Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 12 February 2014 14:02, Russell Standish wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > You are right, the qualia are in X1* \ X1, like we get quanta in > > S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*. > > The only thing you can say is that qualia ought to obey the axioms of > X1*\X1, (

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > You are right, the qualia are in X1* \ X1, like we get quanta in > S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*. The only thing you can say is that qualia ought to obey the axioms of X1*\X1, (and even that supposes that Z captures all observations, which I

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote: > > On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb wrote: > > > > > My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in > > > the sense required for this argument. I think conscio

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb wrote: > > > My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in > > the sense required for this argument. I think consciousness depends of > > consciousness *of* an external world and

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

for now at least, I'll limit > myself to recommending the odd sci-fi movie on the film thread. The Quiet > Earth (1985) is a little known gem, btw. > > All the best > Chris. > > -- > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:00:42 +1300 > Subject: Re: S

RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas

ey about people criticizing Bruno's metaphysics. So for now at least, I'll limit myself to recommending the odd sci-fi movie on the film thread. The Quiet Earth (1985) is a little known gem, btw. All the best Chris. Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:00:42 +1300 Subject: Re: Suicide Words Go

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR wrote: >>> On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 201

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR wrote: > On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR wrote: >> >>> On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR wrote: > On 11 February 2014 18:4

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR wrote: >>> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > String theory

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR wrote: > On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR wrote: >> >>> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity o

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote: >> > >> > You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it! >> :-) >> > >> > (Sor

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR wrote: > >> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >>> >>> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of >>> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured >>> >> >>

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 11 Feb 2014, at 05:21, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote: You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it! :-) (Sorry!) I think the chances are a TOE will have to go a looong way before it's likely to make predictions r

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/10/2014 7:15 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2014 15:59, meekerdb wrote: On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb wrote: On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: On 2/9

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2014 15:59, meekerdb wrote: On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb wrote: On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Ev

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 11 Feb 2014, at 02:35, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb wrote: On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against step 3? Then I in

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 11 Feb 2014, at 01:42, meekerdb wrote: On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to us.

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote: >> > >> > You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it! >> :-) >> > >>

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish > wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it! :-) > > (Sorry!) > > I

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR wrote: > On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> >> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of >> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured >> > > Correctly, I assume. > More accurately than the classical pre

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR wrote: > On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> >> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of >> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured >> > > Correctly, I assume. > > >> and more recently explained the m

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

Speaking of suicide, God etc... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/middleeast/suicide-bomb-instructor-accidentally-kills-iraqi-pupils.html As Richard Dawkins asked, do they still get the virgins? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Every

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of > the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured > Correctly, I assume. > and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on > Einstein-Rosen bridges, which

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > > > You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it! :-) > > > > (Sorry!) > > > > I think the chances are a TOE will have to go a looong way before it's > > likely t

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-11 8:35 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : > > > > 2014-02-11 3:59 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > > On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> On 2

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-11 3:59 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Even on his argume

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:57 PM, LizR wrote: > On 11 February 2014 16:40, meekerdb wrote: > >> >> The claimed consequence is that consciousness can be instantiated by a >> computation which requires no physical events. But I think what is shown >> is that there can be a world including conscio

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it! :-) > > (Sorry!) > > I think the chances are a TOE will have to go a looong way before it's > likely to make predictions rather than retrodictions. Didn't string theory

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 11 February 2014 16:40, meekerdb wrote: > > The claimed consequence is that consciousness can be instantiated by a > computation which requires no physical events. But I think what is shown > is that there can be a world including conscious beings which does not > require physical events in o

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 2/10/2014 7:15 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2014 15:59, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 11 February 2014 15:59, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Even on his

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even on his argument, that nobody under

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: > > On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against step 3? Then > I invite you to attempt to exp

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to us. I think I understand it. Asking the quest

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

PM, LizR wrote: > > > I think the difference is that Bruno considers "God" to be whatever is >> at the end of the causal or logical chain from which our perceived reality >> arises. >> > > Even if that "whatever" turns out to have zero intel

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:15 PM, LizR wrote: > I think the difference is that Bruno considers "God" to be whatever is at > the end of the causal or logical chain from which our perceived reality > arises. > Even if that "whatever" turns out to have zero intelli

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > God might be a sort of person, but for them he is responsible for all the > being, and is not part of the being. > AVFOB (Amorphous Vague Fog Of Bafflegab). > In Plotinus, both God and Matter do "not exist" > If

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 10 Feb 2014, at 09:12, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-10 6:08 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to us. I think I understand it. Asking the q

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 10 Feb 2014, at 08:00, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 12:34 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas On 08 Feb

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to us. I think I understand it. Asking the question "which will you be" in the MW experim

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-10 6:08 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against step 3? Then > I invite you to attempt to explain it to us. > > > > I think I understand it. Asking the question "which will you be" in the > MW exp

RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 12:34 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas On 08 Feb 2014, at 20:06, Chris de Morsella wrote

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to us. I think I understand it. Asking the question "which will you be" in the MW experiment is ambiguous because "you" is duplicated.

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

tent omniscient intelligent >>> conscious being who created the universe and is responsible for morality >>> but DO believe in "God". >>> >> >> > What about those who believe, or assume, a god, or a goddess, but >> disbelieve omnipotence,

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

power hungry politicians and stupid universitary researchers. Another example would be > those who DON'T believe in a omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious > being who created the universe and is responsible for morality but DO > believe in "God". > Obviously they b

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

er only 51% thought that doctors should be allowed to help a dying patient who wanted to die "commit suicide". Another example would be those who DON'T believe in a omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious being who created the universe and is responsible for morality but D

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

er only 51% thought that doctors should be allowed to >> help a dying patient who wanted to die "commit suicide". Another example >> would be those who DON'T believe in a omnipotent omniscient intelligent >> conscious being who created the universe and is responsible

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 08 Feb 2014, at 20:06, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 8:01 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Suicide Words God and Ideas The invention of

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

ing patient who wanted to die "commit suicide". Another example would be those who DON'T believe in a omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious being who created the universe and is responsible for morality but DO believe in "God". What about those who believe, or assum

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

gt; everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *John Clark > *Sent:* Saturday, February 08, 2014 8:01 AM > *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Suicide Words God and Ideas > > > > The invention of language was obviously of great benefit to the species > called

RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 8:01 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Suicide Words God and Ideas The invention of language was obviously of great benefit to the

Suicide Words God and Ideas

xample would be those who DON'T believe in a omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious being who created the universe and is responsible for morality but DO believe in "God". John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eve

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

Liz, that was enjoyable. In the back of it lurks the incompatibility of 'GOD" with logics. John On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:51 PM, LizR wrote: > "Would math make God obsolete?" > > If so, that remainds me of something... > "I refuse to prove that I exist,

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

"Would math make God obsolete?" If so, that remainds me of something... "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? I

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

On 29 Jan 2014, at 18:12, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> A proof is a FINITE number of statements establishing the truth or falsehood of something; > Not establishing the truth, but establishing the theoremhood. I stand corrected; althoug

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> A proof is a FINITE number of statements establishing the truth or >> falsehood of something; > > > > Not establishing the truth, but establishing the theoremhood. > I stand corrected; although it would be true if the axioms in the logical

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > You could always just add it and its negation to the list of axioms > (though not at the same time, of course) and see where that leads, > Axioms should be simple things that are self evidently true, neither Goldbach's Conjecture nor its n

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

On 27 Jan 2014, at 19:55, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true statements lacking proof. Yes. > There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of whose falsehood is

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:30, Brian Tenneson wrote: Some basic.questions. When you say PA, do you mean the set of all theorems entailed by the axioms of Peano arithmetic? Yes. In some context it means only the axioms, but often I use the same expression to denote the axioms and its logical co

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

You could always just add it and its negation to the list of axioms (though not at the same time, of course) and see where that leads, if anywhere. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:55 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > > > There are undecidable statement

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true > statements lacking proof. > Yes. > There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of whose > falsehood is impossible; > A proof is a FINITE number of sta

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

Some basic.questions. When you say PA, do you mean the set of all theorems entailed by the axioms of Peano arithmetic? Does this include the true (relative to PA of course) wffs that are not provable from PA alone? How can it be that PA+con(I) can prove its own consistency because it is inconsis

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:12, Brian Tenneson wrote: Yes, some day a computer might be able to figure out that the set of rationals is not equipollent to the set of real numbers. A Lôbian machine like ZF can do that already. I saw somewhere that using an automated theorem prover, one of Gode

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

Yes, some day a computer might be able to figure out that the set of rationals is not equipollent to the set of real numbers. I saw somewhere that using an automated theorem prover, one of Godel's incompleteness theorems was proved by a computer. The question I raised initially was this: will the

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

FWIW, under the usual definitions, the rationals are enumerable and so are a smaller set than the reals. I'd suppose that if people can figure that out with our nifty fleshy brains, then a well-designed computer brain could, too. -Gabe On Friday, January 24, 2014 1:23:40 AM UTC-6, Brian Tennes

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

nclusions. Yes, arithmetical omniscience needs a "god", like the Arithmetical Truth. Even a theory as powerful as ZF or NF can only scratch the arithmetical truth. OK. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List&qu

Would math make God obsolete ?

There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true statements lacking proof. There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of whose falsehood is impossible; not just impossible for you and me but for a computer of any capacity or other forms of rational processin

Re: God or not?

On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote: On 12/29/2013 8:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I use Platonism, where God == Truth. I know what "truth" means as an attribute of a sentence. But I don't know what "Tr

Re: God or not?

On 12/29/2013 8:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > I use Platonism, where God == Truth. I know what "truth" means as an attribute of a sentence. But I don't know what "Tru

Re: God or not?

On 29 Dec 2013, at 17:14, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I use Platonism, where God == Truth. So God is "my dog just took a dump". Oh! I hope your dog is OK. > "God" is not that much a bad name. It is a VERY bad

Re: God or not?

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I use Platonism, where God == Truth. > So God is "my dog just took a dump". > "God" is not that much a bad name. > It is a VERY bad name if someone sincerely wishes to avoid confusion and wants to use la

Re: God or not?

On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:51, LizR wrote: The Tao that can be named... ... is NOT the Tao. Indeed. this is common with most notion of (unique) God, despite most institutionalized religion fall in the trap. The comp "religion" has this more in common with taoism. On the divine

Re: God or not?

The Tao that can be named... -- 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 t

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 19:26, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. God noun A noise many members of the Everyth

Re: God or not?

> > What are organismic minds? > > Bruno > > > > That is their only reality. They are mental models or simulations of the > actual information reality, and they also as parts of that information > reality are themselves also only information. > > Edgar > > &

Re: God or not?

I use my fingers. On 26 December 2013 07:26, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving >> some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. >> &g

Re: God or not?

On 26 December 2013 04:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Bruno, and Samiya, > > Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the > universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from > millennia ago. The universe by definition is all that exist

Re: God or not?

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving > some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. > God noun A noise many members of the Everything list still insist on making with their m

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 16:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, and Samiya, Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from millennia ago. The universe by definition is all that exists... But "w

Re: God or not?

nformation reality are themselves also only information. Edgar On Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, 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

Re: God or not?

but it light be necessary. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Dec 25, 2013 6:14 am Subject: Re: God or not? On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:24, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: My iteration is simply this: How does this help our species, how might

Re: God or not?

Why and How does all exist? Samiya On 25-Dec-2013, at 8:21 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote: > Bruno, and Samiya, > > Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the > universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from millen

Re: God or not?

Bruno, and Samiya, Because there can be no creator sustainer God that stands outside the universe. Where would he/it stand? That's an irrational belief from millennia ago. The universe by definition is all that exists... Edgar On Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen

Re: God or not?

, and they also as parts of that information reality are themselves also only information. Edgar On Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > All, > > The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving > some definition of what

Re: God or not?

limburger ;-) Joyes Noel, to all, (Tho' tis' not my faith). Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Dec 25, 2013 6:14 am Subject: Re: God or not? On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:24, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: My iteration is simply this: H

Re: God or not?

ogy, could help everybody in front of the truth, especially if truth appears to be not as friendly as we would have liked. Bruno Us, the pitiful, violent, human species. God, Mind, Consciousness, and all that? It needs to be asked, although, yes, some efforts are purely intellectual. I alwa

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 09:18, LizR wrote: On 23 December 2013 09:10, Edgar 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

Re: God or not?

On 25 Dec 2013, at 07:29, Samiya Illias wrote: Why not define God as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and Everything Else that is or may exist? With comp, this will be non distinguishable from arithmetical truth. I am OK with that definition, but from the machine's first p

Re: God or not?

On 22 Dec 2013, at 21:10, Edgar 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 God

Re: God or not?

On 23 December 2013 09:10, Edgar 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. &g

Re: God or not?

On 25 December 2013 19:29, Samiya Illias wrote: > 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 &

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: everythi

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: 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 a

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 al

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

Re: God or not?

ve not much choice in the matter (with the usual Occam). It makes also comp experimentally falsifiable (with some nuances). We don't have to "search" for reality since it is everywhere and cannot be escaped. That's consciousness. Reality is more like God, we are igno

Re: God or not?

nd not the Grinch one, I must rudely, ask,, how this could help us? Us, the pitiful, violent, human species. God, Mind, Consciousness, and all that? It needs to be asked, although, yes, some efforts are purely intellectual. I always home in, the Existential. Sincerely, Mitch -Original Message

Re: God or not?

ch conveys actual reality upon the computationally evolving information forms within it. Because of its non-physical nature OE is difficult to properly describe as Lao Tse noted about the Tao which was his take on OE. Edgar On Monday, December 23, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >

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

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >