Everything List Google Group

3D Mandelbrot

2009-11-19T05:32:01Z

The Mandelbulb: first 'true' 3D image of famous fractal

enjoy

Kim Jones

Re: The seven step series (november 2009)

2009-11-17T09:51:51Z

UDA has been constructed so that we don't have to answer this question
to understand that the physical laws emerge from numbers (assuming
comp).
It is just enough that we accept that there is a level of
substitution. Then we can prove that we cannot know-for-sure which
computations support consciousness, yet that we have to take into

Re: The seven step series (november 2009)

2009-11-16T16:45:04Z

I think closed time-like loops are probably impossible. But your answer
just points to possible equivocation on "person". The time traveling
Brent is a different person from the untraveled Brent because he has
different memories just as the 70yr old Brent is a different person than
the 10yr old Brent. But in another sense - causal continuity - they are

Re: The seven step series (november 2009)

2009-11-16T10:40:28Z

I come back on this. The question "how many persons?" is a question
which remains very hard in the mechanist theory.

To answer it, let me ask you a question. Suppose that old fashioned
time travel is possible, and that Brent Meeker of the future decides
to travel in the past, and to say hello to the younger Brent Meeker.

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-15T15:14:40Z

Fundamental science does care on what really is. But it is admitted by
serious inquirer that there are alternative theories.

They are related to a self-referentially correct universal machine.
Formal theories are just simple exemples of such machine.

The interest is that such machine discover that there is a

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-15T03:48:09Z

Science is neutral in the sense that science doesn't care what reality
is, but science assumes that there is enough regularity in reality that
theories about it can be tested. The unprovable truths you refer to are
always relative to a particular set of axioms and rules of inference.
So unless you have some way to limit "reality" to that set of axioms and

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-15T00:08:11Z

I know, but that is the fun. Life and everything interesting apperas
on the border of the non controlable.

Yes, indeed.

It is a theorem that is does not change the general idea. I have tried
the combinators, but the advantage of numbers is that their are taught
already in high school, and also, the most know Löbian machine, Peano

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-14T23:45:58Z

Yes, but if you use science 'against" them, you make science a pseudo-
religion, and you give them more braids. If we don't get back to
'serious" (meaning hypothetical) theology, pseudo-religion will
continue.

Even if you take the 'theology' of the universal machine as a toy
theology, it is remarkable how it explains the difference between

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-14T21:33:18Z

Many being a few thousand? But there are billions of Christians who are
*not* theologians and a large fraction of them (at least in the U.S.)
use their votes and money to make Christian dogma public policy.

When we disagree with the Earth being flat it is because we have a
better theory about the shape of the Earth.

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-14T16:48:04Z

Bruno,

you navigate into perillous waters. Your statements are extremely smart and
applicable - to a certain limit, at which they vanish into undecidedness.
You chose arithmetic thinking as your anchor to firmness - it is your choice
and it works for you. It does not work for me: I am still in the

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-14T09:20:54Z

Who them? Which Christians? There are many Christian theologians who
have reasonable (with respect to comp, or to the scientific attitude)
conception of God. The difference between some american and european
christians can be bigger than the difference between european atheists.
But once we know some group does not argue, but use authoritatively

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-14T00:33:53Z

Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell
them we're agnostic about God we will be telling them that we have no
good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good reason
to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws.

Does your eye ever become so critical as to reject a theory - not reject

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-13T23:27:22Z

Why should we use the term "God" in the sense of those who clearly
have confused science with temporal authoritative argument? The word
and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition, and refer
to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of infinite,
or inconceivable, in-something.

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-13T20:01:28Z

Hi Kim,

Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco's presentation. Very
nice talk. I appreciate a lot.

She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing: Science
is agnostic.

"I believe in God" (Bg) is a religious statement. (B = I

Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman

2009-11-13T17:44:02Z

Hi Kim,

Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco's presentation. Very
nice talk. I appreciate a lot.

She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing: Science is
agnostic.

"I believe in God" (Bg) is a religious statement. (B = I believe, g
= 'God' exists", "~" = negation)