Re: Materialism and Buddhism
On 03 Jul 2013, at 23:48, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dr. Marchal, Hello. It's not an opinion, but a question motivated by observation. It doesn't make this point of view, axiomatically, correct. But, I do feel this issue needs to be addressed at some point, via scientific measure. The question is how? What would be our motivation to undertake this study-do non-material things exist? Can non-material object exist. Or am I asking do non-existing objects exist? Or, do non-material things exist elsewhere in our universe, but a difficult to ordinarily detect? You seem to assume that there is a physical universe. I don't assume that. You seem to assume Aristotle idea that what exist = what we can see, or observe, measure ... but the ancient dream argument already show that such inference is not valid. God created the natural numbers and said add and multiply. All the rest are dreams which exist due to the Turing universality of "add and multiply". You might have a difficulty to conceive that "physical existence" might not be a primitive existence. Platonist have at the start doubt that the physical reality is not a sort of illusion. Comp explains that oit might be more rational to think so. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 03 Jul 2013, at 20:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Not to be a jerk, but can someone give us an example of non- materialism? Even human thoughts is neurons and chemicals sizzling away in the skull. This is your assumption. But Platonist believed that this view might be wrong. And I argue that if we are machine, it ill be easier to explain the illusion of matter to conscious number relations (like what computer handled) than to expolain the illusion of consciousness to material things. Is not Ontology a discussion on what exists? Yes, and with comp, you can consider that only 0 and its successor exists, and that they obey to some laws (succession, addition, multiplication: that's enough). Then you can prove in that theory that all pieces of computations exist, and that matter appears, in the conscious relative numbers as a stable illusion, obeying laws, etc. (Epistemology is what is knowledge or what do we know? If I remember right). Yes. Can it then be said, via math that non-material objects exists? They certainly exists in the logical sense: that we can prove that prime number exists once we accept that 0 exist. Does it really exist? But that is a new notion, and if you use it you have to define it. If no intelligence is alive to perform the neuron actions sufficient to comprehend or even search for the non-material, then perhaps it cannot exist? With comp we can more easily define intelligence in arithmetic than in physical terms. Don't take this as true, but arithmetic gives an example of rational, objective idealism, where matter apperance can emerge from infinities of number relations. Other idealism exist by assuming that the fundamental reality is consciousness, or God, or whatever considered as being outside the physical realm. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Pierz To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 2:22 pm Subject: Materialism and Buddhism I studied Mahajana Tibetan Buddhism in Dharamsala (home of the Dalai Lama in exile) back in the day and I agree with Bruno and others that Buddhism is closer to idealism than materialism. However Buddhism ultimately rejects 'mind' too, since what we think of as mind is closely related to the personal self. The ultimate reality in Buddhism is nirvana or the void and all phenomena including mental phenomena are empty of inherent existence. It is 'a- theistic' in the sense that this ultimate reality is not a being like a god with an identity and thoughts. However Tibetan Buddhism, like other forms, does believe in the idea of god-like (and demon-like) beings in the phenomenal realms. To equate Buddhism with materialism on the basis of a few selected quotes would constitute a highly tendentious reading of the dharma and in my view is quite wrong. There is no possibility of liberation in materialism and the phenomenal world is seen as the 'real world', the very antithesis of the Buddhist view. -- 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. 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 t
Re: It From Bit is Undecidable
On 04 Jul 2013, at 04:25, meekerdb wrote: Here's an essay by my friend Lawrence Crowell, which Bruno may appreciate. At least it will disabuse him the idea that physicists are close minded materialist bent on assuming primary matter. http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Crowell_fqxi2013.pdf Thanks, it look interesting. I have already seen some error in logic there. Also, "it from bit", in the interpretation (digital physicalism) of the author is decidable, indeed is false, given that digital physics entails comp, and comp entails the falsity of digital physics. But I see many interesting notes, but also some misconception in logic. More asap, but my day will be more and more heavy loaded, so thanks for being patient. Tell your friend to study UDA and AUDA, as he should see quickly what is wrong in some of his preliminary points. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: *******The holographic principle is a rational justification for idealism******
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:08:03PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > > > So far they've been vindicated. > > > > > Physicists can dismiss the anthropic principle when they can show the > values for the dimensionless constants can be derived by some more > fundamental (non-anthropic) principle(s). Actually, if the values can be derived from Anthropic principles, that would be an advance too! -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
Interesting Dr. Marchal, Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes out of observation. In Charlie Stross's work of science fiction, Accelerondo, Stross posits that the Big Bang was a statistical computation that ran over 14 billion years ago, and we are the remnant of the statistical processing. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:22 am Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 03 Jul 2013, at 23:48, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dr. Marchal, Hello. It's not an opinion, but a question motivated by observation. It doesn't make this point of view, axiomatically, correct. But, I do feel this issue needs to be addressed at some point, via scientific measure. The question is how? What would be our motivation to undertake this study-do non-material things exist? Can non-material object exist. Or am I asking do non-existing objects exist? Or, do non-material things exist elsewhere in our universe, but a difficult to ordinarily detect? You seem to assume that there is a physical universe. I don't assume that. You seem to assume Aristotle idea that what exist = what we can see, or observe, measure ... but the ancient dream argument already show that such inference is not valid. God created the natural numbers and said add and multiply. All the rest are dreams which exist due to the Turing universality of "add and multiply". You might have a difficulty to conceive that "physical existence" might not be a primitive existence. Platonist have at the start doubt that the physical reality is not a sort of illusion. Comp explains that oit might be more rational to think so. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 03 Jul 2013, at 20:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Not to be a jerk, but can someone give us an example of non-materialism? Even human thoughts is neurons and chemicals sizzling away in the skull. This is your assumption. But Platonist believed that this view might be wrong. And I argue that if we are machine, it ill be easier to explain the illusion of matter to conscious number relations (like what computer handled) than to expolain the illusion of consciousness to material things. Is not Ontology a discussion on what exists? Yes, and with comp, you can consider that only 0 and its successor exists, and that they obey to some laws (succession, addition, multiplication: that's enough). Then you can prove in that theory that all pieces of computations exist, and that matter appears, in the conscious relative numbers as a stable illusion, obeying laws, etc. (Epistemology is what is knowledge or what do we know? If I remember right). Yes. Can it then be said, via math that non-material objects exists? They certainly exists in the logical sense: that we can prove that prime number exists once we accept that 0 exist. Does it really exist? But that is a new notion, and if you use it you have to define it. If no intelligence is alive to perform the neuron actions sufficient to comprehend or even search for the non-material, then perhaps it cannot exist? With comp we can more easily define intelligence in arithmetic than in physical terms. Don't take this as true, but arithmetic gives an example of rational, objective idealism, where matter apperance can emerge from infinities of number relations. Other idealism exist by assuming that the fundamental reality is consciousness, or God, or whatever considered as being outside the physical realm. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Pierz To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 2:22 pm Subject: Materialism and Buddhism I studied Mahajana Tibetan Buddhism in Dharamsala (home of the Dalai Lama in xile) back in the day and I agree with Bruno and others that Buddhism is closer o idealism than materialism. However Buddhism ultimately rejects 'mind' too, ince what we think of as mind is closely related to the personal self. The ltimate reality in Buddhism is nirvana or the void and all phenomena in
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
On 7/4/2013 5:31 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting Dr. Marchal, Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes out of observation. Except "life" is well modelled as chemistry and physics; so I don't see any gain in introducing replication as a foundational concept. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
I happen to read the intro summary of the e-book (annonced on another list): *Scientific Hinduism*: Bringing Science and Hinduism Closer via Extended Dual-Aspect Monism (Dvi-Pak?a Advaita) *By Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal* (Vision Research Institute, 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 and 428 Great Road, Suite 11, Acton, MA 01720 USA; Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, A-60 Umed Park, Sola Road, Ahmedabad-61, Gujrat, India; Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, c/o NiceTech Computer Education Institute, Pendra, Bilaspur, C.G. 495119, India; and Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, Sai Niwas, East of Hanuman Mandir, Betiahata, Gorakhpur, U.P. 273001, India rlpvi...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/HomeScientificHinduism: Bringing Science and Hinduism Closer via Extended Dual- ua---Aspect Monism (the DAMv framework: Dvi Aspect Monism (the DAMv framework: Dvi Aspect Monism (the DAMv framework: DviPak PaPa Pak?a Advaita) a Advaita) RLP Vimal RLP Vimal) in which the Hindu belief system is portraited as th only religion and 'a' soul (mind) has its extra life (existnece) while in connection with the body: as a persona entity. Not far from *Bruno's "God created the natural numbers and said add and multiply..." *(* *indeed a pleonasm, since multiplication is a multiple form of addition) neglecting my* ignorance *about whom is he referring to. IMO with so much assumed not knowing about it is easy to devise (personal?) belief systems and complement them to worldviews (religions) including our conventional sciences. Materialism is a narrowed-down* idealism* of a world based on primitive physical observations of the past. Idealism proper is a free fantasy. Hinduism and more western religions are made-up from make-believe fundamentals according to the founder theories. (Many of them??) Whoever cannot live without a firm believe about the world should stick his head into the sand and be happy. I am not happy with agnosticism, but that is the most I can achieve. In - M Y - belief system I postulate lots of pertinent details we cannot have any idea about and take everything as conditional: "if they do not interfere with some newer info acquisition". Otherwise I am OK. John M On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:31 AM, wrote: > Interesting Dr. Marchal, > > Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something > then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, > together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make > probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act > as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities > swirling around us. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the > physical cosmos. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is > what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a > Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' Or, am > I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and > theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes > out of observation. > > In Charlie Stross's work of science fiction, Accelerondo, Stross posits > that the Big Bang was a statistical computation that ran over 14 billion > years ago, and we are the remnant of the statistical processing. > > Mitch > > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: everything-list > Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:22 am > Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism > > > On 03 Jul 2013, at 23:48, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: > > Dr. Marchal, > > Hello. > > It's not an opinion, but a question motivated by observation. It doesn't > make this point of view, axiomatically, correct. But, I do feel this issue > needs to be addressed at some point, via scientific measure. The question > is how? What would be our motivation to undertake this study-do > non-material things exist? Can non-material object exist. Or am I asking do > non-existing objects exist? Or, do non-material things exist elsewhere in > our universe, but a difficult to ordinarily detect? > > > You seem to assume that there is a physical universe. I don't assume > that. > You seem to assume Aristotle idea that what exist = what we can see, or > observe, measure ... but the ancient dream argument already show that such > inference is not valid. > > God created the natural numbers and said add and multiply. All the rest > are dreams which exist due to the Turing universality of "add and multiply". > > You might have a difficulty to conceive that "physical existence" might > not be a primitive existence. Platonist have at the start doubt that the > physical reality is not a sort of illusion. Comp explains that oit might be > more rational to think so. > > Bruno > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: everything-list > Sent: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 3:59 pm > Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism > > > On 03 Jul 2013, at 20:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: > > Not to
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
Good point. But replication would be a means for establishing reality. Perhaps, life reproducing sustains reality? For me it's quite bizzare in the sense that it's non-intuitive. On the other hand it applies the observer as what or who establishes reality. -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:18 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 7/4/2013 5:31 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting Dr. Marchal, Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes out of observation. Except "life" is well modelled as chemistry and physics; so I don't see any gain in introducing replication as a foundational concept. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Materialism and Buddhism
On 7/4/2013 1:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Good point. But replication would be a means for establishing reality. Perhaps, life reproducing sustains reality? But why should the fact that some chemicals replicate instantiate reality? "Life" is really replication with evolution - if you don't include evolution then you could regard as crystals as replicating. For me it's quite bizzare in the sense that it's non-intuitive. On the other hand it applies the observer as what or who establishes reality. The decoherence account of (almost) deriving the classical world (aka "reality") from QM doesn't depend on observersexcept in the sense of devices with many degrees of freedom with states robust against entanglement with the environment. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 3:18 pm Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism On 7/4/2013 5:31 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting Dr. Marchal, Do you hold that Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, may be on to something then? Lanza is a cell biologist, and Berman is an astronomer. They, together, came up with the theory of biocentrism, as the trigger to make probability real. That life, even at its simplest structures (bacteria) act as an observer to sense the universe, out of a cloud of probabilities swirling around us. That, life consciously, and unconsciously selects the physical cosmos. They have called it the Biocentrsm Theory. Maybe life is what causes the math to process as axioms, as programs (if you are a Stephen Wolfram fan?) to emerge from the great probability 'cloud.' Or, am I misunderstanding what you have intended? In both cases, yours, and theirs, there is no specific, physical universe, because it chrystalizes out of observation. Except "life" is well modelled as chemistry and physics; so I don't see any gain in introducing replication as a foundational concept. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
John Leslie's 'Infinite Minds: A Philosophical Cosmology'
Hey List! (and in particular Bruno) I have started re-reading the book I mention in the subject line -- after languishing in my bookshelf for a number of years, I pulled it out and began noticing the uncanny parallels it had with Bruno's UDA, although it reaches the same conclusions by some rather different means, notably; it postulates God as the thinker of all thoughts, envisioning god in a Spinozistic/Platonic light, and (something that from what I have read seems absent from the UDA) postulates the 'ethical requiredness' of God as being of enough force to bring him into being, thus short-circuiting the old " If God exists, what caused him to exist?" type of argument. I guess my general question is if any of you are familiar with Leslie's work and if so, to what degree, and also if so, to what degree do you find it plausible? Myself, I seem to be going through a kind of metaphysical conversion of sorts, one where, despite the multiplicity of minds/universes, there nevertheless seems to be an unspeakable and seemingly permanent unity to all things. I'm almost leaning towards Christianity, for the simple reason that it seems peculiar and particular enough to just be right and suitable to reality. (Reading CS Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' has swayed me in this way -- check it out, it's online). Forgive the brevity of my remarks... I'd unpack more if there was any interest expressed in what I was saying... perhaps I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said. Cheers, Dan -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: John Leslie's 'Infinite Minds: A Philosophical Cosmology'
On 7/4/2013 5:02 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey List! (and in particular Bruno) I have started re-reading the book I mention in the subject line -- after languishing in my bookshelf for a number of years, I pulled it out and began noticing the uncanny parallels it had with Bruno's UDA, although it reaches the same conclusions by some rather different means, notably; it postulates God as the thinker of all thoughts, envisioning god in a Spinozistic/Platonic light, and (something that from what I have read seems absent from the UDA) postulates the 'ethical requiredness' of God as being of enough force to bring him into being, thus short-circuiting the old " If God exists, what caused him to exist?" type of argument. Yeah, "postulating" is a good way to short circuit arguments (and burn out rational wiring). I guess my general question is if any of you are familiar with Leslie's work and if so, to what degree, and also if so, to what degree do you find it plausible? Myself, I seem to be going through a kind of metaphysical conversion of sorts, one where, despite the multiplicity of minds/universes, there nevertheless seems to be an unspeakable and seemingly permanent unity to all things. I'm almost leaning towards Christianity, for the simple reason that it seems peculiar and particular enough to just be right and suitable to reality. (Reading CS Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' has swayed me in this way -- check it out, it's online). Of course this ethic requiredness supported slavery, ethnic cleansing, divine right of kings, faith over inquiry, ignorance over knowledge, oppression of women, and infinite torture for unbelievers. Brent "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason." --- Martin Luther -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
