Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> There is only one fundamental difference between your example and mine, >> cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but dragons do not. >> Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure something into existence. I >> can define "Klogknee" as the integer that is greater than 4 but less than >> 5, but Klogknee doesn't exist. > > > > > Here the difference is that I have given the axioms and the inference > rules. > But inference requires reason, and reason requires a brain, and all known brains require matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > This is like a creationist who would refute the theory of evolution > because it contradicts the bible. > I think you first used that exact same insult in 2007 or 2008, can't you think of a new one. >> >> >> without matter and the laws of physics there can be nobody around to have >> a notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion of anything. > > > > > Then computationalism is false, because without matter, there is still > computations which emulates your mind states. > How on Earth does that imply computationalism is false?? I said computations need matter, matter exists, so computations exist, and computationalism says intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed by the agent's brain, and brains are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > Computer science books does not compute, but still provides proof that > numbers together with addition and multiplication do compute. Addition and multiplication are computations, so you're saying computations compute. Well I can't argue with that. >> >> maybe "God" means >> a >> n invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob >> in that language >> , >> >> but that's not what the >> what those words mean to me or to the English language. >> > > God means whatever needs to be assumed to get an explanation of the > appearances. > So the answer to EVERY question of the form "why does X look like that?" is God, and that makes the word "God" totally and completely useless? > > In math we always extend the meaning of the terms. > In mathematics you create a name "prime numbers" for example and then define the concept by giving it certain specific properties; you don't create a the name and then start endless philosophical discussions of if "prime numbers" are dividable by 3. And you don't invent the work "klogknee" and then try to figure out what the word means, > > > Playing vocabulary games does not help. > You're accusing me of playing vocabulary games ?! You say God exists, but then you say God doesn't need to be a person, God doesn't need to smarter than a human, God doesn't need to be intelligent at all, nor does God need to be conscious. But nevertheless you insist God exists. And you accuse me of playing vocabulary games ! >> >> I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that they have the >> ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist before. > > > > > That has been refuted. > In your dreams perhaps. A definition can conjure itself into existence but nothing else, to claim otherwise is not just wrong it's silly. >> >>> I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the entire >>> universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless because there >>> would be no one to give it a meaning. >> >> >> >> > >> But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means that you have >> change your mind since our last conversation. >> > No contradiction because in the universe I live in there are more than 3 physical things in existence, in fact there are even more than 6. > > >> The fact that 3 divides 6 is true independently of the presence of humans >> or aliens to get this. >> > In the universe the aliens live in there are more than 3 physical things in the cosmos, there are even more than 6. >> >>> Or put it another way, it would make no difference to ANYTHING if 6/3=2 >>> was true or not. >> >> >> > >> It depends of the theory in which those statemnt are made. If you say >> that in any extension of robinson arithmetic, it makes the theory >> inconsistent, and so it makes me and you becoming the pope (if you know >> Russels proof that he is the pope in case 0 = 1). That would changes things. >> > If I remember correctly Bertrand Russell started with the axiom "one is zero" and was able to logically deduce "I am the Pope" ; but if there was not even one thing in the universe then there would be no "I" no "Pope" and no "am", so it would make no difference to anything if I am the Pope or not. It was discovered empirically that three apples and three apples produces the same result as two apples and two apples and two apples, and "6" is as good a name for that sort of thing as any. > >> >> > >> That would make physics circular. >> > And in mathematics eve
Re: God, Machines and Humans
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> When it comes to the definition of words the majority rules. > > > > > The majority agrees with this naïve definition: God is the creator of > everything. > How can a definition of a word be naive? I can understand how you can define something that doesn't exist, I can understand haw a definition can be so general it is useless, but I can't understand what a "naive" definition is. And if the majority of speakers of a language aren't the ones who give words in that language their meaning then who does? > > > The greek theory was > [blah blah blah] > > I don't give a hoot in hell what the Greek theory was because most of them were ignoramuses by today's standards, especially Aristotle and Plato. Greek cosmology was not only dead wrong it was stupid, so can we please stop talking about the damn thing! I don't care if you call it G-O-D or D-O-G, there is only one important question, is consciousness responsible for the existence of the of the universe or not. I say no. You say I don't know, you say you don't even know if God is intelligent but you do know that God exists. I say if "God" is neither intelligent nor conscious then "God" may exists for all I know, it depends on what the 3 ASCII characters G-O-D mean in Bruno-speak. > > I think JC confuse "God" the concept, and one particular theory of God > I am not at all confused with the difference between a intelligent or super-intelligent conscious being creating the universe and a mindless amoral fuzzy blob creating the universe. And if I ever get confused as to the meaning of any English word, "God" included, I can just ask Google and my confusion will be cured in seconds. However what I am deeply confused about is exactly what it is that I'm supposed to confused about. > > > Plato was open that Aristotle theology could be correct. > Then Plato was as stupid as Aristotle. Why why why are we still talking about the ancient Greeks when they didn't know the difference between their ass from a hole in the ground? > > > Only a charlatan would pretend that science has decided between Plato's > and Aristotle's conception of > [blah blah] > > In the 21th century only a fool would give a damn about Plato's or Aristotle's conception of ANYTHING. > > > You might need to read the bibles: > I'd rather watch paint dry, it would be more entertaining and far more educational. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
God, Machines and Humans
I know John does not read genuinely enough the post, but I want to thank him for the opportunity to add things, and notably how much the atheists of the gnostic kind, despite declaring themselves non religious, act exactly like the charlatan in religion. On 11 Jan 2017, at 01:03, John Clark wrote: > You confess base your thinking on what the majority says, You're damn right, and I don't confess it I brag about it! When it comes to the definition of words the majority rules. The majority agrees with this naïve definition: God is the creator of everything. The greek theory was the same, yet seeing God as a first principle, a reality to discuss about. Basically, what justifies the appearances and what is possibly beyond, or the object of science: what we can know and what is real but cannot know if that exists. I think JC confuse "God" the concept, and one particular theory of God (the common one today in occident, but note that here there are already *many* different interpretation of it. I use the word with the most general definition. Only people believing that only one theory of god is correct can criticize those who propose a different theory. Just by your attitude toward the Platonist theory shows that you accompany the clergy in the critics of any different theory than their own. God has been for a millenium a nickname of "the reason of it all", that they were searching. It is the science of the thing from which all other things or things' appearances are tried to be explained. The theology of Aristotle was two gods, and basically in modern and simplifying terming, it was a (search for a) physical equation + initial conditions on some objects. The theology of Plato was one god, and basically in modern and simplifying terming, it was a (search for a) logical/mathematical principle/theory of some subject. The laws of thought, mind, dream, imaging, conceiving, etc. Plato was open that Aristotle theology could be correct. Aristotle thought (wrongly) that he refuted Plato. Only a charlatan would pretend that science has decided between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of Reality/God today. What has been proved, though, is that if consciousness is invariant for a recursive permutation ( a version of digital mechanism), then the theology of Aristotle can't work, and Plato's one might still work. Actually, a pythagorean versionn of Plato, extracted from the machine's self-referencial discourse, do seem to work, as it predicts both intuitively and formally the quantum appearances. It is "shocking" but not more than Everett or the quantum facts. To each digital machine, that is, number m, as we have fixed one universal base (Robinson arithmetic). So we have an effectively enumerable sequence of programs P_0, P_1, P_2, ... P_m, P_m+1, etc. (use any other programming language if you are not at ease in Robinson Arithmetic). The machine/number having an interesting theology are the Löbian machine/numbers, that is a machine/number which not only are universal P_m (x,y>) = P_x(y), but they can prove that they are universal in the sense that they can prove p -> []p for all p sigma_1 (which is equivalent with being Turing universal). Löbian number knows that they are (associated) to Löbian and universal numbers. Then all concept on them can be represented by a set of numbers, and meta-concepts by set of set of numbers. They have varied degree of unsolvability. Truth, p (the set of true numbers p on m) p limited to sigma_1 proposition (the leaves of the universal dovetailer) provable, []p (the set of numbers provable by m on m) knowable, []p & p (the set of numbers provable and true, by m on m) Observable []p & ~[]~t (the set of numbers provable and consistent) Sensible []p & ~[]~t & p (provable, consistent, p). God knows that this is the exactly the same part of the arithmetical reality, expressed in 5 different ways. But the machine/number m, which plays the role of man in Plotinus, cannot know that, and both the man and God knows this entails quite different logics associated which each type of view. The abstract rendering of the universal dovetailer argument entails that the observable is given by ([]p & ~[]~t (& p)), p sigma_1, and that gives a quantum logic (intuitionist quantum logic in the case []p & ~[]~t & p. We get the Gödel-Solovay surprise gift that we can distinguish what God says from what the machine can justify, know, observe, etc. It is the inheritance of the G* minus G difference on some other nuance. The universal soul ([]p & p) does NOT split, and is lives somewhere at the jonction of earth and heaven, using the traditional terminology. The humans closer to the Löbian self-reference are Parmenides, Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus, perhaps Porphyry, Proclus ... (still not quite sure). The mechanist digital version extracted from self-r
Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God
On 11 Jan 2017, at 01:03, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs existing >And I define a glodlyrapicul by a dragon. Did my definition cause anything to come into existence? > That one no. But that does no make my counter-example invalid. Nobody said that all definition makes things existing. There is only one fundamental difference between your example and mine, cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but dragons do not. Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure something into existence. I can define "Klogknee" as the integer that is greater than 4 but less than 5, but Klogknee doesn't exist. Here the difference is that I have given the axioms and the inference rules. If you disagree that prime numbers exists, then OK. I mean I understand you have some problem with the computationalist assumption, and why you conceive only "physical computationalism". You have the metaphysical belief in some reality, and use it to build a counter-exemple. This is like a creationist who would refute the theory of evolution because it contradicts the bible. Of course, nobody can argue with that. >> Never mind something as trivial as numbers, explain to me how the notion of notion can exist without the physical environment! > I guess you mean the notion of motion? No. That was wasn't a typo, I meant what I said, without matter and the laws of physics there can be nobody around to have a notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion of anything. Then computationalism is false, because without matter, there is still computations which emulates your mind states. Of course, you can say they are zombie, because you want your god Matter to be present, but then a religious charlatan could also add that such a Matter will only work if his/her God gives the permission. Actually, if that primary matter gives a role, define it more precisely and explain its role. > Yes, books does not compute. I know, so stop claiming textbooks on computer science prove that numbers all by themselves without the help of physics can compute something. Why? Those things are not related. Computer science books does not compute, but still provides proof that numbers together with addition and multiplication do compute. > Only universal numbers, when implemented (in arithmetic, in physics, wherever..), can be said to compute. I have no idea what "universal numbers implemented in arithmetic" means, but I do know if physics isn't involved nothing is computed. Sure. Are you sure that is enough? Maybe Matter need to be blessed or something. > with computationalism, Physical computer do not exist primitively, they arise as common pattern in the mind of non physical computer. Maybe "computationalism" means that in Bruno-Speak, a language known only to you. Not at all, see all my posts or my paper for the definition. It is the most weak form of computationalism in the literature. All its consequences are valid for all more precise definitions. And maybe "God" means an invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob in that language, but that's not what the what those words mean to me or to the English language. God means whatever needs to be assumed to get an explanation of the appearances. In math we always extend the meaning of the terms. You would have ridicule the mathematicians when they accepted that 2, 1 and 0 are numbers, which meant "numerous" at the start. Playing vocabulary games does not help. >>Massive brainpower was not needed to conclude that no problem can be solved without brains, but it was needed to discover some problems can't be solved even with brains. >The point is that you conclude that a problem is not solvable by a computation, we need a mathematical definition of computation. Sure, and I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that they have the ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist before. That has been refuted. > See any textbook to get a definitipn of universal number in that theory, Oh no, where back with that stupid textbook that is supposed to be able to make calculations! You deform to much what I say, and answer things I never said. Sorry, but that is called trolling. Bruno >> I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the entire universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless because there would be no one to give it a meaning. > But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means that you have change your mind since our last conversation. No contradiction because in the universe I live in there are more than 3 physical things in existence, in fact there a
