Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Dec 2013, at 19:29, John Clark wrote:




On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrot

> I have already insist that God cannot be part of the explanation.  
We agree on this.


Then I repeat my question, why add useless wheels within wheels that  
explain nothing to otherwise nice theories?


To take into account the discovery already made by arithmetical  
machine that there is a transcendental truth responsible for their  
beliefs, which is beyond their beliefs. The space of such true but non  
rationally communicable truth is axiomatized, at the propositional  
level, by G* minus G, and this permits a transparent interpretation of  
Plotinus theology in arithmetic, and this illustrates already the fact  
that computationalism leads to a Platonist theology, and contradicts  
the common Aristotelian metaphysics/theology implicit among many  
scientists.
The experience of "God", in the large sense I have given is part of  
the data in the puzzle. You might read my paper "La machine Mystic",  
or the second part of the sane04 paper for more on this, if you are  
interested. This shows also that arithmetic explains not only the  
apparent existence of matter (constructively, and thus making comp  
testable), but it gives some light on altered consciousness and other  
brain perturbation experience, and "mystical" type of knowledge/ 
beliefs/comprehension, making some other aspect of comp testable in  
some first person sense.


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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>> Measure is relative,
>>>
>>
>> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
>> continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being
>> conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull
>> the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it
>> is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
>> extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions,
>> and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
>> realms of higher measure.
>>
>>
>>> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>>>
>>
>> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>>
>
> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>


In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) )
just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal.
Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
(approximately) halved.


>
>
>>  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations
>> (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).
>>
>
> Your relative measure doesn't drop,
>

Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with
each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the
trigger pull)?


> but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange...
> and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics
> should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival.
>

You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical
universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say your relative
measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went
off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?



>
>
>>
>>
>>> Probabilities add up to one...
>>>
>> Which probabilities are you referring to here?
>>
>
> The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of
> the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to
> find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one...
>

Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current
experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you
living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by
future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by
Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun,
4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and
2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead,
and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note
that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in
the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the
population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time.  After
another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those
that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different
realm.


> the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near
> death.
>
>
This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low
(relative) probability.

Jason


> Quentin
>
>
>>
>>
>>> And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead.
>>>
>>
>> Subjectively you cannot die.  And in an infinitely large and varied
>> universe, many strange things may happen.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>  Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, "Jason Resch"  a écrit :
>>>



 On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/4 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM,  wrote:
>>>
 Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the
 Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their
 perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. 
 Shermer
 was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by
 re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous 
 hyper-intelligence
 from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it?

>>>
>>>  If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and
>>> learn everything about us and everything we do.
>>>
>>>
>>> That seems inconsistent with the idea that "we" are infinitely many
>>> threads of computation in multiverses.  FPI would make us random to 

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

[Alberto G. Corona]

I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is how
a living being select relevant information from the environment for their
needs. I think that the aestetic sense is a heavy part of the activity of
the mind at the unconscious level. Form recognition is computation
intensive. It is also very puzzling for me how accurately people recognize
intuitively  order or disorder in agreement with what would be the real
entropy calculated in physical terms.

 It seems that the  filtering of information that is not relevant and to
deal with what is relevant has been one of the main evolutionary pressures.
A recognized pattern (for example, a porcelain jar with all its details,
can be assimilated to a macrostate in entropic terms. A broken porcelain
jar reduced to dust makes it undistinguisable from other jars and also
unusable for doing a work. For example to transport water. That is why life
needs to use low entropic things that can be recognized as interesting
patterns.


2013/12/4 Craig Weinberg 

>
>
> On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 4:21:32 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/4 Craig Weinberg 
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.comwrote:

  I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his
 statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head,
 dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our
 neurology, as electrons. He never defines non physical, so what not just
 say that everything is matter, and when matter moves, its energy, and when
 its perforated with a pattern, that our neurochemistry recognizes, its
 information?

>>>
>>> This is where the card up the sleeve is. What's a "pattern" physically?
>>> What is our neurochemistry doing "recognizing" something.
>>>
>>> Let's look at a complex system, like New York City. What constitutes its
>>> "information"? Traffic entering and exiting the city limits? Architectural
>>> spaces and their degrees of freedom over time? The assumptions of both
>>> physics and mathematics are mutually defeating, and together, they obscure
>>> any possibility of looking beyond the reflections of public form and
>>> function to the reality of their private appreciation and participation.
>>>
>>
>> Speaking  with rigurously as far as i can, the information  depends on
>> the granularity of the states that you consider. If you are contemplating
>> the Premier Leage along the history looking at the leage winners of each
>> year, the information is that. If you zoom in to a particular year and see
>> the classification, you have another level of information. if you proceed
>> day by day,  tean after team,  player after player yo will have more and
>> more detailed states.
>>
>> In  Statistical Mechanics, the information is contemplated at the
>> molecular level.. There are higuer levels: at the atomic, quark and
>> superstring level, that is supossedly the ultimate level, where the units
>> of distance energy etc are called Planck units. But in ordinary matter
>> where the atoms are individual,  not in the form of plasma the statistical
>> mechanics level is well defined. that base level is called the microstate.
>>
>> But information in the usual sense is refered to states of macroscopical
>> entities, like the speed of my car, or the height of a building, not the
>> position and speed of the particles of the car or the building. the
>> building can be hot or cold and the microstates can vary. but I don´t care.
>>  However the total information at the microstate level is constant. But the
>> macrostate can loose information. a building can fall as a result of a
>> eathquaque. in this process of loss of information the entropy grows.
>>
>
> Even if you have the total information at every state, what does it really
> tell someone who wants 'information about New York City?'
>
> Without smuggling in top level correlations, we can't answer even simple
> questions like 'What's a nice place to eat?' or 'are New Yorkers rude?'
>
> To me, it is clearly the 'levels' which are more primordial and more
> informative than the theoretic invariances across the levels. Without the
> aesthetics, information is no different from entropy.
>
>
>>
>>> Or should we define electrons, photons and neutrinos as non physical?

>>>
>>> We should define matter and energy on a sliding scale in which
>>> microcosmic and cosmological limits are characterized by a fusion of
>>> private and public physics, whereas macrocosmic subjectivity provides the
>>> orthogonality of maximum public-private divergence. The meaning of
>>> 'physical' would become relativistic, as all presences private or public
>>> would be physical in an absolute sense, but a representation of one
>>> experience (like a football) within another (a human being's visualization)
>>> would allow 'physical' to serve to differentiate the represented football
>>> as non-phys

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Dec 2013, at 01:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Samiya Illias  
 wrote:
Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and  
outside the faith. God, in His complete knowledge, knows each and  
every soul and who is worthy of eternal bliss and who not. However,  
according to a decree, humans have been granted respite and an  
opportunity to believe and do good. Something like an exam for a  
degree or a quality-check and sorting of manufactured goods. This  
necessarily requires a belief in an event no longer in conscious  
human memory, but which nevertheless is the cause of this life, and  
the belief in Accountability for beliefs and actions in a life  
after this life. Either one reasons that outcomes are already known  
to God hence there really is no need to 'do' anything, or one  
intensifies one's effort to search for 'truth' and do as much good  
as may be possible, so as to take full advantage of this temporal  
life, using it for eternal bliss.


But the problem is that either I reason that the outcome is already
known or not, it is indeed already known, according to what you said
before. So we're just watching as it unfolds.

My understanding may be wrong, for all we know this may be the only  
life, nothing before or after, but what if there is?


If there is, and my life is predetermined and I'm still going to be
punished or rewarded, then it's just a matter of waiting and seeing if
I win the cosmic lottery no? You still didn't address the problem that
you cannot have predetermination and free-will at the same time.


But this is something that we have already discussed a lot. Some (like  
me) agreed on compatibilist theory of free will. In fact we don't see  
how indeterminacy could help in the free will ability. Why should the  
fact that some super-machine, or god, can predict my behavior prevent  
it of being free? Free will is *self*-indetermination, not absolute  
indetermination. When we feel free to do something we want to do, we  
often say that we are determined to do it ...


Bruno





And how difficult is it to believe in this age of technology that  
all is being recorded and will be replayed? Reasons enough to  
bother...


What do you mean by replayed? If the same moment is perfectly
replayed, then it's indistinguishable from all other instances of the
same moment. There's still just one moment. Otherwise they are
different moments, and it's not a replay.

Telmo.


Samiya

Sent from my iPhone

On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:51 PM, Telmo Menezes   
wrote:


On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Samiya Illias > wrote:

Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages:
On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children  
of Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being  
killed and females kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial  
from God.
At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to  
you, good or bad, it is all inscribed  in a decree before we  
bring it into existence. This is so that you do not despair of  
whatever passes you by, nor exult over ...
There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to  
wish away, but it helps to understand that all things / events /  
circumstances are trials, temporary and transient. In this life,  
nothing is a reward or punishment, rather everything is a trial,  
and an opportunity to do good deeds through helping those in  
need. Reward and Punishment are concepts associated with the  
Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature.

No, he didn't say "Oops!", God exhorts us to reflect and ponder!


Hi Samiya,

If whatever happens is inscribed in a decree before we bring it into
existence, so is the outcome of the trials. So why bother?

Telmo.


Samiya

Sent from my iPhone

On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:09 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:




On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote:

I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is  
perfect in every possible meaning of the word.


Is God perfect for the children in Syria?  (Easy question on an  
hard subject)


Here, you might hope that God will succeed in consolating them  
and that everything is OK.  But that state of mind might make us  
accept more easily the tragedies, and that fatalism ... might be  
fatal for the incarnation of the good.


The question, put in a another way, who are you to judge God's  
perfection?


You might, like Gödel, assume that God has all positive  
attributes and as such is perfect, and one day we will  
understand the tragedies, but I am not sure such a God makes  
sense for the universal machines.


If it makes sense, then I am willing to bet it is a truth  
belonging to G*, and not G. That would mean that God was  
perfect ... until you said so.


The theological truth must remain silent, or be justified from  
some shared assumptions.


If you say God is perfect to those who lost people they care  
about, it might be impolite, and you will again 

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Dec 2013, at 16:24, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi Alberto,

I agree with you that religion cannot be avoided in this sense.

Here's a funny example:
The Leipzig secular solstice celebration:
http://lesswrong.com/meetups/u6

Here's a video of some guy who's trying to become a priest for  
atheists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vIFloLATxo
(I still have some hope that the guy is a comedian, in which case  
he's a genius)


One of the most perverse "tricks" that the system played on us, in  
my opinion, was in convincing people to accept that the state should  
raise the kids. Sure, people spend a couple of hours with them  
between days spent working mostly unnecessary jobs, but the bulk of  
modern education is provided by institutionalised school and TV. I  
agree with the importance of teaching kids math, reading  
comprehension, etc, but school is just terrible. It also teaches us  
to tolerate absurd levels of boredom, to replace thinking with  
accepting authority and it creates an artificial reward system,  
where one can get addicted to a feeling of accomplishment without  
accomplishing anything. Of course, all these things make us more  
compliant in later on accepting lives without meaning.


Democracy is almost funny. People believe in this myth that it  
enforces the "will of the people", but if you ask anyone  
individually you will find that you cannot easily find a person  
whose opinion ever influenced anything whatsoever. It's even hard to  
have an opinion. The better part of their days people are slaves,  
and when tired they are spoon fed badly disguised world views  
sprinkled over mindless entertainment.


Everyone should have at least one psychedelic experience. This would  
change the world faster and better than any ideology.



All religions have their psychedelic substances. Christianism is  
mainly wine (Christ blood!), although some pretended that Jesus took  
magic shrooms. Cannabis would already change a lot, and salvia, often  
called a medication to cure atheism (!) could bring much more change.  
Quite possibly.


Bruno







Telmo.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Alberto G. Corona  
 wrote:


Two more remarks:

I´m astonished  contemplating how people can contemplate with horror  
the belief in a god that they thing that it does not exist and  
accept the belief in worldly lies and praise completely invented  
myths about their favorite heroes Even if they know that are false.  
That Kim Jon Il wrote a mean of tree books a day is incredible for  
them but there are equally fantastic histories and Myths widely  
believed that would make Chesterton crap up.


The wishfulthinker fall in tears when pronouncing his sacred  
capitalized worlds: People, Democracy, Equalty Human Rights and so  
on. In the past, Socialism, Worker Class and such craps motivated  
the same heart lifts. Today even the Terrorists invoke what they  
call Democracy with passion.


But in his country, like in any other, the same families alternate  
in government, with a few exceptions, no matter the kind or regime  
and the political party. All are equals except that some are more  
equal than others. Perhaps things are closer to the Ancient Regime  
rather than to the myths of his utopic society.  The more the  
utopics are in power, the more the ancient regime (that they had in  
the imagination) returns.  Perhaps all such elevated concepts are  
not part of the reality but ideological constructions and their most  
known advocates, just power seekers that may deserve the worship of  
the wishfulthinkers?


I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and dangerous  
religion. And RELIGION CAN NOT BE AVOIDED: you can not live without  
a form of religion or religions like you can not live alone.



2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona 

Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say.

There is much much in the relation between the republican idea of  
society,  and pragmatical atheism of the contractualists Hobbes,  
rousseau, Locke (let the state work without religion), that later  
became ideological (atheism is the religion of the state).


The idea of ruling society by laws was probably inspired by  
newtonian phisics (but not by newtonian theology) and the market  
economy. what is initially science or experience can become a myth  
that organize a society.


But this gobernment by rules is a hopeful ideal. In other words, a  
myth. But a myth necessary for the state religion. Whenever there  
are laws there is a sovereingh lawyers. "The people" in "democracy"  
is such lawyer say the modern wishfulthinker. That is nothing but  
another two myths. hypostases, something that does not exist bu in  
the mind by an effort of faith for the purpose of social cooperation.


So to summarize, the human mind can not live withouth myths. If he  
reject the given ones, he invent its own.





2013/12/1 LizR 
Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I  
would say.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Dec 2013, at 18:17, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the  
Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/ 
statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was  
trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing  
Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from  
the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If God  
exists as mathematics, infinite sets, or neutrinos, how can we deal  
with it? What evidence would it take to demonstrate convincingly, to  
you, Dr. Marchal, that Drelb is the Great One? What mathematical  
proof would it show you that Pi, out to a quadrillion integers is  
God, or Phi? To 'touch faith' as the olde British 80's rock song  
(personal Jesus) stated, we must somehow interact with the 'other.'  
The other has to be someone we know is true, tactile, rational.


I use God in the general sense of transcendental reality we can be  
aware of, or guess or produce as true without rational justification.  
It is close to Parmenides and the (neo)-platonists.
You can also define it by what exists when you stop to believe in a  
primitive physical reality.


What do *you* mean by "God"? Do you agree with the axioms I gave:

God is responsible (reason, cause, whatever) for your existence.
God does not admit any description or name
if God is given a name, another God appears behind.

OK? Plato's God was Truth, and this fits well with the arithmetical  
comp interpretation of Plotinus.


We have to agree on some axioms and reason from that. If not we fall  
in endless uninteresting vocabulary discussions.


Bruno







Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 5:32 am
Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment


On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

You can believe in God in the same sense that we can believe in  
super intelligent extraterrestrials. A.C. Clarke, and Skeptic  
magazine editor, Michael Shermer, both, have mentioned this in  
comparison. Until someone or something shows up in a  
acknowledgeable was as, both highly, intelligent and extraordinary,  
shows up, around our home planet, we are dealing with ideas,  
histories, and creative writing, which is not a terrible thing to do.



In which theory?
When we talk on Matter or primitively material universe, we deal  
also with ideas, beliefs, assumptions or myth (even dogma, for many,  
or even unconscious dogma, for those who sleep in this subject).


God is not an alien, although our comp-finiteness could make us  
confuse a God with some possible alien. In fact if we give a name to  
a God, we make it into a sort of alien, hiding some possible God.


Bruno




-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 3:28 am
Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment


On 03 Dec 2013, at 08:13, meekerdb wrote:

> On 12/2/2013 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> just so they and their close friends can say, "We believe in God
>>> rationally
>>
>>
>> Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need
>> grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure
>> atheism according to some reports.
>
> So are these people not serious theologians: William Lane Craig,
> Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, Rowan Williams.
>
> Who counts as a "serious theologian"?  Is it only those that agree
> with you?


No, they are those who are able to put an interrogation mark behind
their public assertions, and are open to revise their statement in a
debate.

Bruno

PS I have to go and will comment later other posts (busy day). Thanks
for the patience. I like very much that thread, which is in between
purely vocabulary discussion and perhaps an important idea on
"reality" 



>
> Brent
>
>>
>> We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon
>> rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories.
>> And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from
>> questions to questions.
>
> --
> 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- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
 Measure is relative,

>>>
>>> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
>>> continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being
>>> conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull
>>> the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it
>>> is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
>>> extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions,
>>> and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
>>> realms of higher measure.
>>>
>>>
 it doesn't drop while you approach death.

>>>
>>> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>>>
>>
>> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>>
>
>
> In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) )
> just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal.
> Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
> (approximately) halved.
>

No, that is ASSA...


>
>
>>
>>
>>>  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations
>>> (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).
>>>
>>
>> Your relative measure doesn't drop,
>>
>
> Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with
> each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the
> trigger pull)?
>
>
>> but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange...
>> and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics
>> should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival.
>>
>
> You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the
> physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say your
> relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic
> bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
 Probabilities add up to one...

>>> Which probabilities are you referring to here?
>>>
>>
>> The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of
>> the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to
>> find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one...
>>
>
> Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current
> experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you
> living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by
> future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by
> Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun,
> 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
> simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and
> 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead,
> and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note
> that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in
> the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the
> population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time.  After
> another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those
> that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different
> realm.
>
>
>> the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near
>> death.
>>
>>
> This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low
> (relative) probability.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> Quentin
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
 And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead.

>>>
>>> Subjectively you cannot die.  And in an infinitely large and varied
>>> universe, many strange things may happen.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>  Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, "Jason Resch"  a écrit :

>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/4 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
  On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM,  wrote:

> Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the
> Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their
> perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. 
> Shermer
> was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by
> re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous 
> hyper-intelligence
> from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it?
>

  If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate a

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Dec 2013, at 21:41, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/4/2013 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Dec 2013, at 21:53, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/3/2013 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes  
them.


That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will  
be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and  
punish them.


Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we  
should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance,  
and by arguing against a scientific approach to "God, souls,  
afterlife, meaning, etc." you will maintain the current fairy  
tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining  
them in power.


I don't credit such things.


So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the  
fairy tales,  once and for all, if we don't credit them.


Because billions of people believe (or pretend to believe) the  
fairy tales and want to make public policy based on their book of  
fairy tales.  In the U.S., before some courts ruled that leading  
prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, the fundamentalist  
churches did not participate in politics.  The held themselves to  
be concerned with an unearthly, spiritual realm that transcended  
politics.  But the prayer in school ruling caused them to become  
activists and they were seen as resource by the conservative  
Republicans that had taken over southern politics after the civil  
rights act of 1964.  Since then they have campaigned politically  
to outlaw abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, teaching  
evolution, deny global warming, and expand Israel.


That is a result of having separated theology from science.


I think you have a pollyannish view of history.  Theology, the  
belief in superhuman gods, preceded science as a disciple by  
millenia.  Theology was based on faith and priests and dogma, and it  
supported the state.  Theologians held secret, esoteric discussions  
of the gods, but if they deviated much from the theology of the  
state they were punished (c.f. Socrates and your namesake).  Science  
was only able to come into existence as an empirical search for  
truths when the Church was split and weakened and theology was left  
to apologetics.


Half of science. The branch of theology was kept by "authorities".





I don't know how you imagine science could have developed if it had  
separated from theology - nor how it could proceed now by taking up  
theology.


By not eliminating person.



Note that there have been scientific tests of theology: specifically  
of the efficacy of healing prayer.  So it is not that scientists  
reject dogmas out of hand.


Good.















But the idea is important because so many people believe it


And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything,  
so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own  
theologian are not that naďve. And their are many approaches and  
conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That.


Which theologians?  There is no agreement among theologians.


There are agreements and there are disagreements. Also among  
Quantum physicists.


Not about the experimental facts.


But there are also the first person facts, which, once we postulate  
comp, get indirectly verifiable. Machine's theology is verifiable by  
its consequences in physics.







The problem is that we have no come back to the free spiritual open- 
mind that is needed in science to progress.

Absence of agreement is what makes science possible.


And the testability of theories.


We agree on this.









And large sects reject even the idea of relying on theologians;  
they believe that they should only rely on their own reading of  
their holy books (remember the protestant reformation?).  And even  
among those who do rely on a priesthood to interpret for them, I  
don't see that the priesthood has communicated the God of your  
theology.


They would lose their job. But if theology come back to academy and  
the classroom, with the scientific attitude, they would.


By mocking theology you keep it in the hand of the exploiters of  
credulity/spirituality.








Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They  
keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or  
tradition.


I let God counts the genuine believers :)





- and you are the one that gives them support by writing that  
God is really an important rational concept, using the name of  
the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean  
something completely different.


Only the "fairy tale" aspect is different, but if you read the  
theologians, you might revise that opinion.



I think you only read theologians that you agree with.  I googled  
"famous theologians" and find Christian and Jewish apologists, not  
seekers for ur.




G

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and dangerous  
religion. And RELIGION CAN NOT BE AVOIDED: you can not live without  
a form of religion or religions like you can not live alone.


OK.

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Dec 2013, at 11:39, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

>You talk like if I was believing in comp, or defending that comp is  
true. I don't do that at all.


So you think that your belief in COMP is product of a computation,


At many levels. yes. if comp is assumed, that belief is generated by  
the infinitely many "bruno marchal" generated notably by all  
emulations of the history of the Milky Way at the level of strings and  
with one billion decimal exact, and more.






so it is a belief,


An assumption we can do, yes.




but not a true meta-belief of the meta-numeical reality,


We don't know that, and we cannot know that. But we may know that such  
belief is wrong.





so it is not worth a belief fo Bruno Marchall?.


Why?

Bruno





suc(1010011)

sorry, a meta-glith in the UDA.  Please call the measurers to fix it  
out.



2013/12/4 Bruno Marchal 

On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:57, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno, I expected better from you. You seem to restrict the  
unlimited possibilities into the PRESENT limitations of our  
imagination.


I seem to restrict, but comp is an assumption of finiteness, which  
augment the unlimited possibilities. "Non comp" is what limits the  
possibility. Little things go through *more* holes than big things.  
I am only "more open minded" on the unlimited possible relation  
between machines and truth.





Do you have any support for the exclusivity of computationalism over  
ALL (so far maybe not even thought about) systems that MAY

work?

You talk like if I was believing in comp, or defending that comp is  
true. I don't do that at all.





Do you have support for YOUR version of "consciousness" as the ONLY  
possible input for "Matter" (as we THINK of it TODAY?)


?
I don't understand.




And: I have no idea what would you cover by YOUR truth?

I have no pretension at all on any truth.

I explain two things:

- 1) IF we are machine, THEN physics IS a branch of numbers bio- 
psycho-theology (a part of arithmetic).


-2) and this makes the assumption (of being a machine) refutable, as  
I provide a constructive means to derive physics from arithmetic.


1) is given by the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA), and 2) is  
provided by the translation of the UDA in arithmetic (AUDA, the  
universal machine interview).


May be it is the human lack of imagination of some of the humans of  
today which prevents them to listen to the machines of today, and to  
see that they saw what Plato and the mystics seems to have seen too.



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.
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.
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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Dec 2013, at 08:03, LizR wrote:


On 5 December 2013 19:59, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
Measure is relative, it doesn't drop while you approach death.  
Probabilities add up to one... And by no cul de dac you should not  
count where you 're dead.


In fact you don't approach death, assuming QTI,


Or assuming just computationalism. In fact you don't approach death in  
the 1p view, but there is a sense to approach death in the 3p view  
(and even in the 1p view you can still approach agony and near death  
sorts of states).


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.
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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Dec 2013, at 09:53, Jason Resch wrote:





On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux   
wrote:




2013/12/5 Jason Resch 



On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux  
 wrote:

Measure is relative,


Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb  
continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still  
being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your  
head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure  
continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this  
point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than  
your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to  
experience a transition to those realms of higher measure.


it doesn't drop while you approach death.


Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,

You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.


In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number  
does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the  
trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved.


?

Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains  
constant and equal to one. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and  
that is why Bp & Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure  
does not make sense.


Bruno









especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations  
(such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).


Your relative measure doesn't drop,

Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in  
half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being  
alive before the trigger pull)?


but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more  
strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher,  
simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your  
unlikely survival.


You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the  
physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say  
your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after  
an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went  
off)?





Probabilities add up to one...

Which probabilities are you referring to here?

The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the  
partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are  
the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such  
other, those adds up to one...


Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your  
current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological  
instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor  
simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other  
universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself  
in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological  
instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the  
simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975  
biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of  
the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that  
with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either  
in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50,  
while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half  
each time.  After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining  
survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now  
find themselves in a different realm.


the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even  
near death.



This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely  
low (relative) probability.


Jason

Quentin


And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead.


Subjectively you cannot die.  And in an infinitely large and varied  
universe, many strange things may happen.


Jason


Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, "Jason Resch"  a écrit :



On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux   
wrote:




2013/12/4 Jason Resch 



On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM,  wrote:
Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the  
Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their  
perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective.  
Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by  
re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper- 
intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we  
do about it?


If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and  
learn everything about us and everything we do.


That seems inconsistent with the idea that "we" are infinitely many  
threads of computation in multiverses.  FPI would make us random to  
Drelb too.


There are

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[LizR]

On 5 December 2013 20:58, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> 2013/12/5 LizR 
>
>> Well all the possibilities ever experienced by an human beings anywhere
>> in the multiverse add up to a vanishingly small measure compared to all the
>> parts of the multiverse where we didn't evolve, Earth didn't form, etc.
>>
>> So any measure we are aware of is always going to be infinitesimal from a
>> "God's eye perspective" - and 100% from our own.
>>
>
> As I said, only relative measure count... ASSA is useless and wrong. When
> I talk about low measure, I alway talk about relative measure from your
> current state.
>

Excuse my ignorance, I realise SSA is the self-sampling assumption (I think
I read about that in Russell's book) but what is the ASSA, and why is it
useless and wrong?

Reading posts further down, it seems to me that we're dealing with a
continuum rather than discrete branches, is that right? So everyone is an
uncountable infinity of selves. (And always will be, for ever and ever...)

-- 
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: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

[LizR]

On 5 December 2013 21:53, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is
> how a living being select relevant information from the environment for
> their needs. I think that the aestetic sense is a heavy part of the
> activity of the mind at the unconscious level. Form recognition is
> computation intensive. It is also very puzzling for me how accurately
> people recognize intuitively  order or disorder in agreement with what
> would be the real entropy calculated in physical terms.
>
>  It seems that the  filtering of information that is not relevant and to
> deal with what is relevant has been one of the main evolutionary pressures.
> A recognized pattern (for example, a porcelain jar with all its details,
> can be assimilated to a macrostate in entropic terms. A broken porcelain
> jar reduced to dust makes it undistinguisable from other jars and also
> unusable for doing a work. For example to transport water. That is why life
> needs to use low entropic things that can be recognized as interesting
> patterns.
>

The vase is only distinct from the dust when viewed above a certain level
of "coarse graining" - so how does one assign it entropy? It seems like
entropy exists at our level, but not at the bottom level of atoms and so
on. Yet a black hole can be assigned an entropy, and you can't get much
more fundamental than that. It seems to me that there is something missing
between the thermodynamic "coarse-grained" idea of entropy and the
(presumable fundamental level) black hole entropy. How is that possible,
that the same thing exists in two different ways on two different levels,
one of which appears to be emergent? (Am I missing something important
here?)

-- 
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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 LizR 

> On 5 December 2013 20:58, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
>> 2013/12/5 LizR 
>>
>>> Well all the possibilities ever experienced by an human beings anywhere
>>> in the multiverse add up to a vanishingly small measure compared to all the
>>> parts of the multiverse where we didn't evolve, Earth didn't form, etc.
>>>
>>> So any measure we are aware of is always going to be infinitesimal from
>>> a "God's eye perspective" - and 100% from our own.
>>>
>>
>> As I said, only relative measure count... ASSA is useless and wrong. When
>> I talk about low measure, I alway talk about relative measure from your
>> current state.
>>
>
> Excuse my ignorance, I realise SSA is the self-sampling assumption (I
> think I read about that in Russell's book) but what is the ASSA,
>

ASSA is absolute self sampling assumption... it means there exists an
absolute measure for every moments, ASSA states that your measure is always
decreasing... ASSA is absurd because ASSA predicts you shouldn't find
yourself alive now.

RSSA is relative self sampling assumption and state that measure only make
sense relative to your current state, there doesn't exist an absolute
measure.

Quentin




> and why is it useless and wrong?
>
> Reading posts further down, it seems to me that we're dealing with a
> continuum rather than discrete branches, is that right? So everyone is an
> uncountable infinity of selves. (And always will be, for ever and ever...)
>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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.

Bertrand Russell's complete misunderstanding of Plato's theory of knowledge and perception

[Roger Clough]

Bertrand Russell's gross misunderstanding of Plato's theory of knowledge and 
perception

In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1EiQEwn1lc

Plato believed that truth is a conceptual form of knowledge, which
is a priori and so not obtained through the senses. Truth obtained
through the senses, Plato believed, was changeable.

But, presumably because he was an empiricist, Russell essentially 
treats Plato as an empiricist gone wrong. Russell thus grossly misunderstands 
Plato, apparently not undestrstanding that, as Leibniz and Kant have 
stated, there is a difference between necessary or a priori knowledge 
(which does not change) and the changeable, contingent truths of perception.

Because of Russell's apparent confusion between these two forms
of knowledge, and denial of a priori knowledge, Russell wastes 
many words apparently trying to show that the changeable knowledge
obtained through the senses can somehow be necessarily true, 
giving "snow is white" as an example. Anyone who grew up
as I did, in what was then sooty smokey Pittsburgh, knows that 
snow can sometimes be dark gray. Similarly, Russell incorrectly bases
his repudiation of a priori knowledge by using the changeable
nature of contingent knowledge as an example.

I have not checked Russell's treatment of Kant, but
because of this ignorance, Russell also apparently
treats Kant as an empiricist gpone bad. 

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

-- 
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: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

[Alberto G. Corona]

As far as I remember, the entropy of the black hole is measured in absolute
terms. that is, taking the information from the most fundamental level, at
the Planck scale. But the entropy of a jar is relative to the jar broken
state, not absolute.

The example of a gas is more clear than the one of the jar, which is full
of traps: A  hot gas that is cooled suffer a decrease of entropy measurable
by a thermodinamical formula or a change in the partition function using
statistical mechanics, whatever you like, , But this decrease is relative.
There is no aim to measure absolute entropy.in statistical mechanincs, the
zero of entroy is at temperature 0. conisidering the atoms as points. but
this is just a model upon which calculate relative states of entropy.

But this decrease is the same that if it were calculated in absolute terms,
since the extra entropy beelow the ground state cancel out.

delta H=  (H +HF) -(H2-HF)

here HF is the information that is not  considered below the ground state
up to the planch level. H is the termodinamical information.. Since HF does
not vary (the atoms stay as atoms) it cancel out when calculating
differences of entrophy or information)

For the same purpose, we can considerate other ground states to calculate
increases or decreases of entropy or information. For example in a logic
gate we can consider as ground state the gate discharged, with no regard
for temperature changes, or more accurately, the gate at a certain
temperature. Then the gain or loss of information is easily calculable.


2013/12/5 LizR 

> On 5 December 2013 21:53, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>> I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is
>> how a living being select relevant information from the environment for
>> their needs. I think that the aestetic sense is a heavy part of the
>> activity of the mind at the unconscious level. Form recognition is
>> computation intensive. It is also very puzzling for me how accurately
>> people recognize intuitively  order or disorder in agreement with what
>> would be the real entropy calculated in physical terms.
>>
>>  It seems that the  filtering of information that is not relevant and to
>> deal with what is relevant has been one of the main evolutionary pressures.
>> A recognized pattern (for example, a porcelain jar with all its details,
>> can be assimilated to a macrostate in entropic terms. A broken porcelain
>> jar reduced to dust makes it undistinguisable from other jars and also
>> unusable for doing a work. For example to transport water. That is why life
>> needs to use low entropic things that can be recognized as interesting
>> patterns.
>>
>
> The vase is only distinct from the dust when viewed above a certain level
> of "coarse graining" - so how does one assign it entropy? It seems like
> entropy exists at our level, but not at the bottom level of atoms and so
> on. Yet a black hole can be assigned an entropy, and you can't get much
> more fundamental than that. It seems to me that there is something missing
> between the thermodynamic "coarse-grained" idea of entropy and the
> (presumable fundamental level) black hole entropy. How is that possible,
> that the same thing exists in two different ways on two different levels,
> one of which appears to be emergent? (Am I missing something important
> here?)
>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:12 PM, LizR  wrote:

>> The earliest reference I can find is 1783 by John Michell, he  called
>> them "dark stars", however it had very different properties from  a modern
>> Black Hole. If I was far from one of Michell's Newtonian dark stars I could
>> not see it, but unlike a real Black Hole, I could obtain a picture of it
>> and print it in the newspaper, I'd just have to get closer in a powerful
>> spaceship. I could even land on the classical dark star, get a sample of it
>> and then return it to Earth, that sort of thing would be impossible with a
>> real Einsteinian Black Hole.
>>
>
> > That's the one. It was used in a story by Brian Aldiss, I guess before
> black holes became widely known about in SF circles (which was probably
> thanks to Larry Niven). Of course one could only "land" on it if one could
> withstand the gravity,
>

If it was large enough the surface gravity on one of Michell's "dark stars"
could be a earth like 1g or even less. The escape velocity from the surface
of a object depends on BOTH its surface gravity and how big the object is
because that determines how fast the gravity weakens with distance from the
surface, with big objects even a long way away the gravity is almost as
strong as it is on the surface.  Actually if it were big enough even with
Einstein's Black Hole the gravity at the event horizon could be 1g,
although after passing that point of no return you would find the gravity
increasing continually until it reached infinity at the singularity at the
center of the hole.

> and only take off if one could travel faster than light
>

No, a continuously thrusting rocket could escape from one of Michell's
"dark stars" as slowly as you'd like just like you can from the Earth, but
not so with Einstein's Black Hole, from that there is no way out.

  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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

[Jesse Mazer]

I think with black holes there's a physically natural coarse-graining
defined by the "no-hair theorem" which says that in classical general
relativity, the only distinguishing characteristics of black holes are
mass, charge and angular momentum, they bear no other traces of the
particular configuration of matter that formed them (of course this may
change in quantum gravity, since Hawking radiation might contain
information about what fell into the black hole). So I think a black hole's
entropy would be defined in terms of the number of possible microstates in
quantum gravity compatible with a black hole of a given mass, charge, and
angular momentum.

More on the no-hair theorem here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

On Thursday, December 5, 2013, LizR wrote:

> On 5 December 2013 21:53, Alberto G. Corona 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is
>> how a living being select relevant information from the environment for
>> their needs. I think that the aestetic sense is a heavy part of the
>> activity of the mind at the unconscious level. Form recognition is
>> computation intensive. It is also very puzzling for me how accurately
>> people recognize intuitively  order or disorder in agreement with what
>> would be the real entropy calculated in physical terms.
>>
>>  It seems that the  filtering of information that is not relevant and to
>> deal with what is relevant has been one of the main evolutionary pressures.
>> A recognized pattern (for example, a porcelain jar with all its details,
>> can be assimilated to a macrostate in entropic terms. A broken porcelain
>> jar reduced to dust makes it undistinguisable from other jars and also
>> unusable for doing a work. For example to transport water. That is why life
>> needs to use low entropic things that can be recognized as interesting
>> patterns.
>>
>
> The vase is only distinct from the dust when viewed above a certain level
> of "coarse graining" - so how does one assign it entropy? It seems like
> entropy exists at our level, but not at the bottom level of atoms and so
> on. Yet a black hole can be assigned an entropy, and you can't get much
> more fundamental than that. It seems to me that there is something missing
> between the thermodynamic "coarse-grained" idea of entropy and the
> (presumable fundamental level) black hole entropy. How is that possible,
> that the same thing exists in two different ways on two different levels,
> one of which appears to be emergent? (Am I missing something important
> here?)
>
>  --
> 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  'cvml', 'everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');>.
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.com '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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>>



 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

> Measure is relative,
>

 Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
 continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being
 conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull
 the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it
 is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
 extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions,
 and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
 realms of higher measure.


> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>

 Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,

>>>
>>> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>>>
>>
>>
>> In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) )
>> just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal.
>> Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
>> (approximately) halved.
>>
>
> No, that is ASSA...
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations
 (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).

>>>
>>> Your relative measure doesn't drop,
>>>
>>
>> Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half
>> with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the
>> trigger pull)?
>>
>>
>>> but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange...
>>> and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics
>>> should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival.
>>>
>>
>> You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the
>> physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say your
>> relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic
>> bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>


> Probabilities add up to one...
>
 Which probabilities are you referring to here?

>>>
>>> The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of
>>> the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to
>>> find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one...
>>>
>>
>> Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current
>> experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you
>> living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by
>> future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by
>> Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun,
>> 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
>> simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and
>> 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead,
>> and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note
>> that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in
>> the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the
>> population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time.  After
>> another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those
>> that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different
>> realm.
>>
>>
>

If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning
the above analysis?

Jason




> the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near
>>> death.
>>>
>>>
>> This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low
>> (relative) probability.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>> Quentin
>>>
>>>


> And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead.
>

 Subjectively you cannot die.  And in an infinitely large and varied
 universe, many strange things may happen.

 Jason

  Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, "Jason Resch"  a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/4 Jason Resch 
>>>



 On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:

>  On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the
>> Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their
>> perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. 
>>

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 05 Dec 2013, at 09:53, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
 Measure is relative,

>>>
>>> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
>>> continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being
>>> conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull
>>> the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it
>>> is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
>>> extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions,
>>> and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
>>> realms of higher measure.
>>>
>>>
 it doesn't drop while you approach death.

>>>
>>> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>>>
>>
>> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>>
>
>
> In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) )
> just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal.
> Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
> (approximately) halved.
>
>
> ?
>
> Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains
> constant and equal to one.
>


I was considering only the continuations where you survive, (which
subjectively is one), but the proportion of the continuations where you
survive that are explained by non-traditional means (simulation argument,
dream of God, etc.) increases relative to the dwindling the fraction of
biologically surviving instances.

When I spoke of one's measure decreasing, I was referring to the person's
objective measure in reality, which to me seems to decrease when one is
tested by a dangerous encounter. I am not suggesting that there was a 50%
chance you would "stop being you" when you pull the trigger, but that there
is an ever increasing chance you will take some strange paths to survive.
And this is because the measure of the biologically surviving copies,
relative to the non-biological surviving copies, decreases.



> We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp & Dt can give a
> quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense.
>
>
Does RSSA imply one does no harm to their measure (objective or subjective)
by spending a day in the the box with Schrodinger's cat?

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 LizR 
>
>> On 5 December 2013 20:58, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>>
>>> 2013/12/5 LizR 
>>>
 Well all the possibilities ever experienced by an human beings anywhere
 in the multiverse add up to a vanishingly small measure compared to all the
 parts of the multiverse where we didn't evolve, Earth didn't form, etc.

 So any measure we are aware of is always going to be infinitesimal from
 a "God's eye perspective" - and 100% from our own.

>>>
>>> As I said, only relative measure count... ASSA is useless and wrong.
>>> When I talk about low measure, I alway talk about relative measure from
>>> your current state.
>>>
>>
>> Excuse my ignorance, I realise SSA is the self-sampling assumption (I
>> think I read about that in Russell's book) but what is the ASSA,
>>
>
> ASSA is absolute self sampling assumption... it means there exists an
> absolute measure for every moments, ASSA states that your measure is always
> decreasing... ASSA is absurd because ASSA predicts you shouldn't find
> yourself alive now.
>

This isn't clear. Why (under the ASSA) shouldn't we be alive right now
while under the RSSA we ought to?


>
> RSSA is relative self sampling assumption and state that measure only make
> sense relative to your current state, there doesn't exist an absolute
> measure.
>
>
How did you get to our current state to begin with? If we keep following it
backwards it seems it leads to some primordial conscious state from which
any future state might emerge. If the branch in which your are shot by the
quantum gun kills you, perhaps that is equivalent to being reset to this
primordial state, and your next conscious moment could be anything.


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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>



 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>
>> Measure is relative,
>>
>
> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
> continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being
> conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull
> the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, 
> it
> is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
> extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions,
> and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
> realms of higher measure.
>
>
>> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>>
>
> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>

 You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.

>>>
>>>
>>> In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) )
>>> just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal.
>>> Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
>>> (approximately) halved.
>>>
>>
>> No, that is ASSA...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>


>  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations
> (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).
>

 Your relative measure doesn't drop,

>>>
>>> Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half
>>> with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the
>>> trigger pull)?
>>>
>>>
 but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more
 strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple
 physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival.

>>>
>>> You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the
>>> physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say your
>>> relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic
>>> bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?
>>>
>>>
>>>


>
>
>> Probabilities add up to one...
>>
> Which probabilities are you referring to here?
>

 The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning
 of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities
 to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to
 one...

>>>
>>> Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current
>>> experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you
>>> living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by
>>> future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by
>>> Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun,
>>> 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
>>> simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and
>>> 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead,
>>> and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note
>>> that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in
>>> the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the
>>> population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time.  After
>>> another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those
>>> that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different
>>> realm.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning
> the above analysis?
>

That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next
continuations.

Quentin


>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>>   the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even
 near death.


>>> This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low
>>> (relative) probability.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
 Quentin


>
>
>> And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead.
>>
>
> Subjectively you cannot die.  And in an infinitely large and varied
> universe, many strange things may happen.
>
> Jason
>
>  Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, "Jason Resch"  a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:
>>>



 2013/12/4 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
>>  On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>>



 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Measure is relative,
>>>
>>
>> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
>> continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still 
>> being
>> conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull
>> the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, 
>> it
>> is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
>> extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions,
>> and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
>> realms of higher measure.
>>
>>
>>> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>>>
>>
>> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>>
>
> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>


 In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) )
 just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal.
 Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
 (approximately) halved.

>>>
>>> No, that is ASSA...
>>>
>>>


>
>
>>  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations
>> (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).
>>
>
> Your relative measure doesn't drop,
>

 Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half
 with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the
 trigger pull)?


> but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more
> strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, 
> simple
> physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely 
> survival.
>

 You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the
 physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say your
 relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic
 bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?



>
>
>>
>>
>>> Probabilities add up to one...
>>>
>> Which probabilities are you referring to here?
>>
>
> The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning
> of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities
> to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to
> one...
>

 Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current
 experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you
 living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by
 future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by
 Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun,
 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and
 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead,
 and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note
 that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in
 the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the
 population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time.  After
 another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those
 that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different
 realm.


>>>
>>
>> If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning
>> the above analysis?
>>
>
> That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next
> continuations.
>
>
Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply
relative measure to these?  If not, it seems impossible to make predictions
such as "there is a 10% chance you will observe the photon to land in this
spot", but we can.

Jason



> Quentin
>
>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>   the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even
> near death.
>
>
 This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low
 (relative) probability.

 Jason


> Quentin
>
>
>>
>>
>>> And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead.
>>>
>>
>> Subjectively you cannot die. 

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 05 Dec 2013, at 09:53, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>>



 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

> Measure is relative,
>

 Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
 continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being
 conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull
 the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it
 is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
 extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions,
 and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
 realms of higher measure.


> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>

 Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,

>>>
>>> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>>>
>>
>>
>> In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) )
>> just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal.
>> Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
>> (approximately) halved.
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains
>> constant and equal to one.
>>
>
>
> I was considering only the continuations where you survive, (which
> subjectively is one), but the proportion of the continuations where you
> survive that are explained by non-traditional means (simulation argument,
> dream of God, etc.) increases relative to the dwindling the fraction of
> biologically surviving instances.
>
> When I spoke of one's measure decreasing, I was referring to the person's
> objective measure in reality, which to me seems to decrease when one is
> tested by a dangerous encounter. I am not suggesting that there was a 50%
> chance you would "stop being you" when you pull the trigger, but that there
> is an ever increasing chance you will take some strange paths to survive.
> And this is because the measure of the biologically surviving copies,
> relative to the non-biological surviving copies, decreases.
>
>
>
>> We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp & Dt can give
>> a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense.
>>
>>
> Does RSSA imply one does no harm to their measure (objective or
> subjective) by spending a day in the the box with Schrodinger's cat?
>
>
No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The
thing is, doing dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being
crippled, that's what is more likely.

Quentin


>  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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 05 Dec 2013, at 09:53, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>



 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>
>> Measure is relative,
>>
>
> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
> continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being
> conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull
> the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, 
> it
> is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
> extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions,
> and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
> realms of higher measure.
>
>
>> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>>
>
> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>

 You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.

>>>
>>>
>>> In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) )
>>> just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal.
>>> Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
>>> (approximately) halved.
>>>
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains
>>> constant and equal to one.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was considering only the continuations where you survive, (which
>> subjectively is one), but the proportion of the continuations where you
>> survive that are explained by non-traditional means (simulation argument,
>> dream of God, etc.) increases relative to the dwindling the fraction of
>> biologically surviving instances.
>>
>> When I spoke of one's measure decreasing, I was referring to the person's
>> objective measure in reality, which to me seems to decrease when one is
>> tested by a dangerous encounter. I am not suggesting that there was a 50%
>> chance you would "stop being you" when you pull the trigger, but that there
>> is an ever increasing chance you will take some strange paths to survive.
>> And this is because the measure of the biologically surviving copies,
>> relative to the non-biological surviving copies, decreases.
>>
>>
>>
>>> We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp & Dt can give
>>> a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense.
>>>
>>>
>> Does RSSA imply one does no harm to their measure (objective or
>> subjective) by spending a day in the the box with Schrodinger's cat?
>>
>>
> No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The
> thing is, doing dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being
> crippled, that's what is more likely.
>

My understanding of the RSSA vs. ASSA difference concerns only the
expectation of one's next conscious experience.  That is, the RSSA does not
deny the reality of an objective, global, relative measure of all
observers, it says only that the measure of those other observers (which
are not continuations of one's current state) are irrelevant to predicting
your next experience.  Is this incorrect?

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>



 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux >> > wrote:
>>>
 Measure is relative,

>>>
>>> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
>>> continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still 
>>> being
>>> conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull
>>> the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to 
>>> fall, it
>>> is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
>>> extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based 
>>> extensions,
>>> and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
>>> realms of higher measure.
>>>
>>>
 it doesn't drop while you approach death.

>>>
>>> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>>>
>>
>> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>>
>
>
> In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) )
> just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal.
> Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
> (approximately) halved.
>

 No, that is ASSA...


>
>
>>
>>
>>>  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous
>>> situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).
>>>
>>
>> Your relative measure doesn't drop,
>>
>
> Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half
> with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before 
> the
> trigger pull)?
>
>
>> but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more
>> strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, 
>> simple
>> physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely 
>> survival.
>>
>
> You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the
> physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say your
> relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic
> bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
 Probabilities add up to one...

>>> Which probabilities are you referring to here?
>>>
>>
>> The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning
>> of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities
>> to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to
>> one...
>>
>
> Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current
> experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you
> living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by
> future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by
> Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun,
> 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
> simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and
> 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are 
> dead,
> and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note
> that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in
> the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while 
> the
> population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time.  
> After
> another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those
> that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different
> realm.
>
>

>>>
>>> If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning
>>> the above analysis?
>>>
>>
>> That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next
>> continuations.
>>
>>
> Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not
> apply relative measure to these?
>

You can... why coudn't you...? What I said, is that Dreb world will always
be less likely than simple physical explanation for your current moment...

It should be , or we all should have met Dreb by now.

Quentin



>  If not, it seems impossible to make predictions such as "there is a 10%
> chance you will observe the photon to land in this spot", but we can.
>
> Jason
>

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>

 On 05 Dec 2013, at 09:53, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Measure is relative,
>>>
>>
>> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
>> continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still 
>> being
>> conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull
>> the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, 
>> it
>> is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
>> extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions,
>> and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
>> realms of higher measure.
>>
>>
>>> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>>>
>>
>> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>>
>
> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>


 In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) )
 just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal.
 Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
 (approximately) halved.


 ?

 Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains
 constant and equal to one.

>>>
>>>
>>> I was considering only the continuations where you survive, (which
>>> subjectively is one), but the proportion of the continuations where you
>>> survive that are explained by non-traditional means (simulation argument,
>>> dream of God, etc.) increases relative to the dwindling the fraction of
>>> biologically surviving instances.
>>>
>>> When I spoke of one's measure decreasing, I was referring to the
>>> person's objective measure in reality, which to me seems to decrease when
>>> one is tested by a dangerous encounter. I am not suggesting that there was
>>> a 50% chance you would "stop being you" when you pull the trigger, but that
>>> there is an ever increasing chance you will take some strange paths to
>>> survive. And this is because the measure of the biologically surviving
>>> copies, relative to the non-biological surviving copies, decreases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp & Dt can
 give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense.


>>> Does RSSA imply one does no harm to their measure (objective or
>>> subjective) by spending a day in the the box with Schrodinger's cat?
>>>
>>>
>> No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The
>> thing is, doing dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being
>> crippled, that's what is more likely.
>>
>
> My understanding of the RSSA vs. ASSA difference concerns only the
> expectation of one's next conscious experience.  That is, the RSSA does not
> deny the reality of an objective, global, relative measure of all observers
>

It doesn't deby it, it doesn't say anything about it... the thing is, ASSA
is inconsisent, and not compatible with RSSA.

Quentin


> , it says only that the measure of those other observers (which are not
> continuations of one's current state) are irrelevant to predicting your
> next experience.  Is this incorrect?
>
> 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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: Bertrand Russell's complete misunderstanding of Plato's theory of knowledge and perception

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Dec 2013, at 13:28, Roger Clough wrote:

Bertrand Russell's gross misunderstanding of Plato's theory of  
knowledge and perception


In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1EiQEwn1lc

Plato believed that truth is a conceptual form of knowledge, which
is a priori and so not obtained through the senses. Truth obtained
through the senses, Plato believed, was changeable.


Yes. And among the Platonists, you have the one called  
"Mathematicians", which should be called today the "mathematicalists",  
like Xeusippes, and which believed that the fundamental reality was  
the eternal Mathematical principles. A bit like Tegmark, Wheeler,  
perhaps Schmiduber, and ... comp, for the ontology, but not for the  
epistemologies, which are bigger than any conceivable mathematical  
reality.







But, presumably because he was an empiricist, Russell essentially
treats Plato as an empiricist gone wrong. Russell thus grossly  
misunderstands

Plato, apparently not undestrstanding that, as Leibniz and Kant have
stated, there is a difference between necessary or a priori knowledge
(which does not change) and the changeable, contingent truths of  
perception.


Hmmm ..okay





Because of Russell's apparent confusion between these two forms
of knowledge, and denial of a priori knowledge, Russell wastes
many words apparently trying to show that the changeable knowledge
obtained through the senses can somehow be necessarily true,
giving "snow is white" as an example. Anyone who grew up
as I did, in what was then sooty smokey Pittsburgh, knows that
snow can sometimes be dark gray. Similarly, Russell incorrectly bases
his repudiation of a priori knowledge by using the changeable
nature of contingent knowledge as an example.

I have not checked Russell's treatment of Kant, but
because of this ignorance, Russell also apparently
treats Kant as an empiricist gpone bad.



It was due to his philosophy of mathematics and logic, but it has been  
refuted. So we can move on a little bit.


That type of mistake is well explained by the fact that if the  
arithmetical reality is "eternal", actually even "atemporal",  viewed  
from outside (as can be done by some simple god or non recursively  
enumerable sets) it re-appears, when viewed from inside, like  
developing many *relative* contingent relations in between many  
universal numbers.


There is no change, but you have to climb on the shoulder of some god  
or goddess to appreciate the eternal panorama.


Hereby, things appear and disappear.  For example, I found back my  
books on the Neoplatonist Muslims. And on Averoes. They survived the  
moving!


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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>>



 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>>



 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux <
 allco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Measure is relative,
>

 Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
 continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still 
 being
 conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and 
 pull
 the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to 
 fall, it
 is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
 extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based 
 extensions,
 and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
 realms of higher measure.


> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>

 Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,

>>>
>>> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>>>
>>
>>
>> In measure theory (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because
>> there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure
>> each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) 
>> halved.
>>
>
> No, that is ASSA...
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous
 situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).

>>>
>>> Your relative measure doesn't drop,
>>>
>>
>> Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half
>> with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before 
>> the
>> trigger pull)?
>>
>>
>>> but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more
>>> strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, 
>>> simple
>>> physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely 
>>> survival.
>>>
>>
>> You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the
>> physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say your
>> relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic
>> bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>


> Probabilities add up to one...
>
 Which probabilities are you referring to here?

>>>
>>> The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the
>>> partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the
>>> probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those
>>> adds up to one...
>>>
>>
>> Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current
>> experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you
>> living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by
>> future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by
>> Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum 
>> gun,
>> 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
>> simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, 
>> and
>> 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are 
>> dead,
>> and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note
>> that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either 
>> in
>> the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while 
>> the
>> population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time.  
>> After
>> another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those
>> that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different
>> realm.
>>
>>
>

 If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say
 concerning the above analysis?

>>>
>>> That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next
>>> continuations.
>>>
>>>
>> Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not
>> apply relative measure to these?
>>
>
> You can... why coudn't you...? What I said, is that Dreb world will always
> be less

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>



 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:
>>>



 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux <
> allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Measure is relative,
>>
>
> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
> continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still 
> being
> conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and 
> pull
> the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to 
> fall, it
> is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
> extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based 
> extensions,
> and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
> realms of higher measure.
>
>
>> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>>
>
> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>

 You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.

>>>
>>>
>>> In measure theory (
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because
>>> there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure
>>> each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) 
>>> halved.
>>>
>>
>> No, that is ASSA...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>


>  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous
> situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).
>

 Your relative measure doesn't drop,

>>>
>>> Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in
>>> half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive
>>> before the trigger pull)?
>>>
>>>
 but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more
 strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, 
 simple
 physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely 
 survival.

>>>
>>> You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the
>>> physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say your
>>> relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic
>>> bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?
>>>
>>>
>>>


>
>
>> Probabilities add up to one...
>>
> Which probabilities are you referring to here?
>

 The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the
 partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are 
 the
 probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, 
 those
 adds up to one...

>>>
>>> Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your
>>> current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances 
>>> of
>>> you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run 
>>> by
>>> future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are 
>>> by
>>> Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum 
>>> gun,
>>> 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
>>> simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, 
>>> and
>>> 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are 
>>> dead,
>>> and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note
>>> that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either 
>>> in
>>> the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while 
>>> the
>>> population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time.  
>>> After
>>> another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be 
>>> those
>>> that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different
>>> realm.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say
> concerning the above analysis?
>

 That is invalid, because there are never a finite number o

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:09, Jason Resch wrote:





Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you  
not apply relative measure to these?


Really? Only in the case of classical QM, but did he pretend that to  
be "really" the case? He would favor string theory on any literal  
quantization of curbature.


By Gleason, the relative measure works very well. In Everett, all  
measurement defined coherent partition of the "block multiverse".


In comp, it is an open problem, partially solved.



If not, it seems impossible to make predictions such as "there is a  
10% chance you will observe the photon to land in this spot", but we  
can.


I might have missed something. I think I agree with Quentin on this  
one, but there might be a misunderstanding. I will read the other posts.


Bruno






Jason


Quentin


Jason



the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even  
near death.



This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely  
low (relative) probability.


Jason

Quentin


And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead.


Subjectively you cannot die.  And in an infinitely large and varied  
universe, many strange things may happen.


Jason


Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, "Jason Resch"  a écrit :



On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux   
wrote:




2013/12/4 Jason Resch 



On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM,  wrote:
Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the  
Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual  efforts in  
their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human  
perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the  
religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the  
famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so,  
what can we do about it?


If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and  
learn everything about us and everything we do.


That seems inconsistent with the idea that "we" are infinitely many  
threads of computation in multiverses.  FPI would make us random to  
Drelb too.


There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too.

Drelb, by constructing a "physical replica" of Earth, is in a sense  
is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and  
Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are  
possibilities for the simulation to diverge.



Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false...


As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may  
result.  Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like  
entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect  
whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation  
paths for you.


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.
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.


--
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.



--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy  
Batty/Rutger Hauer)


--
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 grou

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>>



 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>>



 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux >>> > wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux <
>> allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Measure is relative,
>>>
>>
>> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
>> continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still 
>> being
>> conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and 
>> pull
>> the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to 
>> fall, it
>> is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
>> extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based 
>> extensions,
>> and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those
>> realms of higher measure.
>>
>>
>>> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>>>
>>
>> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>>
>
> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>


 In measure theory (
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because
 there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure
 each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) 
 halved.

>>>
>>> No, that is ASSA...
>>>
>>>


>
>
>>  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous
>> situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).
>>
>
> Your relative measure doesn't drop,
>

 Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in
 half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive
 before the trigger pull)?


> but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more
> strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, 
> simple
> physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely 
> survival.
>

 You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the
 physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say your
 relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an 
 atomic
 bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?



>
>
>>
>>
>>> Probabilities add up to one...
>>>
>> Which probabilities are you referring to here?
>>
>
> The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the
> partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are 
> the
> probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, 
> those
> adds up to one...
>

 Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your
 current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological 
 instances of
 you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run 
 by
 future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are 
 by
 Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum 
 gun,
 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, 
 and
 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are 
 dead,
 and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. 
 Note
 that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive 
 (either in
 the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, 
 while the
 population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time.  
 After
 another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be 
 those
 that were simulated, and all of them now find

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>



 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:
>>>



 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux <
> allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux <
>>> allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Measure is relative,

>>>
>>> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb
>>> continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you 
>>> still being
>>> conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and 
>>> pull
>>> the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to 
>>> fall, it
>>> is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based
>>> extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based 
>>> extensions,
>>> and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to 
>>> those
>>> realms of higher measure.
>>>
>>>
 it doesn't drop while you approach death.

>>>
>>> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>>>
>>
>> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>>
>
>
> In measure theory (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because
> there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your 
> measure
> each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) 
> halved.
>

 No, that is ASSA...


>
>
>>
>>
>>>  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous
>>> situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).
>>>
>>
>> Your relative measure doesn't drop,
>>
>
> Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in
> half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive
> before the trigger pull)?
>
>
>> but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more
>> strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, 
>> simple
>> physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely 
>> survival.
>>
>
> You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the
> physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say your
> relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an 
> atomic
> bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
 Probabilities add up to one...

>>> Which probabilities are you referring to here?
>>>
>>
>> The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the
>> partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are 
>> the
>> probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, 
>> those
>> adds up to one...
>>
>
> Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your
> current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological 
> instances of
> you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations 
> run by
> future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 
> are by
> Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum 
> gun,
> 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
> simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger 
> again, and
> 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are 
> dead,
> and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. 
> Note
> that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive 
> (either in
> the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, 
> while the

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:09, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>>
> Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not
> apply relative measure to these?
>
>
> Really? Only in the case of classical QM, but did he pretend that to be
> "really" the case? He would favor string theory on any literal quantization
> of curbature.
>


It came up here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dqgqPjqIyJoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=many+worlds+of+hugh+everett&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0a6gUtqjJaOOyAGfpYCgBQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=non%20denumerable&f=false

But Podolsky said it, and maybe Everett thought agreeing was better than
arguing over what kind of infinity it was.

Jason


>
> By Gleason, the relative measure works very well. In Everett, all
> measurement defined coherent partition of the "block multiverse".
>
> In comp, it is an open problem, partially solved.
>
>
>
> If not, it seems impossible to make predictions such as "there is a 10%
> chance you will observe the photon to land in this spot", but we can.
>
>
> I might have missed something. I think I agree with Quentin on this one,
> but there might be a misunderstanding. I will read the other posts.
>
>





> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>> Quentin
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
   the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even
>> near death.
>>
>>
> This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low
> (relative) probability.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> Quentin
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
 And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead.

>>>
>>> Subjectively you cannot die.  And in an infinitely large and varied
>>> universe, many strange things may happen.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
 Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, "Jason Resch"  a écrit
 :

>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux <
> allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/4 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM,  wrote:

> Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer,
> the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their
> perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. 
> Shermer
> was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by
> re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous 
> hyper-intelligence
> from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it?
>

  If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth
 and learn everything about us and everything we do.


 That seems inconsistent with the idea that "we" are infinitely
 many threads of computation in multiverses.  FPI would make us 
 random to
 Drelb too.

>>>
>>> There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too.
>>>
>>> Drelb, by constructing a "physical replica" of Earth, is in a
>>> sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, 
>>> and
>>> Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are
>>> possibilities for the simulation to diverge.
>>>
>>>
>> Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is
>> false...
>>
>>
> As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may
> result.  Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like 
> entities,
> none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not 
> your
> existence, but they can provide continuation paths for you.
>
> 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
> .
> 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 s

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>>



 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>>



 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux >>> > wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux <
>> allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>>



 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux <
 allco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Measure is relative,
>

 Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a
 Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of 
 you still
 being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your 
 head and
 pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure 
 continues to
 fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your
 Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your 
 Earth-based
 extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a 
 transition to
 those realms of higher measure.


> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>

 Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,

>>>
>>> You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.
>>>
>>
>>
>> In measure theory (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just
>> because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. 
>> Your
>> measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
>> (approximately) halved.
>>
>
> No, that is ASSA...
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous
 situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).

>>>
>>> Your relative measure doesn't drop,
>>>
>>
>> Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in
>> half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive
>> before the trigger pull)?
>>
>>
>>> but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more
>>> strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much 
>>> higher, simple
>>> physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely 
>>> survival.
>>>
>>
>> You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in
>> the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say 
>> your
>> relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an 
>> atomic
>> bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>


> Probabilities add up to one...
>
 Which probabilities are you referring to here?

>>>
>>> The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the
>>> partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive 
>>> are the
>>> probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, 
>>> those
>>> adds up to one...
>>>
>>
>> Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your
>> current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological 
>> instances of
>> you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations 
>> run by
>> future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 
>> are by
>> Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a 
>> quantum gun,
>> 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
>> simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger 
>> again, and
>> 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull 
>> are dead,
>> and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors w

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>



 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux >> > wrote:
>>>



 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux <
> allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux <
>>> allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>



 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux <
> allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Measure is relative,
>>
>
> Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a
> Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of 
> you still
> being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your 
> head and
> pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure 
> continues to
> fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your
> Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your 
> Earth-based
> extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a 
> transition to
> those realms of higher measure.
>
>
>> it doesn't drop while you approach death.
>>
>
> Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,
>

 You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.

>>>
>>>
>>> In measure theory (
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just
>>> because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. 
>>> Your
>>> measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is
>>> (approximately) halved.
>>>
>>
>> No, that is ASSA...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>


>  especially in those instances where you survive dangerous
> situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly 
> aging).
>

 Your relative measure doesn't drop,

>>>
>>> Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in
>>> half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being 
>>> alive
>>> before the trigger pull)?
>>>
>>>
 but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more
 strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much 
 higher, simple
 physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely 
 survival.

>>>
>>> You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in
>>> the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you 
>>> say your
>>> relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an 
>>> atomic
>>> bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)?
>>>
>>>
>>>


>
>
>> Probabilities add up to one...
>>
> Which probabilities are you referring to here?
>

 The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the
 partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive 
 are the
 probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, 
 those
 adds up to one...

>>>
>>> Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your
>>> current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological 
>>> instances of
>>> you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations 
>>> run by
>>> future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 
>>> are by
>>> Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a 
>>> quantum gun,
>>> 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> > I repeat my question, why add useless wheels within wheels that explain
>> nothing to otherwise nice theories?
>>
>
> > To take into account the discovery already made by arithmetical machine
> that there is a transcendental truth responsible for their beliefs
>

And what is responsible for that "transcendental truth"? Like I said,
useless wheels within wheels that explain nothing.

> You might read my paper "La machine Mystic", or the second part of the
> sane04 paper for more on this, if you are interested. [...] it gives some
> light on altered consciousness and other brain perturbation experience
>

In those papers are you as sloppy in your use of pronouns as on this list?

  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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> you can not live without a form of religion
>

Speak for yourself,  I've been living without religion since i was 12.

  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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Richard Ruquist]

I believe in science.
That is my religion.


On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:35 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> > you can not live without a form of religion
>>
>
> Speak for yourself,  I've been living without religion since i was 12.
>
>   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.
> 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Quentin Anciaux]

A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.



2013/12/5 Richard Ruquist 

> I believe in science.
> That is my religion.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:35 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>> > you can not live without a form of religion
>>>
>>
>>  Speak for yourself,  I've been living without religion since i was 12.
>>
>>   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.
>> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:42 AM, LizR  wrote:
> On 5 December 2013 04:24, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>> One of the most perverse "tricks" that the system played on us, in my
>> opinion, was in convincing people to accept that the state should raise the
>> kids. Sure, people spend a couple of hours with them between days spent
>> working mostly unnecessary jobs, but the bulk of modern education is
>> provided by institutionalised school and TV. I agree with the importance of
>> teaching kids math, reading comprehension, etc, but school is just terrible.
>> It also teaches us to tolerate absurd levels of boredom, to replace thinking
>> with accepting authority and it creates an artificial reward system, where
>> one can get addicted to a feeling of accomplishment without accomplishing
>> anything. Of course, all these things make us more compliant in later on
>> accepting lives without meaning.
>
>
> The purpose of school is to raise the next generation of wage slaves, so
> it's geared to whatever that requires.
>>
>>
>> Democracy is almost funny. People believe in this myth that it enforces
>> the "will of the people", but if you ask anyone individually you will find
>> that you cannot easily find a person whose opinion ever influenced anything
>> whatsoever. It's even hard to have an opinion. The better part of their days
>> people are slaves, and when tired they are spoon fed badly disguised world
>> views sprinkled over mindless entertainment.
>>
> I think I love you. I've been saying this sort of thing for years, but
> rarely have I managed to do it so articulately.

Awww.. thanks Liz! :)

> --
> 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
> religion.
>
>
>
Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.

How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and reality? Would you
say science the collection of those beliefs, or the method for developing
the beliefs?

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 04 Dec 2013, at 16:24, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Alberto,
>
> I agree with you that religion cannot be avoided in this sense.
>
> Here's a funny example:
> The Leipzig secular solstice celebration:
> http://lesswrong.com/meetups/u6
>
> Here's a video of some guy who's trying to become a priest for atheists:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vIFloLATxo
> (I still have some hope that the guy is a comedian, in which case he's a
> genius)
>
> One of the most perverse "tricks" that the system played on us, in my
> opinion, was in convincing people to accept that the state should raise the
> kids. Sure, people spend a couple of hours with them between days spent
> working mostly unnecessary jobs, but the bulk of modern education is
> provided by institutionalised school and TV. I agree with the importance of
> teaching kids math, reading comprehension, etc, but school is just
> terrible. It also teaches us to tolerate absurd levels of boredom, to
> replace thinking with accepting authority and it creates an artificial
> reward system, where one can get addicted to a feeling of accomplishment
> without accomplishing anything. Of course, all these things make us more
> compliant in later on accepting lives without meaning.
>
> Democracy is almost funny. People believe in this myth that it enforces
> the "will of the people", but if you ask anyone individually you will find
> that you cannot easily find a person whose opinion ever influenced anything
> whatsoever. It's even hard to have an opinion. The better part of their
> days people are slaves, and when tired they are spoon fed badly disguised
> world views sprinkled over mindless entertainment.
>
> Everyone should have at least one psychedelic experience. This would
> change the world faster and better than any ideology.
>
>
>
> All religions have their psychedelic substances. Christianism is mainly
> wine (Christ blood!), although some pretended that Jesus took magic
> shrooms. Cannabis would already change a lot, and salvia, often called a
> medication to cure atheism (!) could bring much more change. Quite possibly.
>

I heard a guy who researches compared religions make an interesting case
that colourfully wrapped gifts under the christmas tree represent magic
mushrooms -- stemming from a pagan tradition from cold European countries
were magic mushrooms will, indeed, grow under pine trees in winter. Of
course this is just a case where Christianism assimilated a pagan ritual.

Telmo.


>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Telmo.
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>>
>> Two more remarks:
>>
>> I´m astonished  contemplating how people can contemplate with horror the
>> belief in a god that they thing that it does not exist and accept the
>> belief in worldly lies and praise completely invented myths about their
>> favorite heroes Even if they know that are false. That Kim Jon Il wrote a
>> mean of tree books a day is incredible for them but there are equally
>> fantastic histories and Myths widely believed that would make Chesterton
>> crap up.
>>
>> The wishfulthinker fall in tears when pronouncing his sacred capitalized
>> worlds: People, Democracy, Equalty Human Rights and so on. In the past,
>> Socialism, Worker Class and such craps motivated the same heart lifts.
>> Today even the Terrorists invoke what they call Democracy with passion.
>>
>> But in his country, like in any other, the same families alternate in
>> government, with a few exceptions, no matter the kind or regime and the
>> political party. All are equals except that some are more equal than
>> others. Perhaps things are closer to the Ancient Regime rather than to the
>> myths of his utopic society.  The more the utopics are in power, the more
>> the ancient regime (that they had in the imagination) returns.  Perhaps all
>> such elevated concepts are not part of the reality but ideological
>> constructions and their most known advocates, just power seekers that may
>> deserve the worship of the wishfulthinkers?
>>
>> I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and dangerous
>> religion. And RELIGION CAN NOT BE AVOIDED: you can not live without a form
>> of religion or religions like you can not live alone.
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona 
>>
>> Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say.
>>>
>>> There is much much in the relation between the republican idea of
>>> society,  and pragmatical atheism of the contractualists Hobbes, rousseau,
>>> Locke (let the state work without religion), that later became ideological
>>> (atheism is the religion of the state).
>>>
>>> The idea of ruling society by laws was probably inspired by newtonian
>>> phisics (but not by newtonian theology) and the market economy. what is
>>> initially science or experience can become a myth that organize a society.
>>>
>>> But this gobernment by rules is a hopeful ideal. In other words, a myth.
>>> But a myth nece

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>> A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
>> religion.
>>
>>
>>
> Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.
>

Could you give an example of a religion without dogma ?

Quentin


>
> How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and reality? Would
> you say science the collection of those beliefs, or the method for
> developing the beliefs?
>
> 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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>> A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
>> religion.
>>
>>
>>
> Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.
>
> How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and reality? Would
> you say science the collection of those beliefs, or the method for
> developing the beliefs?
>

Science is a way to discover the world, nothing is certain, what you
believe now may be shown wrong tomorrow... that's not the case with
religion...

Quentin


>
> 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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:20, Jason Resch wrote:

So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat  
(each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you  
predict experience to be at the end of that day?



I like to answer this by this: At the end of the day I feel well and  
kiss the cat, together with a total amnesia of having gazed, which  
begin by a nausea, vomiting, cruel pain and agonizing death. I would  
put quantum flowers on 'his' quantum tomb to have died for me. Respect  
for the little kitty too.


Are you OK for this?  I pay you 10,000$ for accepting to sleep one  
night in my sleep laboratory, I tell you in advance that you will live  
a quite intense nightmare, but I promise you that you will be 100%  
amnesic of it and you will unaffected by the experience, are you OK?


The slowing of the annihilation illustrates something weird. Before  
the experience the probability are one halve that you will  feel  
either just passing a boring day with a cat in some chamber, or going  
through a slow unpleasant (ending?) event.
Yet the probability that you survive, above one day, the experience  
seems to be  still one.  It is part of a finite path elimination  
process, from the 1p perspective. It is analogous to the backtracking.
I am not sure it is correct as I cannot be sure the agonizing near  
death experience terminates, and for who? Nothing is simple here.


I accept *total* annihilation experience only in thought experience!   
In practice it might not exist. We don't know (and can't know) our  
substitution level, and it depends on what you are willing to abandon,  
or to what you identify with is.
1-annihilation experiences are near death experiences. Is it clear  
that they have endings in the arithmetical reality? Who knows?


The same can be asked for some type of dreams, and altered states of  
consciousness.


In my opinion, understanding a theorem in arithmetic already provides  
a glimpse on a deep and atemporal experience, connected to the first  
person in virtue of an argument.


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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 1:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and dangerous religion. And 
RELIGION CAN NOT BE AVOIDED: you can not live without a form of religion or religions 
like you can not live alone.


This is just Paul Tilllich trick to convert everyone to religion by redefining religion. 
People cannot live without trust - they can live just fine without faith in religion.


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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 12:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Dec 2013, at 19:29, John Clark wrote:




On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrot



> I have already insist that God cannot be part of the explanation. We 
agree on this.


Then I repeat my question, why add useless wheels within wheels that explain nothing to 
otherwise nice theories?


To take into account the discovery already made by arithmetical machine that there is a 
transcendental truth responsible for their beliefs, which is beyond their beliefs.


For the arithmetical machine that would be Peano's axioms and the rules of inference.  I 
don't see that they are either transcendental or true?


The space of such true but non rationally communicable truth is axiomatized, at the 
propositional level, by G* minus G, and this permits a transparent interpretation of 
Plotinus theology in arithmetic, and this illustrates already the fact that 
computationalism leads to a Platonist theology, and contradicts the common Aristotelian 
metaphysics/theology implicit among many scientists.


But these transcendental, i.e. unprovable, truths are rather trivial: "This sentence 
cannot be proven."  They are not TRANSCENDENTAL the way theologians mean - beyond the 
natural world and edifying of human experience.


Brent


The experience of "God", in the large sense I have given is part of the data in the 
puzzle. You might read my paper "La machine Mystic", or the second part of the sane04 
paper for more on this, if you are interested. This shows also that arithmetic explains 
not only the apparent existence of matter (constructively, and thus making comp 
testable), but it gives some light on altered consciousness and other brain perturbation 
experience, and "mystical" type of knowledge/beliefs/comprehension, making some other 
aspect of comp testable in some first person sense.


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.
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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 12:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger 
pull,


Wanna borrow my gun? It's a lot more reliable than that.  :-)

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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Richard Ruquist]

Who can tell me that quantum immortality is not religion.
BTW it is not dogma that I believe in.
Richard


On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>> A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
>>> religion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.
>>
>> How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and reality? Would
>> you say science the collection of those beliefs, or the method for
>> developing the beliefs?
>>
>
> Science is a way to discover the world, nothing is certain, what you
> believe now may be shown wrong tomorrow... that's not the case with
> religion...
>
> Quentin
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>
> --
> 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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 12:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote:





2013/12/5 Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>




On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:...

Probabilities add up to one...

Which probabilities are you referring to here?


The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the
infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find 
yourself
in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one...


Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 
are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are 
various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other 
universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a 
quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 
simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 
4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 
simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the 
proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) 
remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in 
half each time.  After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will 
be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm.


?? They were in a different realm all along.

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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/5/2013 12:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:...
>>>
>> Probabilities add up to one...

>>>  Which probabilities are you referring to here?
>>>
>>
>>  The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning
>> of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities
>> to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to
>> one...
>>
>
>  Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current
> experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you
> living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by
> future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by
> Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun,
> 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50
> simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and
> 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead,
> and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note
> that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in
> the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the
> population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time.  After
> another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those
> that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different
> realm.
>
>
> ?? They were in a different realm all along.
>
>
But it was subjectively indistinguishable, as it is the execution of same
program. When some of the programs stop, other incarnations of it continue.

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2013/12/5 Jason Resch 



On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux  
 wrote:




2013/12/5 Jason Resch 



On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux   
wrote:




2013/12/5 Jason Resch 



On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux   
wrote:




2013/12/5 Jason Resch 



On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux  
 wrote:

Measure is relative,


Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb  
continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still  
being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your  
head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure  
continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this  
point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than  
your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to  
experience a transition to those realms of higher measure.


it doesn't drop while you approach death.


Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique,

You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations.


In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number  
does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the  
trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved.


No, that is ASSA...



especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations  
(such as falling from a height, or significantly aging).


Your relative measure doesn't drop,

Relative to what?  Does not one's measure of being alive drop in  
half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being  
alive before the trigger pull)?


but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more  
strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher,  
simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your  
unlikely survival.


You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the  
physical universe to arbitrarily low levels?  What would you say  
your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after  
an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went  
off)?





Probabilities add up to one...

Which probabilities are you referring to here?

The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the  
partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are  
the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such  
other, those adds up to one...


Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your  
current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological  
instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor  
simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other  
universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself  
in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological  
instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the  
simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975  
biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of  
the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that  
with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either  
in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50,  
while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half  
each time.  After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining  
survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now  
find themselves in a different realm.




If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say  
concerning the above analysis?


That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next  
continuations.



Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you  
not apply relative measure to these?


You can... why coudn't you...? What I said, is that Dreb world will  
always be less likely than simple physical explanation for your  
current moment...


It should be , or we all should have met Dreb by now.


If it is infinite, take Jason's numbers as proportions (which does not  
make much sense in front of arithmetic, but are still conceivable as a  
well defined protocol. In those thought experiences there is a  
limitation principle used of the time: like the hypothesis that there  
are no reconstitutions elsewhere, which makes no sense. We can only  
hope our normal stories multiply us at the right level for us to  
survive, be it biologically, physically, or arithmetically.


I have not read the novel, the point is that a "real", concrete,  
duplication will already be a multi-duplication relatively to the  
normal computations, and if you are copied at that level, the  
probability of being Drelb is not negligeable, in that protocol,  
(which is a weird divine or diabolical proportion that only a  
theoretician can invent for the sake of an argument).


Bruno

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But what has happened is that science has taken away more and more of their 
domain,


It was in the domain at the start. Science is only a lamp, not a truth. It is a way to 
look at any domain.


And the way science looks at a domain is to make models and test them by observation and 
manipulation.  If the models are comprehensive, consilient, have predictive power, then 
they are tentatively accepted in sense of being assumed in support of other studies.  
That's why I think that when we are able to make robots that behave like humans we will 
have models of "conscious thought" that are much more "fine grained" than we do now.  But 
conversely we will not longer think "What is consciousness to be sensible question."



It is just that very often humans get attached to some theory, and are followed by the 
"don't ask" attitude by those who coerce for some statu quo. 


And very often humans have gotten attached to the wrong question and have wasted centuries 
theorizing over answers.


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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) 
 ) just because there are an 
infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the 
trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved.


?

Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal 
to one. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp & Dt can give a 
quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense.


Why not?  It measures something different, but I don't see why it "doesn't make 
sense".

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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:20, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour
> having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to
> be at the end of that day?
>
>
>
> I like to answer this by this: At the end of the day I feel well and kiss
> the cat, together with a total amnesia of having gazed, which begin by a
> nausea, vomiting, cruel pain and agonizing death. I would put quantum
> flowers on 'his' quantum tomb to have died for me. Respect for the little
> kitty too.
>

Would you say there is a greater probability of ending up in a strange and
different place on this day, compared to normal days when you don't face a
999,999 out of 1,000,000 chance of being killed?


>
> Are you OK for this?  I pay you 10,000$ for accepting to sleep one night
> in my sleep laboratory, I tell you in advance that you will live a quite
> intense nightmare, but I promise you that you will be 100% amnesic of it
> and you will unaffected by the experience, are you OK?
>

$10,000 is a lot of money, it's hard to think of a nightmare so bad (even
without the amnesia) that would not make it worth taking the money. In the
equivalent example of torture + amnesia, under which I would be willing to
pay $10,000 to avoid to avoid the torture (with or without amnesia), then I
think the logical decision is still to reject the torture and $10,000 even
if it comes with amnesia.


>
> The slowing of the annihilation illustrates something weird. Before the
> experience the probability are one halve that you will  feel either just
> passing a boring day with a cat in some chamber, or going through a slow
> unpleasant (ending?) event.
> Yet the probability that you survive, above one day, the experience seems
> to be  still one.  It is part of a finite path elimination process, from
> the 1p perspective. It is analogous to the backtracking.
> I am not sure it is correct as I cannot be sure the agonizing near death
> experience terminates, and for who? Nothing is simple here.
>

Indeed.


>
> I accept *total* annihilation experience only in thought experience!  In
> practice it might not exist. We don't know (and can't know) our
> substitution level, and it depends on what you are willing to abandon, or
> to what you identify with is.
> 1-annihilation experiences are near death experiences. Is it clear that
> they have endings in the arithmetical reality? Who knows?
>
> The same can be asked for some type of dreams, and altered states of
> consciousness.
>


The way I have for a time looked at is, is there are X instances that
explain your current experience.  Some may be "ordinary" while others might
be, say a "dream". If in your experience, you encounter something you are
unlikely to survive ordinarily, like a Mushroom cloud on the horizon, then
you will likely next find yourself waking from a dream. (Since all the
non-dreaming ordinary explanations are dead).  Is there something wrong
with this reasoning?



>
> In my opinion, understanding a theorem in arithmetic already provides a
> glimpse on a deep and atemporal experience, connected to the first person
> in virtue of an argument.
>
>
I will need to think more on this.  Thanks.

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 2:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 5 December 2013 21:53, Alberto G. Corona > wrote:


I´m very interested in what you question. One of the wonders of life is how 
a living
being select relevant information from the environment for their needs. I 
think that
the aestetic sense is a heavy part of the activity of the mind at the 
unconscious
level. Form recognition is computation intensive. It is also very puzzling 
for me
how accurately people recognize intuitively  order or disorder in agreement 
with
what would be the real entropy calculated in physical terms.

 It seems that the  filtering of information that is not relevant and to 
deal with
what is relevant has been one of the main evolutionary pressures. A 
recognized
pattern (for example, a porcelain jar with all its details, can be 
assimilated to a
macrostate in entropic terms. A broken porcelain jar reduced to dust makes 
it
undistinguisable from other jars and also unusable for doing a work. For 
example to
transport water. That is why life needs to use low entropic things that can 
be
recognized as interesting patterns.


The vase is only distinct from the dust when viewed above a certain level of "coarse 
graining" - so how does one assign it entropy?


If you consider the phase space of the dust you see that the vase corresponds to only a 
small part of that and so has a lower entropy.  Of course from the thermodynamic 
standpoint both of these are only tiny parts for statistical mechanics phases space that 
considers the configurations and momenta of molecules  and atoms.



It seems like entropy exists at our level, but not at the bottom level of atoms and so 
on. Yet a black hole can be assigned an entropy, and you can't get much more fundamental 
than that.


It's thought to have an entropy because the surface area, in the classical approximation, 
acts like and entropy (non-decreasing) and then Hawking showed a BH should have 
temperature.  Together the two imply a BH has microscopic degrees of freedom.


It seems to me that there is something missing between the thermodynamic 
"coarse-grained" idea of entropy and the (presumable fundamental level) black hole 
entropy. How is that possible, that the same thing exists in two different ways on two 
different levels, one of which appears to be emergent? (Am I missing something important 
here?)


The hypothesis is that BHs have entropy the same way as everything else, except that the 
microscopic degrees of freedom are in spacetime - which isn't understood.


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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Quentin Anciaux]

It isn't... QI is not worshipped, it is not a belief per se (you can
entertain the idea for an argument or a theory that's all) and QI could in
principle be proven false... A religion by being based on faith cannot.

Quentin


2013/12/5 Richard Ruquist 

> Who can tell me that quantum immortality is not religion.
> BTW it is not dogma that I believe in.
> Richard
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
 A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
 religion.



>>> Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.
>>>
>>> How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and reality? Would
>>> you say science the collection of those beliefs, or the method for
>>> developing the beliefs?
>>>
>>
>> Science is a way to discover the world, nothing is certain, what you
>> believe now may be shown wrong tomorrow... that's not the case with
>> religion...
>>
>> Quentin
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
>> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 8:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




How did you get to our current state to begin with? If we keep following it backwards it 
seems it leads to some primordial conscious state from which any future state might 
emerge. If the branch in which your are shot by the quantum gun kills you, perhaps that 
is equivalent to being reset to this primordial state, and your next conscious moment 
could be anything.


Including not being you.

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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> I believe in science. That is my religion.
>

Yes, but only if the meaning of the sequential ASCII characters
"r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n" is "anything you think is important. Some people are far
more interested in the sound of words than what the words mean, that's why
so many atheists say "I believe in God" when what they really mean is "I
like the sound my mouth makes when it pronounces the word G-O-D".  Nothing
intelligent or profound in any of this, just more silly word games.

  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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 8:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The thing is, doing 
dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being crippled, that's what is more 
likely.


So what was your measure before you were born?

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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[spudboy100]

They are proven false. People leave religions all the time. Often for another 
one.


-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Dec 5, 2013 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?



It isn't... QI is not worshipped, it is not a belief per se (you can entertain 
the idea for an argument or a theory that's all) and QI could in principle be 
proven false... A religion by being based on faith cannot.


Quentin





2013/12/5 Richard Ruquist 

Who can tell me that quantum immortality is not religion.
BTW it is not dogma that I believe in.
Richard





On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:






2013/12/5 Jason Resch 






On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a religion.







Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.


How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and reality? Would you say 
science the collection of those beliefs, or the method for developing the 
beliefs?






Science is a way to discover the world, nothing is certain, what you believe 
now may be shown wrong tomorrow... that's not the case with religion...


Quentin


 





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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.







-- 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger 
Hauer)




-- 
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.





-- 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger 
Hauer)




-- 
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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


The way I have for a time looked at is, is there are X instances that explain your 
current experience.  Some may be "ordinary" while others might be, say a "dream". If in 
your experience, you encounter something you are unlikely to survive ordinarily, like a 
Mushroom cloud on the horizon, then you will likely next find yourself waking from a 
dream. (Since all the non-dreaming ordinary explanations are dead).


Or as a fetus.  But both of these raise the question of why is it *you*.  You will have 
dreamed of being someone different.  Is a newborn, with none of your memories, still you?



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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> Who can tell me that quantum immortality is not religion.
>

I can. The defining characteristic of religious people is being seldom
correct but always certain, and so quantum immortality is not a religion
because I'm far from certain, I don't know that it's true and I don't know
that it's untrue. Technically I'd have to say the same about the existence
of God, but the probability that the Christian or Muslim God exists is,
although nonzero, too low to worry about. I would guess that the
probability quantum immortality exists is low, although vastly greater than
the probability of God's existence. I don't know what the probability that
my probability estimate is correct, probably pretty low.

  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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Richard Ruquist]

Well John not you nor I are believers in QI
but there seem to be plenty on this list.


On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:51 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
> > Who can tell me that quantum immortality is not religion.
>>
>
> I can. The defining characteristic of religious people is being seldom
> correct but always certain, and so quantum immortality is not a religion
> because I'm far from certain, I don't know that it's true and I don't know
> that it's untrue. Technically I'd have to say the same about the existence
> of God, but the probability that the Christian or Muslim God exists is,
> although nonzero, too low to worry about. I would guess that the
> probability quantum immortality exists is low, although vastly greater than
> the probability of God's existence. I don't know what the probability that
> my probability estimate is correct, probably pretty low.
>
>   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.
> 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[John Mikes]

Quentin wrote:
*A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.*
*(*addressed to Richard's:I believe in science.That is my religion.)
It is a questionable semantic situation what one can call an 'axiom', or
even
a math-groundrule (like: primes are primes ) what (I think) Bruno would deem
so funamental that it cannot be justified into more fundamentals.
Richard: you learned your (scientific) dogma-librARY in grade school, or
earlier,
Quentin - you fell for  a philosophical (logistical?) argument that is
fictitious.
IMO a religion is not based on (a) dogma, it is based on a 'story' what
people
are willing to accept as a dogma. Then they kill the infidel. Or the gays.
Or both.
There are diverse gods: some are vain (require adoration and praise plus
full
obedience from their 'creatures') some are vicious and jealous, some cheat
on
their spouses, some kill for such.
John M



On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
> religion.
>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Richard Ruquist 
>
>> I believe in science.
>> That is my religion.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:35 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Alberto G. Corona 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > you can not live without a form of religion

>>>
>>>  Speak for yourself,  I've been living without religion since i was 12.
>>>
>>>   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.
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>
> --
> 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Richard Ruquist]

John,

I learned my physics dogma at Harvard Grad School.
Before that I was a mechanical engineer.
Richard


On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:14 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> Quentin wrote:
> *A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
> religion.*
> *(*addressed to Richard's:I believe in science.That is my religion.)
> It is a questionable semantic situation what one can call an 'axiom', or
> even
> a math-groundrule (like: primes are primes ) what (I think) Bruno would
> deem
> so funamental that it cannot be justified into more fundamentals.
> Richard: you learned your (scientific) dogma-librARY in grade school, or
> earlier,
> Quentin - you fell for  a philosophical (logistical?) argument that is
> fictitious.
> IMO a religion is not based on (a) dogma, it is based on a 'story' what
> people
> are willing to accept as a dogma. Then they kill the infidel. Or the gays.
> Or both.
> There are diverse gods: some are vain (require adoration and praise plus
> full
> obedience from their 'creatures') some are vicious and jealous, some cheat
> on
> their spouses, some kill for such.
> John M
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>> A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
>> religion.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/5 Richard Ruquist 
>>
>>> I believe in science.
>>> That is my religion.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:35 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>>


 On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Alberto G. Corona 
 wrote:

 > you can not live without a form of religion
>

  Speak for yourself,  I've been living without religion since i was 12.

   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.
 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
>> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>

-- 
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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 meekerdb 

>  On 12/5/2013 8:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The
> thing is, doing dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being
> crippled, that's what is more likely.
>
>
> So what was your measure before you were born?
>

I don't think it has any meaning... but what do you think ?

Quentin


>
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/12/5 

>  They are proven false. People leave religions all the time. Often for
> another one.
>

If they were proven false, what's your explanation of why the catholic
church still exists and has followers ? (or take your pick at any current
religion here on earth)

Quentin


>  -Original Message-
> From: Quentin Anciaux 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Dec 5, 2013 2:23 pm
> Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
>
>  It isn't... QI is not worshipped, it is not a belief per se (you can
> entertain the idea for an argument or a theory that's all) and QI could in
> principle be proven false... A religion by being based on faith cannot.
>
>  Quentin
>
>
> 2013/12/5 Richard Ruquist 
>
>> Who can tell me that quantum immortality is not religion.
>> BTW it is not dogma that I believe in.
>>  Richard
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  2013/12/5 Jason Resch 
>>>



  On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:

> A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
> religion.
>
>
>
  Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however.

  How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and reality?
 Would you say science the collection of those beliefs, or the method for
 developing the beliefs?

>>>
>>>  Science is a way to discover the world, nothing is certain, what you
>>> believe now may be shown wrong tomorrow... that's not the case with
>>> religion...
>>>
>>>  Quentin
>>>
>>>

  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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
>>> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>--
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 1:30 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2013/12/5 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

On 12/5/2013 8:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The 
thing is,
doing dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being crippled, 
that's
what is more likely.


So what was your measure before you were born?


I don't think it has any meaning... but what do you think ?


I think "you" (and "me") is a coarse grained concept and we only exist in a statistical 
mechanics kind of way.  So our measure was essentially zero before we were born and will 
be again after we die.


Brent
"I'm not afraid of dying.  I just don't want to be there when it happens."
--- 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 1:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2013/12/5 mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>>

They are proven false. People leave religions all the time. Often for 
another one.


If they were proven false, what's your explanation of why the catholic church still 
exists and has followers ? (or take your pick at any current religion here on earth)


But as I pointed out by quoting H. L. Mencken's "Graveyard of the Gods", there are 
hundreds, if not thousands, of religions that have come and gone.  I wouldn't say that 
they vanished because they were disproven.  Often they have been deprived of adherents by 
conquest. Some have been displaced by newer or modified religions.


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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Richard Ruquist]

But despite fundamentalism, like what killed Islamic science,
it is here for good. (Any interpretation of the ambiguity will do)

Rich


On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/5/2013 1:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/12/5 
>
>>  They are proven false. People leave religions all the time. Often for
>> another one.
>>
>
>  If they were proven false, what's your explanation of why the catholic
> church still exists and has followers ? (or take your pick at any current
> religion here on earth)
>
>
> But as I pointed out by quoting H. L. Mencken's "Graveyard of the Gods",
> there are hundreds, if not thousands, of religions that have come and
> gone.  I wouldn't say that they vanished because they were disproven.
> Often they have been deprived of adherents by conquest.  Some have been
> displaced by newer or modified religions.
>
> 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 03 Dec 2013, at 01:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Samiya Illias 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good question, and one which is repeatedly asked by many within and
>>> outside the faith. God, in His complete knowledge, knows each and every soul
>>> and who is worthy of eternal bliss and who not. However, according to a
>>> decree, humans have been granted respite and an opportunity to believe and
>>> do good. Something like an exam for a degree or a quality-check and sorting
>>> of manufactured goods. This necessarily requires a belief in an event no
>>> longer in conscious human memory, but which nevertheless is the cause of
>>> this life, and the belief in Accountability for beliefs and actions in a
>>> life after this life. Either one reasons that outcomes are already known to
>>> God hence there really is no need to 'do' anything, or one intensifies one's
>>> effort to search for 'truth' and do as much good as may be possible, so as
>>> to take full advantage of this temporal life, using it for eternal bliss.
>>
>>
>> But the problem is that either I reason that the outcome is already
>> known or not, it is indeed already known, according to what you said
>> before. So we're just watching as it unfolds.
>>
>>> My understanding may be wrong, for all we know this may be the only life,
>>> nothing before or after, but what if there is?
>>
>>
>> If there is, and my life is predetermined and I'm still going to be
>> punished or rewarded, then it's just a matter of waiting and seeing if
>> I win the cosmic lottery no? You still didn't address the problem that
>> you cannot have predetermination and free-will at the same time.
>
>
> But this is something that we have already discussed a lot. Some (like me)
> agreed on compatibilist theory of free will. In fact we don't see how
> indeterminacy could help in the free will ability. Why should the fact that
> some super-machine, or god, can predict my behavior prevent it of being
> free? Free will is *self*-indetermination, not absolute indetermination.
> When we feel free to do something we want to do, we often say that we are
> determined to do it ...

I think I agree. My view is that "free will" is a 1p experience that
makes no sense as a 3p concept.

But here I was arguing against a religious claim. Proposing that there
is a God that is testing us, and that the meaning of or lives is to
pass this test is a strong claim, one that can deeply affect people's
behaviours. From an omniscient God's perspective, everything already
happened. Trying to recover possible wishes of an entity at this God's
level and introducing them at the level of our experience seems
nonsensical. On the other hand, this type of claim sounds suspiciously
convenient for some very human purposes...

Telmo.

> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> And how difficult is it to believe in this age of technology that all is
>>> being recorded and will be replayed? Reasons enough to bother...
>>
>>
>> What do you mean by replayed? If the same moment is perfectly
>> replayed, then it's indistinguishable from all other instances of the
>> same moment. There's still just one moment. Otherwise they are
>> different moments, and it's not a replay.
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>>> Samiya
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:51 PM, Telmo Menezes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Samiya Illias 
 wrote:
>
> Below, I'm paraphrasing from memory a couple of passages:
> On the subject of the persecution of the 'Bani Israel' Children of
> Israel by Pharoah, such that the male children were being killed and 
> females
> kept alive, It reads that it was a great trial from God.
> At another place, it reads that know that whatever happens to you, good
> or bad, it is all inscribed  in a decree before we bring it into 
> existence.
> This is so that you do not despair of whatever passes you by, nor exult 
> over
> ...
> There is a lot going on all over the world that one would like to wish
> away, but it helps to understand that all things / events / circumstances
> are trials, temporary and transient. In this life, nothing is a reward or
> punishment, rather everything is a trial, and an opportunity to do good
> deeds through helping those in need. Reward and Punishment are concepts
> associated with the Hereafter, and are of a permanent nature.
> No, he didn't say "Oops!", God exhorts us to reflect and ponder!


 Hi Samiya,

 If whatever happens is inscribed in a decree before we bring it into
 existence, so is the outcome of the trials. So why bother?

 Telmo.

> Samiya
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 02-Dec-2013, at 10:09 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 02 Dec 2013, at 13:39, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perf

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 8:53 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't know how you count but for me the chance to be in a Dreb world after 24h is 
1%^24 ==> infinitesimal. Each choice are independent... 


That would be the probability that you went to Dreb independently each hour.  So you died 
the first hour, then you had to also die again the second hour,...


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: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?

[LizR]

On 6 December 2013 03:00, John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:12 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> >> The earliest reference I can find is 1783 by John Michell, he  called
>>> them "dark stars", however it had very different properties from  a modern
>>> Black Hole. If I was far from one of Michell's Newtonian dark stars I could
>>> not see it, but unlike a real Black Hole, I could obtain a picture of it
>>> and print it in the newspaper, I'd just have to get closer in a powerful
>>> spaceship. I could even land on the classical dark star, get a sample of it
>>> and then return it to Earth, that sort of thing would be impossible with a
>>> real Einsteinian Black Hole.
>>>
>>
>> > That's the one. It was used in a story by Brian Aldiss, I guess before
>> black holes became widely known about in SF circles (which was probably
>> thanks to Larry Niven). Of course one could only "land" on it if one could
>> withstand the gravity,
>>
>
> If it was large enough the surface gravity on one of Michell's "dark
> stars" could be a earth like 1g or even less. The escape velocity from the
> surface of a object depends on BOTH its surface gravity and how big the
> object is because that determines how fast the gravity weakens with
> distance from the surface, with big objects even a long way away the
> gravity is almost as strong as it is on the surface.  Actually if it were
> big enough even with Einstein's Black Hole the gravity at the event horizon
> could be 1g, although after passing that point of no return you would find
> the gravity increasing continually until it reached infinity at the
> singularity at the center of the hole.
>

Ah yes I've heard that the gravity at the event horizon can be as weak as
you like with a suitably large hole - that you might not even realise you'd
crossed it (though surely you'd get some optical effects?) So the Michell
star is effectively like a solid version of a black hole's event horizon.
If that makes sense.

>
> > and only take off if one could travel faster than light
>>
>
> No, a continuously thrusting rocket could escape from one of Michell's
> "dark stars" as slowly as you'd like just like you can from the Earth, but
> not so with Einstein's Black Hole, from that there is no way out.
>

I suppose one could have a space elevator or whatever and just climb gently
out of the gravity well.That's very interesting. It makes me rather sad
that such objects can't exist, because they'd make for some interesting
fiction, and maybe fact.

-- 
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.

Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad

[Roger Clough]

Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad

Materialists spend much effort on trying to show that reality is simply
physics.  But the philosophy of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and now Heidegger
shows that materialism and analytic philosophy is incomplete,
since it omits mind from reality.

Leibniz modeled reality as material bodies in the dualism of a monad, 
which is the corresponding mental being of matter.  The matter is 
in spacetime, the monad is outside of spacetime. 

Heidegger's dasein is a combination of the german words
"da", meaning "there", and "sein" meaning "being" or "mental".
The "da" is in spacetime and the "sein" is outside of spacetime,
so a dasein is a monad.

Thus Heidegger's universe is essentially the same as Leibniz's, 
an infinite collection of monads or daseins.





Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

-- 
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: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

[LizR]

On 6 December 2013 08:08, meekerdb  wrote:

> The hypothesis is that BHs have entropy the same way as everything else,
> except that the microscopic degrees of freedom are in spacetime - which
> isn't understood.
>

So are you saying that black holes have emergent entropy, and that it
wouldn't be "visible" if you could zoom in on their microscopic processes
(whatever they are), in much the same way that you can't see the entropy of
a collection of molecules by looking at the molecules themselves, but only
by looking at statistical properties of relatively large numbers of them?

If so, that implies some sort of complicated large-scale organisation on
the event horizon, as I believe some string theorists have suggested. (I
imagine it also has implications for the Beckenstein bound and the
holographic principle.)

-- 
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: Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad

[LizR]

On 6 December 2013 14:15, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad
>
> Materialists spend much effort on trying to show that reality is simply
> physics.  But the philosophy of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and now Heidegger
> shows that materialism and analytic philosophy is incomplete,
> since it omits mind from reality.
>

For some unaccountable reason you have left Bruno off your list.

-- 
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: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

[meekerdb]

On 12/5/2013 5:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 6 December 2013 08:08, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:


The hypothesis is that BHs have entropy the same way as everything else, 
except that
the microscopic degrees of freedom are in spacetime - which isn't 
understood.


So are you saying that black holes have emergent entropy, and that it wouldn't be 
"visible" if you could zoom in on their microscopic processes (whatever they are), in 
much the same way that you can't see the entropy of a collection of molecules by looking 
at the molecules themselves, but only by looking at statistical properties of relatively 
large numbers of them?


That's my understanding of it.



If so, that implies some sort of complicated large-scale organisation on the event 
horizon, as I believe some string theorists have suggested. (I imagine it also has 
implications for the Beckenstein bound and the holographic principle.)


Yeah, that's Susskinds firewall idea.  Just above the event horizon, within a few Planck 
lengths, the strings corresponding to stuff that fell in are spread over the surface and 
their degrees of freedom account for the entropy.  But the same information also falls 
into the singularity - which violates the no-cloning theorem.  I think Susskind holds 
that's this is OK since nobody can see the violation.  But it's far from settled.  The 
problem is that QM says information should be preserved but GR says it should be lost in a 
BH.  It's widely assumed that GR is wrong and a quantum theory of gravity will show 
information somehow comes out with the Hawking radiation.


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: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.

[LizR]

On 6 December 2013 14:35, meekerdb  wrote:


> Yeah, that's Susskinds firewall idea.  Just above the event horizon,
> within a few Planck lengths, the strings corresponding to stuff that fell
> in are spread over the surface and their degrees of freedom account for the
> entropy.  But the same information also falls into the singularity - which
> violates the no-cloning theorem.  I think Susskind holds that's this is OK
> since nobody can see the violation.  But it's far from settled.  The
> problem is that QM says information should be preserved but GR says it
> should be lost in a BH.  It's widely assumed that GR is wrong and a quantum
> theory of gravity will show information somehow comes out with the Hawking
> radiation.
>

I read something about an elephant falling into a black hole and being in
an eternal superposition - one elephant on the event horizon and one
crushed in the singularity, the idea being that this was a quantum
superposition and both states were "equally real". (It was probably in "New
Scientist"...) All sounds a bit postmodern. I think the idea was to do a
"Schrodinger's cat" on black holes, and bring out something "paradoxical"
about our understanding of them (with apologies to Kermit).

-- 
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.