date:20150104

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread Russell Standish

On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 02:10:51PM -0800, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything 
List wrote:
>  
>  
> 
> Russell’s observation that “The ultimate theory of everything is just a 
> theory of nothing.” seems intuitively correct to me… though I have no 
> rigorous proof for this sense of it ringing true for me.
> 
>  
> 
> I was in ignorance that Russell had written a book on this; and just 
> downloaded the pdf – so thanks Liz for bringing it to attention. Beginning to 
> read it now…. 
> 
> Another excellent passage: “Something is the “inside view” of Nothing”. Nice! 
> And this view from the inside looks so infinitely full of all manner of 
> emergent stuff. I agree with the premise that perspective is paramount in 
> coming to terms with and to understand the spooky weird nature of quantum 
> reality; perspective also provides a powerful tool to explain the “something 
> from nothing paradox”. Something does seem like it could be how Nothing looks 
> from the perspective of being within itself – as opposed to the bird’s eye 
> view from outside -- Max Tegmark uses Bird’s Eye view to describe this 
> outside privileged perspective… looking down on the examined system from an 
> outside perspective (even if that system, is everything that is… it is still 
> valuable as an intellectual tool to be able to view this from the outside 
> perspective as well).. but I digress, back to the book.
> 
>  
> 
> One question for Russell, wonder what his thoughts are on the continued 
> viability of Quantum Loop Gravity hypothesis – which you mention as being one 
> of the contenders along with String Theory – for the unification of all the 
> fundamental forces into a single theory -- given the findings of the ESA 
> experiment that has showed that spacetime must be smooth down to scales 
> trillions of times smaller than the Planck scale. 
> 

Thanks for your kind words. Actually as to whether loop gravity or
string theory or something else is the way to go, I really don't have
a dog in the fight. I was merely commenting on my confidence that
gravity will ultimately be unified with electro-weak-strong forces in
some manner, but being agnostic as to how.

My personal opinion is that measured values are constrained to be
rational - there can only ever be a countable number of distinct
observer moments. Yet this down not imply space is "quantised" or
discrete in any way. It is quite possible there is no lower bound to
the difference between two measurements. So it doesn't surprise me
that space ends up being smooth at scales far smaller than the planck
length. I would be more suprised at the opposite conclusion, as it
implies a lack of symmetry (grids are not rotationally symmetric,
except at specific angles).

As for unification of GR and QM, one wildly speculative thought I've
had is that matter is due to knots in space-time, and that the
different types of particle relate to the different types of knots
possible in a 4D Riemannian manifold. Some knots are easier to undo
than others, explaining different particle lifetimes. Mass appears as
curvature of space, so the knots have mass due to the twist they
impart on spacetime. But importantly, matter does not "curve
spacetime", as is typically said, but matter is more of a topological defect.

I have no idea if this idea has legs - I don't currently have the
mathematical chops to work it through, and unfortunately also insufficient
interest to acquire the necessary mathematical skills.

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: S=0

2015-01-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

Russell ~ nicely summed up [is there a pun in what I just said?] I like that 
subtle meta information that the sum entirety of all information of everything 
is all on the left hand of an equation with no information in it at all when 
taken as a whole. I like the focus that this way of putting it helps to make 
apparent… and how it how emergent reality – when all moved to the left hand 
side of the equation – can emerge in all the obvious complexity of form, 
structure, sequence, thought, emotion, sensation, and self-aware enquiring 
observing being that is obviously real and all around us… in real life.

For me the crux has always also been how does anything at all emerge from an 
all-encompassing universal nothingness. That is a nice perspective and way of 
viewing this endlessly recursive problem.

-Chris

 

Now the grand unified theory of physics, according to

Feynman is the deceptively simple equation

S = 0

where S is defined to be the sum of the left hand sides of

all those equations we wrote down before. Clearly, S = 0

contains no information whatsoever, all the information

is contained in the “definition” of S

 

http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf

 

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Democracy

2015-01-04 Thread Kim Jones

> On 5 Jan 2015, at 2:57 am, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 04 Jan 2015, at 00:30, Kim Jones wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4 Jan 2015, at 2:47 am, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>> 
>>> But this "fearing of God" is a mystery to me. God should be good. Only the 
>>> devil should be feared. (between us).
>> 
>> 
>> Is the devil "not-God"?
> 
> Yes, we can say that in the Platonic context where the God is The Truth. Then 
> the Devil is the False.
> 

Makes sense. Truly fascinating. We "fear the false", then. I think the power of 
The False is that it can somehow dissimulate itself. One is likely to mistake 
The False for The Truth. Awareness of this pitfall means we fear our own 
weakness, our own tendency to get a mistaken belief about something, yes? This 
must be intuitive knowledge that is part of a racial memory or something.

> As such it does not "exist" in Platonia, but it can "almost exist" in the 
> mind of the existing creature, and operate from there. This is due to the 
> existence of false, yet consistent, proposition, relatively to "models" or 
> "local realities".

But surely, The False exists? Or, when we think we have the devil by the horns, 
we are really being gored by our own fear of?

> 
> 
> 
>> Is it not that "fear of the devil" is the same as the fear of God (in some 
>> sense)?
> 
> At the conceptual level, yes. Because once you have one, you have the other.

Dualism. But is The False equivalent to "evil". Most people talk about "good vs 
evil" which may or may not correspond to "Truth vs False".  I think evil is 
much worse in some way than simple falsity. In fact, I would say that evil is 
not really le faux. Evil is le mal, non?

> 
> But we don't live at that conceptual level,

How so? Are you saying we are somehow obliged to view the world as committed 
dualists? Can't we TRY to live at a conceptual level where we notice the way in 
which things are the same, rather than continually dwell on how things are 
different? 

> and you better fear an hammer on the finger (example of bad, that is what the 
> devil practically does) than a cup of coffee (as example of good, what God 
> practically does).

Sure

> 
> Of course I assume the platonist link between God and Good here. that is not 
> clear at all when you interview the universal machine (even with good being 
> defined through self-survival ability).
> 

Ah.the Truth is a survivor! Even more interesting. But there can be 
levels of self-survival ability, yet Truth is surely an Absolute, the zero. Why 
would a UM not experience a strong link between God and Good?

> 
>> 
>> Who or what IS this devil character anyway? Is such a concept necessary?
> 
> I'm afraid yes, in its most primitive sense of bad.

OK. But I'm still hitched on the devil, the bad, the false or whatever as 
something which doesn't exist in Platonia, as you wrote earlier. The very 
notions of Truth and False are platonic. How can ideas, concepts NOT reside in 
Platonia?

> As you say, for a platonist the ideas exist, and for a computationalists, 
> they all have an infinity of Gödel numbers, or relative programs, or relative 
> engrams, relative to some universal number(s). With computationalism, you 
> cannot escape the fact that some solution of diophantine equations incarnate 
> hellish experiences.

I, like you, am OK with cannabis, but I think I might stay away from these 
diophantine equations. I don't really want to have any hellish experiences.

> 
> Then the higher level devil is just a poetical view of the idea of the "moral 
> bad thing", or even the more general idea, and easier to define (as non 
> linked to moral issue) that in a reality where you can augment the good for 
> everybody,  i.e. harm reduction for everybody, there will be situations where 
> individuals or groups of individuals can accelerate the augmentation of their 
> good by deceiving those outside the group: it is stupid in the sense of going 
> from a win/win game to a win-a-lot/loss-a-lot game, but it makes sense 
> locally, and nature does that a lot of times itself.

That's really scary, isn't it? So when someone rips you off, you can console 
yourself by saying they were only imitating Nature. 

> It is a sort of constant prisoner dilemma. It is part of the nature of life, 
> at the border between the computable and the non-computable. (from 3-1p: the 
> sigma_1 leafs of the universal dovetailer versus its "complement" in 
> arithmetic).
> 
> It is an intrinsic weakness of God,

Only Bruno Marchal would have the gall to write this! I love it! I'm so glad 
God has an intrinsic weakness. Kind of de-Gods him/her/it a bit.

> It can't make the devil disappear,

Ecoute, mon ami. Dieu a fait le diable, non? What is all that tra la la about 
serpents in gardens etc. Where did this serpent satané arise from? Fallen angel 
my foot! God put the snake there on purpose! God has LIED to Man about the 
nature and the purpose of the snake. Unle

Re: Democracy

2015-01-04 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 3:04 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/3/2015 4:15 PM, PGC wrote:
>
>
>
>  with the latter ultimately escaping our capacity to sort and analyze.
>
> You mean their assertion of that is clear.  It's begging the question to
> say it is clear.
>
>
It's clear to everybody who has read them beyond some wiki pages, including
you being exposed to Bruno's pov for years. Like any study in any domain.

>  So simple as to not permit these sorts of facile generalization,
>
>
> The "one" is the simplest of all ideas is a facile abstraction.
>

It is indeed too simple to talk about. Plotinus makes clear that his
talk/writing is to be taken with grain of salt, and merely "as if"; merely
some linguistic reasoning to encourage what is most important to him:
entering into union with the one. And yes, this kind of point *would* be
clear to any undergraduate reading some introduction text to negative
philosophy or theology of Plotinus.

>
>  or analysis as we know it (and this is consistent with inability to
> break something, which is the ultimate simple, down further), so simple as
> to elude people, try as they might to capture it or make it fit some
> personal agenda.
>
>
> I haven't noticed them having any difficult making it fit their personal
> agendas.  It's vague enough to fit anything.
>

It's not hard to find Plotinus quotes along the semantic lines: "negative
spiritual or theological path is a rational consequence of us not being
able to affirm positive attributes (implying exclusion) of the one. Any
thought or spirit directed at anything else than the one is under
enchantment of illusion of appearances." For Plotinus all practical action,
as well as thought associated with it in this world, is therefore dreaming
under enchantment and not fully conscious, not in full contact with the
one." (I could dig up precise reference, treatise/section/chapter +
translation of Enneads if you really cared, but it's Plotnius 101, I think
somewhere around 4,4 and somewhere around 40th Chapter with Chase's
translation)

Therefore "to have a personal agenda" is delusion at best, in Plotinus'
terms. I agree that mysticism is abused in various ways. But this abuse
highlights possibility of its rational use as well, and the negative
theology of ancient Greece did well here. And Plotinus didn't do and/or
even write much, again a subject of scrutiny for how to write about the
one, without missing the point? Frequent uses of "so to speak" and "as it
were" throughout the work are not weaseling in this case, but appropriate
to unspeakable subject matter, a negative theology therefore, and an open
admission of the limitations and strictures of language.

Once wrestled with, the theology stands as one of the simplest and
clearest. But getting there is, due to our cultural biases, a complex
matter. Not because Plotinus message is complex, but mainly because of all
the cultural baggage we habitually bring to the reading.

>
>  And this is also fits with beings sitting in the dark of some cave of
> forms, easily mistaking such forms for reality, truth, god etc.
>
>
> "Fits with" is vague enough to fit with assertion.
>

It just means a point for consistency, in asserting negative theology as a
whole. Like Plato's cave, we don't get a why-answer for the one's
existence, but we can query negative theology for the types of confusions
in belief/dream that might arise and decide for ourselves whether we get
closer to relating to a reality that these mystical propositions point
towards or not.

Value and precision with negation is asserted in a world of illusion in
platonic tradition. Another common rhetorical device to convey this as
reading that *forms* simplicity, rather than *informs* the reader with more
new facts, and therefore a firewall for excessive literal interpretation is
apophasis. This is not used as rhetorical trick, but reflects the "as if"
status of statements, pertaining to something so beyond our ability to
conceive (while also being under our noses) that it cannot be described in
or analyzed in discrete terms.

That is why questioning dialogue is appropriate to the pedagogical aspect
of relating this kind of content better than detached passive voice and
analytical exposition we have grown used to from western perspective,
sweeping the respective scientists' theologies under the rug in most
papers, from most domains of institutional scientific work, I come across
these days. It follows that our current habits would be arrogant and
excessive in Plotinus' view.

>> Unless you are the devil.  Unless you don't want to obey God's orders to
>> stone adulterers and conquer unbelievers and tithe to the priests.
>>
>> Brent
>> "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns
>> out that God hates all the same people you do."
>>  - Anne Lamott
>>
>
> The very idea of "people's relation to god => who we should hate,
> superiority, politics etc." is already too low and worldly t

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread 'Roger' via Everything List

Chris,

   I have nothing important to say! :-)  Nothing and something are kind 
of good areas for puns, double entendres and jokes.  After all, Jerry 
Seinfeld had a whole show about nothing!
>Roger – you have much to say about nothing [just joking]

You mentioned:
>I agree with the distinction you make between nothing arrived at through 
the negative process of removing everything that >exists until nothing is 
left versus the nothing **that is** everything.

>Further down, if I follow you, you are making the point that if we are 
speaking about the **nothing that is the set of >everything there is** then 
even if this is an empty set, by virtue of a set being something – a 
conceptual entity – then even >the absolutely empty universal set {} exists 
as a conceptual entity at least.

>Is that a fair recap of your intent; or am I off the mark?
I think that's a good recap of my intent.  If we can visualize the 
"absolute lack-of-all" where all things traditionally thought to exist, 
including our minds doing the imagining, that nothingness would be 
everything there is.  And, then as you say, I think everything there is is 
a grouping defining what is contained within and therefore an existent 
entity.  A set is also a grouping defining what is contained within, so 
this situation would be similar to the empty set.  I think this fundamental 
existent entity similar to the empty set is the fundamental unit of our 
physical universe.

Also, you mentioned in a later post: 

>Something is the “inside view” of Nothing”I agree with the premise 
that perspective is paramount in coming to terms with >and to understand 
the spooky weird nature of quantum reality; perspective also provides a 
powerful tool to explain the >“something from nothing paradox”. Something 
does seem like it could be how Nothing looks from the perspective of being 
>within itself – as opposed to the bird’s eye view from outside 

I totally agree that perspective is paramount in deciding whether the 
"absolute lack-of-all" is "something" or "nothing".  But, I always like to 
think that when we're inside "nothingness", that means we're also like 
"nothingness", so this "nothingness" just looks like "nothing".  But, if we 
could step outside that "nothingness", we'd see that it is the entirety of 
all there is and thus an existent entity.

In regard to Russell's stuff on nothingness, I can't remember the 
details now, but I think I read about it at one time and don't remember its 
really answering any questions. 

Have a good week!

   Roger  




> This is exactly what I'm suggesting.  It would not remain "nothing".  We 
> usually think of the situation when you get rid of all matter, energy, 
> space/volume, time, abstract concepts, minds, etc. as "nothing".  But, what 
> I'm saying is that this supposed "nothing" really isn't the lack of all 
> existent entities.  That "nothing" would be the entirety of all that is 
> present; that's it; there's nothing else.  It would be the all.  An 
> entirety is a grouping defining what is contained within and therefore an 
> existent entity, based on my definition of an existent entity.   So, even 
> what we think of as "nothing" is an existent entity or "something".  This 
> means that "something" is non-contingent.  It's necessary.  There is no 
> such thing as the lack of all existent entities.
>
>  
>
> Roger – you have much to say about nothing [just joking] 
>
> I agree with the distinction you make between nothing arrived at through 
> the negative process of removing everything that exists until nothing is 
> left versus the nothing **that is** everything. 
>
> Further down, if I follow you, you are making the point that if we are 
> speaking about the **nothing that is the set of everything there is** 
> then even if this is an empty set, by virtue of a set being something – a 
> conceptual entity – then even the absolutely empty universal set {} exists 
> as a conceptual entity at least.
>
> Is that a fair recap of your intent; or am I off the mark?
>
> -Chris
>
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On 
> Behalf Of *meekerdb
> *Sent:* Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum 
> theory to dialectics?
>
>  
>
> On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
>
> Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it seems 
> important to know why everything exists.  How is it that a thing can 
> exist?  What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is contained within 
> is an existent entity.  Then, you can use this to try and answer the other 
> question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?".
>
>
> If everything exists, what doesn't exist?  Nothing.
>
>  
>
> If nothi

Re: Intelligence & Consciousness

2015-01-04 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:33 AM,  wrote:

>
> >> I've been over this many times on this list, a rock may be conscious
>>
>
> > But there's no reason to entertain a rock is conscious to begin with.
>

If the rock behaved intelligently then I would think it's conscious, but it
doesn't so I don't. But you don't think my reasoning is valid so  I want to
know why you believe a rock is not conscious.

>In all cases, natural selection sits with the universal principle.the
> laws of symmetry, the conservation lawsall of which are variations on
> the concept Energy. The universal principles are always about energy.
> Natural selection.is just like 'conservation laws', 'symmetry laws',
>

What the hell??

> > The more efficient energetic structure, out endures the lesser.
>

The organism that gets more of its gens into the next generation
out-competes the competition, "energetic structure" is just unnecessary
 bafflegab.

> > So all this hocus pocus about consciousness being special and somehow
> immune from natural selection.
>

If consciousness effects behavior then it is NOT immune from natural
selection and the Turing test can detect both intelligence and
consciousness. If  consciousness has nothing to do with behavior then the
evidence that a rock is conscious is just as good as the evidence that one
of your fellow human beings is. I think a rock is not conscious. my fellow
human beings are, and intelagent behavior is a marker of consciousness.

> > Consciousness is the product of millions of small or large efficiency
> differences,
>

Differences in the efficiency OF DOING SOMETHING. Behavior.

 > We draw on common human understandings for the knowledge being under
> anesthesia or whatever knocks out consciousness.
>

What's with this "we" business? What makes you think that anybody except
you understands anything?

> > in the technological civilization, despite blatently following a
> completely different sequence than biological evolution...and has
> access to energy sources and material bioloy never has.
>

So in effect you're saying that whatever biology came up with (including
consciousness) technology can come up with it too, and do it better. I
agree.

> >> So if nature came up with feeling first and high level intelligence
>> only much much later I don't see why the opposite would be true for our
>> computers. It's a hell of a lot easier to make something that feels but
>> doesn't think than something that thinks but doesn't feel.
>>
>
> > Yeah?
>

Yeah.

> > Historical biology was driven by NATURAL SELECTION.
>

And random mutation and natural selection is a ridiculously slow and
inefficient process, it is also incredibly cruel, but until it got around
to inventing brains (after about 3 billion years of screwing around) that
was the only way complex thing could get made. However now we have brains
and brains begat technology and it will very soon far outstrip anything in
biology.

> > Conscious intelligent technological being choose their own preferred
> sequent.
>

So there was a reason that being X went left rather than right,  preference
Y caused him to go in that direction. And cog X in the cuckoo clock turned
left rather that right because cog Y caused it to go in that direction.

> There are values of a truism nature to what you say here. The Turing test
> may SEE insights popping up about intelligence and consciousness. Why not.
> But the point isl the test does not DEPEND on any useful measurements of
> such quantities taking place. More critically the test does not DEPEND on
> non-vague definitions of intelligence or consciousness. There is NO
> DEPENDENCE on progress being made defining and understanding this pair of
> nebulous vague conceptions.
>

Can't comment, I don't know what any of that means. Niels Bohr said "I
refuse to speak more clearly than I think", perhaps you feel the same way.

>>   I repeat my question, if you don't use the same thing that the Turing
> Test  uses, behavior,  how in the world do you tell the difference between
> a genius  and a moron?

> You don't understand the turing test.

Fine I don't understand the Turing Test, but I repeat my question for a
third time, if it isn't behavior how do you tell the difference between a
genius and a moron?

  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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Democracy

2015-01-04 Thread Alberto G. Corona

For me the reason of the failure of the USSR was so accelerated for the
same reasons why other democracies are corrupted and degenerated, but while
the democracies dismiss and erodes progressively the pre-political grounds
that guarantee personal freedom, Comunism directly tries to eliminate such
pre-political grounds.

2015-01-03 19:12 GMT+01:00 :

>
>
> On Friday, January 2, 2015 9:30:24 PM UTC, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. Popper had a very naive conception of human nature.
>>
>> If "error correction" were the hallmark of democracy, then the keynessian
>> economic measures used now to fight the crisis, that are so convenient for
>> the ruling elite -because they increase the size of the leviatan state-
>> would  never have been used again after the crisis of the 70's.
>>
>
> IMHO: The striking thing about the Soviet system was how quickly it
> succumbed to corruption. It's hard to estimate because it happened so
> quickly. There doesn't seem to be a 'honeymoon'. But then again, it wasn't
> about socialism but brutal genocide. Whatever.
>
> The corruption factor is still legitimate even so. The Westwas a
> beautiful thing. It ran foroh I don't know the answer to that one. But
> while it ran...wow. Science, checks and balances, a new vision of a
> holistic society. You are right that Christianity was front and centre of
> that world. That world that is gone.
>
> --
> 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

Russell ~ got to say that you nailed it on the head, with this statement: “Thus 
it appears that emergence stands in opposition to reductionism, a paradigm of 
understanding something by studying its constituent parts. To someone wedded to 
the notion of reductionism, emergence can appear rather mysterious and strange.”

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 11:27 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?

 

I hope Russell's theory of nothing is getting due attention.

 

On 5 January 2015 at 08:26, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 1:09 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?

 

 

 

 


On 3 Jan 2015, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

If everything exists, what doesn't exist?  Nothing.

 

If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?

-Chris

Brent

 

You are both missing the main question: what was there before there was nothing?

 

Why, pre-nothing, of course.

-Chris

 

K

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR

 

I hope Russell's theory of nothing is getting due attention.

 

Russell’s observation that “The ultimate theory of everything is just a theory 
of nothing.” seems intuitively correct to me… though I have no rigorous proof 
for this sense of it ringing true for me.

 

I was in ignorance that Russell had written a book on this; and just downloaded 
the pdf – so thanks Liz for bringing it to attention. Beginning to read it 
now…. 

Another excellent passage: “Something is the “inside view” of Nothing”. Nice! 
And this view from the inside looks so infinitely full of all manner of 
emergent stuff. I agree with the premise that perspective is paramount in 
coming to terms with and to understand the spooky weird nature of quantum 
reality; perspective also provides a powerful tool to explain the “something 
from nothing paradox”. Something does seem like it could be how Nothing looks 
from the perspective of being within itself – as opposed to the bird’s eye view 
from outside -- Max Tegmark uses Bird’s Eye view to describe this outside 
privileged perspective… looking down on the examined system from an outside 
perspective (even if that system, is everything that is… it is still valuable 
as an intellectual tool to be able to view this from the outside perspective as 
well).. but I digress, back to the book.

 

One question for Russell, wonder what his thoughts are on the continued 
viability of Quantum Loop Gravity hypothesis – which you mention as being one 
of the contenders along with String Theory – for the unification of all the 
fundamental forces into a single theory -- given the findings of the ESA 
experiment that has showed that spacetime must be smooth down to scales 
trillions of times smaller than the Planck scale. 

 

[If I recall they differentially measured the polarity of light from a distant 
and very powerful gamma ray burst over many wavelengths, from the hard gamma 
rays down through other wavelengths of light issuing from the same phenomenon. 
Their argument is that if space time was granular then this would have 
interacted with the passing light and induced a polarity bias that would affect 
different wave lengths of light differently. This is a I recall the details of 
the experiment. What they found instead is a lack of any effect – down to the 
incredibly small sub-Planck scale they were able to indirectly peer down into)] 

 

Doesn’t Quantum Loop Gravity require space time to be granular at the Planck 
scale? And if so isn’t the ESA experimental evidence a potential falsification 
of the hypothesis – at least as it has been formulated?

 

“Thus we should conclude the opposite of what we first supposed. Far from 
containing the wisdom of the ages, the library is useless, containing no 
information of worth. Our libraries are useful, not so much for the books they 
contain, but for the books they don’t contain!”

 

I detect an echo of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu in this statement. “The thirty 
spokes unite in the one nave; but it is on the empty space (for the axle), that 
the use of the wheel depends. Clay is fashioned into vessels; but it is on 
their empty hollowness, that their use depends. The door and windows are cut 
out (from the walls) to form an apartment; but it is on the empty space 
(within), that its use depends.”

 

And so… by the same Daoist token, it is the absence of information that makes 
any given collection of information useful.

 

“The validity of the anthropic principle tells us that self-awareness must 
somehow be necessary to consciousness.” I agree with that; it is only by 
reflecting on the self and being aware of the self-nature we are observing that 
we can become conscious of its existence…. Of our existence.

 

“all laws of physics will eventually be found to relate back to some essential 
property of the conscious observer” – the fundamental centrality of the 
observer for understanding reality is an idea I have long found intriguing.

 

Excellent intro Russell.. I now know what I will be spending my Sunday 
afternoon (and maybe evening on). On to the next chapter.

 

Cheers,

-Chris

 

On 5 January 2015 at 08:26, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 1:09 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?

 

 

 

 


On 3 Jan 2015, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

If everything exists, what doesn't exist?  Nothing.

 

If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?

-Chris

Brent

 

You are both missing the main question: what was there before there was nothing?

 

Why, pre-nothing, of course.

-Chris

 

K

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year

2015-01-04 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> By your post, it seems you do not believe in a primary biological reality
> or even a chemical universe.
>

I don't know, give me some examples of "a primary biological reality" and
"a chemical universe" and I'll be able to tell you if I believe in them or
not. And remember I don't want definitions I want examples.

> It seems that you believe that chemistry can be reduced conceptually to
> physics.
>

Obviously.

> > This means that we don't need to assume some vital or chemical
> principles.
>

As a practical matter when you get to the level of chemistry and biology
you do have to assume some approximations and statistical laws; even in
physics we'd be lost without statistical ideas like pressure and
temperature.

> > Physical entities and physical laws can explain the chemical laws, which
> can explain the biological laws.
>

Obviously.

> >Here the physical entities and laws are primary and the chemical and
> biological are not.
>

I would agree that physical laws come before biological laws in a objective
chain of cause and effect, but "primary" means highest rank in importance
and so there is some subjectivity thrown into the mix, and so I wouldn't
necessarily agree that the laws of physics are more important than the laws
of chemistry or biology.

 > My question can be put in this way: do you think we necessarily need to
> assume physical entities, or are you open to the idea that the physical
> itself can be reduced to another field (like perhaps number theory, or
> mathematics, or some abstract psychology, or theology, of computer science,
> etc.)?

Sure I'm open to the idea, but as to which came first physics or
mathematics I don't know. I am a physics agnostic, but as I understand it
you are a atheist.

> The fact that a book in physics use mathematical notions does not imply
> that the mathematical notions are physical.
>

True, but it does not imply that the mathematics is not physical.either.

> Book on gastronomy use english does not make the use of english an object
> of gastronomy.

English can describe food but food came before English. You seem to be
implying that mathematics is just a language that can describe physics. I
don't know if that's true but if it is then physics came before mathematics.

  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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Democracy

2015-01-04 Thread John Mikes

I published several times on various lists - including this one - my
 stance about that
*OXYMORON *'democracy' called so because the 'demos' (i.e. all of us)
cannot exercise 'kratos'
(governing power) to everyone's satisfaction in the variety we represent
genetically, mentally, in interests and taste, lifestyle etc. etc.
I added the *HOAX *of "majority voting" because 1. a 'majority' involves a
suppressed minority and the 'voting' does not mean agreement, just lesser
dissatisfaction in the expressed  *L I E S  of a campaign*
to make the candidate more palatable to the voting crowd. Such lies are not
even pretended to be kept once the candidate gets the power and it is
pretty hard to get rid of someone with a majority voting record.

I also expressed in no uncertain terms that autocratic (religious,
communist/socialist, fascist) systems are not prone to any distinction of a
*democratic* rule (if we condone such).
We can add the capitalistic economical systems to that, constituting the
rule of a minority (owners?) over a vast majority of employed (working)
segment of the populace - which can be (mutatis mutandis) a form of slavery
in pretentious, more  humanitarian formulation.

Democracy-(like) governance has never been istigated in any country. Lenin
(the philosopher) said to establish a 'communistic' state a new-type MAN
has to be developed with selfless benevolence to work for the community.
Same for the elusive democracy.

Such are the reasons why I call 'capitalism' dead by the 1970s and name the
resulting system a
Global-Ecoomic-Feudal format with Lords (owners) and Serfs (employees -
working for MONEY, no matter how much).

JM

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 5:39 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/3/2015 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 03 Jan 2015, at 09:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>
>
>
>  *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 01, 2015 3:36 AM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Democracy
>
>
>  On 31 Dec 2014, at 20:12, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>
>
>
>
>   *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:34 AM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Democracy
>
>
>   On 30 Dec 2014, at 01:38, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   - Forwarded Message -
> *From:* Alberto G. Corona 
> *To:* everything-list 
> *Sent:* Monday, December 29, 2014 10:27 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Democracy
>
> >>The Soviet union can be formally considered a "democracy". There is
> nothing external or formal that may distinguish a democracy from any other
> regime. Since every modern state has the same elements. All of them use the
> momenclature of the age. The word democracy is the most overused world in
> this century togeter with "scientific".
>
>   No word comes close to matching the overuse of the word "god" however.
>
>
>   Yes,  ... and no.
>
>   For the greeks "God" was just a pointer to the truth we are searching,
> through theories and observation. It led to math and physics, + inquiry
> about which one is more fundamental, and what might still be beyond math
> and physics. That use of God remains in some language expression, like when
> we say "only God knows", which means "I don't know".
>
>  But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was
> referring to modern usage that has associated it with a monotheistic value
> system.
>
>
>  I think monotheism is only the "personal" view of the monism of the
> parmenides one.
> I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the monism of
> those who believe in an unifying truth. The fairy tales is a pedagogical
> popularization, who get wrong when the religion is (too much) mixed with
> politics.
>
>
> But it necessarily is mixed with politics, it's main function is political
> because the "unifying truths" are the cultural proscriptions about behavior
> and values.  God is the law-giver; he's the tyrant writ large who sees all,
> judges all, and rewards and punishes all.  The truths of mathematics and
> physics and biology are of little relevance.  His "truths" are about
> procreation and war and ethics and loyalty to the tribe.
>
>
>
>
>
>  >>Which comes from the ONE of the greeks, mixed with the Jewish legend.
> Well, if you forget the superstition, it has some important relation.
> Monotheism is a reflexion of parmenides or Plotinus monism.
>
> Perhaps you are referring to the Jewish mystic concept of the sephiroth
> kether (kether means crown in Hebrew) it is that which is manifest yet
> cannot be named; the first divine emanation out of pure abstract space…
> that is without form or definition yet which fills and animates all
> things…. The divine spark so to speak.
>
>
>  I think so.
>
>
>A few example

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread LizR

I hope Russell's theory of nothing is getting due attention.

On 5 January 2015 at 08:26, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Kim Jones
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 04, 2015 1:09 AM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
> theory to dialectics?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3 Jan 2015, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> If everything exists, what doesn't exist?  Nothing.
>
>
>
> If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?
>
> -Chris
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> You are both missing the main question: what was there before there was
> nothing?
>
>
>
> Why, pre-nothing, of course.
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
> K
>
> --
> 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 1:09 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?

On 3 Jan 2015, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

If everything exists, what doesn't exist?  Nothing.

If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?

-Chris

Brent

You are both missing the main question: what was there before there was nothing?

Why, pre-nothing, of course.

-Chris

K

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Democracy

2015-01-04 Thread meekerdb


On 1/4/2015 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God 
hates all the same people you do."

 - Anne Lamott


Good point.

Of course today we know that God has created the cat in his own image, and that he 
created the humans to serve the cats, and to give them shelter, heat, cough, sofa, 
music, milk, cat-food and bags of legal catnip. All we can hope is becoming a cat in the 
next life.


My brother says that when he dies he wants to come back as his wife's dog.

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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread meekerdb


On 1/4/2015 1:09 AM, Kim Jones wrote:





On 3 Jan 2015, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:



If everything exists, what doesn't exist? Nothing.

If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?

-Chris

Brent



You are both missing the main question: what was there before there was nothing?


When is there something?  Now!  When wasn't there something?
Never!
--- with apologies to W. V. O. Quine

--
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Careful not confusing "Nothing exists" and "Nothing exist". In the first
> case, something exists. But not necessarily in the second case
>

If "nothing" means no-thing, and that is certainly how that English word
originated, then the meaning of the first case is clear even if I don't
agree with what it says, but "no thing exist" just sounds like bad grammar
to me.

  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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Evolution of pro-social religions

2015-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 04 Jan 2015, at 02:14, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote:

In the first instance I'm posting this recently accepted paper (link  
is to full paper), for Bruno and Brent reference a recent discussion  
between them about the part of large scale religion in the emergence  
of ever-more complex society. Brent has me on ignore...I'm not sure  
about Brunoperhaps someone not ignoring will do a reply in the  
thread so that it becomes visible for them.


In the second instance I think the guys behind the paper have a good  
idea and/or chimes with what I'd imagine was a fairly common  
intuition on the matter.


In the third instanceI thought what the paper aspires to deliver  
was worth consideration just for itself. I'll paste it below right  
after mentioning I haven't read the paper yetI shall be, but  
only just saw it yesterday. Given I haven't read itI have no  
idea whether and to what extent they live up to what they aspire to.


"This framework (1) reconciles key aspects of the adaptationist and  
byproduct approaches to the origins of religion, (2) explains a  
variety of
empirical observations that have not received adequate attention,  
and (3) generates novel predictions. Converging lines of evidence  
drawn from diverse disciplines provide empirical support while at  
the same time encouraging new research directions and opening up new  
questions for exploration and debate.




http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf



I read it quickly. It is interesting, but not my field, so i cannot  
judge the plausibility of the analysis.
I have not seen any obvious contradiction with computationalism, above  
the mere fact that the author does not address the ontological  
question and stays in the Aristotelian frame, which is fair enough,  
given its anthropological interests. Might reread some part when I  
have more time.


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



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

Re: Carlos Castaneda

2015-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 04 Jan 2015, at 07:49, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/3/2015 9:50 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:



From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of meekerdb


Here's a mystic who knew the purpose of religion.  I well remember  
the adulation of Castaneda and how even otherwise sensible people  
thought his stories were true.


Then there is…. Ron Hubbard a fairly mediocre sci-fi writer who  
(reputedly) made a bet with Anton LaVay (founder of the Church of  
Satan)




It was Robert Heinlein, a some what better SciFi writer, with whom  
Hubbard shared a house for a while.  It's not clear that it was a  
formal bet.  In discussing how to get rich, Hubbard opined that the  
founding a religion was the surest way.


I wonder if Bruno is an a-Scientologist?



The Partnership for a Society Without Drugs was financed by the  
industry of Tobacco, the industry of Alcohol, the industry of weapon  
and ... Scientology.


Those people are making money on lies and deceptions.

They should be judged and comdamned and their leaders put in jail.

It has nothing to do with health, and nothing to do with religion.  
Absolutely nothing.


Bruno






Brent

that he could found a religion… and so (reputedly) off of this bet,  
the world was “blessed” with Scientology and ultimately of course  
Tom Cruise, along with a whole slew of other Scientology faithful  
in Hollywood.


-Chris



--
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



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

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year

2015-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 04 Jan 2015, at 05:33, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> Are only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... primary? or should we also insist  
that addition and multiplication are primary.

You tell me, you're the one who asked "Do you believe in a PRIMARY  
physical universe?; I can't answer your question if even you don't  
know what the question is.

> That needs to be clarified

Then do so, and do it  before you ask me again if I believe  in a  
primary physical universe.

By your post, it seems you do not believe in a primary biological  
reality or even a chemical universe. It seems that you believe that  
chemistry can be reduced conceptually to physics.
This means that we don't need to assume some vital or chemical  
principles. Physical entities and physical laws can explain the  
chemical laws, which can explain the biological laws.
Here the physical entities and laws are primary and the chemical and  
biological are not.

My question can be put in this way: do you think we necessarily need  
to assume physical entities, or are you open to the idea that the  
physical itself can be reduced to another field (like perhaps number  
theory, or mathematics, or some abstract psychology, or theology, of  
computer science, etc.)?

>  Personnally I don't see how a complex numbers, or an integer can  
be considered physical at all.  By physical universe, I mean what is  
described in the book of physics.

Both integers and complex numbers are described in physics books,  
you can't do physics without them.

The fact that a book in physics use mathematical notions does not  
imply that the mathematical notions are physical.

Book on gastronomy use english does not make the use of english an  
object of gastronomy.

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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015  'Roger' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it seems
> important to know why everything exists.
>

Even if the word "klogknee" has no use because everything is klogknee, is
it important to know why everything is klogknee?

> > How is it that a thing can exist?
>

How is it that a thing can be klogknee? Before you can figure that out you
must first know what "klogknee" means, and if everything is klogknee then
you don't know because meaning needs contrast.

> What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is contained within is an
> existent entity.
>

I don't understand that.

  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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Carlos Castaneda

2015-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal

I agree.

Frijtfof Capra, also.

But this illustrates my point. As long as non confessional theology
does not come back to academy, we open the road of the lack of rigor
in the field, and we provide jobs to the charlatans, and retired
Doctors.

Actually, theology has been ejected out of the academy, due to such
charlatan, and stay out of the academy by the effect of those
charlatans and their allies.

Bruno

On 04 Jan 2015, at 00:16, meekerdb wrote:

Here's a mystic who knew the purpose of religion. I well remember
the adulation of Castaneda and how even otherwise sensible people
thought his stories were true.

Brent

Forwarded Message

New post on All Things Crime Blog

Carlos Castaneda’s Sex-and-Suicide Cult, and the Witches Who
Disappeared

by PatrickHMoore
by BJW Nashe

Carlos Castaneda’s journey from anthropology student to famous
author to New Age cult leader makes for a strange tale that is far
more disturbing than anything found in his bestselling books.

At the peak of his career, Castaneda crossed over an invisible line.
He turned his back on the clear light of humane, rational thought,
and stepped into a shadowy realm of manipulation, secrecy, and lies.
It’s tempting to compare this to the metaphorical leap into the
abyss that figures so heavily in his writings. Yet Castaneda’s real-
life leap had consequences that were quite different from the
magical escapades depicted in his writing. Once he became rich and
famous and began facing scrutiny, Castaneda shunned the limelight
and spent the next two-and-a-half decades pursuing a bizarre
alternative lifestyle largely hidden from
the public. He
proclaimed himself a shaman and a sorcerer and assumed the role of a
mysterious guru surrounded by a group of close followers.

Re: Democracy

2015-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 03 Jan 2015, at 16:21, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Neither the USSR was democratic neither democracy means freedom. I  
said to you that democracy is a bad name, a wildcard that each one  
fill with underserved and unjustified attirbuted, a symbol of  
freedom that does not deserve it.


 It is like If i insist to call alcoholism as the proper name for  
euphoria.  The same happens with democracy and freedom.


If truth and freedom were the result of the decission of the  
majority, then herds of sheeps would have painted the Chapelle  
Sixtine and they would be exploring the galaxy.


So hard is that to be understood?



Did I ever said that democracy is freedom? democracy is not a symbol,  
it is when people agree to vote. It is a progress because non  
democracy is automatically coercion. Now democracy is just the  
possibility of more freedom, but it can take a lifetime to wake up the  
politicians to some ideas, and freedom needs a constant high  
vigilance, encouraged or discouraged by (mis)education, etc.


Truth needs science which has no need of votes, it needs only modest  
doubting researchers.


Only decision about the city and the possible conflicts with the  
neighbors and the environment needs vote.


I am not saying that democracy solves all (social) problem, but it  
gives the ground to start talking about the problems (instead of being  
tortured because you dared to mention a problem).


And the democracy can derive into a totalitarian system very easily.  
There is no magical formal trick that avoid to derive a rule of the  
majority into a totalitatian dictatorship, as Godel demonstrated a  
few posts ago with the US constitution.


And a living tissue can derive into a cancer very easily. That is the  
"biological or social consequences" of Gödel (stretching the things):  
no complex system can guarantied its own consistency. Shit happens.
But deciding to avoid democracy because it can leads to Tyranny, is  
like avoiding life because it can lead to death.






That happened again and again. The nazi case is not an exception,  
but the rule. Only something external to the formal political  
system, the beliefs and values of the people can slow this  
evolution, since democracy erodes the pre-political (moral) bases  
upon which the liberal system is constructed.


The difference between germany in the 30 and the US in the same  
years was so little, that probably, without the nazi germany and the  
II world war it is possible that some form of socialist dictatorship  
would be now ruling the US and still we would call it democracy. Or  
perhaps popular democracy.


Perhaps. Democracies are living being. Fragile, in need of constant  
vigilance, and we have been sleepy.
All countries in which cannabis is illegal have sin, and they have put  
criminal elements at the top, but again, it is not because a democracy  
can be sick that a democracy should not be valued better than non- 
democracy. Even sick, we have more ability to, correct this than in a  
dictatorship. Copare North and South Korea.


Bruno





2015-01-03 15:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :

On 02 Jan 2015, at 21:01, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy


First, a reference to wikipedia is everything but an argument.

Second, it looks like the athenian democracy". I just said that this  
is not "democracy" in the modern sense of the word.


From my own research, the USSR has been one of the hardest  
dictatorship in human history. Only after the fall of the berlin  
wall could many refugees (from USSR and its satellites) see their  
family again, when still alive.


Religion was also forbidden and christians, jews and others have  
been deported or executed, in mass. All people I know from there  
confirmed: no elections, except at the top of the hierarchy, like in  
China. Those were atheist dictatorships.


If you believed that  the USSR was democratic, I understand better  
your critics on the democratic system!


Bruno







2015-01-02 12:38 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :

On 01 Jan 2015, at 22:28, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




2014-12-30 14:15 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :

On 29 Dec 2014, at 19:27, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


The Soviet union can be formally considered a "democracy".




I disagree. Democracy is when there are election, with secret  
vote, every four or five years. It allows a formal opposition with  
some representation is some parliament or equivalent.


The soviet union had elections and a other parties. It had a  
parliament . At least in most of the comunist parties there were a  
"formal" opposition. The constitution of the URSS was ok according  
to liberal standards. All that you mentioned were meet as well as  
it is met by almost every modern regime


You might give reference. I have never heard of the people being  
able to vote.


A leftist friend of mind was so naive on this that he asked to the  
USSR to accept him as political refugees, during a visit there  
(

Re: Democracy

2015-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 04 Jan 2015, at 09:05, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 7:47 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

On 03 Jan 2015, at 09:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List  
wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

On 30 Dec 2014, at 01:38, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List  
wrote:

- Forwarded Message -
From: Alberto G. Corona 

>>The Soviet union can be formally considered a "democracy". There  
is nothing external or formal that may distinguish a democracy from  
any other regime. Since every modern state has the same elements.  
All of them use the momenclature of the age. The word democracy is  
the most overused world in this century togeter with "scientific".

No word comes close to matching the overuse of the word "god" however.

Yes,  ... and no.

For the greeks "God" was just a pointer to the truth we are  
searching, through theories and observation. It led to math and  
physics, + inquiry about which one is more fundamental, and what  
might still be beyond math and physics. That use of God remains in  
some language expression, like when we say "only God knows", which  
means "I don't know".

But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was  
referring to modern usage that has associated it with a monotheistic  
value system.

I think monotheism is only the "personal" view of the monism of the  
parmenides one.
I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the  
monism of those who believe in an unifying truth. The fairy tales is  
a pedagogical popularization, who get wrong when the religion is  
(too much) mixed with politics.

>>Which comes from the ONE of the greeks, mixed with the Jewish  
legend. Well, if you forget the superstition, it has some important  
relation. Monotheism is a reflexion of parmenides or Plotinus monism.

Perhaps you are referring to the Jewish mystic concept of the  
sephiroth kether (kether means crown in Hebrew) it is that which is  
manifest yet cannot be named; the first divine emanation out of pure  
abstract space… that is without form or definition yet which fills  
and animates all things…. The divine spark so to speak.

I think so.

A few examples “a God fearing” man (or woman) is upstanding, moral  
and considered (by other god-fearers at least) to be superior to  
those who do not fear god;

But this "fearing of God" is a mystery to me. God should be good.  
Only the devil should be feared. (between us). Obviously that are  
open problem in machine theology.

>>With some definition, fearing God is a nonsense.

I find those definitions of God far more palatable than I do the  
Manichean dystopic vision, of a universe divided between the  
opposing forces of good and evil.

In the theology of the machine, the devil is well played by the  
notion of false. In a sense, like in Plotinus, it simply does not  
exist, but its influence is incarnated in the []f, and [][]f, or  
even []<>t, which implies logically f, at the star level (in G*),  
which we cannot see, but can intuit. That makes the frontier between  
good and bad into a fractal similar to the Mandelbrot set. But it  
relates also the "bad" to the harm. The opposing force is nature  
manicheism, needed to make us believe that eating is good and being  
eaten is bad, which is locally useful to live and develop.

>>We should fear the devil, but not God.

Or as some spiritual traditions maintain the devil is merely a  
manifestation of our own ignorance and impoverished state of being  
cutoff form our spiritual being.

>>That follows from what I say aboven but not withot some technical  
difficulties. Plotinus get similar difficulties. Pain and suffering  
remains quite complex to analyse. there are still many difficulties.

Pain and suffering will never be easy to explain, especially the  
pain and suffering of innocents.

In a sense, it is easier to explain the pain of the innocent than the  
pain of the guilty, as it is easier to explain the pain of the guy  
tortured than the pain of the torturer (if any).

What is vexing is that the bad qualia, or the qualia of bad, is very  
easy to explain functionally: if we did not felt the bad that our  
brain try to explain us when we are in a bad situation, we would find  
ourself much more often in bad situation, which is not good for the  
survival thing.

The devil is a paper tiger… not to say that evil does not exist, but  
evil is ultimately a manifestation of profound spiritual ignorance –  
at least amongst some spiritual traditions.
So perhaps if I could re-phrase the phrase

Re: Democracy

2015-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 04 Jan 2015, at 00:30, Kim Jones wrote:




On 4 Jan 2015, at 2:47 am, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

But this "fearing of God" is a mystery to me. God should be good.  
Only the devil should be feared. (between us).



Is the devil "not-God"?


Yes, we can say that in the Platonic context where the God is The  
Truth. Then the Devil is the False.


As such it does not "exist" in Platonia, but it can "almost exist" in  
the mind of the existing creature, and operate from there. This is due  
to the existence of false, yet consistent, proposition, relatively to  
"models" or "local realities".




Is it not that "fear of the devil" is the same as the fear of God  
(in some sense)?


At the conceptual level, yes. Because once you have one, you have the  
other.


But we don't live at that conceptual level, and you better fear an  
hammer on the finger (example of bad, that is what the devil  
practically does) than a cup of coffee (as example of good, what God  
practically does).


Of course I assume the platonist link between God and Good here. that  
is not clear at all when you interview the universal machine (even  
with good being defined through self-survival ability).





Who or what IS this devil character anyway? Is such a concept  
necessary?


I'm afraid yes, in its most primitive sense of bad. As you say, for a  
platonist the ideas exist, and for a computationalists, they all have  
an infinity of Gödel numbers, or relative programs, or relative  
engrams, relative to some universal number(s). With computationalism,  
you cannot escape the fact that some solution of diophantine equations  
incarnate hellish experiences.


Then the higher level devil is just a poetical view of the idea of the  
"moral bad thing", or even the more general idea, and easier to define  
(as non linked to moral issue) that in a reality where you can augment  
the good for everybody,  i.e. harm reduction for everybody, there will  
be situations where individuals or groups of individuals can  
accelerate the augmentation of their good by deceiving those outside  
the group: it is stupid in the sense of going from a win/win game to a  
win-a-lot/loss-a-lot game, but it makes sense locally, and nature does  
that a lot of times itself.
It is a sort of constant prisoner dilemma. It is part of the nature of  
life, at the border between the computable and the non-computable.  
(from 3-1p: the sigma_1 leafs of the universal dovetailer versus its  
"complement" in arithmetic).


It is an intrinsic weakness of God, It can't make the devil disappear,  
but It can help to make it apparent, and locally controllable, when  
tolerated in some proportion, or through representations.


<>[]f   (G*)

<><>f   (Z1*)

Bruno

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



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

Re: Democracy

2015-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 03 Jan 2015, at 23:39, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/3/2015 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 03 Jan 2015, at 09:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List  
wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 3:36 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

On 31 Dec 2014, at 20:12, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List  
wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:34 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

On 30 Dec 2014, at 01:38, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List  
wrote:

- Forwarded Message -
From: Alberto G. Corona 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: Democracy

>>The Soviet union can be formally considered a "democracy". There  
is nothing external or formal that may distinguish a democracy  
from any other regime. Since every modern state has the same  
elements. All of them use the momenclature of the age. The word  
democracy is the most overused world in this century togeter with  
"scientific".

No word comes close to matching the overuse of the word "god"  
however.

Yes,  ... and no.

For the greeks "God" was just a pointer to the truth we are  
searching, through theories and observation. It led to math and  
physics, + inquiry about which one is more fundamental, and what  
might still be beyond math and physics. That use of God remains in  
some language expression, like when we say "only God knows", which  
means "I don't know".

But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was  
referring to modern usage that has associated it with a  
monotheistic value system.

I think monotheism is only the "personal" view of the monism of the  
parmenides one.
I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the  
monism of those who believe in an unifying truth. The fairy tales  
is a pedagogical popularization, who get wrong when the religion is  
(too much) mixed with politics.

But it necessarily is mixed with politics, it's main function is  
political because the "unifying truths" are the cultural  
proscriptions about behavior and values.

Not in the parmenides. Somehow in the Republic, but I guess you talk  
only of the christians (ah, you confirm this in your reply to PGC).

But that is the problem, and yes Plato, and even Plotinus, who tried  
to create a city Platonopoly, wre wrong on this, as Plotinus was  
already aware in the ennead (that it could go in the falling soul  
direction).

Religion can influence politics, but without saying so, privately. We  
just don't mix the temporal and the atemporal, even if each individual  
can be inspired by his religious cogitation and medictation or  
experiences. If not it is a blasphem, which in Plato theology can be  
translate into "argument per-authority" (indeed the worst one).

God is the law-giver; he's the tyrant writ large who sees all,  
judges all, and rewards and punishes all.

OK, you definitely talk about post roman religion. That was wrong, and  
that is why I suggest we backtrack to Plato and Plotinus, refined and  
corrected by the universal machine. It should be obvious that one we  
do theology as a science, we have to abandon wishful thinking and any  
ethical consideration in the assumption.  We can only *hope* that  
Einstein was right: God might be subtle but not malicious.

The truths of mathematics and physics and biology are of little  
relevance.  His "truths" are about procreation and war and ethics  
and loyalty to the tribe.

For the Roman, and I'm afraid, also for Mohammed, probably due to the  
circumstances. Before, "his truth" was the theorem of mathematics,  
well, almost.

>>Which comes from the ONE of the greeks, mixed with the Jewish  
legend. Well, if you forget the superstition, it has some  
important relation. Monotheism is a reflexion of parmenides or  
Plotinus monism.

Perhaps you are referring to the Jewish mystic concept of the  
sephiroth kether (kether means crown in Hebrew) it is that which  
is manifest yet cannot be named; the first divine emanation out of  
pure abstract space… that is without form or definition yet which  
fills and animates all things…. The divine spark so to speak.

I think so.

A few examples “a God fearing” man (or woman) is upstanding, moral  
and considered (by other god-fearers at least) to be superior to  
those who do not fear god;

But this "fearing of God" is a mystery to me. God should be good.  
Only the devil should be feared. (between us).

Unless you are the devil.

The devil is in hell, but not among the tortured, as he is the  
torturer. You know, the daemons are very happy in hell. It is their  
home. They thank God for that. (I put myself in the post roman type of  
religion

Re: Evolution of pro-social religions

2015-01-04 Thread Alberto G. Corona

There are previous evolutionary studies of religion leaded by David Sloan
Wilson.

I think that they only scratch the surface. But it is a good start. I wrote
in this group about the need of human sacrifices to create an stable
society if  natural selection  and game theory are accepted as premises.

This indeed add a big significance of Christ sacrifice for non-believers,
and explain the historical appetite for blood in every regime that want to
construct itself from scratch (like the current New world order)

2015-01-04 2:14 GMT+01:00 :

> In the first instance I'm posting this recently accepted paper (link is to
> full paper), for Bruno and Brent reference a recent discussion between them
> about the part of large scale religion in the emergence of ever-more
> complex society. Brent has me on ignore...I'm not sure about
> Brunoperhaps someone not ignoring will do a reply in the thread so that
> it becomes visible for them.
>
> In the second instance I think the guys behind the paper have a good idea
> and/or chimes with what I'd imagine was a fairly common intuition on the
> matter.
>
> In the third instanceI thought what the paper aspires to deliver was
> worth consideration just for itself. I'll paste it below right after
> mentioning I haven't read the paper yetI shall be, but only just saw it
> yesterday. Given I haven't read itI have no idea whether and to what
> extent they live up to what they aspire to.
>
> *"This framework (1) reconciles key aspects of the adaptationist and
> byproduct approaches to the origins of religion, (2) explains a variety of *
>
> *empirical observations that have not received adequate attention, and (3)
> generates novel predictions. Converging lines of evidence drawn from
> diverse disciplines provide empirical support while at the same time
> encouraging new research directions and opening up new questions for
> exploration and debate.*
>
>
> *http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf
> *
>
> --
> 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread Kim Jones




 

> On 3 Jan 2015, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> If everything exists, what doesn't exist?  Nothing.
> 
>  
> 
> If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?
> 
> -Chris
> 
> Brent
> 

You are both missing the main question: what was there before there was nothing?

K

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

 

In regard to:

"If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?"

This is exactly what I'm suggesting.  It would not remain "nothing".  We 
usually think of the situation when you get rid of all matter, energy, 
space/volume, time, abstract concepts, minds, etc. as "nothing".  But, what I'm 
saying is that this supposed "nothing" really isn't the lack of all existent 
entities.  That "nothing" would be the entirety of all that is present; that's 
it; there's nothing else.  It would be the all.  An entirety is a grouping 
defining what is contained within and therefore an existent entity, based on my 
definition of an existent entity.   So, even what we think of as "nothing" is 
an existent entity or "something".  This means that "something" is 
non-contingent.  It's necessary.  There is no such thing as the lack of all 
existent entities.

 

Roger – you have much to say about nothing [just joking] 

I agree with the distinction you make between nothing arrived at through the 
negative process of removing everything that exists until nothing is left 
versus the nothing *that is* everything. 

Further down, if I follow you, you are making the point that if we are speaking 
about the *nothing that is the set of everything there is* then even if this is 
an empty set, by virtue of a set being something – a conceptual entity – then 
even the absolutely empty universal set {} exists as a conceptual entity at 
least.

Is that a fair recap of your intent; or am I off the mark?

-Chris

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com   
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com  ] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com  
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?

 

On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:

Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it seems 
important to know why everything exists.  How is it that a thing can exist?  
What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is contained within is an 
existent entity.  Then, you can use this to try and answer the other question 
of "Why is there something rather than nothing?".


If everything exists, what doesn't exist?  Nothing.

 

If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?

-Chris

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 http://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 7:59 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?

On 03 Jan 2015, at 07:17, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?

On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:

Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it seems 
important to know why everything exists.  How is it that a thing can exist?  
What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is contained within is an 
existent entity.  Then, you can use this to try and answer the other question 
of "Why is there something rather than nothing?".

If everything exists, what doesn't exist?  Nothing.

If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?

Careful not confusing "Nothing exists" and "Nothing exist".

In the first case, something exists. But not necessarily in the second case. 

Okay… I see you point. “Nothing Exist” is a hard abstraction to wrap the mind 
around and the mind will try like hell to give nothing a kind of existence 
because it is so impossibly hard to even imagine the former.

Of course not everything exists a priori. There is no divisors of zero 
different from zero, 

>>nor is there a cat-dog, 

Not yet in our universe, but what about in fifty years from now would it remain 
beyond our technical reach to fuse the DNA of a cat and a dog to create this 
radical hybrid? Would it always fight with itself… would it bark or meow J

I take your point however.

nor is there a triangle with four sides.

Then with mechanism, we can, assume that what exist are simply the numbers 0, 
s(0), s(s(0)), etc.

I don’t think you are referring to set notation.. the empty set being {}. So by 
“s(0)” do you mean an operation taking zero? A specific operation perhaps: 0, 
sum(0), sum(sum(0)) etc. ?

It seems so but I am not sure.

Then all the rest, God included, is part of a persistent number hallucination, 
but "hallucination" should not be used as "unreal", because the hallucination 
is real, and is what makes our lives, and there is no reason to dismiss them at 
all. 

The math makes this clear too by distinguish the 

ontical existence  Ex P(x)  and only 0, s(0), ... exists in that sense

and the many and quite variate rich phenomenological existence: whcih are 
obtained with the modal points of view, like []Ex[]P(x), with [] being the box 
of self-reference logic and its many intensional variants (which distinguish 
basicall all science (biology, psychology, physics, even theology).

It is intuitive to me how a vastly deep self-referential recursion of math 
could generate all manner of sublime subtle effects at some far remove from the 
basic fundamental math underlying the self-referential edifice. 

-Chris

Bruno

-Chris

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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-lis

RE: Democracy

2015-01-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 7:47 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

On 03 Jan 2015, at 09:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

On 30 Dec 2014, at 01:38, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

- Forwarded Message -
From: Alberto G. Corona 

>>The Soviet union can be formally considered a "democracy". There is nothing 
>>external or formal that may distinguish a democracy from any other regime. 
>>Since every modern state has the same elements. All of them use the 
>>momenclature of the age. The word democracy is the most overused world in 
>>this century togeter with "scientific".

No word comes close to matching the overuse of the word "god" however.

Yes,  ... and no. 

For the greeks "God" was just a pointer to the truth we are searching, through 
theories and observation. It led to math and physics, + inquiry about which one 
is more fundamental, and what might still be beyond math and physics. That use 
of God remains in some language expression, like when we say "only God knows", 
which means "I don't know".

But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was referring to 
modern usage that has associated it with a monotheistic value system.

I think monotheism is only the "personal" view of the monism of the parmenides 
one.

I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the monism of 
those who believe in an unifying truth. The fairy tales is a pedagogical 
popularization, who get wrong when the religion is (too much) mixed with 
politics.

>>Which comes from the ONE of the greeks, mixed with the Jewish legend. Well, 
>>if you forget the superstition, it has some important relation. Monotheism is 
>>a reflexion of parmenides or Plotinus monism.

Perhaps you are referring to the Jewish mystic concept of the sephiroth kether 
(kether means crown in Hebrew) it is that which is manifest yet cannot be 
named; the first divine emanation out of pure abstract space… that is without 
form or definition yet which fills and animates all things…. The divine spark 
so to speak.

I think so. 

A few examples “a God fearing” man (or woman) is upstanding, moral and 
considered (by other god-fearers at least) to be superior to those who do not 
fear god;

But this "fearing of God" is a mystery to me. God should be good. Only the 
devil should be feared. (between us). Obviously that are open problem in 
machine theology.

>>With some definition, fearing God is a nonsense.

I find those definitions of God far more palatable than I do the Manichean 
dystopic vision, of a universe divided between the opposing forces of good and 
evil.

In the theology of the machine, the devil is well played by the notion of 
false. In a sense, like in Plotinus, it simply does not exist, but its 
influence is incarnated in the []f, and [][]f, or even []<>t, which implies 
logically f, at the star level (in G*), which we cannot see, but can intuit. 
That makes the frontier between good and bad into a fractal similar to the 
Mandelbrot set. But it relates also the "bad" to the harm. The opposing force 
is nature manicheism, needed to make us believe that eating is good and being 
eaten is bad, which is locally useful to live and develop.

>>We should fear the devil, but not God.

Or as some spiritual traditions maintain the devil is merely a manifestation of 
our own ignorance and impoverished state of being cutoff form our spiritual 
being. 

>>That follows from what I say aboven but not withot some technical 
>>difficulties. Plotinus get similar difficulties. Pain and suffering remains 
>>quite complex to analyse. there are still many difficulties.

Pain and suffering will never be easy to explain, especially the pain and 
suffering of innocents.

The devil is a paper tiger… not to say that evil does not exist, but evil is 
ultimately a manifestation of profound spiritual ignorance – at least amongst 
some spiritual traditions.

So perhaps if I could re-phrase the phrase above to say that we should be 
mindful of our ignorance, for inner ignorance is what cuts us off from the 
infinite eternal divine infusion of being.

I will think about this. I am not entirely sure. It is more the ignorance of 
our ignorance which is evil, but that might correspond to what you say, because 
it is the ignorance of ignorance which cut of frm the "divine source".  Our 
ignorance itself, when living on the terrestrial plane, is our knowledge of 
God/Truth. To see God is a sort o

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

RE: S=0

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Re: Intelligence & Consciousness

Re: Democracy

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year

Re: Democracy

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Re: Democracy

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Re: Evolution of pro-social religions

Re: Carlos Castaneda

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Re: Carlos Castaneda

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Democracy

Re: Evolution of pro-social religions

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

RE: Democracy

30 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information