Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>> ​
>> ​You were correct when ​
>> ​w​
>> hen ​you said "he is duplicated", therefore while in H any question of
>> the form "what will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and
>> the personal pronoun is ambiguous after that.
>
>
> ​> ​
> Given the protocole, and the assumptions and definitions given, there is
> no ambiguity at all.
>

​I am right here in Helsinki right now, in the future what one and only one
city will I see after the experiment ​is over? In the real world, and in
any world that doesn't have people duplicating machines, that question
makes perfect sense and the personal pronouns in it cause no problems. And
you're right, a ten year old can understand the question, even a five year
old could. That's because the person who wrote "I am right here in Helsinki
right now" has one and only one successor in the future and thus there is a
unique answer to the question. However if people duplicating machines are
introduced, as is done in the thought experiment, then the person who wrote
 "​I am right here in Helsinki right now" does *NOT* have a unique
successor, and so the question does *NOT* have a unique answer, in fact it
doesn't have an answer at all because due to the wording the "question" is
not a question at all, it is gibberish. It takes more than a question mark
to make a question.


​>> ​
>> but for that to work after the thought experiment is all over you've got
>> to tell us what the correct prediction turned out to be so we can see that
>> the correct prediction was not made. So what would the correct prediction
>> have been, M or H?
>
>
> ​> ​
> None. It is "M or H".
>

​So now we know the answer, it's "M or H" . Unfortunately we don't know
exactly (or even approximately) ​

​what the question was, not in a world that has 1p ​duplicating machines .
It's like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the ultimate answer
was known to be 42 but nobody knew what the ultimate question was.


​> ​
> About the 3p, or 3-1p view.
>

​After all these years I still ​

​can't figure out the difference between the 3p view and the  ​
3-1p view
​.  ​Can You?

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.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[John Mikes]

Stathis asked:

*Is agnosticism about God different from agnosticism about other entities
such as fairies and elves?*
My reply is ab astounding * " N O " *

I wold add to te fairies and elves the forces, the energy, the matter and
all facets of a universe-built world we came up with in our speculations
upon halfway understood (??) observations and their explanations (our way).
An agnostic just "doesn't know". Not those facets we talk about an not
those we have no idea about (so far?).
Agnosticism is a hard principle to follow (ask Bruno).
JM

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

>
> On Wed., 1 Feb. 2017 at 4:32 am, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>> > Are you really agnostic about the god of theism?
>>
>> Quoting from wikipedia:
>>
>> "The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term
>> theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[5] In Cudworth's
>> definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who
>> affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind,
>> existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other
>> things".[6]
>> Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest
>> sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in a god or gods.[7] The
>> claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is
>> agnosticism.[8][9]"
>>
>> I would say that, under these definitions, the correct scientific
>> stance is to be agnostic.
>>
>> In this mailing list, we have seen hypothesis about such a mind that
>> do not require man-in-the-sky, creationism or other absurdities, nor
>> conflict with current scientific models. Are they correct? I don't
>> know, so...
>
>
> Is agnosticism about God different from agnosticism about other entities
> such as fairies and elves?
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are 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.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[Brent Meeker]

On 2/4/2017 10:51 AM, John Mikes wrote:

Stathis asked:

*/Is agnosticism about God different from agnosticism about other 
entities such as fairies and elves?/*

My reply is ab astounding *_ " N O " _*

I wold add to te fairies and elves the forces, the energy, the matter 
and all facets of a universe-built world we came up with in our 
speculations upon halfway understood (??) observations and their 
explanations (our way).
An agnostic just "doesn't know". Not those facets we talk about an not 
those we have no idea about (so far?).

Agnosticism is a hard principle to follow (ask Bruno).


Because to follow you formulation of it would mean you could never act 
because you would never know what to do.  But I'll bet you don't leave 
food for the fairies in the garden or look for elves in the forest.  
Why?  Because although you don't know for certain that they don't exist, 
you know well enough to act on the hypothesis that they don't.


Brent


JM

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote:



On Wed., 1 Feb. 2017 at 4:32 am, Telmo Menezes
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote:

> Are you really agnostic about the god of theism?

Quoting from wikipedia:

"The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god".
The term
theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[5] In
Cudworth's
definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who
affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind,
existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other
things".[6]
Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the
broadest
sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in a god or
gods.[7] The
claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is
agnosticism.[8][9]"

I would say that, under these definitions, the correct scientific
stance is to be agnostic.

In this mailing list, we have seen hypothesis about such a
mind that
do not require man-in-the-sky, creationism or other
absurdities, nor
conflict with current scientific models. Are they correct? I don't
know, so...


Is agnosticism about God different from agnosticism about other
entities such as fairies and elves?
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
.


--
You received this message because you are 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.


--
You received this message because you are 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.

AI apocalypse

[Brent Meeker]

I wonder if Bruno's theory of mind can help with this:

http://www.sciencealert.com/experts-have-come-up-with-23-guidelines-to-avoid-an-ai-apocalypse

I remember Marvin Minsky once said something like, "In the future there 
will be machines more intelligent than human beings and they may come to 
compete with humans beings.  I'm on the side  of more intelligence."


Brent
When a natural resource is in short supply, that's when artificial 
substitutes are invented.


--
You received this message because you are 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.