An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[John Clark]

First I want to say ​Merry Newton​'s birthday!

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>>​

 usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.

​> ​

That's the Christian use

​ ​

. Why do atheists insist so much we use the christian notion,

Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the word

​.​

It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means something.

​ 

 Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally don't know what they're talking about when they talk about "God".

​ ​

As near as I can tell to them the word "God"  means an invisible fuzzy amoral blob that does nothing and knows nothing and thinks about nothing

​ that we can not effect and that does not effect our lives​

. Why even invent a word for a concept as useless as that?

 

​> ​

god is just the big things at the origin of everything.

​

And if that turns out to be the quantum vacuum are you prepared to call that God? Of course you're not! And you can protest all you want but it's obvious you want something that is conscious and intelligent and purposeful, not something as mindless as a sack full of doorknobs.  
  

​> ​

read serious theologian or philosophers.

And speaking of a

​ 

sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?

 

​> ​

My use of God is close to Einstein one, Spinoza, Leibniz, St-Anselme, Gödel, Huxley,

I am going to ask a hypothetical question to try to get a better understanding of what you're saying. Suppose for the sake of argument you're wrong and that invisible fuzzy mindless blob did not exist; how would the universe be one bit different? What could "God" bring to the table that something that wasn't a invisible fuzzy mindless blob could not?

John K Clark

[Torgny Tholerus]

2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
> wrote:
>
>>> ​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with
>>> supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.
>
>>
>
>> ​> ​That's the Christian use
>> ​ ​. Why do atheists insist so much we use the christian notion,
>
> Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the
> word
> ​.​ It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with
> supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means
> something.
> ​ Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally
> don't know what they're talking about when they talk about "God".
> ​ ​As near as I can tell to them the word "God" means an
> invisible fuzzy amoral blob that does nothing and knows nothing and
> thinks about nothing
> ​ that we can not effect and that does not effect our lives​. Why
> even invent a word for a concept as useless as that?

I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my
subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.

When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious. Then my subconscious talks
to other peoples subconsciouses. Then one persons subconscious is
affecting this persons behavior, so that I get answer to my prayer.

--
Torgny

[spudb...@aol.com]

I am wondering if that is not straight out of Carl Jung? Years ago Italian, physicist Paula Zizzi wrote a few papers on cosmological networks. Also, what it really proves to be, and what we 'want' it to be. In another forum, I presented an essay by physicist, Sean Carroll (happy atheist), and it's paralleling, computer scientist, Ed Fredkin, on physical laws or actions descending from an area beyond the physical universe. Known, from Fredkin, as "Fredkin's Other." and known from Carroll, as "Conscious Agents." On the other hand, Torgny, it may have zero to do with your unconscious.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Brent Meeker]

Psychiatrist: "Look--how do you know you're God?"
Lord Gurney: "Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to myself."
--- Peter Barnes, "The Ruling Class"

[Torgny Tholerus]

Yes, this is true. I have a part of God inside me. So I can say that I
am (a part of) God.

The whole of God consists of the sum of all the subconsciouses of all
human beeings. Nothing more and nothing less than that.

--
Torgny

[Stathis Papaioannou]

How do you know that your subconscious talks to and affects other people?

--

Stathis Papaioannou

[Torgny Tholerus]

=====
I have had several experiences of it. Not so often, only when needed. These experiences can be explained away as coincidence and chance. But it happens too often to be mere coincidence.

-- 
Torgny

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Dec 2016, at 03:07, John Clark wrote:

First I want to say ​Merry Newton​'s birthday!

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>>​

 usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.

​> ​

That's the Christian use

​ ​

. Why do atheists insist so much we use the christian notion,

Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the word

​.​

But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve. We could say that Earth do not exist, if we decide to use the first definition of it.

It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means something.

​ 

Really?

 Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally don't know what they're talking about when they talk about "God".

​

We use the greek notion. Whatever is at the origin of consciousness and apparent realities/reality. is a thing or a mind? At the start, we use only the axiomatic method. If God happens to be a physical universe, let it be. But we don't know that yet, so we do research. Plato got right a key aspect of theology: some of its content go over reason, like all (löbian) machine can understand rationally that there must be something which extend reason (and is axiomatized by G* minus G, or Tarski minus Gödel, or True minus Provable-by-us).

​

As near as I can tell to them the word "God"  means an invisible fuzzy amoral blob that does nothing and knows nothing and thinks about nothing

​ that we can not effect and that does not effect our lives​

. Why even invent a word for a concept as useless as that?

Indeed.

 

​> ​

god is just the big things at the origin of everything.

​

And if that turns out to be the quantum vacuum are you prepared to call that God? Of course you're not!

?

And you can protest all you want but it's obvious you want something that is conscious and intelligent and purposeful, not something as mindless as a sack full of doorknobs.  

?

I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth. You can represent it, conditionally with the mechanist assumption, with the set of the Gödel numbers of the sentences true in the standard (N, 0,+, *) structures. of course, after Gödel, we know that this is a non computable highly complex set. But we do have an intuition, which can be mathematically apprehend with second order logic, or set theory.

  

​> ​

read serious theologian or philosophers.

And speaking of a

​ 

sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?

The first one personified God metaphorically.

The second one take such personification literally.

The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory when it does not conform to facts.

The second one use insult and other violent means.

 

​> ​

My use of God is close to Einstein one, Spinoza, Leibniz, St-Anselme, Gödel, Huxley,

I am going to ask a hypothetical question to try to get a better understanding of what you're saying. Suppose for the sake of argument you're wrong and that invisible fuzzy mindless blob did not exist; how would the universe be one bit different? What could "God" bring to the table that something that wasn't a invisible fuzzy mindless blob could not?

God exist by definition. It is the reality we live and search, and that we have to postulated to even just go out of our bed in the morning. the term "God", or "One" is used to keep in mind that it is not necessarily a "physical universe". So, if God did not exist, we would not have this conversation.

Of course the arithmetical truth is not a fuzzy blob. It is a crisp set, even if its crispness is beyond the computable. Such a god is close to the very first notion of God provided by the Pythagoreans (cf "all is number"). That is even more so with the neopythagoreans, who found the "five main hypostases (truth, proof, knowledge, observation, sensation).

Bruno

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Dec 2016, at 09:06, Torgny Tholerus wrote:

> On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>>
>>> I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And
>>> my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.
>>>
>>> When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious. Then my subconscious
>>> talks to other peoples subconsciouses. Then one persons
>>> subconscious is affecting this persons behavior, so that I get
>>> answer to my prayer.
>>>
>>
>> Psychiatrist: "Look--how do you know you're God?"
>> Lord Gurney: "Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to
>> myself."
>> --- Peter Barnes, "The Ruling Class"
>>
>
> Yes, this is true. I have a part of God inside me. So I can say
> that I am (a part of) God.

God is usually conceived as having no part (by neoplatonist). I prefer
the image that we are god, and we use our body as a locally restricted
windows, the goal might be in being able to say hello to oneself.

>
> The whole of God consists of the sum of all the subconsciouses of
> all human beeings. Nothing more and nothing less than that.

Subconsciousness is not well defined, and then, why to limit us to
humans. I would have said the subconscious of all (universal) numbers,
which (assuming Mechanism) is much larger than all humans.

The idea that humans have a special role for God is human vanity.
As the novelist Jacques Sternberg said, God made the cat in his own
image, and created humans to give food, heat, TV and a comfortable
cough to the cats.

:)

Bruno


>
> --
> Torgny

[Brent Meeker]

I suppose that's as good as Bruno's "All the truths of arithmetic." In
Dallas there used to be a religious sect that defined "God" as
everything that was good.

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

You had a conscious experience of your subconscious?

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth...

..

And speaking of a

​ 

sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?

The first one personified God metaphorically.

Then it's a ridiculously misleading metaphor.  Persons exist in space and time and interact with other persons.  They have values and emotions and act on them.  The "truths of arithmetic" are not in spacetime, don't change or act, have no emotions, values, or goals.  So to personify them is a dishonest move.  An attempt to appropriate all the religious feelings of those raised as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

The second one take such personification literally.

The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory when it does not conform to facts.

Yes, he changes the theory to a completely different theory - but he insists on using the the same "metaphor".  That should make it clear he is using the "metaphor" to mislead.

Brent
“People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood”
    --- Bertrand Russell

[John Clark]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>> ​

Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the word

​

​ [God]​

.​

​> ​

But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve.

​Because the meaning Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the word "God" is clear and if I had a switch that could make their God appear or disappear the universe would look very different depending on if that switch was on or off. Your God does nothing beyond the laws of physics so it would make no difference if He existed or not.     ​

 

​>> ​

It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means something.

​ 

​> ​

Really?

​

Yes

​ really. "An​

 immortal person

​exists ​

with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped

​"​

means something

​, so the statement has the virtue of being either right or wrong.​ In this case wrong. But when you say "God"  it means nothing so it's rather like a burp,

 it's just a noise

​ and is neither right nor wrong.​

 

​>> ​

Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally don't know what they're talking about when they talk about "God".

​

​>​

We use the greek notion.

​I'm begging you, please please please stop talking about the idiot ancient Greeks!​

 

​

>

​>> ​

​ ​

god is just the big things at the origin of everything.

​>> ​

And if that turns out to be the quantum vacuum are you prepared to call that God? Of course you're not!

​> ​

?

​!​

​

​

 

​>> ​

And you can protest all you want but it's obvious you want something that is conscious and intelligent and purposeful, not something as mindless as a sack full of doorknobs.  

​> ​

?

​!​

​> ​

I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth.

​The set of all false arithmetical statements has as much (or as little) existence as the ​

set of all true arithmetical statements; without physics and the computations it allows how can even God tell one from the other? And the correct multiplication table

​ can't think any better than ​

​an

 incorrect multiplication table 

. ​And a God that can't think is a pretty low rent God.

​>>​

And speaking of a

​ 

sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?

 

​> ​

The first one personified God metaphorically.

​​ 

The second one take such personification literally.

​So God has a metaphorical mind with metaphorical intelligence and metaphorical consciousness who does metaphorical things and has a metaphorical existence.  So God is every bit as real as Batman is. When seeking an answer to a philosophical question you'd do just as well to ask the opinion of an expert on Batman comics as you would to ask the opinion of an expert on God.

​>> ​

I am going to ask a hypothetical question to try to get a better understanding of what you're saying. Suppose for the sake of argument you're wrong and that invisible fuzzy mindless blob did not exist; how would the universe be one bit different? What could "God" bring to the table that something that wasn't a invisible fuzzy mindless blob could not?

​> ​

God exist by definition.

​You can create any definition you like and when you do so the definition exists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the thing or concept that is being defined exists. I can define "flobknee" as "the integer that is equal to 2+3 but is not equal to 5", the definition exists but the integer does not.  ​But my question was not about definitions. 

 I want to know how the universe would be different if

​, ​

​an​

 invisible

​amoral ​

fuzzy mindless blob

​ that does nothing to violate the laws of physics and does not hear our prayers and is indifferent to our fate, did not exist. So what is your answer, how would things be different? 

 

​> ​

if God did not exist, we would not have this conversation.

​I asked this question before but you did not answer it, If physics someday proved that the quantum vacuum was responsible for existence would you be prepared to call a vacuum God? I very much doubt it. God must be able to think or the word becomes a joke.

 John K Clark

[spudb...@aol.com]

"You know, they say that inside everyone, is a little piece of God, and if that's true, I hope he likes enchiladas, because that is what he's getting tonight." -Jack Handey

Yes, this is true. I have a part of God inside me. So I can say that I
am (a part of) God.

The whole of God consists of the sum of all the subconsciouses of all
human beeings. Nothing more and nothing less than that.

--
Torgny

-----Original Message-----
From: Torgny Tholerus <tor...@dsv.su.se>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:06 am
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

Not really. It is not obvious how to give a precise mathematical
definition of "human", "being" and "subconscious". But "arithmetical
truth" is "as easy" to define as "real number", "limit", "continuous
function", etc. Then we can prove that the notion of arithmetical
truth obeys the axiomatic of the (greek) notion of God from the
ideally correct, and computationalist, machine.
And that theory of God is 100% scientific in the sense of Popper,
given that the theology of machine is testable/refutable.

> In Dallas there used to be a religious sect that defined "God" as
> everything that was good.

Yes, the greeks also associated god and good, but "god" is far more
easier to (meta)-define compared to Good, and so it is an open
problem. Well, the question how we can personalize the God of the
machine is of course also open. That means: lot of work to do before
even formulating such question in a reasonable mathematical way.

Bruno



>
> Brent

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

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

> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth...

..

And speaking of a

​ 

sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?

The first one personified God metaphorically.

Then it's a ridiculously misleading metaphor. 

It makes sense in arithmetic, because the set of true sentences is close for the modus ponens rule, and can be seen as a set of beliefs, so God is personified by saying that she is the knower or the believer in the true arithmetical sentences.

Persons exist in space and time and interact with other persons. 

No. This is true in Aristotle theology, but it has been shown logically incompatible with computationalism which requires platonist theology.

They have values and emotions and act on them.  The "truths of arithmetic" are not in spacetime,

OK.

don't change

OK.

or act,

deends how you define "act". Arithmetical truth can act in the absolute sense of being the roots of all acts and facts, and in the relative sense as defining the conditions which makes to some person to be acting relatively to universal numbers.

have no emotions, values, or goals.

We don't know that.

  So to personify them is a dishonest move. 

Not in the context of a theory, where it is natural, as I explained before. The person "god" 

An attempt to appropriate all the religious feelings of those raised as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

They are the one having started with Platon theology, and then (unfortunately) Aristotle theology. 

But yes, yhe general idea is that all religious feeling comes from the same unique "One" and that that the discrepancies comes from human literalness and contingent histories. In fact, like Alsoud Huxley emphasized, the "true" theology is suspected to be at the intersection of all theologies, and that is the case for the theology of the universal numbers. 

The second one take such personification literally.

The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory when it does not conform to facts.

Yes, he changes the theory to a completely different theory - but he insists on using the the same "metaphor".  That should make it clear he is using the "metaphor" to mislead.

Then Earth is also a metaphor, and disallowing it would have made progress impossible. 

What you say is just that Aristotle theology is the only theology possible, and you make happy all those who want religion kept in the hands of the manipulators. This is the roman catholic move. You make the pope happy, not to talk of the many obscurantists in that domain.

Bruno

Brent
“People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood”
    --- Bertrand Russell

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>> ​

Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the word

​

​ [God]​

.​

​> ​

But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve.

​Because the meaning Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the word "God" is clear

Really? 

and if I had a switch that could make their God appear or disappear the universe would look very different depending on if that switch was on or off. Your God does nothing beyond the laws of physics so it would make no difference if He existed or not.     ​

 

My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the statistical interference. Well, up to now it fits the fact, and to my knowledge, is the only theory explaining the difference between qualias and quantas, where the Aristotelian theology fails.

​>> ​

It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means something.

​ 

​> ​

Really?

​

Yes

​ really. "An​

 immortal person

​exists ​

with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped

​"​

means something

​, so the statement has the virtue of being either right or wrong.​ In this case wrong. But when you say "God"  it means nothing so it's rather like a burp,

 it's just a noise

​ and is neither right nor wrong.​

God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause, which is the god of the platonist. Science is born from the doubt that reality is wysiwyg.

The original question is about the nature of the physical observable.

You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it has not.

 

​>> ​

Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally don't know what they're talking about when they talk about "God".

​

​>​

We use the greek notion.

​I'm begging you, please please please stop talking about the idiot ancient Greeks!​

 

They proposed the two big different conceptions of reality: either a primary physical universe (naturalism, materialism, ...) or something else from which the physical can itself been explained (either Plato's God, or even Pythagoras" God (only numbers and enumerable number relations). 

The relevant theological fracture is there. I the physical universe the real thing, or are we "just" universal numbers lost in an arithmetical web of dreams. Both theory (computer science) and observations (quantum mechanics) adds evidence that the internal many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic might be a simpler theory. 

In theology, the greeks were the only rationalist trying to explain experiences, and compared to the canonical theology of the ideally self-referentially correct universal machine, the two "idiots" Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus, might still be the closest human case of self-referentially correct self-reference. 

Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called God), the second God of Aristotle (Primary Matter), the god of Plato (first principle) and the god of Pythagoras (the natural numbers).

tha basic idea is that God is whatever is at the origin of you actual state of consciousness. The greeks were those who understood the transcendent character of that thing, and get to the debate between variants of mathematicalism and variants of physicalism (to use our terming).

​

>

​>> ​

​ ​

god is just the big things at the origin of everything.

​>> ​

And if that turns out to be the quantum vacuum are you prepared to call that God? Of course you're not!

​> ​

?

​!​

​

​

 

​>> ​

And you can protest all you want but it's obvious you want something that is conscious and intelligent and purposeful, not something as mindless as a sack full of doorknobs.  

​> ​

?

​!​

​> ​

I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth.

​The set of all false arithmetical statements has as much (or as little) existence as the ​

set of all true arithmetical statements; without physics and the computations

The physical computations are still defined by the physical implementations of the computations. two beers in the fridge is not rsponsible for the numbers 2 to exist physically, and here you beg the question by assuming the second god of Aristotle. It is the favorite gods of the catholics.

it allows how can even God tell one from the other? And the correct multiplication table

​ can't think any better than ​

​an

 incorrect multiplication table 

. ​And a God that can't think is a pretty low rent God.

The correct arithmetical relations implements all computations (and more). Nobody is interested in 2+2=5.

​>>​

And speaking of a

​ 

sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?

 

​> ​

The first one personified God metaphorically.

​​ 

The second one take such personification literally.

​So God has a metaphorical mind with metaphorical intelligence and metaphorical consciousness who does metaphorical things and has a metaphorical existence.  So God is every bit as real as Batman is.

No. You need the pythagorean god to compute your taxes, or to solve an equation in physics. 

You need only batman for having a good time for some hours, from times to times.

When seeking an answer to a philosophical question you'd do just as well to ask the opinion of an expert on Batman comics as you would to ask the opinion of an expert on God.

​>> ​

I am going to ask a hypothetical question to try to get a better understanding of what you're saying. Suppose for the sake of argument you're wrong and that invisible fuzzy mindless blob did not exist; how would the universe be one bit different? What could "God" bring to the table that something that wasn't a invisible fuzzy mindless blob could not?

​> ​

God exist by definition.

​You can create any definition you like and when you do so the definition exists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the thing or concept that is being defined exists.

Of course. if that was the case,  I would not have said that God exist by definition for the platonist.

I can define "flobknee" as "the integer that is equal to 2+3 but is not equal to 5", the definition exists but the integer does not.  ​But my question was not about definitions. 

 I want to know how the universe would be different if

​, ​

​an​

 invisible

​amoral ​

fuzzy mindless blob

​ that does nothing to violate the laws of physics and does not hear our prayers and is indifferent to our fate, did not exist. So what is your answer, how would things be different? 

 

​> ​

if God did not exist, we would not have this conversation.

​I asked this question before but you did not answer it, If physics someday proved that the quantum vacuum was responsible for existence would you be prepared to call a vacuum God? I very much doubt it.

I would if *you* could explain how that observable vaccum select the first person view among all computations. If that is the acse, I would certainly accept that the quantum vaccum is the son of the glass of bear. With mechanism, we have the good theory of consciousness, but to relate it to the observation is a complex exercise in the self-reference logics.

God must be able to think or the word becomes a joke.

That shows only how much you take for granted the brainwashing of the clericals. They are those who have tried to hide the greeks, even to bannish them and forbid the personal inquiry and research in the field. 

You Sir, are more catholic than the Pope, I think. You disregard any theology which does not fit with a stupid conception of theology, I guess because it is so fun to mock fake theory than to undertaken the genuine reflexion.

I don't believe in the god in which you don't believe but still  keep talking about.

Bruno

 John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/27/2016 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth...

..

And speaking of a

​ 

sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?

The first one personified God metaphorically.

Then it's a ridiculously misleading metaphor. 

It makes sense in arithmetic, because the set of true sentences is close for the modus ponens rule, and can be seen as a set of beliefs, so God is personified by saying that she is the knower or the believer in the true arithmetical sentences.

But in your formalized definition of belief those true but unprovable sentences are not believed.  In anycase, simply "believing" true propositions of arithmetic is not enough to make a person.  Otherwise my cel phone would be a person.

Persons exist in space and time and interact with other persons. 

No. This is true in Aristotle theology, but it has been shown logically incompatible with computationalism which requires platonist theology.

So you say.  But I think your argument is flawed.

They have values and emotions and act on them.  The "truths of arithmetic" are not in spacetime,

OK.

don't change

OK.

or act,

deends how you define "act". Arithmetical truth can act in the absolute sense of being the roots of all acts and facts, and in the relative sense as defining the conditions which makes to some person to be acting relatively to universal numbers.

To act requires change.

have no emotions, values, or goals.

We don't know that.

How could they have goals when they don't change - as you agreed above.

  So to personify them is a dishonest move. 

Not in the context of a theory, where it is natural, as I explained before. The person "god"

I notice you didn't capitalize "god", demoting it to a common noun.

An attempt to appropriate all the religious feelings of those raised as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

They are the one having started with Platon theology,

I don't think Hindus, Taoist, Buddhists, Zoroastrians,...were Platonists.

and then (unfortunately) Aristotle theology.

You casually use "Aristotlean" as a pejorative.  What is your definition of Aristotlean?  Personally I find Democritus and Epicurus more interesting Greek philosophers than Plato and Aristotle.  The latter gained their predominance mainly through being subsumed into Christiianity by Aquinas and Augustine, and through accidental survival of their writings rather than those of others.

But yes, yhe general idea is that all religious feeling comes from the same unique "One" and that that the discrepancies comes from human literalness and contingent histories. In fact, like Alsoud Huxley emphasized, the "true" theology is suspected to be at the intersection of all theologies, and that is the case for the theology of the universal numbers. 

The second one take such personification literally.

The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory when it does not conform to facts.

Yes, he changes the theory to a completely different theory - but he insists on using the the same "metaphor".  That should make it clear he is using the "metaphor" to mislead.

Then Earth is also a metaphor, \

No, Earth is not a metaphor because it allows an ostensive definition.

and disallowing it would have made progress impossible. 

What you say is just that Aristotle theology is the only theology possible, and you make happy all those who want religion kept in the hands of the manipulators. This is the roman catholic move. You make the pope happy, not to talk of the many obscurantists in that domain.

I'll bet the Catholic Church is a lot happier with, "Bruno Marchal has proven mathematically that God exists." than with "Brent Meeker has shown that only atoms and the void exist; all the rest is opinion."

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/27/2016 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>> ​

Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the word

​

​ [God]​

.​

​> ​

But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve.

​Because the meaning Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the word "God" is clear

Really?

It's certainly more definite than the set of all meanings, including yours, which are given to the word "God".  You can't make a word better defined by adding meanings.

and if I had a switch that could make their God appear or disappear the universe would look very different depending on if that switch was on or off. Your God does nothing beyond the laws of physics so it would make no difference if He existed or not.     ​

 

My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the statistical interference. Well, up to now it fits the fact, and to my knowledge, is the only theory explaining the difference between qualias and quantas, where the Aristotelian theology fails.

It doesn't explain them.  It just takes two aspects of modal logic and says one corresponds to qualia and one to quanta.  But qualia and quanta don't actually appear.   It's as if you said here is arithmetic; the prime numbers are qualia and the composite numbers are quanta.   To explain them you would need to show their relation to perception and to objects in the world as well as internal narratives and imagination. 

​>> ​

It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means something.

​ 

​> ​

Really?

​

Yes

​ really. "An​

 immortal person

​exists ​

with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped

​"​

means something

​, so the statement has the virtue of being either right or wrong.​ In this case wrong. But when you say "God"  it means nothing so it's rather like a burp,

 it's just a noise

​ and is neither right nor wrong.​

God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause, which is the god of the platonist.

Aristotle also held that there must be a first cause.  Why call it "god" and why attribute the idea to Plato.  I don't think Plato even gave an argument for a first cause.

Science is born from the doubt that reality is wysiwyg.

And from a desire to explain what you see and predict what you'll get.

But you keep capitalizing the god you believe in - just as the Church requires and following the convention of capitalizing names of persons.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​> ​

My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the statistical interference.

​A derivation using dozens of pronouns that either have no clear referent or are logically contradictory. But I believe we may have been through this before.​

 

 

​> ​

the Aristotelian theology fails.

​To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

​> ​

God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause,

The

​ ​

primary cause

​ may be attached to the word  "God", but we both know that is not the only attachment, ​so is "a being who can think".

 

​> ​

which is the god of the platonist.

 

​To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

 

​>​

You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it has not.

​You talk as if theologians have solved the problem, but they have not.​

 

 

​> ​

(either Plato's God, or even Pythagoras" God

​To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

 

​> ​

In theology, the greeks were

​To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

​> ​

Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called God), the second God of Aristotle

​. ​

(Primary Matter), the god of Plato (first principle) and the god of Pythagoras (the natural numbers).

​OK I won't confuse it, and I'll avoid confusion by ignoring both. ​

 

​To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

 

​> ​

two beers in the fridge is not rsponsible for the numbers 2 to exist physically, and here

​If there were nobody around to think about the number 2 and if there were not 2 of anything in the entire physical universe, then would the number 2 exist? And if it did, how would things be different if it didn't?​

​> ​

you beg the question by assuming the second god of Aristotle.

 

To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

 

​> ​

It is the favorite gods of the catholics.

​I'll say this for the catholics, their view of God is clear, clearly wrong but clear nevertheless. Your view of God isn't even wrong.​

 

​> ​

The correct arithmetical relations implements all computations

​And all correct computations ​

​need matter that obeys the laws of physics. ​For some reason I'm feeling Deja Vu right now, I can't imagine why.

​> ​

 Nobody is interested in 2+2=5.

​Well you sure as hell better be interested in incorrect calculations if you want to avoid them! So I ask yet again , how can you, how can even God separate correct numerical relations from incorrect ones without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics?​ You can't do it I can't do it and God can't do it.

 

​> ​

With mechanism, we have the good theory of consciousness,

​Everybody has a theory on consciousness and none of them are worth a damn, I'd be much more interested in a theory of intelligence. ​

 

​>> ​

God must be able to think or the word becomes a joke.

​> ​

That shows only how much you take for granted the brainwashing of the clericals.

​Well, I may be brainwashed but according to you

​I'm smarter than God because I can think and God can't.​

​> ​

You Sir, are more catholic than the Pope,

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.  

​ John K Clark​

[spudb...@aol.com]

John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands in your path (spiritual) strike him down"? 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

​> ​

John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands in your path (spiritual) strike him down"? 

​I don't know about the Buddha but I do know ​

Jack Handy 

​said:​

​"​

We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me.

​"

 John K Clark

​

 

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/27/2016 4:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands in your path (spiritual) strike him down"? 

Brent

[spudb...@aol.com]

Ah another Koan from Master, Handey!

""They say that a little piece of God dwells with everyone. Well, that true, I hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what he's getting tonight."

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 10:39 pm
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[spudb...@aol.com]

I must be a spiritual genius, because my way makes a little more sense. Kill him, huh? "Hey you! You're supposed to be dead! Zombie alert! Zombie! Alert! Hey look! There's zombie Thomas Jefferson! Shoot shoot!" Kill him? "Sorry, no competitors, I run the West Side on my own, capiche?"

-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 2:08 am
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 12/27/2016 4:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands in your path (spiritual) strike him down"? 

Brent

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

​ John K Clark​

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Dec 2016, at 20:11, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/27/2016 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth...

..

And speaking of a

​ 

sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?

The first one personified God metaphorically.

Then it's a ridiculously misleading metaphor. 

It makes sense in arithmetic, because the set of true sentences is close for the modus ponens rule, and can be seen as a set of beliefs, so God is personified by saying that she is the knower or the believer in the true arithmetical sentences.

But in your formalized definition of belief those true but unprovable sentences are not believed.  In anycase, simply "believing" true propositions of arithmetic is not enough to make a person.  Otherwise my cel phone would be a person.

But the set of true sentences of arithmétic is not formalisable. That is why "God knows .." is a metaphor. for the formalized belief it is no more metaphorical at all.

Persons exist in space and time and interact with other persons. 

No. This is true in Aristotle theology, but it has been shown logically incompatible with computationalism which requires platonist theology.

So you say.  But I think your argument is flawed.

You have not succeeded in showing where the flaw is, or I missed it. can you tell what the flaw is?

They have values and emotions and act on them.  The "truths of arithmetic" are not in spacetime,

OK.

don't change

OK.

or act,

deends how you define "act". Arithmetical truth can act in the absolute sense of being the roots of all acts and facts, and in the relative sense as defining the conditions which makes to some person to be acting relatively to universal numbers.

To act requires change.

Then general relativity would prevent acts to exist. of course not, but acting becomes relative indexicals.

have no emotions, values, or goals.

We don't know that.

How could they have goals when they don't change - as you agreed above.

You take the metaphor too much seriously, like you take the notion of God in a too much restricted sense.

  So to personify them is a dishonest move. 

Not in the context of a theory, where it is natural, as I explained before. The person "god"

I notice you didn't capitalize "god", demoting it to a common noun.

An attempt to appropriate all the religious feelings of those raised as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

They are the one having started with Platon theology,

I don't think Hindus, Taoist, Buddhists, Zoroastrians,...were Platonists.

Platonism comes from the east, were it developed well before Pythagoras and Plato. But the greeks tried to get a reasonable sharable theory from it.

and then (unfortunately) Aristotle theology.

You casually use "Aristotlean" as a pejorative. 

Not at all. I take it as wrong with respect to the Mechanist theory.

What is your definition of Aristotlean? 

In this context, I take it as the belief in some Primary Matter, or in the slightly weaker epistemological sense of physicalism. The idea that what we see is real, and not (with Plato) a symptom of a deeper and simpler reality.

Personally I find Democritus and Epicurus more interesting Greek philosophers than Plato and Aristotle.  The latter gained their predominance mainly through being subsumed into Christiianity by Aquinas and Augustine, and through accidental survival of their writings rather than those of others.

Democritus was atomist, and it is was an intersting idea, which cannot work with mechanism. yes, Plato, thanks to Augustine, has not been not totally forgotten, but eventually the three abramanic religion have chosen to rely on Aristotle, like the atheists. But the great divide is between Plato and Aristotle, that is between immaterialism and materialism. To be sure, Plato only discussed and never concluded.

But yes, yhe general idea is that all religious feeling comes from the same unique "One" and that that the discrepancies comes from human literalness and contingent histories. In fact, like Alsoud Huxley emphasized, the "true" theology is suspected to be at the intersection of all theologies, and that is the case for the theology of the universal numbers. 

The second one take such personification literally.

The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory when it does not conform to facts.

Yes, he changes the theory to a completely different theory - but he insists on using the the same "metaphor".  That should make it clear he is using the "metaphor" to mislead.

Then Earth is also a metaphor, \

No, Earth is not a metaphor because it allows an ostensive definition.

Ostensive definition are indexicals. It does not lake anything real, as we do such ostensive definition is dreams too. It just shows it to be real locally, but not necessary ontologically.

and disallowing it would have made progress impossible. 

What you say is just that Aristotle theology is the only theology possible, and you make happy all those who want religion kept in the hands of the manipulators. This is the roman catholic move. You make the pope happy, not to talk of the many obscurantists in that domain.

I'll bet the Catholic Church is a lot happier with, "Bruno Marchal has proven mathematically that God exists."

Of course not. They forbid research, with the help of the gnostic atheists, since a long time. Why would they change? Only the platonist part of the Church would be happy, but when they publish they are excommunicated, or get troubles.

than with "Brent Meeker has shown that only atoms and the void exist; all the rest is opinion."

But you hev not chosen that. First, you need to abandon mechanism for that, or you have to explain how your atoms select a computation, or a sheaf of computations among all computations. I have shown that this requires some non computationalist magic. You argument looks like "my God made it, so don't ask questions". That will not work.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Dec 2016, at 20:31, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/27/2016 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>> ​

Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the word

​

​ [God]​

.​

​> ​

But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve.

​Because the meaning Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the word "God" is clear

Really?

It's certainly more definite than the set of all meanings, including yours, which are given to the word "God".  You can't make a word better defined by adding meanings.

i don't add meaning, I subtract only the meaning added by the politics for prower and control purpose, as opposed to the early free research. My definition is in most religious dictionnaries, even catholic one. God: primary cause of everything. Only gnostic atheists defend seriously the christian god. educated christian have evolved (perhaps more in Europa than America perhaps).

and if I had a switch that could make their God appear or disappear the universe would look very different depending on if that switch was on or off. Your God does nothing beyond the laws of physics so it would make no difference if He existed or not.     ​

 

My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the statistical interference. Well, up to now it fits the fact, and to my knowledge, is the only theory explaining the difference between qualias and quantas, where the Aristotelian theology fails.

It doesn't explain them.  It just takes two aspects of modal logic and says one corresponds to qualia and one to quanta. 

yes, but with an explanation why.

But qualia and quanta don't actually appear.  

?

What does that mean? They cerainly appears in the sense that the self-observing machine mention them, and understand the difference with the sharable quanta. Indeed they do experience the qualia, but realize that they cannot formalize them without reference to some notion of global truth that they are aware that they cannot prove nor even define.

It's as if you said here is arithmetic; the prime numbers are qualia and the composite numbers are quanta.

Come on. this illustration miss the main point. Qualia are measurable by the machine, but not expressible or definable. The qualia theory is X1* minus X1. It is what machine can know-for-sure yet cannot prove to others (and can prove that they cannot prove to others if they assumed to be sound or consistent). The miracle is that they are explainable conditionnaly to a self-correctness meta-assumption (yet not doable by the machine explicitly without becoming inconsistent).

  To explain them you would need to show their relation to perception and to objects in the world as well as internal narratives and imagination. 

That is done in part, and I refer you to a paper by John Bell (the logician, not the physicist) showing the relation between perception and quantum logic. 

Bell, 1986Bell, J. L. (1986). A new approach to quantum logic. Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 37:83-99.

​>> ​

It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means something.

​ 

​> ​

Really?

​

Yes

​ really. "An​

 immortal person

​exists ​

with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped

​"​

means something

​, so the statement has the virtue of being either right or wrong.​ In this case wrong. But when you say "God"  it means nothing so it's rather like a burp,

 it's just a noise

​ and is neither right nor wrong.​

God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause, which is the god of the platonist.

Aristotle also held that there must be a first cause.  Why call it "god" and why attribute the idea to Plato.  I don't think Plato even gave an argument for a first cause.

See his Parmenides. "cause" is not meant for "physical cause", it can be logical, theological, etc. The goal is to figure out what could be real.

Science is born from the doubt that reality is wysiwyg.

And from a desire to explain what you see and predict what you'll get.

Yes.

But the fondamental science search for a global picture, and try to avoid important aspect of all experiences, including consciousness states.

Everyone accept that God is the cause of everything, by definition. only atheists insist that God is the Abramanic God. Well, the abramanic god has some relation with the notion of God, but that one does not even admit a definition so that we can do reasoning. The greek notion of one, expounded in the Parmenides and developped by both the Neopythagorean schools and the neoplatonist school, are rather precise conception of reality, and they are matched by the canonical theology of the universal Turing machine. The theology-arithmetic lexicon is

p        truth    

[]p     proof

[]p & p knowledge

[]p & <>t  observation

[]p & <>t & p sensation

The theory predicts that physics is entirely given by the three last, at the G* level, with p DU-accessible (sigma_1). It works as it predicts quantum logic, state superposition, indeterminacy, non-locality, almost linearity, almost reversibility, etc, all that in a deterministic picture.

Now, if you could give a theory of quanta and qualia which makes Matter existing fundamentally, I am all ear, and you might change my mind on Mechanism, but if Mechanism is correct, you have to introduce irrational magic, the surrational given by incompleteness cannot be enough.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Dec 2016, at 08:08, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/27/2016 4:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands in your path (spiritual) strike him down"? 

<abfnkejcccoakbhn.png>

Brent

Yes, another koan zen or buddhist say that we have to kill all the buddhas, and is usually understood as a warning against argument per authority.

It is common among mystics that they encourage the *personal* inquiry, a bit like mathematicians who recommend the personal understanding of (most) theorems.

Platonist can go farer when taking argument from nature as treachery. We cab use nature to refute a theory, but we have to find the theory by reflexion and not copy nature ...

Bruno

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

[John Mikes]

Brent I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more than one reason:

1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be.

   1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?)

    1.B a Force - a Complexity - a System (etc.) or the like? 

    1,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the question: How was God originated?)

2. I am aware of many stories people believe in and repeat ad nauseam, they do not impress me.

3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious. Have you ever M E T 

    yours? I figure it must be something limitless of which we fathom only a bit.

    Or is all t his rather fitting the Superconscious? we have some idea about our 'conscious'?

4. An immortal person? Cf. Wagner's Gotterdammerung. 

5. "Supernatural powers"? did you ever define the "natural ones" (beyond our ever changing concept 

    of a system of our "physical"  explanations?

John M

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

[Torgny Tholerus]

On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote:

I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more than one reason:

1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be.

You just have to ask God what she is.  Then she will answer.  But it may take two years to get the full answer.

   1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?)

Yes, God is a person.  In the same way as your own personality is build up by trillions of brain cells, then Gods personality is build up by billions of human beeings.

    1,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the question: How was God originated?)

No, she did not originate the world.  She is a result of the natural selection.

3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious. Have you ever M E T 

    yours? I figure it must be something limitless of which we fathom only a bit.

    Or is all t his rather fitting the Superconscious? we have some idea about our 'conscious'?

I have talked with my subconscious.  I do it every time I pray.  And sometimes my subconscious answer me.  And sometimes my subconscious talks directly to me, she reminds me when I have forgotten something.

4. An immortal person? Cf. Wagner's Gotterdammerung.

No, God is not immortal.  But God will live much longer than a human being.  God will live as long as the mankind exists.

5. "Supernatural powers"? did you ever define the "natural ones" (beyond our ever changing concept of a system of our "physical"  explanations?

No, God have no supernatural powers.  God can only do what a human being can do.

John M

--
Torgny

[Bruno Marchal]

On 29 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Torgny Tholerus wrote:

On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote:

I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more than one reason:

1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be.

You just have to ask God what she is.  Then she will answer.  But it may take two years to get the full answer.

   1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?)

Yes, God is a person.  In the same way as your own personality is build up by trillions of brain cells, then Gods personality is build up by billions of human beeings.

The human conception of God can be said to be build up to trillions of human brain cells, but that is not God, given that by definition God is the primary cause of the Universe, and you would not say that the physical universe's primary cause is the human brain cells. 

Of course the phsyical universe as we know it is also a human brain construct, but if we assume mechanism, we can show that it is a "Turing machine" constructs. the machine themselves are realized in arithmetic, as all logicians know since 1931.

    1,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the question: How was God originated?)

No, she did not originate the world.  She is a result of the natural selection.

Well, you are not talking about God as the reason of the Universe and all realities, but on the human conception of the universe. We could say likewise that the human theory of natural selection is also only a successful meme of the human brain. The physical universe can be explained away in the same manner. 

Natural selection need Mechanism to work, but with mechanism, the physical universe cease to exist in any primitive way. So your explanation becomes circular or wrong.

3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious. Have you ever M E T 

    yours? I figure it must be something limitless of which we fathom only a bit.

    Or is all t his rather fitting the Superconscious? we have some idea about our 'conscious'?

I have talked with my subconscious.  I do it every time I pray.  And sometimes my subconscious answer me.  And sometimes my subconscious talks directly to me, she reminds me when I have forgotten something.

The subconscious can take the form of person in dreams, but I would not consider it as a person in the waking life, it is part of your own personhood, I would say.

4. An immortal person? Cf. Wagner's Gotterdammerung.

No, God is not immortal.  But God will live much longer than a human being.  God will live as long as the mankind exists.

5. "Supernatural powers"? did you ever define the "natural ones" (beyond our ever changing concept of a system of our "physical"  explanations?

No, God have no supernatural powers.  God can only do what a human being can do.

With a non-standard definition of God, as this contradict the general definition of the notion. In this list people have used the word "God" as the cause or reason (not necessary physical, perhaps physical, it will depend on the theory) of reality and realities.

We can reject a definition as being too much precise (like God = the christian God), but we have to keep the basic of the definition: the reason of everything, including consciousness and matter (real or appearances).

You do seem have some faith in the second God of Aristotle: a physical universe. But with mechanism, both God of Aristotle (the Creator and the Creation) stop making sense. Only Plato abstract notion continue to make sense, and indeed, Plato took it to Pythagoras, mainly, and we are driven again toward it after the discovery of the universal number/machine.

Mechanism is incompatible with both supernatural powers and ... natural powers. Those who use the mind-brain identity link attribute without saying some supernatural power to nature, by making nature able to select computation(s) in arithmetic, and make all other computations into zombie.

Bruno

John M

--
Torgny

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Dec 2016, at 21:36, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​> ​

My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the statistical interference.

​A derivation using dozens of pronouns that either have no clear referent or are logically contradictory. But I believe we may have been through this before.​

 

 

​> ​

the Aristotelian theology fails.

​To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

Come on. You are the one sticking with the theology of an ancient greek. You accept only his (defeoremd by other) conception of God, and you invoke often his seocnd God, primary matter to qualify things as real.

​> ​

God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause,

The

​ ​

primary cause

​ may be attached to the word  "God", but we both know that is not the only attachment, ​so is "a being who can think".

That is exactly what the greeks put in question. Plotinus examine that question and just admit that he cannot solve it, and illustrate the difficulty of both alternatives. And Aristotle does not attribute thinking to neither its first god and the second. Similarly, the question of knowing if the set of true arithmetical sentence thinks is also not an obvious one. There is a simple sense in which that set knows a lot of things, like the solution of Riemann hypothesis, Goldbach conjecture, etc.

 

​> ​

which is the god of the platonist.

 

​To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

 

​>​

You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it has not.

​You talk as if theologians have solved the problem, but they have not.​

 

 

​> ​

(either Plato's God, or even Pythagoras" God

​To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

 

​> ​

In theology, the greeks were

​To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

​> ​

Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called God), the second God of Aristotle

​. ​

(Primary Matter), the god of Plato (first principle) and the god of Pythagoras (the natural numbers).

​OK I won't confuse it, and I'll avoid confusion by ignoring both. ​

 

​To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

Which greeks. the departure started with Plato and Aristotle. I am ok with the hell to Aristotle, but then what remains is Plato.

I recall you, in a short and simple way to avoid jargon.

Aristotle: god or reality = the physical universe = what we see, measure, test, etc. Aristote = materialism/naturalism/physicalism

Plato: god or reality = the mind universe : the ideas, the dreams, perhaps the numbers. It lean from abstract theologicalism to mathematicalism and to arithmeticalism, or finite-combinatorialisme.

I don't know who is right, but I show that when we assume digital mechanism, Plato's theory get a testable theory of matter, at a place where the aristotelians must add metaphysical and non Turing emulable assumptions.

 

​> ​

two beers in the fridge is not rsponsible for the numbers 2 to exist physically, and here

​If there were nobody around to think about the number 2 and if there were not 2 of anything in the entire physical universe, then would the number 2 exist? And if it did, how would things be different if it didn't?​

​> ​

you beg the question by assuming the second god of Aristotle.

 

To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

I understand. You want keep Aristotle so much that you prefer not to learn anything about Plato. You do not want the alternative ways to conceive the mind-body relations. But then you act like a fundamentalist. 

 

​> ​

It is the favorite gods of the catholics.

​I'll say this for the catholics, their view of God is clear, clearly wrong but clear nevertheless. Your view of God isn't even wrong.​

 

I think you confuse fundamentalist christian and educated christian, which is about the difference between those having not read the greeks and those having read the greeks. The best one, with respect to computationalism, read and grasp Plato, ... to be quickly burnt on the stake.

​> ​

The correct arithmetical relations implements all computations

​And all correct computations ​

​need matter that obeys the laws of physics.

That is simply wrong. The notion of computation does not refer to any laws in physics. In metaphysics/theology,  the "Turing machine" notion is a bit misleading, so read the account by Church and by Post, or read any serious textbook on the subject.

It is that very fact which makes me choose to be a mathematician, instead of biologist.chemist/physicist, given my interest in the mind-body problem.

The fact that the physical reality is Turing universal, and in many ways, is an interesting idea in physics, but it borrows the notion of computation to the logician's one, which is known to be arithmetical, indeed, even equational with diophantine polynomial.

Here you really miss the very notion of computations. You completely miss the real bomb: Church's thesis. 

​> ​

 Nobody is interested in 2+2=5.

​Well you sure as hell better be interested in incorrect calculations if you want to avoid them! So I ask yet again , how can you, how can even God separate correct numerical relations from incorrect ones without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics?​ You can't do it I can't do it and God can't do it.

If you were willing to study the basic standard definition of computation, you would see that the logicians have refuted what you say here long ago. 

It is done in all textbooks on computability theory, or recursion theory. Buy the Dover book by Martin Davis, read up to Chapter 4, and its appendice on Hlibert problem. 

You don't need to go through all details though, but some amount of work needs to be done before understanding a tiny part of elementary arithmetic emulates all programs in virtue of true (some provable, some not always provable by the programs) relationships between natural integers.

You will not find one mathematician who disagree with this, and most physicists agree too, to my knowledge. 

 

​> ​

With mechanism, we have the good theory of consciousness,

​Everybody has a theory on consciousness

Do you read the literature? There are partial theories, but they use the computationalist idea, and ignore the metaphysical problem, and usually the whole of computer science.

and none of them are worth a damn, I'd be much more interested in a theory of intelligence. ​

 

But as you said consciousness is easy, so let us first solve the easy problem. For a theory  of intelligence read the paper By Blum, case and Smith, oherson-stob-weinstein, mentionned in my url, or ask the reference. But the theory of intelligence are mainly negative, it shows only that intelligence grows non computably when you allow machine to make mistake, to change their mind, to make inconsistent hypotheses, to work in team, etc. It can be proved, with simple general notion of explanation, extrapolation, inductive inference, that the theory is necessarily not constructive. There are no algorithm, but there are variate sequences, with jumps, toward that goal. (logicians use usually "competence"  for what you call "intelligence").

​>> ​

God must be able to think or the word becomes a joke.

​> ​

That shows only how much you take for granted the brainwashing of the clericals.

​Well, I may be brainwashed but according to you

​I'm smarter than God because I can think and God can't.​

I have said nothing. See above. The set of true arithmetical propositions (well definable in analysis) does think in the sense that it is closed for the boolean common "law of thought". If A is true and B is true, then (A & B) is true, etc.

It all depends on what you call thinking, and in any case, nobody could say today if the arithmetical truth has or not some form of consciousness. If plotinus theology is correct, probably not.

Bruno

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

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>> ​

The

​ ​

primary cause

​ may be attached to the word  "God", but we both know that is not the only attachment, ​so is "a being who can think".

​> ​

That is exactly what the greeks put in question.

​I don't give a damn about the idiot ancient Greeks! You believe something called "God" exists so I'm asking you​

 

​one simple question that has a simple yes or no answer, do you think I'm smarter than God? If the answer is yes then I don't see why anybody should care if God exists or not. If the answer is no then we can stop playing silly word games. ​

 

​> ​

the question of knowing if the set of true arithmetical sentence thinks is also not an obvious one.

​Well I can think, if the set of ​

true arithmetical sentence

​s​

​can​

​ not then I can bring something to the table it can not, and that can only be matter that obeys the laws of physics. 

Also, ​it's not valid to talk about a set if you have no way of constructing that set, and you have no way of constructing a set that contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones; much less do so without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics.

 

​>> ​

To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

​> ​

Which greeks.

​Just the ones that are ancient. ​

 

​>>​

 

To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

​> ​

I understand. You want keep Aristotle so much

​I said it before I'll say it again, Aristotle was the worse physicists who ever lived. Full stop. ​

 

 

​> ​

that you prefer not to learn anything about Plato.

​Bruno, I hate to break it to you but​

 

​Plato didn't even know where the sun to went at night. This is the 21st century and we're on a list that is supposed to discussing cutting edge ​developments in science and mathematics, so why are we still talking about a bozo like Plato?

​> ​

I think you confuse fundamentalist christian and educated christian,

​Do you think they are any less silly? I can find little evidence of that. ​

 

​> ​

The notion of computation does not refer to any laws in physics.

​I know, and that's why the

notion of computation

​ can not by itself perform any computations. In fact even a notion can not be a notion without something to have the notion, something like a brain. And brains need matter that obeys the laws of physics.​

​> ​

It is done in all textbooks on computability theory,

​Show me one textbook on ​

computability theory

​ that can compute 2+2 and I'll concede the argument.​

 

​But ​

​I have found that all books are pretty dumb unless there is something with a brain to read them. And I have yet to run across a brain that is not made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.​

​> ​

You will not find one mathematician who disagree with this,

​If all mathematicians believe books can compute then all mathematicians are insane. 

 

​> ​

and most physicists agree too, to my knowledge. 

​If most physicists believe books can compute then most physicists are insane.​

 

​>>​

 I'd be much more interested in a theory of intelligence. ​

 

​> ​

But as you said consciousness is easy, so let us first solve the easy problem.

​OK, consciousness is the way data feels when it's being processed. Problem solved. Now it's your turn, tell me how to make an AI in your next post.​

 

​That's going to be a very long post!​

​John K Clark​

 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Jan 2017, at 02:01, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>> ​

The

​ ​

primary cause

​ may be attached to the word  "God", but we both know that is not the only attachment, ​so is "a being who can think".

​> ​

That is exactly what the greeks put in question.

​I don't give a damn about the idiot ancient Greeks! You believe something called "God" exists so I'm asking you​

 

​one simple question that has a simple yes or no answer, do you think I'm smarter than God? If the answer is yes then I don't see why anybody should care if God exists or not. If the answer is no then we can stop playing silly word games. ​

 

​> ​

the question of knowing if the set of true arithmetical sentence thinks is also not an obvious one.

​Well I can think, if the set of ​

true arithmetical sentence

​s​

​can​

​ not then I can bring something to the table it can not, and that can only be matter that obeys the laws of physics. 

Also, ​it's not valid to talk about a set if you have no way of constructing that set, and you have no way of constructing a set that contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones; much less do so without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics.

 

​>> ​

To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

​> ​

Which greeks.

​Just the ones that are ancient. ​

 

​>>​

 

To hell with the ancient Greeks!​

 

​> ​

I understand. You want keep Aristotle so much

​I said it before I'll say it again, Aristotle was the worse physicists who ever lived. Full stop. ​

 

It was wrong, but in science, it is an honor to be shown wrong when it leads to progressing in some domain. The point is that you seem to buy its theology, but it is not compatible with Mechanism, that you buy too.

 

​> ​

that you prefer not to learn anything about Plato.

​Bruno, I hate to break it to you but​

 

​Plato didn't even know where the sun to went at night. This is the 21st century and we're on a list that is supposed to discussing cutting edge ​developments in science and mathematics, so why are we still talking about a bozo like Plato?

Because he got a theology which is compatible with mechanism, unlike the paradigmatic theology of the gnostic atheist and most other believers. Of course he bought it to Pythagoras, Parmenides, and others, and Plato itself just asks the good question.

​> ​

I think you confuse fundamentalist christian and educated christian,

​Do you think they are any less silly? I can find little evidence of that. ​

 

The first believe or fake to believe in irrational fairy tales. The second believes usually in Aristotle theology (a physical primary universe) but know that it is a sort of assumption in need to be verified continuously, and that it can be refuted (well if educated and know the current literature).

​> ​

The notion of computation does not refer to any laws in physics.

​I know, and that's why the

notion of computation

​ can not by itself perform any computations.

That is wrong. The computations are done relative to the universal number doing the universal computations, and this does not need anything physical.

In fact even a notion can not be a notion without something to have the notion, something like a brain.

Only people have notion. They use brain, but the brain itself has no notion of anything a priori. You make Searle's error of believing that you are your body, but that makes no sense with Mechanism.

And brains need matter that obeys the laws of physics.​

Only material brain, but it is simpler to explain matter from arithmetic and experience, than arithmetic and experience from matter, which is just impossible if we assume digital mechanism. 

​> ​

It is done in all textbooks on computability theory,

​Show me one textbook on ​

computability theory

​ that can compute 2+2

I said that the point I w&as doing is done in all details in all books on computability. I did not say "by", only "in". 

The idea that it is the book which computes is just insane, and was not what I was saying. I stop here because you don't read the post again, or just play with words.

Bruno

and I'll concede the argument.​

 

​But ​

​I have found that all books are pretty dumb unless there is something with a brain to read them. And I have yet to run across a brain that is not made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.​

​> ​

You will not find one mathematician who disagree with this,

​If all mathematicians believe books can compute then all mathematicians are insane. 

 

​> ​

and most physicists agree too, to my knowledge. 

​If most physicists believe books can compute then most physicists are insane.​

 

​>>​

 I'd be much more interested in a theory of intelligence. ​

 

​> ​

But as you said consciousness is easy, so let us first solve the easy problem.

​OK, consciousness is the way data feels when it's being processed. Problem solved. Now it's your turn, tell me how to make an AI in your next post.​

 

​That's going to be a very long post!​

​John K Clark​

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>> ​

​I said it before I'll say it again, Aristotle was the worse physicists who ever lived. Full stop. ​

 

​> ​

It was wrong,

​Aristotle's physics was more than just wrong, it was stupid, and could have easily been shown to be stupid ​

even in his own day. But unfortunately it was not.​

 

​> ​

but in science,

​Science? Aristotle did no science, he like all the idiot ancient Greeks believed all ​

he 

had to do is sit and think, and even in that he wasn't any good, ​his logic sucked.

 

​> ​

it is an honor to be shown wrong when it leads to progressing in some domain.

​But it didn't lead to 

progress

! Aristotle's dumb ideas were held as unchallenged truth for 2000 years, physics would be more advanced today if he had never been born​.

 

 

​> ​

The point is that you seem to buy its theology,

​Bruno, you really need to show some creativity and think of a new insult, you've been using the one about me being secretly religious for over a decade and it's starting to sound just a tad old.

 

​> ​

The computations are done relative to the universal number doing the universal computations, and this does not need anything physical.

​And yet INTEL needs physical stuff like Silicon.

​Don't you find that odd?​

 

​> ​

You make Searle's error of believing that you are your body, but that makes no sense with Mechanism.

​Searle is almost as big an imbecile as the ancient Greeks were, and I do not believe I am my body, I am the way atoms behave when they are organized in a johnkclarkian way. ​

 

​>>​

And brains need matter that obeys the laws of physics.​

​> ​

Only material brain

​Have you ever seen another type of brain?

 

​I haven't. ​

​> ​

The idea that it is the book which computes is just insane

​I agree, and yet bizarrely whenever I say matter is always needed to make a ​calculation you keep pointing out this textbook or that textbook in an effort to prove me wrong. I don't get it. If you really want to prove me wrong start your own computer company and put INTEL out of business with your zero manufacturing costs.

 

​John K Clark​

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Jan 2017, at 21:52, John Clark wrote:

​I agree, and yet bizarrely whenever I say matter is always needed to make a ​calculation you keep pointing out this textbook or that textbook in an effort to prove me wrong.

because those textbook explain what is a computation, without assuming anything physical, that is without primary matter notions.

Of course they assumes books and matter to convey their idea, but that is at another level, and it is agnostic on the primary character of matter.

I don't get it. If you really want to prove me wrong start your own computer company and put INTEL out of business with your zero manufacturing costs.

 

That is a variant of the knocking down of the Aristolelian dogmatic believer.

"The hell with the antic greeks" was also the motto of the catholic teachers I met. The tabula rasa on theology is where gnostic atheists and institutionalized religious fundamentalist match perfectly.

Genuine (agnostic) atheists love my work because they know that a coming back of reason in religion is what piss of the clericals and the dogmatic the most.

Bruno

Only bad faith fear reason.

Only bad reasons fear faith.

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

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​ 

​>> ​

I say matter is always needed to make a ​calculation you keep pointing out this textbook or that textbook in an effort to prove me wrong.

​> ​

because those textbook explain what is a computation, without assuming anything physical,

​It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is an explanation of how to perform a calculation. In textbooks on arithmetic it will say something like "take this number and place it in that set"  but how do I "take" a number and how do I "place" it in a set without matter that obeys the laws of physics? In fact who is that textbook talking to if it's not a collection of atoms that obeys the laws of physics. And I still don't see how you can be blithely talking about the set that contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones when you must know there is no way to construct such a set even in theory.      ​

 

​> ​

"The hell with the antic greeks" was also the motto of the catholic teachers I met. The tabula rasa on theology is where gnostic atheists and institutionalized religious fundamentalist match perfectly.

​Oh dear, we're back to that again. Now where did I put my rubber stamp, I know it's around here somewhere.... oh there it is:​

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Jan 2017, at 18:59, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​ 

​>> ​

I say matter is always needed to make a ​calculation you keep pointing out this textbook or that textbook in an effort to prove me wrong.

​> ​

because those textbook explain what is a computation, without assuming anything physical,

​It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is an explanation of how to perform a calculation. In textbooks on arithmetic it will say something like "take this number and place it in that set"  but how do I "take" a number and how do I "place" it in a set without matter that obeys the laws of physics?

By using the representation of finite sequence of number by a number, for example by using Gödel's numbering based on the unique decomposition of number into prime factors. Then taking a number from that list is realized by their divisibility properties. I can give more detailed, but you can consult a textbook. The fact is that a universal digital machine cannot distinguish from its first person perspective if she is run by a computation from a block-physical-universe or from a bloc-computational-structure like elementary arithmetic.

In fact who is that textbook talking to if it's not a collection of atoms that obeys the laws of physics.

That is a confusion of level. When I say that the computation are realized in elementary arithmetic, I point to a fact which does not depend on the existence of matter or any physicalness. Now, relatively to us, we will express such fact through books, but as far as we know such books can be first person appearance, and those can be proved to exist, in the internal (to arithmetic) relative way in elementary arithmetic, and that is all what count for my point.

And I still don't see how you can be blithely talking about the set that contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones when you must know there is no way to construct such a set even in theory.

That set cannot be defined in arithmetic, but admit a simple definition in set theory or in analysis. The whole chapter of mathematical logic known as recursion theory studies and classifies the degree of unsolvability of such set. The partially computable one are the so-called Sigma_1 set, and the non computable are the Pi_1, Sigma_2, Pi_2, ... Sigma_i, Pi_i, ... Again this is explained in all good books. All you need to be able to define non-computable sets of numbers is the excluded middle principles, and we do this all the time in many branches of math. We can tlak about the set of total computable functions, despite their set of descriptions is also not computable.

     ​

 

​> ​

"The hell with the antic greeks" was also the motto of the catholic teachers I met. The tabula rasa on theology is where gnostic atheists and institutionalized religious fundamentalist match perfectly.

​Oh dear, we're back to that again. Now where did I put my rubber stamp, I know it's around here somewhere.... oh there it is:​

 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

It is just a fact. 

By mocking the possibility of doing theology in the scientific way, the gnostic-atheists (believers in a Primary Physical Reality and believer in the zero personal gods theory) maintain the field in the hands of the clericals and institutionalized religions, making it impossible to transform the Period of Enlightenment. This shows that among the atheists, the non agnostics one (the gnostics) side with the institutionalized charlatan again the coming back of the field in Science, where it was born. They are de facto allies of the Churches.

You might read the book by Daniel E. Cohen "Equation from Gods Pure Mathematics and Victorian Faith(*)" to see that even the "modern" mathematical Logic is born from theological questions and the will of making theology coming back to science, by Unitarian mathematicians who were tired of the imposed Trinitarian view. The main people here where Benjamin Peirce (the father of Charles S. Peirce), Augustus de Morgan, George Boole, and even Lewis Carroll (Charles L. Dodgson). Then, later, the mathematicians put some pressure to hide this theological motivation in the process of making mathematics itself into a profession in the 19th century. Note also the irony, given that the canonical theology of the Universal Machine, due to incompleteness is more Trinitarian-like (3 main hypostases) than Unitarian, but the early logicians could not foreseen the incompleteness of the universal machine and the Löbian machine. It is incompleteness which introduces the modal nuances of provability which separates the hypostases (cf p, []p, []p & p, []p & <>t, etc.).

Bruno

(*) The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. 

​John K Clark​

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​

​>>​

It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is an explanation of how to perform a calculation. In textbooks on arithmetic it will say something like "take this number and place it in that set"  but how do I "take" a number and how do I "place" it in a set without matter that obeys the laws of physics?

By using the representation of finite sequence of number by a number, for example by using Gödel's numbering

​

What!? that's just passing the buck! How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys the laws of physics

​ ​

is not involved somewhere along the line ?

 

​> ​

I can give more detailed, but you can consult a textbook.

​More details are not needed, ​nor is changing the word "pick" for "use" needed, what is needed is clear thinking.

 

​>> ​

And I still don't see how you can be blithely talking about the set that contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones when you must know there is no way to construct such a set even in theory.

​> ​

That set cannot be defined in arithmetic, but admit a simple definition in set theory or in analysis.

​

A definition is NOT a construction! It's extraordinarily easy to define a Faster

​ ​

Than Light Spaceship, it's right there in the very name of the thing, it's a spaceship that can move faster than light, but that doesn't mean anybody can

​ ​

construct such a thing

​.​

  The very laws of mathematics

​

you keep talking about

​ ​

tell

​ us​

there is NO WAY even in theory to construct a set that has all true mathematical statements and no false ones

​;​

 forget practicalities you can't do it even in theory, not

​ ​

even if you had a

​ ​

infinite amount of

​ ​

time to

​ ​

work on it. So using such a set to tell us something about reality is not permissible

​ ​

under the rules of logic.

 

​> ​

The whole chapter of mathematical logic known as recursion theory studies and classifies the degree of unsolvability of such set.

​A classification is NOT a construction anymore than a definition is! ​

 

​The ​

Faster

Than Light Spaceship is in the "vehicle" class and in the "spaceship" class but unfortunately it is also in the "fictional" class because nobody can construct one.

By mocking the possibility of doing theology in the scientific way, the gnostic-atheists (believers in a Primary Physical Reality 

​​Does "

Primary Physical Reality

​" mean a belief that ​matter is all there is? If so then I don't believe in it. Yes nouns exist but so do adjectives, aka information.

​> ​

and believer in the zero personal gods theory)

​ ​

maintain the field in the hands of the clericals 

​How long do you suppose the ​

Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is no personal God. God exists but He's an 

invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​.​

​"​

​

 

​?​

 ​

I would estimate about .9 seconds. A 

personal​​

God

​who might grant us immortality if we flatter Him ​enough 

is the only type of God that 99.9% of the 1.2 Billion Catholics are interested in.

​ That's why they go to Mass on Sunday, to butter Him up.​

If He's not personal then God is about as useful

​to them ​

as a screen door on a submarine

​. 

John K Clark​

​

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/6/2017 5:42 PM, John Clark wrote:

​How long do you suppose the ​

Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is no personal God. God exists but He's an 

invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​.​

​"​

​

 

​?​

 ​

I would estimate about .9 seconds.

No, that's how long the Pope would hold his Holy office.  The Church is "post-truth" as the Trumpkins would say.

Bre

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Jan 2017, at 02:42, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​

​>>​

It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is an explanation of how to perform a calculation. In textbooks on arithmetic it will say something like "take this number and place it in that set"  but how do I "take" a number and how do I "place" it in a set without matter that obeys the laws of physics?

By using the representation of finite sequence of number by a number, for example by using Gödel's numbering

​

What!? that's just passing the buck! How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys the laws of physics

​ ​

is not involved somewhere along the line ?

because with the standard definition of computation, they exist and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic. The definition of computation does not involve matter, and indeed we can eventually understand that matter is an appearance from the points of view of immaterial machine implemented in an non material reality.

You do the same mistake than the people who say that a (physical) simulation of a typhoon cannot make us wet. The usual answer to this is that a simulation of "you + the typhoon" will make a "you" feeling being wet in a relative way. It is the same in arithmetic, where a simulation (actually infinitely many) of "you", below your substitution level, will make you feel the appearance of matter relatively to you.

No universal Turing machine can distinguish the following situations:

A physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal Turing machine,

and

Robinson arithmetic simulating a physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal Turing machine.

Is this OK for everybody?

If someone believes that some primary matter is needed to get consciousness of that matter appearance, it is up to them to explain how that primary matter can have a role in the computation. But if you succeed, then some primary matter has a rôle in consciousness which is no more Turing emulable, and computationalism is false.

​>> ​

And I still don't see how you can be blithely talking about the set that contains all true mathematical statements and no false ones when you must know there is no way to construct such a set even in theory.

​> ​

That set cannot be defined in arithmetic, but admit a simple definition in set theory or in analysis.

​

A definition is NOT a construction!

Yes, that is exactly the point. We can define the set of arithmetical true statements, and so we can *talk* about it, without being able to construct it, or to generate it mechanically.

The collection of definable set of numbers is larger than the collection of semi-computable, or recursively enumerable sets. The set of computable or recursive sets of numbers is not computable. 

The set of solutions of a universal diophantine polynomial equation is semi-computable, but the set of numbers which are not solutions of a that universal diophantine equation, although easily definable, so that we can talk about, is not semi-computable (it is pi_1 instead of sigma_1).

It's extraordinarily easy to define a Faster

​ ​

Than Light Spaceship, it's right there in the very name of the thing, it's a spaceship that can move faster than light, but that doesn't mean anybody can

​ ​

construct such a thing

​.​

  The very laws of mathematics

​

you keep talking about

​ ​

tell

​ us​

there is NO WAY even in theory to construct a set that has all true mathematical statements and no false ones

​;​

 forget practicalities you can't do it even in theory, not

​ ​

even if you had a

​ ​

infinite amount of

​ ​

time to

​ ​

work on it. So using such a set to tell us something about reality is not permissible

​ ​

under the rules of logic.

 

​> ​

The whole chapter of mathematical logic known as recursion theory studies and classifies the degree of unsolvability of such set.

​A classification is NOT a construction anymore than a definition is!

Of course. Again that is what I was saying. Nobody said that all sets of numbers are constructible, indeed the set of definable sets is larger than the set of recursively enumerable set, itself larger than the set of totally computable, recursive, sets. You make my point.

​

 

​The ​

Faster

Than Light Spaceship is in the "vehicle" class and in the "spaceship" class but unfortunately it is also in the "fictional" class because nobody can construct one.

By mocking the possibility of doing theology in the scientific way, the gnostic-atheists (believers in a Primary Physical Reality 

​​Does "

Primary Physical Reality

​" mean a belief that ​matter is all there is?

No. It means that a Physical Reality which has to be assumed. It means a Physical reality which would not been able to be explained without assuming that matter.

As I said often I used "primary" in the sense: "has to be assumed", or "the appearance of which cannot be derived from something else".

Most people agree that biological facts do not need to be assumed. They can be derived from the laws of chemistry. That is the reason why few scientist would assumed a primary vital principle (vitalism).

Similarly, with computationalism, the physical facts do not needed to be assumed (and worst cannot be assumed in fact). They have to be derived from the statistics on all computations which exist provably when we assume Robinson Arithmetic, (or the laws of combinators, ...). If we can explain the mind from the sigma_1 arithmetical relations, then we have to expain the appearance of matter by the statistics on all computations. The Universal Dovetailer Argument explains why we have to do that, and the interview of (any) Löbian machine shows that it works: indeed the set of computable states corresponding to machine's yes-no type of observation inherit a precise quantum logic derived from the logic of self-reference. It is the logic of []p & <>t , with p sigma_1 (that is equivalent with an arithmetic formula having the shape ExP(x, y) with P recursive.

If so then I don't believe in it. Yes nouns exist but so do adjectives, aka information.

​> ​

and believer in the zero personal gods theory)

​ ​

maintain the field in the hands of the clericals 

​How long do you suppose the ​

Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is no personal God. God exists but He's an 

invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​.​

​"​

​

 

​?​

 ​

I would estimate about .9 seconds.

That is optimist.

But who care about the opinion of someone still using argument per-authority in the field?  

A 

personal​​

God

​who might grant us immortality if we flatter Him ​enough 

is the only type of God that 99.9% of the 1.2 Billion Catholics are interested in.

​ That's why they go to Mass on Sunday, to butter Him up.​

If He's not personal then God is about as useful

​to them ​

as a screen door on a submarine

​. 

Who care? We know that they are wrong (methodologically wrong at the least) since they forbid the greek way to reason on such matter (thus: since 523, when they banished Platonism and all "pagan non confessional religions").

You illustrate again that you want to keep the pope and the pseudo-religious believers happy.

You illustrate again that Gnostic Atheism is a form of catholicism.

Bruno

John K Clark​

​

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/7/2017 2:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Jan 2017, at 02:42, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​

​>>​

It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is an explanation of how to perform a calculation. In textbooks on arithmetic it will say something like "take this number and place it in that set"  but how do I "take" a number and how do I "place" it in a set without matter that obeys the laws of physics?

By using the representation of finite sequence of number by a number, for example by using Gödel's numbering

​

What!? that's just passing the buck! How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys the laws of physics

​ ​

is not involved somewhere along the line ?

because with the standard definition of computation, they exist and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic. The definition of computation does not involve matter, and indeed we can eventually understand that matter is an appearance from the points of view of immaterial machine implemented in an non material reality.

You do the same mistake than the people who say that a (physical) simulation of a typhoon cannot make us wet. The usual answer to this is that a simulation of "you + the typhoon" will make a "you" feeling being wet in a relative way. It is the same in arithmetic, where a simulation (actually infinitely many) of "you", below your substitution level, will make you feel the appearance of matter relatively to you.

No universal Turing machine can distinguish the following situations:

A physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal Turing machine,

and

Robinson arithmetic simulating a physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal Turing machine.

Is this OK for everybody?

No.  What would it mean for a UTM, a logical abstraction, to "distinguish situations"?  Sounds like a category error.

And what does it mean to simulate a physical device?  All the simulations of physical devices that I'm familiar with are really just simulations of some high-level model of the device.  Given the ubiquity of quantum entanglement, I doubt that it is possible to simulate a physical device in an absolute sense.

Which illustrates the flaw in your argument.  Like the simulated typhoon that can wet the simulated you, the arithmetical you can only exist relative to an arithmetical physics.  So the physics is not dispensable.  But given that it is not dispensable, it is essential to arithmetic and consciousness and so what is primary is meaningless. 

Brent

[John Clark]

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>>​

 How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys the laws of physics

​ ​

is not involved somewhere along the line ?

​> ​

because with the standard definition of computation, they exist

​A definition can't make something exist!​

  

​> ​

and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic.

​

And dragons are realized in all the Harry Potter books, but none of them can burn my finger

​.​

 

​And

 without matter that obeys the laws of physics Robinson Arithmetic

​ can't balance my checkbook, or do anything else either.​

 

​> ​

The definition of computation does not involve matter

​You can make any definition you want but if that's what you call "computation" then I don't see why anybody would be interested in it.

 

​> ​

You do the same mistake than the people who say that a (physical) simulation of a typhoon cannot make us wet. The usual answer to this is that a simulation of "you + the typhoon" will make a "you" feeling being wet in a relative way.

I agree but there is a difference. I could ask the simulated person if the simulated typhoon makes him feel wet, but I don't know how to ask 3 if

​ 

Robinson Arithmetic

​ makes it feel like it's half of 6.​

>  ​

No universal Turing machine can distinguish the following situations:

A physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal Turing machine,

and

Robinson arithmetic simulating a physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal Turing machine.

That is incorrect, It's extraordinarily easy to distinguish between the two, one will produce an output and one will not. If you start with Robinson arithmetic rather than a physical device you'll end up with nothing, not even the null set.  

 

​> ​

Is this OK for everybody?

​No I don't believe we are.​

 

​

​>> ​

A definition is NOT a construction!

​> ​

Yes, that is exactly the point.

​ 

We can define the set of arithmetical true statements, and so we can *talk* about it, without being able to construct it, or to generate it mechanically.

​

Talk is cheap. We can talk about Faster That Light Spaceships, Star Trek does it all the time, but we can't build one and that's why it's called "fiction".

​​

​>> ​

Does "Primary Physical Reality

​" mean a belief that ​matter is all there is?

​> ​

No. It means that a Physical Reality which has to be assumed.

​You don't need to assume that bowling ball falling toward your head will hurt when it hits, unlike pure mathematics physics will continue to do its thing regardless of what you assume define or classify. If you don't believe me just wait a fraction of a second.    

 

​> ​

It means a Physical reality which would not been able to be explained without assuming that matter.

​Nothing can be explained without matter ​and the laws of physics because there would be nothing doing the explaining and nothing doing the understanding.  

 

​>> ​

A 

personal​​

God

​who might grant us immortality if we flatter Him ​enough 

is the only type of God that 99.9% of the 1.2 Billion Catholics are interested in.

​ That's why they go to Mass on Sunday, to butter Him up.​

If He's not personal then God is about as useful

​to them ​

as a screen door on a submarine

​. 

​> ​

Who care?

1.2 Billion Catholics care and the

​y​

care very much! When they use the word "God" they mean something RADICALLY different from what you mean when you use the

​same ​

word

​,​

 

​and that ​makes

​

communication almost impossible

​

, and yet you insist on using that

​same damn ​

word. And people wonder why philosophy gets so muddled.  

​> ​

You illustrate again that you want to keep the pope and the pseudo-religious believers happy.

​ 

You illustrate again that Gnostic Atheism is a form of catholicism.

 

​I'm sure glad I found my trusty old rubber stamp.

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

John K Clark

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Jan 2017, at 20:27, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 1/7/2017 2:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Jan 2017, at 02:42, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​

​>>​

It is insufficient to explain what a computation is, what is needed is an explanation of how to perform a calculation. In textbooks on arithmetic it will say something like "take this number and place it in that set"  but how do I "take" a number and how do I "place" it in a set without matter that obeys the laws of physics?

By using the representation of finite sequence of number by a number, for example by using Gödel's numbering

​

What!? that's just passing the buck! How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys the laws of physics

​ ​

is not involved somewhere along the line ?

because with the standard definition of computation, they exist and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic. The definition of computation does not involve matter, and indeed we can eventually understand that matter is an appearance from the points of view of immaterial machine implemented in an non material reality.

You do the same mistake than the people who say that a (physical) simulation of a typhoon cannot make us wet. The usual answer to this is that a simulation of "you + the typhoon" will make a "you" feeling being wet in a relative way. It is the same in arithmetic, where a simulation (actually infinitely many) of "you", below your substitution level, will make you feel the appearance of matter relatively to you.

No universal Turing machine can distinguish the following situations:

A physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal Turing machine,

and

Robinson arithmetic simulating a physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal Turing machine.

Is this OK for everybody?

No.  What would it mean for a UTM, a logical abstraction, to "distinguish situations"?  Sounds like a category error.

It means that the proposition "the löbian UTM u proves that the UTM u see the difference between itself in this situation and/or that situation" is an arithmetical truth (provable in RA, or PA, or ZF).

Exemple. keep in mind that we assume mechanism. So when you can or cannot distinguish X from Y, there is a theorem in elementary arithmetic which proves that from the states "brent meeker" (you at a correct substitution level) relatively to some universal number ... relatively to arithmetic (chosen as the base) there is a possibility, or no possibility, to tell correctly the difference. 

the notion of UTM is a logical abstraction, like the notion of dog, but when we talk about a special dog or a special utm, we give its precise specification, like the number sent on mars in a teleportation.

And what does it mean to simulate a physical device?  All the simulations of physical devices that I'm familiar with are really just simulations of some high-level model of the device. 

Yes. necessarily so with computationalism given that any piece of matter is a first person plural notion summing up an infinity of computations.

You forget that I have proven here and there no physical device at all can be emulated by a digital machine, so the simulation concerns *only* "higher level model of the device".

Here, of course, I was talking abpout the Turing Universal higher level aspect of some subset of physical law.

Given the ubiquity of quantum entanglement, I doubt that it is possible to simulate a physical device in an absolute sense.

We agree on this since long!

That is a theorem of classical computer science, in the physics extracted from machine's self-reference. 

Or an arithmetical dream, that is a computation (an arithmetical object).

What do you mean by arithmetical physics? Do you mean a physics emerging from the numbers internal FPI, or a digital physics (a program simulating a universe (I guess no from above).

When you see a flaw, you need to be much more precise. "the arithmetical you" lives in arithmetic, and we explain why he believes, eve,n correctly from its first person view, in a physical reality, which actually cannot be arithmetical at all, but it is not among what exist at the base level, where only 0, s(0), etc. exist.

So the physics is not dispensable. 

In the sense that it is no more assumed, and thus no more fundamental: it is derived from arithmetic (we can even discharge the assumption of mechanism, in fact, as long as the arithmetical physics is not refuted).

But given that it is not dispensable, it is essential to arithmetic and consciousness and so what is primary is meaningless. 

?

Here are the difference in the theory:

Copenhagen assumes arithmetic + a wave + a collapse + a non intelligible dualist theory of mind.

Everett assumes arithmetic + a wave + mechanism

I show that Everett theory can oly work if the following theory works: arithmetic + mechanism.

That is, I reduce the problem of qualia and quanta to the problem of justifying both the qualia and the quanta from the numbers and a statistics on numbers' thought.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jan 2017, at 03:16, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>>​

 How can anything be "used" by anything if matter that obeys the laws of physics

​ ​

is not involved somewhere along the line ?

​> ​

because with the standard definition of computation, they exist

​A definition can't make something exist!​

Wrong.

Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs existing (assuming you are OK that cat exists, for the sake of the argument at least).

  

​> ​

and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic.

​

And dragons are realized in all the Harry Potter books,

Now in the sense of computer science, which is relevant here.

but none of them can burn my finger

​.​

If you are emulated at the right level in a finger burning situation, you will feel the pain, and that will not depend locally from the fact that the emulation is made by this or that universal system. Globally, for the lasting aspect of the pain, some physics arise, but the theory explains why. It is not invoked like a god who could select a computation as more real than another.

 

​And

 without matter that obeys the laws of physics Robinson Arithmetic

​ can't balance my checkbook, or do anything else either.​

That sentence is ambiguous. I can agree, but in the sense I can agree with, this does not make matter needed to be assumed in the axiom of the fundamental theory.

 

​> ​

The definition of computation does not involve matter

​You can make any definition you want but if that's what you call "computation" then I don't see why anybody would be interested in it.

 

Many people are interested. It is a branch of math, and it makes us able to show that some problem are not algorithmically solvable. It is used to study our limitations, which is indeed the key of the negative-like machine theology, like the neoplatonist one.

Without that definition, we would not say that Hilbert 10th problem has been solved (in the negative), etc. recursion theory, and machine theology is full of negative result, like universal machine cannot named their god, or know if they halt or not, etc.

​> ​

You do the same mistake than the people who say that a (physical) simulation of a typhoon cannot make us wet. The usual answer to this is that a simulation of "you + the typhoon" will make a "you" feeling being wet in a relative way.

I agree but there is a difference. I could ask the simulated person if the simulated typhoon makes him feel wet, but I don't know how to ask 3 if

​ 

Robinson Arithmetic

​ makes it feel like it's half of 6.​

Me neither.

But you can ask the John Clark simulated together with the typhoon at the right level in arithmetic if he feels wet, and he will give the same answer, not depending if you simulated this in a fortran itself on a physical computer, or you trace by hand the theorem in arithmetic saying the equivalent situation. Then the feeling itself, of that John Clark does not depend of having made the simulation, if you agree that the truth of 24 is composite does not depend on you verifying that fact.

>  ​

No universal Turing machine can distinguish the following situations:

A physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal Turing machine,

and

Robinson arithmetic simulating a physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal Turing machine.

That is incorrect, It's extraordinarily easy to distinguish between the two, one will produce an output and one will not. If you start with Robinson arithmetic rather than a physical device you'll end up with nothing, not even the null set.  

How could that be possible? We interrogate the machine *in* arithmetic. The output are given by relative input. You are telling me that 3 does not divide 6 when nobody do the physical computation, but the even physicist can no more use arithmetic without a justification in physics that 3 divides 6. But that does not exist, because physics does not even address such question, and borrow from math the useful truth. String theory is happy that "1+2+3+4+5+ ... = -1/12" makes mathematical sense, so that the photon as a mass zero. They did not say "we have proven that 1+2+3+4+5+ ... = -1/12 in the theory string+photon-has zero-mass".

 

​> ​

Is this OK for everybody?

​No I don't believe we are.​

 

I know. You are quite "religious" about this.

​

​>> ​

A definition is NOT a construction!

​> ​

Yes, that is exactly the point.

​ 

We can define the set of arithmetical true statements, and so we can *talk* about it, without being able to construct it, or to generate it mechanically.

​

Talk is cheap. We can talk about Faster That Light Spaceships, Star Trek does it all the time, but we can't build one and that's why it's called "fiction".

Except that star strek is fiction. Arithmetical truth, or the halting set, are mathematical concept on which all mathematician agrees. You have mention some of them yourself like Chaitin non algorithmic compressible number.

And the notion of arithmetical truth is so intuitive and simple that it took a Gödel and a tarski to succeed in showing it is not definable nor amenable to a complete theory. 

Hlibert thought the arithmetical reality was mechanical, unlike the analytical, the surprise was it was not, but that did not make it disappear.

​Nothing can be explained without matter ​and the laws of physics because there would be nothing doing the explaining and nothing doing the understanding.  

How do you know? You are just stating your assumption/theory. If you are right, then in your theory computationalism is false. Just say no to the doctor. Oops, you have already say yes. 

Also there is an ambiguity, which you play with a lot. I cannot explain you the number without using our physical environment, but that does not mean that the notion of number depends on the existence of that physical environment. 

No theories in math assumes anything in physics.

 

​>> ​

A 

personal​​

God

​who might grant us immortality if we flatter Him ​enough 

is the only type of God that 99.9% of the 1.2 Billion Catholics are interested in.

​ That's why they go to Mass on Sunday, to butter Him up.​

If He's not personal then God is about as useful

​to them ​

as a screen door on a submarine

​. 

​> ​

Who care?

1.2 Billion Catholics care and the

​y​

care very much! When they use the word "God" they mean something RADICALLY different from what you mean when you use the

​same ​

word

​,​

 

​and that ​makes

​

communication almost impossible

​

, and yet you insist on using that

​same damn ​

word. And people wonder why philosophy gets so muddled.  

Right answer, the catholics care. 

So you are catholic? or you care, for some reason to what the catholic thinks. 

Well, thanks for making my point so transparently true. You care more about the god of the politician than to the god of the self-inquirer. 

Yesterday the clergy burned alive the skeptics. Today the clergy let the  atheists burry alive the same skeptics.

(I mean the gnostic atheist here, of course, not the modest agnostic).

You care about what catholic means by god, only because it is easier to mock them.

You are attaching a poor dog to a wall, throw the ball, and then mock the dog because it can run to the ball.  That's what you seem to do.

And by the way, the modern catholic have no problem writing paper on the god of Plato, and many christian theologian disbelieve completely in the naïve conception that gnostic atheists seem to care so much about. 

bruno

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>>

A definition can't make something exist!​

​> ​

Wrong.

​Are you being serious?​

 

 

​> ​

Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs existing

​And ​

I define a glodlyrapicul by a 

​dragon. Did my definition cause anything to come into existence? This conversation is descending from science to mathematics to philosophy to slapstick.    

​> ​

I cannot explain you the number without using our physical environment, but that does not mean that the notion of number depends on the existence of that physical environment. 

​Never mind something as trivial as numbers, explain to me how the notion of notion can exist without the physical environment!  ​

 

  

​>

​>>​

​

and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic.

​

​>> ​

And dragons are realized in all the Harry Potter books,

​> ​

Now in the sense of computer science, which is relevant here.

​Why Not? They seem equally relevant to me.  Both books are made of atoms that obey the laws of physics, and neither of those arrangements of atoms are organized is a way that enables them to perform calculations.

​>> ​

but none of them can burn my finger

​.​

​> ​

If you are emulated at the right level in a finger burning situation, you will feel the pain,

​I agree, maybe we're all living in a computer ​simulation but if we are it's a *computer* simulation, and computers are made of matter.  

 

​>> ​

​You can make any definition you want but if that's what you call "computation" then I don't see why anybody would be interested in it.

​> ​

Many people are interested. It is a branch of math, and it makes us able to show that some problem are not algorithmically solvable.

​Massive brainpower was not needed to conclude that no problem can be solved without brains, but it was needed to discover ​some problems can't be solved even with brains.

 

​>> ​

If you start with Robinson arithmetic rather than a physical device you'll end up with nothing, not even the null set.  

​> ​

How could that be possible? We interrogate the machine *in* arithmetic.

​You interrogate the machine "in" physics because it's made of ​physical stuff.

 

​> ​

You are telling me that 3 does not divide 6 when nobody do the physical computation,

I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the entire universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless because there would be no one to give it a meaning. Or put it another way, it would make no difference to ANYTHING if 6/3=2 was true or not. 

 

​> ​

even physicist can no more use arithmetic without a justification in physics that 3 divides 6. But that does not exist,

​Yes it does. It was discovered empirically that three apples and three apples produces the same result as two apples and two apples and two apples,  ​and "6" is as good a name for that sort of thing as any.

 

 

​

​>> ​

Talk is cheap. We can talk about Faster That Light Spaceships, Star Trek does it all the time, but we can't build one and that's why it's called "fiction".

​> ​

Except that star strek is fiction.

​It's fiction because faster than light spaceships ​doesn't correspond with physical reality.

 

​> ​

Arithmetical truth

​ [...]

​But Arithmetic does correspond with ​physical reality and that's why it's nonfiction written in the language of mathematics.

​

​>> ​

Nothing can be explained without matter ​and the laws of physics because there would be nothing doing the explaining and nothing doing the understanding.  

​> ​

How do you know?

​From ​

Induction, something

​ even more important than deduction and something 

Robinson

​ ​

arithmetic doesn't have.

​ ​

There are countless examples of matter explaining things and countless examples of matter understanding things, but there are no examples and no evidence of anything else doing either.

  

​> ​

then in your theory computationalism is false.

​

Maybe in Bruno-speak, but you are the only speaker of that language. Everybody else means something different by words like "God" or " computationalism". I just typed Computationalism

​ 

into Google and this is what I got:

 

​"​

Computationalism is the view that intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed by the agent's cognitive system (or brain).

​"

That definition works for me.

I also asked Google to define "God":​

​"T

he creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

​ ​A

 superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes

​.​"

​And that definition works for me too.​

 

​> ​

No theories in math assumes anything in physics.

​Mathematicians can't derive the fundamental laws of physics and physics can't do so either, but they don't need to because they can observe them.  ​

 

​> ​Who care?

1.2 Billion Catholics care and the

​y​

care very much! When they use the word "God" they mean something RADICALLY different from what you mean when you use the

​same ​

word

​,​

 

​and that ​makes

​

communication almost impossible

​

, and yet you insist on using that

​same damn ​

word. And people wonder why philosophy gets so muddled.  

​> ​

Right answer, the catholics care. So you are catholic?

​ 

or you care, for some reason to what the catholic thinks. 

​Of course I care what Catholics think, they outnumber me 1.2 billion to one and they have been using the word "God" in a certain way for 2000 years so I'd say they have ownership of it, and it would be foolish and cause endless confusion if I started calling something completely unrelated, like my can opener, "God". The Catholic God, Bruno's God, and my can opener, are all equally distant from each other in concept space, so they should't have the same name!  ​

 

​> ​

the modern catholic have no problem writing paper on the god of Plato,

​To hell with modern Catholics to hell with God to hell with Plato ​to hell with Aristotle and above all to hell with all the idiot ancient Greeks that were so ignorant they didn't even know where the sun went at night.

 

​John K Clark​

 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Jan 2017, at 04:12, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>>

A definition can't make something exist!​

​> ​

Wrong.

​Are you being serious?​

 

 

​> ​

Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs existing

​And ​

I define a glodlyrapicul by a 

​dragon. Did my definition cause anything to come into existence?

That one no. But that does no make my counter-example invalid. Nobody said that all definition makes things existing.

 

​> ​

I cannot explain you the number without using our physical environment, but that does not mean that the notion of number depends on the existence of that physical environment. 

​Never mind something as trivial as numbers, explain to me how the notion of notion can exist without the physical environment!  ​

 

I guess you mean the notion of motion?

Are you OK with the notion of block-universe in general relativity. Or are you a believer/assumer of a primitive time?

We don't need a physical environment, we need only stable dreams of such environment, and this reduces the problem to the chapter 4 of the book of Davis, that is the proof that all computations are implemented, in a "block-like" manner, in a tiny part of the arithmetical reality.

  

​>

​>>​

​

and are realized in all models of Robinson Arithmetic.

​

​>> ​

And dragons are realized in all the Harry Potter books,

​> ​

Now in the sense of computer science, which is relevant here.

​Why Not? They seem equally relevant to me.  Both books are made of atoms that obey the laws of physics, and neither of those arrangements of atoms are organized is a way that enables them to perform calculations.

Yes, but books does not compute. Only universal numbers, when implemented (in arithmetic, in physics, wherever..), can be said to compute.

​>> ​

but none of them can burn my finger

​.​

​> ​

If you are emulated at the right level in a finger burning situation, you will feel the pain,

​I agree, maybe we're all living in a computer ​simulation but if we are it's a *computer* simulation, and computers are made of matter.  

Physical computer are made of atoms only. But with computationalism, Physical computer do not exist primitively, they arise as common pattern in the mind of non physical computer. 

The existence of primitive physicalness is a metaphysical assumption. It is not part of physics. 

 

​>> ​

​You can make any definition you want but if that's what you call "computation" then I don't see why anybody would be interested in it.

​> ​

Many people are interested. It is a branch of math, and it makes us able to show that some problem are not algorithmically solvable.

​Massive brainpower was not needed to conclude that no problem can be solved without brains, but it was needed to discover ​some problems can't be solved even with brains.

 

The point is that you conclude that a problem is not solvable by a computation, we need a mathematical definition of computation. Church proposed the first, and since them many definition have been given, and they have been shown to be equivalent. Church's thesis make them all equivalent, even those not yet invented.

And brain and machine might solve them, but then in a non mechanical way, with heuristic, and without guaranties.

​>> ​

If you start with Robinson arithmetic rather than a physical device you'll end up with nothing, not even the null set.  

​> ​

How could that be possible? We interrogate the machine *in* arithmetic.

​You interrogate the machine "in" physics because it's made of ​physical stuff.

But that is not relevant for the basic theory. You could say that the notion of group requires the notion of blackboard or paper, but that would be of course a confusion of level. same here. 

All what I say is that if digital mechanism is true, then the following theory(*) has to be able to explain entirely the illusion of stable persistent physical laws, and that indeed we get already quantum logic, reversibility, linearity, the many-worlds aspect of reality, etc.

(*) the theory is computationalism (the invariance of consciousness for a recursive permutation, to be short) at the meta-level, + classical first order logic +

0 ≠ (x + 1)

((x + 1) = (y + 1))  -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)

x + 0 = x

x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1

x * 0 = 0

x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x

See any textbook to get a definitipn of universal number in that theory, using no more than the logical symbiols and +, *, 0, s. (and parentheses). I could explain here, if you want, but of course it could be a bit long.

 

​> ​

You are telling me that 3 does not divide 6 when nobody do the physical computation,

I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the entire universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless because there would be no one to give it a meaning.

But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means that you have change your mind since our last conversation. 

The fact that 3 divides 6 is true independently of the presence of humans or aliens to get this. The divisibility of natural numbers has nothing to do with the existence of more complex number capable of understanding division. indeed, we use the elementary arithmetical notions to define the physical objects, and then comp makes the primary physical object into phlogiston.

Or put it another way, it would make no difference to ANYTHING if 6/3=2 was true or not. 

It depends of the theory in which those statemnt are made. If you say that in any extension of robinson arithmetic, it makes the theory inconsistent, and so it makes me and you becoming the pope (if you know Russels proof that he is the pope in case 0 = 1). That would changes things.

 

​> ​

even physicist can no more use arithmetic without a justification in physics that 3 divides 6. But that does not exist,

​Yes it does. It was discovered empirically that three apples and three apples produces the same result as two apples and two apples and two apples,  ​and "6" is as good a name for that sort of thing as any.

 

That would make physics circular.

 

​

​>> ​

Talk is cheap. We can talk about Faster That Light Spaceships, Star Trek does it all the time, but we can't build one and that's why it's called "fiction".

​> ​

Except that star strek is fiction.

​It's fiction because faster than light spaceships ​doesn't correspond with physical reality.

 

​> ​

Arithmetical truth

​ [...]

​But Arithmetic does correspond with ​physical reality and that's why it's nonfiction written in the language of mathematics.

But you agree that 10^(10^1000000000) is a multiple of 10, despite such number are not realizable. You just assert the physicalist dogma, but I could ask you to give me just one argument in favor of a primary physical reality. It is a religious/metaphysical hypothesis. maybe true, but then digital mechanism is false (by the argument given).

​

​>> ​

Nothing can be explained without matter ​and the laws of physics because there would be nothing doing the explaining and nothing doing the understanding.  

​> ​

How do you know?

​From ​

Induction,

Do you mean inductive inference or mathematical induction.

something

​ even more important than deduction and something 

Robinson

​ ​

arithmetic doesn't have.

​ ​

But Robison Arithmetic is the Universal Dovetailer, not the observer interviewed *in* Robinson arithmetic, which believes also in mathematical induction, like Peano Arithmetic.

There are countless examples of matter explaining things and countless examples of matter understanding things, but there are no examples and no evidence of anything else doing either.

I have searched a use of *primary* matter all my life. I have found only one: by the catholic to argue that bread is the body of Jesus. In the physics literature, primary matter is not used. 

  

​> ​

then in your theory computationalism is false.

​

Maybe in Bruno-speak, but you are the only speaker of that language.

Not at all. My way of talking is quite standard, in may field crossed. It is not a question of language anyway. If primary matter exists, the physical appearance cannot be used to assert the existence of primary matter. That follows from a reasoning, and we know where and how you stopped, if this needs to be recalled.

Everybody else means something different by words like "God" or " computationalism". I just typed Computationalism

​ 

into Google and this is what I got:

 

​"​

Computationalism is the view that intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed by the agent's cognitive system (or brain).

​"

The assumption I used implies this one, but is weaker (making the consequences valid for the definition above).

That definition works for me.

I also asked Google to define "God":​

​"T

he creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

​ ​A

 superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes

​.​"

​And that definition works for me too.​

Same remarks. You will find many other definition, and I use the one by the neoplatonists, whioch is the most general. But I avoid the term god, unless I reply to a post with that term.

 

​> ​

No theories in math assumes anything in physics.

​Mathematicians can't derive the fundamental laws of physics

Why? It that a dogma? Well, that is possible, but then you will not survive with an artificial brain. That's the point.

and physics can't do so either, but they don't need to because they can observe them.  ​

 

​> ​Who care?

1.2 Billion Catholics care and the

​y​

care very much! When they use the word "God" they mean something RADICALLY different from what you mean when you use the

​same ​

word

​,​

 

​and that ​makes

​

communication almost impossible

​

, and yet you insist on using that

​same damn ​

word. And people wonder why philosophy gets so muddled.  

​> ​

Right answer, the catholics care. So you are catholic?

​ 

or you care, for some reason to what the catholic thinks. 

​Of course I care what Catholics think, they outnumber me 1.2 billion to one and they have been using the word "God" in a certain way for 2000 years so I'd say they have ownership of it, and it would be foolish and cause endless confusion if I started calling something completely unrelated, like my can opener, "God". The Catholic God, Bruno's God, and my can opener, are all equally distant from each other in concept space, so they should't have the same name!  ​

You confess base your thinking on what the majority says, but science does not work that way. It is not a democracy, and we should accept only what we prove, or assume.

Bruno

 

​> ​

the modern catholic have no problem writing paper on the god of Plato,

​To hell with modern Catholics to hell with God to hell with Plato ​to hell with Aristotle and above all to hell with all the idiot ancient Greeks that were so ignorant they didn't even know where the sun went at night.

 

​John K Clark​

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 

​> ​

Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs existing

​

​>​

And ​

I define a glodlyrapicul by a 

​dragon. Did my definition cause anything to come into existence?

​> ​

That one no. But that does no make my counter-example invalid. Nobody said that all definition makes things existing.

​There is only one fundamental difference between your example and mine, cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but dragons do not. Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure something into existence. I can define "Klogknee" as the integer that is greater than 4 but less than 5, but Klogknee doesn't exist.    ​

 

 

​

​>> ​

Never mind something as trivial as numbers, explain to me how the notion of notion can exist without the physical environment!  ​

​> ​

I guess you mean the notion of motion?

​No. That was wasn't a typo, I meant what I said,  ​without matter and the laws of physics there can be nobody around to have a notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion of anything. 

 

​> ​

Yes, books does not compute.

​I know, so stop claiming textbooks on computer science prove that numbers all by themselves without the help of physics can compute something.  ​

 

 

​> ​

Only universal numbers, when implemented (in arithmetic, in physics, wherever..), can be said to compute.

​I have no idea what "​

universal numbers implemented in arithmetic

​" means, but I do know if physics isn't involved nothing is computed.​

 

​> ​

with computationalism, Physical computer do not exist primitively, they arise as common pattern in the mind of non physical computer.

​M

aybe "computationalism" means that in Bruno-Speak,

​a language known only to you. A

nd maybe "God" means

​a​

n invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​ in that language​

,

​ 

but that's not what the

​what those words mean to me or to the English language.​

​

 

​>>​

​Massive brainpower was not needed to conclude that no problem can be solved without brains, but it was needed to discover ​some problems can't be solved even with brains.

 

​>​

The point is that you conclude that a problem is not solvable by a computation, we need a mathematical definition of computation.

Sure, and ​I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that they have the ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist before. ​

 

 

​> ​

See any textbook to get a definitipn of universal number in that theory,

​Oh no, where back with that stupid textbook ​that is supposed to be able to make calculations!

 

​>> ​

I'm telling you if there were not 6 physical things in the entire universe or even 3 then "divide 6 by 3" would be meaningless because there would be no one to give it a meaning.

​> ​

But that contradict your realism in arithmetic, and means that you have change your mind since our last conversation. 

​No contradiction because in the universe I live in there are more than 3 physical things​

 

​in existence, in fact there are even more than 6.​

 

​> ​

The fact that 3 divides 6 is true independently of the presence of humans or aliens to get this.

In the universe the aliens live in there are more than 3 physical things​

 

​in the cosmos, there are even more than 6.​

​>> ​

Or put it another way, it would make no difference to ANYTHING if 6/3=2 was true or not. 

​> ​

It depends of the theory in which those statemnt are made. If you say that in any extension of robinson arithmetic, it makes the theory inconsistent, and so it makes me and you becoming the pope (if you know Russels proof that he is the pope in case 0 = 1). That would changes things.

​If I remember correctly ​

Bertrand Russell

​ started with the axiom "one is zero" and was able to logically deduce "I am the Pope" ; but if there was not even one thing in the universe then there would be no "I" no ​"Pope" and no "am", so it would make no difference to anything if I am the Pope or not. 

​>> ​

​It was discovered empirically that three apples and three apples produces the same result as two apples and two apples and two apples,  ​and "6" is as good a name for that sort of thing as any.

 

​> ​

That would make physics circular.

​And in mathematics every correct equation is a tautology. ​

​> ​

I could ask you to give me just one argument in favor of a primary physical reality.

​Interesting question. You can ask something involving matter that obeys the laws of physics, something like me, interesting questions, but you can't ask the number 6 anything.

​> ​

Do you mean inductive inference or mathematical induction.

​Both are almost identical and neither can be derived from deduction and so must be assumed as axioms. The only difference is mathematical induction claims that under conditions X things *always* continue but when used in the physical world inductive inference

​ claims that under condition X things *usually* continue. As far as intelligent behavior is concerned nothing is more fundamental than induction. 

 

​> ​

But Robison Arithmetic is the Universal Dovetailer, not the observer interviewed *in* Robinson arithmetic, which believes also in mathematical induction,

​I have no idea what that means.​

 

​> ​

like Peano Arithmetic.

​Peano arithmetic has induction as an axiom ​but 

Robinson arithmetic

​ ​doesn't, so Robinson is weaker and even further from the real physical world than Peano.

 

​> ​

It is not a question of language anyway.

​

Of course it's a question of language!! "God" is a word, a word that you love more than its meaning. If "God" means "The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

​ ​

A

​ 

 superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes

."

​  then God does not exist. If 

 "God" means  

​"​

an invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​" 

then it makes absolutely no difference if God exists or not.

​ The thing that makes the God theory different from every other theory of the world is that intentional is at the very heart of it, if you take that away all that remains is a word that means mindless mush.   ​

 

​> ​

You will find many other definition, and I use the one by the neoplatonists, whioch is the most general. But I avoid the term god, unless I reply to a post with that term.

​A more general definition is not always or even usually better. ​"Stuff" is more general than "number" and "number" is more general than "prime number". "Fuzzy blob" is pretty general, and pretty useless. 

​> ​

​Mathematicians can't derive the fundamental laws of physics

​> ​

Why?

​There is only one reason I can think of, physics must have something mathematics does't.  ​

 

 

​>​

 Well, that is possible, but then you will not survive with an artificial brain. That's the point.

​I have absolutely no idea how you reached that conclusion. Not a clue. ​

 

 

​

​>> ​

Of course I care what Catholics think, they outnumber me 1.2 billion to one and they have been using the word "God" in a certain way for 2000 years so I'd say they have ownership of it, and it would be foolish and cause endless confusion if I started calling something completely unrelated, like my can opener, "God".

​ ​

The Catholic God, Bruno's God, and my can opener, are all equally distant from each other in concept space, so they should't have the same name!  ​

​> ​

You confess base your thinking on what the majority says,

​You're damn right, and I don't confess it I brag about it! When ​it comes to the definition of words the majority rules.

 

 

​> ​

but science does not work that way.

​True, but language does work that way. What's the point of knowing a language spoken only by you?​

 

​It doesn't matter to Science or to logic what the meaning ​of a word is, all they ask is that the meaning be consistent. 

​It's not up to science to give meanings to words, it's up to people.​

​ 

John K Clark​

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Jan 2017, at 01:03, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 

​> ​

Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs existing

​

​>​

And ​

I define a glodlyrapicul by a 

​dragon. Did my definition cause anything to come into existence?

​> ​

That one no. But that does no make my counter-example invalid. Nobody said that all definition makes things existing.

​There is only one fundamental difference between your example and mine, cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but dragons do not. Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure something into existence. I can define "Klogknee" as the integer that is greater than 4 but less than 5, but Klogknee doesn't exist.    ​

 

Here the difference is that I have given the axioms and the inference rules. If you disagree that prime numbers exists, then OK. I mean I understand you have some problem with the computationalist assumption, and why you conceive only "physical computationalism". 

You have the metaphysical belief in some reality, and use it to build a counter-exemple. This is like a creationist who would refute the theory of evolution because it contradicts the bible. Of course, nobody can argue with that.

 

​

​>> ​

Never mind something as trivial as numbers, explain to me how the notion of notion can exist without the physical environment!  ​

​> ​

I guess you mean the notion of motion?

​No. That was wasn't a typo, I meant what I said,  ​without matter and the laws of physics there can be nobody around to have a notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion of anything. 

Then computationalism is false, because without matter, there is still computations which emulates your mind states. Of course, you can say they are zombie, because you want your god Matter to be present, but then a religious charlatan could also add that such a Matter will only work if his/her God gives the permission.

Actually, if that primary matter gives a role, define it more precisely and explain its role.

 

​> ​

Yes, books does not compute.

​I know, so stop claiming textbooks on computer science prove that numbers all by themselves without the help of physics can compute something.  ​

Why? Those things are not related. Computer science books does not compute, but still provides proof that numbers together with addition and multiplication do compute.

 

 

​> ​

Only universal numbers, when implemented (in arithmetic, in physics, wherever..), can be said to compute.

​I have no idea what "​

universal numbers implemented in arithmetic

​" means, but I do know if physics isn't involved nothing is computed.​

Sure. Are you sure that is enough? Maybe Matter need to be blessed or something.

 

​> ​

with computationalism, Physical computer do not exist primitively, they arise as common pattern in the mind of non physical computer.

​M

aybe "computationalism" means that in Bruno-Speak,

​a language known only to you.

Not at all, see all my posts or my paper for the definition. It is the most weak form of computationalism in the literature. All its consequences are valid for all more precise definitions. 

A

nd maybe "God" means

​a​

n invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​ in that language​

,

​ 

but that's not what the

​what those words mean to me or to the English language.​

God means whatever needs to be assumed to get an explanation of the appearances.

In math we always extend the meaning of the terms. You would have ridicule the mathematicians when they accepted that 2, 1 and 0 are numbers, which meant "numerous" at the start.

Playing vocabulary games does not help.

​

 

​>>​

​Massive brainpower was not needed to conclude that no problem can be solved without brains, but it was needed to discover ​some problems can't be solved even with brains.

 

​>​

The point is that you conclude that a problem is not solvable by a computation, we need a mathematical definition of computation.

Sure, and ​I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that they have the ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist before. ​

 

That has been refuted. 

 

​> ​

See any textbook to get a definitipn of universal number in that theory,

​Oh no, where back with that stupid textbook ​that is supposed to be able to make calculations!

 

You deform to much what I say, and answer things I never said. Sorry, but that is called trolling. 

Bruno

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

I know John does not read genuinely enough the post, but I want to thank him for the opportunity to add things, and notably how much the atheists of the gnostic kind, despite declaring themselves non religious, act exactly like the charlatan in religion.

On 11 Jan 2017, at 01:03, John Clark wrote:

​> ​

You confess base your thinking on what the majority says,

​You're damn right, and I don't confess it I brag about it! When ​it comes to the definition of words the majority rules.

 

The majority agrees with this naïve definition: God is the creator of everything.

The greek theory was the same, yet seeing God as a first principle, a reality to discuss about. Basically, what justifies the appearances and what is possibly beyond, or the object of science: what we can know and what is real but cannot know if that exists.

I think JC confuse "God" the concept, and one particular theory of God (the common one today in occident, but note that here there are already *many* different interpretation of it.

I use the word with the most general definition. Only people believing that only one theory of god is correct can criticize those who propose a different theory.

Just by your attitude toward the Platonist theory shows that you accompany the clergy in the critics of any different theory than their own.

God has been for a millenium a nickname of "the reason of it all", that they were searching. It is the science of the thing from which all other things or things' appearances are tried to be explained.

The theology of Aristotle was two gods, and basically in modern and simplifying terming, it was a (search for a) physical equation + initial conditions on some objects.

The theology of Plato was one god, and basically in modern and simplifying terming, it was a (search for a)  logical/mathematical principle/theory of some subject. The laws of thought, mind, dream, imaging, conceiving, etc.

Plato was open that Aristotle theology could be correct. 

Aristotle thought (wrongly) that he refuted Plato.

Only a charlatan would pretend that science has decided between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of Reality/God today.

What has been proved, though, is that if consciousness is invariant for a recursive permutation ( a version of digital mechanism), then the theology of Aristotle can't work, and Plato's one might still work. Actually, a pythagorean versionn of Plato, extracted from the machine's self-referencial discourse,  do seem to work, as it predicts both intuitively and formally the quantum appearances. It is "shocking" but not more than Everett or the quantum facts.

To each digital machine, that is, number m, as we have fixed one universal base (Robinson arithmetic). So we have an effectively enumerable sequence of programs P_0, P_1, P_2, ... P_m, P_m+1, etc. (use any other programming language if you are not at ease in Robinson Arithmetic).

The machine/number having an interesting theology are the Löbian machine/numbers, that is a machine/number which not only are universal P_m (x,y>) = P_x(y), but they can prove that they are universal in the sense that they can prove p -> []p for all p sigma_1 (which is equivalent with being Turing universal). Löbian number knows that they are (associated) to Löbian and universal numbers.

Then all concept on them can be represented by a set of numbers, and meta-concepts by set of set of numbers. They have varied degree of unsolvability.

Truth, p (the set of true numbers p on m) p limited to sigma_1 proposition (the leaves of the universal dovetailer)

provable, []p (the set of numbers provable by m on m)

knowable, []p & p (the set of numbers provable and true, by m on m)

Observable []p & ~[]~t (the set of numbers provable and consistent)

Sensible []p & ~[]~t  & p (provable, consistent, p).

God knows that this is the exactly the same part of the arithmetical reality, expressed in 5 different ways. But the machine/number m, which plays the role of man in Plotinus, cannot know that, and both the man and God knows this entails quite different logics associated which each type of view.

The abstract rendering of the universal dovetailer argument entails that the observable is given by ([]p & ~[]~t  (& p)), p sigma_1, and that gives a quantum logic (intuitionist quantum logic in the case []p & ~[]~t  & p.

We get the Gödel-Solovay surprise gift that we can distinguish what God says from what the machine can justify, know, observe, etc. It is the inheritance of the G* minus G difference on some other nuance. The universal soul ([]p & p) does NOT split, and is lives somewhere at the jonction of earth and heaven, using the traditional terminology.

The humans  closer to the Löbian self-reference are Parmenides, Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus, perhaps Porphyry, Proclus ... (still not quite sure).

The mechanist digital version extracted from self-reference (including the UD reasoning) is refutable, just compare the logic of the machine observable and the empirical logic of the observable (in Putnam sense).

You might need to read the bibles: George Boole (the laws of thought), Davis dovers' book (the original paper of Gödel, Church, ...), and its book on computability and unsolvability, Smullyan, Boolos, ... I recall Smullyan's book "Forever Undecided", a very good introduction to G. 

You can also read the book by Daniel E. Cohen,  "Computability and Logic" (a chef d'oeuvre, but concise and tight, need pencils and papers)

You can also read the incredible book by Daniel J. Cohen (note the "J"), "Equations from God" which illustrates the theological birth of Mathematical Logic, and how and why this remains well hidden. 

The humans!

Bruno

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

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 

​>> ​

When ​it comes to the definition of words the majority rules.

​> ​

The majority agrees with this naïve definition: God is the creator of everything.

​How can a definition of a word be naive?  ​I can understand how you can define something that doesn't exist, I can understand haw a definition can be so general it is useless, but I can't understand what a  "naive" definition is. 

And if the majority of speakers of a language aren't the ones who give words in that language their meaning then who does?    

 

​> ​

The greek theory was

​ [blah blah blah]

​I don't give a hoot in hell what the Greek theory was because most of them were ignoramuses by today's standards, especially Aristotle and Plato. Greek cosmology was not only dead wrong it was stupid, so can we please stop talking about the damn thing! ​

 

​I don't care if you call it G-O-D or D-O-G, there is only one important question, is consciousness responsible for the existence of the of the universe or not. I say no. You say I don't know, you say you don't even know if God is intelligent but you do know that God exists. I say if "God" is neither intelligent nor conscious then "God" may exists for all I know, it depends on what the 3 ASCII characters G-O-D mean in Bruno-speak.

​> ​

I think JC confuse "God" the concept, and one particular theory of God

​I am not at all confused with the difference between ​

​a intelligent or super-intelligent conscious being creating the universe and a mindless amoral fuzzy blob creating the universe. And if I ever get confused as to the meaning of any English word, "God" included, I can just ask Google and my confusion will be cured in seconds. However what I am deeply confused about is exactly what it is that I'm supposed to confused about. ​

 

​> ​

Plato was open that Aristotle theology could be correct. 

​Then Plato was as stupid as Aristotle. Why why why are we still talking about the ancient Greeks when they didn't know the difference between their ass from a hole in the ground?​

 

 

​> ​

Only a charlatan would pretend that science has decided between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of

​ [blah blah]​

​In the 21th century only a fool would give a damn about

  Plato's

​or​

 Aristotle's conception of

​ ANYTHING.​

 

​> ​

You might need to read the bibles:

​I'd rather watch paint dry, it would be more entertaining and far more educational.​

 

​John K Clark​

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>>​

​There is only one fundamental difference between your example and mine, cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but dragons do not. Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure something into existence. I can define "Klogknee" as the integer that is greater than 4 but less than 5, but Klogknee doesn't exist.    ​

​> ​

Here the difference is that I have given the axioms and the inference rules.

​But inference requires reason, and reason requires a brain, and all known brains require matter that obeys the laws of physics. ​

 

​> ​

This is like a creationist who would refute the theory of evolution because it contradicts the bible.

​I think you first used that exact same insult in 2007 or 2008, can't you think of a new one​.

 ​

​>> ​

without matter and the laws of physics there can be nobody around to have a notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion of anything. 

​> ​

Then computationalism is false, because without matter, there is still computations which emulates your mind states.

​How on Earth does that imply ​computationalism is false?? I said computations need matter, matter exists, so computations exist, and computationalism says

intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed by the agent's brain, and brains are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.

 

​> ​

Computer science books does not compute, but still provides proof that numbers together with addition and multiplication do compute.

 Addition and multiplication

​ are computations, so you're saying computations compute. Well I can't argue with that.​

​>>​

maybe "God" means

​a​

n invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​ in that language​

,

​ 

but that's not what the

​what those words mean to me or to the English language.​

God means whatever needs to be assumed to get an explanation of the appearances.

​So the answer to EVERY question of the form "why does X look like that?" is God,  and that makes the word "God" totally and completely useless? 

​> ​

In math we always extend the meaning of the terms.

​In mathematics you create a name "prime numbers" for example and then define the concept by giving it certain specific properties; you don't  create a the name and then start endless philosophical discussions of if "prime numbers" are dividable by 3. And you don't invent the work "klogknee" and then try to figure out what the word means,    

 

​> ​

Playing vocabulary games does not help.

​You're accusing ​

 

​me of playing ​

vocabulary games

​?! You say God exists, but then you say God doesn't ​need to be a person, God doesn't need to smarter than a human, God doesn't need to be intelligent at all, nor does God need to be conscious. But nevertheless you insist God exists.

 And you accuse me of

playing ​

vocabulary games

​!​

 

​>> ​

I have no problem with definitions, just the claim that they have the ability to cause something to exist that didn't exist before. ​

 

​> ​

That has been refuted. 

​In your dreams perhaps. A definition can conjure itself into existence but nothing else, to claim otherwise is not just wrong it's silly.  ​

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Jan 2017, at 02:41, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>>​

​There is only one fundamental difference between your example and mine, cats correspond with something in the PHYSICAL world but dragons do not. Even in arithmetic a definition can't conjure something into existence. I can define "Klogknee" as the integer that is greater than 4 but less than 5, but Klogknee doesn't exist.    ​

​> ​

Here the difference is that I have given the axioms and the inference rules.

​But inference requires reason, and reason requires a brain, and all known brains require matter that obeys the laws of physics. ​

 

​> ​

This is like a creationist who would refute the theory of evolution because it contradicts the bible.

​I think you first used that exact same insult in 2007 or 2008, can't you think of a new one​.

 ​

​>> ​

without matter and the laws of physics there can be nobody around to have a notion, or a notion of a notion, or a notion of anything. 

​> ​

Then computationalism is false, because without matter, there is still computations which emulates your mind states.

​How on Earth does that imply ​computationalism is false?? I said computations need matter,

No computations does not need matter. I can explain if you don't want to study the elementary books on this. But from your tone I doubt you try to understand. It is impossible to explain something to someone who keeps repeating the same mistake again and again.

Bruno

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[John Mikes]

Bruno,

You seem to know so much about that Artifact "GOD" and that other one: our "subconscious". At least you say so about "HER". 

Why do you assign the topic to our Solar system to time the 'full answer' to at least 2 years (Solar, I suppose, otherwise "YEAR" has no meaning). 

We talk in human terms/ideas/concepts/logic.I left it open to the BEYOND. 

I agree ith your 'natural' world-image. 

JM

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Jan 2017, at 18:10, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno,

You seem to know so much about that Artifact "GOD"

It is not so much a question of knowing, than sharing some definitions, and then reason, or read reasoning made by others.

I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever.

Today's paradigm is that the material/physical reality is that one, and my point is that this is just logically impossible if we *assume* the mechanist principle.

Mechanism is the assumption that "my consciousnesss" is invariant for *some* digital transformation.

I am a scientist, so I know  nothing. I just show that mechanism is incompatible with all aristotelian theologies (the theologies which assumes the second god of Aristotle usually known as (Primary, Assumed) Matter.

and that other one: our "subconscious".

I have not used that term. I can use it sometimes to refer to the process(i am not aware of) occurring in the brain, in some local 3p-description.

At least you say so about "HER". 

Why do you assign the topic to our Solar system to time the 'full answer' to at least 2 years (Solar, I suppose, otherwise "YEAR" has no meaning). 

?

We talk in human terms/ideas/concepts/logic.I left it open to the BEYOND. I agree ith your 'natural' world-image. 

We talk in Löbian term. 

It is "your" problem if you identify yourself with human. I do not, or only partially.

The universal machine which observe-itself soon or later get the point of Theillard de Chardin: 

"We are not Humans having from times to times Divine Experiences. We are Divine Beings having from times to times Human Experiences.". With "human" replaced by *any* particular instanciation of universal machine (Löbian by theorem, when they believe enough induction axioms, like PA, ZF, unlike RA).

It goes well with Sri Aurobindo too:

What, you ask, was the beginning of it all?

And it is this ...

Existence that multiplied itself

For sheer delight of being

And plunged into numberless trillions of forms

So that it might

Find 

Itself

Innumerably (Aurobindo)

But for the (mathematical/logical/theological) details, Pythagorus, Parmenides, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus (and its followers) where the most closer to the Universal (Löbian) Machine's discourses. 

It might be a coincidence, but with computationalism, it just means they got the mean or the courage to look inward without lying too much to themselves, as *all* universal machine got it, soon or late. Sometimes from your post I think you got the main "modest" point, and just seem to lose it when thinking that humans are superior to the universal (Löbian) machine.

Keep in mind that your skepticism about machine's ability might be that "too much human" way-of-believing prejudice.

I don't claim any truth. I just show that mechanism is incompatible with materialism, and that mechanism (mainly Church-Turing thesis) entails non-materialism in a constructive verifiable way: physics becomes a branch of number/machine self-reference, so we can make the test (and indeed we get intuitoively and formally the quantum sme-multiplication type of weirdness).

We know nothing communicable. 

We just try to figure things out through communicable hypothesis/theories, and this without hiding consciousness, for a change, .. that is listening to what the machines already say, as well as to what they stay silent about, or assert conditionally.

Happy new year John, and Happy New Realms to All of *You* Who believe You are.!

Bruno

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017  Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​> ​

I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever.

​That's exactly the problem. Y

ou use the word "God" in such a ultra general unspecified fuzzy way that saying "I believe God exists"

​is​

 equivalent to "I believe stuff exists"

​;​

and neither statement contains information. You've taken one of the best known words in the English language and changed its definition so it means everything and anything. Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so you've rendered the word to be utterly useless. That's just what would be expected to happen from somebody who has abandoned the idea of God but still likes the ASCII sequence G-O-D

​ and enjoys saying "I believe in God" even though it no longer means anything.​

 

​> ​

I am a scientist,

​Scientists, unlike pure mathematicians, are interested in empirical results, and you have shown little or no interest in what experiment tells us. Pure mathematics can be explored by somebody just sitting in an armchair and thinking, but more needs to be done than that to find out new things in science.  ​

 

​> ​

the theologies which assumes the second god of Aristotle

​Aristotle was an imbecile, and

theologians

​ ​

​are even dumber because they have devoted their life to becoming experts in a 

field of study that doesn't exist. With theology there is no there there. 

​John K Clark​

[spudb...@aol.com]

So John,

Some years ago, Michael Shermer, noted atheist and publicist came out with a humorous, but serious, writing that he called "Shermer's Last Law." This was a take off on writer Arthur C. Clarke's "Clarke's First Law which stated: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Shemer wrote  "Any sufficiently advanced Extraterrestrial Intelligence is indistinguishable from God." 

Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of super intelligent fellow, who occasionally peaks in on what goes round, occasionally even our minor bit of rock and water. Should we go looking for him or her, along with the other happy space aliens, skipping about the Hubble Volume? I have wondered whether the "Lord of Hosts" was indeed a Boltzmann Brain who emerged from space time. Maybe, fiddled a bit converting the true vacuum into a false one? Maybe if we built better space telescopes,enormously, better, we'd find evidence, maybe? Most astronomers and physicists are keen on grav wave telescopes and neutrino interceptors, why not attach this as a sidebar task? 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

​> ​

Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of super intelligent fellow,

It takes more than being smarter that a ​human to be God, you've got to be omnipotent and have created the universe.  

 

​> ​

Should we go looking for him or her, along with the other happy space aliens, skipping about the Hubble Volume?

​If space aliens existed they should be easy to detect, the fact we haven't ​heard a peep from them makes me think they don't exist. And God existed then 

teleology would be at the heart of things rather than cause and effect, but we don't see the slightest hint of that, and God is just as silent as ET. 

 

​> ​

Maybe if we built better space telescopes,enormously, better, we'd find evidence, maybe?

​Better

 space telescopes

​ would be great but they're not needed for that. If God or ET existed it would be obvious to a blind man in a fog bank. ​

  John K Clark

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/15/2017 6:17 PM, John Clark wrote:

​If space aliens existed they should be easy to detect, the fact we haven't ​heard a peep from them makes me think they don't exist.

Or they are very far away on the scale of the duration of high-tech civilization times the speed of light.  There's a lot of room out there.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Jan 2017, at 00:10, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017  Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​> ​

I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever.

​That's exactly the problem. Y

ou use the word "God" in such a ultra general unspecified fuzzy way that saying "I believe God exists"

​is​

 equivalent to "I believe stuff exists"

​;​

Yes, but only for a materialist, which is just what is questioned here.

You can sum up roughly, using God in the general sense (nutral on hard difficult metaphysical choice) by:

Aristotle God = Matter

Plato God = something else from which matter appearances is or will be explained.

and neither statement contains information. You've taken one of the best known words in the English language and changed its definition so it means everything and anything.

You have take a general scientific definition, and you confuse it with a very special theory no-one serious in science ever considered.

Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so you've rendered the word to be utterly useless.

Not at all. With computationalism, I show that the Tarski notion of truth (well defined) plays the role of God in the machine's theology. It works until now, so we have empirical confirmation, and we cannot hope for more than that, except for a refutation.

That's just what would be expected to happen from somebody who has abandoned the idea of God but still likes the ASCII sequence G-O-D

​ and enjoys saying "I believe in God" even though it no longer means anything.​

 

​> ​

I am a scientist,

​Scientists, unlike pure mathematicians, are interested in empirical results,

OK. That's my point, to show that some hypotheses in theology can be refuted empirically.

and you have shown little or no interest in what experiment tells us.

? 

 On the contrary. This means you have not read the papers. 

Pure mathematics can be explored by somebody just sitting in an armchair and thinking, but more needs to be done than that to find out new things in science.  ​

Sure.

 

​> ​

the theologies which assumes the second god of Aristotle

​Aristotle was an imbecile,

You exaggerate a lot ... (to say the least).

and

theologians

​ ​

​are even dumber because they have devoted their life to becoming experts in a 

field of study that doesn't exist.

People who say that theology does not exist are just taking Aristotle theology for granted. 

But when you come back to the science, the first thing you see, is that we want to not start from a solution (God = Matter), but start from evidence, clear hypotheses and reason.

With theology there is no there there. 

Making here = there, but that is the point which has been refuted.

You claim not having a religion, and that Aristotle is an imbecile, but take its theology for granted. 

Bruno

​John K Clark​

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Jan 2017, at 03:17, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

​> ​

Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of super intelligent fellow,

It takes more than being smarter that a ​human to be God, you've got to be omnipotent and have created the universe.  

OK.

And we do have that the God of computationalism is omnipotent for the first order arithmetical truth (indeed that's its definition), and that he is responsible for the existence of the experiences, made by the universal numbers, of the appearances of the physical reality (that is a theorem in the computationalist theory of mind).

But spudboy100 point still make sense, because no machine can distinguish a machine a bit more complex than itself with an Oracle (in Turing sense, which is basically a generalisation of what I have called the One, God or Glass-of-orange-juice, in some posts).

Bt that is also the reason why appealing to God, or to something more complex than us, make no sense. That is why the neoplatonist insist that the notion of God must be simple, and certainly simpler than us.

 

​> ​

Should we go looking for him or her, along with the other happy space aliens, skipping about the Hubble Volume?

​If space aliens existed they should be easy to detect, the fact we haven't ​heard a peep from them makes me think they don't exist. And God existed then 

teleology would be at the heart of things rather than cause and effect, but we don't see the slightest hint of that, and God is just as silent as ET. 

 

​> ​

Maybe if we built better space telescopes,enormously, better, we'd find evidence, maybe?

​Better

 space telescopes

​ would be great but they're not needed for that. If God or ET existed it would be obvious to a blind man in a fog bank. ​

Assuming a small universe, but nothing prevents the existence of Aliens in far away galaxies, even if still observable by us, from what we know today. I see no reason to say that it is obvious that there are no Alien, because we would not have seen them already. "De mémoire de rose, on n'a jamais vu mourrir un jardinier" (Fontenelle).

Bruno

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[spudb...@aol.com]

Ok John, but your reply got me thinking.

What if God was powerful enough to create or alter the universe, but was not all-knowing, all powerful? 

On the technology thing, while we're building in the solar system, and looking at stellar data for this, that, and the other, my point is, might as well, check it out. Your point is, there's nothing to check. I could be asking for astronomers to search for pink unicorns as well, unless you think one of the pink unicorns is God?

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 15, 2017 9:17 pm
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[spudb...@aol.com]

Now this is true, in the same sense that last year some astronomers tried a new count on the number of galaxies, and the count increased from 200 billion, to 2 trillion, an order of magnitude, as they say. I mean, it's far, less, spectacular, than finding a super civilization at work, out their and maybe far in the past, or God, out their and maybe far in the past (sticking to special and general relativity), however it's still impressive. New things can and will be found if we improve our telescopes, etc...

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 16, 2017 9:33 am
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​> ​

Aristotle God = Matter
Plato God = something else 

People who say that theology does not exist are just taking Aristotle theology for granted. 

I have a dream that one

​day ​

​you will write an entire post without referring to the idiot ancient Greeks, I might not live long enough to see it but I have a dream. ​

​

​>>​

Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so you've rendered the word to be utterly useless.

​> ​

Not at all.

 

You believe that a invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​ 

exists, if you can't explain exactly how things would be different if a invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​ 

did not exist then your use of the word "God" contains no information.

 

​>​

 I show that the Tarski notion of truth (well defined) plays the role of God

​Now you've gone even further and twisted the meaning of the word "God" to such a extant that for a atheist to be consistent he'd have to say "I don't believe truth exists". So now everybody must believe in this thing you call "G-O-D" and you join the long list of people who are in love with the English word "God" but are uninterested in the concept behind the word; they just want to be able to say "I believe in God".  

 

​> ​

This means you have not read the papers. 

​I read your papers until they started to get silly, and then I stopped. ​

 

​

John K Clark​

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Jan 2017, at 00:37, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​> ​

Aristotle God = Matter
Plato God = something else 

People who say that theology does not exist are just taking Aristotle theology for granted. 

I have a dream that one

​day ​

​you will write an entire post without referring to the idiot ancient Greeks, I might not live long enough to see it but I have a dream. ​

​

See my early papers, or my theses. But I am a scientist, so I cite my sources, that's all. 

You criticize them, but admit (as it is clear) not having studied them, and you stick on the theology of one of them which you depreciate a lot without seeming to realize that you adopted it, and made it into a dogma. 

​>>​

Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so you've rendered the word to be utterly useless.

​> ​

Not at all.

 

You believe that a invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​ 

exists,

I believe in a truth that we can search. You say "invisible fuzzy amoral mindness blob", but I never say this. It is almost one open problem per words.

if you can't explain exactly how things would be different if a invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​ 

did not exist then your use of the word "God" contains no information.

God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the universe. Without God, we would not even discuss here, by definition of God.

You just seems to think that God is the universe, that *you* seems to see as a fuzzy amoral blob, actually. But with computationalism, I shown that you need to ad irrational magic in your God/Universe to make it select the computation(s) which support you. But we know you stop at the step 3 or the main argument, so ...

 

​>​

 I show that the Tarski notion of truth (well defined) plays the role of God

​Now you've gone even further and twisted the meaning of the word "God" to such a extant that for a atheist to be consistent he'd have to say "I don't believe truth exists".

Yes, that is sometimes called nihilism, and the first modern atheist were close to this, like LaMettrie, Sade, etc.

So now everybody must believe in this thing you call "G-O-D" and you join the long list of people who are in love with the English word "God" but are uninterested in the concept behind the word; they just want to be able to say "I believe in God".

Yes, you prefer to defend the use of the term by those who made it into a political instrument. I prefer to use it in the original sense of fundamental transcendental truth, and with mechanism, arithmetical truth plays that role for the machine/numbers.

You refuse to do theology because you want stick to the Aristotelian theology. But that is like giving the solution before starting the reflexion. 

 

 

​> ​

This means you have not read the papers. 

​I read your papers until they started to get silly, and then I stopped. ​

 

​

But when we asked you why you stop you provide contradictory statements and insults only. That is hardly convincing except that you are unwilling to ever change your mind on you religious conviction you seem not even aware of.

Bruno

John K Clark​

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[John Clark]

Bruno Marchal wrote:

​>> ​

​Betters

​ ​

pace telescopes

​ would be great but they're not needed for that. If God or ET existed it would be obvious to a blind man in a fog bank. ​

​> ​

Assuming a small universe, but nothing prevents the existence of Aliens in far away galaxies,

​

If you're talking about

​ ​

an infinite universe then I agree, but I think it's very unlikely space aliens exist in the observable universe because even

​ ​

if we make the ultra conservative assumption that

​ ​

ET can't send space vehicles any faster than we can

​ ​

they could

​still ​

send a von Neumann probe

​ ​

to every star in the Galaxy

​ in less than 50 million years​

, just a blink of an eye in a universe 13.8 billion years old, and then you wouldn't need huge telescopes to detect ET, it would be obvious to all.

​John K Clark​

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​> ​

God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the universe.

​That's exactly the problem, the large sense of the word "creator" is so large it becomes meaningless. Your God does not ​need to be a person, your God doesn't need to be intelligent, your God could be anything, even a random quantum fluctuation could be God. You can redefine a horse's tail to be a leg and then you can say a horse has 5 legs, but doing so will not teach you anything about the nature of reality or about horses.  The only reason you'd make such a redefinition would be you enjoy saying "a horse has 5 legs", and the only reason you're redefining "God" the way you have is you enjoy saying "I believe in God". 

 

 

​> ​

But we know you stop at the step 3 or the main argument,

​Yes, that's where you made your blunder, a blunder I've been asking you for years to fix but you have been unable to. ​

 

​> ​

you want stick to the Aristotelian theology.

​Aristotle was a imbecile and theology has no field of study.  And you've taught me to hate the ancient Greeks. I'm sick to death of them. 

John K Clark  ​

 

[Brent Meeker]

I don't think it's obvious that we could detect that a probe had been sent to a star.  And in any case the observable universe is very much bigger than our galaxy.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

​> ​

I don't think it's obvious that we could detect that a probe had been sent to a star. 

​It would be obvious if it was a self replicating von Neumann probe, just one probe could construct a Dyson Sphere around every star in the Galaxy in 50 million years, and that would be very hard to overlook. 

 

​> ​

And in any case the observable universe is very much bigger than our galaxy.

​If ET existed the observable universe would look engineered, and it doesn't. 

John K Clark​

 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 Jan 2017, at 19:04, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​> ​

God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the universe.

​That's exactly the problem, the large sense of the word "creator" is so large it becomes meaningless.

Not at all. In Plato-like theology, they use the word emanation. There is the ONE, often nicknamed GOD. From it, the NOUS (the Intelligible Reality, the World of Ideas) emanates, and, the Universe-Soul emanates from the Noùs.

Your God does not ​need to be a person, your God doesn't need to be intelligent, your God could be anything, even a random quantum fluctuation could be God.

The quantum physical world, without the vacuum, or other initiial conditions. Indeed. It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the theological assumption of the Materialist.

You can redefine a horse's tail to be a leg and then you can say a horse has 5 legs, but doing so will not teach you anything about the nature of reality or about horses.  The only reason you'd make such a redefinition would be you enjoy saying "a horse has 5 legs", and the only reason you're redefining "God" the way you have is you enjoy saying "I believe in God". 

 

Yes. for the same reason that we call 0 and 1 number. That's what we do in science. Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality, and maybe just that reality, helps to keep in mind that Primitive-Matter existence needs an act of faith. Nobody can prove its exoistence, and a materialist assumes that such a Primitive Matter is at the origin of all other realities (biologicl, psychological, etc.). It is your theology, apparently.

For our topic, you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in selecting some computation(s) among all computations.

The computationalist answer is that such God does not exist, and that there is no selection. The appearance of matter have to be explained by the statistic on all sigma_1 sentences, structured by the material hypostases. This can be shown to be possible only if the material hypostases ([]p & <>t (& p), p sigma_1) obeys quantum logic, and that is indeed the case.

 

​> ​

But we know you stop at the step 3 or the main argument,

​Yes, that's where you made your blunder, a blunder I've been asking you for years to fix but you have been unable to. ​

That is what some people have called a lie here. You have given incompatible answers, and many insults.  You are the only one to have a (psychological?) problem here.

 

​> ​

you want stick to the Aristotelian theology.

​Aristotle was a imbecile and theology has no field of study.  And you've taught me to hate the ancient Greeks. I'm sick to death of them. 

Read the book by Daniel J. Cohen (not Daniel E. Cohen). You will understand that not only physics and mathematics comes from Greek theology, but that modern mathematical logic is also a recent (19/20th century) attempt to come back to Plato, and to rigor in theology. You will also understand why this is well hidden, to the benefits of the clerical powers.

To say that theology has no field of study consists in siding with the clericals by letting the field in their hands, which confirms again, like if that was needed the de facto alliance between gnostic atheism and the charlatan. It makes also Aristotelian Materialist assumption into an implicit dogma.

Just explain how your God-Matter select the computation. Or read the literature to see why this has never work, or try to progress in the computationalist argument which explains why this cannot work.

Bruno

John K Clark  ​

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[spudb...@aol.com]

Hmmm

I tend to agree with John Clark's pessimism, on ET, but basically, question his axiomatic support (logically) of stuff like Von Neumann robots, and Dyson spheres. It indeed has logic to it, yet it it too is pure imagination. We are not sure, I am not sure, if the human species possesses Von Neumann capability, we'd decide to tear apart the gas giants to make one quadrillion, 4-bedroom ranch homes in the Earth-orbital suburb. (am American reference here, Dr. Marchal). 

What is far cheaper, energy-wise, is to doze in virtual realities, pretending we a Captain Kirk, or Harriet Potter, or the Donald. I mean, both the Dyson thing and Virch reality are a means to please the amygdala, if one is familiar with basic, human, brain structure. 

Secondly, nobody outside of what Dyson proposed years ago, and a few followers looking at Tabby's Star, knows what such cosmic engineering really looks like? What would your litmus test for space aliens, look like John, a galaxy of Blue shift stars, or something that looks like concentric rings? 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wed, Jan 18, 2017 7:31 pm
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/19/2017 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality, and
> maybe just that reality, helps to keep in mind that Primitive-Matter
> existence needs an act of faith. Nobody can prove its exoistence, and
> a materialist assumes that such a Primitive Matter is at the origin of
> all other realities (biologicl, psychological, etc.). It is your
> theology, apparently.

You're beating on your straw man. Nobody tries to prove the existence
of matter - it's an hypothesis used to explain the world. It's defined
ostensively. Whatever is the basic ontology of a theory of everything
can be nominated "primitive" - adding "matter" or "computation" or just
"stuff" doesn't add anything except confusion.

>
> For our topic, you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in
> selecting some computation(s) among all computations.

You don't need to explain that if you don't assume all computations exist.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Jan 2017, at 18:27, Brent Meeker wrote:

>
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality, and
>> maybe just that reality, helps to keep in mind that Primitive-
>> Matter existence needs an act of faith. Nobody can prove its
>> exoistence, and a materialist assumes that such a Primitive Matter
>> is at the origin of all other realities (biologicl, psychological,
>> etc.). It is your theology, apparently.
>
> You're beating on your straw man. Nobody tries to prove the
> existence of matter - it's an hypothesis used to explain the world.
> It's defined ostensively.

That is not the "matter" we are talking about. Ostensive definitions
works also in multi-user sharable video games. The matter you are
talking about is the matter of the physicists, who will, in its own
field, be neutral on the primary or not aspect of that matter.
Physicalism/materialism is a metaphysical assumption, not a physical
one. I am talking on primary matter, not the indexically ostensive
reality we assume beyond the appearances. The question is: is there a
physical universe, we agree that there is a physical reality well
described by the observers.
We were doing metaphysics/theology here, not physics. It becomes math
with the computationalist hypothesis, and the appearance of matter is
a very special sort of universal number persistent and sharable
hallucinations (say). As they are token precise we can test that
physics with the usual observations to see if that fits (and that fits
'till now).

> Whatever is the basic ontology of a theory of everything can be
> nominated "primitive" - adding "matter" or "computation" or just
> "stuff" doesn't add anything except confusion.

We don't need to elude the metaphysical question.

The problem, for the monist, is to explain the appearances, the
possible laws, from the less assumptions possible, and without hiding
realities, phenomenal or not, under the rug.

A theory of everything is a theory which unifies all domains of
sciences, and beyond, that is the relation between science and truth
based on the limitations of machines, formalisms and other finitely
describable things with respect to everything, notably the infinite,
which exists, or not.

>
>>
>> For our topic, you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in
>> selecting some computation(s) among all computations.
>
> You don't need to explain that if you don't assume all computations
> exist.

I'm afraid there is not much choice in the matter.

You miss the creative bomb of the 20th century. If you believe in
"there is no biggest prime number", you have to believe in all
computations. If you can survive a physical digital functional
substitution at some finite level of substitution, you need some
amount of magic to influence your first person indetermination on
(2^aleph_0) computational histories (on machine's computations +
Oracles) realized in a tiny part of the arithmetical reality, which is
assumed already by anyone believing in *any* theory rich enough to
define or represent a universal number, be it physical or not.

I just translate the mind body problem in arithmetic (using
computationalism), and then it happens that the universal machine has
already the propositional solution (G1, G1*, S4Grz1, X1*, Z1*, and
their differences with the same minus the "1", for the qualia).

Astonishingly, it works, at least for the quanta. I doubt such a
simple and transparent approach will continue to work, as improvement
in the dialog with the numbers will no doubt progress. The theology of
machines is something rather simple, compared to their psychology.
Biology and embryology are conceptually solved by Kleene's second
recursion theorem, and generalizations and exploitations by John Case
and his students, who have extended the work of Putnam, Gold, and
others on the theoretical learning theory, notably. Like in theology,
many results are limitations and no-go theorems.

I think you miss the discovery of purely mathematical, even
arithmetical Turing universal relations. Just for the beauty of it, I
copy again below a system of diophantine relations which defines a
Turing universal system.

Bruno

Only bad faith fears reason.
Only bad reasons fear faith.

The Putnam-Davis-Robinson-Matiyasevich-Jones Polynomial equations:

We have that X is in W_Nu, that is phi_Nu(X) is defined, that is the
number/machine Nu stops on input data X, if and only if the following
system of polynomial equations ha a solution. It is short, and one
degree is very high (5^60), but we can diminish the degree to 4,
easily, by introducing a lot of other variables though. We can also
limit the syetm to one equation. From this you can conceive that once
you believe that 2+2=4 independently of you, then such a system
polynomial equation has or not solution, but this encoded the entire
universal dovetailing, including the non computable redundancy.

Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y

ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2

Qu = B^(5^60)

La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5

Th + 2Z = B^5

L = U + TTh

E = Y + MTh

N = Q^16

R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + +
LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N)
+ [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1)

P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2

(P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2

4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2

K = R + 1 + HP - H

A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2

C = 2R + 1 Ph

D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga

D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1

F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1

(D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1


*you* emerges from the first person view on all solutions of that
equations.
The physical reality is given by the competition of infinitely many
universal numbers operating below your substitution level.
The bio-psychological reality the same, with finitely many universal
systems operating above your substitution level.

The goal is not doing a new physics. The goal is in applying reason in
metaphysics, and with the computationalist hypothesis, this is
almost ... metamathematics (an "old" name of mathematical logic).

Bruno



>
> Brent

[Brent Meeker]

The number machine Nu must be defined by some specific encoding.  The polynomials depend on X and Nu.  So what is an X and Nu for which they have a solution and what enumeration is phi_mu?

Brent
P.S. I can believe statements are true without believing their referents exist: "The Mad Hatter is insane and makes hats" is true.

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 

​> ​

In Plato-like theology

​ [blah blah blah]​

​Plato was an imbecile and theology has no field of study. ​

 

​> ​

 It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the theological assumption of the Materialist.

Theology has no field of study. ​

 

​> ​

 you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in selecting some computation(s) among all computations.

​I have no idea what "​

God-Matter

​" means, I very much doubt it means anything, but I don't need to explain how matter that obeys the laws of physics is able to perform calculations, I need only observe that is can.​ But you need to explain why pure mathematics CAN'T do the same thing without the help of physics. And please don't don't tell me about some textbook unless for the first time in the history of the world you've found as book that can calculate 2+2 or if you've found a book that is not made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.   

 

​>> ​

You can redefine a horse's tail to be a leg and then you can say a horse has 5 legs, but doing so will not teach you anything about the nature of reality or about horses.  The only reason you'd make such a redefinition would be you enjoy saying "a horse has 5 legs", and the only reason you're redefining "God" the way you have is you enjoy saying "I believe in God". 

​> ​

Yes.

Then we agree, if the word "God"

​ 

is redefined to mean

​ 

a

​ 

invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​ 

then "God" exists

​,​

and if a tail is a leg then horses have 5 "legs", there is absolutely no doubt about either conclusion. The only trouble is now there are 2 openings in the English language, one for a appendage that supports an animal's weight and provides it with locomotion, and the other for an

​

omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe. What new words do you suggest should stand for the old meanings of the words "leg" and "God"?  
  

​> ​

That's what we do in science

​ ​

Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality,

​So you're saying the sense of the meaning of the word "God" should be changed to whatever it takes so that someone can say "I believe in God" without sounding like an idiot. that is just what I'd expect from somebody who likes the way "I believe God exists" sounds but don't care what the words represent. ​

​And no, that's not what we do in science.​

 

​> ​

It is your theology, apparently.

The field of theology is just like the study of zoology, except that it's not about animals and its not a study.  ​

 

​> ​

The computationalist answer is that such God does not exist,

​

No not at all,

​ 

computationalists firmly

​think​

​ that 

invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​s exist, and I am resolute in my belief that "

God

​"​

is Real, unless

​declared​

 a

​n​

​ Integer. ​

 

​> ​

You will understand that not only physics and mathematics comes from

​ ​

Greek theology,

​I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very bad joke ​that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing for nearly two thousand years. And 

​NOTHING comes from Greek theology or anybody else's theology either for that matter.  

 

​> ​

and to rigor in theology.

​Rigor? You must be kidding, there is more substance to the study of a toy balloon after its skin has been removed than the study of God. ​

​Theologians produce a lot of hot air but unlike good ​

thermodynamicist

​s​

​ they do not examine those aforesaid gasses.  ​

 John K Clark

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/21/2017 5:33 PM, John Clark wrote:

​ I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very bad joke ​that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing for nearly two thousand years. And 

​NOTHING comes from Greek theology or anybody else's theology either for that matter.

You shouldn't be so hard on Greek physics.  It's Aristotle and Plato's "physics" writings that happened to survive and could be interpreted as compatible with Christianity got adopted by the early Church.  The school of Thales of Miletus was much better.  His followers had a lot of good ideas, and what's more they made measurements and observations:

Anaximander speculated that lightning came, not from Zeus, but from the collision of clouds. He made a map of the world.  Anaximander had a kind of evolutionary theory of the origin of life and of mankind.  He maintained that all dying things are returning to the element from which they came.   Pythagoras proved that the Earth was a spehere by noting that only a sphere could cast a circular shadow on the Moon for all alignments of the Sun, Earth, and Moon.  Aristarchus of Samos put the Sun at the center of the solar system.  He estimated the distance to the Sun and correctly inferred the order of the known planets.  He speculated that the stars were other suns that were very far away.  Democritus thought that the world consisted of atoms and the void, empty space in which the atoms fall down,  but  they didn't fall in perfectly straight lines – because then they would never interact.  He supposed that they “swerved” slightly at random so they interacted.  They had hooks and loops so that they could form combinations and it was different combinations that account for the variety we see around us. Eratosthenes of Cyrene, a mathematician, geographer, poet, astronomer, and music theorist. He was a man of learning, becoming the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria. He invented the discipline of geography, including the terminology used today.   He introduced the use of parallels and meridians on maps.  He's best known as the first person to measure the size of the Earth and the tilt of the axis of the Earth both to remarkable accuracy. 

If these Greeks had their ideas promulgated by the Church, instead of Aristotle and Plato's, physics would be 900yrs further advanced now.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

​> ​

You shouldn't be so hard on Greek physics.  It's Aristotle and Plato's "physics" writings that happened to survive and could be interpreted as compatible with Christianity got adopted by the early Church. 

You're probably right I overreacted, it's just that I've had a belly full of ancestor worship. However it's true that Aristotle and Plato's

​ 

physics was not all the physics that the Greeks had to offer, even if it was by far the most

​ 

influential and the only type that Bruno talks about.  

John K Clark

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Sun., 22 Jan. 2017 at 12:33 pm, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 

​> ​

In Plato-like theology

​ [blah blah blah]​

​<Plato was an imbecile...>

It's unreasonable to call Plato an "imbecile". Have you read any of his Socratic dialogues? They qualify as brilliant on the originality of their form alone: taking an idea and following it wherever it goes, the main value steering the debate being intellectual honesty. If this is imbecility then what terms would you use for, say, the speeches of Donald Trump?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Jan 2017, at 01:16, Brent Meeker wrote:

The number machine Nu must be defined by some specific encoding.  The polynomials depend on X and Nu.  So what is an X and Nu for which they have a solution and what enumeration is phi_mu?

The specific encoding is given by the polynomial itself. 

It means simply that if you make the number Nu vary on N, you get all polynomials enumerating the RE sets. The Nu is variable, and the proof that such W_nu will go through all RE sets is by the direct encoding on what is needed for that task, using many previous technic.  A universal polynomial  is a bit like coding Lisp in Lisp, a universal lisp expression.

If you choose Nu = 456, will give the X for which there are a solution, and those X are the elements of the 476th recursivley enumerable set W_456, in a universal enumeration (has proved by Jones, using technic of Robinson and Matiyasevich). 

It entails that there is a number Nu such that the set of X is the set of prime numbers, that there is a number Nu such that the X is the code of the grap of the function sending x on x^x, etc. Indeed, there will be an infinitely of number Nu doing that task.

It means also that there is Nu fro which there is no solution at all, but the verification of this (which is just by addition, multiplication and number comparison) will mimic exactly (that is emulate), a Universal dovetailing. But the UD itself will be implemented in infinitely many different, all encoded in the universal polynomial equation.

Adding computationalism, there is a number Nu such that the set of X justifies the existence of the computations supporting the person Brent reading the current line, again, there is an infinity of one, leading to the arithmetical inflation of histories (but constrained by self-reference and its meaning/truth nuances the hypostases) which limit the possible use of that inflation to refute computationalism).

The UD is used to formulate the "body" problem, not to solve it, as some people misunderstand sometimes. The "solution" is in the self-referential "theology" of the universal person.

P.S. I can believe statements are true without believing their referents exist: "The Mad Hatter is insane and makes hats" is true.

Yes, me too. That is why I can believe that "I am sending you a mail" is true without believing in a "material" mail, notably. What counts is not that 2 or 3 exists in any important sense, what counts is that 2+3=5 is true independently of you and me. That is enough for the web of dreams to be realized in arithmetic.  All form of effective existence are then given by the internal views of the numbers ( embedded in relative numbers sequences). Adding a special Reality which selects the realities is poor explanation with computationalism, and akin as invoking an oracle without evidence, and this before testing the observable reality).

Here the TOE is Robinson arithmetic, so s(s(s(s(0)))) exists just because RA proves Ex(x=s(s(s(s(0)))), but this is unimportant, we can use at the bottom any Turing universal machine, in the large but precise sense of Church, Turing, etc. 

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

careful to say Aristotle and Plato, as on theology they are quite opposite, and in theology, the early Jews (and Cabbala) like later the early muslims around the alevi, bektashi, and around soufism, will adopt Plato, or be very open to it. 

But you are right, greeks were good in science, and very often some best one are obscured by other best one. Sometimes we keep the entire work, like with Plotinus, but sometimes we lost the entire work, and get summary made by others, like with Moderatus of Gades.

The shame is just that theology, the scientific field, is still not back at the academy of science. Theology is just the fundamental science by definition, and its main vocation is to refute all positive theologies, but then there has been a miracle: the existence of the universal machine, which does explains anything, but she too, can already refute any normative theory which other machine could try to do.

I might be OK with you about physics being 900years further advanced, but the question is: in which theology.Still in Aristotle one, or in Plato one? The idea that physics is the fundamental science come from Aristotle (despite nuances can be made here 'course). With Plato, the necessity of an ontological commitment for a Physical Reality is questionned.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

Because Plato and Aristotle provides the only known conception or realities, and ask the first questions. You seems genuinely unable to understand that you defend all the time the second God of Aristotle, that is materialism, physicalism. So I am forced to recall you that other conception exists. And it is a whole rich historical thread leading eventually to modern mathematical logic. (The book by Daniel J. Cohen is quite revealing in that respect).

Let me simplify. In some platonist circle the believers were the believers in physics and nature. The non believers were believing in mathematics, and the physical was supposed to be explained by mathematics. This worked actually: it *is* the birth of the modern science, but instead of promoting mathematics and mathematicalism, people came back quickly to the bad habit in believing in some ontological physical reality, (the bread of the christ of the churches), and forget or hide that science has not yet decided between Plato and Aristotle *theology*. 

People saying that theology is crap are people saying that we cannot doubt Aristotle assumption of a physical reality. 

Bruno

 

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Jan 2017, at 02:33, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 

​> ​

In Plato-like theology

​ [blah blah blah]​

​Plato was an imbecile and theology has no field of study. ​

 

That attitude is the one that the radicals and the fundamentalist appreciate the most. 

Let us forbid reason in the field so that we keep the power of the credules that we can manipulate with terror and wishful thinking.

​> ​

 It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the theological assumption of the Materialist.

Theology has no field of study. ​

 

​> ​

 you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in selecting some computation(s) among all computations.

​I have no idea what "​

God-Matter

​" means,

I have defined God by the Origin/Cause/Reason of all things (matter appearances, histories, consciousness, ...).

When Matter is assumed to be the  Origin/Cause/Reason of all things, it plays the role of God, in the monist materialist metaphysics.

I very much doubt it means anything, but I don't need to explain how matter that obeys the laws of physics is able to perform calculations,

Yes, that is the easy part because Matter (the object of physics) has many varied Turing Universal Part, in both theory and empirically.

The problem for the materialist is not in the generation of consciousness, but in its statistical stability, due to the hugeness of the machine's first person indterminacy on all computations going through their states in arithmetic (or any grand enough physical reality, as examplified by the notion of Boltzman brains)

I need only observe that is can.​

No, you cannot observe that pieces of matter are Universal. In all case you need a theory. But grandmother physics is enough for that task. Again, showing that something is Turing universal shows only that it can sustain a computation, not that it can select a computation from the first person point of view of a subject. It just cannot work, or you rely on some non Turing emulable magic.

But you need to explain why pure mathematics CAN'T do the same thing without the help of physics.

This is long to explain. That is why it makes 700 pages when I explain this in all details in a self-contained way, but 99,9 % of it can be found in good textbook, and all you need to understand is the original definition of computable function, and the representation of computable function and computation by Church, Turing. 

And please don't don't tell me about some textbook

If you were willing to play the role of the fair candid, I could explain you. But you seem decided to not change your mind, and we all known you very great expertise in the art of dismissing what you want not understand.

unless for the first time in the history of the world you've found as book that can calculate 2+2

Like here, as I have told you that no book can calculate 2+2. Books do not belong to the type of things which compute. Only universal numbers do that, in arithmetic, or in a physical reality if that exists.

I have no clue if you are just joking ... I hope you are ... But I know that if I explain how numbers compute relatively to each others in arithmetic, you will come back with such jokes making hard to see if you misunderstanding is genuine or not.

or if you've found a book that is not made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. 

​>> ​

You can redefine a horse's tail to be a leg and then you can say a horse has 5 legs, but doing so will not teach you anything about the nature of reality or about horses.  The only reason you'd make such a redefinition would be you enjoy saying "a horse has 5 legs", and the only reason you're redefining "God" the way you have is you enjoy saying "I believe in God". 

​> ​

Yes.

Then we agree, if the word "God"

​ 

is redefined to mean

​ 

a

​ 

invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​ 

then "God" exists

​,​

It is the creator of reality, in a large sense of creator. It is invisible in most theologies, OK. "amoral"? open problem. "Mindless?" Perhaps? With computationalism, the role of God is played by the concept of arithmetical truth (a highly non computable concept), and it is easy to identify God has the one which knows the truth of all arithmetical sentence, but no need to take this as more than a simple metaphor. 

"

and if a tail is a leg then horses have 5 "legs", there is absolutely no doubt about either conclusion. The only trouble is now there are 2 openings in the English language, one for a appendage that supports an animal's weight and provides it with locomotion, and the other for an

​

omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe. What new words do you suggest should stand for the old meanings of the words "leg" and "God"?  

All dictionnaries contains the general philosophical notion of God. The term is useful for those who doubt Materialism. You can define God negatively by saying that it is what explain the conscious appearances of matter when you stop believing that matter is a good explanation for those appearances.

  

​> ​

That's what we do in science

​ ​

Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality,

​So you're saying the sense of the meaning of the word "God" should be changed to whatever it takes so that someone can say "I believe in God"

In science, even in the science about God, we avoid ontological commitment, so no one will say "I believe in God". That is implicit in Platonist like theology, but at the start we need to be neutral. We just study the conequence of computationalism, and the only "act of faith" which might needed to be done is in the case you actually say "yes" to the doctor. But that is not needed, as we reason in the hypotetico-deductive way.

Also, I thought we decided to not use God, but the One instead. 

without sounding like an idiot. that is just what I'd expect from somebody who likes the way "I believe God exists" sounds but don't care what the words represent. ​

​And no, that's not what we do in science.​

But you are the one insistaing that we use God in a sense which is so ridiculous. You are the one who want "I believe in God" be ridiculous.

The statement "there is no God" is still a statement in theology. You say that theology has no field, but you mock a theory since a long time by defending a theology shown incompatible with our best theories of mind.

 

​> ​

It is your theology, apparently.

The field of theology is just like the study of zoology, except that it's not about animals and its not a study.  ​

You illustrate again and again that people who mock theology are exactly those who defend their own theology, so much that they take their God for granted. That is the usual fundamentailist move. You evacuate all possible doubt we could have on your theology, where God-Matter is the one justifying the appearances. No problem, but I have proven that is is not sustainable when we assume, as you do, Digital Mechanism.

 

​> ​

The computationalist answer is that such God does not exist,

​

No not at all,

​ 

computationalists firmly

​think​

​ that 

invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob

​s exist, and I am resolute in my belief that "

God

​"​

is Real, unless

​declared​

 a

​n​

​ Integer. ​

 

​> ​

You will understand that not only physics and mathematics comes from

​ ​

Greek theology,

​I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very bad joke ​that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing for nearly two thousand years. And 

​NOTHING comes from Greek theology or anybody else's theology either for that matter.  

I discovered recently why even modern mathematical logic came from theological questioning based on the idea that Plato might be the one less wrong. I gave the reference (Daniel J. Cohen).

And it is known by any educated person that mathematics and physics came in great part from Plato and Aristotle.

 

​> ​

and to rigor in theology.

​Rigor? You must be kidding, there is more substance to the study of a toy balloon after its skin has been removed than the study of God. ​

Rigor can be kept in all domain, except if you forbid or mock or discourage its study. You say theology is stupid, but you mock all attempts to be serious with it, notably by defending the very contingent use of God in societies where powers stolen the scientific tools, a bit like the domain of Health. You could as well mock medicine, given that it makes people believe in crap like "dangerous drug". But it is not medicine which is not serious, it is human during some period of time for contingent greedy banditism. It is exactly the same with theology, except the period of oppression last since a much longer time.

Bruno

​Theologians produce a lot of hot air but unlike good ​

thermodynamicist

​s​

​ they do not examine those aforesaid gasses.  ​

 John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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