>>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,
> god is just the big things at the origin of everything.
> read serious theologian or philosophers.
> My use of God is close to Einstein one, Spinoza, Leibniz, St-Anselme, Gödel, Huxley,
-- Torgny
First I want to say Merry Newton's birthday!>>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 asack 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
--
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.
..I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is Arithmetical Truth...
And speaking of asack 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>And speaking of asack 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.
>> 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.
> if God did not exist, we would not have this conversation.
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
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 asack 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
--
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.
>> 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. "Animmortal personexists 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 anincorrect multiplication table. And a God that can't think is a pretty low rent God.
>>And speaking of asack 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, aninvisibleamoral 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--
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.
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 asack 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.
On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark 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. "Animmortal personexists 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.
> 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.
> the Aristotelian theology fails.
> God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause,
> which is the god of the platonist.
>You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it has not.
> (either Plato's God, or even Pythagoras" God
> In theology, the greeks were
> 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).
> 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.
> The correct arithmetical relations implements all computations
> Nobody is interested in 2+2=5.
> With mechanism, we have the good theory of consciousness,
>> 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.
> You Sir, are more catholic than the Pope,
> John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands in your path (spiritual) strike him down"?
John, isn't there a Buddhist saying by the Buddha, "If the Buddha stands in your path (spiritual) strike him down"?
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 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.
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 asack 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
--
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.
On 12/27/2016 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark 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. "Animmortal personexists 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.
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.
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
--
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.
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,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the question: How was God originated?)
3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious. Have you ever M E Tyours? 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
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 Tyours? 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
--
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.
> 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" GodTo hell with the ancient Greeks!> In theology, the greeks wereTo 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 hereIf 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 computationsAnd all correct computations need matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> 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 youI'm smarter than God because I can think and God can't.
>> 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.
> the question of knowing if the set of true arithmetical sentence thinks is also not an obvious one.
>> To hell with the ancient Greeks!> Which greeks.
>>To hell with the ancient Greeks!> I understand. You want keep Aristotle so much
> that you prefer not to learn anything about Plato.
> I think you confuse fundamentalist christian and educated christian,
> The notion of computation does not refer to any laws in physics.
> It is done in all textbooks on computability theory,
> You will not find one mathematician who disagree with this,
> and most physicists agree too, to my knowledge.
>>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.
>> 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 youone 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 sentencescan 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 muchI 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 butPlato 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 thenotion 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
--
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.
>> 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,
> The computations are done relative to the universal number doing the universal computations, and this does not need anything physical.
> 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
> 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.
>> 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,
> "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.
>> 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: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--
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.
>>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
> I can give more detailed, but you can consult a textbook.
>> 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.
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
How long do you suppose the Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is no personal God. God exists but He's aninvisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob."?I would estimate about .9 seconds.
>>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 numberingWhat!? 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 ?
>> 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 mathematicsyou keep talking about tell usthere 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 FasterThan 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 RealityDoes "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 clericalsHow long do you suppose the Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is no personal God. God exists but He's aninvisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob."?I would estimate about .9 seconds.
ApersonalGodwho might grant us immortality if we flatter Him enoughis 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 usefulto them as a screen door on a submarine.
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.
On 07 Jan 2017, at 02:42, John Clark 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?
>>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
> 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.
> 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,andRobinson arithmetic simulating a physical device simulating Robinson arithmetic simulating a Lisp universal program simulating that universal Turing machine.
> Is this OK for everybody?
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> ApersonalGodwho might grant us immortality if we flatter Him enoughis 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 usefulto them as a screen door on a submarine.
> Who care?
> 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.
On 1/7/2017 2:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jan 2017, at 02:42, John Clark 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.
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.
>>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 existA 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.
Andwithout 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 matterYou 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 ifRobinson 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,andRobinson 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".
Nothing can be explained without matter and the laws of physics because there would be nothing doing the explaining and nothing doing the understanding.
>> ApersonalGodwho might grant us immortality if we flatter Him enoughis 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 usefulto them as a screen door on a submarine.> Who care?1.2 Billion Catholics care and theycare very much! When they use the word "God" they mean something RADICALLY different from what you mean when you use thesame word,and that makescommunication almost impossible, and yet you insist on using thatsame damn word. And people wonder why philosophy gets so muddled.
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.
>>A definition can't make something exist!> Wrong.
> Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs 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.
>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,
>> 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.
>> 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 are telling me that 3 does not divide 6 when nobody do the physical computation,
> even physicist can no more use arithmetic without a justification in physics that 3 divides 6. But that does not exist,
>> 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 [...]
>> 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?
> then in your theory computationalism is false.
> No theories in math assumes anything in physics.
> Who care?1.2 Billion Catholics care and theycare very much! When they use the word "God" they mean something RADICALLY different from what you mean when you use thesame word,and that makescommunication almost impossible, and yet you insist on using thatsame 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.
> the modern catholic have no problem writing paper on the god of Plato,
>>A definition can't make something exist!> Wrong.Are you being serious?> Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs existingAnd I define a glodlyrapicul by adragon. Did my definition cause anything to come into existence?
> 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 somethingRobinson 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 Computationalisminto 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":"The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Asuperhuman 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 theycare very much! When they use the word "God" they mean something RADICALLY different from what you mean when you use thesame word,and that makescommunication almost impossible, and yet you insist on using thatsame 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
--
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.
> Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs existing
I define a glodlyrapicul by a>And 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.
>> 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?
> Yes, books does not compute.
> Only universal numbers, when implemented (in arithmetic, in physics, wherever..), can be said to compute.
> with computationalism, Physical computer do not exist primitively, they arise as common pattern in the mind of non physical computer.
>>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.
> See any textbook to get a definitipn of universal number in that theory,
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
> I could ask you to give me just one argument in favor of a primary physical reality.
> Do you mean inductive inference or mathematical induction.
> But Robison Arithmetic is the Universal Dovetailer, not the observer interviewed *in* Robinson arithmetic, which believes also in mathematical induction,
> It is not a question of language anyway.
> 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.
> Mathematicians can't derive the fundamental laws of physics> Why?
>Well, that is possible, but then you will not survive with an artificial brain. That's the point.
>> 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.
> Coiunterexample. I define a glodlyrapicul by a cat. That makes the glodlyrapiculs existingI define a glodlyrapicul by a>And 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.Maybe "computationalism" means that in Bruno-Speak,a language known only to you.
And maybe "God" meansan invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob in that language,but that's not what thewhat 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!
--
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 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.
>> 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 [blah blah blah]
> I think JC confuse "God" the concept, and one particular theory of God
> Plato was open that Aristotle theology could be correct.
> Only a charlatan would pretend that science has decided between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of
[blah blah]
> You might need to read the bibles:
>>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.
> This is like a creationist who would refute the theory of evolution because it contradicts the bible.
>> 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.
> Computer science books does not compute, but still provides proof that numbers together with addition and multiplication do compute.
>>maybe "God" meansan invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob in that language,but that's not what thewhat 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.
> Playing vocabulary games does not help.
>> 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.
>>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,
--
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.
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.
--
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,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.
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.
> I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever.
> I am a scientist,
> the theologies which assumes the second god of Aristotle
> Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of super intelligent fellow,
> Should we go looking for him or her, along with the other happy space aliens, skipping about the Hubble Volume?
> Maybe if we built better space telescopes,enormously, better, we'd find evidence, maybe?
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.
> 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. You use the word "God" in such a ultra general unspecified fuzzy way that saying "I believe God exists"isequivalent 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 AristotleAristotle was an imbecile,
andtheologians are even dumber because they have devoted their life to becoming experts in afield of study that doesn't exist.
With theology there is no there there.
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.
> 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 thenteleology 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?Betterspace 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--
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.
> Aristotle God = Matter
Plato God = something else
People who say that theology does not exist are just taking Aristotle theology for granted.
>>Meaning needs contrast and your "God" can give us none so you've rendered the word to be utterly useless.> Not at all.
>I show that the Tarski notion of truth (well defined) plays the role of God
> This means you have not read the papers.
> Aristotle God = Matter
Plato God = something elsePeople who say that theology does not exist are just taking Aristotle theology for granted.I have a dream that oneday 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 blobexists,
if you can't explain exactly how things would be different if a invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blobdid 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 GodNow 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--
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.
>> 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,
> God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the universe.
> But we know you stop at the step 3 or the main argument,
> you want stick to the Aristotelian theology.
> 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.
> 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
--
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.
> In Plato-like theology [blah blah blah]
> It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the theological assumption of the Materialist.
> you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in selecting some computation(s) among all computations.
>> 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.
> That's what we do in science
Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality,
> It is your theology, apparently.
> The computationalist answer is that such God does not exist,
> You will understand that not only physics and mathematics comes from Greek theology,
> and to rigor in 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. AndNOTHING 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.
> 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?
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?
P.S. I can believe statements are true without believing their referents exist: "The Mad Hatter is insane and makes hats" is true.
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.
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.
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.
> 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 meanainvisible fuzzy amoral mindless blobthen "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 anomnipotent 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 firmlythink thatinvisible fuzzy amoral mindless blobs exist, and I am resolute in my belief that "God"is Real, unlessdeclaredan 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. AndNOTHING 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 thermodynamicists 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.