Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 29 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Torgny Tholerus wrote: On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote: I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more than one reason: 1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be. You just have to ask God w

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote: I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more than one reason: 1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be. *You just have to ask God what she is. Then she will answer. But it may take tw

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

Brent I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more than one reason: 1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be. 1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?) 1.B a Force - a Complexity - a System (etc.) or the like? 1,C Did

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a quantum logic, and explained informall

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 27 Dec 2016, at 20:31, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/27/2016 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the word ​

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 27 Dec 2016, at 20:11, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/27/2016 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth... .. And

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

Ah another Koan from Master, Handey! ""They say that a little piece of God dwells with everyone. Well, that true, I hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what he's getting tonight." -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Tue, Dec

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > ​> ​ > John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands > in your path (spiritual) strike him down"? > ​I don't know about the Buddha but I do know ​ Jack Handy ​sa

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands in your path (spiritual) strike him down"? -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:36 pm Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived > from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a > quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the statistical > inte

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

ey use the word ​ ​ [God]​ .​ ​> ​ But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve. ​Because the meaning Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the word "God" is clear Really? It's certainly more definite than the set of all meanings,

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/27/2016 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth... .. And speaking of a ​ sack full of doorknobs, how can one

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the word​​ [God]​.​ ​> ​But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve. ​Because th

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth... .. And speaking of a ​ sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:54, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/26/2016 12:06 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is connected to other

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

"You know, they say that inside everyone, is a little piece of God, and if that's true, I hope he likes enchiladas, because that is what he's getting tonight." -Jack Handey Yes, this is true. I have a part of God inside me. So I can say that I am (a part of) God. The w

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the >> word >> ​ >> ​ [God]​ >> .​ >> > > ​> ​ > But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbe

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth... .. And speaking of a ​ sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian? The first one

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/26/2016 2:24 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: On 2016-12-26 10:52, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 25 December 2016 at 19:40, Torgny Tholerus <mailto:tor...@dsv.su.se>> wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is connected

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/26/2016 12:06 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses. When I pray, I talk to

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 26 Dec 2016, at 09:06, Torgny Tholerus wrote: On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses. When I pray, I talk

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 25 Dec 2016, at 03:07, John Clark wrote: First I want to say ​Merry Newton​'s birthday! On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worship

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 2016-12-26 10:52, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 25 December 2016 at 19:40, Torgny Tholerus <mailto:tor...@dsv.su.se>> wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses. When I pray, I t

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 25 December 2016 at 19:40, Torgny Tholerus wrote: > 2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark: > >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal >> wrote: >> >> ​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with >>>> su

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses. When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious. Then my subconscious talks

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: 2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark: On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped. ​> ​That&

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

ay have zero to do with your unconscious. -Original Message- From: Torgny Tholerus To: everything-list Cc: John Clark Sent: Sun, Dec 25, 2016 3:40 am Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God 2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bru

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark: On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped. ​> ​That's the Christian use ​ ​. Why do atheists i

An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

First I want to say ​Merry Newton​'s birthday! On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural power >> who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped. > > > ​> ​ > Th

Re: God

On 3/31/2016 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 Samiya Illias >wrote: ​ > ​ Excerpts from The Quran, Chapter 31, Verses 12-22 and 33-34 [blah blah] Excerpts ​ ​ from ​ Dick and Jane, Chapter 3, ​Verse 2-3 and 7-8 ​ ...​ 2 ​ See Dick ru

Re: God

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 Samiya Illias wrote: ​> ​ > Excerpts from The Quran, Chapter 31, Verses 12-22 and 33-34 > [blah blah] Excerpts ​ ​ from ​ Dick and Jane, Chapter 3, ​Verse 2-3 and 7-8 ​...​ 2 ​ See Dick run. 3 Run Dick run.​ ... 7 See Spot run. 8 Run Spot run. John K Clark -- You re

Re: God

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:39 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:52 PM, John Mikes wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Dear Samiya, >> ​ [...] >> It is not my goal to put 'úncertainty' into your faith >> > > ​Well why the hell not?? Other than the very existence of death itself > nothing has caus

Re: God

s. > > John Mikes > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:34 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 JohnM wrote: >>> >>> ​> ​ >>>> "Entirety&qu

Re: God

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:52 PM, John Mikes wrote: ​> ​ > Dear Samiya, > ​ [...] > It is not my goal to put 'úncertainty' into your faith > ​Well why the hell not?? Other than the very existence of death itself nothing has caused more misery to the human race than the absolute certainty that you

Re: God

llias wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:34 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 JohnM wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> "Entirety" - IS in fact identical to the concept religions cover by the >>> word "God". >> >

Re: God

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:34 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 JohnM wrote: > > ​> ​ >> "Entirety" - IS in fact identical to the concept religions cover by the >> word "God". > > > ​If they're identical then I must say there

Re: God

down through learning by observing, which we try to emulate by watching others, such as how to pray or perform the rites of pilgrimage. Samiya > adequately describe humans, God, and the Universe. I would disagree. For > purely selfish reasons on my part, I lean towards a transhumanist

Re: God

Telmo, Heh! The Church and Restaurant at the End of the Universe! Night Manager, Slarty Bardfarst esq. Samiya would agree that Quran, Soonah, and Bukhari, adequately describe humans, God, and the Universe. I would disagree. For purely selfish reasons on my part, I lean towards a

Re: God

God's Final Message <http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/God?action=edit§ion=4> After discovering that the people of the Universe were rather unhappy with their Universe, God set out to make sure they understood He hadn't purposefully tried to screw with them. And so He wrote the f

Re: God

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 6:26 PM, JohnM wrote: > There were numerous postongs with the 'subject' topic, trying to identify > the concept of God. Different religions (tribal superstitions) identified > the concept > differently, some calling for - ONE - item, some all

Re: God

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 JohnM wrote: ​> ​ > "Entirety" - IS in fact identical to the concept religions cover by the > word "God". ​If they're identical then I must say there is Godly too many people willing to abandon the idea of God but not the ASCII sequence

God

There were numerous postongs with the 'subject' topic, trying to identify the concept of God. Different religions (tribal superstitions) identified the concept differently, some calling for - ONE - item, some allowing - MANY - even in controversy to each other. Even the so called mo

Re: God vs the Multiverse

ere is nothing in it to be ignorant about. Theology has no field of study.​ ​>> ​ >> ​Christians and Muslims would most certainly NOT agree, > > > ​> ​ > That is simply false. They accept the definition because they do believe > God is responsible for the existence of

Re: God vs the Multiverse

On 09 Feb 2016, at 03:25, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​In science we redefined the terms when we use them. God is whatever you need to have a Reality. ​Then you'd need to invent a new word ​for​ the old meaning of "God"​ and the

Re: God vs the Multiverse

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > In science we redefined the terms when we use them. God is whatever you > need to have a Reality. ​Then you'd need to invent a new word ​for​ the old meaning of "God" ​ and then​ give the entire English speaking world a

Re: God vs the Multiverse

On 07 Feb 2016, at 22:39, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 08:21:41PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Feb 2016, at 07:28, Russell Standish wrote: A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the

Re: God vs the Multiverse

On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 08:21:41PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 07 Feb 2016, at 07:28, Russell Standish wrote: > > >A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist. > > > >https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-th

Re: God vs the Multiverse

On 07 Feb 2016, at 07:28, Russell Standish wrote: A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-the-2500-year-war/ Its behind a paywall - please ask me for a PDF if you don't have access to New Scie

Re: God vs the Multiverse

Neither is Deism, if you know about it. -Original Message- From: Russell Standish To: everything-list Sent: Sun, Feb 7, 2016 1:28 am Subject: God vs the Multiverse A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs

Re: God vs the Multiverse

Thanks Stathis, that's the one. On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 09:28:47PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 7 February 2016 at 17:28, Russell Standish wrote: > > > A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist. > > > > > > https://www.newscientist.co

Re: God vs the Multiverse

On 7 February 2016 at 17:28, Russell Standish wrote: > A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist. > > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-the-2500-year-war/ > > Its behind a paywall - please ask me for a PDF if you don&

God vs the Multiverse

A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-the-2500-year-war/ Its behind a paywall - please ask me for a PDF if you don't have access to New Scientist. Interesting view that the subversion of theolo

Re: Leibniz: When God calculates, the world is made

On 07 Aug 2015, at 08:26, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Leibniz' note on his Dialogs: When God calculates and thinks things through, the world is made. Cum Deus calculat et cogitationem exercet, mundus fit. I have found it in M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe. OK, but i

Leibniz: When God calculates, the world is made

Leibniz' note on his Dialogs: When God calculates and thinks things through, the world is made. Cum Deus calculat et cogitationem exercet, mundus fit. I have found it in M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed t

Re: Why would God make this? (part 3)

Read Pickover's fascinations with visitations with bouncing balls, robots, and giant mantis's. A regular feature. DMT Elves, whatever he called his book. -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Tue, Jun 2, 2015 10:59 pm Subject: Re: Why would God make thi

Re: Why would God make this? (part 3)

On 3 June 2015 at 14:58, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > A common hallucination reported by dmt users are praying manti. > > Really? Curiouser and curiouser. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything L

Re: Why would God make this? (part 3)

A common hallucination reported by dmt users are praying manti. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Tue, Jun 2, 2015 09:57 PM Subject: Why would God make this? (part 3) ...clearly, because (s)he has a sense of humour

Why would God make this? (part 3)

...clearly, because (s)he has a sense of humour. http://happyplace.someecards.com/why-god/why-would-god-make-this-week-3-the-praying-mantis/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: God

was also a big promoter of invading Iraq. Stenger, who knows? He was a crusty, sci dude, who opposed religion, but apparently Christianity. Vic attacked all theisms, religions that worshipped a personal, prayer answering, commandment giving god. Penn Jillette and Teller were talented il

Re: God

On Mon, May 4, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> It does follow if what you said was true, if "the physical hardware >> makes possible to incarnate or implement universal numbers relatively to >> us". > > > > It still does not follow. We can have both > 1) "the physical universe makes possible to inc

Re: God

manly used to structured our ignorance. It study the degrees of unsolvability. It shows that even with oracle (more powerful than any machine) there are problem which are still non solvable. If you have an oracle for the machine-halting problem, you still cannot solve the totality problem.

Re: God

er know even in theory if it is true or false. You just change the issue. > in arithmetic (the size of our physical universe is not relevant It's not relevant if mathematics is more fundamental than physics but it could not be more relevant if the reverse is true, and resolving

Re: God

By the way you might particularly like 29 across :) -- 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 t

Re: God

On 4 May 2015 at 06:12, Dennis Ochei wrote: > My external hard drive is named "The Book of Sand" :) Ooh!! Mine is "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" ! I also constructed a cryptic crossword themed around Borges (insofar as cryptic crosswords can be themed). For your possible amusement, it is here..

Re: God

On Sun, May 3, 2015 , Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> The physical hardware makes possible to incarnate or implement >>> universal numbers relatively to us, >> >> > >> If that's true then physical reality can do something that would be >> impossible for mere mathematical reality to do. > > > This does n

Re: God

My external hard drive is named "The Book of Sand" :) > It's easy to put all truth under one roof, but what you can't do is put all truth under one roof and no falsehoods, not even under the roof of Platonia. I don't buy that. Platonia isn't constructed via

Re: God

> > Godel showed that all the truths in Platonia simply cannot be gathered >> under one roof. > > > It's easy to put all truth under one roof, but what you can't do is put > all truth under one roof and no falsehoods, not even under the roof of > Platonia. >

Re: God

Godel showed that all the truths in Platonia simply cannot be gathered > under one roof. It's easy to put all truth under one roof, but what you can't do is put all truth under one roof and no falsehoods, not even under the roof of Platonia. > > Perhaps God, (let's m

Re: God

man-made > contrivances can grasp. Godel showed that all the truths in Platonia simply > cannot be gathered under one roof. > > Now, what that means is if you read the Book ("You may not believe in God > but you should believe in the Book"), you wouldn't be readi

Re: God

rivances can grasp. Godel showed that all the truths in Platonia simply cannot be gathered under one roof. Now, what that means is if you read the Book ("You may not believe in God but you should believe in the Book"), you wouldn't be reading the whole story, though I th

Re: God

On 03 May 2015, at 02:12, John Clark wrote: On Fri, May 1, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >>please explain what computer hardware does. There are trillions of dollars worth of the stuff on this planet, there must have been some point in building it. > The physical hardware makes possible to

Re: God

humans make. So I don't thing Goedel proves Platonism, although he believed in it. Now, what that means is if you read the Book ("You may not believe in God but you should believe in the Book"), you wouldn't be reading the whole story, though I think the subset of Platonia

Re: God

in Platonia simply cannot be gathered under one roof. Now, what that means is if you read the Book ("You may not believe in God but you should believe in the Book"), you wouldn't be reading the whole story, though I think the subset of Platonia that contains provable truths is larg

Re: God

They don't - it was just tongue in cheek. I suppose you could define a unary notation for fractions so 11.111=2/3 and pi~.111 Brent On 5/2/2015 6:24 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote: How do decimals even work in unary? On Saturday, May 2, 2015, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.

Re: God

How do decimals even work in unary? On Saturday, May 2, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > On 5/2/2015 5:12 PM, John Clark wrote: > > >> > I accept the idea that the 10^100^100 digit of pi exists, but what is > it? If physics doesn't know what it is then maybe nothing else does either; > I certainly have

Re: God

On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >>I accept the idea that the 10^100^100 digit of pi exists, but what is > it? If physics doesn't know what it is then maybe nothing else does either; > I certainly have no evidence that mathematics knows. > > > > It's 1...in unary notation. >

Re: God

On 5/2/2015 5:12 PM, John Clark wrote: I accept the idea that the 10^100^100 digit of pi exists, but what is it? If physics doesn't know what it is then maybe nothing else does either; I certainly have no evidence that mathematics knows. It's 1...in unary notation. Brent -- You received

Re: God

On Fri, May 1, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >>please explain what computer hardware does. There are trillions of >> dollars worth of the stuff on this planet, there must have been some point >> in building it. > > > > The physical hardware makes possible to incarnate or implement universal > numbers

Re: God

I pray to God for the grace of devoting to Him as much time as the average atheist 2015-05-02 10:47 GMT+02:00 Jason Resch : > > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:54 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 Jason Resch wrote: >> >> > Your consciousness always e

Re: God

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:54 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 Jason Resch wrote: > > > Your consciousness always exists in all the places it exists. >> > > I would argue that assigning a position to consciousness, other than the > place you're thinking about, is problematical. > > V

Re: God

, in the math theory, both the first person can know that, in principle. But it is not relevant for the problem of getting the shape of the solution of the body problem in arithmetic. I don't believe in God so I guess you mean mathematics, Mathematics might be a too fuzzy term. B

Re: God

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 Jason Resch wrote: > Your consciousness always exists in all the places it exists. > I would argue that assigning a position to consciousness, other than the place you're thinking about, is problematical. > > In past and future points in time > And if my consciousness ex

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:56 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 Jason Resch wrote: > > >> Maybe all true statements exist is some sort of abstract Platonic >>> world, but even if they do I'm not sure that would be very important >>> because all false statements would exist in that ve

Re: God

points of view", So I guess you're saying that the first person (me) doesn't know what 10^100^100 digit of pi is but the third person does, but who is this third person? I don't believe in God so I guess you mean mathematics, but If the resources of the observable universe a

Re: God

On 30 Apr 2015, at 03:00, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> What a shame companies like INTEL IBM and Apple have wasted trillions of dollars in building hardware when if they had just asked any undergraduate student they could have told them how to make a c

Re: God

On 29 Apr 2015, at 21:45, meekerdb wrote: On 4/29/2015 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 12:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:41, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: >> Because

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> What a shame companies like INTEL IBM and Apple have wasted trillions >> of dollars in building hardware when if they had just asked any >> undergraduate student they could have told them how to make a computer >> without using any matter or energy or

Re: God

On 4/29/2015 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 12:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:41, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: >> Because although

Re: God

On 29 Apr 2015, at 09:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: I think the idea is that computations are proofs, i.e. proof that this algorithm with this input produces this output. So they have Goedel numbers which specify the steps of the proof and so "exist" in Platonia. It occurs t

Re: God

On 29 Apr 2015, at 08:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: [Brent:]And even if it is clear that doesn't mean it exists. The question is whether a value of a variable that satisfies a predicate implies that the value "exists". I think there are different kinds of existence and the existence of number

Re: God

On 29 Apr 2015, at 06:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 7:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: But you fall foul of the essential slippage here. Arithmetic certainly supports all calculations -- as I point out elsewhere, all calculations ultimately reduce to counting. But this d

Re: God

On 29 Apr 2015, at 08:26, meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 9:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 7:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: But you fall foul of the essential slippage here. Arithmetic certainly supports all

Re: God

On 29 Apr 2015, at 07:38, meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 9:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 7:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: But you fall foul of the essential slippage here. Arithmetic certainly supports all calculations -- as I point out elsewhere, all calculations u

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> What a shame companies like INTEL IBM and Apple have wasted trillions >> of dollars in building hardware when if they had just asked any >> undergraduate student they could have told them how to make a computer >> without using any matter or energy o

Re: God

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 Jason Resch wrote: >> Maybe all true statements exist is some sort of abstract Platonic world, >> but even if they do I'm not sure that would be very important because all >> false statements would exist in that very same world, >> > > >We're not talking of the existence of

Re: God

---Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 10:39 am Subject: Re: God On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:28, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Can a mind arise out of functioning computations? Not sure, but I am guessing its possible

Re: God

On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:28, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Can a mind arise out of functioning computations? Not sure, but I am guessing its possible given enough time, data, and functioning computation. Some philosophers would call It a "naturalistic god" in the phra

Re: God

On 28 Apr 2015, at 19:35, John Clark wrote: On 28 Apr 2015, , Bruce Kellett wrote: > I must admit that I do not know what a computation that does not utilize a computing machine (physical) is. Show me one, and indicate how it works. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > This is

Re: God

On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:16, meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2015, at 21:05, meekerdb wrote: On 4/27/2015 6:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Monday, April 27, 2015, Dennis Ochei wrote: > I tend to agree that the word God has way too much baggage

Re: God

On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 12:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:41, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> Because although we haven't discovered it yet maybe mathematics is saying that particular phy

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >