼re
>> separate magisteria, to use�
>> Stephan Jay Gould's phrase.� Science deals with the physical world, and
>> theology deals with
>> the nonphysical world.
>>
>>
>> Only an Aristotelian can say "science deals with the physical world".
>> This sums up physicalism.
>>
>> A Platonist says that science is just the modest tool/method to deal with
>> any subject.
>>
>>
>> Except it was Plato who thought he could understand the world by just
>> thinking about it, while it was Aristotle who went out to observe and let
>> the world teach him.� So who was modest and who was arrogant?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>  Allowing the abandon of science in the theological field can only be an
>> invitation to the bad faith in there, and to the "don't ask" mentality.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>> 
>> *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking
>> www.dreammail.org
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
>
> --
> 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: Topical combination

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:51:10 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal >
>
>>
>> On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>  Hi meekerdb 
>>  
>>  
>> There's nothing wrong with science as science.
>> But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.
>>  
>> Two completely different worlds.
>>
>>
>> That's indeed a point where string atheists agree with string christian. 
>> Let us try to be not serious on theology, so we can assert the fairy tales. 
>> Strong Christian are happy because they feel like they can contradict the 
>> scientific evidences, and the atheists are happy so they can continue to 
>> mock the christians, and continue to sleep on their own (materialist) dogma.
>>
>
> You put meaning in atheism which is not there... an atheist can perfectly 
> be an idealist... materialism is not part of the definition of atheism.
>
>
> Definition here are often contradictory. Some years ago, the definition 
> keep changing. 
>
> Can you give me the name of an atheist who is idealist? 
>

I would consider Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet idealists, in the sense that 
the ideal is reduced to function rather than a material.

Craig
 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Quentin 
>
>>
>> That does not give much place for the genuine inquiry, I think.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>  - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* meekerdb  
>> *Receiver:* everything-list  
>>  *Time:* 2013-02-04, 13:48:50
>> *Subject:* Re: Topical combination
>>
>>  On 2/4/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>
>>
>>  On 03 Feb 2013, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>  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燼re 
>> separate magisteria, to use�
>> Stephan Jay Gould's phrase.� Science deals with the physical world, and 
>> theology deals with
>> the nonphysical world. 
>>
>>
>> Only an Aristotelian can say "science deals with the physical world". 
>> This sums up physicalism.
>>
>> A Platonist says that science is just the modest tool/method to deal with 
>> any subject.
>>
>>
>> Except it was Plato who thought he could understand the world by just 
>> thinking about it, while it was Aristotle who went out to observe and let 
>> the world teach him.� So who was modest and who was arrogant?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>  Allowing the abandon of science in the theological field can only be an 
>> invitation to the bad faith in there, and to the "don't ask" mentality.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>> 
>> *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking  
>> www.dreammail.org
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
>>  
>>  
>>
>>
>>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
>>  
>>  
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. 
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
>  
>  
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 can intelligence be physical ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:41:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
>
> If we fix the TOE as arithmetic. 
>

If arithmetic has no theory of itself, can it really be said to provide a 
TOE? Isn't it just like physics in the sense of 'Give me one free miracle 
(energy or numbers) and I'll tell you the rest."

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: Topical combination

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal 

On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi meekerdb


There's nothing wrong with science as science.
But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.

Two completely different worlds.


That's indeed a point where string atheists agree with string  
christian. Let us try to be not serious on theology, so we can  
assert the fairy tales. Strong Christian are happy because they feel  
like they can contradict the scientific evidences, and the atheists  
are happy so they can continue to mock the christians, and continue  
to sleep on their own (materialist) dogma.


You put meaning in atheism which is not there... an atheist can  
perfectly be an idealist... materialism is not part of the  
definition of atheism.


Definition here are often contradictory. Some years ago, the  
definition keep changing.


Can you give me the name of an atheist who is idealist?

Bruno





Quentin

That does not give much place for the genuine inquiry, I think.

Bruno





- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 13:48:50
Subject: Re: Topical combination

On 2/4/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Feb 2013, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:


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燼re separate magisteria, to use�
Stephan Jay Gould's phrase.� Science deals with the physical  
world, and theology deals with

the nonphysical world.


Only an Aristotelian can say "science deals with the physical  
world". This sums up physicalism.


A Platonist says that science is just the modest tool/method to  
deal with any subject.


Except it was Plato who thought he could understand the world by  
just thinking about it, while it was Aristotle who went out to  
observe and let the world teach him.� So who was modest and who  
was arrogant?


Brent

Allowing the abandon of science in the theological field can only  
be an invitation to the bad faith in there, and to the "don't ask"  
mentality.


Bruno



DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking  
www.dreammail.org

--
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- 
l...@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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
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.





--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: context, comp, and multiverses

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:03, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Before you can arrive at a TOE you need to be
able to define what "everything" means.


I distinguish the ontological everything (all the natural numbers),  
from the everything "epistemological" or better imo, "theological",  
which includes the physical, and which corresponds to the possible  
relative numbers beliefs, some of them are stable and defines physical  
realities, others are less stable, etc.





Your responses indicate that "everything" to you
means the world of mechanism. No ?



Not really, because comp makes arithmetic, as seen from inside, bigger  
than anything we can conceive. That is also why from the numbers pov,  
things appear as theological.


All machines are eventually confronted with many non mechanical, yet  
existing from their pov, entities. A bit like to study the  
distribution of the "digital" prime numbers, you need to consider the  
continuum of the complex numbers (cf Riemann). That is a general  
phenomenon, that the logicians have proved to be necessary in principle.


Bruno







- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-05, 11:18:49
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses


On 05 Feb 2013, at 16:44, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

If comp is assumed, then we need not worry about consequences of  
emulation,

it's a given that it works.

Then what is the purpose of this discussion ?


To get a theory of everything. To figure out why and how physical  
realities appears, and what is the nature of consciousness, etc.


My main point is that the lasting Aristotelian picture is not  
compatible with computationalism, and that it is compatible with  
Plato and the most common mystics attempts to figure out what is.


Bruno








- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-05, 07:32:01
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses

Hi Roger,

On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Brunio,

I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any  
consequence of an emulation,
or how it can be proven or not that comp works, since no  
comparison can be made.


If comp is true, then we can explain why we cannot prove it.
But we can refute it, because comp explains the details about what  
the physical reality can be. So to test comp, just compare the  
physics inferred from the emprical reality, and the comp physics.





Without meaning to be insulting, in short, I say, OK, it's Turing  
emulable. So what ?


So the TOE is given by addition and multiplication on the integers,  
and the global internal views of all creatures is given by Plato  
and Plotinus, not by Aristotle and the naturalists. It means that  
rational theology is wrong since the closure of Plato academy. In a  
nutshell.


Of course you have to study UDA to grasp this.

Bruno






- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 09:59:09
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses




On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:



On Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:11:17 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Feb 2013, at 16:42, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal
I would think that each universe provides its own distinctive
context to any燾alculation, including comp.


Comp is the assumption that we are Turing emulable.
That notion is made very solid by Church's thesis.


I don't think that we can assume that a Turing emulation of us is  
actually "us". To the contrary, a Turing emulation of geometry is  
not geometry. A Turing emulation of water can be the same as a  
Turing emulation of water in another Turing emulated virtual  
world, but no emulated drop of Turing water can ever be a genuine  
drop of water within the world that we actually live in. It  
doesn't matter that 17 is still prime when you are dying of  
dehydration.


Hi Craig,

Still trying to understand your theory better. What's your  
position on the following statements:


- The human brain can be Turing emulated.

- There is some (possibly mysterious) link between the physical  
human brain and consciousness.





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

Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 17:38, John Mikes wrote:


I hate to refresh an old-old topic, but...
what is really your context of a "machine"?
(In the usual verbiage it points to some 'construct of definite  
parts with definite functions' or the like.)


That's a good idea. I use the term machine for digital machine. They  
become relatively concrete when implemented by a universal machine (a  
computer) which implements yourself too (this makes sense with comp).  
Then I use the mathematical definition of machine and computer, due to  
Turing, Church, Post etc.


I am neutral, at the start, if some computer plays some special role  
(like a physical universe). Then the reasoning shows that this cannot  
be the case and that concreteness is something capable of being  
explains by the relative statistics on the computations.





I doubt that 'your' universal machine can be inventoried in KNOWN  
parts only.


Yes, it can. take your computer. It is made of little entities with  
well defined function. Take the comp hypothesis, it supposes that if  
we look close enough to a brain, we can find small parts with well  
defined functions, that we can indeed replaced by functionally  
equivalent one, without changing the subjective experience of the  
person supported by the brain.


The the reasoning shows that the "matter" composing those little  
parts, have to emerge from the coherence of infinitely many  
(immaterial) computations, which exists in arithmetic.




Or; that it may have a blueprint. Or whether you have an idea what  
kind of driving force to apply to get it work? (all regular points  
inthe usual lingo).


The "force" are given by the universal numbers which implement those  
machines, in the mathematical sense of implementation. Digital machine  
theory is a branch of arithmetic. That's why we have to explain the  
apparent force from arithmetic.





I had such discussion with people about 'organism', about 'system' -  
none so far about (my?) infinite complexity.
Is 'your' univesal machine something close to it? then please, tell  
me, I have no idea about mine.


A universal machine is a computer, as discovered by mathematician.  
Some could say that a concrete computer is only a physical  
approximation, but thanks to digitalness, the relation between them  
can be made precise, although it is not simple (and requires UDA, etc.).


If we fix the TOE as arithmetic. A universal machine is entirely  
defined by a universal number u such that the uth computable functions  
in the arithmetical enumeration computes, on x, and y, the xth  
computable function on the input y. It is like the golem, you 'type'  
the program x and the data y on the front of the universal machine,  
and it emulates the machine defined by x on the input y.


Bruno






John M



On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 04 Feb 2013, at 18:18, John Mikes wrote:


Here is another one about intelligence:
My definition goes back to the original Latin words: to READ  
between - lines, or words that is. To understand (reflect?) on the  
unspoken. A reason why I am not enthusiastic about AI - a machine  
(not Lob's universal computer) does not overstep the combinations  
of the added limitations. Intelligence is anticipatory.


The universal (Löboian or not) machine is still a machine. And it  
can make anticipation. There is a whole branch of theoretical  
computer science studying the ability of machine in anticipation.
It is quite interesting and most proofs are necessarily non  
constructive, and so this cannot be used in AI. But there are also a  
lot of engineering work with practical application. A programs  
already inferred correctly the presence of nuclear submarines in a  
place where most experts estimated that being impossible, notably.


Theoretical computer science shows also that the more a machine is  
clever, the less we can predict her behavior, the more that machine  
can be wrong, the more that machine can benefit from working with  
other machines, etc. Few doubt that such machine can "read between".


Bruno





JohnM

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:56 AM, John Mikes   
wrote:

How can be " PHYSICAL" - 'physical'?
(and please, don't tell "because we THINK so")

John M

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes  
 wrote:




On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Craig Weinberg  
 wrote:



On Saturday, February 2, 2013 6:05:53 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Roger,

I don't really understand how people can object to the idea of  
physical/mechanical intelligence now that we live in a world where  
we're surrounded by it. Google searches, computers that can beat  
the best human chess player, autonomous rovers in Mars, face  
recognition, automatic stock traders that are better at it than any  
human being and so on and so on.


When you don't understand what you are doing, it it easy to do it  
very fast. This writer gives a good explanation: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-minds

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:53:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Hi, 
>
>  ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is 
> to make it meaningless. 
>
>
Yeah, I don't see how noting that the 3p mechanism of probabilistic 
replication implies any 1p significance.  

Things replicate. Some replications persist for longer than others. So 
what? What is the purpose of persistence? How did the principles of 
probability and and repetition evolve or appear?

Craig



>
> On 2/5/2013 6:23 AM, Russell Standish wrote: 
> > Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie not really. 
> > 
> > Cheers 
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote: 
> >> So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely a dominant 
> FUNCTION? The blind exercise of function doesn't seem to me to include the 
> global concept of purpose. The use of this word is about my only gripe with 
> it. I could be wrong. 
> >> 
> >> Cheers, 
> >> 
> >> K 
> >> 
> >> 
>
>
> -- 
> Onward! 
>
> Stephen 
>
>
>

-- 
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: Fw: RE: The internet takeover

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:22:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>   
> Perhaps I have misinterpreted what I hear on the news, 
>   maybe I'm just paranoid, but...
>  
> The president has said that the internet is a RIGHT,
> so everyone must have it, which means to
> him of course that the govt must supply the country with
> wi-fi. I suspect that that will put internet suppliers
> out of business, so you will sign on to the new 
> govt-controlled internet. 
>  
>

If we had thought about it the way you do, there would be no electric grid. 
We could all support private contractor's right to profit on consumer's 
having to carry around batteries or else try to find an available electric 
outlet supplied by your vendor.

As for putting internet suppliers out of business, who do you mean? Time 
Warner? Verizon? Hahah. Who do you think will be handling any government 
internet programs? Who will be doing 100% of the consulting and drafting of 
plans?

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: context, comp, and multiverses

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:14, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno,

The definitons of simulation and emulation I can find both use the  
word "imitation".
Can you explain what you mean as being the difference between the  
two ?


A computer can simulate a storm. It can also simulate another  
computer. In this case, when we simulate digital events by a digital  
machine, we can define a notion of totally faithful simulation. This  
what is called an emulation. Some mac, for example,  emulate some PC.
In fact any universal machine can emulate all possible digital  
machinery. This is why they are said universal.


Bruno






Simulation - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simulation
a : the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or  
process by means of the functioning of another simulation of an industrial process> ...


Definition of EMULATION

1
obsolete : ambitious or envious rivalry
2
: ambition or endeavor to equal or excel others (as in achievement)
3
a : imitation
b : the use of or technique of using an emulator
— em·u·la·tive adjective
— em·u·la·tive·ly adverb


- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 17:07:32
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses




On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Craig Weinberg  
 wrote:



On Monday, February 4, 2013 9:59:09 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:



On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg   
wrote:



On Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:11:17 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Feb 2013, at 16:42, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal
�
I would think that each universe provides its own distinctive
context to any燾alculation, including comp.


Comp is the assumption that we are Turing emulable.
That notion is made very solid by Church's thesis.


I don't think that we can assume that a Turing emulation of us is  
actually "us". To the contrary, a Turing emulation of geometry is  
not geometry. A Turing emulation of water can be the same as a  
Turing emulation of water in another Turing emulated virtual world,  
but no emulated drop of Turing water can ever be a genuine  
drop of water within the world that we actually live in. It doesn't  
matter that 17 is still prime when you are dying of dehydration.


Hi Craig,

Still trying to understand your theory better. What's your position  
on the following statements:


- The human brain can be Turing emulated.

I see emulation is a figure of speech rather than a physical  
reality. Can fire be Turing emulated? Maybe, but you can only use it  
to emulate the cooking of emulated food. I can make a single  
emulation of fire which will work for any number of virtual worlds,  
but none of them can actualize fire on the level of the machine  
itself.


Aren't you confusing emulation with simulation? If we emulate a  
brain in a computer, we can connect its input and outputs to sensors  
and actuators in the real world.

�

So can publicly detectable brain activity be Turing emulated? Sure,  
but it is a sculpture.


I see what you mean, but more on that later.
�


- There is some (possibly mysterious) link between the physical  
human brain and consciousness.



The human brain is the public facing spatial presentation of human  
quality awareness. It's not a link between them because they are  
actually the same thing, only expressed publicly rather than  
privately.


Ok. I'm ok with that. I would still call it a link, but no  
nitpicking is necessary.

�

It's a bit confusing since private awareness is longitudinal through  
all time whereas public structures are orthogonal - latitudinal  
across all space but constrained to as single instant of time.


See if my post from last night makes it clearer: 
http://multisenserealism.com/2013/02/04/chalmeroff-scale-revisited/

Interesting post.

You say:�
"In other words, an experience is ineffable when the subject derives  
meaning from generated information which supervenes on an extensive  
personal history."

�
So my question is, why can't the generated information supervene on  
an emulation of my brain?




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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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 
.

Re: context, comp, and multiverses

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 13:47, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

Hi Roger,

On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Brunio,

I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any
consequence of an emulation,
or how it can be proven or not that comp works, since no comparison  
can be

made.


If comp is true, then we can explain why we cannot prove it.
But we can refute it, because comp explains the details about what  
the
physical reality can be. So to test comp, just compare the physics  
inferred

from the emprical reality, and the comp physics.



If so, then string theory is true
as it also predicts explicitly the Standard Model.
However that is not sufficient evidence for physicists
to think string theory is true.

What is needed for string theory to be true
is new physics to be experimentally verified
like the string theory prediction of the viscosity
of the quark-gluon plasma which has already been verified.
Does comp predict any new physics that can be experimentally verified?


It predicts the whole of physics, including why there is a physics.
But, the math are very hard. Not unlike string theory, btw :)

The main advantage of comp is that it explains simultaneously the  
quanta and the qualia, consciousness, and physical laws.


And then we have no choice in the matter. That's the UDA point. Comp  
makes obligatory to derive physics from numbers or Turing equivalent.  
So comp explains something that physicists are used to take for  
granted: a physical reality.



Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Topical combination

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>  Hi meekerdb
>
>
> There's nothing wrong with science as science.
> But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.
>
> Two completely different worlds.
>
>
> That's indeed a point where string atheists agree with string christian.
> Let us try to be not serious on theology, so we can assert the fairy tales.
> Strong Christian are happy because they feel like they can contradict the
> scientific evidences, and the atheists are happy so they can continue to
> mock the christians, and continue to sleep on their own (materialist) dogma.
>

You put meaning in atheism which is not there... an atheist can perfectly
be an idealist... materialism is not part of the definition of atheism.

Quentin

>
> That does not give much place for the genuine inquiry, I think.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>  - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* meekerdb 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>  *Time:* 2013-02-04, 13:48:50
> *Subject:* Re: Topical combination
>
>  On 2/4/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 03 Feb 2013, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>  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燼re
> separate magisteria, to use�
> Stephan Jay Gould's phrase.� Science deals with the physical world, and
> theology deals with
> the nonphysical world.
>
>
> Only an Aristotelian can say "science deals with the physical world". This
> sums up physicalism.
>
> A Platonist says that science is just the modest tool/method to deal with
> any subject.
>
>
> Except it was Plato who thought he could understand the world by just
> thinking about it, while it was Aristotle who went out to observe and let
> the world teach him.� So who was modest and who was arrogant?
>
> Brent
>
>  Allowing the abandon of science in the theological field can only be an
> invitation to the bad faith in there, and to the "don't ask" mentality.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> 
> *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking
> www.dreammail.org
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> 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.
>
>
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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: multiverses and quantum computers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Again you are miscontruing Plato's idea or form, which is potential,  
as matter, which is actual.
Not only that, but matter must be created by a creator in Platonism.  
So altogether

we have form, matter, and creator.

According to this, quanta are not physical states, they are just  
mathematical constructions, ideas or blueprints.

They only become physical when the wavicle (what Plato called an idea
or form) collapses and becomes a particle or whatever.

As verification, here's an account of Plato's version of creation  
taken from the Timeaus:


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#PlaPuz

"The Timaeus is also famous for its account of the creation of the  
universe by the Demiurge [a creator, ie collapser of the wavicles].
Unlike the creation by the God of medieval theologians, Plato’s  
Demiurge does not create ex nihilo, but rather
orders the cosmos out of chaotic elemental matter, imitating the  
eternal Forms [or quanta or wavicles]. Plato takes the
four elements, fire, air, water, and earth (which Plato proclaims to  
be composed of various aggregates of
triangles [or wavicles, forms or quanta] ), making various compounds  
of these into what he calls the Body of the

Universe [matter].

Of all of Plato’s works, the Timaeus provides the most detailed  
conjectures in the areas we now regard as the

natural sciences: physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology.


That's an Aristotelian account of Plato. It is more complex than that.  
The Timaeus, should be compensated with the Parmenides, and some  
synthesis should be tried. Then this is what Plotinus did, and that is  
why, when I mention Plato, I am in the line with the neo-platonists.
I propose bridges (including 'testable" one) between Plato, computer  
science and physics.


Bruno





- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 11:43:07
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers


On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:26, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno,

I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical
in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or  
imaginary

numbers. What matters is whether they are true states or not.
And truth is not magical.


Agreed.
But truth becomes magical when you require that a true state has to  
be a physical state.


There are numbers, and just by virtue of obeying the laws of  
addition and multiplication, due to an intrinsic misunderstanding  
between the additive realm and the multiplicative realm, universal  
numbers cannot not exist and they introduced an incredible mess in  
platonia.


I agree that the superposition of states is no more magical than the  
many roots of an equation.


Bt there is a difference, which is that if comp is true, what we  
take as physical, both the particles and their superposition states,  
comes from an earlier (arithmetically earlier, with shorter proofs)  
from the fact that each first person determined by a relative  
universal numbers states, is associated to all computations going  
through that states.


So particles and their superposition are entirely phenomenal, but in  
stable and sharable fashion, apparently, for the "measure-winning"  
universal numbers.


A brain is a Hubble telescope, in arithmetic, to explore the  
unboundable richness of arithmetic when seen from inside, from many  
possible perspectives.


We must be humble. Today, as far as we "know", assuming comp, the  
physical universe might still be only a failed attempt by God to  
solve a fourth degree diophantine polynomials.
But OK, the resemblance with Plotinus' system suggests it can also  
be more than that.


There are tuns of open problems. The weakness of comp, is that the  
interesting question, using the simplest definitions, leads to very  
hard problem in math. But the contrary would have been astonishing.  
There is no reason that the theological reality is "simple",  
especially with a brain which seems to filter a part of the truth,  
for apparently both logical and evolution based "reason". And there  
is an abyss of complexity between those two kind of reasons.


Bruno







- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers

Hi Bruno,


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes
　
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the  
other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on 　some  
superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer,  
what makes them different of other universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of  
stat

Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:59:09 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
> Quentin,
>  
> I agree with you, if that's what religion is.
> But it is not generally like that. 
> Instead, you are talking about a cult. 
>  
>

The distinction is questionable. I would say that all religions begin as 
cults and that all cults become religions given enough time and popularity. 
Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. Same with religions that become 
popular too suddenly.

Craig
 

>  
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Bruno Marchal  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-02-05, 11:42:46
> *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
>
>  
>  On 05 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> 
> > wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so in 
> that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about what I 
> could call an existential force, a reality "maker"... Religions does not 
> allows doubt, questionning, religions is about dogmas. I would side with 
> John in saying that wanting to use god for something else than the accepted 
> meaning (which means a super *being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the 
> notion of the One (which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that 
> sense.
>
> But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic means to 
> them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to them I really 
> prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't believe their BS, I 
> don't want to believe, I want to doubt, question, search answers, religions 
> gives non-questionable "answers", religions are not about seeking truth, it 
> is just "shut up and believe".
>
>
> My point is there are various levels of sophistication in understanding. 
>  A three-year-old might have some concept of numbers, and so does a PhD 
> mathematician. Their understandings may be incomparable, but you could say 
> they both have some belief in numbers.  The fact that many people might 
> have little understanding in certain field is not an appropriate reason to 
> say there is nothing of any interest in that field.
>
>
>
> I agree. And to reject a notion because of a common misunderstanding can 
> only maintain and spread the misconception.
> It remains typical that atheists are so few inclined to accept that we 
> tackle theology with the scientific method. 
>
> I have used the term "theology" because I have been qualified as such, by 
> vindicative strong atheists, and this when I said things like "I am 
> interested in the question 'could a machine be conscious" (answer: that's 
> theology), or even just "I am interested in modal logic" (comment: that's 
> theology). Eventually I think there were right, and to prevent such easy 
> dismissal I have called that theology. 
> Another reason, is that I want prevent the statement "science has shown 
> that we are machine", and a big part of what I have done should explain why 
> this is not a scientific statement, and why saying "yes" to the doctor asks 
> fro some act of faith. Then the theory of consciousness makes it a basic 
> and common mystical experience, which takes the form of an automated or 
> instinctive bet on a reality.
>
> No scientist get any trouble with this. But I made my old atheists, and 
> marxist, and philosophers, ex-friends quite unhappy. May be they were just 
> jealous or something, but the persistence of the problem that atheists seem 
> to have with the use of the scientific attitude in theology makes me 
> suspects that they were perhaps more serious in their religious dogma "no 
> God!". In fact they meant probably no ""God"", (with quotes), but they did 
> not say, as they know this is only vocabulary. The idea that "matter" is an 
> hypothesis makes also some people nervous. But in science we should never 
> make any ontological commitment, not a single one. Ontological commitment 
> are private matter.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>  
> Jason
>  
>
>  
> Regards,
> Quentin
>
>
>
>  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?
>
>
> That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different 
> notions because there is more than one king.
>
>
> They have different properties though.  As is the case between Gods of 
> various religions.  There are some nearly universal characteristics, but no 
> two are identical.  You could even say, every Christian has a different 
> understanding and view point of what God is.  Perhaps there are Gods in 
> some religions which are not only consistent or probable, but real.  Should 
> science not have some interest in their investigation (especially if they 
> are part of reality)?
>  
>  
>
> Why then,
> should the

Re: Re: context, comp, and multiverses

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Before you can arrive at a TOE you need to be
able to define what "everything" means. 
Your responses indicate that "everything" to you
means the world of mechanism. No ?


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-05, 11:18:49
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses




On 05 Feb 2013, at 16:44, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

If comp is assumed, then we need not worry about consequences of emulation,
it's a given that it works.

Then what is the purpose of this discussion ? 


To get a theory of everything. To figure out why and how physical realities 
appears, and what is the nature of consciousness, etc.


My main point is that the lasting Aristotelian picture is not compatible with 
computationalism, and that it is compatible with Plato and the most common 
mystics attempts to figure out what is.


Bruno












- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-05, 07:32:01
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses


Hi Roger, 


On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Brunio,

I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any consequence 
of an emulation,
or how it can be proven or not that comp works, since no comparison can be made.


If comp is true, then we can explain why we cannot prove it.
But we can refute it, because comp explains the details about what the physical 
reality can be. So to test comp, just compare the physics inferred from the 
emprical reality, and the comp physics.








Without meaning to be insulting, in short, I say, OK, it's Turing emulable. So 
what ?


So the TOE is given by addition and multiplication on the integers, and the 
global internal views of all creatures is given by Plato and Plotinus, not by 
Aristotle and the naturalists. It means that rational theology is wrong since 
the closure of Plato academy. In a nutshell.


Of course you have to study UDA to grasp this.


Bruno








- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-04, 09:59:09
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses







On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:



On Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:11:17 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 


On 01 Feb 2013, at 16:42, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 
I would think that each universe provides its own distinctive
context to any?alculation, including comp. 


Comp is the assumption that we are Turing emulable.
That notion is made very solid by Church's thesis.



I don't think that we can assume that a Turing emulation of us is actually 
"us". To the contrary, a Turing emulation of geometry is not geometry. A Turing 
emulation of water can be the same as a Turing emulation of water in another 
Turing emulated virtual world, but no emulated drop of Turing water can ever be 
a genuine drop of water within the world that we actually live in. It doesn't 
matter that 17 is still prime when you are dying of dehydration.


Hi Craig,


Still trying to understand your theory better. What's your position on the 
following statements:


- The human brain can be Turing emulated.


- There is some (possibly mysterious) link between the physical human brain and 
consciousness.






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.
 
 


DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org


-- 
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.
 
 



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group

Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:50:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 04 Feb 2013, at 01:14, 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.



This contradicts some of your earlier posts. I take it now that you  
do assume a primary physical reality. OK?


Physical but not material.


OK. That makes sense (in your non-comp theory).






I just try to understand your views.

It's confusing and unfamiliar, I admit. I am trying to say that  
physics is actually only a participatory sensory-motor experience.  
There is no reality beyond experience (not human experience of  
course) and the principles which govern it. Matter is just a kind of  
experience, as is thought, arithmetic, music, etc).


OK; but of course, like you say, experience has to become primitive.  
Which I find not very satisfactory, and even a bit "racist" with  
respect to machine, or handicap people (with prostheses). But your  
view remains coherent (at least).


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Topical combination

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi meekerdb


There's nothing wrong with science as science.
But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.

Two completely different worlds.


That's indeed a point where string atheists agree with string  
christian. Let us try to be not serious on theology, so we can assert  
the fairy tales. Strong Christian are happy because they feel like  
they can contradict the scientific evidences, and the atheists are  
happy so they can continue to mock the christians, and continue to  
sleep on their own (materialist) dogma.


That does not give much place for the genuine inquiry, I think.

Bruno





- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 13:48:50
Subject: Re: Topical combination

On 2/4/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 03 Feb 2013, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:


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燼re separate magisteria, to use�
Stephan Jay Gould's phrase.� Science deals with the physical  
world, and theology deals with

the nonphysical world.


Only an Aristotelian can say "science deals with the physical  
world". This sums up physicalism.


A Platonist says that science is just the modest tool/method to  
deal with any subject.


Except it was Plato who thought he could understand the world by  
just thinking about it, while it was Aristotle who went out to  
observe and let the world teach him.� So who was modest and who was  
arrogant?


Brent

Allowing the abandon of science in the theological field can only  
be an invitation to the bad faith in there, and to the "don't ask"  
mentality.


Bruno



DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking  
www.dreammail.org

--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Jason Resch wrote:




On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux   
wrote:



I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so  
in that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about  
what I could call an existential force, a reality "maker"...  
Religions does not allows doubt, questionning, religions is about  
dogmas. I would side with John in saying that wanting to use god for  
something else than the accepted meaning (which means a super  
*being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the notion of the One  
(which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that sense.


But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic  
means to them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to  
them I really prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't  
believe their BS, I don't want to believe, I want to doubt,  
question, search answers, religions gives non-questionable  
"answers", religions are not about seeking truth, it is just "shut  
up and believe".


My point is there are various levels of sophistication in  
understanding.  A three-year-old might have some concept of numbers,  
and so does a PhD mathematician. Their understandings may be  
incomparable, but you could say they both have some belief in  
numbers.  The fact that many people might have little understanding  
in certain field is not an appropriate reason to say there is  
nothing of any interest in that field.



I agree. And to reject a notion because of a common misunderstanding  
can only maintain and spread the misconception.
It remains typical that atheists are so few inclined to accept that we  
tackle theology with the scientific method.


I have used the term "theology" because I have been qualified as such,  
by vindicative strong atheists, and this when I said things like "I am  
interested in the question 'could a machine be conscious" (answer:  
that's theology), or even just "I am interested in modal  
logic" (comment: that's theology). Eventually I think there were  
right, and to prevent such easy dismissal I have called that theology.
Another reason, is that I want prevent the statement "science has  
shown that we are machine", and a big part of what I have done should  
explain why this is not a scientific statement, and why saying "yes"  
to the doctor asks fro some act of faith. Then the theory of  
consciousness makes it a basic and common mystical experience, which  
takes the form of an automated or instinctive bet on a reality.


No scientist get any trouble with this. But I made my old atheists,  
and marxist, and philosophers, ex-friends quite unhappy. May be they  
were just jealous or something, but the persistence of the problem  
that atheists seem to have with the use of the scientific attitude in  
theology makes me suspects that they were perhaps more serious in  
their religious dogma "no God!". In fact they meant probably no  
""God"", (with quotes), but they did not say, as they know this is  
only vocabulary. The idea that "matter" is an hypothesis makes also  
some people nervous. But in science we should never make any  
ontological commitment, not a single one. Ontological commitment are  
private matter.


Bruno






Jason


Regards,
Quentin

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?

That's not two different meanings any more that king is two  
different notions because there is more than one king.


They have different properties though.  As is the case between Gods  
of various religions.  There are some nearly universal  
characteristics, but no two are identical.  You could even say,  
every Christian has a different understanding and view point of what  
God is.  Perhaps there are Gods in some religions which are not only  
consistent or probable, but real.  Should science not have some  
interest in their investigation (especially if they are part of  
reality)?




Why then,
should there be only one meaning of God?

Because then we wouldn't know what "God" meant.  Of course like many  
words it may refer to more than one thing and there may be some  
variations.  "Automobile" refers to lots of different things, but  
they all have wheels, motive power, and carry people over surfaces.   
That doesn't mean you can call an aircraft carrier and automobile.


So then what are the universal properties of God?  You seem to shy  
away from them and prefer your own overly specific, self- 
inconsistent definition, because it is the one you can most  
comfortably admit you disbelieve in.  This is trivial though and I  
think we can do better.  It is like a mathematician proving there  
are no numbers that are prime and even and greater than 2, so the  
mathematician decides he has proven all there is to prove and gives  
up 

Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

[John Mikes]

I hate to refresh an old-old topic, but...
what is really your context of a "machine"?
(In the usual verbiage it points to some 'construct of definite parts with
definite functions' or the like.)
I doubt that 'your' universal machine can be inventoried in KNOWN parts
only. Or; that it may have a blueprint. Or whether you have an idea what
kind of driving force to apply to get it work? (all regular points inthe
usual lingo).
I had such discussion with people about 'organism', about 'system' - none
so far about (my?) infinite complexity.
Is 'your' univesal machine something close to it? then please, tell me, I
have no idea about mine.

John M



On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
>  On 04 Feb 2013, at 18:18, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Here is another one about intelligence:
> My definition goes back to the original Latin words: to *READ* *between *-
> lines, or words that is. To understand (reflect?) on the unspoken. A reason
> why I am not enthusiastic about AI - a machine (not Lob's universal
> computer) does not overstep the combinations of the added limitations.
> Intelligence is anticipatory.
>
>
> The universal (Löboian or not) machine is still a machine. And it can make
> anticipation. There is a whole branch of theoretical computer science
> studying the ability of machine in anticipation.
> It is quite interesting and most proofs are necessarily non constructive,
> and so this cannot be used in AI. But there are also a lot of engineering
> work with practical application. A programs already inferred correctly the
> presence of nuclear submarines in a place where most experts estimated that
> being impossible, notably.
>
> Theoretical computer science shows also that the more a machine is clever,
> the less we can predict her behavior, the more that machine can be wrong,
> the more that machine can benefit from working with other machines, etc.
> Few doubt that such machine can "read between".
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>  JohnM
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:56 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> How can be " *PHYSICAL*" - *'physical'*?
>> (and please, don't tell "because we THINK so")
>>
>> John M
>>
>>  On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>


 On Saturday, February 2, 2013 6:05:53 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> I don't really understand how people can object to the idea of
> physical/mechanical intelligence now that we live in a world where we're
> surrounded by it. Google searches, computers that can beat the best human
> chess player, autonomous rovers in Mars, face recognition, automatic stock
> traders that are better at it than any human being and so on and so on.
>

 When you don't understand what you are doing, it it easy to do it very
 fast. This writer gives a good explanation:
 http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-minds-are-not-like-computers

>>>
>>> Many AI algorithms are intrinsically slow. Most of the examples I've
>>> given are made possible by parallelising large amounts of computers. They
>>> will never understand in the sense you mean unless they have a 1p, but I
>>> don't see how that relates to speed or how speed is relevante here.
>>>
>>> Also I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
>>>
>>>

> Every time AI comes up with something that only humans could do,
> people say "oh right, but that's not intelligence - I bet computer will
> never be able to do X". And then they do. And then people say the same
> thing. It's just a bias we have, a need to feel special.
>

 Have you considered that it is a bias you have, to make you feel
 special, to be able to say that you are above their bias?

>>>
>>> I have and it might be true.
>>>
>>>


>
> WIth all due respect to Leibniz, he didn't know computer science.
>

 An argument can be made that Leibniz is the inventor of computer
 science, particularly AI.
 http://history-computer.com/Dreamers/Leibniz.html

>>>
>>> I honestly had no idea and I'm impressed (and ashamed for not knowing).
>>>
>>>


 Craig


>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>>  Hi socr...@bezeqint.net and Craig, and all,
>>
>> How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
>> How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
>> How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
>>
>> IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
>>
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/**entries/leibniz-mind/
>>
>> One is obliged to admit that *perception* and what depends upon it
>> is *inexplicable on mechanical principles*, that is, by figures and
>> motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would
>> enable i

Fw: RE: The internet takeover

[Roger Clough]

Perhaps I have misinterpreted what I hear on the news, 
maybe I'm just paranoid, but...

The president has said that the internet is a RIGHT,
so everyone must have it, which means to
him of course that the govt must supply the country with
wi-fi. I suspect that that will put internet suppliers
out of business, so you will sign on to the new 
govt-controlled internet. 

-- 
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: context, comp, and multiverses

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 16:44, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

If comp is assumed, then we need not worry about consequences of  
emulation,

it's a given that it works.

Then what is the purpose of this discussion ?


To get a theory of everything. To figure out why and how physical  
realities appears, and what is the nature of consciousness, etc.


My main point is that the lasting Aristotelian picture is not  
compatible with computationalism, and that it is compatible with Plato  
and the most common mystics attempts to figure out what is.


Bruno








- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-05, 07:32:01
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses

Hi Roger,

On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Brunio,

I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any  
consequence of an emulation,
or how it can be proven or not that comp works, since no comparison  
can be made.


If comp is true, then we can explain why we cannot prove it.
But we can refute it, because comp explains the details about what  
the physical reality can be. So to test comp, just compare the  
physics inferred from the emprical reality, and the comp physics.





Without meaning to be insulting, in short, I say, OK, it's Turing  
emulable. So what ?


So the TOE is given by addition and multiplication on the integers,  
and the global internal views of all creatures is given by Plato and  
Plotinus, not by Aristotle and the naturalists. It means that  
rational theology is wrong since the closure of Plato academy. In a  
nutshell.


Of course you have to study UDA to grasp this.

Bruno






- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 09:59:09
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses




On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg  
 wrote:



On Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:11:17 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Feb 2013, at 16:42, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal
I would think that each universe provides its own distinctive
context to any燾alculation, including comp.


Comp is the assumption that we are Turing emulable.
That notion is made very solid by Church's thesis.


I don't think that we can assume that a Turing emulation of us is  
actually "us". To the contrary, a Turing emulation of geometry is  
not geometry. A Turing emulation of water can be the same as a  
Turing emulation of water in another Turing emulated virtual world,  
but no emulated drop of Turing water can ever be a genuine  
drop of water within the world that we actually live in. It doesn't  
matter that 17 is still prime when you are dying of dehydration.


Hi Craig,

Still trying to understand your theory better. What's your position  
on the following statements:


- The human brain can be Turing emulated.

- There is some (possibly mysterious) link between the physical  
human brain and consciousness.





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- 
l...@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- 
l...@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.



DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org

--
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- 
l...@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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Roger Clough]

Hi socra...@bezeqint.net 

To say that nature is absurd is to say that our current
understanding of nature --materialism-- is wrong.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: socra...@bezeqint.net 
Receiver: Everything List 
Time: 2013-02-05, 06:43:51
Subject: Science is a religion by itself.


   Alice in Quantumland
=.
The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd
 from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment.
 So I hope you accept Nature as She is ? absurd.
/ QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
  page. 10. by R. Feynman /

? Many believe that relative theory tells us that ours
is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland universe; that this
revealed by the mathematician Einstein who discovered
that there is a fourth dimension, . . . .. . . that, in short,
everything is relative and mysterious. ?
 / Book ?lbert Einstein? , page 4. By Leopold Infeld ./

We still don't know that negative 4-D is. (!)

In the other words:
Physicists show us the absurd and mysterious existence
 of nature as a real fact.
 I cannot believe that nature is absurd and mysterious.
 I think that their interpretations in relative and
 quantum electrodynamics theories were wrong.
==..
' But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice.
'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
  / Lewis Carroll.
   Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. /

.

-- 
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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King 


Anything that has a purpose is teleological. 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-05, 07:53:22
Subject: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success


Hi,

 ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is 
to make it meaningless.



On 2/5/2013 6:23 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie not really.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
>> So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely a dominant 
>> FUNCTION? The blind exercise of function doesn't seem to me to include the 
>> global concept of purpose. The use of this word is about my only gripe with 
>> it. I could be wrong.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> K
>>
>>


-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Roger Clough]

Hi Kim Jones 

Life seems to be the only thing in the universe that has purpose--
which is, or course, to create more life.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Kim Jones 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-05, 02:59:01
Subject: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success


So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely a dominant FUNCTION? 
The blind exercise of function doesn't seem to me to include the global concept 
of purpose. The use of this word is about my only gripe with it. I could be 
wrong.

Cheers,

K




On 05/02/2013, at 6:47 PM, Russell Standish  wrote:

> By contrast, Smolin's idea is taken very seriously by this list. For
> example, it is mentioned not once, but twice in my book (page 49 and
> 102).
> 
> Cheers
> 
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:16:59PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
>> http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
>> 
>> 
>> OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.
>> 
>> 
>> Kim Jones
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.

-- 
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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Roger Clough]

Hi Kim Jones 

I thought that black holes destroy rather than create.

That only life can create.




- Receiving the following content - 
From: Kim Jones 
Receiver: Everything List 
Time: 2013-02-05, 02:16:59
Subject: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success


http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer




OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.




Kim Jones

-- 
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: context, comp, and multiverses

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

If comp is assumed, then we need not worry about consequences of emulation,
it's a given that it works.

Then what is the purpose of this discussion ? 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-05, 07:32:01
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses


Hi Roger,


On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Brunio,

I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any consequence 
of an emulation,
or how it can be proven or not that comp works, since no comparison can be made.


If comp is true, then we can explain why we cannot prove it.
But we can refute it, because comp explains the details about what the physical 
reality can be. So to test comp, just compare the physics inferred from the 
emprical reality, and the comp physics.








Without meaning to be insulting, in short, I say, OK, it's Turing emulable. So 
what ?


So the TOE is given by addition and multiplication on the integers, and the 
global internal views of all creatures is given by Plato and Plotinus, not by 
Aristotle and the naturalists. It means that rational theology is wrong since 
the closure of Plato academy. In a nutshell.


Of course you have to study UDA to grasp this.


Bruno








- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-04, 09:59:09
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses







On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:



On Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:11:17 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 


On 01 Feb 2013, at 16:42, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 
I would think that each universe provides its own distinctive
context to any?alculation, including comp. 


Comp is the assumption that we are Turing emulable.
That notion is made very solid by Church's thesis.



I don't think that we can assume that a Turing emulation of us is actually 
"us". To the contrary, a Turing emulation of geometry is not geometry. A Turing 
emulation of water can be the same as a Turing emulation of water in another 
Turing emulated virtual world, but no emulated drop of Turing water can ever be 
a genuine drop of water within the world that we actually live in. It doesn't 
matter that 17 is still prime when you are dying of dehydration.


Hi Craig,


Still trying to understand your theory better. What's your position on the 
following statements:


- The human brain can be Turing emulated.


- There is some (possibly mysterious) link between the physical human brain and 
consciousness.






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.
 
 


DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org


-- 
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.
 
 



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
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 can intelligence be physical ?

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

  I think that it is possible to understand the universe
using usual common logical thought.
We need only understand in which zoo (reference frame )
physicists found higgs-boson and 1000 its elementary brothers.

socratus

.

-- 
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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 05 Feb 2013, at 08:16, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
>
>
> OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.
>
>
> It is full of sense, but a bit trivial, and then he uses implicitly comp,
> but fail to generalize its approach, and to see it makes non trivial sense
> from that point. I am afraid it makes also his view more complex by trying
> to avoid the MWI, which of course makes it still more far from comp. Like
> many physicists, he avoids the mind body problem. It is still a form of
> Aristotelianism, which, I argue, is not compatible with the comp hyp in the
> cognitive science. But somehow, it is less wrong than many others, if we
> abstract from what has to be revised in the light of comp.
>
> Bruno
>

Here is a generalization of Smolin's approach:
http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/285



>
>
>
>
>
> Kim Jones
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Why I love the Jews

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 00:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

I think that Roger said nothing agains Jews. simply,  ethnic  
personal tastes are not a topic for this group.


I agree.

Things happened like that:

Clough: I am Lutheran,
Clark: Luther is anti-Semite,
Clough: I love jews

Of course, to say "I love jews" is a symptom of a form of anti- 
Semitism, and that form is common among christians for obvious  
historical reasons. He should have said "I love Broadway", but this  
would have missed his implicit reply to Clark, and be even more out-of- 
the topic-already-out-of topic.


I agree with Quentin and others. Let us try to concentrate on the  
technical points, and avoids vocabulary discussion, and ad hominem  
statements.


Bruno










2013/2/4 freqflyer07281972 
Is there a way Roger can be banned for a comment like that? Or  
should the moderators/admins of this list simply change it to the  
'Everything-Nazi List'?


That's gotta be one of the dumbest and most offensive things I've  
ever read on this list.


Roger, get a life.

On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:39:14 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Why I love the Jews

I love the Jews because there would be no Broadway
without the Jews, and I love Broadway almost more than anything.

As verification, see:

http://video.pbs.org/video/2317965318

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
2/4/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

--
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.





--
Alberto.

--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
> 2013/2/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
 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?

>>>
>>> Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism.
>>
>>
>> So are you also an a-deist?  What about an a-Brahmanist, or
>> a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  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.

>>>
>>> Not at all.  All the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more
>>> likely to exist than a theist god.
>>
>>
>> They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  You would have to
 be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every
 person's) notion of God.

>>>
>>> I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to
>>> put any credence in them.
>>
>>
>> How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put
>> any credence in them?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
  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.

>>>
>>> Not all what do?
>>
>>
>> Not all Christians define God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent
>> creator person who wants us to worship him.
>>
>
> Then they're not Christians... christianity is defined by a set of dogmas
> (hey dogma is what define religions), so if you doubt the basic dogmas of
> christianity, why would you call yourself a christian ??
>

So Thomas Aquinas was not a christian, because he understood
the incompatibility of omniscience and omnipotence.



>
>>
>>>  I just took the proportion of the world population that self identified
>>> as Christian, Muslim, and Jew.  The major remaining portions are
>>> non-believers and Hindus.
>>>
>>>
>>>
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,


>> That is not my view.  I am trying to ascertain what is the God that
>> atheists disbelieve in, and if it is one in particular (and not all of
>> them, which is what I thought most atheists believed (e.g. Richard Dawkins
>> and John Clark say they believe in zero Gods)), why have they chosen some
>> particular religion's God instead of others?  Are there Gods atheists
>> believe in but do not tell anyone about?
>>
>
> I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so in
> that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about what I
> could call an existential force, a reality "maker"... Religions does not
> allows doubt, questionning, religions is about dogmas. I would side with
> John in saying that wanting to use god for something else than the accepted
> meaning (which means a super *being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the
> notion of the One (which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that
> sense.
>
> But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic means to
> them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to them I really
> prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't believe their BS, I
> don't want to believe, I want to doubt, question, search answers, religions
> gives non-questionable "answers", religions are not about seeking truth, it
> is just "shut up and believe".
>

My point is there are various levels of sophistication in understanding.  A
three-year-old might have some concept of numbers, and so does a PhD
mathematician. Their understandings may be incomparable, but you could say
they both have some belief in numbers.  The fact that many people might
have little understanding in certain field is not an appropriate reason to

Re: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:50:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Feb 2013, at 01:14, 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.
>
>
>
> This contradicts some of your earlier posts. I take it now that you do 
> assume a primary physical reality. OK?
>

Physical but not material.
 

>
> I just try to understand your views.
>

It's confusing and unfamiliar, I admit. I am trying to say that physics is 
actually only a participatory sensory-motor experience. There is no reality 
beyond experience (not human experience of course) and the principles which 
govern it. Matter is just a kind of experience, as is thought, arithmetic, 
music, etc).


> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
>  
>  
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Feb 2013, at 08:16, Kim Jones wrote:


http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer


OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.


It is full of sense, but a bit trivial, and then he uses implicitly  
comp, but fail to generalize its approach, and to see it makes non  
trivial sense from that point. I am afraid it makes also his view more  
complex by trying to avoid the MWI, which of course makes it still  
more far from comp. Like many physicists, he avoids the mind body  
problem. It is still a form of Aristotelianism, which, I argue, is not  
compatible with the comp hyp in the cognitive science. But somehow, it  
is less wrong than many others, if we abstract from what has to be  
revised in the light of comp.


Bruno








Kim Jones

--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Topical combination

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb 


There's nothing wrong with science as science.
But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.

Two completely different worlds.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-04, 13:48:50
Subject: Re: Topical combination


On 2/4/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 


On 03 Feb 2013, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:


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?re 
separate magisteria, to use?
Stephan Jay Gould's phrase.? Science deals with the physical world, and 
theology deals with
the nonphysical world. 


Only an Aristotelian can say "science deals with the physical world". This sums 
up physicalism.


A Platonist says that science is just the modest tool/method to deal with any 
subject.

Except it was Plato who thought he could understand the world by just thinking 
about it, while it was Aristotle who went out to observe and let the world 
teach him.? So who was modest and who was arrogant?

Brent


Allowing the abandon of science in the theological field can only be an 
invitation to the bad faith in there, and to the "don't ask" mentality.


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.
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: context, comp, and multiverses

[Stephen P. King]

On 2/5/2013 7:47 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>Hi Roger,
>
>On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>Hi Brunio,
>
>I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any
>consequence of an emulation,
>or how it can be proven or not that comp works, since no comparison can be
>made.
>
>
>If comp is true, then we can explain why we cannot prove it.
>But we can refute it, because comp explains the details about what the
>physical reality can be. So to test comp, just compare the physics inferred
>from the emprical reality, and the comp physics.
>

If so, then string theory is true
as it also predicts explicitly the Standard Model.
However that is not sufficient evidence for physicists
to think string theory is true.

What is needed for string theory to be true
is new physics to be experimentally verified
like the string theory prediction of the viscosity
of the quark-gluon plasma which has already been verified.
Does comp predict any new physics that can be experimentally verified?
Richard



Dear Richard,

Forgive me but string theory predicts a HUGE landscape of possible 
physics, not just the Standard model. This is its fatal flaw, IMHO.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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: multiverses and quantum computers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Feb 2013, at 23:21, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi Bruno,


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes

Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the  
other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some  
superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer,  
what makes them different of other universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of  
states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think  
people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony,  
but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single  
universe requires magical thinking.


OK.


It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural  
activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more  
confortable with the resulting model.


Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite  
palatable.


But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural  
states, not that it emerges or is caused by them, correct?



UDA (including MGA = step 8) shows that comp (I can survive a  
digital brain transplant) entails that eventually the brains and  
bodies supervene on sequences of computational states, which are  
actually arithmetical relation. (having chosen arithmetic for the  
ontology, anything Turing universal theorey will do).


MGA throws out the physical supervenience thesis: the idea that  
consciousness relies on this or that (physical or not)  
implementations of a computations. Consciousness is associated to  
all computation in arithmetic. This can be related with the first  
person indeterminacy.


Ok, I'm more familiar with the UDA than the MGA.



If you are interested, I will come back on this soon. Perhaps not on  
this list(*).

 I will tell here when I will come back on MGA on the FOAR list.

(*) MGA has already been discussed on this list:
http://old.nabble.com/MGA-1-td20566948.html

Bruno





Bruno






Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for  
this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life.


I think we agree,

Bruno







Bruno




So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in  
Space


Hi Roger,

In the one universe model, where does the extra computational  
power of quantum computers come from?



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough  
 wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes
　
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
　
　
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise  
number, whatever it is?



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough  
 wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than  
infinite universes.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi,

牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this  
version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and  
Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by  
Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum  
mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe,  
planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of  
times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of  
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite  
repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly  
speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such  
ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic  
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


--
Onward!

Stephen

DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org

--
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 i

Re: Re: Again, why the triad is necessary--> 1p, 2p,and 3p as types of knowledge

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes 

Garbage in, garbage out. 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-04, 17:19:36
Subject: Re: Again, why the triad is necessary--> 1p, 2p,and 3p as types of 
knowledge


Hi Roger,


1p/3p is a label for a very specific idea. You might disagree with the idea, 
and that's fine, but it's useful to label ideas so that we know what we're 
talking about. Otherwise how can you tell us that you disagree with it?


If you succeed in forcing 2p in there, you effectively end up with two labels 
for one idea and zero labels for another idea. Do you see the problem?


Best,
Telmo.



On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal 
?
No, Firstness is raw experience (1p), prior to description (3p).
In Leibniz, at least, the only true perceiver is God or the One,
both beyond the supreme monad. This 1p is not yet knowledge,
just nerve signals. Active viewing. 
?
So only God or the One as active viewer is 1p, and what he returns back to 
the person would be personal knowledge or a description of the experience (2p or
Secondness) which becomes Thirdness or?3p?nly when shared with others 
(expressed in words as knowledge by description). 
While in the intermediate step, it is Secondness or 2p, that is, personal 
knowledge by acquiantance
??or experience.
?
So I would place Firstness and 1p in Platonia.
And I believe that?2p or knowledge by experience or acquaintance, 
and being wordlessly personal is in Platonia.
?
To summarize,?hen, according to L,
?
1p is actually raw experience, the experience of the One as seen thriough an 
individual's aspect.
?
2p is what the Supreme monad returns to the individual, as personal or 
phenomenal knowedge,
??knowledge by acquaintance.
?
3p is 2p turned into or expressed as words or descriptions (3p) to be expressed 
to others if this is done. 
?
?
?
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-03, 11:35:50
Subject: 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, ?n fact? 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,?erivative. human?ursuit 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

Re: Re: context, comp, and multiverses

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno,

The definitons of simulation and emulation I can find both use the word 
"imitation".
Can you explain what you mean as being the difference between the two ?

Simulation - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster 
...www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simulation
a : the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by 
means of the functioning of another  ...

Definition of EMULATION
1
obsolete : ambitious or envious rivalry 
2
: ambition or endeavor to equal or excel others (as in achievement) 
3
a : imitation 
b : the use of or technique of using an emulator 
— em·u·la·tive adjective 
— em·u·la·tive·ly adverb 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-04, 17:07:32
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses







On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:



On Monday, February 4, 2013 9:59:09 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:





On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:



On Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:11:17 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Feb 2013, at 16:42, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 
?
I would think that each universe provides its own distinctive
context to any?alculation, including comp. 


Comp is the assumption that we are Turing emulable.
That notion is made very solid by Church's thesis.



I don't think that we can assume that a Turing emulation of us is actually 
"us". To the contrary, a Turing emulation of geometry is not geometry. A Turing 
emulation of water can be the same as a Turing emulation of water in another 
Turing emulated virtual world, but no emulated drop of Turing water can ever be 
a genuine drop of water within the world that we actually live in. It doesn't 
matter that 17 is still prime when you are dying of dehydration.


Hi Craig,


Still trying to understand your theory better. What's your position on the 
following statements:


- The human brain can be Turing emulated.

I see emulation is a figure of speech rather than a physical reality. Can fire 
be Turing emulated? Maybe, but you can only use it to emulate the cooking of 
emulated food. I can make a single emulation of fire which will work for any 
number of virtual worlds, but none of them can actualize fire on the level of 
the machine itself.



Aren't you confusing emulation with simulation? If we emulate a brain in a 
computer, we can connect its input and outputs to sensors and actuators in the 
real world.
?

So can publicly detectable brain activity be Turing emulated? Sure, but it is a 
sculpture.



I see what you mean, but more on that later.
?




- There is some (possibly mysterious) link between the physical human brain and 
consciousness.



The human brain is the public facing spatial presentation of human quality 
awareness. It's not a link between them because they are actually the same 
thing, only expressed publicly rather than privately.



Ok. I'm ok with that. I would still call it a link, but no nitpicking is 
necessary.
?

It's a bit confusing since private awareness is longitudinal through all time 
whereas public structures are orthogonal - latitudinal across all space but 
constrained to as single instant of time.

See if my post from last night makes it clearer: 
http://multisenserealism.com/2013/02/04/chalmeroff-scale-revisited/


Interesting post.


You say:?
"In other words, an experience is ineffable when the subject derives meaning 
from generated information which supervenes on an extensive personal history."
?
So my question is, why can't the generated information supervene on an 
emulation of my brain?




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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
?
?



-- 
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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Jason Resch 

"God" is a word, and the meanings of words are established by use.
So the word "God" can mean whatever you intend it to mean.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-04, 22:12:54
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.





On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On 2/3/13, meekerdb ?rote:

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? ?o choose one sect of one religion's
God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is
favoritism. ?hy 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?



Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism.


So are you also an a-deist? ?hat about an a-Brahmanist, or 
a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist?
?



You say it
is because it is the most popular. ?ven if that were so, Atheism
isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods.



Not at all. ?ll the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more likely to 
exist than a theist god.


They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%.
?



You would have to
be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every
person's) notion of God.



I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to put any 
credence in them.


How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put any 
credence in them?
?





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.



Not all what do? 


Not all?hristians?efine God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator 
person who wants us to worship him.
?
? just took the proportion of the world population that self identified as 
Christian, Muslim, and Jew. ?he major remaining portions are non-believers and 
Hindus.





? Together their adherents constitute 54%
of those who
believe in a theist god. ?nd if we take your view that atheists and
agnostics use the
same definition,


That is not my view. ? am trying to ascertain what is the God that atheists 
disbelieve in, and if it is one in particular (and not all of them, which is 
what I thought most?theists?elieved (e.g. Richard Dawkins and John Clark say 
they believe in zero Gods)), why have they chosen some particular religion's 
God instead of others? ?re there Gods atheists believe in but do not tell 
anyone about?
?
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?



That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different notions 
because there is more than one king.


They have different properties though. ?s is the case between Gods of various 
religions. ?here are some nearly universal characteristics, but no two are 
identical. ?ou could even say, every Christian has a different understanding 
and view point of what God is. ?erhaps there are Gods in some religions which 
are not only consistent or probable, but real. ?hould science not have some 
interest in their investigation (especially if they are part of reality)?





Why then,
should there be only one meaning of God?



Because then we wouldn't know what "God" meant. ?f course like many words it 
may refer to more than one thing and there may be some variations. 
?"Automobile" refers to lots of different things, but they all have wheels, 
motive power, and carry people over surfaces. ?hat doesn't mean you can call an 
aircraft carrier and automobile.


So then what are the universal properties of God? ?ou seem to shy away from 
them and prefer your own overly specific, self-inconsistent definition, because 
it is the one you can most comfortably admit you disbelieve in. ?his is trivial 
though and I think we can do better. ?t is like a mathematician proving there 
are no numbers that are prime and even and greater than 2, so the mathematician 
decides he has proven all there is to prove and gives up deciding to advance 
the field by proving anything else.


In showing that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God cannot exist, 
you end up doing science and adv

Re: Topical combination

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Feb 2013, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/4/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 03 Feb 2013, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:


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.


Only an Aristotelian can say "science deals with the physical  
world". This sums up physicalism.


A Platonist says that science is just the modest tool/method to  
deal with any subject.


Except it was Plato who thought he could understand the world by  
just thinking about it, while it was Aristotle who went out to  
observe and let the world teach him.  So who was modest and who was  
arrogant?


Plato did not say that the truth was in *his* head. but in the head of  
anyone looking inward enough, and he was open to the idea of verifying  
this by looking at nature. He welcome Aristotle on this. But most  
platonists will not follow Aristotle's idea that matter was primary,  
which is a fertile simplification, but should not be a dogma.


Bruno







Brent

Allowing the abandon of science in the theological field can only  
be an invitation to the bad faith in there, and to the "don't ask"  
mentality.


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.

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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Stephen P. King]

Hi,

ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is 
to make it meaningless.




On 2/5/2013 6:23 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie not really.

Cheers

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:

So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely a dominant FUNCTION? 
The blind exercise of function doesn't seem to me to include the global concept 
of purpose. The use of this word is about my only gripe with it. I could be 
wrong.

Cheers,

K





--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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 can intelligence be physical ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Feb 2013, at 18:18, John Mikes wrote:


Here is another one about intelligence:
My definition goes back to the original Latin words: to READ between  
- lines, or words that is. To understand (reflect?) on the unspoken.  
A reason why I am not enthusiastic about AI - a machine (not Lob's  
universal computer) does not overstep the combinations of the added  
limitations. Intelligence is anticipatory.


The universal (Löboian or not) machine is still a machine. And it can  
make anticipation. There is a whole branch of theoretical computer  
science studying the ability of machine in anticipation.
It is quite interesting and most proofs are necessarily non  
constructive, and so this cannot be used in AI. But there are also a  
lot of engineering work with practical application. A programs already  
inferred correctly the presence of nuclear submarines in a place where  
most experts estimated that being impossible, notably.


Theoretical computer science shows also that the more a machine is  
clever, the less we can predict her behavior, the more that machine  
can be wrong, the more that machine can benefit from working with  
other machines, etc. Few doubt that such machine can "read between".


Bruno





JohnM

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:56 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
How can be " PHYSICAL" - 'physical'?
(and please, don't tell "because we THINK so")

John M

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes  
 wrote:




On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Craig Weinberg  
 wrote:



On Saturday, February 2, 2013 6:05:53 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Roger,

I don't really understand how people can object to the idea of  
physical/mechanical intelligence now that we live in a world where  
we're surrounded by it. Google searches, computers that can beat the  
best human chess player, autonomous rovers in Mars, face  
recognition, automatic stock traders that are better at it than any  
human being and so on and so on.


When you don't understand what you are doing, it it easy to do it  
very fast. This writer gives a good explanation: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-minds-are-not-like-computers


Many AI algorithms are intrinsically slow. Most of the examples I've  
given are made possible by parallelising large amounts of computers.  
They will never understand in the sense you mean unless they have a  
1p, but I don't see how that relates to speed or how speed is  
relevante here.


Also I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.


Every time AI comes up with something that only humans could do,  
people say "oh right, but that's not intelligence - I bet computer  
will never be able to do X". And then they do. And then people say  
the same thing. It's just a bias we have, a need to feel special.


Have you considered that it is a bias you have, to make you feel  
special, to be able to say that you are above their bias?


I have and it might be true.



WIth all due respect to Leibniz, he didn't know computer science.

An argument can be made that Leibniz is the inventor of computer  
science, particularly AI. http://history-computer.com/Dreamers/Leibniz.html


I honestly had no idea and I'm impressed (and ashamed for not  
knowing).




Craig



On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Roger Clough   
wrote:

Hi socr...@bezeqint.net and Craig, and all,

How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?

IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is  
inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and  
motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction  
would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one  
could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so  
that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing  
this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing  
one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception.  
Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in  
the machine, that one must look for perception.
Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine,  
upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the  
parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no  
explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced  
from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of  
this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed  
are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must  
be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical  
principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of  
consciousness.


In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it  
is of perception and consciou

Re: context, comp, and multiverses

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>
> On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> Hi Brunio,
>
> I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any
> consequence of an emulation,
> or how it can be proven or not that comp works, since no comparison can be
> made.
>
>
> If comp is true, then we can explain why we cannot prove it.
> But we can refute it, because comp explains the details about what the
> physical reality can be. So to test comp, just compare the physics inferred
> from the emprical reality, and the comp physics.
>

If so, then string theory is true
as it also predicts explicitly the Standard Model.
However that is not sufficient evidence for physicists
to think string theory is true.

What is needed for string theory to be true
is new physics to be experimentally verified
like the string theory prediction of the viscosity
of the quark-gluon plasma which has already been verified.
Does comp predict any new physics that can be experimentally verified?
Richard


>
>
> Without meaning to be insulting, in short, I say, OK, it's Turing emulable.
> So what ?
>
>
> So the TOE is given by addition and multiplication on the integers, and the
> global internal views of all creatures is given by Plato and Plotinus, not
> by Aristotle and the naturalists. It means that rational theology is wrong
> since the closure of Plato academy. In a nutshell.
>
> Of course you have to study UDA to grasp this.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Telmo Menezes
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-02-04, 09:59:09
> Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:11:17 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01 Feb 2013, at 16:42, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>> �
>>> I would think that each universe provides its own distinctive
>>> context to any燾alculation, including comp.
>>>
>>>
>>> Comp is the assumption that we are Turing emulable.
>>> That notion is made very solid by Church's thesis.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that we can assume that a Turing emulation of us is actually
>> "us". To the contrary, a Turing emulation of geometry is not geometry. A
>> Turing emulation of water can be the same as a Turing emulation of water in
>> another Turing emulated virtual world, but no emulated drop of Turing water
>> can ever be a genuine drop of water within the world that we actually live
>> in. It doesn't matter that 17 is still prime when you are dying of
>> dehydration.
>
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Still trying to understand your theory better. What's your position on the
> following statements:
>
> - The human brain can be Turing emulated.
>
> - There is some (possibly mysterious) link between the physical human brain
> and consciousness.
>
>
> �
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> 
> DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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 subsc

On matter as an illusion: two different interpretations.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Indeed, Plato, just as Leibniz did, considered
the idea of matter more real than matter itself.\

Both considered matter, however, somewhat differently. 
While Plato called it an illusion, Leibniz and Kant called
it (as perceived)  phenomenological, presumably because an 
illusion is commonly thought of as something created
by the mind, while from Plato's account, the illusion
of  matter was created not by our minds, but by the
"mind" that Plato called the Demiurge.  Thus, as
far as I can conceive, Plato would consider an experiment 
on matter (such as weighing it) as an illusion, casting doubt on the result,
as dream-like, while Leibniz and Kant would consider an experiment 
on matter to give a credible result (the same to all).


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-04, 12:55:52
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


On 02 Feb 2013, at 07:39, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

>
>
> On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>> On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>>
>>> Hi socr...@bezeqint.net 
>>
>>> Feynman was wrong. Life isn't physics,
>>> it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
>>
>> If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
>> intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all 
>> physics. How
>> could it really be otherwise?
>>
>> Craig
> ==
>
> In the name of reason and common sense:
> How could it really be otherwise?

Because physics is not supposed to bear on the non observable, like 
the mathematical, the theological, etc. Physics uses the mathematical, 
but does not bear on it directly, and the reality might be 
mathematical, for example.

It is more easy to explain the illusion of matter to a conscious 
being, than the illusion of consciousness to a material being. Also. 
That's why the greek platonist doubted the physical explanation, at 
least as a definitive explanation.

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.
> 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.
>
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



-- 
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: Plotinus vs Aquinas

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Feb 2013, at 18:02, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Sorry, I keep forgetting about the UTM.

But isn't your view a circular argument, since you
employ UTM as a mind in showing that comp is mind-like ?


I assume comp. I never try to convince anyone that comp is true. It is  
my working hypothesis.


I just explain (argue, actually even prove) that IF comp is true, then  
Plato is correct and Aristotle is false (on both physics and theology).


I explain also why if comp is correct, then we will never been able to  
justify it from any theory, that is why I insist that comp is a  
theology: it asks for an irreducible act of faith.


bruno







- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 10:47:28
Subject: Re: Plotinus vs Aquinas


On 03 Feb 2013, at 12:18, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

How can numbers understandi anything ?
Do they have a mind ?


They have a mind relatively to the universal numbers which implement  
them, like a computer has a mind relatively to a possible universal  
neighborhood.
But when I say that a number, or a computer can have a mind, it  
means only that they can support a person having a mind. The number,  
like the bodies, do not think per se.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: context, comp, and multiverses

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Roger,

On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Brunio,

I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any  
consequence of an emulation,
or how it can be proven or not that comp works, since no comparison  
can be made.


If comp is true, then we can explain why we cannot prove it.
But we can refute it, because comp explains the details about what the  
physical reality can be. So to test comp, just compare the physics  
inferred from the emprical reality, and the comp physics.





Without meaning to be insulting, in short, I say, OK, it's Turing  
emulable. So what ?


So the TOE is given by addition and multiplication on the integers,  
and the global internal views of all creatures is given by Plato and  
Plotinus, not by Aristotle and the naturalists. It means that rational  
theology is wrong since the closure of Plato academy. In a nutshell.


Of course you have to study UDA to grasp this.

Bruno






- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 09:59:09
Subject: Re: context, comp, and multiverses




On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg  
 wrote:



On Sunday, February 3, 2013 12:11:17 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Feb 2013, at 16:42, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal
�
I would think that each universe provides its own distinctive
context to any燾alculation, including comp.


Comp is the assumption that we are Turing emulable.
That notion is made very solid by Church's thesis.


I don't think that we can assume that a Turing emulation of us is  
actually "us". To the contrary, a Turing emulation of geometry is  
not geometry. A Turing emulation of water can be the same as a  
Turing emulation of water in another Turing emulated virtual world,  
but no emulated drop of Turing water can ever be a genuine drop of  
water within the world that we actually live in. It doesn't matter  
that 17 is still prime when you are dying of dehydration.


Hi Craig,

Still trying to understand your theory better. What's your position  
on the following statements:


- The human brain can be Turing emulated.

- There is some (possibly mysterious) link between the physical  
human brain and consciousness.



�


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.



DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org

--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: multiverses and quantum computers

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Again you are miscontruing Plato's idea or form, which is potential, as matter, 
which is actual.
Not only that, but matter must be created by a creator in Platonism. So 
altogether
we have form, matter, and creator.

According to this, quanta are not physical states, they are just mathematical 
constructions, ideas or blueprints.
They only become physical when the wavicle (what Plato called an idea
or form) collapses and becomes a particle or whatever. 

As verification, here's an account of Plato's version of creation taken from 
the Timeaus:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#PlaPuz

"The Timaeus is also famous for its account of the creation of the universe by 
the Demiurge [a creator, ie collapser of the wavicles]. 
Unlike the creation by the God of medieval theologians, Plato抯 Demiurge does 
not create ex nihilo, but rather 
orders the cosmos out of chaotic elemental matter, imitating the eternal Forms 
[or quanta or wavicles]. Plato takes the 
four elements, fire, air, water, and earth (which Plato proclaims to be 
composed of various aggregates of 
triangles [or wavicles, forms or quanta] ), making various compounds of these 
into what he calls the Body of the 
Universe [matter]. 

Of all of Plato抯 works, the Timaeus provides the most detailed conjectures in 
the areas we now regard as the 
natural sciences: physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-04, 11:43:07
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers




On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:26, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno,

I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical
in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or imaginary
numbers. What matters is whether they are true states or not.
And truth is not magical.


Agreed.
But truth becomes magical when you require that a true state has to be a 
physical state.


There are numbers, and just by virtue of obeying the laws of addition and 
multiplication, due to an intrinsic misunderstanding between the additive realm 
and the multiplicative realm, universal numbers cannot not exist and they 
introduced an incredible mess in platonia. 


I agree that the superposition of states is no more magical than the many roots 
of an equation.


Bt there is a difference, which is that if comp is true, what we take as 
physical, both the particles and their superposition states, comes from an 
earlier (arithmetically earlier, with shorter proofs) from the fact that each 
first person determined by a relative universal numbers states, is associated 
to all computations going through that states.


So particles and their superposition are entirely phenomenal, but in stable and 
sharable fashion, apparently, for the "measure-winning" universal numbers.


A brain is a Hubble telescope, in arithmetic, to explore the unboundable 
richness of arithmetic when seen from inside, from many possible perspectives.


We must be humble. Today, as far as we "know", assuming comp, the physical 
universe might still be only a failed attempt by God to solve a fourth degree 
diophantine polynomials.
But OK, the resemblance with Plotinus' system suggests it can also be more than 
that.


There are tuns of open problems. The weakness of comp, is that the interesting 
question, using the simplest definitions, leads to very hard problem in math. 
But the contrary would have been astonishing. There is no reason that the 
theological reality is "simple", especially with a brain which seems to filter 
a part of the truth, for apparently both logical and evolution based "reason". 
And there is an abyss of complexity between those two kind of reasons.


Bruno











- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers


Hi Bruno,




On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:



On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes 
 
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, 
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum 
paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some superposition of many 
computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other 
universes?


The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a 
same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a 
multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM 
consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. It's the same as 
saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the 
magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. 
 


Bruno






So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:22, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.
=.
Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ?
#
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may
not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather
consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -  . .  . .’
/ Book ‘ The Holographic Universe’  page 160.
   by  Michael Talbot ./
=.
Isn’t it a strange contradiction ?


The contrary is a contradiction, once you assume that the brain is  
Turing emulable.

See the sane2004 paper for a proof of this:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

You might need to study some good paper showing that arithmetic is  
Turing universal, but you can already derive this easily from Gödel's  
1931 proof technic. The arithmetical relations emulate the  
computations, so that arithmetic constitutes a block-mindscape, and  
matter, and thus brain, are only stable pattern appearing in some  
collections of computations. The main point is that this is testable,  
and QM, notably the MWI, confirms already the most startling  
consequence of the digital mechanist hypothesis (comp).
If Talbot is right, that would also confirm a much simpler theory than  
its own.


Bruno






But maybe it means what brain obeys the  ‘dualistic law’ :
Brain - –> Consciousness ,  Consciousness - –> Brain.
Who knows ?
=.

--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

[Roger Clough]

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Your concept is incomplete, because geometry is what Plato called forms,
which he gave the Greek name of ideas.  So you have a thought without a thinker.
  


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-04, 15:09:16
Subject: Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie


I think that geometry is a form of accelerated calculation and presentation of 
distances and angles by/in the mind, of the external mathematical reality.?


Within this mental geometrical representation, ?e locate the rest of the 
elements of the mathematical reality that are relevant for survival, they are, 
the qualia. And this is what whe perceive as "reality", that apears to be "out 
there".


I mean 3D geometry. any other geometry either is mentaly transated to 3D by 
projections or else, must be calculated non intuitively (non accelerated) ?y 
means of algebraic formulas.


However, I imagine that an advanced robot with fast spatial processing (based 
of algebraic formulas) would pass the turing test when asked about geometrical 
figures in space. It can even answer: "geometry is intuitive form me. My 
father-engineer gave me a good floating point coprocessor and good spatial 
algorithms.


but there is a self reference when we try to imagine how the brain or a 
computer process geometry, and we imagine them embedded in the space and time 
that they create, which is not a correct intuition. we must imagine it in no 
time and no space. IMHO.



2013/2/4 Craig Weinberg 



On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:01:38 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Feb 2013, at 22:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:


I have mentioned this before, but it keeps haunting me.

If geometry did not exist.

Could you invent it with mathematics alone?

And if you could do that...

Why would you?

For instance: A triangle can be defined mathematically in different ways, but 
without the inherently geometric presentations of lines and angles, it seems 
that all you could generate is a description of a set of values which have the 
same relation as the values which would be present if a geometric shape were 
measured or sampled from optical or tactile detections.

That is not to say that the list of mathematical definitions which satisfy 
triangularity (a^2 + b^2 = c^2 for example), even an exhaustive list, would 
suggest anything like the visible presence of a shape. All of the mathematics 
can be done completely in the dark, and no realism of points, plots, displays, 
manifolds, topologies, etc, ever need to literally appear to anything. 


We don't know that.

We don't know that we don't know that.

Craig 



Bruno






So why do they?

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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
?
?



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/






-- 
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.
?
?






-- 
Alberto. 
-- 
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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Feb 2013, at 22:56, 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".  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.



The meaning of words can evolve. In this case I use the word  
"theology" in the old original sense, and even that sense still make  
sense for 70% of the Abramanic theology, despite adding more weird  
attributes.
Like John you confirm my feeling that atheists defend the use of the  
word as it has been imposed to us, and not the more general concept  
which bring theologies in the first place.


Using another world would not help in the comparative theological  
studies, including the comparaison with comp.


Bruno






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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Lessons from the Block Universe

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Feb 2013, at 01:14, 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.



This contradicts some of your earlier posts. I take it now that you do  
assume a primary physical reality. OK?


I just try to understand your views.

Bruno





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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Alberto G. Corona]

I doubt that meaning, existence, creation, purpose  makes sense when
applied to the mathematical nature of the external reality. I think that
these concepts only makes sense when though by a mind. So either we reject
these concepts when thinking about the universe (and this makes reasoning
almost impossible when taken seriously) or else, we implicirtly are
assuming that we are figuring out what a metamind in a metatime was
thinking when He fired up equations into existence. that is, we are trying
to know the mind of God in which we implicitly believe.

Purpose, for example, implies a goal and a goal implies some actions in
order to reach the goal either at the beginning (at the creation of the
drama) or at the course of the action.In the first case, it is assumed
that the purpose-creator had freedom to bring existence or not of different
things depending on the purpose. In the second case, it supposes miracles.
In the case of Smolin, like many others, they try to be as close as
possible to the null hypothesis, where this Mind is progressively more and
more lazy, so he creates more and more weird things in a single act in
order not  to think and not to waste time for sleep: And the God of Smolin
said: "Let's be String theory with a lot of free parameters, so may be
black holes populate each universe or not. And he saw it good, so He return
to sleep".


Why not "lets everithing into existence"?. That is the null hypothesis. But
existence again, is meaningless without an observer, a metamind, because is
the mind the one that observe existence. We have an implicit Observer. The
same could be said about the concept of "beginning" and, in fact, almost
any concept of the language. So we need a metamind, in a metatime. an
extremely lazy metamind. But his "creation" is undistinguisable from a more
focused metamind which may bring into existence just a strech set of
alternatives in order to produce the same number of observer minds. In any
case we need -or our reasoning implicitly assumes- a mind to fire-up.


What we know is that the external mathematical reality supports for the
existence and communicability of minds. And these minds and groups of minds
create their own realities, that  do have purposes and create and infer
meaning. We can only reason with the concepts of minds about other minds.


2013/2/5 Kim Jones 

> So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely a dominant
> FUNCTION? The blind exercise of function doesn't seem to me to include the
> global concept of purpose. The use of this word is about my only gripe with
> it. I could be wrong.
>
> Cheers,
>
> K
>
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2013, at 6:47 PM, Russell Standish  wrote:
>
> > By contrast, Smolin's idea is taken very seriously by this list. For
> > example, it is mentioned not once, but twice in my book (page 49 and
> > 102).
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:16:59PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
> >>
> http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
> >>
> >>
> >> OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.
> >>
> >>
> >> Kim Jones
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> 
> > Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Principal, High Performance Coders
> > Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> > University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >
> 
> >
> > --
> > 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.
>
>
>


-- 
Alberto.

Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

   Alice in Quantumland
=.
The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd
 from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment.
 So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd.
/ QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
  page. 10.  by  R. Feynman /

‘ Many believe that relative theory tells us that ours
is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland universe;  that this
revealed by the mathematician Einstein who discovered
that there is a fourth dimension,  . . . .. . .  that, in short,
everything is relative and mysterious. ‘
 / Book ‘Albert Einstein’ ,  page 4.  By Leopold Infeld ./

We still don't know that negative 4-D is.  (!)

In the other words:
Physicists show us the absurd and mysterious existence
 of nature as a real fact.
 I cannot believe that nature is absurd and mysterious.
 I think that their interpretations in  relative and
 quantum electrodynamics theories were  wrong.
==..
' But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice.
'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
  / Lewis Carroll.
   Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. /

.

-- 
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.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Feb 2013, at 19:58, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 01 Feb 2013, at 17:10, Jason Resch wrote:

Very nice post Bruno.  I found your points convincing and  
informative.


Thanks Jason. I appreciate.

I really don't know what happens with John K Clark.

At least John K Clark answers mails, and the contradiction can be  
made public.

Some other people have not been so polite.

Is there any one on the list who understood Clark's point, and would  
like to defend it?



When I first saw the UDA I paused at step 3 as well, and raised the  
point on the list that both perspectives are experienced and that  
these experience could rightly be said to belong to the same  
person.  I think you replied that Chalmers had said the same thing  
and also that he said it would imply that we are everyone.  The  
notion of a universal self, however, is advanced and using it here  
at step 3 is in a sense "skipping ahead".  I think the reasoning on  
duplicates eventually leads to the realization on the self, which  
John Clark may had already reached with his writing of short stories  
on the subject of duplicates.  I think I know what he means when he  
says "I experience both", but he is using "I" in a different sense  
than you mean it.  I think he is using "I" in the broad sense of the  
universal self rather than the immediacy of "here and now" and "what  
is it my mind presently has access to?"  Like a split brain patient  
experiencing both sides of the screen, but one hemisphere of the  
brain not remembering the other hemisphere's experience, you could  
in the same sense say John Clark is presently experiencing both W  
and M, but suffers from the same amnesia/loss of access of a split  
brain patient.


Yes. Indeed. Someone (Lee) made a similar point, and i think agreed  
that this entails that we are already all the same person, like the  
same amoeba, or the universal self, but John did not reply when I  
asked him if that was his view. Then it is also not relevant for the  
first person indeterminacy as it concerns the next possible first  
person experience about the result of an experiment (like pushing on a  
button, and looking which city we feel to be).







Despite that I share this broad sense of self, I came to realize my  
problem with step 3 came down to.


Good. It is frequent that some people takes time to get the first  
person indeterminacy. I think most people eventually understand, but  
some people seems to be unable to acknowlegde it. I guess it is more a  
psychological problem than a problem of being able to reason or not.





What I find most surprising about John's position is that he can use  
"I" in the same sense you mean in the UDA when referring to many- 
worlds thought experiments, but he refuses to use it in that same  
sense when it comes to duplication in the UDA.


Yes. And he did become rather delirious when explaining to me and  
Quentin why. He introduced the non relevant distinction that in QM the  
doppelganger belongs to different universes, like if that could change  
the comp probability.


It is a bit sad as being open to the QM MWI is normally a big help to  
get the comp MDI (many dreams).


Also, he uses often the mind-brain identity thesis, which is already  
non sensical in MWI, and of course also in comp.


But the worst is in his tone, which does not reflect that he is  
willing to think on those matter seriously, so he does look like a  
sort of priest of the materialist dogma, and at the same time he is  
not, as he said he was open to the idea that arithmetic might be the  
basic reality. That's what is rather weird. To be continued ...


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

[Russell Standish]

Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie not really.

Cheers

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
> So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely a dominant 
> FUNCTION? The blind exercise of function doesn't seem to me to include the 
> global concept of purpose. The use of this word is about my only gripe with 
> it. I could be wrong.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> K
> 
> 

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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.

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/2/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism.
>
>
> So are you also an a-deist?  What about an a-Brahmanist, or
> a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist?
>
>
>>
>>
>>  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.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all.  All the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more
>> likely to exist than a theist god.
>
>
> They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%.
>
>
>>
>>
>>  You would have to
>>> be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every
>>> person's) notion of God.
>>>
>>
>> I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to
>> put any credence in them.
>
>
> How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put any
> credence in them?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  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.
>>>
>>
>> Not all what do?
>
>
> Not all Christians define God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent
> creator person who wants us to worship him.
>

Then they're not Christians... christianity is defined by a set of dogmas
(hey dogma is what define religions), so if you doubt the basic dogmas of
christianity, why would you call yourself a christian ??

>
>
>>  I just took the proportion of the world population that self identified
>> as Christian, Muslim, and Jew.  The major remaining portions are
>> non-believers and Hindus.
>>
>>
>>
>>>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,
>>>
>>>
> That is not my view.  I am trying to ascertain what is the God that
> atheists disbelieve in, and if it is one in particular (and not all of
> them, which is what I thought most atheists believed (e.g. Richard Dawkins
> and John Clark say they believe in zero Gods)), why have they chosen some
> particular religion's God instead of others?  Are there Gods atheists
> believe in but do not tell anyone about?
>

I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so in that
settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about what I could
call an existential force, a reality "maker"... Religions does not allows
doubt, questionning, religions is about dogmas. I would side with John in
saying that wanting to use god for something else than the accepted meaning
(which means a super *being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the notion of
the One (which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that sense.

But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic means to
them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to them I really
prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't believe their BS, I
don't want to believe, I want to doubt, question, search answers, religions
gives non-questionable "answers", religions are not about seeking truth, it
is just "shut up and believe".

Regards,
Quentin

>
>
>>  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?
>>>
>>
>> That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different
>> notions because there is more than one king.
>
>
> They have different properties though.  As is the case between Gods of
> various religions.  There are some nearly universal characteristics, but no
> two are identical.  You could even say, every Christian has a different
> understanding and view point of what God is.  Perhaps there ar