Science is a religion by itself.

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

Science is a religion by itself.
Why?
Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
Here is the scheme of His plane.
=.
God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
§ 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= ∞ ,p= 0, t=∞ .
§ 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1.
§ 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
§ 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
§ 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- > HeI -- > H --

> . . .


§ 6. Proton: (p).
§ 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
§ 8. The Physical Laws:
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
§ 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
§ 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

[Roger Clough]

Hi socr...@bezeqint.net

Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind, is not extended in space
Those objects you mention are extended in space.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: socr...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-04, 04:47:30
Subject: 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.
Here is the scheme of His plane.
=.
God : Ten Scientific Commandments.

? 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= 8 ,p= 0, t=8 .
? 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1.
? 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
? 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
? 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- > HeI -- > H --

> . . .


? 6. Proton: (p).
? 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:

a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.

? 8. The Physical Laws:

a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.

? 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
? 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.

===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

--
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.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Jan 2013, at 10:47, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:

> Science is a religion by itself.
> Why?
> Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
> only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
> Here is the scheme of His plane.
> =.
> God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
> § 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= ∞ ,p= 0, t=∞ .
> § 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1.
> § 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
> § 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
> § 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- > HeI -- > H --
>
>> . . .
>
>
> § 6. Proton: (p).
> § 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:
> a) electromagnetic,
> b) nuclear,
> c) biological.
> § 8. The Physical Laws:
> a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass,
> b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
> c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.

That's human hypotheses. (With implicit theological Aristotelian
assumption, I think).

> § 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
> § 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.

That's quick.

> ===.
> Best wishes.
> Israel Sadovnik Socratus

Best,

Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Jan 2013, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi socr...@bezeqint.net
>
> Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind,
> is not extended in space
> Those objects you mention are extended in space.

Like numbers, programs and other digital machines.
Well, even non digital machines, arguably.

Glad you agree that life is not extended in space, but no machinery at
all really is.
Eventually they are the builders of space and time.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/6/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 04 Jan 2013, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>> Hi socr...@bezeqint.net
>>
>> Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind, is
>> not extended in space
>> Those objects you mention are extended in space.
>
> Like numbers, programs and other digital machines.
> Well, even non digital machines, arguably.
>
> Glad you agree that life is not extended in space, but no machinery at
> all really is.
> Eventually they are the builders of space and time.
>
> Bruno

Hear Hear!

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Richard Ruquist]

Roger,

I hate to keep harping on this
but aren't BECs unextended
in space, as you put it.

And if so, life and its machinery
could be embedded a BEC
even if the BEC were extended.

BECs have the kind of magical properties
that suggest that they are outside spacetime.

Richard

> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

On 1/6/2013 10:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Roger,

I hate to keep harping on this
but aren't BECs unextended
in space, as you put it.

They're extended enough you can take a picture of one, about 20e-6m in
this case.
http://www.bec.nist.gov/PDF/bose-einst.pdf



Brent

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

 

Did I say that BEC's are not extended in space ?

The concept of them is not. My mistake.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/7/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-07, 01:46:34

Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:47 AM, socr...@bezeqint.net <socr...@bezeqint.net> wrote:

> Science is a religion by itself. Why?
Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.

Then God must get very board because that really doesn't leave much for Him to do. Why do you even bother to invent Him?

  John K Clark

[spudb...@aol.com]

Well, another writer/scientist "Bernardo Kastrup" considered the universe a run, like computation, because It/He/She is not complete. Hence, our lives, the past, the future, and all that. Consider God, a word for Mind, and then pretend that mind is a space alien, because It probably is, from human points of view. Why limit our concepts of "The Lord" to something Aquinas, Augustin,  or some other Church dude said centuries ago? Maybe Its like Skeptic, Michael Shermer mused-a space alien? Why peddle the notion that God is all-knowing, because maybe It ain't?

[Roger Clough]

Hi spudboy100

Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.
So you have to treat it as an experimental hypothesis.
Assume that, and see how you life is changed. If at all.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/7/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: spudboy100
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-07, 12:53:11

Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

Well, another writer/scientist "Bernardo Kastrup" considered the universe a run, like computation, because It/He/She is not complete. Hence, our lives, the past, the future, and all that. Consider God, a word for Mind, and then pretend that mind is a space alien, because It probably is, from human points of view. Why limit our concepts of "The Lord" to something Aquinas, Augustin, or some other Church dude said centuries ago? Maybe Its like Skeptic, Michael Shermer mused-a space alien? Why peddle the notion that God is all-knowing, because maybe It ain't?



-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark
To: everything-list
Sent: Mon, Jan 7, 2013 12:42 pm
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013  <spudb...@aol.com> wrote:

> Consider God, a word for Mind

OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.

  John K Clark

 

[John Clark]

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

[meekerdb]

> Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
> only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
>
>
> Then God must get very board because that really doesn't leave much for Him to do. Why do you even bother to invent Him?
>
> John K Clark

"Any eternal God would be so bored after one eternity that It would do Its best to commit
suicide by creating an equally adept Opponent. Half of the time the Opponent would
succeed and the process would repeat. It is impossible to know whether the current "God"
is an even or odd term in the series."
--- Roahn Wynar :-)

[meekerdb]

An observation also made by Bertrand Russell,"People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood”

Brent

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

Russell was a brilliant logician, but that's all he was.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen


----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-07, 19:48:04

Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

On 1/7/2013 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote:



> Consider God, a word for Mind

OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.

An observation also made by Bertrand Russell,"People are more unwilling to give up the word ?od? than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood?

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than "Universe", which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the "being" for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term "God" has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian "theory". God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less "person" feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18

Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Clark.

God so far has proven his existence to nobody,
unless subjectively (spiritually), primarily because God is
subjective, not objective.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/8/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-08, 09:56:46

Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:

[Richard Ruquist]

that reminds me that we do not really know what a word means
until we understand what the opposite stands for.
a sorta duality that math may be based on
that may even be the basis of existence
of how something can come
from nothing.

RR
a semantic toe

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian "theory".

Conservative Christianity is deplorable in a great number of ways but it is superior to liberal theology in one important regard, it states that it might be a good idea if words actually mean something.

  John K Clark 
 

[John Clark]

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

 

 

[meekerdb]

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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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

[Alberto G. Corona]

Le me add some meat here

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. 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.

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>

--

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.

[meekerdb]

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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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,...

>
> 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".

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.

>
>
> 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,

So Christianity is a kind of vaccine, one that activates the skeptical immune system to
save us from infection by theism. I can buy that, although I think Santa Claus works too.

> 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.

The only recent eugeneist cult was that of the Nazis, founded by a good Catholic boy. No
wars have been fought or pogroms instigated for ecological reasons or to allow women to
choose abortions; but a great many have been fought over theist dogma.

Brent
"Once you have backed into the faith corner, you have no
recourse against terror and repression in the name of religion,
no recourse against bigotry, demagoguery, misogyny, or abuse
posing as religion. You have no basis for criticism of cruel
religions. This is precisely because faith is not a matter of
evidence and analysis, not a matter of argument and criticism."
--- Patricia Churchland

[Alberto G. Corona]

2013/1/9 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

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.

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.

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. 

--
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.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
Alberto.

[meekerdb]

On 1/8/2013 4:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2013/1/9 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

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.

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.

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.

Patently false, since if you ask one of the ecologists what Al Gore said you will get a different answer than if you ask one of the nuns what the Pope said.

If you dont´t accept that same physical phenomena in the brain are associated with the same mental experiences then we have a problem. 

You have a problem because above you just assert that the same physical phenomena were produced in two different brains by two different experiences.

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.

And there's a similar blood supply and all the same kinds of atoms and molecules.  But there's also something different, otherwise the ecologist and nun would give the same report.

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?

I understand you're trying to slip by an obviously fallacious argument that since two different things can evoked similar emotions they must be the same thing.

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.

No, an atheist is person who doesn't believe theism, the religion that claims there is an all powerful supernatural person who created the world, who rewards and punishes, and answers prayers.  If religions were TV channels then atheism would be OFF.

Brent
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural
piety, to laws, to reputation;  all of which may be guides
to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but
religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an
absolute monarchy in the minds of men."
   --- Francis Bacon

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 7, 6:42 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:47 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net <socra...@bezeqint.net

>
> > wrote:
> > Science is a religion by itself. Why?
> > Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
> > only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
>
> Then God must get very board because that really doesn't leave much for Him
> to do. Why do you even bother to invent Him?
>
>   John K Clark

I don't need ' to invent Him.'
He and His Souls are hidden in the formulas
==
socratus

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 7, 7:53 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough <rclo...@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

God is Atheist by His nature.

==

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 8, 1:48 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/7/2013 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
>

> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 <spudboy...@aol.com <mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>> wrote:
>
> >     > Consider God, a word for Mind
>
> > OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.
>
> > I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many
> > people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and
> > in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it
> > means.
>
> An observation also made by Bertrand Russell,"People are more unwilling to give up the
> word 'God' than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood"
>
> Brent

In beginning was Word.
And the Word was written by the formula: T=0K.
===

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, "Roger Clough"<rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi meekerdb
>
> Russell was a brilliant logician, but that's all he was.
>
> >

> Brent

To have logical mind is very good.
But our brain sometime works unconscious.

=.

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

Quantum electrodynamics + Biology = Who am I ?
==.
Cells make copies of themselves.
Different cells make different copies of themselves.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes.
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
and by chance ( or not by chance ) they change own
geometrical form from zygote to a child.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you.
Cells they are you ( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view.
#
Maybe 99% agree that ‘Cells - they are you .’
But this explanation is not complete.
Cells have an energy / electrical potential.
Cells have an electromagnetic field.
Therefore we need to say:
‘ Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.’
===.
Is this formulation correct?
Of course it is correct.
Why?
Because:
Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity)
refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields
produced by living cells, tissues or organisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetism

What does it mean?
It means there isn’t biological cell without electromagnetic fields.
It means that in the cell we have two ( 2 ) substances:
matter and electromagnetic fields.
And in 1985 Richard P. Feynman wrote book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

The idea of book - the interaction between light
( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange.

He wrote: ‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ page 10. /
#
Once again:
1.
Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.
2.
We cannot understand their interaction and therefore
we don’t know the answer to the question: ‘ who am I ?’
==.
Where does electromagnetic field come from ?
=.
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t electromagnetic field
( em waves ) without Electron
It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron
The electron and the em waves they are physical reality
Can evolution of consciousness begin on electron’s level?
==.
Origin of life is a result of physical laws that govern Universe
Electron takes important part in this work.
#
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Questions.
Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ?
a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) Maxwell’s equations
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
e) Fermi-Dirac statistics.

Nobody knows.
====.
What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows
In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron
All of them are problematical.
We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics.
But how can we trust them if we don’t know what is an electron ?
====.
Ladies and Gentlemen !
Friends !
The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe,
he is wiser than we are.
=====.
According to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron (for example - two)
then this atom represents a " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children. ( ! )
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it. ( ! )
==.
Question: Can consciousness be introduced into physics?
Electron gives the answer to this question.
=.
Brain and Electron.
Human brain works on two levels:
consciousness and subconsciousness. The neurons of brain
create these two levels. So, that it means consciousness and
subconsciousness from physical point of view ( interaction
between billions and billions neurons and electron).
It can only mean that the state of neurons in these two
situations is different.
How can we understand these different states of neurons?
How does the brain generate consciousness?
We can understand this situation only on the quantum level,
only using Quantum theory. But there isn’t QT without
Quantum of Light and Electron. So, what is interaction between
Quantum of Light, Electron and brain ?
Nobody knows.
Maybe therefore Michael Talbot wrote:
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be
the brain that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness
that creates the appearance of the brain - . . . .’
/ Book ‘ The Holographic Universe’ page 160. by Michael Talbot./
#
Conclusion:
We are cells + Electron. ( ! )
We must understand not only the cells, brain but electron too.
And when we understand the Electron
we will know the Ultimate Nature of Reality.

===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

===========.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.

Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist,
and was almost a synonym with "truth". There was an implicit, but
reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by
reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the
"theology" baby with the clerical bath water.
Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with
the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. By definition it
cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like "arithmetical
truth" has to appear for any sound machine.

Bruno

> --
> 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
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jan 2013, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:

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'.

Yes. I use proof in the strong sense.

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

You cannot know that too. Well, except perhaps for arithmetic.

then you never know anything except tautologies of the form "If x then x."

Arithmetic is far richer than tautologies. Do you think Fermat theorem is a tautology? If yes, then you just mean "theorem", but not all theorem can be proved as "if x then x", you need no logical axiom as well, that is some theoretical axioms. This entails already the existence of the contingencies and local realities.

Bruno

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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Le me add some meat here

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. 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.

As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings.

For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the "robotic truth" can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the Löbian threshold.

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. 

Hmm...

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.

I agree partially. But the Christian have politicized religion, where the greeks have succeeded in making it into a science, and today we have not yet come back to the scientific attitude in those matter. There is a strong resistance from fundamentalist atheists, more numerous than I thought possible. European atheism seems different than american atheism (which is often just agnosticism).

Bruno

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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

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.

>
>>
>> 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.

?

They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to

It is an intrinsic weakness of the theological field: to be perverted
by politics. 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.

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.

Bruno

>
>>
>>
>> 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,
>
> So Christianity is a kind of vaccine, one that activates the
> skeptical immune system to save us from infection by theism. I can
> buy that, although I think Santa Claus works too.
>
>> 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.
>
> The only recent eugeneist cult was that of the Nazis, founded by a
> good Catholic boy. No wars have been fought or pogroms instigated
> for ecological reasons or to allow women to choose abortions; but a
> great many have been fought over theist dogma.
>
> Brent
> "Once you have backed into the faith corner, you have no
> recourse against terror and repression in the name of religion,
> no recourse against bigotry, demagoguery, misogyny, or abuse
> posing as religion. You have no basis for criticism of cruel
> religions. This is precisely because faith is not a matter of
> evidence and analysis, not a matter of argument and criticism."
> --- Patricia Churchland
>

> --
> 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
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

That could be so. But Wittgenstein and others believed
that the meaning of a word is established through usage.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 11:37:47
Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.

that reminds me that we do not really know what a word means
until we understand what the opposite stands for.
a sorta duality that math may be based on
that may even be the basis of existence
of how something can come
from nothing.

RR
a semantic toe

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

Am I wrong ? I don't think that "complexity" and Platonism
(top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from bottom-up
being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian
intellect gets stuck.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-09, 05:37:48
Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.

On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


Le me add some meat here


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. 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.


As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings.

For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the "robotic truth" can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the L?ian threshold.

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.


Hmm...

That? 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.


I agree partially. But the Christian have politicized religion, where the greeks have succeeded in making it into a science, and today we have not yet come back to the scientific attitude in those matter. There is a strong resistance from fundamentalist atheists, more numerous than I thought possible. European atheism seems different than american atheism (which is often just agnosticism).


Bruno











2013/1/8 John Clark

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>
>> Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.
>
>
> Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was
> almost a synonym with "truth". There was an implicit, but reasonable
> assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to
> *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the "theology" baby with
> the clerical bath water.
> Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the
> idea that there is a reality which transcend us.

Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless
you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
goes beyond experimental proof in scope.
Richard

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:26 AM, socr...@bezeqint.net
<socr...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> In beginning was Word.
> And the Word was written by the formula: T=0K.

soc,
You may be ripe to believe in string consciousness
for its ontological basis is a cubic lattice
of Calabi-Yau compact manifolds
at absolute zero, T=0K,
from which arithmetic consciousness emerges
yanniru.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:27, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> Am I wrong ? I don't think that "complexity" and Platonism
> (top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from
> bottom-up
> being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian
> intellect gets stuck.

Complexity arise in numbers due to the intrinsic relation between
addition and multiplication, which notably makes possible computations
and self-reference, and separate truth (God) from provability
(intellect).

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-li...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>>
>>> Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist,
>> and was
>> almost a synonym with "truth". There was an implicit, but reasonable
>> assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by
>> reaction to
>> *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the "theology"
>> baby with
>> the clerical bath water.
>> Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent
>> with the
>> idea that there is a reality which transcend us.
>
> Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless
> you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
> goes beyond experimental proof in scope.

I prefer to keep the term "proof" in the strong logician's sense
(formal or informal).
I would talk only on experimental *evidence*.

You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence.
We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^10000, but have no
experimental evidences at all for that!

But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are
just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The
simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to
be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930),
consistency is equivalent with "having a model", or having a
(mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is
already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a
transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality.

Bruno

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

[Richard Ruquist]

Agreed, and I hope that truth is true .
Richard

>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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-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.
>>
>
> 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

[Bruno Marchal]

Lol.



>
> Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes
> that are full of "infinities of discrete number relations"

Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp).



> and that a "flux density of infinities" can flow between them.
> Or is that overboard?

If not taken literally, it can perhaps help. But there is a risk of
reifying the particles, or of interpreting the "flux densities of
infinities" in a too much materialist sense.
If you compensate with "matrix-" or "simulacron"-like illustration,
that will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that
those infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it
becomes "matter appearances" only from the "number's pov" as
distributed on the whole UD* or (sigma_1) arithmetical truth.

I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that this
was just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the
Gödelian argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the
machine turns such argument in favor of comp.

I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong
evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of
course, *many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least),
but at least we have the tools to formulate them precisely.

Bruno


> Richard
> points and lines
> word geometry?

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@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
> .

[Richard Ruquist]

But Bruno, you just said that matter came from

"infinities of discrete number relations"

> If you compensate with "matrix-" or "simulacron"-like illustration, that
> will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that those
> infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it becomes "matter
> appearances" only from the "number's pov" as distributed on the whole UD* or
> (sigma_1) arithmetical truth.
>
> I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that this was
> just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the Gödelian
> argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the machine turns such
> argument in favor of comp.
>
> I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong
> evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of course,
> *many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least), but at least we
> have the tools to formulate them precisely.
>
> Bruno
>

Are you granting that QM laws are
arithmetic theorems on the level
as those of Godel and Church?
So you can argue from them
like they were axioms?
Richard

>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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-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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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-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.
>>
>
> 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

[meekerdb]

On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> 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.

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.

What does 'truth' have to do with values? Do I love my children because of some 'truth'?
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")?

> 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.

It is political by construction and it attracts academicians who want to have political
effects.

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

[meekerdb]

On 1/9/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>>>
>>>> Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was
>>> almost a synonym with "truth". There was an implicit, but reasonable
>>> assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to
>>> *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the "theology" baby with
>>> the clerical bath water.
>>> Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the
>>> idea that there is a reality which transcend us.
>>
>> Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless
>> you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
>> goes beyond experimental proof in scope.
>
> I prefer to keep the term "proof" in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal).
> I would talk only on experimental *evidence*.
>
> You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there
> is a prime number bigger than 10^10000, but have no
> experimental evidences at all for that!

And we know that the Earth orbits the Sun - but there is no mathematical proof of that.
Mathematical proofs are always relative to axioms and rules of inference. Empirical
proofs can be ostensive. So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common.
Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They are
relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that maps
the axioms to facts.

Brent

>
> But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof
> (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA,
> which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem*

> (G�del 1930),

>>> 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

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

>
> Agreed, and I hope that truth is true .
> Richard
>

Truth is true !!!
/ Richard /
Very good proof. . .
. . . . and . . ‘. . by Beauty that beautiful things are
beautiful . . .
by largeness that large things are large and larger things larger,
and by smallness that smaller things ate smaller . . . .
. . . by tallness one man is taller than another . . .
. . . . and the shorter is shorter by the same ; . . . . .’

about 2500 years ago Plato wrote.

=====.

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

>
> > Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes
> > that are full of "infinities of discrete number relations"
>
> Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp).

---------->

Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
( according to the laws of thermodynamics )
therefore we think that they have infinite parameters .

socratus

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:06 AM, socr...@bezeqint.net
<socr...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes
>> > that are full of "infinities of discrete number relations"
>>
>> Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp).
> ---------->
>
> Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
> ( according to the laws of thermodynamics )

Wrong

> therefore we think that they have infinite parameters .
>
> socratus
>

> --
> 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.

[Richard Ruquist]

soc,

"that truth" referring to what Bruno said. may or may not be true.
You did not read the thread.
Richard

[Roger Clough]

Hi socr...@bezeqint.net

Somebody once said that beauty is the discovery of unity in variety.

That's also what happens in perception.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/10/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: socr...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-10, 01:00:14
Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.

>
> Agreed, and I hope that truth is true .
> Richard
>
Truth is true !!!
/ Richard /
Very good proof. . .

. . . . and . . ?. . by Beauty that beautiful things are

beautiful . . .
by largeness that large things are large and larger things larger,
and by smallness that smaller things ate smaller . . . .
. . . by tallness one man is taller than another . . .

. . . . and the shorter is shorter by the same ; . . . . .?

about 2500 years ago Plato wrote.

=====.

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

Coincidence with Newton's laws proves, to me at least, that the earth orbits the sun
rather than the inverse. There's too much mass on the sun to have it orbit the earth.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/10/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-09, 15:55:18
Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.

On 1/9/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>

> (G?el 1930),

[Roger Clough]

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.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/10/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-09, 09:58:55

> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com

> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>
>
> 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

> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

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.

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
> > ( according to the laws of thermodynamics )
>
> Wrong
>

According to Charle’s law and the consequence of the
third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
approaches zero too.

===…

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:17 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

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.

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.

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.
 

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.

What does 'truth' have to do with values?  Do I love my children because of some 'truth'?

From hypothetical self with children, hopefully: I love them because (insert the most appropriate transcendental truth from 1p pov here, which is private I guess).

 A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and cooperate and effect changes in a shared world.

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.

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")?

So then politics and social control are things that exist independently of imagination? What's interesting is that mind, whether brain, consciousness, number dream, ontologies aside for a moment, often makes this move "that is fanciful imagination" and "this is legitimate thinking". I think such demarcation needs a lot of elaboration, as it could be interpreted as a "social control move", if taken as isolated statement in this context.
 

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.

It is political by construction and it attracts academicians who want to have political effects.

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.

So all physicists are as open minded as you portray and all Christians or Theism-Types are not? I must be misinterpreting somewhere.

Beliefs are also not exclusively a matter of some subjective "either on or off" switch, which I'm not accusing anybody here of stating, but to hopefully clarify: there are degrees of taking them literally, distance and closeness... and what 1p thinks they believe often runs counter a 3p description of what they do. You can have agents believing themselves to be atheist or whatever, but in practice they are more materialist, opportunist, liberal, conservative etc.

Taking world not literally/seriously enough and we increase probability of walking into lamppost; taking some aspect too literally/seriously/believing too strongly is enchantment in the light of the lamppost, which can bring light to some extent but also kills moths or damages the eyes of those who gaze too intently. Degree of involvement, dosage, distance, and a sense of measure can help, but not ultimately.

When placed in front of the belief question, I used to murmur "agnostic" but didn't consider enough my daily activities and individual thoughts. In such instances, I now state instead that I believe in too many concepts to count, that change too quickly or not at all, and that bleed into each other as time passes. In other words, on some level I am aware of my beliefs, but I couldn't reduce them into some vaguely coherent political or spiritual position. Not for everyday purposes anyway: Apparently I believe in consumerism, even though I am repulsed by the lies and rip-offs they imply in our context that I don't believe in, because I shop when I need food.
PGC
------
 

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.

[Bruno Marchal]

The appearance of matter comes from infinities of discrete number
relations.
Those appearances themselves are like continuous dream.

Yes. (I will be explicit on FOAR, on this). But everything is
explained on the sane04 paper.
The arithmetical quantization is given by []<>p , with []p = Bp & Dt,
with D = ~B~, and B = Gödel's *arithmetical* beweisbar (provability)
predicate.
An arithmetical version of a Bell inequality is

[]<>([]<>A & []<>B) ->[]<>([]<>A v []<>B) & ([]<>A v []<>C)

> So you can argue from them
> like they were axioms?

Yes. All formula are theorem in Löbian (enough rich, like PA or ZF)
arithmetic, from the classical definition of knowledge, that we
recover by using Theatetus'definition of knowledge in the arithmetical
setting (with believable = provable, which makes sense for the ideally
correct machine that we have decided to "interview").

Bruno

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@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
> .

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:

> On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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").

Why? Nobody has "seen" primary matter, but the believer in it usually
attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God
or many Platonists (the most famous one being Aristotle).
Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is
already very different for some american and european Christians.

> 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.

I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already
"believer" in some sort of God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman
sense).
When atheists judge that there is no "God" (none at all, not even
taoist one, in my neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter
into "the" God, and worst, they believe this explains everything,
which can make them quite sectarian, arrogant and impolite (and acting
like in the inquisition (actually much worst)).

Yes. the truth that you have children, for example.

> A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and
> cooperate and effect changes in a shared world.

OK.

I have actually done that in my youth, but I have stopped to believe
this. All field can be perverted, but more so for the theological
field because it touches deeply our global view on reality, and is
full of non-communicable propositions.

>
>
>> 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.
>
> It is political by construction and it attracts academicians who
> want to have political effects.

In the university based on a conventional religion. Scientific
theology is simply not part of the curriculum since 1500 years, in
*any* university.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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

I think that american put "agnostic" in atheism. If you are a real
atheist, believer in primary matter and believer in the non-existence
of any God, then you are an Aristotelian believer.

> and I'm quite willing to consider your ontology based on computation.

That's nice, and show that you are agnostic on primary matter, which
makes you a very special sort of "atheist". You should meet my
"friends".

Some atheists describe my work as super-atheism, as all Aristotelian
Gods are refuted, somehow. But they are usually not even aware of the
other conceptions of God and reality.

> 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.

Tegmark and Wheeler are the closer to comp, and are rather exceptional.

You seem to be unaware of the many atheist sects. Many are secret and
non transparent. I think you might never have met fundamentalist
atheists.

> 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.

You oppose atheism and christianism. I oppose Aristotle and Plato
theologies. From that points of view, European Atheists are more
fundamentalist than European Christian, because they pretend that
science is on their side, and they mock (to say the least) and hide
any argument which might generate a doubt on this. They don't allow
the doubt and the scientific attitude on the fundamental question.
They already "know".

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

OK.

> Empirical proofs can be ostensive.

But I prefer not using "proof" for that. It can only be misleading
when we do applied logic. I prefer to call that "empirical evidences".

> So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common.

Almost nothing indeed.

> Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions
> into others. They are relevant to empirical propositions only
> insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts.

I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences of
the axioms can be used to test the theory, and refute it, but will
never prove it to be true.

Bruno

>
> Brent
>
>
>>
>> But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth
>> are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The
>> simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible

>> to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel

[Richard Ruquist]

Davies defines a threshold for consciousness
based on biological and/or BEC complexity
exceeding the comp capacity
of the universe:
10^120 bits.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0703/0703041.pdf

>> 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
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com

>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>
> 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-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.

[Richard Ruquist]

wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an
experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when
heated.

Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most
materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid.
Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero.

[meekerdb]

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Jan 2013, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote:

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.

In the outer-god eyes. Perhaps. That makes neoplatonist sense. For God things are easy.

But with comp there is a sense that even God is overwhelmed by "its" creation/emanation.

Complexity is simply an artifact produced by building up from below, without
a clue as to what is present above (what is true)

OK. But it is real, as we are not above (usually). 

Complexity arises from the impossibility of reaching necessary reason
starting with contingent reason.

I don't think so. Complexity is intrinsic in the possible behavior of little numbers relatively to little numbers. The panorama is complex. Life and matter develop on the frontiers between the tractable and the non tractable, the computable and the non computable, the finite and the infinities, the equilibrium and the desequilibrium. The frontiers themselves are quite complex, fractals, chaotic. And the inner God (the knower, the universal first person/soul) can add to the mess.

Yet, if we cannot reach necessary reason starting only from contingent reasons, we can still reach necessary reason by looking inward, probably because we come from necessary reasons. (That's the faith of the rationalist, which I share).

Bruno

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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

On 1/10/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>

>> 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").
>
> Why? Nobody has "seen" primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a
> fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God or many Platonists (the most
> famous one being Aristotle).
> Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is already very
> different for some american and european Christians.

It's not a person, it didn't create the world, it doesn't care what people do, it has not
dogma, no temples, no priesthood, no sacred writings. It's not like any god, except the
liberal theologians god which can be anything.

>
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
> I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already "believer" in some sort of
> God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman sense).

But you've redefined 'God' (in the greek sense) so that anybody who believes anything is a
theist?

> When atheists judge that there is no "God" (none at all, not even taoist one, in my
> neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter into "the" God,

How do you know that? Do they worship at a shrine of primary matter? Do they quote
primary matter as a reason for legislation?

> and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make them quite sectarian,
> arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the inquisition (actually much worst)).

It is arrogant and impolite to attribute implicit beliefs to those who disagree with you
in order to discredit them.

I'm agnostic on everything if you mean not being absolutely certain. I just gave up
telling people who asked, that I was an agnostic because then they would assume I was
uncertain about the existence of their god, Yaweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus,... when in fact I
was pretty certain their god didnt' exist. Since most of these people were theists, I
found it easier to just say, "I'm an atheist", because that succinctly conveys (to those
who respect the meaning of words) my lack of belief in their theist gods.

>
> Some atheists describe my work as super-atheism, as all Aristotelian Gods are refuted,
> somehow. But they are usually not even aware of the other conceptions of God and reality.
>
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Tegmark and Wheeler are the closer to comp, and are rather exceptional.

No, they are not. Of course most physicists don't worry about 'what's fundamental,
mathematics or matter'. But among those that do think about it, I'd say more are close to
Tegmark than to Aristotle.

>
> You seem to be unaware of the many atheist sects. Many are secret and non transparent. I
> think you might never have met fundamentalist atheists.

I belong to the Ventura County Freethinkers, which has some fifty members almost all of
whom call themselves atheists. I'd say a only two or three match your idea of believing
in 'primary matter', but most of them haven't thought of it that deeply anyway. They just
know they don't believe in theism, the belief in a personal God. For many of them the
reasons more moral and ethical than epistemological or philosophical.

I think you are inventing secret opposition.

>
>
>
>> 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.
>
> You oppose atheism and christianism.

Sure, because Christianity is a theism, as is Islam and Judaism and Zoroastrianism.

> I oppose Aristotle and Plato theologies. From that points of view, European Atheists are
> more fundamentalist than European Christian, because they pretend that science is on
> their side, and they mock (to say the least) and hide any argument which might generate
> a doubt on this.

I don't know what 'their side' means. If it means Christianity is wrong, I think science
is on their side.

> They don't allow the doubt and the scientific attitude on the fundamental question. They
> already "know".

It's quite possible to know answers are wrong without knowing the right answer.

Brent

>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>

[meekerdb]

On 1/10/2013 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>> Empirical proofs can be ostensive.
>
> But I prefer not using "proof" for that. It can only be misleading when we do applied
> logic. I prefer to call that "empirical evidences".
>
>
>
>
>> So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common.
>
> Almost nothing indeed.
>
>
>
>
>> Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They
>> are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that
>> maps the axioms to facts.
>
> I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences of the axioms can be
> used to test the theory, and refute it, but will never prove it to be true.

You should write, "...but will never empirically evidence it." :-)

Brent

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

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?

--
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.

[meekerdb]

On 1/10/2013 11:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

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?

Then you know what "atheist" means "... to denote nonbelief in one or more..."

Brent

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

Which entails believing in one or more other things selectively or believing non-belief. Either way, I "grasp intuitively what people mean", but it is far from clear to me because of this.
Mark
------
 

Brent

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 10, 6:22 pm, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an
> experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when
> heated.
>
> Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most
> materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid.
> Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero.
>

> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net

>
>
>
> <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
> >> > ( according to the laws of thermodynamics )
>
> >> Wrong
>
> > According to Charle’s law and the consequence of the
> >  third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
> > of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
> > approaches zero too.
>
> > ===…
>
> > --
> > 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Charles Law is appropriate at or near absolute zero ,
because this law belongs to the particles of ' ideal gas' ,
it means that these particles can exist in the absolute vacuum:
T=0K.
==.

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

Nobody has "seen" primary matter,
but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in
our existence.

===========.

What is a primary matter from modern scientific point of view ?
It is 'quantum virtual particles' and ' cosmic dark mass and
energy'
The problem is that nobody explain their concrete physical parameters.
I explain this loss link.
The ' quantum virtual particles ' have following concrete
parameters:
C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.
===..
socratus

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 11, 7:24 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
wrote:

Pre-universe ( pre-condition) is vacuum : T=0K
The Universe ( as a whole) is a double World:
next to Material World ( a few % of whole mass of the Universe)
exist Vacuum World ( with more than 90% of whole mass of the
Universe).
=
socratus

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

a= not or anti, so atheist is not a theist or is an antitheism.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/11/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-10, 13:27:52

Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.

[Alberto G. Corona]

Dear Bruno:

 - As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. 

For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the "robotic truth" can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the Löbian threshold.

That´s absolutely right. 

But only when you add scarcity of resources, time and reproduction, that is, evolution, you can grasp the details of this religion.

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

The Universe ( as a whole) is a Double World: next to Matter World
( a few % of whole mass of Universe) exist Vacuum World
( with more than 90% of whole mass of Universe).
Question:
How can the more than 90% of Vacuum Mass in the Universe
(dark mass, dark energy, quantum virtual particles, particles of
ideal gas)
create a few % of Matter Mass, which give possibility to many
scientists
and philosophers to say that God doesn’t exist ?

==.

[Richard Ruquist]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, socr...@bezeqint.net
<socr...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> Charles Law is appropriate at or near absolute zero ,
> because this law belongs to the particles of ' ideal gas' ,
> it means that these particles can exist in the absolute vacuum:
> T=0K.

no, not OK

[Roger Clough]

Hi socr...@bezeqint.net

I don't believe that you can explain perception without God (or something like
Himn, perhaps Universal Mind) being the observer.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/11/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: socr...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List

Time: 2013-01-11, 06:22:23

Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.

and philosophers to say that God doesn? exist ?

==.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013  Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I don't believe that you can explain perception without God

And how do you explain perception WITH God except by saying "God just did it"? If the God theory could actually explain something and not just chant "God did it" I'd go to church with you next Sunday and handle venomous snakes with the best of them, but it can't. The religious like to complain that science can explain a lot but can't explain everything and that's true, but they forget that religion can't explain ANYTHING.

  John K Clark

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

Physicists often do experiemnts on crystals at 0 oK or near there.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/11/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-10, 12:22:44

Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.

wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an
experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when
heated.

Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most
materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid.
Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM, socr...@bezeqint.net

wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes
>> > ( according to the laws of thermodynamics )
>>
>> Wrong
>>
>

> According to Charle? law and the consequence of the

> third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
> of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
> approaches zero too.
>

> ===?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Physicists often do experiemnts on crystals at 0 oK or near there.

There is no such thing as nearly zero just as there is no such thing as nearly infinite or nearly pregnant; the Third law of Thermodynamics says that you can never reach zero degrees Kelvin in a finite number of steps. And Charles's Law was developed long before Quantum Mechanics was discovered and even at the time it was known that it was only a approximation of how real world gasses behaved. Charles's Law worked pretty well at the limited temperature ranges available in the 19'th century. 

  John K Clark



 

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

What is vacuum?
=.
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t
correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct
description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
#
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
#
Wikipedia :
“ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well
defined,
resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of
space,
how can we characterize either? “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
said Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
#
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
By Michael White and John Gribbin. /
#
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned into
particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.
/ University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb./
#
Vacuum -- the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness –
is actually a realm rife with potentiality, courtesy of the laws
of quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED,
additional, albeit virtual, particles can be created in the vacuum,
allowing light-light interactions.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

!
==========.

[Bruno Marchal]

Why?

Not sure I get the joke :?

We can empirically evidence a theory, we just cannot take those
evidences as a proof that the theory applies to "reality".

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Richard Ruquist]

Hi Rog,
Crystals are not gases- req'd for Charles law to apply.
Rich

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

[meekerdb]

The antinomy that theists can explain anything and hence fail to explain at all, arises from two different concepts of 'explain'.  One is to satisfy curiosity and forestall further questions.  The other is to describe causal relations among potentially observable events.  I leave it to the reader which is favored by religions.

Brent

[meekerdb]

I was just tweaking you for using "prove" both for the transformation from axiom to
theorem and for empirically testing a theory - right after you acknowledged they were
quite different. The 'proof' than connects the axioms to the theorem (consequence) is
completely different from 'proving' a theory is false (or true).

Brent

[John Mikes]

Nice figments!

Brent and Socratus and others: I will happily e-mail my essay on Science - Religion (the '-' stands for '=')- of 2000 upon request. The original URL-owner went out of business, I do have the copy. 

JM

socratus

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

Book ‘Dreams of a final theory’.
/ By Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
Page 66.
‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
problem of its interpretation.
. . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the
ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
‘ He tried to understand quantum mechanics.’ (!)
===.
Conclusion.
Don’t try to understand quantum theory if you want to reach success.
==.

Page 138.
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’

My opinion.
It is true we cannot reach the zero temperature T=0K.
But just because we cannot reach this Vacuum’s
parameter, does it mean that it have no meaning ?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a sound?
If unseen virtual antiparticles can appear from vacuum (!)
( Vacuum’s fluctuations / transformation / polarization )
and we can observe them as a real particles doesn’t it mean
that vacuum itself is a real structure, that without vacuum
we haven’t matter world.
==.
About that philosophy we are talking if we don't know
what is the vacuum,
what is the quantum particle ( they say it is math point),
what is an electron (electron has six formulas and many theories)
what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' . . . . etc ?
=.
P.S.
Well, that's Philosophy I've read,
And Law and Medicine, and I fear
Theology, too, from A to Z;
Hard studies all, that have cost me dear.
And so I sit, poor silly man
No wiser now than when I began.

/ Faust, lines 354–59. /
==.

[meekerdb]

On 1/11/2013 11:35 PM, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
> Book �Dreams of a final theory�.

> / By Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
> Page 66.

> � Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they

> working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
> problem of its interpretation.
> . . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
> our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
> promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
> out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the

> ex-student�s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
> � He tried to understand quantum mechanics.� (!)
> ===.
> Conclusion.
> Don�t try to understand quantum theory if you want to reach success.
> ==.
>
> Page 138.
> � It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot

> reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
> sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero

> simple have no meaning.�

Or they just don't mean what you would naively assume:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

In your religion. I guess. 

Bruno

  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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

But that was my point. That's why there is no empirical proof at al
indeed.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

 

OK, He would work.

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/12/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Richard Ruquist

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-11, 13:54:47

Subject: 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.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Jan 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote:

> On 1/10/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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").
>>
>> Why? Nobody has "seen" primary matter, but the believer in it
>> usually attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. It was
>> the third God or many Platonists (the most famous one being
>> Aristotle).
>> Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God
>> is already very different for some american and european Christians.
>
> It's not a person, it didn't create the world, it doesn't care what
> people do, it has not dogma, no temples, no priesthood, no sacred
> writings.

OK. Nice.



> It's not like any god,

That's not true. It is like the God of those who introduce the
concept, or the very idea that we can reason on that concept.



> except the liberal theologians god which can be anything.

It might be any thing that we can conceive as being the explanation or
model of the universal realm. Why does atheist defended so much the
idea that only the Christian's notion of God make sense?
Why defending a notion of God just to say that it does not exist?



>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already
>> "believer" in some sort of God (in the greek sense, not in the
>> Roman sense).
>
> But you've redefined 'God' (in the greek sense) so that anybody who
> believes anything is a theist?

Well, everybody who believe in primary matter is a theist. But you
don't need to be theist to believe in matter. Only when you posit the
existence of something non jusitifiable, as a complete type of
explanation, are you doing theology.

Science is agnostic, by definition. But many scientist believe in
primary matter without even realizing that this needs an act of faith,
and then as I show it contradicts the comp explanation of mind and
body, without suggesting any theory of mind and its relation with
matter.




>
>> When atheists judge that there is no "God" (none at all, not even
>> taoist one, in my neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter
>> into "the" God,
>
> How do you know that?

I asked them for years. They reject papers who submit doubts in the
domain.



> Do they worship at a shrine of primary matter?

They reject papers who submit doubts in the domain. It is equivalent,
even if it looks more "modern".
The atheists around here hate more the agnostic than the Christians.
They consider as crackpot any attempt to just doubt primary matter.
And some of them have cult and quasi equivalent notion of God, when
you ask the details. If you insist they can even invoke secrecy.



> Do they quote primary matter as a reason for legislation?

Well, there is the case of China and the USSR who did.



>
>> and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make
>> them quite sectarian, arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the
>> inquisition (actually much worst)).
>
> It is arrogant and impolite to attribute implicit beliefs to those
> who disagree with you in order to discredit them.

It is explicit beliefs. It is true that some can doubt in private, but
they will not say so in public, and will discredit you, i.e. the
doubter, in name of non dogma, but yet dogmatic proposition. you are
just lucky never have met that kind of sectarian form of atheism.



>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> What does 'truth' have to do with values? Do I love my children
>>> because of some 'truth'?
>>
>> Yes. the truth that you have children, for example.
>>
>>
>>
>>> A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and
>>> cooperate and effect changes in a shared world.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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")?
>>
>> I have actually done that in my youth, but I have stopped to
>> believe this. All field can be perverted, but more so for the
>> theological field because it touches deeply our global view on
>> reality, and is full of non-communicable propositions.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It is political by construction and it attracts academicians who
>>> want to have political effects.
>>
>> In the university based on a conventional religion. Scientific
>> theology is simply not part of the curriculum since 1500 years, in
>> *any* university.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>
>> I think that american put "agnostic" in atheism. If you are a real
>> atheist, believer in primary matter and believer in the non-
>> existence of any God, then you are an Aristotelian believer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> and I'm quite willing to consider your ontology based on
>>> computation.
>>
>> That's nice, and show that you are agnostic on primary matter,
>> which makes you a very special sort of "atheist". You should meet
>> my "friends".
>
> I'm agnostic on everything if you mean not being absolutely certain.

OK. Well, I doubt you can be agnostic on your own consciousness "here-
and-now", but indeed we can doubt any other content. Now I have less
doubt for 1+1=2 than for G= kmM/r^2, to give simple examples.




> I just gave up telling people who asked, that I was an agnostic
> because then they would assume I was uncertain about the existence
> of their god, Yaweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus,... when in fact I was
> pretty certain their god didnt' exist.

OK, but pretty certain is not "certain", and besides, they might be
partially correct. With comp they are certainly partially not correct
has they do the deeper theological error of giving a name to what many
consider as being not nameable, still less socially usable. But it is
not because they make error, that everything they say is incorrect.



> Since most of these people were theists, I found it easier to just
> say, "I'm an atheist", because that succinctly conveys (to those who
> respect the meaning of words) my lack of belief in their theist gods.

Then I am atheist too. I am just out of that debate. The real question
is does God exist, and then we can measure if such or such religion is
closer to that God. But God is defined here by the (unnameable)
transcendental (independent of me) from which all notion of existence
emerge. Then we can ask if we can have personal link, like with the
notion of inner god. For a plotinian God is both a universal soul
attractor, and the reason why soul fall from it, in some circumstances.



>
>>
>> Some atheists describe my work as super-atheism, as all
>> Aristotelian Gods are refuted, somehow. But they are usually not
>> even aware of the other conceptions of God and reality.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Tegmark and Wheeler are the closer to comp, and are rather
>> exceptional.
>
> No, they are not. Of course most physicists don't worry about
> 'what's fundamental, mathematics or matter'. But among those that
> do think about it, I'd say more are close to Tegmark than to
> Aristotle.

Really? Note that Tegmark is still close to Aristotle too. he has not
embrace the comp reversal between physics and machine "theology/
psychology/biology". There is still a notion of "physical universe",
even if he become perhaps more cautious, and get closer to comp.



>
>>
>> You seem to be unaware of the many atheist sects. Many are secret
>> and non transparent. I think you might never have met
>> fundamentalist atheists.
>
> I belong to the Ventura County Freethinkers, which has some fifty
> members almost all of whom call themselves atheists. I'd say a only
> two or three match your idea of believing in 'primary matter', but
> most of them haven't thought of it that deeply anyway.

Even the cat believe in primary matter by default. Milk is a sort of
independent substance for him/her.
Our brains are constituted that way. Only people with frequent realist
dreams usually can doubt, by themselves, the basic nature of reality.
So people who does not think deep on this usually have never doubt
"primary matter".




> They just know they don't believe in theism, the belief in a
> personal God.

Do they believe in the non existence of a theist God. if not, that is
agnosticism. I know that for some american, agnosticism is part of
atheism, but this is quite confusing.



> For many of them the reasons more moral and ethical than
> epistemological or philosophical.

I have no problem with the anticlerical.



>
> I think you are inventing secret opposition.

I don't want to talk about that.



>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You oppose atheism and christianism.
>
> Sure, because Christianity is a theism, as is Islam and Judaism and
> Zoroastrianism.

OK, but they might be wrong on some point and correct on others. The
vindicating atheists are just more wrong on some point and less on
others. The division Plato/Aristotle is more interesting, and more
scientific.
>
>> I oppose Aristotle and Plato theologies. From that points of view,
>> European Atheists are more fundamentalist than European Christian,
>> because they pretend that science is on their side, and they mock
>> (to say the least) and hide any argument which might generate a
>> doubt on this.
>
> I don't know what 'their side' means. If it means Christianity is
> wrong, I think science is on their side.

Science is not on any side. It asks only for interesting hypothesis.
God is an interesting hypothesis, but this is hidden in the fable and
superstition encouraged by the manipulators.
Personally, I am already not sure that christianism, before 500, has
anything to do with Christianism after 500.

In science, in case of big ignorance, we often extend the terms to
make easy the reasoning. So define God by whatever is responsible of
our existence. Then I see that some theories (like weak materialist
theories) are incompatible with other theories (like computationalist
theories).




>
>> They don't allow the doubt and the scientific attitude on the
>> fundamental question. They already "know".
>
> It's quite possible to know answers are wrong without knowing the
> right answer.

They know that the fable are incorrect, but some believer knows that
too. Atheism evacuates the question and often present science as the
answer, when science is only a tool to formulate the questions and
test some answers.

Well, I will not insist as my opinion on atheists comes mainly from my
personal experience with some of them, and it is hard to communicate
about that.

Bruno



>
> Brent
>
>>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com
> .

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

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 ?

===…

[Roger Clough]

Hi socr...@bezeqint.net


Not exactly prove but explain:

1. means that there is an intelligence beyond the universe
2. is not true according to Leibniz. Above is perfect, below is contingent.
3. According to Leibniz, all existence is active (because alive)
4. I have linked Leibniz to Sheldrake, and he speaks of morphic resonances.
5. Is the principle of sufficent reason.
6. Can't give a basis for this.
7. same as 4.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/13/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: socr...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List

Time: 2013-01-13, 01:22:32
Subject: Science is a religion by itself.

===?

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

Thanks.
Is it possible to explain ' monads' of Leibniz or
Kant's ' thing-in-itself ' from physical point of view ?

Is it possible to explain the 'philosophy of Idealism '
using physical laws and formulas ?

=.

On Jan 13, 2:30 pm, "Roger Clough"<rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

>
> Not exactly prove but explain:
>
> 1. means that there is an intelligence beyond the universe
> 2. is not true according to Leibniz. Above is perfect, below is contingent.
> 3. According to Leibniz, all existence is active (because alive)
> 4. I have linked Leibniz to Sheldrake, and he speaks of morphic resonances.
> 5. Is the principle of sufficent reason.
> 6. Can't give a basis for this.
> 7. same as 4.
>

> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]

> 1/13/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----

> From: socra...@bezeqint.net

> Receiver: Everything List
> Time: 2013-01-13, 01:22:32
> Subject: Science is a religion by itself.
>

>   The Seven Hermetic Principleshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI

[Roger Clough]

Hi (socratus)

Idealism is the belief that reality can be more accurately understood
philosophically than scientifically. Theology is a similar belief,
namely that reality can be more accurately understood
philosophically than scientifically.

If you accept the philosophical-theological view, you need read no further.

Although philosophy and theology do not deny the physicality, the laws and
formulas, of the physical world, their explanations for how things
"really' happen differs between philsopher-theologians
and scientsts.

Idealists were turned off by materialism's denial that
there is no real difference between the mental and the
physical world. So while they took science seriously,
they took the philosophy of mind more seriously,
in order to more correctly (though not necessarily more simply)
to describe reality.

that they adopted the idea that everything
is mental in reality, and went on from there.

For a more detailed answer, see below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't speak for all idealisms, but Leibniz considers the whole
(or at least the essential components of) the physical world to
have a corresponding mental representation of monads,
Kant only how we perceive and think.

With L, each of us can only perceive the phenomenal world (
what we see from our perspective).

Both are anthropomorphic. Both separate the phenomenal world
(what we can perceive) from the actual or "thing in itself" world.
Both do not deny the existence of the "thing in itself" world,
both accept science as it appears to be. The formulas, laws, etc.

I say "appears to be" because L believes , like all idealisms,
that only the mental world is the real one, although these two, unlike Berkiely,
do not treat our phenomenal world as an illusion.

You can still stub your toe, but the explanation for what happens
is for these two entirely mental, while not sure what K says.

But they both deal with those weevents from the viewpoint of
philsophy of mind, only through descriptions of physical
events using the languyage of mental events.

But they deal with different turfs. K takes the phenomenol world
and his philosophy of mind
is essentially a very good and generally accepted
teory of perception,




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/14/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: socr...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-13, 09:16:48
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

Thanks.
Is it possible to explain ' monads' of Leibniz or
Kant's ' thing-in-itself ' from physical point of view ?

Is it possible to explain the 'philosophy of Idealism '
using physical laws and formulas ?

=.

On Jan 13, 2:30?m, "Roger Clough" wrote:
> Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
>
> Not exactly prove but explain:
>
> 1. means that there is an intelligence beyond the universe
> 2. is not true according to Leibniz. Above is perfect, below is contingent.
> 3. According to Leibniz, all existence is active (because alive)
> 4. I have linked Leibniz to Sheldrake, and he speaks of morphic resonances.
> 5. Is the principle of sufficent reason.
> 6. Can't give a basis for this.
> 7. same as 4.
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/13/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: socra...@bezeqint.net
> Receiver: Everything List
> Time: 2013-01-13, 01:22:32
> Subject: Science is a religion by itself.
>

> ? The Seven Hermetic Principleshttp://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

> ?y physical laws and formulas ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:22, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:

 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.

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/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html  

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

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 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> (*)  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract...
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

On 1/11/2013 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 10 Jan 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 1/10/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>

>>>> That is dishonest in two ways. First, primary matter is not "god-like" except in

>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> I think that american put "agnostic" in atheism. If you are a real atheist, believer

>>> in primary matter and believer in the non-existence of any God, then you are an

>>> Aristotelian believer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and I'm quite willing to consider your ontology based on computation.
>>>
>>> That's nice, and show that you are agnostic on primary matter, which makes you a very
>>> special sort of "atheist". You should meet my "friends".
>>
>> I'm agnostic on everything if you mean not being absolutely certain.
>

> OK. Well, I doubt you can be agnostic on your own consciousness "here-and-now", but

> indeed we can doubt any other content. Now I have less doubt for 1+1=2 than for G=
> kmM/r^2, to give simple examples.
>
>
>
>
>> I just gave up telling people who asked, that I was an agnostic because then they
>> would assume I was uncertain about the existence of their god, Yaweh, Jesus, Allah,
>> Zeus,... when in fact I was pretty certain their god didnt' exist.
>
> OK, but pretty certain is not "certain", and besides, they might be partially correct.
> With comp they are certainly partially not correct has they do the deeper theological
> error of giving a name to what many consider as being not nameable, still less socially
> usable. But it is not because they make error, that everything they say is incorrect.
>
>
>
>> Since most of these people were theists, I found it easier to just say, "I'm an
>> atheist", because that succinctly conveys (to those who respect the meaning of words)
>> my lack of belief in their theist gods.
>
> Then I am atheist too. I am just out of that debate. The real question is does God
> exist, and then we can measure if such or such religion is closer to that God. But God
> is defined here by the (unnameable) transcendental (independent of me) from which all
> notion of existence emerge. Then we can ask if we can have personal link, like with the
> notion of inner god. For a plotinian God is both a universal soul attractor, and the
> reason why soul fall from it, in some circumstances.

No, the real question is whether there is something fundamental from which all that we
experience can be derived and if so what is it? If you were German and called it
"Urstoff" I'd go along with you. But you insist on calling this hypothetical thing "God"
thus dragging in all kinds of connotations of personhood, judgement, worship, dogma,...

>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Some atheists describe my work as super-atheism, as all Aristotelian Gods are refuted,
>>> somehow. But they are usually not even aware of the other conceptions of God and reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Tegmark and Wheeler are the closer to comp, and are rather exceptional.
>>
>> No, they are not. Of course most physicists don't worry about 'what's fundamental,
>> mathematics or matter'. But among those that do think about it, I'd say more are close
>> to Tegmark than to Aristotle.
>
> Really? Note that Tegmark is still close to Aristotle too. he has not embrace the comp

> reversal between physics and machine "theology/psychology/biology". There is still a

> notion of "physical universe", even if he become perhaps more cautious, and get closer
> to comp.

Yes, but his "physical universe" is just mathematical. It is "physical" like your
fundamental stuff is "God" - it's just a use of an old word to mean something quite
different. Physicist are sometimes criticized (rightly) for the same thing, using words
like "color" and "free energy" in ways that are only vaguely related to the common
meaning. But they at least all agree on the technical meaning - whereas every theologian
redefines "God" for himself.

>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> You seem to be unaware of the many atheist sects. Many are secret and non transparent.
>>> I think you might never have met fundamentalist atheists.
>>
>> I belong to the Ventura County Freethinkers, which has some fifty members almost all of
>> whom call themselves atheists. I'd say a only two or three match your idea of
>> believing in 'primary matter', but most of them haven't thought of it that deeply anyway.
>
> Even the cat believe in primary matter by default. Milk is a sort of independent
> substance for him/her.
> Our brains are constituted that way. Only people with frequent realist dreams usually
> can doubt, by themselves, the basic nature of reality.
> So people who does not think deep on this usually have never doubt "primary matter".

You are putting thoughts into their head. Cats and people believe in matter. They don't
need to have any opinion about whether it is primary.

>
>
>
>
>> They just know they don't believe in theism, the belief in a personal God.
>
> Do they believe in the non existence of a theist God. if not, that is agnosticism. I
> know that for some american, agnosticism is part of atheism, but this is quite confusing.

No, agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know of any god whether or not that
god exists.

>
>
>
>> For many of them the reasons more moral and ethical than epistemological or
>> philosophical.
>
> I have no problem with the anticlerical.
>
>
>
>>
>> I think you are inventing secret opposition.
>
> I don't want to talk about that.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You oppose atheism and christianism.
>>
>> Sure, because Christianity is a theism, as is Islam and Judaism and Zoroastrianism.
>
> OK, but they might be wrong on some point and correct on others.

But they claim infallible revelations - so if they are wrong on some point their whole
system if refuted.

> The vindicating atheists are just more wrong on some point and less on others.

So point on where they are wrong. So long as they are right not to believe in the theist
god, they are still atheists.

> The division Plato/Aristotle is more interesting, and more scientific.

Sure, the question of what is fundamental, or whether anything is, is more interesting.

>>
>>> I oppose Aristotle and Plato theologies. From that points of view, European Atheists
>>> are more fundamentalist than European Christian, because they pretend that science is
>>> on their side, and they mock (to say the least) and hide any argument which might
>>> generate a doubt on this.
>>
>> I don't know what 'their side' means. If it means Christianity is wrong, I think
>> science is on their side.
>
> Science is not on any side. It asks only for interesting hypothesis. God is an
> interesting hypothesis,

Only if you *don't* mean the god of Christianity or Islam or Zoroaster or...

> but this is hidden in the fable and superstition encouraged by the manipulators.
> Personally, I am already not sure that christianism, before 500, has anything to do with
> Christianism after 500.

Or that either has anything to do with the events of 0 to 30CE. Saul of Taursus invented
the dogmatic religion of Christianity based on what he heard of a mystic cult leader.

>
> In science, in case of big ignorance, we often extend the terms to make easy the
> reasoning. So define God by whatever is responsible of our existence.

"Responsible" is an ethical concept. Why should there be anything that has ethical
responsibility for our existence. Why not simple cause of our existence?

> Then I see that some theories (like weak materialist theories) are incompatible with
> other theories (like computationalist theories).

Maybe. I don't think they are as incompatible as you do. I think that even if
computation is fundamental, we (that is consciousness) can only exist within the context
of material existence.

Brent
"My Atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety toward the
universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own
image, to be servants of their human interest."
--- George Santayana

[Roger Clough]

Hi socr...@bezeqint.net

 

 

That's not bad, except that Monads, while they cannot see directly,

are able to see the entire universe, including the dark parts of other monads

indirectly, by allowing the Supreme Monad to be their eyes, reflecting an image of

the entire universe of other monads back to each monad. So each monad

can indirecty see the entire universe, including its dark parts,

but only from its own perspective, and distorted by its own imperfections.

Moreorless as you might see of the night sky through a bit of haze and

not directly, but in a snapshot taken by a camera with a cheap lens.

 

Kant does it quite differently, and his model, much less awkward,

is widely accepted in current neurophilosophy. Leibniz's account

is more awkward because he insists that monads can only interact

indirectly (they have no windows).  

 

While L gives a complete but awkward account, including the

"things-in'themselves", Kant only uses the sensual or phenomenol information

(things for themselves), since he was sparring with the empiricists.

The sensual information however is sorted into pre-existing categories

in order to make sens of what is observed (by any sense).

 

Leibniz does allow you to go into the darkness somewhat,

while Kant gives a more limited, although much more straightforward account

of perception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/15/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: socr...@bezeqint.net

Receiver: 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
>

> (*) 爃ttp://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract...

>
> 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.