Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[LizR]

I am bowing out of this conversation. Obviously from many examples, Brent
thinks that we "invent" maths whenever we work out something like
elliptical orbits result from an inverse square law. This is an incorrect
use of "invent", IMHO, or it's at best using it in the sense that whoever
it was invented the telephone -- that is, they discovered that physics
allowed certain things to be possible. It's the same with maths, we
discover what the inverse square law does, if we could invent it - in the
normal sense of the word - then the planets could travel in squares if we
decided they could.

Anyway since this appears to be an argument about the meaning of words, it
isn't of any interest.




On 21 May 2014 03:21,  wrote:

>
> On Monday, May 19, 2014 2:13:31 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 17 May 2014 10:06, John Mikes  wrote:
>>
>> Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize
>> for my LATE  REPLY.
>> You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it were
>> REALISM
>> indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider
>> it a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at
>> our present level.
>> Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it does
>> not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present
>> knowledge.
>> Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so
>> wherever you look you find it in the books.
>>
>>
>>  I assume the implication of what you're saying here is that the reason
>> physics appears mathematical is because that's the way we think. I suspect
>> most physicists would say the opposite - that we think that way because
>> that's how nature works (or at least that's how it appears to work so far).
>> If one is going to take the position that maths is a human invention, then
>> one has the hard problem of explaining why maths is so "unreasonably
>> effective" in physics while no other system of thought comes close.
>>
>>
>> Not at all.  A lot of math was invented to describe theories of physics.
>> If you have some idea of how the world is, e.g. it consists of persistent
>> identifiable objects, or all matter pulls on other matter; And you want to
>> work out the consequences of the idea and make it precise with no
>> inconsistencies - you've invented some math (unless you can apply some
>> that's already invented - see Norm Levitt's quip).
>>
>
> A question from me would be, are you in the 'shadows' paradigm here the
> most, or are you in the other one you recently said didn't end to get
> anywhere because starting with a big question and a small amount to say,
> was a lot more likely to stay exactly the same or get worse. Which no one
> would be able to agree about either, but I think a reasonable measure is
> whether, the same basic ainstarting point persistently showed up regardless
> of what was regarded as theoretical advances. In...like you and Liz her . I
> should think the basic positions and starting point were more or less the
> same 50 years ago. They might have changed in frequency in the population,
> and there might be large camps that regard the matter as settled and large
> theories. But does any of it nail the other position? Doesn't look like it
> here.
>
> So I guess why would you choose this sort of approach at all...if it's
> against what you said could work, and it's almost immediately apparently
> there is nothing happening strong enough to make a difference that will
> actually throw out every or any of the other possibilities. So it's all
> going to be the same once you've had enough and gone off to look for
> something else to do.
>
> Shouldn't we be more thinking what looking to the shadows might translate
> to for this question?
>
> Just wondering. E.g. irrational numbers...they don't look like something
> we'd want to invent or anything like human ideas for order. They are also
> ..possibly always the kind of number that most objectively we can do, have
> an importance to nature herself. Irrational numbers. Always.
>
> So, one question would be, is it more reason to assume a very large
> importance to this kind of concept, with fundamental depths, due to the
> fact it's always the same properties, yet very different positions and
> signifances in nature. Yet.something we've learned from mathematics is
> many of these irrational numbers that may have distant - apparently -
> signifances in nature, are not only closely relation, but can be translated
> into eachother. Can be defined in terms of each other.
>
> And funnily enough, where this happens in maths also happen to be density
> points for basically all the concepts and formulas also most hard bound
> intonot physical law theory deriving and typically universal in
> nature more like a principle,  but physical law empirically deriving and
> typically universal in another way at the other end of some spectrum, where
> i

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, May 19, 2014 2:13:31 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
> On 5/18/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 17 May 2014 10:06, John Mikes > wrote:
>
> Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize for 
> my LATE  REPLY. 
> You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it were 
> REALISM 
> indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider it 
> a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at our 
> present level.
> Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it does 
> not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present 
> knowledge. 
> Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so 
> wherever you look you find it in the books.
>  
>
>  I assume the implication of what you're saying here is that the reason 
> physics appears mathematical is because that's the way we think. I suspect 
> most physicists would say the opposite - that we think that way because 
> that's how nature works (or at least that's how it appears to work so far). 
> If one is going to take the position that maths is a human invention, then 
> one has the hard problem of explaining why maths is so "unreasonably 
> effective" in physics while no other system of thought comes close.
>   
>   
> Not at all.  A lot of math was invented to describe theories of physics.  
> If you have some idea of how the world is, e.g. it consists of persistent 
> identifiable objects, or all matter pulls on other matter; And you want to 
> work out the consequences of the idea and make it precise with no 
> inconsistencies - you've invented some math (unless you can apply some 
> that's already invented - see Norm Levitt's quip).
>
 
A question from me would be, are you in the 'shadows' paradigm here the 
most, or are you in the other one you recently said didn't end to get 
anywhere because starting with a big question and a small amount to say, 
was a lot more likely to stay exactly the same or get worse. Which no one 
would be able to agree about either, but I think a reasonable measure is 
whether, the same basic ainstarting point persistently showed up regardless 
of what was regarded as theoretical advances. In...like you and Liz her . I 
should think the basic positions and starting point were more or less the 
same 50 years ago. They might have changed in frequency in the population, 
and there might be large camps that regard the matter as settled and large 
theories. But does any of it nail the other position? Doesn't look like it 
here. 
 
So I guess why would you choose this sort of approach at all...if it's 
against what you said could work, and it's almost immediately apparently 
there is nothing happening strong enough to make a difference that will 
actually throw out every or any of the other possibilities. So it's all 
going to be the same once you've had enough and gone off to look for 
something else to do. 
 
Shouldn't we be more thinking what looking to the shadows might translate 
to for this question? 
 
Just wondering. E.g. irrational numbers...they don't look like something 
we'd want to invent or anything like human ideas for order. They are also 
..possibly always the kind of number that most objectively we can do, have 
an importance to nature herself. Irrational numbers. Always. 
 
So, one question would be, is it more reason to assume a very large 
importance to this kind of concept, with fundamental depths, due to the 
fact it's always the same properties, yet very different positions and 
signifances in nature. Yet.something we've learned from mathematics is 
many of these irrational numbers that may have distant - apparently - 
signifances in nature, are not only closely relation, but can be translated 
into eachother. Can be defined in terms of each other. 
 
And funnily enough, where this happens in maths also happen to be density 
points for basically all the concepts and formulas also most hard bound 
intonot physical law theory deriving and typically universal in 
nature more like a principle,  but physical law empirically deriving and 
typically universal in another way at the other end of some spectrum, where 
its about ubiquity. Like Sin, Cos, translates of that to Euler...which does 
include a zero and a one but.the thing is, this is zero and one, when 
it's part of a scheme in cyclicity. 
 
It's really where these density clusters are, that your idea that maths is 
invented for usefulness is weakest. Because...things like, if the physical 
laws of this universe are one of many possible...is maths changed 
alongside? If it isn't, then now...you seem to have universality for maths, 
and parochialism for physical law. But if it's the other way around, then 
is math parochial? Because if it is, then now we've the anthropic principle 
for maths and not physical law. 
 
Or is this as simple as you say, physical is what it is, and we invented 
maths to contend with it

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[LizR]

On 20 May 2014 17:55, meekerdb  wrote:

>  The theory is invented, the maths is discovered.
>
> I'd say they're both invented.  How could one discover F=k/r^a out in the
> world?  Of course if you include your brain as a place to discover things
> then there ceases to be much difference between invented and discovered.
> The application was discovered.  Was the mathematics of chess discovered or
> invented?
>

If it could be discovered independently, it was discovered.

>   Maths kicks back. Otherwise those prizes and fields medals and whatnot
> would fall like dominoes.
>
> You can invent problems as well as solutions.  Somebody invented the
> problem of Diophantine equations as well as the problem of squaring the
> circle and coloring maps and crossing the bridges a Konigsberg.
>

Anyone else who decided to tackle the same problems would get the same
answers.

>  Would you like to bet that the true theory *won't *be describable by
> maths?
>
>
>   You're missing my point.  Every theory (and we never know whether
>> they're true) in the future will be describable by maths because it's what
>> we require of a scientific description: precision, logical coherence.  Just
>> go back and read your own emails to John Ross.
>>
>>  I may well be missing your point, but it *looks* like you're saying
> that we are inventing mathematical explanations because that's "what we
> require of a scientific description". IMHO that isn't the case, because
> when we use "what we require of an explanation", we end up with religion.
> When we use something that can be tested, experimentally falsified and so
> on -- i.e. when we look for the sort of explanation *the world* requires
> -- we end up with science, and so far it appears, for whatever reason, to
> operate on mathematical principles.
>
> Sure.  But we also invent mathematics that turn out NOT to describe the
> world - look at Kepler's nested Platonic solids.
>

So? This implies that maths is out there. Applied maths is a subset of it.

>   The universe exhibits symmetry, regularity and a host of other features
> that it could easily not have exhibited,
>
> Could it have exhibited laws that were not time-translation symmetric?
> Sure it could - and IT DID.  But we discarded those as "geography" and
> found laws for what remained...most of classical mechanics.  Then Boltzman
> went back and found we could use them in a statistical theory to explain
> those time-asymmetric phenomena.  Noether then showed that if we made up a
> theory that didn't have a conserved "energy" then it wouldn't apply for
> time-translation.  Who wants laws that are tied to specific times and you
> have use different dynamics depending on when you start?  So we had a good
> reason to want time-translation symmetry in something if we were going to
> call it a "law".
>

You keep going on about applied maths, but that isn't what I think we
discover.

>
> Physics (unlike engineering) has the luxury of looking for simpler
> underlying theories and bypassing messy cases (like consciousness).  But
> notice that engineering is mathematical too and is full of theories with
> narrow domains of application where it is assumed there are more
> fundamental theories but none that we can apply - e.g. elastic theory of
> metal structures.
>
>
>   and which are all amenable to mathematical description. I'm not making
> any radical Brunoesque (or Tegmarkesque) claims about it, I'm just
> repeating what hundreds of scientists have observed,
>
>
> And plenty have observed that we invent mathematics to describe the
> physical world too (see Vic Stenger's "Comprehensible Cosmos").   Newton
> didn't invent the calculus just as a game.  He invented it to have a
> precise predictive way to calculate planetary motion.
>

It was invented independently by Leibniz.

> and as far as I can see with good justification, the (fairly trivial)
> observation that scientific theories are couched in the language of
> mathematics because that is what works. Nothing else appears to work, and
> the only sensible explanation I can see for that is that it is how the
> universe operates.
>
>  Anyway, I expect you will explain the point I am missing.
>
> Nothing else appears to work because nothing else is specific and coherent
> and free of vague "interpretation"...and that's exactly what you've been
> telling Ross is lacking in his theory.  He has all these ideas about how
> things work, but because he hasn't given them mathematical descriptions
> they aren't specific and precise enough to directly compare them to
> observations or even to tell whether they are consistent or
> self-contradictory.  Which is exactly what you (rightly) criticize him for.
> You want a theory to be mathematical and you won't even recognize a theory
> as that isn't mathematical because, having a modern education, you realize
> that anything else is subject to handwaving.   That's why you and I are
> interested in learning modal logic from Bruno, but without h

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 5/19/2014 9:40 PM, LizR wrote:

On 20 May 2014 16:12, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 5/19/2014 7:13 PM, LizR wrote:

On 19 May 2014 13:13, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:

On 5/18/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:

On 17 May 2014 10:06, John Mikes mailto:jami...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I 
apologize for
my LATE  REPLY.
You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it 
were
REALISM
indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I 
consider it
a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at 
our
present level.
Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., 
it does
not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present
knowledge.
Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so
wherever you look you find it in the books.


I assume the implication of what you're saying here is that the reason 
physics
appears mathematical is because that's the way we think. I suspect most
physicists would say the opposite - that we think that way because 
that's how
nature works (or at least that's how it appears to work so far). If one 
is
going to take the position that maths is a human invention, then one 
has the
hard problem of explaining why maths is so "unreasonably effective" in 
physics
while no other system of thought comes close.


Not at all.  A lot of math was invented to describe theories of 
physics.  If
you have some idea of how the world is, e.g. it consists of persistent
identifiable objects, or all matter pulls on other matter; And you want 
to work
out the consequences of the idea and make it precise with no 
inconsistencies -
you've invented some math (unless you can apply some that's already 
invented -
see Norm Levitt's quip).


If you want to call discovering that charges and so on obey the inverse 
square law
"inventing some maths", fine. But it sure looks to me like it was 
discovered.


Which?  That it's possible to have force law of the form F=k/r^a?  Or that 
the value
a=2 produces nice elliptical orbits as observered?


Both. It all works mathematically, even when only it approximates to reality.

All of which implies that maths is something that is discovered, and indeed could be 
discovered independently in different cultures, times, places - and on different 
planets or in different universes.



I think it only implies that some parts of math are "discovered" like 
counting
(which was discovered by evolution) and when people invented language and 
logically
inference and concepts like "successor" and "..." they "discovered" there 
was a lot
more math they could infer.


Like Maxwell's equations, say? We discovered, and continue to discover, that the world 
obeys mathematical rules.

 Unless you 'discover' within the human mind.


Well, yes, just like you will "discover" any concept within a mind, by definition. (Or 
I guess within textbooks, in a codified form). The evidence seems fairly strong that 
you will discover the same mathematical concepts within ANY mind which looks into the 
subject, and has sufficient ingenuity to work out the answers to various questions, 
because mathematical truths appear to be universal (e.g. Pythagoras' theorem didn't 
only work for the Ancient Greeks, 17 will always be prime, the square root of 2 will 
always be irrational, etc). Only minds can appreciate these facts, just as only minds 
can discover the law of universal gravitation.


Which is a strange thing to say since it turned out there was no such thing 
as the
law of universal gravitation; it was just an approximation to another 
theory,
general relativity, which we're pretty sure is wrong but we just haven't 
been able
to invent a better one.  So how is a non-existent law "discovered"?


This one was discovered as an approximation.


Notice how that parses; what is "one"?  It's a theory that was 
/invented/...and
turned out to be only an approximation.


The theory is invented, the maths is discovered.


I'd say they're both invented.  How could one discover F=k/r^a out in the world?  Of 
course if you include your brain as a place to discover things then there ceases to be 
much difference between invented and discovered.  The application was discovered.  Was the 
mathematics of chess discovered or invented?


Maths kicks back. Otherwise those prizes and fields medals and whatnot would fall like 
dominoes.


You can invent problems as well as solutions.  Somebody invented the problem of 
Diophantine equations as well as the problem of squaring the circle and coloring maps and 
crossing t

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[LizR]

On 20 May 2014 16:12, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/19/2014 7:13 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 19 May 2014 13:13, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 5/18/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 17 May 2014 10:06, John Mikes  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize
>>> for my LATE  REPLY.
>>> You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it were
>>> REALISM
>>> indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider
>>> it a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at
>>> our present level.
>>> Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it
>>> does not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present
>>> knowledge.
>>> Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so
>>> wherever you look you find it in the books.
>>>
>>
>>  I assume the implication of what you're saying here is that the reason
>> physics appears mathematical is because that's the way we think. I suspect
>> most physicists would say the opposite - that we think that way because
>> that's how nature works (or at least that's how it appears to work so far).
>> If one is going to take the position that maths is a human invention, then
>> one has the hard problem of explaining why maths is so "unreasonably
>> effective" in physics while no other system of thought comes close.
>>
>>
>>  Not at all.  A lot of math was invented to describe theories of
>> physics.  If you have some idea of how the world is, e.g. it consists of
>> persistent identifiable objects, or all matter pulls on other matter; And
>> you want to work out the consequences of the idea and make it precise with
>> no inconsistencies - you've invented some math (unless you can apply some
>> that's already invented - see Norm Levitt's quip).
>>
>
>  If you want to call discovering that charges and so on obey the inverse
> square law "inventing some maths", fine. But it sure looks to me like it
> was discovered.
>
>
> Which?  That it's possible to have force law of the form F=k/r^a?  Or that
> the value a=2 produces nice elliptical orbits as observered?
>

Both. It all works mathematically, even when only it approximates to
reality.

  All of which implies that maths is something that is discovered, and
indeed could be discovered independently in different cultures, times,
places - and on different planets or in different universes.


>  I think it only implies that some parts of math are "discovered" like
> counting (which was discovered by evolution) and when people invented
> language and logically inference and concepts like "successor" and "..."
> they "discovered" there was a lot more math they could infer.
>

 Like Maxwell's equations, say? We discovered, and continue to discover,
that the world obeys mathematical rules.

   Unless you 'discover' within the human mind.

>
 Well, yes, just like you will "discover" any concept within a mind, by
definition. (Or I guess within textbooks, in a codified form). The evidence
seems fairly strong that you will discover the same mathematical concepts
within ANY mind which looks into the subject, and has sufficient ingenuity
to work out the answers to various questions, because mathematical truths
appear to be universal (e.g. Pythagoras' theorem didn't only work for the
Ancient Greeks, 17 will always be prime, the square root of 2 will always
be irrational, etc). Only minds can appreciate these facts, just as only
minds can discover the law of universal gravitation.

  Which is a strange thing to say since it turned out there was no such
> thing as the law of universal gravitation; it was just an approximation to
> another theory, general relativity, which we're pretty sure is wrong but we
> just haven't been able to invent a better one.  So how is a non-existent
> law "discovered"?
>

 This one was discovered as an approximation.


Notice how that parses; what is "one"?  It's a theory that was *invented*...and
> turned out to be only an approximation.
>

The theory is invented, the maths is discovered. Maths kicks back.
Otherwise those prizes and fields medals and whatnot would fall like
dominoes.

  Would you like to bet that the true theory *won't *be describable by
maths?


You're missing my point.  Every theory (and we never know whether they're
> true) in the future will be describable by maths because it's what we
> require of a scientific description: precision, logical coherence.  Just go
> back and read your own emails to John Ross.
>
> I may well be missing your point, but it *looks* like you're saying that
we are inventing mathematical explanations because that's "what we require
of a scientific description". IMHO that isn't the case, because when we use
"what we require of an explanation", we end up with religion. When we use
something that can be tested, experimentally falsified and so on -- i.e.
when we look for the sort of explanation *the world* requires -- we end up
with science, an

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 5/19/2014 7:13 PM, LizR wrote:

On 19 May 2014 13:13, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 5/18/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:

On 17 May 2014 10:06, John Mikes mailto:jami...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize 
for my
LATE  REPLY.
You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it were 
REALISM
indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider 
it a
fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at our 
present
level.
Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it 
does not
exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present 
knowledge.
Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so 
wherever
you look you find it in the books.


I assume the implication of what you're saying here is that the reason 
physics
appears mathematical is because that's the way we think. I suspect most 
physicists
would say the opposite - that we think that way because that's how nature 
works (or
at least that's how it appears to work so far). If one is going to take the
position that maths is a human invention, then one has the hard problem of
explaining why maths is so "unreasonably effective" in physics while no 
other
system of thought comes close.


Not at all.  A lot of math was invented to describe theories of physics.  
If you
have some idea of how the world is, e.g. it consists of persistent 
identifiable
objects, or all matter pulls on other matter; And you want to work out the
consequences of the idea and make it precise with no inconsistencies - 
you've
invented some math (unless you can apply some that's already invented - see 
Norm
Levitt's quip).


If you want to call discovering that charges and so on obey the inverse square law 
"inventing some maths", fine. But it sure looks to me like it was discovered.


Which?  That it's possible to have force law of the form F=k/r^a? Or that the value a=2 
produces nice elliptical orbits as observered?


All of which implies that maths is something that is discovered, and indeed could be 
discovered independently in different cultures, times, places - and on different 
planets or in different universes.



I think it only implies that some parts of math are "discovered" like 
counting
(which was discovered by evolution) and when people invented language and 
logically
inference and concepts like "successor" and "..." they "discovered" there 
was a lot
more math they could infer.


Like Maxwell's equations, say? We discovered, and continue to discover, that the world 
obeys mathematical rules.

 Unless you 'discover' within the human mind.


Well, yes, just like you will "discover" any concept within a mind, by definition. (Or 
I guess within textbooks, in a codified form). The evidence seems fairly strong that 
you will discover the same mathematical concepts within ANY mind which looks into the 
subject, and has sufficient ingenuity to work out the answers to various questions, 
because mathematical truths appear to be universal (e.g. Pythagoras' theorem didn't 
only work for the Ancient Greeks, 17 will always be prime, the square root of 2 will 
always be irrational, etc). Only minds can appreciate these facts, just as only minds 
can discover the law of universal gravitation.


Which is a strange thing to say since it turned out there was no such thing 
as the
law of universal gravitation; it was just an approximation to another 
theory,
general relativity, which we're pretty sure is wrong but we just haven't 
been able
to invent a better one.  So how is a non-existent law "discovered"?


This one was discovered as an approximation.


Notice how that parses; what is "one"?  It's a theory that was /invented/...and turned out 
to be only an approximation.



Would you like to bet that the true theory /won't /be describable by maths?


You're missing my point.  Every theory (and we never know whether they're true) in the 
future will be describable by maths because it's what we require of a scientific 
description: precision, logical coherence.  Just go back and read your own emails to John 
Ross.


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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[LizR]

On 19 May 2014 13:13, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/18/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 17 May 2014 10:06, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize
>> for my LATE  REPLY.
>> You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it were
>> REALISM
>> indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider
>> it a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at
>> our present level.
>> Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it does
>> not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present
>> knowledge.
>> Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so
>> wherever you look you find it in the books.
>>
>
>  I assume the implication of what you're saying here is that the reason
> physics appears mathematical is because that's the way we think. I suspect
> most physicists would say the opposite - that we think that way because
> that's how nature works (or at least that's how it appears to work so far).
> If one is going to take the position that maths is a human invention, then
> one has the hard problem of explaining why maths is so "unreasonably
> effective" in physics while no other system of thought comes close.
>
>
> Not at all.  A lot of math was invented to describe theories of physics.
> If you have some idea of how the world is, e.g. it consists of persistent
> identifiable objects, or all matter pulls on other matter; And you want to
> work out the consequences of the idea and make it precise with no
> inconsistencies - you've invented some math (unless you can apply some
> that's already invented - see Norm Levitt's quip).
>

If you want to call discovering that charges and so on obey the inverse
square law "inventing some maths", fine. But it sure looks to me like it
was discovered.

   All of which implies that maths is something that is discovered, and
indeed could be discovered independently in different cultures, times,
places - and on different planets or in different universes.


> I think it only implies that some parts of math are "discovered" like
> counting (which was discovered by evolution) and when people invented
> language and logically inference and concepts like "successor" and "..."
> they "discovered" there was a lot more math they could infer.
>

Like Maxwell's equations, say? We discovered, and continue to discover,
that the world obeys mathematical rules.

   Unless you 'discover' within the human mind.

>
 Well, yes, just like you will "discover" any concept within a mind, by
definition. (Or I guess within textbooks, in a codified form). The evidence
seems fairly strong that you will discover the same mathematical concepts
within ANY mind which looks into the subject, and has sufficient ingenuity
to work out the answers to various questions, because mathematical truths
appear to be universal (e.g. Pythagoras' theorem didn't only work for the
Ancient Greeks, 17 will always be prime, the square root of 2 will always
be irrational, etc). Only minds can appreciate these facts, just as only
minds can discover the law of universal gravitation.

 Which is a strange thing to say since it turned out there was no such
> thing as the law of universal gravitation; it was just an approximation to
> another theory, general relativity, which we're pretty sure is wrong but we
> just haven't been able to invent a better one.  So how is a non-existent
> law "discovered"?
>

This one was discovered as an approximation. Would you like to bet that the
true theory *won't *be describable by maths?

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 5/18/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:

On 17 May 2014 10:06, John Mikes mailto:jami...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize for 
my LATE
 REPLY.
You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it were 
REALISM
indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider it 
a fine
sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at our present 
level.
Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it does 
not
exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present knowledge.
Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so 
wherever you
look you find it in the books.


I assume the implication of what you're saying here is that the reason physics appears 
mathematical is because that's the way we think. I suspect most physicists would say the 
opposite - that we think that way because that's how nature works (or at least that's 
how it appears to work so far). If one is going to take the position that maths is a 
human invention, then one has the hard problem of explaining why maths is so 
"unreasonably effective" in physics while no other system of thought comes close.


Not at all.  A lot of math was invented to describe theories of physics.  If you have some 
idea of how the world is, e.g. it consists of persistent identifiable objects, or all 
matter pulls on other matter; And you want to work out the consequences of the idea and 
make it precise with no inconsistencies - you've invented some math (unless you can apply 
some that's already invented - see Norm Levitt's quip).



I did not find so far a /natural spot/ self-calculating 374 pieces of 
something. and
draw conclusions of it NOT being 383. Nature was quite well before humans 
invented
the decimal system, or the zero.



And human invented the */decimal/* system long before they invented the binary system 
because...



And please, do not call it a 'discovery'. Nowhere in Nature are groupings of
decimally arranged units presented for processing/registration.



I think I have one here ready to hand.



I'm not sure what you mean here. (I /think/ you may be confusing the fact that 1+1=2 
with the statement "1+1=2") Regardless of the notation we happen to use, there are 
numbers in nature - pi, the ratios of the strengths of various fundamental forces and 
masses, etc. Also, various mathematical theorems have been discovered by different 
people using different approaches, yet they reach the same result. And there are lots of 
open questions in maths, some with a $1 million prize attached - it's obviously hard for 
people to make discoveries in maths, or those prizes would have been claimed long ago.


All of which implies that maths is something that is discovered, and indeed could be 
discovered independently in different cultures, times, places - and on different planets 
or in different universes.


I think it only implies that some parts of math are "discovered" like counting (which was 
discovered by evolution) and when people invented language and logically inference and 
concepts like "successor" and "..." they "discovered" there was a lot more math they could 
infer.



Unless you 'discover' within the human mind.


Well, yes, just like you will "discover" any concept within a mind, by definition. (Or I 
guess within textbooks, in a codified form). The evidence seems fairly strong that you 
will discover the same mathematical concepts within ANY mind which looks into the 
subject, and has sufficient ingenuity to work out the answers to various questions, 
because mathematical truths appear to be universal (e.g. Pythagoras' theorem didn't only 
work for the Ancient Greeks, 17 will always be prime, the square root of 2 will always 
be irrational, etc). Only minds can appreciate these facts, just as only minds can 
discover the law of universal gravitation.


Which is a strange thing to say since it turned out there was no such thing as the law of 
universal gravitation; it was just an approximation to another theory, general relativity, 
which we're pretty sure is wrong but we just haven't been able to invent a better one.  So 
how is a non-existent law "discovered"?


Brent


Your closing phrase "doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical" is 
true as
to the content it states. It also does not mean that it may not be anything 
else beyond.


Of course, there may always be something else beyond, even given a TOE we can't be sure 
this isn't the case. (There is however no evidence whatsoever to suggest that 1+1 will 
ever not equal 2.)



It was a pleasure to follow your argumentation.


Likewise, although I'm not sure I followed all of it.


--
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 

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[LizR]

On 17 May 2014 10:06, John Mikes  wrote:

> Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize for
> my LATE  REPLY.
> You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it were
> REALISM
> indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider it
> a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at our
> present level.
> Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it does
> not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present
> knowledge.
> Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so
> wherever you look you find it in the books.
>

I assume the implication of what you're saying here is that the reason
physics appears mathematical is because that's the way we think. I suspect
most physicists would say the opposite - that we think that way because
that's how nature works (or at least that's how it appears to work so far).
If one is going to take the position that maths is a human invention, then
one has the hard problem of explaining why maths is so "unreasonably
effective" in physics while no other system of thought comes close.

>
> I did not find so far a *natural spot* self-calculating 374 pieces of
> something. and draw conclusions of it NOT being 383. Nature was quite well
> before humans invented the decimal system, or the zero. And please, do not
> call it a 'discovery'. Nowhere in Nature are groupings of decimally
> arranged units presented for processing/registration.
>

I'm not sure what you mean here. (I *think* you may be confusing the fact
that 1+1=2 with the statement "1+1=2") Regardless of the notation we happen
to use, there are numbers in nature - pi, the ratios of the strengths of
various fundamental forces and masses, etc. Also, various mathematical
theorems have been discovered by different people using different
approaches, yet they reach the same result. And there are lots of open
questions in maths, some with a $1 million prize attached - it's obviously
hard for people to make discoveries in maths, or those prizes would have
been claimed long ago.

All of which implies that maths is something that is discovered, and indeed
could be discovered independently in different cultures, times, places -
and on different planets or in different universes.


> Unless you 'discover' within the human mind.
>

Well, yes, just like you will "discover" any concept within a mind, by
definition. (Or I guess within textbooks, in a codified form). The evidence
seems fairly strong that you will discover the same mathematical concepts
within ANY mind which looks into the subject, and has sufficient ingenuity
to work out the answers to various questions, because mathematical truths
appear to be universal (e.g. Pythagoras' theorem didn't only work for the
Ancient Greeks, 17 will always be prime, the square root of 2 will always
be irrational, etc). Only minds can appreciate these facts, just as only
minds can discover the law of universal gravitation.


> Your closing phrase "doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical"
> is true as to the content it states. It also does not mean that it may not
> be anything else beyond.
>

Of course, there may always be something else beyond, even given a TOE we
can't be sure this isn't the case. (There is however no evidence whatsoever
to suggest that 1+1 will ever not equal 2.)

>
> It was a pleasure to follow your argumentation.
>

Likewise, although I'm not sure I followed all of it.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi John,

I frown when I read "ontology" because it means something like the  
science (philosophy???) of the existing everything (improved  
definitions gladly accepted).
I am not sure about such "existing". Maybe we have some ideas what  
we THINK it may be. (in the ballpark of reality?)


IF we assume computationalism, we have a pretty good idea of what  
needs to exist. We need anything capable of defining the partial  
computable functions. Then we have a lot of choice, as for the  
ontology we can chose any Turing universal system. It happens than  
elementary arithmetic is Turing complete, and so we can use just the  
numbers 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... with (mainly) the addition and  
multiplication law. But as I said often the combinators can be used  
instead, or even the FORTRAN programs, the game-of-life pattern, etc.








Older savants made useful application of terms we cannot really  
fixate. This is part of my agnosticism: to discount the 'oldies' -  
no matter how smart (wise?) they were.


Hmm... We have to disagree on this. Some oldies might be better than  
us, especially when a science (theology) has been stolen by "special  
interest", and has not yet be given back. Plotinus is more modern than  
us, far more.




I start the time for 'oldies' at the present and count them on any  
backwards scale. Even include my own past oeuvre.

Now THAT you may call "wishful thinking".


We have made progresses on the "material", but we are too much dazzled  
by technology to understand that matter might not be what is.  
Progresses are double edged, and sometimes can only make a delusion  
bigger.
That is provably the case if we assume comp, as mechanism and  
materialism are incompatible. I let you chose your favorite poison.


Bruno






John M


On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between
 " stable patterns of information, e.g. perception..."
and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as):
 "the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or  
formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or  
epistemological existence,"
Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and  
Perception.


I would say "ontology" is a word. But ontology is what exist, and  
that can be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a  
dinosaur, or a planet, or a number, in this or that other theory.


The same for "existence", "information" and "perception", those are  
words. But I don't see why information, perception and existence  
would be word.


(Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)),  
and denote the sequence "s(s(0))" by the number 2^(code of  
s)*5^(code of "("; , which will give a large number  
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...).
 This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code  
for that number.)





 Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/ 
mentality.


We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those  
abilities can be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any  
computer language.





Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to "as we perceive"  
something, the
epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental  
capabilities.


All right.



None cuts into anything " R E A L " .


You don't know that.


WE CAN NOT.


You cannot know that too.

What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express that  
we cannot do it either.
We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we might still  
stumble on some truth. Why not?


Bruno








On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:




So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of  
information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon,  
tidal effects of the Moon,...


I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the  
primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate  
some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological  
existence, which are the appearance that we derive at some higher  
"emergent" level.


With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory  
(like Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive  
from them the emergence of all universal machines, their  
interactions and the resulting first person statistics, which  
should explains the origin and development (in some mathematical  
space) of the law of physics.


















I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon  
still exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon,  
in that case, definitely not exist".


Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the  
moon doesn't exist even when we look at it.
Only the relative relations between my computational states and  
infinitely many computations exists.


Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of "e

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 May 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/17/2014 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Very generaly, we can say that a believer M is agnostic with  
respect to a proposition A if M does not believe A *and* does not  
believe ~A.


If G is for God exists, someone agnostic obeys ~[]G and ~[]~G. He  
does not believe in God and he does not believe in the inexistence  
of God. Either because he is not interested in the question, or  
because he waits for more information, and better precision, or he  
believes may be that it is in God nature than humans can't decide,  
whatever.


There's also the category of "strong agnostic", one who denies that  
a question can possibly be resolved.  And I suppose there is a whole  
range of agnosticism depending on what degree of resolution is meant.


Yes, agnosticism is very large, and is not a philosophical position  
per se, but more a meta-position, like a statement of ignorance. You  
can be officially agnostic, yet harbor few doubts. I am officially  
agnostic on both God and Matter, but I am far more open to a fertile  
notion of God (like Arithmetical truth) than (primitive) Matter (which  
I have no clue what it is, and how it could singularize a conscious  
experience related to observation when we assume computationalism.


I define God by anything transcendental, unnameable, and responsible  
(in a personal or non personal way)  for our spiritual and physical  
existence. In comp, it cannot be "Matter". The material derives from  
the spiritual, like explained in the UDA.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 May 2014, at 21:57, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Here's a slightly different direction for this topic. Religion  
purportedly answers the why, questions, and science is attributed  
with answering the how, questions. Regarding God, as I guess him/her/ 
it, would be a centralized super intelligence that created the  
Hubble Volume, or likely this, and other galaxies. Atheist, Michael  
Shermer, coined Shermer's Last Law as "Any sufficiently advanced ET  
is indistinguishable from God."


There is something similar in computer science. A machine cannot  
distinguish a non computable set from a set generated by a machine  
more complex than herself.


I would not say that science = how, and religion "why", although there  
is a bit of truth there. I distinguish science and religion only by  
their extension. Religion is more like the truth (that we search) and  
science is more the beliefs (that we share and revise). In the ideal  
case of the correct machine, science is a proper subset of truth, like  
G is a proper subset of G*.





My reaction has been, So? It's not like we all have to obey the  
writings of St Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas, on who or what is God.  
They have a voice, a vote, but not a veto. So maybe God is Krezwell,  
the Alien?


God is more non nameable than that. It is supposed to be responsible  
also for the Alien, and everything material and spiritual. In comp,  
the arithmetical truth plays the role of God, even if the Noùs  
(defined by qG*) is far bigger than God. In comp God is responsible of  
something which overwhelm him/her/it.
That's the price of the comp religion: god is not omniscient nor  
omnipotent.





It's not as if we, mere mortals, have any choice in the matter.


We have the moral choice of being skeptical with any name or  
description of God (of both the outer-god and the inner god). We have  
(and must have ) the choice to say No to the shaman, priest, doctor.





So, knowing this, we might be wiser in  focusing on the How  
questions of the Universe, rather the Why? Maybe we will find the  
why, more profound, after we identify the how's?


Yes, thats science, but we can use reason for both the how and the  
why. You cannot do science, without doing religion. Those saying that  
they do not religion, either are instrumentalist technicians, or they  
are not aware of their religious beliefs.
Fundamental science without religion is pseudo-science and/or pseudo- 
religion.


Bruno







-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, May 17, 2014 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion


On 17 May 2014, at 10:10, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> But it is worth to reflect on the mere idea of "Agnosticism" that
> comes from Kant and his approach to metaphysics. Kant did not  
invented
> it, but it is was the logical consequence of his philosophy and  
almost

> every western agnostic is kantian despite that he does not know this
> fact.
>
> It is very important to follow historically the development of that
> way of thinking to know what this philosophy mean and what more  
things

> besides God (a lot, and very important) you are living without.


Very generaly, we can say that a believer M is agnostic with respect
to a proposition A if M does not believe A *and* does not believe ~A.

If G is for God exists, someone agnostic obeys ~[]G and ~[]~G. He does
not believe in God and he does not believe in the inexistence of God.
Either because he is not interested in the question, or because he
waits for more information, and better precision, or he believes may
be that it is in God nature than humans can't decide, whatever.

Atheists, or at least strong Atheists, are believer, as they tend to
believe or assert the non existence of God (instead of the "I don't
know" of the agnostic).

Many are believing, or taking for granted, in a primitive material
universe, but in science, i think we should be agnostic on this too,
especially in front of the debate on the meaning of QM, and the mind-
body problem.

I understand that agnosticism about space and time can be related to
Kant, but for "god" , "matter", "energy", that seems to me less clear.

Bruno



>
> 2014-05-17 0:06 GMT+02:00, John Mikes :
>> Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I
>> apologize for
>> my LATE  REPLY.
>> You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it
>> were
>> REALISM
>> indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I
>> consider it
>> a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at
>> our
>> present level.
>> Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc.,
>> it does
>> not exclude all t

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 May 2014, at 09:59, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


2014-05-17 19:35 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal :


Very generally..



Very generally is not enough.


Quoting "Very generally ..." is not enough!





A philosophical standpoint has a
tradition.


I don't do philosophy, in that sense. I study physics in the context  
of the computationalist frame.





We the humans inherit ways of thinking, memeplexes that can
not be  isolated in atomic concepts, neither reduced to fancy
mathematical formulas.


In which theory (or meta-theory, or f-realm, frame).





These set of related ideas include attitudes
about life, an interpretation of the history, and a set of "prophets"
and precursors of his way of thinking. Even if he don´t know his
tradition, he is a consumer of a vulgarized version of the view, which
is a second rate version of the same ideas reduced to the present.


I derive conclusion from an hypothesis. That's all.





That historical holistic way of working of the human mind is why
modern thinkers that follow a the tradition, the one of modernity,
that despises tradition, can not think at the deep level of the
thinkers of the past and falsely think that the ancients were
confusing.

That is not the case.  If anything, the modern thinkers are simple.
and sterile.


Here we agree. In theology, the seriousness peak has standed about  
1500 years ago with neoplatonism, and we have regress since. It might  
be good: we might have to regress sometimes, to concentrate first on  
easy problem and then come back to the serious deeper and more complex  
question.


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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Alberto G. Corona]

2014-05-17 19:35 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal :
>
> Very generaly..
>

Very generally is not enough. A philosophical standpoint has a
tradition. We the humans inherit ways of thinking, memeplexes that can
not be  isolated in atomic concepts, neither reduced to fancy
mathematical formulas. These set of related ideas include attitudes
about life, an interpretation of the history, and a set of "prophets"
and precursors of his way of thinking. Even if he don´t know his
tradition, he is a consumer of a vulgarized version of the view, which
is a second rate version of the same ideas reduced to the present.

That historical holistic way of working of the human mind is why
modern thinkers that follow a the tradition, the one of modernity,
that despises tradition, can not think at the deep level of the
thinkers of the past and falsely think that the ancients were
confusing.

 That is not the case.  If anything, the modern thinkers are simple.
and sterile.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[John Mikes]

Bruno:

I frown when I read *"ontology"* because it means something like the
science (philosophy???) of the *existing* everything (improved definitions
gladly accepted).
I am not sure about such "existing". Maybe we have some ideas what we THINK
it may be. (in the ballpark of reality?)

Older savants made useful application of terms we cannot really fixate.
This is part of my agnosticism: to discount the 'oldies' - no matter how
smart (wise?) they were.
I start the time for 'oldies' at the present and count them on any
backwards scale. Even include my own past oeuvre.
Now *THAT* you may call "wishful thinking".

John M


On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between
>  "* stable patterns of information, e.g. perception..."*
> and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as):
> * "the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate
> some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence,"*
> Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and Perception.
>
>
> I would say "ontology" is a word. But ontology is what exist, and that can
> be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a dinosaur, or a planet,
> or a number, in this or that other theory.
>
> The same for "existence", "information" and "perception", those are words.
> But I don't see why information, perception and existence would be word.
>
> (Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)), and
> denote the sequence "s(s(0))" by the number 2^(code of s)*5^(code of "(";
> , which will give a large number s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...).
>  This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code for
> that number.)
>
>
>
>
>  Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/mentality.
>
>
> We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those abilities can
> be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any computer language.
>
>
>
>
> Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to "as we perceive" something,
> the
> epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental
> capabilities.
>
>
> All right.
>
>
> None cuts into anything " R E A L " .
>
>
> You don't know that.
>
> WE CAN NOT.
>
>
> You cannot know that too.
>
> What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express that we
> cannot do it either.
> We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we might still stumble
> on some truth. Why not?
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of information,
>> e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the
>> Moon,...
>>
>>
>> I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the primitive
>> objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the
>> phenomenological, or epistemological existence, which are the appearance
>> that we derive at some higher "emergent" level.
>>
>> With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory (like
>> Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive from them the
>> emergence of all universal machines, their interactions and the resulting
>> first person statistics, which should explains the origin and development
>> (in some mathematical space) of the law of physics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon still
>> exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in that case,
>> definitely not exist".
>>
>>  Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon
>> doesn't exist even when we look at it.
>>  Only the relative relations between my computational states and
>> infinitely many computations exists.
>>
>>
>> Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of "exist".
>>
>>
>>  ?
>> Are you not begging the question?
>> I would say that comp does not eviscerate the meaning of "exists". The
>> meaning is provides by the standard semantics of predicate logic, where
>> "exists" is a quantifier.
>>
>>
>> But that is quite a different sense of "exist".
>>
>>
>> It is most basic one, used at the ontic level. May be you *assume* a
>> notion of primitive physical existence. Then indeed, with comp we assume
>> only a simple notion of arithmetical existence (on which most scientists
>> agree) and derive the physical reality from an epistemological type of
>> existence.
>>
>>
>>
>> It just means satisfying axioms and inferences from those axioms.
>>
>>
>> It means more, as we work in a theory which is supposed to be a theory of
>> everything. It is not pure logic or pure math. It is theology or TOE.
>>
>>
>>
>> Depending on the axioms and the rules of inference you can prove that
>> something exists or that it cannot exist or that it might exist but can't
>> be proven.
>>
>>
>> 

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Here's a slightly different direction for this topic. Religion purportedly 
answers the why, questions, and science is attributed with answering the how, 
questions. Regarding God, as I guess him/her/it, would be a centralized super 
intelligence that created the Hubble Volume, or likely this, and other 
galaxies. Atheist, Michael Shermer, coined Shermer's Last Law as "Any 
sufficiently advanced ET is indistinguishable from God."  My reaction has been, 
So? It's not like we all have to obey the writings of St Augustine, or Thomas 
Aquinas, on who or what is God. They have a voice, a vote, but not a veto. So 
maybe God is Krezwell, the Alien? It's not as if we, mere mortals, have any 
choice in the matter. So, knowing this, we might be wiser in  focusing on the 
How questions of the Universe, rather the Why? Maybe we will find the why, more 
profound, after we identify the how's?
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, May 17, 2014 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion



On 17 May 2014, at 10:10, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> But it is worth to reflect on the mere idea of "Agnosticism" that
> comes from Kant and his approach to metaphysics. Kant did not invented
> it, but it is was the logical consequence of his philosophy and almost
> every western agnostic is kantian despite that he does not know this
> fact.
>
> It is very important to follow historically the development of that
> way of thinking to know what this philosophy mean and what more things
> besides God (a lot, and very important) you are living without.


Very generaly, we can say that a believer M is agnostic with respect  
to a proposition A if M does not believe A *and* does not believe ~A.

If G is for God exists, someone agnostic obeys ~[]G and ~[]~G. He does  
not believe in God and he does not believe in the inexistence of God.  
Either because he is not interested in the question, or because he  
waits for more information, and better precision, or he believes may  
be that it is in God nature than humans can't decide, whatever.

Atheists, or at least strong Atheists, are believer, as they tend to  
believe or assert the non existence of God (instead of the "I don't  
know" of the agnostic).

Many are believing, or taking for granted, in a primitive material  
universe, but in science, i think we should be agnostic on this too,  
especially in front of the debate on the meaning of QM, and the mind- 
body problem.

I understand that agnosticism about space and time can be related to  
Kant, but for "god" , "matter", "energy", that seems to me less clear.

Bruno



>
> 2014-05-17 0:06 GMT+02:00, John Mikes :
>> Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I  
>> apologize for
>> my LATE  REPLY.
>> You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it  
>> were
>> REALISM
>> indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I  
>> consider it
>> a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at  
>> our
>> present level.
>> Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc.,  
>> it does
>> not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present
>> knowledge.
>> Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so
>> wherever you look you find it in the books.
>> I did not find so far a *natural spot* self-calculating 374 pieces of
>> something. and draw conclusions of it NOT being 383. Nature was  
>> quite well
>> before humans invented the decimal system, or the zero. And please,  
>> do not
>> call it a 'discovery'. Nowhere in Nature are groupings of decimally
>> arranged units presented for processing/registration.
>> Unless you 'discover' within the human mind.
>> Your closing phrase "doesn't mean that it isn't inherently  
>> mathematical" is
>> true as to the content it states. It also does not mean that it may  
>> not be
>> anything else beyond.
>>
>> It was a pleasure to follow your argumentation.
>>
>> John M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:36 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In "my" agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of  
>>>> 'inconnues' that
>>>> may change whatever we THINK is included  - as historic examples  
>>>> show.
>>>> I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the  H U M  
>>>> A N
>>>> mind
>>>

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 5/17/2014 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Very generaly, we can say that a believer M is agnostic with respect to a proposition A 
if M does not believe A *and* does not believe ~A.


If G is for God exists, someone agnostic obeys ~[]G and ~[]~G. He does not believe in 
God and he does not believe in the inexistence of God. Either because he is not 
interested in the question, or because he waits for more information, and better 
precision, or he believes may be that it is in God nature than humans can't decide, 
whatever. 


There's also the category of "strong agnostic", one who denies that a question can 
possibly be resolved.  And I suppose there is a whole range of agnosticism depending on 
what degree of resolution is meant.


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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 May 2014, at 10:10, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


But it is worth to reflect on the mere idea of "Agnosticism" that
comes from Kant and his approach to metaphysics. Kant did not invented
it, but it is was the logical consequence of his philosophy and almost
every western agnostic is kantian despite that he does not know this
fact.

It is very important to follow historically the development of that
way of thinking to know what this philosophy mean and what more things
besides God (a lot, and very important) you are living without.



Very generaly, we can say that a believer M is agnostic with respect  
to a proposition A if M does not believe A *and* does not believe ~A.


If G is for God exists, someone agnostic obeys ~[]G and ~[]~G. He does  
not believe in God and he does not believe in the inexistence of God.  
Either because he is not interested in the question, or because he  
waits for more information, and better precision, or he believes may  
be that it is in God nature than humans can't decide, whatever.


Atheists, or at least strong Atheists, are believer, as they tend to  
believe or assert the non existence of God (instead of the "I don't  
know" of the agnostic).


Many are believing, or taking for granted, in a primitive material  
universe, but in science, i think we should be agnostic on this too,  
especially in front of the debate on the meaning of QM, and the mind- 
body problem.


I understand that agnosticism about space and time can be related to  
Kant, but for "god" , "matter", "energy", that seems to me less clear.


Bruno





2014-05-17 0:06 GMT+02:00, John Mikes :
Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I  
apologize for

my LATE  REPLY.
You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it  
were

REALISM
indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I  
consider it
a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at  
our

present level.
Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc.,  
it does

not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present
knowledge.
Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so
wherever you look you find it in the books.
I did not find so far a *natural spot* self-calculating 374 pieces of
something. and draw conclusions of it NOT being 383. Nature was  
quite well
before humans invented the decimal system, or the zero. And please,  
do not

call it a 'discovery'. Nowhere in Nature are groupings of decimally
arranged units presented for processing/registration.
Unless you 'discover' within the human mind.
Your closing phrase "doesn't mean that it isn't inherently  
mathematical" is
true as to the content it states. It also does not mean that it may  
not be

anything else beyond.

It was a pleasure to follow your argumentation.

John M





On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:36 PM, LizR  wrote:


On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes  wrote:

In "my" agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of  
'inconnues' that
may change whatever we THINK is included  - as historic examples  
show.
I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the  H U M  
A N

mind



What do you think of Max Tegmark's argument for "mathematical  
realism" -

that all the clues we have so far indicate that nature is inherently
mathematical, and that if we ever find a ToE, and it turns out to be
"just
a bunch of equations", then there will be no reason to think the  
universe
is anything other than those equations - as he puts it, "how they  
look

from
the inside" ?

Obviously this is speculative, of course, in that we don't have a  
ToE

yet.
But everything we have learnt about reality so far does appear to
indicate
it has (in some sense) a mathematical nature. If this trend  
continues and
we eventually discover a TOE, and it is mathematical, would you  
agree

with
Max that maths isn't an invention of the human mind, but something  
we

have
discovered about reality? (That it is even, perhaps, ALL that  
reality

is?)



The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar
calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even  
recent???)
explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher  
Nature's

analogue(?) ways (if *'analogue' *covers them all, what I would not
suggest).



Relativity is analogue, quantum mechanics is (perhaps) digital.  
However,
assuming that nature is analogue - i.e., continuously  
differentiable -

doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical.

--
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/d/optout.



--
You receiv

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Alberto G. Corona]

But it is worth to reflect on the mere idea of "Agnosticism" that
comes from Kant and his approach to metaphysics. Kant did not invented
it, but it is was the logical consequence of his philosophy and almost
every western agnostic is kantian despite that he does not know this
fact.

It is very important to follow historically the development of that
way of thinking to know what this philosophy mean and what more things
besides God (a lot, and very important) you are living without.

2014-05-17 0:06 GMT+02:00, John Mikes :
> Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize for
> my LATE  REPLY.
> You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it were
> REALISM
> indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider it
> a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at our
> present level.
> Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it does
> not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present
> knowledge.
> Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so
> wherever you look you find it in the books.
> I did not find so far a *natural spot* self-calculating 374 pieces of
> something. and draw conclusions of it NOT being 383. Nature was quite well
> before humans invented the decimal system, or the zero. And please, do not
> call it a 'discovery'. Nowhere in Nature are groupings of decimally
> arranged units presented for processing/registration.
> Unless you 'discover' within the human mind.
> Your closing phrase "doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical" is
> true as to the content it states. It also does not mean that it may not be
> anything else beyond.
>
> It was a pleasure to follow your argumentation.
>
> John M
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:36 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes  wrote:
>>
>>> In "my" agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that
>>> may change whatever we THINK is included  - as historic examples show.
>>> I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the  H U M A N
>>>  mind
>>>
>>
>> What do you think of Max Tegmark's argument for "mathematical realism" -
>> that all the clues we have so far indicate that nature is inherently
>> mathematical, and that if we ever find a ToE, and it turns out to be
>> "just
>> a bunch of equations", then there will be no reason to think the universe
>> is anything other than those equations - as he puts it, "how they look
>> from
>> the inside" ?
>>
>> Obviously this is speculative, of course, in that we don't have a ToE
>> yet.
>> But everything we have learnt about reality so far does appear to
>> indicate
>> it has (in some sense) a mathematical nature. If this trend continues and
>> we eventually discover a TOE, and it is mathematical, would you agree
>> with
>> Max that maths isn't an invention of the human mind, but something we
>> have
>> discovered about reality? (That it is even, perhaps, ALL that reality
>> is?)
>>
>>
>>> The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar
>>> calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even recent???)
>>> explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's
>>> analogue(?) ways (if *'analogue' *covers them all, what I would not
>>> suggest).
>>>
>>
>> Relativity is analogue, quantum mechanics is (perhaps) digital. However,
>> assuming that nature is analogue - i.e., continuously differentiable -
>> doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical.
>>
>>  --
>> 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear John,


Dear Bruno, see my apology to LIZR - same here.
I want to reflect to only ONE phrase in you appreciated reply:
" I think we should not make a theory more complex just by wishful  
thinking"
Reading your cautious distinctions about science and theories (not  
claiming them to "true", only an agrred assumption and it's  
consequences) I pretend my agnosticisim as more than just "wishful  
thinking". It may be the way to open up so far un-considered ways  
that could provide further advancement to our thinking -even if we  
don't know about them. I.O.W.: open up the mind for better  
understanding of the world.


I am sure you do the same.


Indeed. I push ideas to their extreme logical conclusions with the  
hope to have to change my mind and learn something.


Best,

Bruno





On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 04 May 2014, at 22:42, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno, your 'scientific' logic supersedes me. Explaining ontology  
by existing and - I suppose - existing by the likes of  
'ontology' (etc.) is more than what I buy.


There is no metaphysics here. I am just saying that if you do a  
theory, you have to be clear on what we will agree to be primitively  
existing, and what we derive from that assumption.






"We might still stumble" on truth, (or you do not?), what we may  
believe as "truth" and draw very important consequences upon OTHER  
concepts from it as well.


In "my" agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues'  
that may change whatever we THINK is included  - as historic  
examples show.


Sure. That is why an (ideal) scientist will never pretend he has a  
true theory. It is not really is job, even when he tackles  
metaphysical or theological question, it will be under the form IF  
this THEN that, etc.




I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the  H U M A  
N  mind so your formula (besides being hard to follow for me) is  
not convincing. The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not  
evidence a similar calculation how Nature arrived at them.


The point is only that IF we are Turing emulable THEN physics is  
given by ... (and I give the equations).
So we can test computationalism and move forward. Unfortunately,  
thanks to Gödel and Everett, comp is confirmed up to now.





(See the early (even recent???) explanatory errors in our  
sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if  
'analogue' covers them all, what I would not suggest).


'Analog' is compatible with computationalism, unless you mean that  
the brain uses very special infinities. They might exist, and thanks  
to the kind of reasoning I suggest we do, we can test this. But  
until such confirmation of non-comp (or refutation of comp), I think  
we should not make a theory more complex just by wishful thinking.  
We can be agnostic on comp, and still understand its consequences,  
so that we can test it, and perhaps refute it.


Bruno





John M




On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between
 " stable patterns of information, e.g. perception..."
and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as):
 "the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or  
formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or  
epistemological existence,"
Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and  
Perception.


I would say "ontology" is a word. But ontology is what exist, and  
that can be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a  
dinosaur, or a planet, or a number, in this or that other theory.


The same for "existence", "information" and "perception", those are  
words. But I don't see why information, perception and existence  
would be word.


(Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)),  
and denote the sequence "s(s(0))" by the number 2^(code of  
s)*5^(code of "("; , which will give a large number  
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...).
 This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code  
for that number.)





 Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/ 
mentality.


We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those  
abilities can be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any  
computer language.





Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to "as we perceive"  
something, the
epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental  
capabilities.


All right.



None cuts into anything " R E A L " .


You don't know that.


WE CAN NOT.


You cannot know that too.

What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express  
that we cannot do it either.
We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we might still  
stumble on some truth. Why not?


Bruno








On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:




So what does "existence" mean besides stabl

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[John Mikes]

Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize for
my LATE  REPLY.
You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's "math-realism" - well, if it were
REALISM
indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider it
a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at our
present level.
Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it does
not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present
knowledge.
Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so
wherever you look you find it in the books.
I did not find so far a *natural spot* self-calculating 374 pieces of
something. and draw conclusions of it NOT being 383. Nature was quite well
before humans invented the decimal system, or the zero. And please, do not
call it a 'discovery'. Nowhere in Nature are groupings of decimally
arranged units presented for processing/registration.
Unless you 'discover' within the human mind.
Your closing phrase "doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical" is
true as to the content it states. It also does not mean that it may not be
anything else beyond.

It was a pleasure to follow your argumentation.

John M





On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:36 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> In "my" agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that
>> may change whatever we THINK is included  - as historic examples show.
>> I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the  H U M A N
>>  mind
>>
>
> What do you think of Max Tegmark's argument for "mathematical realism" -
> that all the clues we have so far indicate that nature is inherently
> mathematical, and that if we ever find a ToE, and it turns out to be "just
> a bunch of equations", then there will be no reason to think the universe
> is anything other than those equations - as he puts it, "how they look from
> the inside" ?
>
> Obviously this is speculative, of course, in that we don't have a ToE yet.
> But everything we have learnt about reality so far does appear to indicate
> it has (in some sense) a mathematical nature. If this trend continues and
> we eventually discover a TOE, and it is mathematical, would you agree with
> Max that maths isn't an invention of the human mind, but something we have
> discovered about reality? (That it is even, perhaps, ALL that reality is?)
>
>
>> The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar
>> calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even recent???)
>> explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's
>> analogue(?) ways (if *'analogue' *covers them all, what I would not
>> suggest).
>>
>
> Relativity is analogue, quantum mechanics is (perhaps) digital. However,
> assuming that nature is analogue - i.e., continuously differentiable -
> doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical.
>
>  --
> 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[John Mikes]

Dear Bruno, see my apology to LIZR - same here.
I want to reflect to only ONE phrase in you appreciated reply:
*" I think we should not make a theory more complex just by wishful
thinking"*
Reading your cautious distinctions about science and theories (not claiming
them to "true", only an agrred assumption and it's consequences) I pretend
my agnosticisim as more than just "wishful thinking". It may be the way to
open up so far un-considered ways that could provide further advancement to
our thinking -even if we don't know about them. I.O.W.: open up the mind
for better understanding of the world.

I am sure you do the same.

Thanks again
John M




On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 04 May 2014, at 22:42, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno, your 'scientific' logic supersedes me. Explaining ontology by
> existing and - I suppose - existing by the likes of 'ontology' (etc.) is
> more than what I buy.
>
>
> There is no metaphysics here. I am just saying that if you do a theory,
> you have to be clear on what we will agree to be primitively existing, and
> what we derive from that assumption.
>
>
>
>
> "We might still *stumble*" on truth, (or you do not?), what we may
> believe as "truth" and draw very important consequences upon OTHER concepts
> from it as well.
>
> In "my" agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that
> may change whatever we THINK is included  - as historic examples show.
>
>
> Sure. That is why an (ideal) scientist will never pretend he has a true
> theory. It is not really is job, even when he tackles metaphysical or
> theological question, it will be under the form IF this THEN that, etc.
>
>
>
> I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the  H U M A N  mind
> so your formula (besides being hard to follow for me) is not convincing.
> The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar
> calculation how Nature arrived at them.
>
>
> The point is only that IF we are Turing emulable THEN physics is given by
> ... (and I give the equations).
> So we can test computationalism and move forward. Unfortunately, thanks to
> Gödel and Everett, comp is confirmed up to now.
>
>
>
>
> (See the early (even recent???) explanatory errors in our sciences). We
> are nowhere to decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if *'analogue' *covers
> them all, what I would not suggest).
>
>
> 'Analog' is compatible with computationalism, unless you mean that the
> brain uses very special infinities. They might exist, and thanks to the
> kind of reasoning I suggest we do, we can test this. But until such
> confirmation of non-comp (or refutation of comp), I think we should not
> make a theory more complex just by wishful thinking. We can be agnostic on
> comp, and still understand its consequences, so that we can test it, and
> perhaps refute it.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> John M
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between
>>  "* stable patterns of information, e.g. perception..."*
>> and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as):
>> * "the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate
>> some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence,"*
>> Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and Perception.
>>
>>
>> I would say "ontology" is a word. But ontology is what exist, and that
>> can be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a dinosaur, or a
>> planet, or a number, in this or that other theory.
>>
>> The same for "existence", "information" and "perception", those are
>> words. But I don't see why information, perception and existence would be
>> word.
>>
>> (Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)), and
>> denote the sequence "s(s(0))" by the number 2^(code of s)*5^(code of "(";
>> , which will give a large number s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...).
>>  This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code for
>> that number.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/mentality.
>>
>>
>> We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those abilities can
>> be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any computer language.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to "as we perceive" something,
>> the
>> epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental
>> capabilities.
>>
>>
>> All right.
>>
>>
>> None cuts into anything " R E A L " .
>>
>>
>> You don't know that.
>>
>> WE CAN NOT.
>>
>>
>> You cannot know that too.
>>
>> What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express that we
>> cannot do it either.
>> We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we
>> might still stumble on some truth. Why not?
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:
>>

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 May 2014, at 01:36, LizR wrote:


On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes  wrote:
In "my" agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues'  
that may change whatever we THINK is included  - as historic  
examples show.
I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the  H U M A  
N  mind


What do you think of Max Tegmark's argument for "mathematical  
realism" - that all the clues we have so far indicate that nature is  
inherently mathematical, and that if we ever find a ToE, and it  
turns out to be "just a bunch of equations", then there will be no  
reason to think the universe is anything other than those equations  
- as he puts it, "how they look from the inside" ?


Obviously this is speculative, of course,


Well, it is a logical consequence of comp and the weak occam, and I  
would say that all theories are speculative, but some more, some less.







in that we don't have a ToE yet.


Come on. I gave a scheme of equivalent TOE.
May be you mean that the mainstream thought has not yet swallow that.  
OK, that will take time. We will plausibly become artificial machines  
before understanding the consequences.





But everything we have learnt about reality so far does appear to  
indicate it has (in some sense) a mathematical nature. If this trend  
continues and we eventually discover a TOE, and it is mathematical,  
would you agree with Max that maths isn't an invention of the human  
mind, but something we have discovered about reality? (That it is  
even, perhaps, ALL that reality is?)


But I don't think that the term math is precise enough. It is too big,  
and cannot be itself entirely mathematical. But with comp, the 3p  
truth is arithmetical, and the 1p truth is vastly mathematical, yet  
got some irreductible non computable and non digital theological or  
psychological aspects.







The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar  
calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even  
recent???) explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to  
decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if 'analogue' covers them all,  
what I would not suggest).


Relativity is analogue, quantum mechanics is (perhaps) digital.  
However, assuming that nature is analogue - i.e., continuously  
differentiable - doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical.


Indeed. And comp justifies entirely why the 3p big thing can be  
digital/arithmetical, yet should appear bigger from inside.


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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 May 2014, at 22:42, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno, your 'scientific' logic supersedes me. Explaining ontology by  
existing and - I suppose - existing by the likes of  
'ontology' (etc.) is more than what I buy.


There is no metaphysics here. I am just saying that if you do a  
theory, you have to be clear on what we will agree to be primitively  
existing, and what we derive from that assumption.






"We might still stumble" on truth, (or you do not?), what we may  
believe as "truth" and draw very important consequences upon OTHER  
concepts from it as well.


In "my" agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues'  
that may change whatever we THINK is included  - as historic  
examples show.


Sure. That is why an (ideal) scientist will never pretend he has a  
true theory. It is not really is job, even when he tackles  
metaphysical or theological question, it will be under the form IF  
this THEN that, etc.




I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the  H U M A  
N  mind so your formula (besides being hard to follow for me) is not  
convincing. The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a  
similar calculation how Nature arrived at them.


The point is only that IF we are Turing emulable THEN physics is given  
by ... (and I give the equations).
So we can test computationalism and move forward. Unfortunately,  
thanks to Gödel and Everett, comp is confirmed up to now.





(See the early (even recent???) explanatory errors in our sciences).  
We are nowhere to decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if 'analogue'  
covers them all, what I would not suggest).


'Analog' is compatible with computationalism, unless you mean that the  
brain uses very special infinities. They might exist, and thanks to  
the kind of reasoning I suggest we do, we can test this. But until  
such confirmation of non-comp (or refutation of comp), I think we  
should not make a theory more complex just by wishful thinking. We can  
be agnostic on comp, and still understand its consequences, so that we  
can test it, and perhaps refute it.


Bruno





John M




On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between
 " stable patterns of information, e.g. perception..."
and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as):
 "the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or  
formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or  
epistemological existence,"
Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and  
Perception.


I would say "ontology" is a word. But ontology is what exist, and  
that can be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a  
dinosaur, or a planet, or a number, in this or that other theory.


The same for "existence", "information" and "perception", those are  
words. But I don't see why information, perception and existence  
would be word.


(Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)),  
and denote the sequence "s(s(0))" by the number 2^(code of  
s)*5^(code of "("; , which will give a large number  
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...).
 This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code  
for that number.)





 Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/ 
mentality.


We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those  
abilities can be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any  
computer language.





Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to "as we perceive"  
something, the
epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental  
capabilities.


All right.



None cuts into anything " R E A L " .


You don't know that.


WE CAN NOT.


You cannot know that too.

What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express that  
we cannot do it either.
We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we might still  
stumble on some truth. Why not?


Bruno








On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:




So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of  
information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon,  
tidal effects of the Moon,...


I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the  
primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate  
some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological  
existence, which are the appearance that we derive at some higher  
"emergent" level.


With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory  
(like Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive  
from them the emergence of all universal machines, their  
interactions and the resulting first person statistics, which  
should explains the origin and development (in some mathematical  
space) of the law of physics.


















I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon  
still exist when nobody look at

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[LizR]

On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes  wrote:

> In "my" agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that
> may change whatever we THINK is included  - as historic examples show.
> I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the  H U M A N  mind
>

What do you think of Max Tegmark's argument for "mathematical realism" -
that all the clues we have so far indicate that nature is inherently
mathematical, and that if we ever find a ToE, and it turns out to be "just
a bunch of equations", then there will be no reason to think the universe
is anything other than those equations - as he puts it, "how they look from
the inside" ?

Obviously this is speculative, of course, in that we don't have a ToE yet.
But everything we have learnt about reality so far does appear to indicate
it has (in some sense) a mathematical nature. If this trend continues and
we eventually discover a TOE, and it is mathematical, would you agree with
Max that maths isn't an invention of the human mind, but something we have
discovered about reality? (That it is even, perhaps, ALL that reality is?)


> The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar
> calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even recent???)
> explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's
> analogue(?) ways (if *'analogue' *covers them all, what I would not
> suggest).
>

Relativity is analogue, quantum mechanics is (perhaps) digital. However,
assuming that nature is analogue - i.e., continuously differentiable -
doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[John Mikes]

Bruno, your 'scientific' logic supersedes me. Explaining ontology by
existing and - I suppose - existing by the likes of 'ontology' (etc.) is
more than what I buy.

"We might still *stumble*" on truth, (or you do not?), what we may believe
as "truth" and draw very important consequences upon OTHER concepts from it
as well.

In "my" agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that
may change whatever we THINK is included  - as historic examples show.
I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the  H U M A N  mind
so your formula (besides being hard to follow for me) is not convincing.
The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar
calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even recent???)
explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's
analogue(?) ways (if *'analogue' *covers them all, what I would not
suggest).

John M




On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between
>  "* stable patterns of information, e.g. perception..."*
> and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as):
> * "the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate
> some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence,"*
> Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and Perception.
>
>
> I would say "ontology" is a word. But ontology is what exist, and that can
> be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a dinosaur, or a planet,
> or a number, in this or that other theory.
>
> The same for "existence", "information" and "perception", those are words.
> But I don't see why information, perception and existence would be word.
>
> (Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)), and
> denote the sequence "s(s(0))" by the number 2^(code of s)*5^(code of "(";
> , which will give a large number s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...).
>  This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code for
> that number.)
>
>
>
>
>  Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/mentality.
>
>
> We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those abilities can
> be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any computer language.
>
>
>
>
> Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to "as we perceive" something,
> the
> epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental
> capabilities.
>
>
> All right.
>
>
> None cuts into anything " R E A L " .
>
>
> You don't know that.
>
> WE CAN NOT.
>
>
> You cannot know that too.
>
> What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express that we
> cannot do it either.
> We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we might still stumble
> on some truth. Why not?
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of information,
>> e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the
>> Moon,...
>>
>>
>> I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the primitive
>> objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the
>> phenomenological, or epistemological existence, which are the appearance
>> that we derive at some higher "emergent" level.
>>
>> With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory (like
>> Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive from them the
>> emergence of all universal machines, their interactions and the resulting
>> first person statistics, which should explains the origin and development
>> (in some mathematical space) of the law of physics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon still
>> exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in that case,
>> definitely not exist".
>>
>>  Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon
>> doesn't exist even when we look at it.
>>  Only the relative relations between my computational states and
>> infinitely many computations exists.
>>
>>
>> Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of "exist".
>>
>>
>>  ?
>> Are you not begging the question?
>> I would say that comp does not eviscerate the meaning of "exists". The
>> meaning is provides by the standard semantics of predicate logic, where
>> "exists" is a quantifier.
>>
>>
>> But that is quite a different sense of "exist".
>>
>>
>> It is most basic one, used at the ontic level. May be you *assume* a
>> notion of primitive physical existence. Then indeed, with comp we assume
>> only a simple notion of arithmetical existence (on which most scientists
>> agree) and derive the physical reality from an epistemological type of
>> existence.
>>
>>
>>
>> It just means satisfying axioms and inferences from those axioms.
>>
>>
>> It means more, as we work in a theory wh

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, May 3, 2014 9:14:41 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between
>  "* stable patterns of information, e.g. perception..."*
> and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as):
> * "the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate 
> some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence,"*
> Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and Perception.
>
>
> I would say "ontology" is a word. But ontology is what exist, and that can 
> be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a dinosaur, or a planet, 
> or a number, in this or that other theory.
>
> The same for "existence", "information" and "perception", those are words. 
> But I don't see why information, perception and existence would be word.
>
 
A word is just a word, when someone has suggested a personal quality or  
major accomplishment on their part by associating a word to themselves or 
what they[ve produced. 
 
It's 
 
 

> (Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)), and 
> denote the sequence "s(s(0))" by the number 2^(code of s)*5^(code of "("; 
> , which will give a large number s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...).
>  This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code for 
> that number.)
>
>
>
>
>  Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/mentality.
>
>
> We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those abilities can 
> be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any computer language.
>
>
>
>
> Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to "as we perceive" something, 
> the 
> epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental 
> capabilities. 
>
>
> All right.
>
>
> None cuts into anything " R E A L " . 
>
>
> You don't know that.
>
> WE CAN NOT. 
>
>
> You cannot know that too.  
>
> What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express that we 
> cannot do it either.
> We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we might still stumble 
> on some truth. Why not?
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  
>>  
>> So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of information, 
>> e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the 
>> Moon,...
>>
>>
>> I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the primitive 
>> objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the 
>> phenomenological, or epistemological existence, which are the appearance 
>> that we derive at some higher "emergent" level.
>>
>> With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory (like 
>> Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive from them the 
>> emergence of all universal machines, their interactions and the resulting 
>> first person statistics, which should explains the origin and development 
>> (in some mathematical space) of the law of physics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>   
>>  I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon still 
>> exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in that case, 
>> definitely not exist".
>>
>>  Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon 
>> doesn't exist even when we look at it. 
>>  Only the relative relations between my computational states and 
>> infinitely many computations exists.
>>  
>>
>> Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of "exist". 
>>  
>>
>>  ?
>> Are you not begging the question?
>> I would say that comp does not eviscerate the meaning of "exists". The 
>> meaning is provides by the standard semantics of predicate logic, where 
>> "exists" is a quantifier.
>>  
>>
>> But that is quite a different sense of "exist".  
>>
>>
>> It is most basic one, used at the ontic level. May be you *assume* a 
>> notion of primitive physical existence. Then indeed, with comp we assume 
>> only a simple notion of arithmetical existence (on which most scientists 
>> agree) and derive the physical reality from an epistemological type of 
>> existence. 
>>
>>
>>
>> It just means satisfying axioms and inferences from those axioms.  
>>
>>
>> It means more, as we work in a theory which is supposed to be a theory of 
>> everything. It is not pure logic or pure math. It is theology or TOE.
>>
>>
>>
>> Depending on the axioms and the rules of inference you can prove that 
>> something exists or that it cannot exist or that it might exist but can't 
>> be proven.
>>
>>
>> We work in the comp frame. It presuppose you agree with sentences like 
>> "it exist a number equal to the successor of the successor of 0", etc.
>>
>> We want explain complex phenomena, from particles interactions to 
>> conscious awareness, from simple basic assumption.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  The choosing arithmetic as the base universal theory, 
>>  
>>

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between
 " stable patterns of information, e.g. perception..."
and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as):
 "the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or  
formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological  
existence,"
Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and  
Perception.


I would say "ontology" is a word. But ontology is what exist, and that  
can be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a dinosaur, or  
a planet, or a number, in this or that other theory.


The same for "existence", "information" and "perception", those are  
words. But I don't see why information, perception and existence would  
be word.


(Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)),  
and denote the sequence "s(s(0))" by the number 2^(code of s)*5^(code  
of "("; , which will give a large number s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...).
 This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code  
for that number.)





 Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/ 
mentality.


We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those abilities  
can be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any computer language.





Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to "as we perceive"  
something, the
epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental  
capabilities.


All right.



None cuts into anything " R E A L " .


You don't know that.


WE CAN NOT.


You cannot know that too.

What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express that  
we cannot do it either.
We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we might still  
stumble on some truth. Why not?


Bruno








On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:




So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of  
information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon,  
tidal effects of the Moon,...


I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the  
primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some  
problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence,  
which are the appearance that we derive at some higher "emergent"  
level.


With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory  
(like Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive from  
them the emergence of all universal machines, their interactions and  
the resulting first person statistics, which should explains the  
origin and development (in some mathematical space) of the law of  
physics.


















I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon  
still exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon,  
in that case, definitely not exist".


Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the  
moon doesn't exist even when we look at it.
Only the relative relations between my computational states and  
infinitely many computations exists.


Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of "exist".


?
Are you not begging the question?
I would say that comp does not eviscerate the meaning of "exists".  
The meaning is provides by the standard semantics of predicate  
logic, where "exists" is a quantifier.


But that is quite a different sense of "exist".


It is most basic one, used at the ontic level. May be you *assume* a  
notion of primitive physical existence. Then indeed, with comp we  
assume only a simple notion of arithmetical existence (on which most  
scientists agree) and derive the physical reality from an  
epistemological type of existence.





It just means satisfying axioms and inferences from those axioms.


It means more, as we work in a theory which is supposed to be a  
theory of everything. It is not pure logic or pure math. It is  
theology or TOE.




Depending on the axioms and the rules of inference you can prove  
that something exists or that it cannot exist or that it might  
exist but can't be proven.


We work in the comp frame. It presuppose you agree with sentences  
like "it exist a number equal to the successor of the successor of  
0", etc.


We want explain complex phenomena, from particles interactions to  
conscious awareness, from simple basic assumption.








The choosing arithmetic as the base universal theory,


And choosing Christianity as the base universal theory  And  
choosing Marxism as the base universal theory


I have never met a christian, nor a marxist, believing that  
elementary arithmetic is false or useless.

I have met arithmeticians doubting Christianity and/or Marxism.
Elementary arithmetic is a "scientific" theory (even a sub-theory of  
most applied scientific theories).
Christianity is a fuzzy and vague corpus of hope and belief,  
presupposing too arithmetic.
To oppose or compare Christianity and arithmetic is no better than  
o

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 May 2014, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/2/2014 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 May 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/1/2014 2:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Someone said:

"So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of  
information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon,  
tidal effects of the Moon,.."




So electrons did not exist until Rutherford. And even so, in a  
primitive form. Electrons had to wait in the limb of partial  
existent things until Millican said: Let´s give mass to the  
Electron. And the electrons existed happily since then.. Only for  
the people aware of the pattern creation.


Existence is relative to theory.


Theoretical existence might.


What's "theoretical existence"?


Like you said, it is when existence is relative to a theory.
The existence might be real, when the theory is faithful with respect  
to reality (but usually we can't know that for sure).









But the idea is that some theory can be correct, and in that case,  
even if *we* cannot be sure, such an existence will be independent  
of you and the theories.


That's the idea that there is some mind-independent reality.


Yes, indeed.




A very good theory, or should I say "meta-theory".



It is a religion. In the large sense. The belief in a reality  
transcendent yourself. Be it the arithmetical reality, or the physical  
reality, or  the biologial reality, or the theological reality, etc.


A theory of everything will try, by not assuming too much, to explain  
the existence or the appearance of those realities.












So electrons existed before Millican


That contradicts above.


Not at all.  The theory of elementary particles is that they have  
existed since the reheating at the end of inflation.






and protons existed after Gell-Mann showed they were made of  
quarks.  Just as the Moon exists after we discovered atoms.


? Are you serious?

The far away, and thus very old, galaxies exist since Hubble (the  
telescope) detected them?


For a logician you make a lot unjustified inferences.


I was just asking a question.



I'd say protons failed to exist before Gell-Mann showed they were  
made of quarks.


?




I was just making the point that even if you show, relative to some  
theory, that the Moon can made of arithmetic it doesn't mean the  
Moon ceases to exist or that we can't still define "Moon" by  
pointing to that shiny thing in the sky.


We agree on this, but in the search of a" theory of everything", at  
some point, just to be clear, we have to differentiate the many  
different sort of existence, and their relations.


Then my point is that if comp is true, any sigma_1 complete theory  
will do for the ontology, and any entity capable of knowwing its own  
sigma_1 completeness will do for the observer, and its many  
intensional variants. It is in all case the same truth, seen from many  
different angles.


Bruno




Brent



This contradicts your post to me where you told me that the moon is  
defined by ostentation. Humans refer to that light spot in the sky  
before they knew about atoms.


You lost me. (Typo error?)

I think there are many sort of existence, and I prove that all  
machines can discover them by instrospection: they are ExP(x), []  
Ex [] P(x), for each of the many arithmetical modalities. In  
arithmetic, those modal existences "emerge" logically from the  
ontic existence: ExP(x).


Isn't "ontic existence" a redundancy, like "really real existence".   
I agree that there are different kinds of existence, but I doubt  
that you can get from mathematical satisfaction to Dr. Johnson.


Brent



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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[John Mikes]

Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between
 "* stable patterns of information, e.g. perception..."*
and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as):
* "the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some
problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence,"*
Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and Perception.
 Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/mentality.
Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to "as we perceive" something, the
epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental
capabilities.
None cuts into anything " R E A L " .
WE CAN NOT.




On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:
>
>
>
> So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g.
> perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,...
>
>
> I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the primitive
> objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the
> phenomenological, or epistemological existence, which are the appearance
> that we derive at some higher "emergent" level.
>
> With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory (like
> Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive from them the
> emergence of all universal machines, their interactions and the resulting
> first person statistics, which should explains the origin and development
> (in some mathematical space) of the law of physics.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon still
> exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in that case,
> definitely not exist".
>
>  Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon
> doesn't exist even when we look at it.
> Only the relative relations between my computational states and infinitely
> many computations exists.
>
>
> Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of "exist".
>
>
>  ?
> Are you not begging the question?
> I would say that comp does not eviscerate the meaning of "exists". The
> meaning is provides by the standard semantics of predicate logic, where
> "exists" is a quantifier.
>
>
> But that is quite a different sense of "exist".
>
>
> It is most basic one, used at the ontic level. May be you *assume* a
> notion of primitive physical existence. Then indeed, with comp we assume
> only a simple notion of arithmetical existence (on which most scientists
> agree) and derive the physical reality from an epistemological type of
> existence.
>
>
>
> It just means satisfying axioms and inferences from those axioms.
>
>
> It means more, as we work in a theory which is supposed to be a theory of
> everything. It is not pure logic or pure math. It is theology or TOE.
>
>
>
> Depending on the axioms and the rules of inference you can prove that
> something exists or that it cannot exist or that it might exist but can't
> be proven.
>
>
> We work in the comp frame. It presuppose you agree with sentences like "it
> exist a number equal to the successor of the successor of 0", etc.
>
> We want explain complex phenomena, from particles interactions to
> conscious awareness, from simple basic assumption.
>
>
>
>
>
>  The choosing arithmetic as the base universal theory,
>
>
> And choosing Christianity as the base universal theory  And choosing
> Marxism as the base universal theory
>
>
> I have never met a christian, nor a marxist, believing that elementary
> arithmetic is false or useless.
> I have met arithmeticians doubting Christianity and/or Marxism.
> Elementary arithmetic is a "scientific" theory (even a sub-theory of most
> applied scientific theories).
> Christianity is a fuzzy and vague corpus of hope and belief, presupposing
> too arithmetic.
> To oppose or compare Christianity and arithmetic is no better than
> opposing Christianity and Evolution Theory.
>
>
>
>
>
>  only number exists, some number functions and relation exists in a
> related but slightly different sense, and then physical existence is
> precisely define by the "existence" used in the modal context.
> Roughly speaking, we have the intelligible existence the "E" of
> arithmetic, then the modal existence:
> with [i]p = []p & p, or []p & <>t, or []p & <>t & p, we have different
> notion of existence of the type
> [i]Ex([i]p(x) and also, (quantized existence) [i]Ex([i]p(x)). Of
> course this needs the first order modal logic extending the current
> propositional hypostases.
> More on this in the math thread.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution, then it
> survives an arithmetical digital substitution, and what we call the moon
> has to be recovered as a stable pattern emerging from an infinity of
> computations in arithmetic,
>
>
> But only, I think, in a different digital universe in which "we" are also
> stable patterns of relations.
>
>
>  By the FPI, we ar

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 5/2/2014 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 May 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/1/2014 2:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Someone said:

"So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g. 
perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,.."


So electrons did not exist until Rutherford. And even so, in a primitive form. 
Electrons had to wait in the limb of partial existent things until Millican said: 
Let愀 give mass to the Electron. And the electrons existed happily since then.. Only 
for the people aware of the pattern creation.


Existence is relative to theory.


Theoretical existence might.


What's "theoretical existence"?

But the idea is that some theory can be correct, and in that case, even if *we* cannot 
be sure, such an existence will be independent of you and the theories.


That's the idea that there is some mind-independent reality.  A very good theory, or 
should I say "meta-theory".








So electrons existed before Millican


That contradicts above.


Not at all.  The theory of elementary particles is that they have existed since the 
reheating at the end of inflation.






and protons existed after Gell-Mann showed they were made of quarks.  Just as the Moon 
exists after we discovered atoms.


? Are you serious?

The far away, and thus very old, galaxies exist since Hubble (the telescope) 
detected them?


For a logician you make a lot unjustified inferences.  I'd say protons failed to exist 
before Gell-Mann showed they were made of quarks.  I was just making the point that even 
if you show, relative to some theory, that the Moon can made of arithmetic it doesn't mean 
the Moon ceases to exist or that we can't still define "Moon" by pointing to that shiny 
thing in the sky.


Brent



This contradicts your post to me where you told me that the moon is defined by 
ostentation. Humans refer to that light spot in the sky before they knew about atoms.


You lost me. (Typo error?)

I think there are many sort of existence, and I prove that all machines can discover 
them by instrospection: they are ExP(x), [] Ex [] P(x), for each of the many 
arithmetical modalities. In arithmetic, those modal existences "emerge" logically from 
the ontic existence: ExP(x).


Isn't "ontic existence" a redundancy, like "really real existence". I agree that there are 
different kinds of existence, but I doubt that you can get from mathematical satisfaction 
to Dr. Johnson.


Brent



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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 May 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/1/2014 2:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Someone said:

"So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of  
information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon,  
tidal effects of the Moon,.."




So electrons did not exist until Rutherford. And even so, in a  
primitive form. Electrons had to wait in the limb of partial  
existent things until Millican said: Let´s give mass to the  
Electron. And the electrons existed happily since then.. Only for  
the people aware of the pattern creation.


Existence is relative to theory.


Theoretical existence might. But the idea is that some theory can be  
correct, and in that case, even if *we* cannot be sure, such an  
existence will be independent of you and the theories.






So electrons existed before Millican


That contradicts above.



and protons existed after Gell-Mann showed they were made of  
quarks.  Just as the Moon exists after we discovered atoms.


? Are you serious?

The far away, and thus very old, galaxies exist since Hubble (the  
telescope) detected them?


This contradicts your post to me where you told me that the moon is  
defined by ostentation. Humans refer to that light spot in the sky  
before they knew about atoms.


You lost me. (Typo error?)

I think there are many sort of existence, and I prove that all  
machines can discover them by instrospection: they are ExP(x), [] Ex  
[] P(x), for each of the many arithmetical modalities. In arithmetic,  
those modal existences "emerge" logically from the ontic existence:  
ExP(x).


Bruno





Brent



Who knows how many things are waiting to become into the  
"existence" this way.  That is not a good definition of existence  
for me.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 5/1/2014 2:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Someone said:

"So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g. perception 
of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,.."


So electrons did not exist until Rutherford. And even so, in a primitive form. Electrons 
had to wait in the limb of partial existent things until Millican said: Let´s give mass 
to the Electron. And the electrons existed happily since then.. Only for the people 
aware of the pattern creation.


Existence is relative to theory.  So electrons existed before Millican and protons existed 
after Gell-Mann showed they were made of quarks.  Just as the Moon exists after we 
discovered atoms.


Brent



Who knows how many things are waiting to become into the "existence" this way.  That is 
not a good definition of existence for me.



--
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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[John Clark]

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona 
wrote:

>  So electrons did not exist until Rutherford.
>

 J.J. Thomson discovered the electron.

  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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Alberto G. Corona]

Someone said:

"So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g.
perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,.."

So electrons did not exist until Rutherford. And even so, in a primitive
form. Electrons had to wait in the limb of partial existent things until
Millican said: Let´s give mass to the Electron. And the electrons existed
happily since then.. Only for the people aware of the pattern creation.

Who knows how many things are waiting to become into the "existence" this
way.  That is not a good definition of existence for me.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:




So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of  
information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal  
effects of the Moon,...


I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the primitive  
objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem,  
and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence, which are the  
appearance that we derive at some higher "emergent" level.


With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory  
(like Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive from  
them the emergence of all universal machines, their interactions and  
the resulting first person statistics, which should explains the  
origin and development (in some mathematical space) of the law of  
physics.


















I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon  
still exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in  
that case, definitely not exist".


Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the  
moon doesn't exist even when we look at it.
Only the relative relations between my computational states and  
infinitely many computations exists.


Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of "exist".


?
Are you not begging the question?
I would say that comp does not eviscerate the meaning of "exists".  
The meaning is provides by the standard semantics of predicate  
logic, where "exists" is a quantifier.


But that is quite a different sense of "exist".


It is most basic one, used at the ontic level. May be you *assume* a  
notion of primitive physical existence. Then indeed, with comp we  
assume only a simple notion of arithmetical existence (on which most  
scientists agree) and derive the physical reality from an  
epistemological type of existence.





It just means satisfying axioms and inferences from those axioms.


It means more, as we work in a theory which is supposed to be a theory  
of everything. It is not pure logic or pure math. It is theology or TOE.




Depending on the axioms and the rules of inference you can prove  
that something exists or that it cannot exist or that it might exist  
but can't be proven.


We work in the comp frame. It presuppose you agree with sentences like  
"it exist a number equal to the successor of the successor of 0", etc.


We want explain complex phenomena, from particles interactions to  
conscious awareness, from simple basic assumption.








The choosing arithmetic as the base universal theory,


And choosing Christianity as the base universal theory  And  
choosing Marxism as the base universal theory


I have never met a christian, nor a marxist, believing that elementary  
arithmetic is false or useless.

I have met arithmeticians doubting Christianity and/or Marxism.
Elementary arithmetic is a "scientific" theory (even a sub-theory of  
most applied scientific theories).
Christianity is a fuzzy and vague corpus of hope and belief,  
presupposing too arithmetic.
To oppose or compare Christianity and arithmetic is no better than  
opposing Christianity and Evolution Theory.







only number exists, some number functions and relation exists in a  
related but slightly different sense, and then physical existence  
is precisely define by the "existence" used in the modal context.
Roughly speaking, we have the intelligible existence the "E" of  
arithmetic, then the modal existence:
with [i]p = []p & p, or []p & <>t, or []p & <>t & p, we have  
different notion of existence of the type
[i]Ex([i]p(x) and also, (quantized existence) [i]Ex([i]p(x)).  
Of course this needs the first order modal logic extending the  
current propositional hypostases.

More on this in the math thread.








If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution,  
then it survives an arithmetical digital substitution, and what  
we call the moon has to be recovered as a stable pattern emerging  
from an infinity of computations in arithmetic,


But only, I think, in a different digital universe in which "we"  
are also stable patterns of relations.


By the FPI, we are distributed in infinitely many computations  
(making the real universe appearance a non digital and unique (yet  
multiversal) reality a priori).



And in THAT universe what "we" call "the Moon" is what "we" can  
fly too and and on.


OK, then. but I was using the arithmetic TOE(*), and we have to be  
clear on all the different notions of existence which emerge in it.


Bruno


(*) the TOE chosen is Robinson arithmetic. Precisely, it is  
predicate logic + the non logical following axioms:


0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

An observer is a believer in the axioms above + some induction  
axioms.


IF you can build a world out of those, THEN an a believer in those  
axioms is an observer in THAT world.  But that's a long way from  
showing it's true of

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/30/2014 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Apr 2014, at 05:10, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com  
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]*On Behalf Of*meekerdb

On 4/29/2014 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution, then it 
survives
an arithmetical digital substitution, and what we call the moon has to be 
recovered
as a stable pattern emerging from an infinity of computations in 
arithmetic, and
cannot be related from anything else.


The point is that "what we call the Moon"  IS the Moon.
IMO - both points of view, are valid though. You are correctly equating the definition 
or label of the moon with the qualia -- i.e. the moon experience.


He was assuming we were awake. In my dreams, what I call the moon a planet made of 
cheese. Is *that* the moon?


That's why I wrote "what WE call the Moon".  The meaning of terms in language depends on 
agreed understanding of speaker and hearer.  You can't ostensively define the moon in your 
dreams to someone else.


Brent





It seems to me that Bruno was describing a hypothesized means by which that which "we 
call the moon" becomes manifest as the qualia we experience. That this qualia emerges 
through a dynamic computational process.


Well, hopefully for computationalism.

Bruno



Chris

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 
toeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email toeverything-l...@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visithttps://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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/30/2014 1:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Apr 2014, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/29/2014 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution, then it survives an 
arithmetical digital substitution, and what we call the moon has to be recovered as a 
stable pattern emerging from an infinity of computations in arithmetic, and cannot be 
related from anything else.


The point is that "what we call the Moon"  IS the Moon.


The question is: *what* is the moon, in the fundamental TOE (that we derive from comp, 
for example).


If not, you become instrumentalist, and just abandon the idea of searching a fundamental 
theory.


Not at all.  The Moon is defined ostensively.  But that doesn't mean I'm prevented 
developing a theory about what it's made of, how it formed, what effects it has, ...  
That's why I said you've been a logician to long; you mistake a definition for the thing 
itself and when it's defined you suppose nothing more can be said.


Brent

I am not sure of your motivation here. It looks like "don't ask what is the fundamental 
nature of the things we talk  about"?
My point is that such nature will depend of the fundamental principle we agree on (if 
only for the sake of research: agreeing on axioms does not mean knowing they are true of 
course (pace Craig).


I am just saying that if comp is true, existence of physical object must be explain by 
"machine's theology or self-referential logics".


Sure.  But why is that any more interesting than, "If theism is true, existence of 
physical objects must be explained by theist theology." ?  Note that any noun whatsoever 
can be inserted in place of "theism" and it's still a true sentence.  That's the beauty, 
and the failure, of logic.


Brent


Wheeler was not so far from this.

Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/30/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Apr 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/29/2014 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Apr 2014, at 19:38, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/27/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think the same. That's close to Platonism. There is more than what we see, 
measure, etc.
Then we can theorize, which means making assumptions (like "the moon exist"), and 
experimentation, like "going on the moon". This will not prove that the moon exists 
in any real or fundamental way,


LOL. I think you've been a logician to long. :-)


Just being a rationalist, and interested in things going beyond the usual FAPP (For 
All Practical Purposes).


To go to the moon, we need some "existence" of the moon, not necessarily an 
ontological existence.
To solve the mind-body problem, or to put light on the nature of matter and 
consciousness (and their relations) it is important to understand that seeing, 
experiencing, ... don't prove (in the informal logician or mathematician sense indeed) 
anything about 'reality'.


Proof in the informal logician or mathematical sense don't prove anything about reality 
either.  A proof is just a set of relations between premises and conclusions that 
preserve a measure "T", we nominally call "true".  So who you gonna believe, your 
premises and inferences or your lyin' eyes? :-)


I will just remain agnostic, and prove things only relatively to this or that 
theory.
I will not take visual data as proving anything. Seeing is no proof, but evidence, not 
of existence, but of stable information patterns.


So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g. perception of 
the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,...











I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon still exist when 
nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in that case, definitely not exist".


Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon doesn't exist even 
when we look at it.
Only the relative relations between my computational states and infinitely many 
computations exists.


Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of "exist".


?
Are you not begging the question?
I would say that comp does not eviscerate the meaning of "exists". The meaning is 
provides by the standard semantics of predicate logic, where "exists" is a quantifier.


But that is quite a different sense of "exist".  It just means satisfying axioms and 
inferences from those axioms.  Depending on the axioms and the rules of inference you can 
prove that something exists or that it cannot exist or that it might exist but can't be 
proven.



The choosing arithmetic as the base universal theory,


And choosing Christianity as the base universal theory  And choosing Marxism as the 
base universal theory


only number exists, some number functions and relation exists in a related but slightly 
different sense, and then physical existence is precisely define by the "existence" used 
in the modal context.
Roughly speaking, we have the intelligible existence the "E" of arithmetic, then the 
modal existence:
with [i]p = []p & p, or []p & <>t, or []p & <>t & p, we have different notion of 
existence of the type
[i]Ex([i]p(x) and also, (quantized existence) [i]Ex([i]p(x)). Of course this needs 
the first order modal logic extending the current propositional hypostases.

More on this in the math thread.








If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution, then it survives an 
arithmetical digital substitution, and what we call the moon has to be recovered as a 
stable pattern emerging from an infinity of computations in arithmetic,


But only, I think, in a different digital universe in which "we" are also stable 
patterns of relations.


By the FPI, we are distributed in infinitely many computations (making the real universe 
appearance a non digital and unique (yet multiversal) reality a priori).




And in THAT universe what "we" call "the Moon" is what "we" can fly too and and 
on.


OK, then. but I was using the arithmetic TOE(*), and we have to be clear on all the 
different notions of existence which emerge in it.


Bruno


(*) the TOE chosen is Robinson arithmetic. Precisely, it is predicate logic + the non 
logical following axioms:


0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

An observer is a believer in the axioms above + some induction axioms.


IF you can build a world out of those, THEN an a believer in those axioms is an observer 
in THAT world.  But that's a long way from showing it's true of THIS world.


Brent



First task = to derive the existence of the observer in the TOE, then to derive the 
logic of its points of view (the [i] and [i] above), including the logic of physics.





Brent
Everyone knows that dragons don't exist. But while this
simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not
suffice for the scientific mind. The Sc

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Apr 2014, at 05:10, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of meekerdb


On 4/29/2014 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution,  
then it survives an arithmetical digital substitution, and what we  
call the moon has to be recovered as a stable pattern emerging from  
an infinity of computations in arithmetic, and cannot be related  
from anything else.


The point is that "what we call the Moon"  IS the Moon.

IMO - both points of view, are valid though. You are correctly  
equating the definition or label of the moon with the qualia - i.e.  
the moon experience.


He was assuming we were awake. In my dreams, what I call the moon a  
planet made of cheese. Is *that* the moon?




It seems to me that Bruno was describing a hypothesized means by  
which that which "we call the moon" becomes manifest as the qualia  
we experience. That this qualia emerges through a dynamic  
computational process.


Well, hopefully for computationalism.

Bruno



Chris

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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 29 Apr 2014, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/29/2014 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution,  
then it survives an arithmetical digital substitution, and what we  
call the moon has to be recovered as a stable pattern emerging from  
an infinity of computations in arithmetic, and cannot be related  
from anything else.


The point is that "what we call the Moon"  IS the Moon.


The question is: *what* is the moon, in the fundamental TOE (that we  
derive from comp, for example).


If not, you become instrumentalist, and just abandon the idea of  
searching a fundamental theory.
I am not sure of your motivation here. It looks like "don't ask what  
is the fundamental nature of the things we talk  about"?
My point is that such nature will depend of the fundamental principle  
we agree on (if only for the sake of research: agreeing on axioms does  
not mean knowing they are true of course (pace Craig).


I am just saying that if comp is true, existence of physical object  
must be explain by "machine's theology or self-referential logics".  
Wheeler was not so far from this.


Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 29 Apr 2014, at 21:41, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/29/2014 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Matter (primitive matter) becomes then a conceptual gap object  
whose only role would be to escape the consequence of comp. That is  
worst than (genuine) mysticism, that's pseudo-science or pseudo- 
religion.


Uh-oh!  Now you've defined a heresy, Bruno.


I was only explaining that the use primitive matter to avoid the  
consequence of comp, is like inventing a god to justify the falsity of  
evolution.


It is not an a heresy, but a very unconvincing move. It is the same as  
saying "all right evolution does explain many things, but it fails  
completely in explaining how God made the world in six days, and so  
evolution should not be taken seriously".


You can call that an heresy, but usually we call that "begging the  
question". Only pseudo-sciences and pseudo-religions do that  
systematically.



Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 29 Apr 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/29/2014 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Apr 2014, at 19:38, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/27/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think the same. That's close to Platonism. There is more than  
what we see, measure, etc.
Then we can theorize, which means making assumptions (like "the  
moon exist"), and experimentation, like "going on the moon". This  
will not prove that the moon exists in any real or fundamental way,


LOL. I think you've been a logician to long. :-)


Just being a rationalist, and interested in things going beyond the  
usual FAPP (For All Practical Purposes).


To go to the moon, we need some "existence" of the moon, not  
necessarily an ontological existence.
To solve the mind-body problem, or to put light on the nature of  
matter and consciousness (and their relations) it is important to  
understand that seeing, experiencing, ... don't prove (in the  
informal logician or mathematician sense indeed)  anything  
about 'reality'.


Proof in the informal logician or mathematical sense don't prove  
anything about reality either.  A proof is just a set of relations  
between premises and conclusions that preserve a measure "T", we  
nominally call "true".  So who you gonna believe, your premises and  
inferences or your lyin' eyes?  :-)


I will just remain agnostic, and prove things only relatively to this  
or that theory.
I will not take visual data as proving anything. Seeing is no proof,  
but evidence, not of existence, but of stable information patterns.









I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon  
still exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in  
that case, definitely not exist".


Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon  
doesn't exist even when we look at it.
Only the relative relations between my computational states and  
infinitely many computations exists.


Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of "exist".


?
Are you not begging the question?
I would say that comp does not eviscerate the meaning of "exists". The  
meaning is provides by the standard semantics of predicate logic,  
where "exists" is a quantifier.
The choosing arithmetic as the base universal theory, only number  
exists, some number functions and relation exists in a related but  
slightly different sense, and then physical existence is precisely  
define by the "existence" used in the modal context.
Roughly speaking, we have the intelligible existence the "E" of  
arithmetic, then the modal existence:
with [i]p = []p & p, or []p & <>t, or []p & <>t & p, we have different  
notion of existence of the type
[i]Ex([i]p(x) and also, (quantized existence) [i]Ex([i]p(x)). Of  
course this needs the first order modal logic extending the current  
propositional hypostases.

More on this in the math thread.








If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution,  
then it survives an arithmetical digital substitution, and what we  
call the moon has to be recovered as a stable pattern emerging from  
an infinity of computations in arithmetic,


But only, I think, in a different digital universe in which "we" are  
also stable patterns of relations.


By the FPI, we are distributed in infinitely many computations (making  
the real universe appearance a non digital and unique (yet  
multiversal) reality a priori).



And in THAT universe what "we" call "the Moon" is what "we" can fly  
too and and on.


OK, then. but I was using the arithmetic TOE(*), and we have to be  
clear on all the different notions of existence which emerge in it.


Bruno


(*) the TOE chosen is Robinson arithmetic. Precisely, it is predicate  
logic + the non logical following axioms:


0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

An observer is a believer in the axioms above + some induction axioms.

First task = to derive the existence of the observer in the TOE, then  
to derive the logic of its points of view (the [i] and [i] above),  
including the logic of physics.





Brent
Everyone knows that dragons don't exist. But while this
simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not
suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical
Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist.
Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated,
there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The
brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically,
discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the
chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might
say, nonexistent, but each nonexisted in an entirely different
way...
  --- Stanislaw Lem, The Cyberiad

and cannot be related from anything else. The math confirmed that  
this makes sense, as the logic of 'certainty" ([]p & <>t) gives a  
quantum logic on the arithmetical sigma_1 (computational)  
proposition p.


Br

RE: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb

 

On 4/29/2014 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 

If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution, then it
survives an arithmetical digital substitution, and what we call the moon has
to be recovered as a stable pattern emerging from an infinity of
computations in arithmetic, and cannot be related from anything else.


The point is that "what we call the Moon"  IS the Moon.

 

IMO - both points of view, are valid though. You are correctly equating the
definition or label of the moon with the qualia - i.e. the moon experience.
It seems to me that Bruno was describing a hypothesized means by which that
which "we call the moon" becomes manifest as the qualia we experience. That
this qualia emerges through a dynamic computational process.

Chris

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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/29/2014 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution, then it survives an 
arithmetical digital substitution, and what we call the moon has to be recovered as a 
stable pattern emerging from an infinity of computations in arithmetic, and cannot be 
related from anything else.


The point is that "what we call the Moon"  IS the Moon.

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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/29/2014 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Matter (primitive matter) becomes then a conceptual gap object whose only role would be 
to escape the consequence of comp. That is worst than (genuine) mysticism, that's 
pseudo-science or pseudo-religion.


Uh-oh!  Now you've defined a heresy, Bruno.

Brent

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

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/29/2014 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Apr 2014, at 19:38, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/27/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think the same. That's close to Platonism. There is more than what we see, measure, 
etc.
Then we can theorize, which means making assumptions (like "the moon exist"), and 
experimentation, like "going on the moon". This will not prove that the moon exists in 
any real or fundamental way,


LOL. I think you've been a logician to long. :-)


Just being a rationalist, and interested in things going beyond the usual FAPP (For All 
Practical Purposes).


To go to the moon, we need some "existence" of the moon, not necessarily an ontological 
existence.
To solve the mind-body problem, or to put light on the nature of matter and 
consciousness (and their relations) it is important to understand that seeing, 
experiencing, ... don't prove (in the informal logician or mathematician sense indeed) 
anything about 'reality'.


Proof in the informal logician or mathematical sense don't prove anything about reality 
either.  A proof is just a set of relations between premises and conclusions that preserve 
a measure "T", we nominally call "true".  So who you gonna believe, your premises and 
inferences or your lyin' eyes?  :-)




I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon still exist when nobody 
look at it. Now we know that the moon, in that case, definitely not exist".


Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon doesn't exist even 
when we look at it.
Only the relative relations between my computational states and infinitely many 
computations exists.


Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of "exist".



If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution, then it survives an 
arithmetical digital substitution, and what we call the moon has to be recovered as a 
stable pattern emerging from an infinity of computations in arithmetic,


But only, I think, in a different digital universe in which "we" are also stable patterns 
of relations.  And in THAT universe what "we" call "the Moon" is what "we" can fly too and 
and on.


Brent
Everyone knows that dragons don't exist. But while this
simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not
suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical
Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist.
Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated,
there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The
brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically,
discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the
chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might
say, nonexistent, but each nonexisted in an entirely different
way...
  --- Stanislaw Lem, The Cyberiad

and cannot be related from anything else. The math confirmed that this makes sense, as 
the logic of 'certainty" ([]p & <>t) gives a quantum logic on the arithmetical sigma_1 
(computational) proposition p.


Bruno





Brent
He's like a philosopher who says, "I know it's possible in
practice. Now I'd like to know whether it's possible in
principle."
  --- Daniel Dennett, on Michael Behe

--
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/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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 29 Apr 2014, at 12:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

It is not possible to define the concept of existence without  
resorting in some kind of belief.



You are right.

For example, you have to believe that 4 + 3 = 7 to believe that it  
exists a number x such that 4 + x = 7.






That is why talking seriously about existence is carefully avoided.



We need to be clear which primitive elements are assumed to exist, and  
then we can derive many other sort of emergent existence and higher  
order appearances.


(If we want to build a usable TOE capable of handling the mind body  
problem).


Bruno





2014-04-29 10:18 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

On 27 Apr 2014, at 19:38, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/27/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think the same. That's close to Platonism. There is more than  
what we see, measure, etc.
Then we can theorize, which means making assumptions (like "the  
moon exist"), and experimentation, like "going on the moon". This  
will not prove that the moon exists in any real or fundamental way,


LOL. I think you've been a logician to long. :-)


Just being a rationalist, and interested in things going beyond the  
usual FAPP (For All Practical Purposes).


To go to the moon, we need some "existence" of the moon, not  
necessarily an ontological existence.
To solve the mind-body problem, or to put light on the nature of  
matter and consciousness (and their relations) it is important to  
understand that seeing, experiencing, ... don't prove (in the  
informal logician or mathematician sense indeed) anything about  
'reality'.


I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon  
still exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in  
that case, definitely not exist".


Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon  
doesn't exist even when we look at it.
Only the relative relations between my computational states and  
infinitely many computations exists.


If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution,  
then it survives an arithmetical digital substitution, and what we  
call the moon has to be recovered as a stable pattern emerging from  
an infinity of computations in arithmetic, and cannot be related  
from anything else. The math confirmed that this makes sense, as the  
logic of 'certainty" ([]p & <>t) gives a quantum logic on the  
arithmetical sigma_1 (computational) proposition p.


Bruno





Brent
He's like a philosopher who says, "I know it's possible in
practice. Now I'd like to know whether it's possible in
principle."
  --- Daniel Dennett, on Michael Behe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 5:45:15 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:56:06 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:48 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 4/28/2014 3:32 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:48 PM,  wrote:
>>>

 On Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:12:34 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: 
>
>
>
>
>  On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
>>
>>   On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>  On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>  
>>>
>>>   On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella <
>>> cdemo...@yahoo.com>' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>


 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes
  
  
  
 http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
  
  
   
 A nice weekend to everyone!

  
  
 Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion… as a 
 human evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how 
 language 
 has a nice tree going back in time.

>>>  
>>>  Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of 
>>> cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time scale 
>>> of 
>>> this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies require 
>>> the 
>>> removal of existing religions. This was the case in both the communist 
>>> revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the enlightenment revolutions 
>>> (American and French). But naturally evolved religions are 
>>> highly-adapted, 
>>> resilient organisms.
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>   Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for 
>>> some the grains of salt.
>>>
>>>  I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute 
>>> it by another (better or worst) religion.
>>>   
>>  
>>  Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the 
>> social construct and religion as the private experience.
>>
>>
>>  
>>   Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth.
>>
>>  Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related 
>> to that truth, even if they depend on it.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>
>>
>>>   
>>> "cooperation strategies" needs some goal/sense, for which the 
>>> cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or  
>>> explicit 
>>> religion or reality conception, I think. 
>>>  
>>
>>  I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple 
>> things selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication. 
>> Then it all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist 
>> when 
>> seeing from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a 
>> view of public religion as more of a consequence than a cause.
>>   
>>
>>  
>>  Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is 
>> based only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this 
>> makes does not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in 
>> arithmetic, technically). 
>>
>>  To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally 
>> self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but 
>> globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and thus 
>> accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us, things 
>> are 
>> less clear to me. 
>> Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable. 
>> Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can 
>> lead.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>   
>>  Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe 
>> that remains to be seen.
>>   
>>
>>  Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp 
>> as soon as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that 
>> direction. 
>>
>>  Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded 
>> in building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This 
>> can 
>> transcend biology at different levels. 
>>
>>  For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon 
>> the carbon, but we will probably come back to something close to a 
>> little 
>> "social" bacteria, "with radio and GSM", constituting a giant computer. 
>

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:56:06 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:48 AM, meekerdb 
> > wrote:
>
>>  On 4/28/2014 3:32 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:48 PM, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:12:34 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: 




  On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
  
>
>   On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>  
>
>
>  On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
>>
>>   On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella <
>> cdemo...@yahoo.com>' via Everything List > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
>>>  
>>>  
>>>   
>>> A nice weekend to everyone!
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion… as a 
>>> human evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how 
>>> language 
>>> has a nice tree going back in time.
>>>
>>  
>>  Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of 
>> cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time scale of 
>> this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies require the 
>> removal of existing religions. This was the case in both the communist 
>> revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the enlightenment revolutions 
>> (American and French). But naturally evolved religions are 
>> highly-adapted, 
>> resilient organisms.
>>
>>
>>  
>>   Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for 
>> some the grains of salt.
>>
>>  I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute it 
>> by another (better or worst) religion.
>>   
>  
>  Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the 
> social construct and religion as the private experience.
>
>
>  
>   Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth.
>
>  Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related 
> to that truth, even if they depend on it.
>  
>  
>  
>
>
>>   
>> "cooperation strategies" needs some goal/sense, for which the 
>> cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or  
>> explicit 
>> religion or reality conception, I think. 
>>  
>
>  I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple 
> things selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication. 
> Then it all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist 
> when 
> seeing from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a 
> view of public religion as more of a consequence than a cause.
>   
>
>  
>  Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is 
> based only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this 
> makes does not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in 
> arithmetic, technically). 
>
>  To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally 
> self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but 
> globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and thus 
> accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us, things are 
> less clear to me. 
> Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable. 
> Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can lead.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>   
>  Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that 
> remains to be seen.
>   
>
>  Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp 
> as soon as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that 
> direction. 
>
>  Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded in 
> building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This can 
> transcend biology at different levels. 
>
>  For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon the 
> carbon, but we will probably come back to something close to a little 
> "social" bacteria, "with radio and GSM", constituting a giant computer. 
> The 
> virtual 1p will not necessarily change so much: we will still see 
> ourselves 
> as humans with arms and legs. This can take a millennium, and that 
> bacteria, (which becomes quantum at low temperature) will expand in the 
> arms of the Milky way. 
>   
>>>

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 29 Apr 2014, at 00:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:48 PM,  wrote:

telmo, would it be ok to clarify the relation t matter you don't see  
for consciousness? Do you mean you don't see as true he hypothesis  
that matter is conscious ? Or you don't see that the physical bring  
produces consciousness?


I mean the hypothesis that the physical brain produces  
consciousness. I'm not saying it's false, I'm just saying that there  
is not reason to give more credence to this hypothesis than others:  
for example, that mater is a byproduct of consciousness.


For all the stuff that is covered by the current scientific  
paradigm, we either have understanding or a glimpse of  
understanding. For example: we don't know how the brain stores  
memories, but we understand enough basic principles that it is  
possible to imagine a progression from our current level of  
understanding to full understanding. We know about neurons, how they  
connect in a complex network to create an asynchronous computer and  
so on. This initial knowledge already leads to technology, like face  
recognition. But with consciousness, we don't even have a glimpse of  
understanding. There's no gradient of complexity to climb. We don't  
even know where to start.


I agree that there is no gradient of complexity to climb, but once we  
assume the computationalist hypothesis, it seems to me that we do have  
a place to start: computer science and the logic of self-reference,  
including the intensional variants.


Such logics imply the existence of truth, that we can "know" to be  
true, in some immediate sense, and they implies also that such truth  
are not rationally justifiable, making some of them good candidate for  
consciousness. It can also be shown (that is even easy) that such  
"consciousness"  is an invariant for some "recursive substitution or  
digital copy", reverifying comp "from inside". (That does not "prove"  
comp, of course).


We don't have to climb in complexity, we need only to learn to  
distinguish the many internal views of the (many) Löbian numbers from  
inside arithmetic relatively to many universal numbers (more  
precisely: finitely many (like in this list) together with infinitely  
many, like in QM or in comp below our substitution level.





So I propose that the current mainstream scientific belief that the  
brain produces consciousness is mysticism.


Which might perhaps make sense if the substitution level is  
*infinitely low*. In that case we have to say "no to *all* doctors",  
and comp is false.
"infinitely low" is not really a matter of scaling, but like in QM, of  
isolation from the environment or the relative universal numbers.


But even this way to escape comp has its problems. If it is done  
constructively enough (using the constructive transfinite), then the  
consequences above still follows and we loss "unicity" again. If is is  
done non constructively, things get just more complex, and you need to  
be either god, or inconsistent, to conclude anything from that. Matter  
(primitive matter) becomes then a conceptual gap object whose only  
role would be to escape the consequence of comp. That is worst than  
(genuine) mysticism, that's pseudo-science or pseudo-religion.


Cheers!

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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Telmo Menezes]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:48 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/28/2014 3:32 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:48 PM,  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:12:34 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>

   On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote:




  On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

>
>   On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella <
> cdemo...@yahoo.com>' via Everything List 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes
>>
>>
>>
>> http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
>>
>>
>>
>> A nice weekend to everyone!
>>
>>
>>
>> Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion... as a
>> human evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how 
>> language
>> has a nice tree going back in time.
>>
>
>  Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of
> cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time scale of
> this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies require the
> removal of existing religions. This was the case in both the communist
> revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the enlightenment revolutions
> (American and French). But naturally evolved religions are highly-adapted,
> resilient organisms.
>
>
>
>   Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for
> some the grains of salt.
>
>  I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute it
> by another (better or worst) religion.
>

  Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the
 social construct and religion as the private experience.



   Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth.

  Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related to
 that truth, even if they depend on it.





>
> "cooperation strategies" needs some goal/sense, for which the
> cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or  explicit
> religion or reality conception, I think.
>

  I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple
 things selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication.
 Then it all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist when
 seeing from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a
 view of public religion as more of a consequence than a cause.



  Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is
 based only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this
 makes does not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in
 arithmetic, technically).

  To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally
 self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but
 globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and thus
 accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us, things are
 less clear to me.
 Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable.
 Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can lead.






  Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that
 remains to be seen.


  Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp
 as soon as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that
 direction.

  Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded in
 building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This can
 transcend biology at different levels.

  For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon the
 carbon, but we will probably come back to something close to a little
 "social" bacteria, "with radio and GSM", constituting a giant computer. The
 virtual 1p will not necessarily change so much: we will still see ourselves
 as humans with arms and legs. This can take a millennium, and that
 bacteria, (which becomes quantum at low temperature) will expand in the
 arms of the Milky way.

>>>
>>>  You say that everything will be normal, we'll be human with arms and
>>> legs, then you say something highly psychedelic :)
>>>
>>>





>  Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong)
> atheism/materialism? Hmm :)
>

  The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
 Where would you say it branches from, in t

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Alberto G. Corona]

It is not possible to define the concept of existence without resorting in
some kind of belief. That is why talking seriously about existence is
carefully avoided.


2014-04-29 10:18 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

>
> On 27 Apr 2014, at 19:38, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 4/27/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I think the same. That's close to Platonism. There is more than what we
> see, measure, etc.
> Then we can theorize, which means making assumptions (like "the moon
> exist"), and experimentation, like "going on the moon". This will not prove
> that the moon exists in any real or fundamental way,
>
>
> LOL. I think you've been a logician to long. :-)
>
>
> Just being a rationalist, and interested in things going beyond the usual
> FAPP (For All Practical Purposes).
>
> To go to the moon, we need some "existence" of the moon, not necessarily
> an ontological existence.
> To solve the mind-body problem, or to put light on the nature of matter
> and consciousness (and their relations) it is important to understand that
> seeing, experiencing, ... don't prove (in the informal logician or
> mathematician sense indeed) anything about 'reality'.
>
> I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon still
> exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in that case,
> definitely not exist".
>
> Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon
> doesn't exist even when we look at it.
> Only the relative relations between my computational states and infinitely
> many computations exists.
>
> If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution, then it
> survives an arithmetical digital substitution, and what we call the moon
> has to be recovered as a stable pattern emerging from an infinity of
> computations in arithmetic, and cannot be related from anything else. The
> math confirmed that this makes sense, as the logic of 'certainty" ([]p &
> <>t) gives a quantum logic on the arithmetical sigma_1 (computational)
> proposition p.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Brent
> He's like a philosopher who says, "I know it's possible in
> practice. Now I'd like to know whether it's possible in
> principle."
>   --- Daniel Dennett, on Michael Behe
>
> --
> 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Apr 2014, at 19:38, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/27/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think the same. That's close to Platonism. There is more than  
what we see, measure, etc.
Then we can theorize, which means making assumptions (like "the  
moon exist"), and experimentation, like "going on the moon". This  
will not prove that the moon exists in any real or fundamental way,


LOL. I think you've been a logician to long. :-)


Just being a rationalist, and interested in things going beyond the  
usual FAPP (For All Practical Purposes).


To go to the moon, we need some "existence" of the moon, not  
necessarily an ontological existence.
To solve the mind-body problem, or to put light on the nature of  
matter and consciousness (and their relations) it is important to  
understand that seeing, experiencing, ... don't prove (in the informal  
logician or mathematician sense indeed) anything about 'reality'.


I like when David Mermin said once: "Einstein asked if the moon still  
exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in that case,  
definitely not exist".


Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon  
doesn't exist even when we look at it.
Only the relative relations between my computational states and  
infinitely many computations exists.


If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution, then  
it survives an arithmetical digital substitution, and what we call the  
moon has to be recovered as a stable pattern emerging from an infinity  
of computations in arithmetic, and cannot be related from anything  
else. The math confirmed that this makes sense, as the logic of  
'certainty" ([]p & <>t) gives a quantum logic on the arithmetical  
sigma_1 (computational) proposition p.


Bruno





Brent
He's like a philosopher who says, "I know it's possible in
practice. Now I'd like to know whether it's possible in
principle."
  --- Daniel Dennett, on Michael Behe

--
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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/28/2014 3:32 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:48 PM, mailto:ghib...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:12:34 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:




On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella
' via Everything List
 wrote:

*From:*everyth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo 
Menezes

http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181

A nice weekend to everyone!

Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on 
religion... as
a human evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar 
to say
how language has a nice tree going back in time.


Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of
cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time 
scale
of this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies
require the removal of existing religions. This was the case in 
both
the communist revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the 
enlightenment
revolutions (American and French). But naturally evolved 
religions are
highly-adapted, resilient organisms.



Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks 
for some
the grains of salt.

I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can 
substitute it by
another (better or worst) religion.


Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the 
social
construct and religion as the private experience.



Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth.

Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related 
to that
truth, even if they depend on it.




"cooperation strategies" needs some goal/sense, for which the
cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or
 explicit religion or reality conception, I think.


I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple 
things
selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication. 
Then it
all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist when 
seeing
from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a 
view of
public religion as more of a consequence than a cause.



Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is 
based
only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this 
makes does
not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in arithmetic,
technically).

To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally
self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but
globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and 
thus
accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us, 
things are
less clear to me.
Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable.
Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can 
lead.







Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that
remains to be seen.


Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp 
as soon
as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that 
direction.

Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded in
building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This 
can
transcend biology at different levels.

For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon 
the carbon,
but we will probably come back to something close to a little 
"social"
bacteria, "with radio and GSM", constituting a giant computer. The 
virtual
1p will not necessarily change so much: we will still see ourselves 
as
humans with arms and legs. This can take a millennium, and that 
bacteria,
(which becomes quantum at low temperature) will expand in the arms 
of the
Milky way.


You say that everything will be normal, we'll be human with arms and 
legs, then
you say something highly psychedelic :)





Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (s

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Telmo Menezes]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:48 PM,  wrote:

>
> On Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:12:34 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>

 On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella '
 via Everything List  wrote:

>
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes
>
>
>
> http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
>
>
>
> A nice weekend to everyone!
>
>
>
> Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion... as a
> human evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how 
> language
> has a nice tree going back in time.
>

 Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of
 cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time scale of
 this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies require the
 removal of existing religions. This was the case in both the communist
 revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the enlightenment revolutions
 (American and French). But naturally evolved religions are highly-adapted,
 resilient organisms.



 Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for some
 the grains of salt.

 I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute it by
 another (better or worst) religion.

>>>
>>> Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the
>>> social construct and religion as the private experience.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth.
>>>
>>> Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related to
>>> that truth, even if they depend on it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

 "cooperation strategies" needs some goal/sense, for which the
 cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or  explicit
 religion or reality conception, I think.

>>>
>>> I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple things
>>> selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication. Then it
>>> all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist when seeing
>>> from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a view of
>>> public religion as more of a consequence than a cause.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is
>>> based only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this
>>> makes does not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in
>>> arithmetic, technically).
>>>
>>> To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally
>>> self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but
>>> globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and thus
>>> accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us, things are
>>> less clear to me.
>>> Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable.
>>> Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can lead.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that
>>> remains to be seen.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp as
>>> soon as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that direction.
>>>
>>> Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded in
>>> building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This can
>>> transcend biology at different levels.
>>>
>>> For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon the
>>> carbon, but we will probably come back to something close to a little
>>> "social" bacteria, "with radio and GSM", constituting a giant computer. The
>>> virtual 1p will not necessarily change so much: we will still see ourselves
>>> as humans with arms and legs. This can take a millennium, and that
>>> bacteria, (which becomes quantum at low temperature) will expand in the
>>> arms of the Milky way.
>>>
>>
>> You say that everything will be normal, we'll be human with arms and
>> legs, then you say something highly psychedelic :)
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong)
 atheism/materialism? Hmm :)

>>>
>>> The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
>>> Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?
>>>
>>>
>>> I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of the
>>> abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like notably
>>> in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism).
>>>
>>> Platonism is not dead, just dormant, in basically all religions  (if not
>>> in

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:12:34 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella 
>>> >' 
>>> via Everything List > wrote:
>>>
  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes

  

 http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181

  

 A nice weekend to everyone!

  

 Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion… as a human 
 evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how language has 
 a 
 nice tree going back in time.

>>>
>>> Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of 
>>> cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time scale of 
>>> this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies require the 
>>> removal of existing religions. This was the case in both the communist 
>>> revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the enlightenment revolutions 
>>> (American and French). But naturally evolved religions are highly-adapted, 
>>> resilient organisms.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for some 
>>> the grains of salt.
>>>
>>> I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute it by 
>>> another (better or worst) religion.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the 
>> social construct and religion as the private experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth.
>>
>> Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related to 
>> that truth, even if they depend on it.
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>  
>>> "cooperation strategies" needs some goal/sense, for which the 
>>> cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or  explicit 
>>> religion or reality conception, I think. 
>>>
>>
>> I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple things 
>> selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication. Then it 
>> all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist when seeing 
>> from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a view of 
>> public religion as more of a consequence than a cause.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is based 
>> only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this makes does 
>> not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in arithmetic, 
>> technically). 
>>
>> To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally 
>> self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but 
>> globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and thus 
>> accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us, things are 
>> less clear to me. 
>> Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable. 
>> Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can lead.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>> Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that 
>> remains to be seen.
>>
>>
>> Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp as 
>> soon as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that direction. 
>>
>> Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded in 
>> building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This can 
>> transcend biology at different levels. 
>>
>> For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon the 
>> carbon, but we will probably come back to something close to a little 
>> "social" bacteria, "with radio and GSM", constituting a giant computer. The 
>> virtual 1p will not necessarily change so much: we will still see ourselves 
>> as humans with arms and legs. This can take a millennium, and that 
>> bacteria, (which becomes quantum at low temperature) will expand in the 
>> arms of the Milky way. 
>>
>
> You say that everything will be normal, we'll be human with arms and legs, 
> then you say something highly psychedelic :)
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>> Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong) 
>>> atheism/materialism? Hmm :)
>>>
>>
>> The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
>> Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?
>>
>>
>> I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of the 
>> abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like notably 
>> in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism).
>>
>> Platonism is not dead, just dormant, in basically all religions  (if not 
>> in all brain or universal numbers).
>>
>> We will get virtual, but that is relative, and from the absolute view we 

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:15:34 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 4/26/2014 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
> In the arithmetical reality there are two kinds of place we can access, 
> those where we keep our memories, and those where we don't. Both are 
> infinite in numbers, but have different relative measure. 
> Apparently (salvia reports) we can abandon all memories, and then retrieve 
> them. How can we be sure we retrieve the correct one?
>
>
> Suppose you retrieved the wrong ones, say mine.  You would presumably 
> feel, "I remember racing motorcycles, but that's not the sort of thing I'd 
> like to do.  I'm not even sure I know how to do it."  This is probably the 
> feeling of people who have multiple personalities when they are able to 
> remember what they did when their other personality was in charge.
>
> Notice that this is a reason to consider the material body more 
> fundamental than consciousness.
>
> Brent
>
 
It might not be relevant but recovered memory syndrome was thrown out a 
long time ago, multiple personalities also.  
 
MP didn't do a lot of harm, but recovered memories left human wreckage 
wherever it went. It was largely debunked due to suggestion by the 
therapist, which broke down in two ways - basically unrealised, and 
deliberate...which was  probably a criminal offense but I forget. The 
legacy of the fraudulent side is nothing but human wreckage., But the 
legacy of the other side had a part in some really far reaching research 
developments that has seen major revisions of things like, techniques 
police interrogators are allowed to use, value of a confession 
without independent evidence, and so on. Disclaimer: I'm going from 
memory and there is a possibility I make a mistake in making this 
connection. But I think I'm right. I'm right about the two deelopements 
either end,

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:15:34 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 4/26/2014 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  
> In the arithmetical reality there are two kinds of place we can access, 
> those where we keep our memories, and those where we don't. Both are 
> infinite in numbers, but have different relative measure. 
> Apparently (salvia reports) we can abandon all memories, and then retrieve 
> them. How can we be sure we retrieve the correct one?
>
>
> Suppose you retrieved the wrong ones, say mine.  You would presumably 
> feel, "I remember racing motorcycles, but that's not the sort of thing I'd 
> like to do.  I'm not even sure I know how to do it."  This is probably the 
> feeling of people who have multiple personalities when they are able to 
> remember what they did when their other personality was in charge.
>
> Notice that this is a reason to consider the material body more 
> fundamental than consciousness.
>
> Brent 
>
 
tangent: Did you race motorcycles?  They were my life at one time.
 

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 10:40:38 AM UTC+1, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> Obviously whoever that believes that there is the possibility of a 
> transformation of any kind and he deserve it, will think that there 
> are something or someone that is trying to steal him, since this 
> transformation does not arrive. 
>
> Then there is a dynamic that explain what happens with modernity: 
> revolution, paranoid repression, totalitarianism, war, restoration of 
> order, more revolutions etc.. but also the search for great advances, 
> in the hope to find definitive solutions for everything. And also the 
> hunger for news and novelties instead of the search for truth. 
>
> All the essayed in the past is rubbish, even the things that partially 
> succeeded , since that was not  completely successful.  The modern 
> admit no compromises since his non negotiable exigence is need 
> something definitive that eradicate everything bad and justifies his 
> own holiness and innocence, that is, a total transformation, a 
> resurrection. 
>
> Therefore all the past is evil, except those events that in the past 
> announced the  new ideology  in fashion. The modern is ever rewriting 
> history to redecorate morally whatever in the past according with the 
> new hopes. 
>
> That also happens in his own life: The modern is born every morning.. 
> without history. He reinvent itself. Today he feels that some sect or 
> ideology is the solution to all his problems. tomorrow he read 
> something about some diet, at the next day, running is the answer. The 
> next day, if the sect does something bad according with the news, he 
> hates the sect where he was member, but he does not feel that he 
> shares the charge for being part of the sect in the past. On the 
> contrary, he hates the sect for stealing him time before knowing what 
> he know now: the definitive solution for everithing, whatever it is 
> today. 
>
> That is specially true in the case of women. They are prone to be 
> influenced much more than men, besides the suffering that this vital 
> insecurity causes herselves.  For this reason, they are the preferred 
> targets of advertising, political campaigns, evil sectarians and every 
> kind of  flattered, manipulative men.  That is the dark side of the 
> feminist ideology. 
>
> Another dimension of modern religions are the return of magic an the 
> cult to personality, since the material dimension does not fulfill the 
> human nature. But that is another long post. 
>
 
By the looks I'm seeing something not to different than you. It's a 
perilous moment. I think it's true that now it is so late in the day, only 
a sweeping transformation that somehow got it right and worked it's way 
through markets and nations and scientific institutions (the latter 
probably better competed against by fresh institutions). 
 
It feels unrealistic and hard to see. But transformational events have 
happened, that did have the effect of sweeping a load of apparently 
intractable problems off the table opening up a new era. In large part 
that's the story of the West 1600 - 1900. The 20th century is problematic. 
Amazing advances yet the seeds sown for downfall.
 
I don't know. A romantic point of view would be that at a time like this it 
has to be understood that individuals..maybe just one...would need to 
somehow come up with the solution and implement it. Because everything at 
the scale that would be capable if it wished, is either corrupted already, 
or de-balled. 
 
Obviously it's such a fantastically improbable turnaround, one should do 
with it what one does with such things. On the other hand, a way to see it 
would be that because it's so unlikely and no way to know if even one 
person even tries, at least one person will have to be you
 

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Alberto G. Corona]

Obviously whoever that believes that there is the possibility of a
transformation of any kind and he deserve it, will think that there
are something or someone that is trying to steal him, since this
transformation does not arrive.

Then there is a dynamic that explain what happens with modernity:
revolution, paranoid repression, totalitarianism, war, restoration of
order, more revolutions etc.. but also the search for great advances,
in the hope to find definitive solutions for everything. And also the
hunger for news and novelties instead of the search for truth.

All the essayed in the past is rubbish, even the things that partially
succeeded , since that was not  completely successful.  The modern
admit no compromises since his non negotiable exigence is need
something definitive that eradicate everything bad and justifies his
own holiness and innocence, that is, a total transformation, a
resurrection.

Therefore all the past is evil, except those events that in the past
announced the  new ideology  in fashion. The modern is ever rewriting
history to redecorate morally whatever in the past according with the
new hopes.

That also happens in his own life: The modern is born every morning..
without history. He reinvent itself. Today he feels that some sect or
ideology is the solution to all his problems. tomorrow he read
something about some diet, at the next day, running is the answer. The
next day, if the sect does something bad according with the news, he
hates the sect where he was member, but he does not feel that he
shares the charge for being part of the sect in the past. On the
contrary, he hates the sect for stealing him time before knowing what
he know now: the definitive solution for everithing, whatever it is
today.

That is specially true in the case of women. They are prone to be
influenced much more than men, besides the suffering that this vital
insecurity causes herselves.  For this reason, they are the preferred
targets of advertising, political campaigns, evil sectarians and every
kind of  flattered, manipulative men.  That is the dark side of the
feminist ideology.

Another dimension of modern religions are the return of magic an the
cult to personality, since the material dimension does not fulfill the
human nature. But that is another long post.



2014-04-28 10:55 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona :
> spudboy:
> I´m trying to find a suitable application to draw a tree of the
> evolution of modern religions. If I have time I will do it.
>
> IMHO, the mere idea of progression and resurection is judeo-christian.
> The idea of history is a consequence. All the western modern religions
> are immanentist simplifications of this worldview.  Resurection is
> pervasive in all the western modern religions. either in the form of a
> collective resurrection after an apocalyptic change on society:
> Marxism, environmentalism or as an individual resurection such is
> transhumanism, but also capitalism, where being millonaire is the
> "transformation" in the hope that all problems are solved with money.
>
> The modern can be considered as a christian that can not wait for
> salvation in the afterlife and at the same time he believe that he
> deserve it. he need the transformation now, This urgency and auto
> sanctification is not methaphorical: The history of the first
> political revolutions are the history of groups with this mentality.
> Nothing has changed except that the urgency in even higher now.
>
> 2014-04-27 23:13 GMT+02:00, spudboy...@aol.com via Everything List
> :
>>
>> Alberto, where would you place Cosmism/Transhumanism? Where would you
>> place
>> Frank Tipler, a devout, (I believe) Roman Catholic? Where would you rank
>> Hans Moravec, from Carnegie? Both Tipler and Moravec utilize the same
>> technical means to achieve the how question of resurrection? One is Roman
>> Catholic (I think?) one is an atheist. Both seem to use their
>> understanding
>> of computer science and physics to attempt to ease human psychological
>> suffering. Just interested.
>>
>> Mitch
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Alberto G. Corona 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Sat, Apr 26, 2014 4:50 pm
>> Subject: Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
>>
>>
>> Where are the modern religions?
>>
>>
>>
>>  next  totalitarianism
>>  |
>>
>> 
>>   |
>>  |
>>   Environmentalism
>>personality cult
>>   |
>>

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Alberto G. Corona]

spudboy:
I´m trying to find a suitable application to draw a tree of the
evolution of modern religions. If I have time I will do it.

IMHO, the mere idea of progression and resurection is judeo-christian.
The idea of history is a consequence. All the western modern religions
are immanentist simplifications of this worldview.  Resurection is
pervasive in all the western modern religions. either in the form of a
collective resurrection after an apocalyptic change on society:
Marxism, environmentalism or as an individual resurection such is
transhumanism, but also capitalism, where being millonaire is the
"transformation" in the hope that all problems are solved with money.

The modern can be considered as a christian that can not wait for
salvation in the afterlife and at the same time he believe that he
deserve it. he need the transformation now, This urgency and auto
sanctification is not methaphorical: The history of the first
political revolutions are the history of groups with this mentality.
Nothing has changed except that the urgency in even higher now.

2014-04-27 23:13 GMT+02:00, spudboy...@aol.com via Everything List
:
>
> Alberto, where would you place Cosmism/Transhumanism? Where would you place
> Frank Tipler, a devout, (I believe) Roman Catholic? Where would you rank
> Hans Moravec, from Carnegie? Both Tipler and Moravec utilize the same
> technical means to achieve the how question of resurrection? One is Roman
> Catholic (I think?) one is an atheist. Both seem to use their understanding
> of computer science and physics to attempt to ease human psychological
> suffering. Just interested.
>
> Mitch
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alberto G. Corona 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sat, Apr 26, 2014 4:50 pm
> Subject: Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
>
>
> Where are the modern religions?
>
>
>
>  next  totalitarianism
>  |
>
> 
>   |
>  |
>   Environmentalism
>personality cult
>   |
>   + human sacrifices
>   progressivism|
>  |
>   | |
>  |
>|   |
> |
> Marxism|
> |
>|   |
> |
> Capitalism|
>|
>|   |
>regression to base primitive
>liberalism New Age Hippism
> religion (Roberspierre)
>||
> |
>Economicism  |
> rationalism
>   |  |
>|
>rationalism   (1)  |
> |
>| |
> immanentism (1)
> ---immanentism---masonry---|
>||
>||
>  apocaliptic protestantism   |
>||
>nominalism gnosticism
>   |
> christianism
>
> 2014-04-26 17:40 GMT+02:00, Telmo Menezes :
>> http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
>>
>> A nice weekend to everyone!
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> --
>> 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/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[spudboy...@aol.com via Everything List]

Alberto, where would you place Cosmism/Transhumanism? Where would you place 
Frank Tipler, a devout, (I believe) Roman Catholic? Where would you rank Hans 
Moravec, from Carnegie? Both Tipler and Moravec utilize the same technical 
means to achieve the how question of resurrection? One is Roman Catholic (I 
think?) one is an atheist. Both seem to use their understanding of computer 
science and physics to attempt to ease human psychological suffering. Just 
interested.
 
Mitch
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Alberto G. Corona 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Apr 26, 2014 4:50 pm
Subject: Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion


Where are the modern religions?



 next  totalitarianism
 |


  |
 |
  Environmentalism
   personality cult
  |
  + human sacrifices
  progressivism|
 |
  | |
 |
   |   |
|
Marxism|
|
   |   |
|
Capitalism|
   |
   |   |
   regression to base primitive
   liberalism New Age Hippism
religion (Roberspierre)
   ||
|
   Economicism  |
rationalism
  |  |
   |
   rationalism   (1)  |
|
   | |
immanentism (1)
---immanentism---masonry---|
   ||
   ||
 apocaliptic protestantism   |
   ||
   nominalism gnosticism
  |
christianism

2014-04-26 17:40 GMT+02:00, Telmo Menezes :
> http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
>
> A nice weekend to everyone!
>
> Telmo.
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
>


-- 
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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/27/2014 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Notice that this is a reason to consider the material body more fundamental than 
consciousness.


You are quick here. Material bodies are divine hypotheses.


"But such a useful hypothesis."
--- Lagrange

--
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/27/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I think the same. That's close to Platonism. There is more than what we see, 
measure, etc.
Then we can theorize, which means making assumptions (like "the moon exist"), and 
experimentation, like "going on the moon". This will not prove that the moon exists in 
any real or fundamental way,


LOL. I think you've been a logician to long. :-)

Brent
He's like a philosopher who says, "I know it's possible in
practice. Now I'd like to know whether it's possible in
principle."
  --- Daniel Dennett, on Michael Behe

--
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Apr 2014, at 02:20, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/26/2014 2:54 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Telmo: an AWFUL image! Someone wanted to get 'eternal' bliss for  
composing it SO complicated. (Mind you: 'eternal'  does  not  
mean a timespan.) When I still used the "atheist" epitheton I  
called the IRS (Tax office in the US) and asked if I can get a   
tax-free status for establishing an 'atheist' church with my  
friends? The answer was (and I could not believe the IRS has  
any  humor): Of course, as long as you identify the "GOD" you  
pray to.


About 20yrs ago when my brother was a pilot for Braniff airlines a  
group of pilots (not including my brother) got together and formed  
"The Church of Holy Remuneration".  They gave *all* their income to  
the church - so they owed no taxes.


Lol


The church then provided them with homes, cars, vacations in Europe,  
boats, lakefront lodges, food, ...


The best liturgy!


After a few years the IRS decided this wasn't really a religion.



... probably not enough brainwashing and child molesting to be a  
'religion' (cynical remark).


Well tried though!

Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Apr 2014, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/26/2014 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In the arithmetical reality there are two kinds of place we can  
access, those where we keep our memories, and those where we don't.  
Both are infinite in numbers, but have different relative measure.
Apparently (salvia reports) we can abandon all memories, and then  
retrieve them. How can we be sure we retrieve the correct one?


Suppose you retrieved the wrong ones, say mine.  You would  
presumably feel, "I remember racing motorcycles, but that's not the  
sort of thing I'd like to do. I'm not even sure I know how to do it."



Well, I meant you lost all memories (and *particular* personality  
traits) and get all the other one. The question does not make sense,  
but in some salvia hallucination this can happens slowly, so when you  
come back to remember having been someone-else, and then getting piece  
by piece "your" memory, back, still keeping in some background the  
other memories.


If this is done quickly, or under anesthesia, it becomes equivalent  
with a teleportation.




 This is probably the feeling of people who have multiple  
personalities when they are able to remember what they did when  
their other personality was in charge.



Possibly. With salvia it might be closer to the Jouvet explanation of  
simultaneous dreams: an inhibition of the corpus callosum.


Then for people having good relation between the left and right brain,  
the conversation go on, but only indirectly through the limbic  
systems. The "Lady Sally" might be the left brain (may be the one  
handling the "& p" in []p & p) "seen" by the the left brain (the one  
handling only []p) through the limbic system.


Some scientists pretend that woman have a more efficacious corpus  
callosum. That might explain why on youtube woman seems to make better  
trips than man, but of course young male might also be more probe to  
picture themselves in spectacular conditions. I dunno. I am not sure  
if that theory of woman having bigger or better corpus callosum has  
been confirmed or is controversial.






Notice that this is a reason to consider the material body more  
fundamental than consciousness.


You are quick here. Material bodies are divine hypotheses.

There might be too much dreams in arithmetic, but like in Everett QM,  
it could be  *because* there are many infinitely long dream, that the  
physical, observable measure can emerge.


I don't know the truth, I just say, let us do the math and the test.

The math of provability (with truth and/or consistency explicit or  
implicit conditioning, provides the needed representation theorem of  
quantum logic in modal logic, and of modal logic(s) in Peano (say)  
arithmetic; leading to an arithmetical quantum logic that we can  
compare with the empiric quantum logic.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Apr 2014, at 01:07, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/26/2014 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:




Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong)  
atheism/materialism? Hmm :)


The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?


I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of  
the abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere,  
like notably in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism).


To complete the tree you would need to start further down (a tap  
root?) where science, magic, and religion were all the same thing.   
Modern atheism, since the Elightenment is mainly an embrace of  
science and a rejection of the revelatory religion and so would  
branch off around Galileo.


I am not so sure. I think we have already discuss this, but strictly  
speaking The Church was right on Galileo, he was proposing only a  
theory. Of course the church too, and with Galilee what comes at last  
is a more serious counting of the genuine evidence, and the abandon of  
some argument per authority.
But all this is made in a context where both party the Aristotelian  
creator+creation framework. Before them, the greeks were aware of the  
possibility of other frames, and there did have a more scientific  
attitude with respect to the fundamental questioning.
As I said often, the Enlightenment was only half Enlightenment. For  
the fundamental questions we have still dogma-against-dogma, and no  
real research. There are progresses though, the mind body problem is  
still under the rug but less and less so, the physicists understand  
also that the nature of reality is not an easy problems, computer  
science justifies notion of of machine personal perspectives, etc.





Magic is still around and connects to Voodoo and some other  
"religions" that use ritual to control "the gods", but science has  
been even more corrosive of magic than religion.  It just works a  
lot better.


Religion is the only goal, personally and collectively.
Science is the only tool.
I think.

To me, the opposition between science and religion is akin to a  
disease, like a failure between the corpus callosum.


Religion is a bet on truth, a sort of trust, and science (corpus of  
representable valid beliefs relations) is the only vessel we have to  
explore the realm toward (and only toward) the possible truth.


Just to accept the opposition between science and religion entails a  
sort of tolerance of the authoritative arguments in the fundamental  
questioning.
The problems arise from those who pretend to know the truth, and from  
those (more numerous) who pretend that someone know or knew the truth.


Opposing science and religion can only lead to pseudo-science and  
pseudo-religion.


With computationalism we get a rational justification of why we cannot  
completely get rid of some magic, which is not a problem because there  
is a lot of magic in mathematics, when looking close. Infinite sums,  
unexpected morphism, universal relations.


Human (or X) theology extends human (or X) science, like with  
classical (platonist) computationalism, G* extends G. True beliefs can  
exist, but truth always extends (a lot) the (correct) beliefs.  We  
don't know the truth but we are still confronted to it, as much as  
with our beliefs.


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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:20:08 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 4/26/2014 2:54 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>  
> Telmo: an AWFUL image! Someone wanted to get 'eternal' bliss for composing 
> it SO complicated. (Mind you: 'eternal'  does not mean a timespan.) When I 
> still used the "atheist" epitheton I called the IRS (Tax office in the US) 
> and asked if I can get a tax-free status for establishing an 'atheist' 
> church with my friends? The answer was (and I could not believe the IRS has 
> any humor): Of course, as long as you identify the "GOD" you pray to. 
>
>
> About 20yrs ago when my brother was a pilot for Braniff airlines a group 
> of pilots (not including my brother) got together and formed "The Church of 
> Holy Remuneration".  They gave *all* their income to the church - so they 
> owed no taxes.  The church then provided them with homes, cars, vacations 
> in Europe, boats, lakefront lodges, food, ...  After a few years the IRS 
> decided this wasn't really a religion.
>
> Brent
>
so funny..thanks for that
 

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi John,


On 26 Apr 2014, at 23:54, John Mikes wrote:

Telmo: an AWFUL image! Someone wanted to get 'eternal' bliss for  
composing it SO complicated. (Mind you: 'eternal'  does not mean a  
timespan.) When I still used the "atheist" epitheton I called the  
IRS (Tax office in the US) and asked if I can get a tax-free status  
for establishing an 'atheist' church with my friends? The answer was  
(and I could not believe the IRS has any humor): Of course, as long  
as you identify the "GOD" you pray to.


I wonder (Bruno!) if Materialism is a religion? unless we call ALL  
philosophys so, that are based on some basic beliefs. Atheism lately  
refers in my vocabulary to an ignorance about "GOD" - needed for  
denial.


To make easier comparative theology, I like to define God by anything  
transcendental responsible for our existence. It does not need to be a  
person, like the chinese Tao.


So, the belief in matter is not necessarily a religion.
The belief in a *primitive matter" ("really" existing, or  
ontologically primary) is not a religion too, although closer, because  
a dualist can believe in both "really existing" matter and some God  
using it to create us.
But the belief in *only* primitive matter makes that matter  
responsible for our existence, and that belief is a religion. And  
indeed it behaves like a pseudo-religion, with its intolerance, lack  
of doubt, etc.






My agnosticism has one basic belief: that there is more to  
'it' (i.e. the World, the Everything) than what we may know.


I think the same. That's close to Platonism. There is more than what  
we see, measure, etc.
Then we can theorize, which means making assumptions (like "the moon  
exist"), and experimentation, like "going on the moon". This will not  
prove that the moon exists in any real or fundamental way, but that  
can still compress a lot of information, and we can go on, until we  
detect the flaws, and build a better theory.




Way beyond our imagination and fantasies. Beyond those qualia we try  
to fix within our mental capabilities.
I confess I did not minutiously go through the graph so I don't know  
if power-connections are included server by the faith?

The "fear-factors" of religions definitely point to such.

The "Creator" is still on: we have no idea how that big cabooz got  
started. If there was a SuperNat'l Power, where did THAT stem from  
and where did that earlier Stemmer stem from? Why do the 'recent' (I  
mean biblical?) gods carry those human deficiencies, like a need to  
be adored, obeyed, confessed-to, irritability, wrath, and so on and  
on? If the Creator(?) knows everything, why are we, creatures,  
required to evolve and 'get better'? Why "sin"? Why hell? Who made  
Satan?

(and 1000 more questions).


"sin" is easy to explain. When something bad happen to a neighbor,   
fear pushes us into thinking that the guy deserves it. Bad luck is too  
much terrifying, and so we imagine that the guy has sinned. Then, when  
more global catastrophes occurs, we interpret it similarly as a  
punishment, and derive from this that we have sinned (like doing too  
much C02). Then when religion get authoritative, the idea of sin is a  
very useful as a manipulative tools (catholic exploited this a lot).


Where does God come from? With computationalism, 'Truth' (or just  
arithmetical truth) is, or plays well, the role of God, or of a sort  
of first approximation of God, and in this case, the "clever" creature  
(the numbers, the machines) can explain why they cannot answer that  
question. The existence of numbers is an unavoidable total mystery.


The problem with the recent (biblical) religions, is that instead of  
encouraging people to question everything and do personal research,  
they idolize images, words and books, which leads to authoritative  
violent means of persuasion, and to terrestrial power, which has no  
more anything to do with the divine. It becomes the usual (alas) human  
abuse of human, and that might be the "real" sin.


Sincerely yours,

Bruno






Faithfully yours

John Mikes




On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote:

http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181

A nice weekend to everyone!

Telmo.

--
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/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 grou

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 5:17 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/26/2014 4:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:07 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 4/26/2014 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong)
>>> atheism/materialism? Hmm :)
>>>
>>
>>  The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
>> Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?
>>
>>
>>  I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of the
>> abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like notably
>> in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism).
>>
>>
>>  To complete the tree you would need to start further down (a tap root?)
>> where science, magic, and religion were all the same thing.  Modern
>> atheism, since the Elightenment is mainly an embrace of science and a
>> rejection of the revelatory religion and so would branch off around
>> Galileo.  Magic is still around and connects to Voodoo and some other
>> "religions" that use ritual to control "the gods", but science has been
>> even more corrosive of magic than religion.  It just works a lot better.
>>
>
>  There is the atheist/agnostic position, that I share, that rejects
> deities -- or find as much reason to believe in them as in any other
> unfalsifiable claim. But then there are atheists that have strong believes
> that feel religious again. One example is the strong belief that
> consciousness is a byproduct of matter. This is a common belief nowadays.
> To be fair, it seems to be a belief "by default" by educated people.
>
>
> Wouldn't you say there's more evidence for that than the contrary?
>

I don't see it, but maybe it's a limitation on my part. I consider that
hypothesis too.

Telmo.


>
> Brent
>
>
>   I have confronted some friends with the implications of this belief and
> they seem to change easily to "I don't know" when thinking more deeply
> about it. But other people are strongly attached to it.
>
>  Telmo.
>
>
>>
>> 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/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 http://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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella <
>> cdemorse...@yahoo.com>' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A nice weekend to everyone!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion... as a human
>>> evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how language has a
>>> nice tree going back in time.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of cooperation
>> strategies. In recent History (compared to the time scale of this graph),
>> attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies require the removal of
>> existing religions. This was the case in both the communist revolutions
>> (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the enlightenment revolutions (American and
>> French). But naturally evolved religions are highly-adapted, resilient
>> organisms.
>>
>>
>>
>> Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for some
>> the grains of salt.
>>
>> I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute it by
>> another (better or worst) religion.
>>
>
> Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the social
> construct and religion as the private experience.
>
>
>
> Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth.
>
> Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related to that
> truth, even if they depend on it.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> "cooperation strategies" needs some goal/sense, for which the cooperation
>> makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or  explicit religion or
>> reality conception, I think.
>>
>
> I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple things
> selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication. Then it
> all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist when seeing
> from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a view of
> public religion as more of a consequence than a cause.
>
>
>
> Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is based
> only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this makes does
> not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in arithmetic,
> technically).
>
> To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally
> self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but
> globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and thus
> accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us, things are
> less clear to me.
> Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable.
> Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can lead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that
> remains to be seen.
>
>
> Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp as
> soon as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that direction.
>
> Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded in
> building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This can
> transcend biology at different levels.
>
> For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon the
> carbon, but we will probably come back to something close to a little
> "social" bacteria, "with radio and GSM", constituting a giant computer. The
> virtual 1p will not necessarily change so much: we will still see ourselves
> as humans with arms and legs. This can take a millennium, and that
> bacteria, (which becomes quantum at low temperature) will expand in the
> arms of the Milky way.
>

You say that everything will be normal, we'll be human with arms and legs,
then you say something highly psychedelic :)


>
>
>
>
>
>> Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong)
>> atheism/materialism? Hmm :)
>>
>
> The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
> Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?
>
>
> I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of the
> abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like notably
> in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism).
>
> Platonism is not dead, just dormant, in basically all religions  (if not
> in all brain or universal numbers).
>
> We will get virtual, but that is relative, and from the absolute view we
> already are (assuming mechanism).
>

Sure, "virtual" is like "natural", I'm not sure it means anything.


>
> In the arithmetical reality there are two kinds of place we can access,
> those where we keep our memories, and those where we don

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/26/2014 4:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:07 AM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 4/26/2014 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong)
atheism/materialism? Hmm :)


The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?


I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of the 
abramanic
religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like notably in some 
branch of
Hinduism and Buddhism).


To complete the tree you would need to start further down (a tap root?) 
where
science, magic, and religion were all the same thing.  Modern atheism, 
since the
Elightenment is mainly an embrace of science and a rejection of the 
revelatory
religion and so would branch off around Galileo.  Magic is still around and 
connects
to Voodoo and some other "religions" that use ritual to control "the gods", 
but
science has been even more corrosive of magic than religion.  It just works 
a lot
better.


There is the atheist/agnostic position, that I share, that rejects deities -- or find as 
much reason to believe in them as in any other unfalsifiable claim. But then there are 
atheists that have strong believes that feel religious again. One example is the strong 
belief that consciousness is a byproduct of matter. This is a common belief nowadays. To 
be fair, it seems to be a belief "by default" by educated people.


Wouldn't you say there's more evidence for that than the contrary?

Brent

I have confronted some friends with the implications of this belief and they seem to 
change easily to "I don't know" when thinking more deeply about it. But other people are 
strongly attached to it.


Telmo.


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/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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/26/2014 2:54 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Telmo: an AWFUL image! Someone wanted to get 'eternal' bliss for composing it SO 
complicated. (Mind you: 'eternal'  does not mean a timespan.) When I still used the 
"atheist" epitheton I called the IRS (Tax office in the US) and asked if I can get a 
tax-free status for establishing an 'atheist' church with my friends? The answer was 
(and I could not believe the IRS has any humor): Of course, as long as you identify the 
"GOD" you pray to. 


About 20yrs ago when my brother was a pilot for Braniff airlines a group of pilots (not 
including my brother) got together and formed "The Church of Holy Remuneration".  They 
gave *all* their income to the church - so they owed no taxes.  The church then provided 
them with homes, cars, vacations in Europe, boats, lakefront lodges, food, ... After a few 
years the IRS decided this wasn't really a 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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:07 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/26/2014 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>  Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong)
>> atheism/materialism? Hmm :)
>>
>
>  The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
> Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?
>
>
>  I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of the
> abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like notably
> in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism).
>
>
> To complete the tree you would need to start further down (a tap root?)
> where science, magic, and religion were all the same thing.  Modern
> atheism, since the Elightenment is mainly an embrace of science and a
> rejection of the revelatory religion and so would branch off around
> Galileo.  Magic is still around and connects to Voodoo and some other
> "religions" that use ritual to control "the gods", but science has been
> even more corrosive of magic than religion.  It just works a lot better.
>

There is the atheist/agnostic position, that I share, that rejects deities
-- or find as much reason to believe in them as in any other unfalsifiable
claim. But then there are atheists that have strong believes that feel
religious again. One example is the strong belief that consciousness is a
byproduct of matter. This is a common belief nowadays. To be fair, it seems
to be a belief "by default" by educated people. I have confronted some
friends with the implications of this belief and they seem to change easily
to "I don't know" when thinking more deeply about it. But other people are
strongly attached to it.

Telmo.


>
> 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 11:54 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> Telmo: an AWFUL image!
>

Hi John,

Awful things can be interesting too, no? I don't find it so awful. It's
part of the History of our species. I was angry after my catholic
education, now I'm just neutral.


> Someone wanted to get 'eternal' bliss for composing it SO complicated.
> (Mind you: 'eternal'  does not mean a timespan.) When I still used the
> "atheist" epitheton I called the IRS (Tax office in the US) and asked if I
> can get a tax-free status for establishing an 'atheist' church with my
> friends? The answer was (and I could not believe the IRS has any humor): Of
> course, as long as you identify the "GOD" you pray to.
>

:)


>
> I wonder (Bruno!) if Materialism is a religion? unless we call ALL
> philosophys so, that are based on some basic beliefs. Atheism lately refers
> in my vocabulary to an ignorance about "GOD" - needed for denial.
>
> My agnosticism has one basic belief: that there is more to 'it' (i.e. the
> World, the Everything) than what we may know. Way beyond our imagination
> and fantasies.
>

I feel the same.


> Beyond those qualia we try to fix within our mental capabilities.
> I confess I did not minutiously go through the graph so I don't know if
> power-connections are included server by the faith?
> The "fear-factors" of religions definitely point to such.
>
> The "Creator" is still on: we have no idea how that big cabooz got
> started. If there was a SuperNat'l Power, where did THAT stem from and
> where did that earlier Stemmer stem from? Why do the 'recent' (I mean
> biblical?) gods carry those human deficiencies, like a need to be adored,
> obeyed, confessed-to, irritability, wrath, and so on and on? If the
> Creator(?) knows everything, why are we, creatures, required to evolve and
> 'get better'? Why "sin"? Why hell? Who made Satan?
> (and 1000 more questions).
>
> Faithfully yours
>
> John Mikes
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
>>
>> A nice weekend to everyone!
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> --
>> 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/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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/26/2014 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In the arithmetical reality there are two kinds of place we can access, those where we 
keep our memories, and those where we don't. Both are infinite in numbers, but have 
different relative measure.
Apparently (salvia reports) we can abandon all memories, and then retrieve them. How can 
we be sure we retrieve the correct one?


Suppose you retrieved the wrong ones, say mine.  You would presumably feel, "I remember 
racing motorcycles, but that's not the sort of thing I'd like to do.  I'm not even sure I 
know how to do it."  This is probably the feeling of people who have multiple 
personalities when they are able to remember what they did when their other personality 
was in charge.


Notice that this is a reason to consider the material body more fundamental than 
consciousness.


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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[meekerdb]

On 4/26/2014 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong) 
atheism/materialism?
Hmm :)


The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?


I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of the abramanic 
religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like notably in some branch of 
Hinduism and Buddhism).


To complete the tree you would need to start further down (a tap root?) where science, 
magic, and religion were all the same thing.  Modern atheism, since the Elightenment is 
mainly an embrace of science and a rejection of the revelatory religion and so would 
branch off around Galileo.  Magic is still around and connects to Voodoo and some other 
"religions" that use ritual to control "the gods", but science has been even more 
corrosive of magic than religion.  It just works a lot better.


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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[John Mikes]

Telmo: an AWFUL image! Someone wanted to get 'eternal' bliss for composing
it SO complicated. (Mind you: 'eternal'  does not mean a timespan.) When I
still used the "atheist" epitheton I called the IRS (Tax office in the US)
and asked if I can get a tax-free status for establishing an 'atheist'
church with my friends? The answer was (and I could not believe the IRS has
any humor): Of course, as long as you identify the "GOD" you pray to.

I wonder (Bruno!) if Materialism is a religion? unless we call ALL
philosophys so, that are based on some basic beliefs. Atheism lately refers
in my vocabulary to an ignorance about "GOD" - needed for denial.

My agnosticism has one basic belief: that there is more to 'it' (i.e. the
World, the Everything) than what we may know. Way beyond our imagination
and fantasies. Beyond those qualia we try to fix within our mental
capabilities.
I confess I did not minutiously go through the graph so I don't know if
power-connections are included server by the faith?
The "fear-factors" of religions definitely point to such.

The "Creator" is still on: we have no idea how that big cabooz got started.
If there was a SuperNat'l Power, where did THAT stem from and where did
that earlier Stemmer stem from? Why do the 'recent' (I mean biblical?) gods
carry those human deficiencies, like a need to be adored, obeyed,
confessed-to, irritability, wrath, and so on and on? If the Creator(?)
knows everything, why are we, creatures, required to evolve and 'get
better'? Why "sin"? Why hell? Who made Satan?
(and 1000 more questions).

Faithfully yours

John Mikes




On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

> http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
>
> A nice weekend to everyone!
>
> Telmo.
>
> --
> 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Alberto G. Corona]

Where are the modern religions?



 next  totalitarianism
 |


  |
 |
  Environmentalism
   personality cult
  |
  + human sacrifices
  progressivism|
 |
  | |
 |
   |   |
|
Marxism|
|
   |   |
|
Capitalism|
   |
   |   |
   regression to base primitive
   liberalism New Age Hippism
religion (Roberspierre)
   ||
|
   Economicism  |
rationalism
  |  |
   |
   rationalism   (1)  |
|
   | |
immanentism (1)
---immanentism---masonry---|
   ||
   ||
 apocaliptic protestantism   |
   ||
   nominalism gnosticism
  |
christianism

2014-04-26 17:40 GMT+02:00, Telmo Menezes :
> http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
>
> A nice weekend to everyone!
>
> Telmo.
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
>


-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella >' via Everything List  wrote:



From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes




http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181



A nice weekend to everyone!



Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion... as a  
human evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how  
language has a nice tree going back in time.



Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of  
cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time  
scale of this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation  
strategies require the removal of existing religions. This was the  
case in both the communist revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and  
the enlightenment revolutions (American and French). But naturally  
evolved religions are highly-adapted, resilient organisms.



Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for  
some the grains of salt.


I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute it  
by another (better or worst) religion.


Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the  
social construct and religion as the private experience.



Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth.

Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related to  
that truth, even if they depend on it.







"cooperation strategies" needs some goal/sense, for which the  
cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or   
explicit religion or reality conception, I think.


I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple  
things selected by evolution, that all relate to survival +  
replication. Then it all collapses into complexification, and the  
goals only exist when seeing from the inside -- the species,  
organism, etc. This can lead to a view of public religion as more of  
a consequence than a cause.



Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is  
based only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this  
makes does not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in  
arithmetic, technically).


To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally  
self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but  
globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and  
thus accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us,  
things are less clear to me.

Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable.
Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can lead.







Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that  
remains to be seen.


Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp as  
soon as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that  
direction.


Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded in  
building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This can  
transcend biology at different levels.


For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon the  
carbon, but we will probably come back to something close to a little  
"social" bacteria, "with radio and GSM", constituting a giant  
computer. The virtual 1p will not necessarily change so much: we will  
still see ourselves as humans with arms and legs. This can take a  
millennium, and that bacteria, (which becomes quantum at low  
temperature) will expand in the arms of the Milky way.






Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong) atheism/ 
materialism? Hmm :)


The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?


I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of  
the abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like  
notably in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism).


Platonism is not dead, just dormant, in basically all religions  (if  
not in all brain or universal numbers).


We will get virtual, but that is relative, and from the absolute view  
we already are (assuming mechanism).


In the arithmetical reality there are two kinds of place we can  
access, those where we keep our memories, and those where we don't.  
Both are infinite in numbers, but have different relative measure.
Apparently (salvia reports) we can abandon all memories, and then  
retrieve them. How can we be sure we retrieve the correct one?
Many unsolved problem, and I usually avoid the use of thought  
experiences with amnesia. Those can be related to Saibal Mitra  
backtracking idea.


Bruno




Telmo.


Bruno





Telmo.


Chris



Telmo..


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything 

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella '
> via Everything List  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes
>>
>>
>>
>> http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
>>
>>
>>
>> A nice weekend to everyone!
>>
>>
>>
>> Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion... as a human
>> evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how language has a
>> nice tree going back in time.
>>
>
> Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of cooperation
> strategies. In recent History (compared to the time scale of this graph),
> attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies require the removal of
> existing religions. This was the case in both the communist revolutions
> (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the enlightenment revolutions (American and
> French). But naturally evolved religions are highly-adapted, resilient
> organisms.
>
>
>
> Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for some the
> grains of salt.
>
> I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute it by
> another (better or worst) religion.
>

Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the social
construct and religion as the private experience.


>
> "cooperation strategies" needs some goal/sense, for which the cooperation
> makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or  explicit religion or
> reality conception, I think.
>

I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple things
selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication. Then it
all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist when seeing
from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a view of
public religion as more of a consequence than a cause.

Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that
remains to be seen.


> Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong)
> atheism/materialism? Hmm :)
>

The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?

Telmo.


>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Telmo.
>
>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> Telmo..
>>
>> --
>> 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/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 http://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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella >' via Everything List  wrote:



From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes




http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181



A nice weekend to everyone!



Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion
 as a human evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say  
how language has a nice tree going back in time.



Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of  
cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time  
scale of this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation  
strategies require the removal of existing religions. This was the  
case in both the communist revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and  
the enlightenment revolutions (American and French). But naturally  
evolved religions are highly-adapted, resilient organisms.



Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks for some  
the grains of salt.


I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can substitute it by  
another (better or worst) religion.
"cooperation strategies" needs some goal/sense, for which the  
cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or   
explicit religion or reality conception, I think.
Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong) atheism/ 
materialism? Hmm :)


Bruno





Telmo.


Chris



Telmo..


--
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/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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella '
via Everything List  wrote:

>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes
>
>
>
> http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
>
>
>
> A nice weekend to everyone!
>
>
>
> Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion... as a human
> evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how language has a
> nice tree going back in time.
>

Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of cooperation
strategies. In recent History (compared to the time scale of this graph),
attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies require the removal of
existing religions. This was the case in both the communist revolutions
(Bolshevik and Maoist) and the enlightenment revolutions (American and
French). But naturally evolved religions are highly-adapted, resilient
organisms.

Telmo.


> Chris
>
>
>
> Telmo..
>
> --
> 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

['Chris de Morsella ' via Everything List]

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes

 

http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181

 

A nice weekend to everyone!

 

Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on religion. as a human
evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar to say how language has a
nice tree going back in time.

Chris

 

Telmo..

-- 
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/d/optout.