Re: What are atheists for?

On 9 May 2017 6:16 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: > Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is > a coher

Re: What are atheists for?

I have no good answer, only that your Platonic stuff somehow generates material. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Mon, May 8, 2017 6:51 am Subject: Re: What are atheists for? On 08 May 2017, at 06:50, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: What ab

Re: What are atheists for?

Pity then Bruce, We humans could use the company and maybe the advice. -Original Message- From: Bruce Kellett To: everything-list Sent: Mon, May 8, 2017 1:01 am Subject: Re: What are atheists for? On 8/05/2017 2:45 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Rather than

Re: What are atheists for?

Le 9 mai 2017 01:17, "Bruce Kellett" a écrit : On 9/05/2017 12:22 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>: > >> On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is a coherent underlying physics with

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9/05/2017 12:22 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >: On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>: On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 8:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 07:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 2:45 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Rather than use the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis to elucidate the conservation of energy in thermodynamics and entropy, why not take Boltzmann a b

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 8:48 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think the problem here is the use of the word "consistent". You refer to "internally consistent computations" and "consistent and hence intelligible 'personal histories'." But what is the measure of su

Re: What are atheists for?

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:42:01PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I don't think they need to halt. They need only to go through our > local state. A priori, the halting computations might have a null > measure among all computations, so that the global "physical" > measure might be determined

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/8/2017 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How could something non material produces something material? That's what we keep wondering about computationalism. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this

Re: ​Movie argument

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​If a proper noun is not the referent of the personal pronouns Bruno >> Marchal loves to through around with abandon then WHAT IS? When Bruno asks >> ​"what city will you see?" who exactly is Bruno asking the question of? > > > ​> ​ >

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: > Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is > a coherent underlying physics with regular exceptionless laws. Until you > have something like that, you cannot define consisten

Re: What are atheists for?

2017-05-08 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Something lie the speed prior... yes the UD has all of them, but the >> measure function (which we don'

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >: On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Something lie the speed prior... yes the UD has all of them, but the measure function (which we don't have) must re

Re: What are atheists for?

Everybody knows that drinking tequila and orange juice are the same in terms of qualia. Same as drinking rocks. Most people say things like: "this tequila or this orange juice is very possibly consistent and particularly full of Plotinus' unnameable truth upon looking inside the box today." On

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 07:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/05/2017 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is indepe

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 07:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 2:44 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:26:02AM +0100, David Nyman wrote: On 7 May 2017 5:02 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: Anyway, back to our sheep (as they say in French). Bruno has been reluctant to really

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 07:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 2:45 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Rather than use the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis to elucidate the conservation of energy in thermodynamics and entropy, why not take Boltzmann a bit more seriously, and search for these

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 06:50, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: What about an Ensemble (Deutsch and Tegmark), that is also, by necessity, computationalist in nature. Why? Most ensemble are typically not computable object. Computability is an enormous restriction on the notion of set. O

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: But that's what I mean when I say Bruno's theory has no pred

Re: What are atheists for?

On 07 May 2017, at 19:14, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 11:04 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 10:16 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On

Re: ​Movie argument

On 07 May 2017, at 23:38, John Clark wrote: On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​​John Clark agrees with Bruno Marchal that personal pronouns are ambiguous in a world that contains people duplicating machines because the referent will always be unclear, but for years

Re: What are atheists for?

On 07 May 2017, at 22:39, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/7/2017 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 23:16, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I

Re: What are atheists for?

On 07 May 2017, at 22:32, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/7/2017 6:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2017, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example. Arithmetic, according to your theory of consciousness, is inde

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 07 May 2017, at 06:04, Kip Ingram wrote: The initial reply to this post stated the need to define free will before seeking its origins. My own definition is "the injection of new information into a dynamic system." Not the injection of randomness, but rather the injection of informati

Re: What are atheists for?

2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>: >> >>> On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, Davi

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is a coherent underlying physics with regular exceptionless laws. Until you have something like that, you cannot define consistent continuations. But I'm afraid that's implied by a

Re: What are atheists for?

2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>: >> >>> On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, Davi

Re: What are atheists for?

On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >: On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>: On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nym

Re: What are atheists for?

2017-05-08 8:58 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/05/2017 4:41 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2017-05-08 8:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> On 8/05/2017 3:59 pm, David Nyman wrote: >> >> On 8 May 2017 4:53 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >> On 8/05/2017 3:14 am, Da