Re: God or not?

Why not define God as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and Everything Else that is or may exist? On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 4:20 AM, wrote: > Pantheism, Why didn't you just come out and say so? :-D > > > -Original Message- > From: Edgar Owen > To: everything-list > Sent: 24-Dec-

Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Liz states that "Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as > a "common present moment". but this is incorrect. > > Actually special relativity shows exactly the opposite. In my book I > explain how this works. It is well known,

How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.

Liz states that "Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as a "common present moment". but this is incorrect. Actually special relativity shows exactly the opposite. In my book I explain how this works. It is well known, though little understood, that everything without exception c

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Vu Le 24 déc. 2013 19:44, "John Clark" a écrit : > > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >>> He did answer and did it correctly, >>> >>> >>> >> I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? >> >> >> > Buy some pair of eyes and come back here. > > > Take pi

Re: God or not?

-- 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@googlegrou

Re: Minds, Machines and Gödel

I have probably missed this - I don't have time to engage as much as I would like with this list (or any others) - but where or how are these computations taking place? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this

Re: Privacy

I trust everyone is celebrating Newton-mas today? One of the greatest men of the past 2000 years, without whom we would probably still be ignorant peasants ruled by clergy and kings... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsub

Re: It's about time!

PS just to give a flavour here is one of my posts :-) "Alan Turing gets a royal pardon" And about bloody time! (Virtually) win the second world war and (virtually) invent computers, be driven to suicide by the police and they've kept his "pardon" back all this time. FFS, you dare to wait this lo

Re: It's about time!

Without checking your link, I hope that's Alan Turing being "forgiven". (I've been ranting about this on various forums. I guess I overlooked this one...) On 25 December 2013 10:25, meekerdb wrote: > > > This comes over 60 years too > late

Re: God or not?

How does defining God as the Universe get us anywhere? Why not just call the Universe the Universe? PS What's all this dissing of Zues and Odin? "Thor promised to rid the world of frost giants. I don't see any frost giants..." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

It's about time!

This comes over 60 years too late . But at least it came. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications

Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as a "common present moment". -- 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...

Re: God or not?

On 12/24/2013 5:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Quentin, I clearly stated IF a God is desired THEN defining it is reality itself is the only logical choice. I'm fine just calling it reality, but lots of people (Roger e.g.) need a God. And it is NOT "ill-defined" even though all of reality is not

Re: A proper definition of reality

On Dec 24, 2013, at 1:13 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: Jason, Factor into exactly two factors? Just divide by 2 assuming it's an even number. Nothing to do with primes! Is that what you meant? Yes. If you meant factor completely I'm not sure reality ever does that. What, in your mind, d

Re: A proper definition of reality

Jason, Factor into exactly two factors? Just divide by 2 assuming it's an even number. Nothing to do with primes! Is that what you meant? If you meant factor completely I'm not sure reality ever does that. It's likely something that only human mathematicians do. Can you think of a process in n

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

Hi Edgar, On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Stephen, > > Thanks for the welcome to the group. It's certainly far superior to most > and the members should be commended! > > :-) > To address your questions. No, the computations of the universe exist > don't run in a phys

Re: A proper definition of reality

There is also a 13 year cicada. Is it a coincidence they cycle their mass appearances on large prime numbers? It is thought that this strategy prevents predators from tuning their population cycles to those of the cicadas. Jason On Dec 24, 2013, at 12:19 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: Cowb

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> He did answer and did it correctly, >>> >> >> >> I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? >> > > > Buy some pair of eyes and come back here. > Take pity on a poor old blind man and just tell me what number you saw Bruno g

Re: A proper definition of reality

On Dec 24, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: Bruno, No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. The logico- mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime number. Why? Because reality doesn

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> He did answer and did it correctly, >> > > > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? > > I quote myself: > > >>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the > question John Clark asked, the question ne

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

Stephen, Thanks for the welcome to the group. It's certainly far superior to most and the members should be commended! To address your questions. No, the computations of the universe exist don't run in a physical reality. Physical reality emerges from these computations as they are interpreted

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Dear Edgar, Have you considered reflexivity based theories of consciousness, such as thus proposed by Greg Zuckermanand Louis H. Kauffman? (Kauffman does no

Re: A proper definition of reality

Cowboy, The fact that cicadas tend to emerge at 17 year intervals has nothing at all to do with the fact that 17 is a prime number. It's simply counting. If I find 17 cents in my pocket that's just counting - nothing at all to do with primes or prime theory. That should be obvious... Edgar

A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time

All, The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (

Re: Posting problems

Yes, of course it is set to that. We'll see if this gets posted Edgar On Dec 23, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Hi, > I'm using gmail and it works flawlessly. Just check when replying that the > address is set to "everything-list@googlegroups.com" (it should normally > default t

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

Stephen, A very important point which I cover extensively in my book, but rather subtle to grasp. Reality clearly exists. There is something really here now and actual and happening. The totality of that is defined as reality and I refer to its 'stuff' (non-physical but real and actual) as an

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

Brent, I don't avoid infinities but Reality does. When one understands what infinities are and how they are defined as an unending and uncompletable process of addition it is quite clear that nothing physical can be infinite. As I've posted in other replies Reality is a computational system lik

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Jason, John, and Bruno, One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the subjects of the Easy Problems). The contents and their structure are most certainly computed by the minds of organisms, b

Re: Minds, Machines and Gödel

Liz, No, that doesn't make Reality subject to the halting problem. The halting problem is when a computer program is trying to reach some independently postulated result and may or may not be able to reach it. Reality doesn't have any problem like this. It just computes the logical results of

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

Craig, All this is explained in my book on Reality available on Amazon. The key insight to several of your questions is covered in Part IV: Mind and Reality. Basically the world we think we live in with shapes, colors, flavors and feelings etc. (various types of qualia) is actually a model of t

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

Bruno, Thanks for your comments. However I think you are coming at Reality from the POV of human logico-mathematical theory whose results you are trying to impose on reality. My approach is to closely examine reality and then try to figure out how it works and what ITS innate rules and structur

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

Mitch, No, my theory comes not from those gentlemen, but (at least hopefully) from reality itself. As to where reality's 'computer network' exists see my previous reply to Mitch where I explain in a fair amount of detail trying to answer his excellent question... Edgar On Dec 22, 2013, at

God or not?

All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and tha

Re: A proper definition of reality

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Bruno, > > No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of > prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. > Really? Discovery channel would disagree with you ;-) > The logico-mathematical system of reality has

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

Dear Edgar, Welcome to the group! It is always wonderful to have new perspectives and ideas added to the discussion. I have a question. When we talk about how "reality is clearly a computational process, and it runs against pure information which is the fundamental stuff of the universe", is th

Re: God or not?

On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No. The totality of reality must be logically consistent and logically complete if it is computational (for which there is overwhelming evidence) because if it wasn't it would fall apart at the inconsistencies and pause at the incompl

Re: A proper definition of reality

Bruno, No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. The logico-mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is prime or not. The computations of

Fwd: Platonic (Leibnizian) mechanics and computationalism

On 24 Dec 2013, at 13:58, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Good to hear from you. Merry Christmas ! Merry Christmas Roger. We differ basically in the role that thinking by the One plays. My view is that thinking by the One was only a one-time event (but from the aspect of eternit

Re: God or not?

My iteration is simply this: How does this help our species, how might this all change the human condition? My interruption in this flow of rational, logical, and analytical reasoning. I am sorry if this offends, but like Dr. Suess's Who's in Whoville, The Horton Hears a Who, and not the Grinch

Re: God or not?

Bruno, No. The totality of reality must be logically consistent and logically complete if it is computational (for which there is overwhelming evidence) because if it wasn't it would fall apart at the inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses and could not exist. Thus since it does exis

Re: A proper definition of reality

Hi Craig, First thanks for your thoughtful and detailed comments. A lot of meat there and I'll respond to some of them as I think we see the implications of the initial agreement somewhat differently. First, of course there are plenty of differences between the various categories of the very v

Re: A proper definition of reality

On 24 Dec 2013, at 16:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, OK. Glad we agree, pretty much, on defining reality. Sorry for thinking otherwise. However you state that "This (reality is entirely computational) is logically impossible. If reality is computational, then I am computational, but i

Re: A proper definition of reality

Bruno, OK. Glad we agree, pretty much, on defining reality. Sorry for thinking otherwise. However you state that "This (reality is entirely computational) is logically impossible. If reality is computational, then I am computational, but if I am computational, the UDA shows that reality, whate

Re: Musical Holiday present

On 24 Dec 2013, at 14:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I know music isn't considered a Science anymore today; it's considered "art" whatever that means. If this means "flashing everybody out while entertaining them by telling them what they want to hear, sex appeal, publicity mongering e

Re: A proper definition of reality

Richard, Sure it's an assertion, just as your post is, but it has plenty of basis in physics and logic. It's a consistent part of the whole web of my theory which is quite consistent with modern physics, though not always with its current interpretations... Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2

Re: God or not?

On Dec 24, 2013, at 7:33 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: Quentin, I clearly stated IF a God is desired THEN defining it is reality itself is the only logical choice. I'm fine just calling it reality, but lots of people (Roger e.g.) need a God. And it is NOT "ill-defined" even though all of

Re: God or not?

On 24 Dec 2013, at 14:08, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No faith is needed at all for a God defined as reality itself. It's simply a definition. No faith is needed at all. Reality (defined as the totality of all that exists) self-evidently exists, therefore God defined as reality must exis

Re: A proper definition of reality

I think that you are on the right track and I both understand and agree with your view of theory and reality all being part of the same ocean - however, there is a difference between an artist painting a picture and a painting of an artist painting a picture of himself. The former can be said t

Re: A proper definition of reality

On 24 Dec 2013, at 13:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. The theories can be real, even when they are wrong. You should quote the assertions said, as I have no idea what makes you think I said t

Musical Holiday present

I know music isn't considered a Science anymore today; it's considered "art" whatever that means. If this means "flashing everybody out while entertaining them by telling them what they want to hear, sex appeal, publicity mongering etc", then I'll be happy to belong to the older group that does not

Re: A proper definition of reality

Edgar, Even what you wrote above is entirely assertion with no basis in math or physics: "Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefo

Re: God or not?

Quentin, I clearly stated IF a God is desired THEN defining it is reality itself is the only logical choice. I'm fine just calling it reality, but lots of people (Roger e.g.) need a God. And it is NOT "ill-defined" even though all of reality is not known. The definition itself is tight, exact

Re: A proper definition of reality

Richard, First you are wrong. There is some math in the book. Apparently you read only part of it. As for my book being composed of words, most books are for gosh sakes! And ALL YOUR posts consist ONLY of words with Zero math. Does that make them not credible or meaningful? Of course my book c

Re: God or not?

That makes it ill defined and useless... As reality is not well defined, so is god then... also, why use "god" instead of reality, the word reality is enough. Quentin 2013/12/24 Edgar L. Owen > Bruno, > > No faith is needed at all for a God defined as reality itself. It's simply > a definitio

Re: God or not?

Bruno, No faith is needed at all for a God defined as reality itself. It's simply a definition. No faith is needed at all. Reality (defined as the totality of all that exists) self-evidently exists, therefore God defined as reality must exist. Very simple logic... I'm surprised you would disag

Re: A proper definition of reality

I read Edgar's book and it is entirely words and mostly assertions- no math at all. In my opinion that makes his book not credible Richard On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > All, > > Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include > theories about r

A proper definition of reality

All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic defi

Re: Privacy

Hi John, On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:23 PM, John Mikes wrote: > Telmo, thanks. Does 'sigilo' not come from the Latin word for 'sign' > (sigillum)? which I would trace > through its way of 'expression of' rather than the American > privacy-crase. It does indeed. I believe it came to have an associ

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 23 Dec 2013, at 20:12, meekerdb wrote: On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and privateness. Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just allowed to cr

Re: God or not?

On 23 Dec 2013, at 20:43, meekerdb wrote: On 12/23/2013 11:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 meekerdb On 12/23/2013 10:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is m

Re: Posting problems

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:13:53AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 23 Dec 2013, at 20:09, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > >I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be > >working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it > >never seems to get posted to the group. A

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

On 23 Dec 2013, at 20:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Thanks for your comments. However I think you are coming at Reality from the POV of human logico-mathematical theory whose results you are trying to impose on reality. Not at all. I start from molecular biology, which suggest we are

Re: Posting problems

On 23 Dec 2013, at 20:09, Edgar L. Owen wrote: I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a

Re: God or not?

On 23 Dec 2013, at 19:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a Go

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 23 Dec 2013, at 19:43, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: << That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the questi

Re: The difficulties of executing simple algorithms: why brains make mistakes computers don't.

On 22 December 2013 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: > http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-odd-easy-feat-mind.html > >> Even scientists are fond of thinking of the human brain as a computer, >> following sets of rules to communicate, make decisions and find a meal. >> >> Almost all adults understand