Hi Bruno

I understood you. But, I dare to point out to you a simple and obvious fact, obvious to any true philosopher or artist. If there is no understanding of this fact, there is neither an artist nor a philosopher. One emptiness of the verbal pons.

Here is the fact:

There is no new knowledge, there is only oblivion and revival of the ancient myth of the human mind. If there is no this myth about the mind of man, there is no rational man.

Only madmen argue about the structure of the universe. Empedocles also noticed that this dispute only demonstrates the structure of the mind of the person himself. Reason is the universe, but what we see or do not see in life is part of it. The mind is bigger.

Aristotle said: Any question is an indication of a contradiction in the words of the interlocutor and any answer is an argument for the absence of such a contradiction. The main thing is that both the question and the answer have one basis. This basis is a consistent unity of question and answer lost by the debaters. Either they will find him and the dispute will cease as unnecessary, or this is a meaningless murmur and the debaters themselves do not understand what they are saying. That is what you call lost rationality.

Bruno:

I can agree, but it is still a bit fuzzy, so I cannot be entirely sure if we mean the same. I just want to be honest, and I am a simple mind, which is probably why I like Mechanism, which necessitates only to agree that x + 0 = x, and things like that, then I let the mystery re-appearing as naked as possible

Who does not have clarity? I understand everything.

If personally you are not sure about something, you should honestly say "I do not understand." And do not look for contradictions in the words of the interlocutor. Do you agree?

You say: "we are still far from having a notion of space, or of particles" - but, I’m not everything, I personally understand everything both time and space and particle. I set out my views earlier. This is not the final result, this is a stage on the eternal path to understanding the design of nature.

What man calls knowledge is an echo of the myth of his rationality. These reflections of the mind are fragmented and unevenly distributed among all people. But this fragmentation of knowledge does not mean its absence.

Physical laws? Correctly call them terms (combinations of the three primary elements: mass, time and distance) - just semiotic signs. These are elements of the human language about nature, not nature. Nature is continuous. Signs are a language. They have a structure, it is natural.

Physics is a hallucination. The matrix of physical terms is simple and straightforward. But the path to it was long and difficult. When there is no understanding that a physical law is just a sign indicating nature - it took centuries to discover every new sign. Now all the signs are open and there is a new question? And what do we want to say in this language to each other?

It’s already impossible to justify a lie by not understanding the matrix.

Send a better link to the texts of your machine of theology, it is very curious that she told us specifically. Thank!

Bruno:

I am not sure to understand what you mean by matrix, but also I am not sure of your premise. I am a simple mind which eventually needs an equation or a formal theory to start with. That is made possible by the Digital Mechanist hypothesis. But nature does not exist per se, and cannot be referred to (unless conditionally). I am not sure why you say "do not look into the contradiction of the words of the interlocutor). I use Mechanism because it transforms the mind-body problem into a mathematical problem. I cannot use any term of physics, like time, space, mass, etc. Maybe those links can help for the machine theology":
Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157

Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993

B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

Plotinus PDF paper with the link:
Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf

Marchal B. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2017, Vol. 131, pp. 251-260.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919132

Marchal B. Religion, science and theology, similarity and differences, Dialogo Journal, 2018, Vol. 5, pp. 205-218.
(available at http://www.dialogo-conf.com/archive/)

Thank! I Saved the links. I’ve already read something, I’ll read the rest.

But, these are just your words about the theological machine, the discourse of the university. but not the words of the machine itself, it must be assumed that it is beyond any discourse.

The theory of an object is not equal to an object.

If a theological machine exists, then what did she herself say?

The matrix is ​​easy. It is a myth. He is the foundation. Everything else is its parts. The unity of everything. There is no understanding of the matrix of reason - there is no reasonable person either. There is a monkey with an iPhone in one hand and a grenade in the other.

I would like to understand the operating system of the theological machine. Who knows, maybe this is the matrix? After all, a person has nothing.

an example of individual parts of a matrix is ​​the theory of everything, a unified field theory.

the matrix is ​​not about physics, but there is a physicist look at the matrix.

the matrix combines all physicists into a single system:
the mechanics of Galileo and Newton,
thermodynamics
electrodynamics
nuclear physics
physical chemistry
quat mechanics
quantum chromodynamics
standard model
and much more ... not yet open:
unified field theory,
theory of gravity.

Einstein did not create anything new, he just retold Newton. But he contributed to the matrix, the matrix theory is a logical development of the theory of relativity.

biology is the next step in interpreting the matrix

With Mechanism, the matrix is ​​entirely given by very elementary arithmetic, or even just the two laws Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz (yz). We have somehow just regressed since Pythagorus. But everything which could be physically correct must be justified by a statistics on all computations (which exists already in elementary arithmetic). It is like this:
NUMBER ==> DREAMS ==> PHYSICAL APPEARANCES (then human consciousness, human conception of numbers and human physics). We can use empirical physics to refute Mechanism, by comparing the physics in the head of the machine with what we observe, but we cannot postulate the physical, we have to derive it from the two equations above, or from x + 0 = x and similar.

 studied at the physics department of the university and am well acquainted with the discourse of the university. I have already substantiated my law on nature. That was said thousands of years ago. There was no opposition. But a conflict of discourses arose.

What you write about is what I call the Don Quixote Windmill. This is not indicated by God, but by man himself. The theory of an object is not equal to an object. This means that there is just that. University means social status and nothing more. All talk about science is for sucker.

Man himself will create confusion in his head.

In my firm belief, one can speak only when these windmills are defeated. If not, these are semantic hallucinations and meaningless mutterings. The interlocutor is not subjective. The introduction of knowledge about her in his own speech. Simply no.

The university is not interested in knowledge; its interest is an authoritative researcher (citation index). The days of Galileo and Newton are long gone. Science has long become fiction. It makes no sense to repeat the socially conditioned mantras of the university. They are reasonable, there is to understand their purpose.

The question is different, how do we live on? Someone does not understand this problem. Dot.

Some universities are not interested in knowledge, or are, but cannot do the research due to politics, or due to some sects/church/temple sort of clubs. Some can hide results, despite peer reviewed, published, and just because it does not fit with their personal conviction. Today, may people still believe that we can believe in both Mechanism (Descartes, Darwin) and in physics as fundamental science, but I have refuted this 40 years ago, and constructively, i.e. showing how the recover the appearance of the physical from the "psychology or theology" of numbers. It might be coherent or not with your ideas. If it is, it has to be derived from elementary arithmetic (or it needs to assume some amount of non-mechanism).

The problem is that instead of solving the problem, we just talk about it, this creates the problem.

Why is this happening? - meets the theory of the matrix. Through the sign of the matrix of reason in the soul, we eliminate the unreliability of words about the mind. Reason = words. This is a special sign. If he is not, there is nothing to talk about.

Reason manifests itself as a matrix. To not understand this is to not have clarity of thought.

I am glad that you understood something of your own 40 years ago.

But you are only talking about this event. How about the fact. I believe you, but the prelude dragged on, I want to hear what your soul, which has found a voice, says.

But I don’t hear anything. Some words about the theory of the object.

Let me tell the object itself. Words are just a language, a pointer to an object in the soul. Thank!

I read your article "Computational reformulation of the problem of the mind and body"

1. Your term "Plato theology" is embarrassing - Christianity is the icon of Platonism. Plato himself spoke of something else.

2. Plato and Aristotle spoke exactly about the same thing. Wandering Thomas Aquinas is the unity of both theories (Plato and Aristotle). Must read the originals. Differences arise only in retelling. This is a distinction of retelling, meaning hallucinations.

I continue reading, but doubt has already arisen in the basic thesis. I don’t see the problem you are solving. There is simply no problem. If there is a distortion of meaning in the rewriting of Plato and Aristotle. Then you must honestly say "my understanding of Plato, which I myself have not read ..."

In my opinion, there is another, much more interesting problem of semantic gallcinization when reading the retelling of Plato and Aristotle. This is probably the "loss of rationalism" that you are talking about. The solution is to read the original. Plato and Aristotle themselves described a matrix of thinking. Perhaps the matrix is ​​the machine of theology. The operating system of human thinking. The structure of the language.

I assume that you have found the mistake of the scribes, but you have associated such a mistake with Plato and Aristotle themselves. I will be glad to point you to this. It was not Plato and Aristotle who made the mistake, but their scribes.

Of course, there are many people who do not distinguish the text of Plato from its forgery and believe the loader. But, as a minimum, Michael and I do not belong to them. Why should we not solve our problem? At least to me?

If you solved this problem in your own way, then this is very good. At the university, this decision is called postmodernism. Congratulations! You have formulated your version of postmodernism.

But, the piquancy of the situation is that postmodernism is the revival of the teachings of Plato, the liberation of it from the distortions of the retellers. Postmodernism is 50 years old.

I come from biology. I identified myself with amoeba, and I was about deciding to become a biologist when I read Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" where I discover the universal machinery. Fortunately I discovered the little book by Nagel and Newman "Gödel's Proof", and I realised that arithmetic contains a universal machinery. I decided to study mathematics instead of biology, and got the result that if Mechanism is true, arithmetic is the theory of everything and there is no physical universe which can be assumed. Much later I have been told that my result was not original, and I searched what that meant, and eventually discovered Plato and the Neoplatonist which have a similar "theology". I use Plato and Plotinus since, mainly for pedagogical reasons, and to cite the predecessor and be honest. Since then, and with prohibition (a symptom of collective madness) I tend to believe that science is born with Pythagorus (-500) and science stopped with Damascius (+500) with the closure of Plato's academy, and the separation of theology/philosophy from science, leading to the Middle-age and obscurantism. To me Plato is just the doubt about the existence of the physical universe as an ontological thing. What I can explain (and prove) is that if we take Descartes (Watson!) Mechanism, then the theory of everything (mind and matter) has to be elementary arithmetic, and physics has to be entirely recovered from a statistic on infinitely many computations (which is what I found when I was a kid), and eventually I realise this is confirmed by quantum mechanics. I did have underestimated the attachement of my fellows for their belief in some primary physical universe, and they might be true, but then Mechanism has to be false. But up to now, in the technical details, the physical reality confirms the "theology of the machine" (the modal logics G and G*, and their intensional variants), so I find Mechanism plausible. With the Renaissance, the natural science have come back to Science, but theology/philosopy (the fundamental science by definition) remains in the hands of the charlatans (which explains the current obscurantism, which lasts since 1500 years). I am not sure that there is a revival of Plato. Most scientist and philosopher were unable to doubt physicalism and weak-materialism (the belief in some primary matter). I like precise statement and proof. The reason I like Digital Mechanism is that it makes the mind-body problem into a problem of mathematics, and it took me 30 years to solve it at the propositional level, and this enough to recover the propositional quantum logics (in my youth, I got the quantum computer well before I understood that empiricist physician were almost there). Most serious scientists understood my work, and made pressure so that I defend it in a PhD thesis. But I do have problem with materialist (and influant) philosophers, who I have never been able to met them, so it is only behind my back, and it has noting to do with science, but rather with the defence of the philosophical curriculum, which confines my "obscurantist" feeling for our current period. I think we will leave the Middle-Age, when non confessional theology is back to science, but this can take time.

Hi Bruno!
The mention of Godel is pleasing.

Nature is continuous. Of course, a person breaks it into opposites and coordinate axes, this is its matrix. But man himself connects opposites with a concept. This is our human mind, it is contradictory.

Of course there is collective madness, but there is reason, as the unity of all opposites.

Obscurantism is adjacent to postmodernism. Each in its place.

The revival of Plato is, believe more! The world is very large, not all people are crazy.

All are signs. Your message is the same. The sign counted and understood. But there is also a computer user called humanity. We are ourselves.

I’ll still say: you are telling the story of your spiritual discovery, but not this discovery itself. I believe you, you do not need to prove anything. Just tell me what the theology machine told you. I'm just curious.

And you need to prepare the exhibition. Otherwise, why did Mikhail gather us here. It is necessary to inform those who can understand what is understood by us. It is a duty.

I believe only in 0, 1, 2, 3, ... and the laws of addition and multiplication. from this I can explain how the hallucination of nature arise, why it obeys the (quantum) laws, why the quanta are different from the qualia, why Nature is (indeed) continuous, etc. and all this in a testable way. It is hard to sum up my work, as I have worked 30 years alone, and all what I do relies on Gödel's 1931 incompleteness result (and also his 1930 completeness theorem). What many people miss is that elementary arithmetic is Turing universal. If you are willing to believe that 1+1=2 in some absolute sense, then all computations exists in that sense, and the physical illusion/dream arise from the fact that we are disperse in infinitely many exemplars in the arithmetical reality, and the physical emerges from the statistics on all (relative) computations. I predicted quantum physics by myself a long time before I realised that experimental physicists were already there, so I tend to take it as a confirmation of mechanism, until now. I will think about a way to summarise this, but I can also give the references to my last papers (not mentioned in my university URL, which I should update since 2007...).

Спасибо! Конечно пришлите ссылки на статьи. Ваши работы очень интересны.

Теперь вы не один 

и здесь - не злобный университет, 

мы готовим выставку. Это не выставка слов. Но на ней Вы можете сказать: 

1, 2, 3, 4

1+0=1

И этого достаточно. Идея проявлена.

Hi Michael! Bruno and I agreed, the contours of the exhibition I understand. 1234 1 + 1 = 2. This is a "new theology." This is the name of the exhibition.

Now your thought is required:

where and how to organize the exhibition?

How to connect with the Greek language and philosophy?
It’s easy to connect with blockchain - these are its origins in ancient Greece.

I have an idea - let Bruno’s machine pronounce the text of the theory of Aristotle and Plato, and even better - Homer. And Marcos. The goal is one, to see life as it is - 1234 1 + 1 = 2.

Arithmetic poetry.

How does Renata devote to this topic?

Sound patterns are also good. But, this should be our sound 1234 1 + 1 = 2. Talk to the composer?

Will Andreas Zenonos help us all?

Where will we find the money?

And where is the gallery owner?

OK,

. Thanks for the kind words.
I thought I already gave them, but here are some of my last papers. Some are directly available, other needs institution passwords, but I can send them individually.

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157

Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993

B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

Plotinus PDF paper with the link:
Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf

Marchal B. The East, the West and the Universal Machine, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2017, Vol. 131, pp. 251-260.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919132

Marchal B. Religion, science and theology, similarity and differences, Dialogo Journal, 2018, Vol. 5, pp. 205-218.
(available at

OK. Thank!
I will read articles

but the contours of the exhibition are already clear to me.

Send a photo of the machine of theology.

1234 1 + 1 = 2. This is a "new theology." This is the name of the exhibition.

I have an idea - let Bruno’s machine pronounce the text of the theory of Aristotle and Plato, and even better - Homer. And Marcos. The goal is one, to see life as it is - and this: 1234 1 + 1 = 2.

Arithmetic poetry.

Sound patterns are also good. But, this should be our sound 1234 1 + 1 = 2.

24 МАЯ 2020 Г., 05:47

Brett Oda

come join https://discord.gg/A94sQt

 

Join the PsyCom Discord Server!

Check out the PsyCom community on Discord - hang out with 4 other members and enjoy free voice and text chat.

discord.com

@Andrei Khanov

@Michael Papaiacovou

@Bruno Marchal

25 МАЯ 2020 Г., 02:40

Brett Oda

please join

25 МАЯ 2020 Г., 09:22

Bruno Marchal

It is more the theology of (any universal) machine. The theology itself is not entirely computable, but it is for the propositional level. That theology is almost word for word equivalent to Plotinus. It is hardly a coincidence: it means that Plotinus was gifted in looking inward. All sound machine find this theology. It is not mine. I am just the guy saying that we can already listen to the machine, and that this is what Gödel did begun (although he missed that fact, and the whole mechanist philosophy).

1

Michael Papaiacovou

"The Universe is at War with Numbers" : A Heretic Professor We have thought a way, a neural network "searching" for "knowledge", in different languages, can solve for misrepresentations of reality & indeed provide proofs of "commonality" (non local)

25 МАЯ 2020 Г., 14:19

Bruno Marchal

I don't understand "1. A person has a "dream", this is a myth about his rationality.". (Keep in mind that all what I say is extracted from arithmetic, and whatever you could say is compared to what the machine already says. The singularity belongs to the past. the universal machine (once Löbian) is the most intelligent being ever. We can only make it more stupid, but it will take time to become as stupid as the humans. This might need a long history/evolution.

1

Bruno Marchal

The beauty here, is that arithmetic explains all by itself why it is impossible to derive arithmetic from anything but less, or Turing equivalent. So, if we want just assume Digital Mechanism, we have to assume elementary arithmetic (or Turing equivalent). In fact, all what I say can be shown to be a consequence of two simple (but weird) axioms: Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz). Those have been, discovered by Moses Shoenfinkel in Moscow in 1924. Now, to research truth is quite different than trying to make the world a better place. I do think that searching truth is a prerequisite for this for the long term, but I am not even sure of this. To be franc, I don't understand many of your point, but I am very simple minded, somehow, I understand only 1+1=2 and similar. Then with Mechanism, this is not just enough, it cannot be extended, for the ontology, and all the rest is extracted from listening to what the number already say, in their relative ways. I am not sure anything I say is simple, as it comes from 30 years of hard work, based on theorems often quite misunderstood (Gödel's theorems) , and what I say contradict 1500 years of Aristotelian theology (the belief in a primarily physical universe). But Pythagorus and Plato, did have the correct insight (with respect to this machine's or number's theology). With mechanism we get de Chardin as a theorem: we are not humans having spiritual experiences, we are spiritual being having human experiences. We are not material volumique bodies dreaming about numbers, we are numbers dreaming about bodies and volumes.

 

Продолжение - http://philosophystorm.org/prodolzhenie-diskussii-o-meta-moderne-v-gruppe-digitalnaya-sfera