Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:50:37 UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Hi people, > > I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with questions > already answered. > > Any one can find the answers in the previews posts. > > If anyone else has a question on this, please ask, or comment, but in this > present case we are looping. > > Does anyone else have a problem with step 3 (the frist person > indeterminacy in self-duplication experience)? > > Or does anyone else believe John is trying to say something, and in that > case could he or she explains it? > > 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-li...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > Brilliant stuff, Bruno. I do not know how you have been able to keep your composure so well. Many thanks for providing such a consistent explanation. -- You 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: Brainwashing by atheists
On Monday, 6 February 2017 14:47:08 UTC, PGC wrote: > > > Besides that, one could wonder for example if it is modest to publicly > criticize the work of people that support your work, like you did with a > recent paper on this list. A modest colleague would operate with more > discretion and professionalism, it would seem to me. Especially when others > endorse (and translate etc.) others' work, which in my old-fashioned > worldview signals trust and *having each others back*, > This type of thinking seems terribly non-scientific. It seems like you advocate some kind of 'favours for friends' approach to things. And what exactly is immodest about criticism? -- You 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: Is Nature unnatural?
On 2/10/2017 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2017, at 05:07, Brent Meeker wrote: This fails to consider the holographic model of the universe. In the bulk model the energy density of the vacuum is overestimated by the ratio of the Hubble volume to it's boundary area (both in Planck units). The holographic model may not be right - but it shows that it's silly to regard the failure to find supersymmetry as proving fine-tuning. There are other possibilities. Interesting. Could you explain or refer to some link how the holographic model (theory) does that, thanks. The idea comes from my later friend Vic Stenger. He discussed it in his book "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning" and thanks to Amazon you can read chapter 12 online: https://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Why-Universe-Designed/dp/1616144432 Brent Bruno Brent On 2/9/2017 7:27 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: https://www.quantamagazine.org/read-offline/4739/20130524-is-nature-unnatural.print -- You 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. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: From Atheism to Islam
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > The meaning of words in the natural language is defined by usage, Yes. > > > not in science, Not so. Scientific language like any language changes over time. Today the meaning of the word "vacuum" isn't the same as it was a century ago and the same is true of "nothing". Even the word "scientist" was only invented in 1835, before that they were called "Natural Philosophers" which I think was rather charming. > > > I have made clear at the start that I use "theology" in a large sense Too large, much too large! You use it in such a large sense that the word becomes utterly useless. You've in effect exchanged the word "God" for "stuff" because you know nobody can say "I don't believe in stuff". 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
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > If we look back in scientific history, there always seems to be > > something fundamental that humanity is blind to. The real scale of the > > universe in space and time, the non-specialness of our solar system, > > evolution, the big bang, also relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. > > I find it a bit too convenient to believe that this trend stopped > > here. That we now have it all mostly figured out, precisely at our > > moment in history. Who claims we have? As of today we have no idea what 96% of the universe is made of, Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain complete mysteries. > > > Especially when there are huge mysteries remaining, > > notably "what is consciousness?". > I don't consider the study of consciousness to be very fruitful, it's produced nothing worthwhile for centuries and I see no reason why that is going to change. The study of intelligence, now that's important! > > > I am not asking you to accept anything harder to believe than that > > there are fundamental things that we do not know. Only a fool would disagree with that, but it's religious believers who claim to have all the answers. I don't quite understand why an omnipotent being would "want" anything, He should already have it. Nevertheless the religious say God does want certain things and they know exactly precisely what they are and they insist on telling us about it; and they also insist God can't get what He wants on His own, we have to help the poor fellow achieve His aims. > > > This is the problem I have with militant atheists: It can't be much of a problem because militant atheists are so rare. In the USA there are 535 members of congress, most members of that body are militant christians but not one of them is a militant atheist, although before 2012 there was one apologetic atheist. > > their inability to > > consider certain ideas I've certainly considered it, I've had 13 years of formal religious instruction, kindergarten through High School, more than enough I think to be entitled to form an opinion on the subject. > > > without trying to fit the opponent into a box > And I feel confident in putting Christian and Islamic theology into the imbecile box, and Bruno's invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic into the silly box. I can't prove God doesn't exist but I can prove God is silly. 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: Is Nature unnatural?
On 10 Feb 2017, at 05:07, Brent Meeker wrote: This fails to consider the holographic model of the universe. In the bulk model the energy density of the vacuum is overestimated by the ratio of the Hubble volume to it's boundary area (both in Planck units). The holographic model may not be right - but it shows that it's silly to regard the failure to find supersymmetry as proving fine-tuning. There are other possibilities. Interesting. Could you explain or refer to some link how the holographic model (theory) does that, thanks. Bruno Brent On 2/9/2017 7:27 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: https://www.quantamagazine.org/read-offline/4739/20130524-is-nature-unnatural.print -- You 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. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Is Nature unnatural?
On 10 Feb 2017, at 04:27, Telmo Menezes wrote: https://www.quantamagazine.org/read-offline/4739/20130524-is-nature-unnatural.print It critics also the many universe as non testable. But all the following theories are not testable: there is 0 universe, there is 1 universe, there is 2 universes, there is 3 universes, there is 4 universes, there is 5 universes, there is 6 universes, there is 7 universes, ... There is aleph_0 universes, There is aleph_1 universes, There is aleph_2 universes, There is aleph_3 universes, There is aleph_4 universes, ... There is aleph_aleph_aleph_aleph_aleph_aleph_1004 universes, ... If mechanism is true, then, as long as we are correct, the theories like "There is a universe", or "there is a reality" are somehow (up to some annoying and long to made slight nuances) absolutely undecidable (and true, hopefully). With computationalism, even the belief in the "standard model of Peano arithmetic" requires some faith, which all scientists have, but not always with the awareness of the faith, which requires the computationalist theory to be explained. That kind of faith is cabled probably through evolution. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: From Atheism to Islam
On 09 Feb 2017, at 19:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 2/9/2017 6:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Many religious people believe that the idea that God cares more on humans than on spiders (say) is just utter arrogance, vanity, and delusional. "Many"? That's the fallacy of the dangling comparison. Many compared to what? Not compared to the number who believe the contrary. Read Aldous Huxley, or read the Platonists (before and after JC), or read the texts of the mystics. Then, also, science is not a question of the number of people believing this or that. But the meaning of words is defined by usage - and in usage numbers count. The meaning of words in the natural language is defined by usage, not in science, where the local meaning of words is given in the textbooks of the field concerned. here I have made clear at the start that I use "theology" in a large sense (the original greek one) specialized through the mechanist "faith" (the idea of surviving a form of digital physical reincarnation/reimplementation). When I did NOT use the term "theology" when explaining computationalism 35 years ago, the attack was simply "that is theology", and well, they meant only "that is hypothetical", but with a pejorative tone. It is perhaps the simpler way to get this: computationalism requires some act of faith, toward its plausibility, toward the choice of level in case we apply it in practice, toward the competence of the possible doctors. Transhumanists usually are computationalists. But then the theory shows that they might take a detour, and why not, it is open today if life itself is not a sort of detour: that are complex questions only on the verge to be formulated. Then, with your number, you forget that the usage of most theological term continue to have their platonist and aristotelian meaning in the theological treatise (the good one as well as the bad one). The three religions have kept their relations with platonism, notably the non nameable (non 3p representability of God), which fits well with the fact that machine cannot name too "big" predicate, like "true(p)". It is up to the (weak) materialist to explain what *is* the primary matter, and how it can interfere with the computations. If not, your seemingly critical point look like an evocation of a god for hiding a problem under the rug (a tradition since the institutionalization and violent enforcement of pseudo-religions). Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
