Roger, I hate to keep harping on this but aren't BECs unextended in space, as you put it.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdbReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-07, 01:46:34Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
> Science is a religion by itself. Why?
Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.
Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you
but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian "theory".
>Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.
On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.
Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you
I doubt this. You can give me evidence, but not a proof, unless a trivial definition of "you". Proving is only theoretical. We cannot prove the existence of anything real.
We can just find evidence supporting (pace David Deutsch) or refuting some hypotheses. In science we never know as such.
Bruno
but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date: 01/07/13
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God.
Le me add some meat here
That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion.
We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
2013/1/9 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>
On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God.
Le me add some meat here
That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion.
We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another.
Dear Brent, Seriously: Atheism is a group of related religions. An atheist when hear his favourite author fire the same neurons that are fired when the most religious hear his televangelist: A group of ecologist hearing Al Gore have similar experiences than when a group of nuns hear the Pope.
If you dont´t accept that same physical phenomena in the brain are associated with the same mental experiences then we have a problem.
The same physical and mental phenomena can not be two nor three different things. There is a common circuitry in the brain that is working in a church, in a foatball match,, in a concert in the fans of a rock band.
in the discourse of a totalitarian dictator. Therefore is a single phenomenon with different names. We can not have a circuit for rock concerts, other for admiring a leader, other for the Pope. Other for Carlos Marx. One for God and another for holding the super-ego that repeat in our mid the words of of our dead father. or another circuit that make us to remember with stasis that famous scientist that we try to emulate. Do you understand?
The atheist like any other person is subject to the same laws of any other religion. It can be a firm believer, or unbeliever, nihilist or exceptic about dialectic materialism or the global warming. It can be comforted for their strength of his principles or repudiated by their fellows for their doubt about the core beliefs in the same way that a Muslim can experience the same about Allah.
On 1/8/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.
Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you
I doubt this. You can give me evidence, but not a proof, unless a trivial definition of "you". Proving is only theoretical. We cannot prove the existence of anything real.
You are using a narrow conception of 'proof', i.e. logical proof. But there is also empirical proof and legal 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.
We can just find evidence supporting (pace David Deutsch) or refuting some hypotheses. In science we never know as such.
If you cannot know anything except what you can prove in mathematics
then you never know anything except tautologies of the form "If x then x."
Brent
Bruno
but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
No virus found in this message.
--
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date: 01/07/13
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Le me add some meat hereWe can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of realityFor reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is "physical" as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes.As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings.
If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others).Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal .A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma.The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others.A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties. In this sense, primitive religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization.
That´s why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best use of this unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free us from the obedience to the dictatorial earthly leaders, the bloody sacrifices, the cult to the lebensraung (vital space) of the tribe , or the supertribe, with its psycopathic treatment to "the others".Because nihilism is unbearable except as a self-steem booster by means of a self-exhibition of strength for a certain time, as the young russians did in the early XX century. If hihilism would not be painful it would not be a matter of exhibition. Sooner or later the nihilist has to choose between the suicide, that has a perfect evolutionary sense, since someone isolated, with no guide to help others in society is a social burden, and suicide is the social apoptosis, by means of which the social body re-absorb the useless.Or else the , guided by its simple instints and devoid of the experience and traditions of the past, and therefore with no vaccine for the recurrent errors of humanity, the unbeliever will reinvent again and again the primitive cults to the earth the tiranic leader and the blood. Of course with the fashionable decorations of our time; Probably some eco-globalist-aborto-eugenesist cult with a greath leader that would suspend our rights, for the good of humanity and the planet, of course.
2013/1/8 John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.
Yes, I agree with that, one clearly had to come before the other. Before some human invented God there was no need for another human to invent atheism.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
Alberto.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:That is dishonest in two ways. First, primary matter is not "god-like" except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of "god" (c.f. John Clark's "How to Become a Liberal Theologian"). That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant. It is not a necessary part of being an atheist. You might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally true.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Le me add some meat here
Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God.
All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) "God". Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis.
What does 'truth' have to do with values? Do I love my children because of some 'truth'?
We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another.
That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion.
?
Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality
For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is "physical" as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes.
Sounds like you've studied John Clark's "How to Become a Liberal Theologian".
As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others).
I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values. But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values.
They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to values.
A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and cooperate and effect changes in a shared world.Have you not considered that this is because it is a wholly imaginary field invented especially to augment politics and social control (c.f Craig A. James "The God Virus")?
Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal .
Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with agency. There was no sharp line between science and religion because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and sacrifice, was ubiquitous. Only later did the voice of the dead leader and dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with shamans and priests.
A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent.
Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism developed. Yaweh at first insisted on being the top god, over all the personal and household gods. Then later he evolved into the only god - as explained by Craig A. James in "The God Virus".
Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma.
The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others.
Yes, it must be sad for theists who long for the good old days of the Aztecs, the Holy Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade, the unifying force of The Cultural Revolution,...
It is an intrinsic weakness of the theological field: to be perverted by politics.
It is political by construction and it attracts academicians who want to have political effects.
But this is not a rational reason to abandon the field. On the contrary, it is even more politicized when it is abandoned by the academicians.
A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties. In this sense, primitive religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization.
That愀 why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best use of this unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free us from the obedience to the dictatorial earthly leaders, the bloody sacrifices, the cult to the lebensraung (vital space) of the tribe , or the supertribe, with its psycopathic treatment to "the others".
And it gave us Hitler and The Final Solution, the slaughter of the Cathars, the burning of witches, the Crusades,... "What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them." ---Martin Luther
Because nihilism is unbearable except as a self-steem booster by means of a self-exhibition of strength for a certain time, as the young russians did in the early XX century. If hihilism would not be painful it would not be a matter of exhibition. Sooner or later the nihilist has to choose between the suicide, that has a perfect evolutionary sense, since someone isolated, with no guide to help others in society is a social burden, and suicide is the social apoptosis, by means of which the social body re-absorb the useless.
What makes you think an atheist is not part of a society (however much you may wish it were so). 93% of the members of the National Academy of Science are atheists. They don't seem much prone to suicide or isolation or not helping others. In fact they are far more help than those theists who prayed to cure polio and small pox.
Keep in mind that atheists are believers. Indeed, they share most parts of the Aristotelian theology with the christians. Atheism is only a slight variant of christianism, especially compared to the mystics or the Platonists.
Mere assertion. I'm an atheist and I'm quite willing to consider your ontology based on computation. Other physicists I know like Tegmark's idea or Wheeler's "It from bit" and many work on information based physics. None that I know hold primary matter as dogma that they "believe" even if they think it's the best current model. Those that are atheists, and that's almost all of them, assume there is no personal agency controlling the world, as a working hypothesis - but they would give up that if there were good evidence. All this is in strong contrast to Christianity and the other theisms, which require dogmatic belief in a personal superbeing. You are just slandering straw men.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears to mean existentialist "not Christian god", another appearance is "not organized religion", which both appear reasonable.
Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: "what are they talking about?" as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever you wanna call these structures primitively) of one sort or another. Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, computational, financial, political, biological, creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum, and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in mind.
Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point take a leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis.
I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I can't understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in something that transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you can blame me for not differentiating between absolutely static belief and work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them.
I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody here can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with "atheist". Oddly, I often find the same "this I take for granted attitude, that anything else makes me smile condescendingly", that even keeps me from bringing it up.
Hi Bruno Marchal
Complexity can't (or at least need not) be a feature of Platonism,
since all of those equations have already been solved or resolved from above.
Complexity is simply an artifact produced by building up from below, without
a clue as to what is present above (what is true)
Complexity arises from the impossibility of reaching necessary reason
starting with contingent reason.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:27 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears to mean existentialist "not Christian god", another appearance is "not organized religion", which both appear reasonable.
Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: "what are they talking about?" as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever you wanna call these structures primitively) of one sort or another. Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, computational, financial, political, biological, creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum, and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in mind.
Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point take a leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis.
I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I can't understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in something that transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you can blame me for not differentiating between absolutely static belief and work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them.
I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody here can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with "atheist". Oddly, I often find the same "this I take for granted attitude, that anything else makes me smile condescendingly", that even keeps me from bringing it up.
Do you know what "theist" means?
Brent
If you could clarify your question, why you ask, it would be easier.
That is so broad: what does anything mean in some absolute sense, or are you playing some specific frame?
That broadly though:
Greek root theos, so god/transcendental principle + ism, implying a more or less flexible belief, held by adherents. Whether anthropomorphic, interactive, or any other feature of deity in question, the term is used in more or less broad terms to denote belief it one or more supreme beings. And yes you could differentiate endlessly here... but to what end?
Brent
For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the "robotic truth" can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the Löbian threshold.
> I don't believe that you can explain perception without God
> Physicists often do experiemnts on crystals at 0 oK or near there.
socratus
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-11, 13:54:47Subject: Re: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
The Seven Hermetic Principles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI
=.
1. The Universe is something Intellectual.
2. As above, so below.
3. From potential to active existence.
4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate.
5. Everything in the Universe has its cause.
6. Everything in the Universe has its opposite.
7. The Universe has its own rhythm.
/ Hermes Trismegistus /
=.
Can these Seven Hermetic Principles be explained
by physical laws and formulas ?
----- Receiving the following content -----From: socr...@bezeqint.netReceiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-14, 14:39:29
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
I will try to understand situation from today fashion physical point
of view.
=.
Let us say that Plato's world of ideas is a dark mass
( because nobody knows that their are).
And Leibniz monadas and Kant's things-in- themselves are
quantum particles ( because nobody knows their physical parameters).
We can suppose that the dark mass (the world of ideas)
is consist of quantum particles (monads / things-in-themselves).
And then all these monadas / quantum particles were pressed
together in . . . . a 'singular point ' . . . by some power.
But after some time they felt themselves uncomfortable and
. . . . separated as a 'big bang'.
In this way we can understand the connection between physics and
philosophy of idealism and the existence ( from today point of
view) .
If somebody didn't understand me I can explain the modern physical
point of view on existence in the other words.
You was born because your mother was pregnant,
and your mother was born because you was pregnant.
==
socratus
On Jan 14, 5:44爌m, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:22, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> > 燭he Seven Hermetic Principles
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI
> > =.
> > 1. The Universe is something Intellectual.
> > 2. As above, so below.
> > 3. From potential to active existence.
> > 4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate.
> > 5. Everything in the Universe has its cause.
> > 6. Everything in the Universe has its opposite.
> > 7. The Universe has its own rhythm.
>
> Hmm... This is already too much Aristotelian to fit with
> computationalism.
>
>
>
> > / Hermes Trismegistus /
> > =.
> > Can these Seven Hermetic Principles be explained
> > by physical laws and formulas ?
>
> We have first to explain the physical laws appearances, and formula,
> in comp, and thus in arithmetic. See (*) for a concise explanation.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.