BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

[John Clark]

Bruno Marchal Wrote:

 

>  I can conclude with considerable confidence that the neoplatonist are as dumb as dog shit for thinking they have made a great philosophical discovery by abandoning the idea of God but not the ASCII sequence G-O-D.

> They did, actually. The official term for the Neoplatonist is the ONE. 

 

And when they talk about THE ONE in deep stentorious tones they mean a grey amorphous blob that doesn't have the smallest speck of intelligence or consciousness that did something very important that they can't specify. They give no evidence for anything and they can't even speculate how the blob managed to do the very important blobish thing that blobs tend to do.

And these poor boobs think they are great philosophers who have made a wonderful discovery about how the world works.

>> Before about 1248 dead Greek philosophers had a iron grip on the thoughts of European thinkers. This period is sometimes called the Dark Ages.

> ?

!

>> About 1248 Roger Bacon made the first modest steps toward the scientific method and slightly loosened the stranglehold on imagination and creativity that dead Greek Philosophers had held for a thousand years. This period is sometimes called the Renaissance. 

> ?

!

John K Clark

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 May 2019, at 14:35, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno Marchal Wrote:

 

>  I can conclude with considerable confidence that the neoplatonist are as dumb as dog shit for thinking they have made a great philosophical discovery by abandoning the idea of God but not the ASCII sequence G-O-D.

> They did, actually. The official term for the Neoplatonist is the ONE. 

 

And when they talk about THE ONE in deep stentorious tones they mean a grey amorphous blob that doesn't have the smallest speck of intelligence or consciousness that did something very important that they can't specify. They give no evidence for anything and they can't even speculate how the blob managed to do the very important blobish thing that blobs tend to do.

?

I think this hosts you have not read Plotinus.

And these poor boobs think they are great philosophers who have made a wonderful discovery about how the world works.

They are scientists, and they never brag on anything. You did tell me not having red them, so it is weird why you attribute to them such curious and weird ideas.

Bruno

>> Before about 1248 dead Greek philosophers had a iron grip on the thoughts of European thinkers. This period is sometimes called the Dark Ages.

> ?

!

>> About 1248 Roger Bacon made the first modest steps toward the scientific method and slightly loosened the stranglehold on imagination and creativity that dead Greek Philosophers had held for a thousand years. This period is sometimes called the Renaissance. 

> ?

!

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1SdcQMWC8GE45pSw-n5g4PqR0LAZa2FmF0%2BtuQ94doGg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:29 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>> And when they talk about THE ONE in deep stentorious tones they mean a grey amorphous blob that doesn't have the smallest speck of intelligence or consciousness that did something very important that they can't specify. They give no evidence for anything and they can't even speculate how the blob managed to do the very important blobish thing that blobs tend to do.

?

!

> I think this hosts you have not read Plotinus.

I have not read what Og the caveman has to say about string theory either.

 John K Clark

[John Clark]

Bruno Marchal Wrote:

 

>> I see little point in reading a book written by someone who knows even less about how the world really works than I do. Life is too short to read every book ever written so one must use judgement and be selective.

 

> You confirme that you criticise what you have not studied. 

Yes, it takes very little study to conclude some books are of more value than others and reading a 2500 year old book, or even a 1500 year old book, will be of little or no help in solving modern physics mysteries. One does not need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad. 

> That is hardly rational.

You can not claim to have read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine which books are worth your time? And remember this is time that could have been spent reading some other book. 

 John K Clark

[Bruno Marchal]

On 2 Jun 2019, at 13:43, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno Marchal Wrote:

 

>> I see little point in reading a book written by someone who knows even less about how the world really works than I do. Life is too short to read every book ever written so one must use judgement and be selective.

 

> You confirme that you criticise what you have not studied. 

Yes, it takes very little study to conclude some books are of more value than others and reading a 2500 year old book, or even a 1500 year old book, will be of little or no help in solving modern physics mysteries. One does not need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad. 

It is only with the advent of Quantum Mechanics that physicists begin to grasp the problem of relating first person description and third  person theory. Ot out Everett’s wording, the importance of the difference between the subjective and some possible objective knowledge.

But that is just because the theological paradigm has been unchallenged since a long time. Before that, people (I mean the intellectuals) were totally aware of that problem, and indeed platonism was already a reaction toward the belief that realty is fundamentally, or ontological material. 

The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you have not even try to read them, and that add evidence that you seem unable to doubt your material hypothesis. That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your pejorative sense. Doing metaphysics or theology with the scientific attitude consists first in doubting all possible theories, and providing some test to evaluate them. There is no other method. Deciding that metaphysics *cannot* be done in this way, is the usual means by dogmatic people to conserve the metaphysics of their time, and make it unchallengeable. It keeps up the obscurantist statu quo.

Bruno 

> That is hardly rational.

You can not claim to have read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine which books are worth your time? And remember this is time that could have been spent reading some other book. 

 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0RrB9jJ_8QuzPqS%2BqtMmTQ%2BPUQCwpRH7MCtGsyUesBWw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you have not even try to read them

Well of course I haven't read them! Unless your field of study is ancient literature and primitive cultures only a fool would take the time to read a 2000 year old book, and the history of ancient wrong ideas is not a field of study I am personally very interested in.

> That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your pejorative sense.

Yeah yeah I know, I believe you may have mentioned that before, about 6.03 *10^23 times. But instead of repeating that old stale insult I wish you'd done something original, like answering my question; you can not claim to be able to read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine which books are worth your time and which books are not?

John K Clark

[Lawrence Crowell]

As a minor of mine in college was philosophy I have read some of these ancient texts. I have even read Aristotle's Physics, which is all wrong really. So of what use are these texts, or really philosophy in general? It is interesting to see how these ancient thinkers were groping in the dark. At least they were trying, while the later Christians just sat around and prayed about things. I find looking at errors in thought to be interesting, for it can well be that we are making now similar category errors with things. It may in some ways be that philosophy serves that role in general; it can help inform us where we are wrong.

LC

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 7:17:59 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

It is only with the advent of Quantum Mechanics that physicists begin to grasp the problem of relating first person description and third  person theory. Ot out Everett’s wording, the importance of the difference between the subjective and some possible objective knowledge.

Bruno 

This is perhaps the biggest of philosophical errors generated by physicists in history.

The contrarian view:

[If one views QM as a generalized measure on a space of histories, then one sees not only how quantal processes differ from classical stochastic processes (the main difference, they satisfy different sum rules), but also how closely the two resemble each other.]

via Rafael Sorkin

@philipthrift

[Bruno Marchal]

On 2 Jun 2019, at 17:02, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you have not even try to read them

Well of course I haven't read them! Unless your field of study is ancient literature and primitive cultures only a fool would take the time to read a 2000 year old book, and the history of ancient wrong ideas is not a field of study I am personally very interested in.

Mathematicians have been wrong on the harmonic series (1+1/2+1/3+…) for 18 centuries. It is a catholic abbe, Oresme, who solved the problem in the 16th/17th century, illustrating that the neoplatonist idea that theology is very close to mathematics was still in the (catholic) air. You would have dismissed it as you seem to judge people from the category they belong too (old, ancient, believer, etc.).

If mathematicians can be wrong 18 centuries on a specific question like the sum of the inverse of the positive integers, which was not consider as heretic or against the authorities at any time (unlike Cantor Set theory, for example), why would it be so astonishing that we are wrong in theology, a field stolen by the state since long.

Answer: may be because you have espoused the theology of Aristotle, which is based on the act of faith that there is an irreducible (to something simpler) ontological/primary physical universe. And that is not a problem, perhaps. But it is inconsistent if you believe/assume both a primary physical universe and Digital Mechanism.

> That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your pejorative sense.

Yeah yeah I know, I believe you may have mentioned that before, about 6.03 *10^23 times. But instead of repeating that old stale insult I wish you'd done something original, like answering my question; you can not claim to be able to read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine which books are worth your time and which books are not?

I work top down. My initial (childhood) question was “is the amoeba immortal?”. I found quickly (in library, bookshop) the book by James Watson “Molecular Biology of the Gene”, which will be my “bible” for a long time, and I will understand/conceive that the Amoeba’s self-reproduction is a “mechanical” phenomenon.

But “immortal” refers to infinity, on which I will inquire too, and will discover some book on Set Theory and Cantor to put light on this, up to the discovery of Angel & Newman little book on Gödel’s proof, which will make me realise that the conceptual solution of the self-reproduction problem is already provided in the arithmetical relation (to be sure, at that time I did not know Church-Thesis, and the continuum appearing in chemistry will make me doubt if the arithmetical solution present in Gödel’s proof could be applied to amoebas. But that will decide me to study mathematics after high school.

Then digging on this, I will be led to Kleene’s “Introduction to Metamathematics”, and meditate on Church’s thesis for a long time. 

Etc. 

So I work top-down, starting from the amoeba immortality question, and I only search a new book when I have difficulties in understanding a previews book. Immortality refers not just to infinities, but to consciousness, survival, etc, so it took not much time before I discover the field of theology, and that the Gödelian limitation theorems (which are based on that conceptual solution of self-reproduction, a point made clear by Kleene) provides clear (perhaps wrong, or different from what the author intended, but clear) arithmetical interpretation to neoplatonism (but also Taoism, especially Lie-Tseu).

Fundamental science is interdisciplinary. There are many books, but starting from a rather concrete problem (how finite things can refer to themselves and what they can know about that), the road (the sequence of books) is paved almost deterministically.

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3M0FAZKdeMXoj2NPk5gBqdz6kyndUOXkoq5uv4%3Dg%2BmZA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 3 Jun 2019, at 03:27, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

As a minor of mine in college was philosophy I have read some of these ancient texts. I have even read Aristotle's Physics, which is all wrong really. So of what use are these texts, or really philosophy in general? It is interesting to see how these ancient thinkers were groping in the dark. At least they were trying, while the later Christians just sat around and prayed about things. I find looking at errors in thought to be interesting, for it can well be that we are making now similar category errors with things. It may in some ways be that philosophy serves that role in general; it can help inform us where we are wrong.

Yes, and that works as long as the science/philosophy/theology is not used for special interest, which quickly leads to lies, like “big-pharma” has illustrated with health, and like all institutionalised religions illustrated with their dogma.

I don’t believe that science is a thing. Science emerges from the scientific attitude of some humans, and that attitude can be hold in any domain of inquiry, except in totalitary regime or dictatorships of course.

Bruno 

LC

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:02:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you have not even try to read them

Well of course I haven't read them! Unless your field of study is ancient literature and primitive cultures only a fool would take the time to read a 2000 year old book, and the history of ancient wrong ideas is not a field of study I am personally very interested in.

> That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your pejorative sense.

Yeah yeah I know, I believe you may have mentioned that before, about 6.03 *10^23 times. But instead of repeating that old stale insult I wish you'd done something original, like answering my question; you can not claim to be able to read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine which books are worth your time and which books are 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b8defbd8-b416-4d75-9aaf-3d2dd8c6d80f%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:18 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> you have espoused the theology of Aristotle, which is based on the act of faith

Congratulations, you have now repeated that exact same schoolyard insult (6.02*10^23) +1 times, you've broken through the mole barrier!  

 

> Mathematicians have been wrong on the harmonic series (1+1/2+1/3+…) for 18 centuries. It is a catholic abbe, Oresme, who solved the problem in the 16th/17th century, illustrating that the neoplatonist idea that theology is very close to mathematics

If a professional insurance salesman discovers a new comet with his backyard hobby telescope does that mean insurance is very close to astronomy? I guess for you it does mean that, after all you said atheism is just a slight variation of Christianity and believe my saying Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived means I have embraced Aristotle's ideas as an act of faith.

> I only search a new book when I have difficulties in understanding a previews book.

All you've done is state the problem, you still haven't explained how you make the selection, you can't read all old books and can't read all new books either: so how do you determine which new book is most likely to answer your difficulties in understanding something? I do it by listening to comments and reading reviews written by people who have given good book advice in the past and I then use induction to conclude their new  advice is probably good too. And not one of those people who I respect said reading a 2000 year old book will help anyone better understand any modern scientific or mathematical problem. Not one.

> Immortality refers not just to infinities,

Immortality means never having a last thought and the only way I know how to do that is with infinity.

John K Clark

[Bruno Marchal]

On 3 Jun 2019, at 14:24, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:18 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> you have espoused the theology of Aristotle, which is based on the act of faith

Congratulations, you have now repeated that exact same schoolyard insult (6.02*10^23) +1 times, you've broken through the mole barrier!  

There is no insult. The theology of Aristotle is the theology which assumes that there is an ontological physical universe. You have invoked it repeatedly in many post.

 

> Mathematicians have been wrong on the harmonic series (1+1/2+1/3+…) for 18 centuries. It is a catholic abbe, Oresme, who solved the problem in the 16th/17th century, illustrating that the neoplatonist idea that theology is very close to mathematics

If a professional insurance salesman discovers a new comet with his backyard hobby telescope does that mean insurance is very close to astronomy? I guess for you it does mean that, after all you said atheism is just a slight variation of Christianity and believe my saying Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived means I have embraced Aristotle's ideas as an act of faith.

The physics is wrong, which is nice as it means that Aristotle was clear enough to be shown wrong.

Then its theology, that you embrace, is wrong too when we assume Mechanism, and testable too, although this needs Church-Turing, Gödel, etc.

Unlike Philip Thrift and Penrose, you seems to assume both materialism and mechanism, which is very close to the base of christianity, which assumes a creation (a physical material universe, like you) and a principle of self-finiteness (like with Mechanism).

Yet, Materialism/physicalism and Mechanism are incompatible.

> I only search a new book when I have difficulties in understanding a previews book.

All you've done is state the problem, you still haven't explained how you make the selection, you can't read all old books and can't read all new books either: so how do you determine which new book is most likely to answer your difficulties in understanding something? I do it by listening to comments and reading reviews written by people who have given good book advice in the past and I then use induction to conclude their new  advice is probably good too. And not one of those people who I respect said reading a 2000 year old book will help anyone better understand any modern scientific or mathematical problem. Not one.

Criticising the scientifically-minded theology of the greek neoplatonist *is* so typical among christians. You really defend them all the time, DE FACTO.

> Immortality refers not just to infinities,

Immortality means never having a last thought and the only way I know how to do that is with infinity.

That would happen in circular model of time, like in Gödel GR universe.

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0mypGvD8s38UWfp9SZmR3SjMy7gGdihU-CoQ%2BDK3kguw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 

>> you said atheism is just a slight variation of Christianity and believe my saying Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived means I have embraced Aristotle's ideas as an act of faith.

> The physics is wrong, which is nice as it means that Aristotle was clear enough to be shown wrong.

Aristotelian physics could have been easily disproven even with 2500 year old technology, and yet for 2000 years any suggestion that it might not be flawless was met with derision if not violence. Physics would be more advanced today if Aristotle had never been born.  

> Criticising the scientifically-minded theology of the greek neoplatonist *is* so typical among christians. You really defend them all the time, DE FACTO.

The new total is now (6.02*10^23) +2. 

And I've already told you how I figure out which book is most likely to clear up my confusion of how the world works but you *STILL* haven't said how you do it.

>> Immortality means never having a last thought and the only way I know how to do that is with infinity.

>That would happen in circular model of time, like in Gödel GR universe.

But the Gödel GR universe is not the one I live in, my universe does not rotate.

John K Clark 

 

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0mypGvD8s38UWfp9SZmR3SjMy7gGdihU-CoQ%2BDK3kguw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1E21AB58-D37F-407A-B72D-544C3E883F20%40ulb.ac.be.

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Unlike Philip Thrift and Penrose, you seems to assume both materialism and mechanism,

Well according to you "I have defined mechanism by the idea that we can survive with a digital (universal) machine at the place of the brain", so by that definition I am a believer in mechanism. Materialism means nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications, and yes I believe in that too although it often more appropriate  to speak at a higher level; when I say "I've changed my mind" I mean I've changed my brain which means I've changed my neurons which means I've changed my molecules which means I've changed the velocity and position of my atoms. But it's usually better to just say I've changed my mind.

>Yet, Materialism/physicalism and Mechanism are incompatible.

The thing that's incompatible is the referent for the personal pronouns used in your convoluted thought experiments. 

 John K Clark

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 9:55:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 3 Jun 2019, at 14:24, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:18 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> you have espoused the theology of Aristotle, which is based on the act of faith

Congratulations, you have now repeated that exact same schoolyard insult (6.02*10^23) +1 times, you've broken through the mole barrier!  

There is no insult. The theology of Aristotle is the theology which assumes that there is an ontological physical universe. You have invoked it repeatedly in many post.

 

> Mathematicians have been wrong on the harmonic series (1+1/2+1/3+…) for 18 centuries. It is a catholic abbe, Oresme, who solved the problem in the 16th/17th century, illustrating that the neoplatonist idea that theology is very close to mathematics

If a professional insurance salesman discovers a new comet with his backyard hobby telescope does that mean insurance is very close to astronomy? I guess for you it does mean that, after all you said atheism is just a slight variation of Christianity and believe my saying Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived means I have embraced Aristotle's ideas as an act of faith.

The physics is wrong, which is nice as it means that Aristotle was clear enough to be shown wrong.

Then its theology, that you embrace, is wrong too when we assume Mechanism, and testable too, although this needs Church-Turing, Gödel, etc.

Unlike Philip Thrift and Penrose, you seems to assume both materialism and mechanism, which is very close to the base of christianity, which assumes a creation (a physical material universe, like you) and a principle of self-finiteness (like with Mechanism).

Yet, Materialism/physicalism and Mechanism are incompatible.

...

Bruno

I think this is the first time my name and Roger Penrose's appear in the same sentence. :)

I think Penrose and I are in the same ballpark and on the same team, but with different positions.

@philipthrift

[Bruno Marchal]

On 4 Jun 2019, at 17:42, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 

>> you said atheism is just a slight variation of Christianity and believe my saying Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived means I have embraced Aristotle's ideas as an act of faith.

> The physics is wrong, which is nice as it means that Aristotle was clear enough to be shown wrong.

Aristotelian physics could have been easily disproven even with 2500 year old technology, and yet for 2000 years any suggestion that it might not be flawless was met with derision if not violence.

That is not Aristotle fault, but the fault of abandoning the most fundamental science to “politics”. With the Renaissance, only a part of science has been freed from “authority”.

Physics would be more advanced today if Aristotle had never been born.  

That is hard to refute, or to prove.

> Criticising the scientifically-minded theology of the greek neoplatonist *is* so typical among christians. You really defend them all the time, DE FACTO.

The new total is now (6.02*10^23) +2. 

And I've already told you how I figure out which book is most likely to clear up my confusion of how the world works but you *STILL* haven't said how you do it.

>> Immortality means never having a last thought and the only way I know how to do that is with infinity.

>That would happen in circular model of time, like in Gödel GR universe.

But the Gödel GR universe is not the one I live in, my universe does not rotate.

How do you know that? We don’t have yet a picture of what is beyond the observable universe, nor do we have even a coherent theory of the physical universe. We have to jewels: QM and GR, but they are insistent when taken together, and both would contradict Mechanism (the hypothesis in cognitive science) if taken as the fundamental theory.

Bruno

John K Clark 

 

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0mypGvD8s38UWfp9SZmR3SjMy7gGdihU-CoQ%2BDK3kguw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1E21AB58-D37F-407A-B72D-544C3E883F20%40ulb.ac.be.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1sgpYi7Ns%2BOE%2BJMNZskkH3q_KySAOWAXu3mxjF4Fr2%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 4 Jun 2019, at 18:10, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Unlike Philip Thrift and Penrose, you seems to assume both materialism and mechanism,

Well according to you "I have defined mechanism by the idea that we can survive with a digital (universal) machine at the place of the brain", so by that definition I am a believer in mechanism.

OK.

Materialism means nothing exists except matter and its movements

Everyone believe in matter. But Materialism assumes that we cannot explain Matter from anything else. So it assumes that some matter or primary physical object have to be assumed in a theory of everything.

Materialism is just a popular variant of physicalism. 

and modifications, and yes I believe in that too although it often more appropriate  to speak at a higher level; when I say "I've changed my mind" I mean I've changed my brain which means I've changed my neurons which means I've changed my molecules which means I've changed the velocity and position of my atoms. But it's usually better to just say I've changed my mind.

>Yet, Materialism/physicalism and Mechanism are incompatible.

The thing that's incompatible is the referent for the personal pronouns used in your convoluted thought experiments. 

You told me this a billions times (so to speak), but each time you have erased the 1p and 3p distinction which were the key point to grasp to get the thought experiment right, I’m afraid. 

If you reject the first person indeterminacy, it is up to you to provide an argument such that the guy in Helsinki is able to predict the first person experience that *he* will lived, as a first person, that is defined indexically in both places (Washington and Moscow) given that we have already agree that he survived at both place, but from the first person indexical way. 

Of course that is impossible, but that is the point of the first person indeterminacy. Despite the Helsinki guy survived with P = 1, neither P(W/H), nor P(M/H) is equal to one, as both first persons indexically confirms in their diary after the experience.

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv04SgWT%2BUQwsQMAWLS36Lgk3yA-wRf8yojugv_eUPtMOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:30 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 >>>That would happen in circular model of time, like in Gödel GR universe.

>>But the Gödel GR universe is not the one I live in, my universe does not rotate.

>How do you know that?

The short answer is by looking at the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The long answer is::

Scientists confirm the universe has no direction

John K Clark

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 9:30:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 4 Jun 2019, at 17:42, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 

>> you said atheism is just a slight variation of Christianity and believe my saying Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived means I have embraced Aristotle's ideas as an act of faith.

> The physics is wrong, which is nice as it means that Aristotle was clear enough to be shown wrong.

Aristotelian physics could have been easily disproven even with 2500 year old technology, and yet for 2000 years any suggestion that it might not be flawless was met with derision if not violence.

That is not Aristotle fault, but the fault of abandoning the most fundamental science to “politics”. With the Renaissance, only a part of science has been freed from “authority”.

Physics would be more advanced today if Aristotle had never been born.  

That is hard to refute, or to prove.

> Criticising the scientifically-minded theology of the greek neoplatonist *is* so typical among christians. You really defend them all the time, DE FACTO.

The new total is now (6.02*10^23) +2. 

And I've already told you how I figure out which book is most likely to clear up my confusion of how the world works but you *STILL* haven't said how you do it.

>> Immortality means never having a last thought and the only way I know how to do that is with infinity.

>That would happen in circular model of time, like in Gödel GR universe.

But the Gödel GR universe is not the one I live in, my universe does not rotate.

How do you know that? We don’t have yet a picture of what is beyond the observable universe, nor do we have even a coherent theory of the physical universe. We have to jewels: QM and GR, but they are insistent when taken together, and both would contradict Mechanism (the hypothesis in cognitive science) if taken as the fundamental theory.

Bruno

It is unlikely, or at least if the universe rotates is is very small. A rotation frame drags spacetime, and for the Gödel universe that rotates as a stationary set of point then for points removed from the spatial center this frame dragging becomes enormous. There is even an event horizon generated. Also even regions inside the horizon scale have geodesics that will time loop, where in fact the only geodesic that will not time loop is one passing through the center and normal to the spatial surface. This is problematic for the spatial surface at any time can't contain unique Cauchy data. 

LC

 

[Bruno Marchal]

To be franc, I have not enough expertise in GR to measure the impact on this. I can imagine slowing down the rotation to make the drag as small as possible, but that is only a guess. Then, I am not Aristotelian: I don’t believe in what I see (take this with some grain of salt).

Bruno

“De mémoire de rose, je n’ai jamais vu mourrir un jardinier” (Fontenelle).

LC

<A-map-of-the-future-lightcones-of-the-Goedel-universe.png>

 

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c6e796bb-5d97-401a-a977-696dd759d8b7%40googlegroups.com.
<A-map-of-the-future-lightcones-of-the-Goedel-universe.png>

[Philip Thrift]

This I know:

I can understand >95% of what Bruno writes, and <5% of what Lawrence writes. 

@philipthrift