date:20120508

On 08 May 2012, at 21:46, John Mikes wrote:

Ricardo:
good text! I may add to it:
"Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody". (The ancient joke of
Odysseus towards Polyphemos: 'Nobody' has hurt me).

Just one thing: if it contains (includes) EMPTY SPACE, it includes
space, it is not nothing. And please, do not forget about my adage
in the previous post that limits (borders) are similarly not
includable into nothing, so it must be an infinite - well - "nothing".
It still may contain things we have no knowledge about and in such
case it is NOT nothing. We just are ignorant.

Also, I can make a critic to 'nothing' or 'everything' similar to my
critics of how Stephen use the term "existence". It is a word, and it
can belong to a theory only if there is an axiomatic for it, or a semi-
axiomatic. You have to be able to give some sense of some "thing" to
define or point on "no-thing". At the metalevel, nothing and
everything are coextensive.

Bruno

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM, R AM wrote:
Some thoughts about "nothing":

- If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a
property, then "nothing" cannot have any limitations, including the
limitation of generating "something". Therefore, "something" may
come from "nothing".

- Given that something exists, it is possible that something exists
(obviously). The later would be true even if "nothing" was the case.
Therefore, we should envision the state of "nothing" co-existing
with the possibility of "something" existing, which is rather bizarre.

- Why should "nothing" be the default state? I think this is based
on the intuition that "nothing" would require no explanation,
whereas "something" requires an explanation. However, given that the
possibility of something existing is necessarily true, an
explanation would be required for why there is "nothing" instead of
"something".

- There are many ways something can exist, but just one of nothing
existing. Therefore, "nothing" is less likely :-)

- I think the intuition that "nothing" requires less explanation
than the universe we observe is based on a generalization of the
idea of classical empty space. However, this intuition is based on
what we know about *this* universe (i.e. empty space is simpler than
things existing in it). But why this intuition about *our* reality
should be extrapolated to metaphysics?

- I think that the important question is why this universe instead
of any other universe? (including "nothing").

Ricardo.

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, John Clark
wrote:

On Sat, May 5, 2012 John Mikes wrote:

> Is it so hard to understand a "word"?

Yes, the word "nothing" keeps evolving. Until about a hundred years
ago "nothing" just meant a vacuum, space empty of any matter; then a
few years later the meaning was expanded to include lacking any
energy too, then still later it meant also not having space, and
then it meant not even having time. Something that is lacking matter
energy time and space may not be the purest form of nothing but it
is, you must admit, a pretty pitiful "thing", and if science can
explain (and someday it very well may be able to) how our world with
all it's beautiful complexity came to be from such modest beginnings
then that would not be a bad days work, and to call such activities
"incredibly shallow" as some on this list have is just idiotic.

> N O T H I N G - is not a set of anything, no potential

Then the question "can something come from nothing?" has a obvious
and extremely dull answer.

> I wrote once a little silly 'ode' about ontology. I started:
"In the beginning there was Nothingness.
And when Nothingness realised it's nothingness
It turned into Somethingness

Then your version of nothing had something, the potential to produce
something. I also note the use of the word "when", thus time, which
is something, existed in your "nothing" universe as well as potential.

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ev

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On 08 May 2012, at 21:41, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/8/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:

On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdb wrote:

...

Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and
fragmentation of Christianity.
When Christianity was strong and in control is what we call "The
Dark Ages". Now that it
is no longer in control and the Western world relies on the
technology of science,

Christian apologists are writing revisionist histories.
I agree, organized religion has been a catastrophe for the world,
and

it still is, but that doesn't change the historical emergence of
science from spiritual contemplation.
I would suggest you to consider Soviet Union under Stalin when
military

atheists took the power over. I guess that the absolute number of
victims was even more.

Just one examples. Nikolai Vavilov - a famous biologist working in
genetics (compare his fate with that of Copernicus and Galileo)

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

Late 1930s - Lysenko, who has conceived a hatred for genetics is
put in

charge of all of Soviet agriculture
1940 - arrested for allegedly wrecking Soviet agriculture; delivered
more than a hundred hours of lectures on science while in prison
1943 - died imprisoned and suffering from dystrophia (faulty
nutrition

of muscles, leading to paralysis), in the Saratov prison.

I don't think we can say that was caused by atheism though. Soviet
communism was still atheistic after Stalin, wasn't it? There are
secular authorities in power in other countries where there has not
been any genocidal consequences. It seems like there have been and
continue to be bloody crusades and inquisitions in the name of
religion specifically that we haven't really seen associated with
movements for the sake of atheism.

Craig

Any world view that attracts 'true believers' and promises 'a better
world' can be co-opted for political power. Humans are social
animals and like to belong to greater organizations. This is
useful, but like most useful things, also dangerous. Science tends
to avoid this because it institutionalizes skeptical testing.

I don't think so. You cannot institutionalize skeptical testing, or
you will kill skepticism. I know examples. You can encourage it by
practice, but once institutionalized, it stop working.

Bruno

Brent
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.
It is the opium of the people.

--- Karl Marx

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not



On 08 May 2012, at 20:17, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:

On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdb  wrote:


...



Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and  
fragmentation of Christianity.
When Christianity was strong and in control is what we call "The  
Dark Ages". Now that it
is no longer in control and the Western world relies on the  
technology of science,

Christian apologists are writing revisionist histories.


I agree, organized religion has been a catastrophe for the world, and
it still is, but that doesn't change the historical emergence of
science from spiritual contemplation.


I would suggest you to consider Soviet Union under Stalin when  
military atheists took the power over. I guess that the absolute  
number of victims was even more.


Just one examples. Nikolai Vavilov - a famous biologist working in  
genetics (compare his fate with that of Copernicus and Galileo)


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

Late 1930s - Lysenko, who has conceived a hatred for genetics is put  
in charge of all of Soviet agriculture
1940 - arrested for allegedly wrecking Soviet agriculture; delivered  
more than a hundred hours of lectures on science while in prison
1943 - died imprisoned and suffering from dystrophia (faulty  
nutrition of muscles, leading to paralysis), in the Saratov prison.


But this confirms that, once institutionalized, religion creates lies  
and suffering. Materialism is no exception. For a platonist, or  
neoplatonist, or neoeneoplatonist, atheism is a tiny variant of  
christianism. Both are tiny variant of Aristotelianism.


Bruno


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On 08 May 2012, at 20:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 07.05.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:

> To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as
quantum

mechanics.

Perverse it may be but it's not my business to judge what quantum
mechanics
does in private when nobody is looking, that's up to quantum
mechanics and
the electron, but the point is that love it or hate it the logic of
quantum
mechanics works, it makes correct predictions on how the world
works

and if
you don't like it complain to the universe not me. But the logic
of the

trinity does nothing and is just brain dead dumb.

John K Clark

You are wrong. With the trinity logic you can find for example an
answer why human language allows us to describe events that has
happened long before the life has been created.

A remarkable discovery. The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians (and
the
present day Muslims) were unable to describe events before life on
Earth

(but maybe there was life elsewhere?). Or maybe you just refer to ex
falso quodlibet, so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.

Brent

For the development of science, it is necessary to have a believe
that equations discovered by a human mind could be used for the
whole history of Universe. At that time, this belief came from
trinity.

The logic of trinity is more complex, it concerns that words can
explain Nature. I will report on this more, when I will work out
Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics. Roughly speaking "In the
Beginning was the Word". The trinity, by the way, is not the
invention of Christianity, it comes from ancient times.

Yes. It is common to basically all Greek theologies, and is prominent
in Plotinus. But it appears also in India, and in very old mythologies
(babylonian? Egyptians, Sumerians, ... I should do research on this).

And it appears quickly when a Löbian machine looks inward, under the
form of the discovery of the different logic for truth (the outer
god), provability (the intellect, the third person) and "true
provability" (the first person, the inner god, the universal soul).

Now, to say 1 = 3, can only be a poetical metaphor. It is not a
counter-example to the arithmetical laws. I hope this is obvious for
everybody. 0 would have to successors.

Bruno

You have mentioned that you have another explanation why neuron nets
not only obey the physical laws but they also can comprehend the
physical laws. Could you please sketch it?

Evgenii

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

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

Re: A crazy thoughts about structure of Electron.

2012-05-08 Thread socra...@bezeqint.net

Electron’s fine structure constant.
=.
It is interesting to understand the Sommerfeld formula:
a= e^2 / h*c, where {a} is fine structure constant: 1/137
Feynman expressed (a ) quantity as
‘ by the god given damnation to all physicists ‘.
But the fine structure constant is not independent quantity,
it is only part of formula of an electron: e^2=h*ca .
The constant {a} is only one of three constants which
belong to the formula of electron: e^2=h*ca.
(a), (c), (h*) are three constants which created the electron.
And if we don’t know (a) then we don’t know what electron is.
Therefore in the internet is possible to find 100 different models
of electron. For example.
The book "What is the Electron?"
Volodimir Simulik
Montreal, Canada. 2005. /
In this book:
‘ More than ten different models of the electron are presented here.
(!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.’

ftp://210.45.114.81/physics/%CA%E9%BC%AE/What%20Is%20the%20Electron%20by%20Volodimir%20Simulik%20.pdf

All of these models are problematical.
We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics.
But how can we trust them if we don’t know what electron is.
And somebody wrote:
If I well remember Einstein once said about particle physics:
"why do we study some many particles?
Understand really what is an electron would be enough."
. . .
‘ Finding the structure of the electron will be the key
to finding the origin of the natural laws.’
=.
By my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest and simplest particle photon /electron and
then to study the far away spaces and another particles.
=.
Best withes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

==.

Re: Free will in MWI


On 5/8/2012 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On May 8, 8:22 pm, meekerdb  wrote:


So if carefully weigh my options and decide on one it's not free will?  I'd say 
free will
is making any choice that is not coerced by another agent.

We have the concept of 'breaking someone's will', which leads me to
think that even being coerced contains the same degree of free will,
except they have chosen to subordinate it to some external agency. The
target is won over by reason, intimidation, confidence, etc, 'an offer
he can't refuse' - ie there is participation even in the face of a
seemingly overpowering coercion. It would seem that there is no
objective created condition that can automatically overpower your will
unless on some level you agree to it - the exception being
physiological conditions which affect consciousness.

Craig



When it feels like coercion it's because you have to chose between alternatives both of 
which are bad.  It it's pay Big George or we break you legs - that's coercion.  If it's a 
$500 or a date with Kate Beckinsale - that's free will.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Free will in MWI

On May 8, 8:22 pm, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> So if carefully weigh my options and decide on one it's not free will?  I'd 
> say free will
> is making any choice that is not coerced by another agent.

We have the concept of 'breaking someone's will', which leads me to
think that even being coerced contains the same degree of free will,
except they have chosen to subordinate it to some external agency. The
target is won over by reason, intimidation, confidence, etc, 'an offer
he can't refuse' - ie there is participation even in the face of a
seemingly overpowering coercion. It would seem that there is no
objective created condition that can automatically overpower your will
unless on some level you agree to it - the exception being
physiological conditions which affect consciousness.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 8, 8:36 pm, Pierz  wrote:

> Yeah OK fine, so maybe I'm one turtle too high! Let's just say arithemetic 
> then. Why does it exist? Because.

Try it this way instead: Why does existence have causality? To make
more sense.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-05-08 Thread Pierz


The problem is that physicists have not yet succeed in marrying QM and GR, 
which is needed to get a quantum theory of space-time. You can bet on strings 
or on loop gravity though, or on the Dewitt-Wheeler equation, which, actually 
make physical time vanishing completely from the big picture. It is an internal 
parameter only.

Yes, none of which I pretend to understand any more than any guy who reads all 
the popular expositions of such theories. But it seems highly dubious to me for 
Krauss to even present a theory that pretends to explain something as 
fundamental as something from nothing given the absence of a QM-GR unification. 
After all, as good as QM and GR are at predicting stuff in their domains, we 
know that neither is right! It's an overreach. 

It is different for the UD. Its existence is a theorem in any theory of 
everything, like this one:

classical logic +
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

or in this one:

Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

Yeah OK fine, so maybe I'm one turtle too high! Let's just say arithemetic 
then. Why does it exist? Because.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/59ceGIHlAowJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-05-08 Thread Pierz



>There is an interesting point here, although probably not what you intended. 
>What you say is true, you cannot trace it all the way back to absolute 
>nothing, >because there is no reverse physical process that transforms 
>something into "nothing" (at least, not into absolute nothing). Or 
>equivalently, there is no physical >process that transforms "absolute nothing" 
>into something. But if that is the case, why are you so sure that "nothing" 
>must have come before?

You must have misread me. I am anything but sure nothing must have come before. 
Indeed, my whole point is that something from nothing - genuine nothing - is a 
nonsense. You can't bridge the hgap between existence and non existence by any 
causal process. I think that's obvious, and we must accept that the universe 
simply 'is'.

>>As for the remark about nothingness having only one way of being and there 
>>being a lot more ways of existing, it's cute, but it's sophistry. Non-being 
>>is not a >>countable way of being. It's the absence of being - obviously - so 
>>can't be presented as one among a myriad of possible configurations of the 
>>universe.

>I agree "nothing" is not a configuration of things, but I think it could be 
>considered as one element belonging to an abstract space. Let's consider this 
>universe and >the abstract operation of removing things. We can remove the 
>Sun, Andromeda, etc. "Nothing" is what is left after removing all things 
>(including space, time, ...). >It's one among many. It's not that different 
>from 0 being a natural number or the empty set being a set.
 
An empty set is not the absence of a set. But to take another angle on it: 
consider what you mean by removing these objects. It's merely something you're 
imagining, it does not correspond to any real process. In reality, energy and 
matter transform, they are not created or destroyed. You can't simply imagine 
subtracting one universe from the universe and getting nothing then say, "See, 
I can get nothing from a universe by subtracting it from itself, so I can get a 
universe from nothing by adding it back in"! You're just creating some imagined 
bridge between non-existence and existence when that is in fact the whole point 
of the dilemma. You say existence is more "likely" than nonexistence based on 
this imaginary subtraction/addition, but think about the meaning of "likely". 
What is the set you're sampling from? All possible states of existence 
including the absence of anything - the empty set. So you've already 'created' 
the universe of universes as it were. Why is there a set to sample from to 
allow there to be any likelihood of one or the other state of being? That is 
the crux of the issue.

>Ricardo.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/UNEgdFCZD-UJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Free will in MWI


On 5/8/2012 4:24 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:52 AM, John Mikes  wrote:

Stathis: what's your definition? - JM

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:

I have started listening to Beginning of Infinity and joined the
discussion
list for the book. Right now there is a discussion there

Free will in MWI
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/t/b172f0e03d68bcc6

I am at the beginning of the book and I do not know for sure, but from
the
answers to this discussion it seems that according to David Deutsch one
can
find free will in MWI.

One can find or not find free will anywhere depending on how one
defines it. That is the entire issue with free will.

My definition: free will is when you're not sure you're going to do
something until you've done it.




So if carefully weigh my options and decide on one it's not free will?  I'd say free will 
is making any choice that is not coerced by another agent.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Free will in MWI

2012-05-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:52 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
> Stathis: what's your definition? - JM
>
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
>> > I have started listening to Beginning of Infinity and joined the
>> > discussion
>> > list for the book. Right now there is a discussion there
>> >
>> > Free will in MWI
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/t/b172f0e03d68bcc6
>> >
>> > I am at the beginning of the book and I do not know for sure, but from
>> > the
>> > answers to this discussion it seems that according to David Deutsch one
>> > can
>> > find free will in MWI.
>>
>> One can find or not find free will anywhere depending on how one
>> defines it. That is the entire issue with free will.

My definition: free will is when you're not sure you're going to do
something until you've done it.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:46 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> Ricardo:
> good text! I may add to it:
> "Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody". (The ancient joke of Odysseus
> towards Polyphemos: 'Nobody' has hurt me).
>
> Just one thing: if it contains (includes) EMPTY SPACE, it includes space,
> it is not nothing.
>

I actually meant that most of the time, people say "nothing" when they mean
Newtonian empty space. I agree that "nothing" is not empty space.


> And please, do not forget about my adage in the previous post that limits
> (borders) are similarly not includable into nothing, so it must be an
> infinite - well - "nothing".
> It still may contain things we have no knowledge about and in such case it
> is NOT nothing. We just are ignorant.
>

I agree that if it contains things, then it is not "nothing", but you can
"create" a "nothing" by removing them.

Ricardo.


> JM
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM, R AM  wrote:
>
>> Some thoughts about "nothing":
>>
>> - If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a
>> property, then "nothing" cannot have any limitations, including the
>> limitation of generating "something". Therefore, "something" may come from
>> "nothing".
>>
>> - Given that something exists, it is possible that something exists
>> (obviously). The later would be true even if "nothing" was the case.
>> Therefore, we should envision the state of "nothing" co-existing with the
>> possibility of "something" existing, which is rather bizarre.
>>
>> - Why should "nothing" be the default state? I think this is based on the
>> intuition that "nothing" would require no explanation, whereas "something"
>> requires an explanation. However, given that the possibility of something
>> existing is necessarily true, an explanation would be required for why
>> there is "nothing" instead of "something".
>>
>> - There are many ways something can exist, but just one of nothing
>> existing. Therefore, "nothing" is less likely :-)
>>
>> - I think the intuition that "nothing" requires less explanation than the
>> universe we observe is based on a generalization of the idea of classical
>> empty space. However, this intuition is based on what we know about *this*
>> universe (i.e. empty space is simpler than things existing in it). But why
>> this intuition about *our* reality should be extrapolated to metaphysics?
>>
>> - I think that the important question is why this universe instead of any
>> other universe? (including "nothing").
>>
>> Ricardo.
>>
>> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, May 5, 2012  John Mikes  wrote:
>>>
>>>  > Is it so hard to understand a "word"?

>>>
>>> Yes, the word "nothing" keeps evolving. Until about a hundred years ago
>>> "nothing" just meant a vacuum, space empty of any matter; then a few years
>>> later the meaning was expanded to include lacking any energy too, then
>>> still later it meant also not having space, and then it meant not even
>>> having time. Something that is lacking matter energy time and space may not
>>> be the purest form of nothing but it is, you must admit, a pretty pitiful
>>> "thing", and if science can explain (and someday it very well may be able
>>> to) how our world with all it's beautiful complexity came to be from such
>>> modest beginnings then that would not be a bad days work, and to call such
>>> activities "incredibly shallow" as some on this list have is just idiotic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 *>** N O T H I N G  -  *is not a set of anything, no potential

>>>
>>> Then the question "can something come from nothing?" has a obvious and
>>> extremely dull answer.
>>>
>>>  > I wrote once a little silly 'ode' about ontology. I started:
  "In the beginning there was Nothingness.
  And when Nothingness realised it's nothingness
  It turned into Somethingness

>>>
>>> Then your version of nothing had something, the potential to produce
>>> something. I also note the use of the word "when", thus time, which is
>>> something, existed in your "nothing" universe as well as potential.
>>>
>>>   John K Clark
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, May 6, 2012   wrote:
>
> > There are many ways something can exist, but just one of nothing
>> existing. Therefore, "nothing" is less likely :-)
>>
>
> EXCELLENT!  I wish I'd said that; Picasso said good artists borrow but
> great artists steal, so no doubt some day I will indeed say that.
>

I just found out that this argument had been proposed by Van Inwagen in
1996. I must have read it somewhere and stuck into my mind. Hapens all the
time :-)

Van Inwagen, Peter (1996) “Why Is There Anything at All?”, Proceedings of
the Aristotelian Society, 70: 95-110.

Ricardo.

  John K Clark
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> Some people claim that something cannot come from "nothing". I think they
> are hanging a property on it.
>
>
> Hi Ricardo,
>
> Yes and some other people claim that something can indeed come out of
> nothing - so long as that something comes with its antithesis so that the
> sum of the two is equal to nothing, kinda like 1 and -1 popping out of
> zero. I think that they are "hanging a property on it" and thus they are
> assuming that it has "hooks" - to follow the metaphor. But I think that
> here we are looking at the symptoms of something else, the symptoms of the
> word "come from" or "caused by" or "emergent". They all involve some kind
> of transformation. Are transformations possible within a "nothing"? What
> about automorphisms? Those transformations that leave some pattern or
> object unchanged?
>

I agree that it is weird to say that something comes out of nothing, as it
implies some sort of time, which is not present in "nothing". I don't know
what to answer you but here is another argument (sort of):

- Let's start with a classical universe (Newtonian, with matter in it).
- Let's remove the matter

What is left is empty classical space. Can something come out of empty
classical space? Of course not. I think that almost always, when people say
"nothing" they actually mean classical empty space.

- Now let's remove the empty space. What is left is "nothing". Can
something come out of this "nothing"? Well, I think it could. At least, I
would say it cannot be discarded, or even, that anything is possible. Our
intuitions about classical empty space shouldn't be imposed on "nothing".
For some reason, people believe that classical empty space and "nothing"
are sort of similar. But, why should they be, at all?


> I think a proper philosopher would say that "nothing" is the state of
> affairs (rather than "nothing" exists).
>
>
> Umm, OK, but would this not make "affairs" more primitive than
> nothing?
>

I think proper philosophers say "state of affairs" when they would like to
use "state" but know they shouldn't :-). OK, just kidding.


> I think that this way of thinking starts of with a collection of
> "somethings" (plural) and classifies "nothing" as that particular member of
> the collection that is the place holder for the absence of a state. This is
> the patterns that we see in the Natural numbers, where ZERO (0) marks the
> spot that divides the positive numbers from the negative numbers.
>
>
I think so.


>  In any case, when people ask the question "why something rather than
> nothing", they implicitely assume that there is some sort of priority for
> "nothing" over something.
>
>  My short answer to "why something rather than nothing?" is "why not?".
>
>
> Yeah, but while that is clever it does not explain much, but I
> appreciate the spirit of the answer.
>
>
I agree, but it forces people to think about why they believe that
"nothing" should be preferably the case, rather than something.

Although we all have had this surprise/revelation "hey, things actually
exist, how come!", it's sort of funny. I mean, we are born with stuff
around us, and this is the case until we die. Our experience in the world
is that of transformation, never of things becoming nothing. Science only
confirms this: existence is hard. It's impossible to make matter/energy
disappear. I mean, really disappear. We wouldn't be able to obtain
"nothing" even if we really really wanted to (not even a Big Crunch). And
yet, we find it difficult to believe that there is something rather than
nothing. Go figure :-). I think it would be interesting to ascertain why
our psychology sends us this way.

>  We tend not to think much of it, but 'Nothing' = Sum of {not a cat, not a
>> dot, not a fist, not a person, not a word, ... }
>>
>
>  I agree, but why the absence of things requires less explanation than
> the presence of things?
>
>
> I think that it requires less of an explicit explanation as it relies
> on the explanations that exist previously in the minds of those that are
> apprehending the explanation. The fact that explanations are what conscious
> entities do with each other, they communicate meanings, not by pushing some
> "stuff" into them, but by implicating patterns of relations between the
> elements of the minds of the entities. Knowledge, learning, perception,
> Understanding are more like synchronization and entrainment than anything
> else.
>
>
I understand what you mean by explanation, but not why "nothing" being the
case would require less explanation than something being the case ...

Ricardo.

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

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On May 8, 3:41 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
> >> On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
>
> >>> On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdb    wrote:
> >> ...
>
>  Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and 
>  fragmentation of Christianity.
>  When Christianity was strong and in control is what we call "The Dark 
>  Ages". Now that it
>  is no longer in control and the Western world relies on the technology 
>  of science,
>  Christian apologists are writing revisionist histories.
> >>> I agree, organized religion has been a catastrophe for the world, and
> >>> it still is, but that doesn't change the historical emergence of
> >>> science from spiritual contemplation.
> >> I would suggest you to consider Soviet Union under Stalin when military
> >> atheists took the power over. I guess that the absolute number of
> >> victims was even more.
>
> >> Just one examples. Nikolai Vavilov - a famous biologist working in
> >> genetics (compare his fate with that of Copernicus and Galileo)
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov
>
> >> Late 1930s - Lysenko, who has conceived a hatred for genetics is put in
> >> charge of all of Soviet agriculture
> >> 1940 - arrested for allegedly wrecking Soviet agriculture; delivered
> >> more than a hundred hours of lectures on science while in prison
> >> 1943 - died imprisoned and suffering from dystrophia (faulty nutrition
> >> of muscles, leading to paralysis), in the Saratov prison.
>
> > I don't think we can say that was caused by atheism though. Soviet
> > communism was still atheistic after Stalin, wasn't it? There are
> > secular authorities in power in other countries where there has not
> > been any genocidal consequences. It seems like there have been and
> > continue to be bloody crusades and inquisitions in the name of
> > religion specifically that we haven't really seen associated with
> > movements for the sake of atheism.
>
> > Craig
>
> Any world view that attracts 'true believers' and promises 'a better world' 
> can be
> co-opted for political power.  Humans are social animals and like to belong 
> to greater
> organizations.  This is useful, but like most useful things, also dangerous.  
> Science
> tends to avoid this because it institutionalizes skeptical testing.

Religion relies on true believers because it works like multi-level
marketing, riding on human enthusiasm to promote super-signifying
ideals. Science promises a better world and attracts true believers
also, but it's success doesn't rely on subjective enthusiasm directly,
but indirectly as commercial-cultural consequences of objective
products (technology). The danger of science isn't in the popularity
or zealotry of it, but in the short-sightedness of its products and
the promotion of instrumental reasoning that impacts society
negatively.

Science incorporates many admirable checks and balances, but
ultimately all of those can be corrupted with enough money and
influence. It isn't really science that is the modern anti-theology,
it is law and finance which is the purest and most fanatical
expression of empirical worship. Science has become the servant of
that quantitative anti-theocracy, but it is a willing servant and not
blameless.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Free will in MWI

2012-05-08 Thread John Mikes

Stathis: what's your definition? - JM

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
> > I have started listening to Beginning of Infinity and joined the
> discussion
> > list for the book. Right now there is a discussion there
> >
> > Free will in MWI
> > http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/t/b172f0e03d68bcc6
> >
> > I am at the beginning of the book and I do not know for sure, but from
> the
> > answers to this discussion it seems that according to David Deutsch one
> can
> > find free will in MWI.
>
> One can find or not find free will anywhere depending on how one
> defines it. That is the entire issue with free will.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?


On 5/8/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Ricardo:
good text! I may add to it:
"Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody". (The ancient joke of Odysseus towards 
Polyphemos: 'Nobody' has hurt me).
Just one thing: if it contains (includes) EMPTY SPACE, it includes space, it is not 
nothing. And please, do not forget about my adage in the previous post that limits 
(borders) are similarly not includable into nothing, so it must be an infinite - well - 
"nothing".
It still may contain things we have no knowledge about and in such case it is NOT 
nothing. We just are ignorant.


If we're ignorant, what do we know about?  Nothing.  :-)

Brent
"What is there?  Everything! So what isn't there?  Nothing!"
 --- Norm Levitt, after Quine

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not


On 5/8/2012 11:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 07.05.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


> To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum

mechanics.



Perverse it may be but it's not my business to judge what quantum
mechanics
does in private when nobody is looking, that's up to quantum
mechanics and
the electron, but the point is that love it or hate it the logic of
quantum
mechanics works, it makes correct predictions on how the world works
and if
you don't like it complain to the universe not me. But the logic of the
trinity does nothing and is just brain dead dumb.

John K Clark



You are wrong. With the trinity logic you can find for example an
answer why human language allows us to describe events that has
happened long before the life has been created.


A remarkable discovery. The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians (and the
present day Muslims) were unable to describe events before life on Earth
(but maybe there was life elsewhere?). Or maybe you just refer to ex
falso quodlibet, so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.

Brent


For the development of science, it is necessary to have a believe that equations 
discovered by a human mind could be used for the whole history of Universe. At that 
time, this belief came from trinity.


The logic of trinity is more complex, it concerns that words can explain Nature. I will 
report on this more, when I will work out Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics. Roughly 
speaking "In the Beginning was the Word". The trinity, by the way, is not the invention 
of Christianity, it comes from ancient times.


You have mentioned that you have another explanation why neuron nets not only obey the 
physical laws but they also can comprehend the physical laws. Could you please sketch it?


I don't recall making such a claim, but assuming brains are instances of neural nets it's 
pretty clear that 'comprehend' means to implement input/output functions that are useful 
for survival and reproduction.  Inventing mathematically consistent descriptions of 
physical processes (aka "physical laws") is very useful in survival and reproduction.  
Hence neural nets evolve to comprehend physical laws.



Brent




Evgenii



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-05-08 Thread John Mikes

Ricardo:
good text! I may add to it:
"Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody". (The ancient joke of Odysseus
towards Polyphemos: 'Nobody' has hurt me).

Just one thing: if it contains (includes) EMPTY SPACE, it includes space,
it is not nothing. And please, do not forget about my adage in the previous
post that limits (borders) are similarly not includable into nothing, so it
must be an infinite - well - "nothing".
It still may contain things we have no knowledge about and in such case it
is NOT nothing. We just are ignorant.

JM



On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM, R AM  wrote:

> Some thoughts about "nothing":
>
> - If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a property,
> then "nothing" cannot have any limitations, including the limitation of
> generating "something". Therefore, "something" may come from "nothing".
>
> - Given that something exists, it is possible that something exists
> (obviously). The later would be true even if "nothing" was the case.
> Therefore, we should envision the state of "nothing" co-existing with the
> possibility of "something" existing, which is rather bizarre.
>
> - Why should "nothing" be the default state? I think this is based on the
> intuition that "nothing" would require no explanation, whereas "something"
> requires an explanation. However, given that the possibility of something
> existing is necessarily true, an explanation would be required for why
> there is "nothing" instead of "something".
>
> - There are many ways something can exist, but just one of nothing
> existing. Therefore, "nothing" is less likely :-)
>
> - I think the intuition that "nothing" requires less explanation than the
> universe we observe is based on a generalization of the idea of classical
> empty space. However, this intuition is based on what we know about *this*
> universe (i.e. empty space is simpler than things existing in it). But why
> this intuition about *our* reality should be extrapolated to metaphysics?
>
> - I think that the important question is why this universe instead of any
> other universe? (including "nothing").
>
> Ricardo.
>
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 5, 2012  John Mikes  wrote:
>>
>>  > Is it so hard to understand a "word"?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the word "nothing" keeps evolving. Until about a hundred years ago
>> "nothing" just meant a vacuum, space empty of any matter; then a few years
>> later the meaning was expanded to include lacking any energy too, then
>> still later it meant also not having space, and then it meant not even
>> having time. Something that is lacking matter energy time and space may not
>> be the purest form of nothing but it is, you must admit, a pretty pitiful
>> "thing", and if science can explain (and someday it very well may be able
>> to) how our world with all it's beautiful complexity came to be from such
>> modest beginnings then that would not be a bad days work, and to call such
>> activities "incredibly shallow" as some on this list have is just idiotic.
>>
>>
>>
>>> *>** N O T H I N G  -  *is not a set of anything, no potential
>>>
>>
>> Then the question "can something come from nothing?" has a obvious and
>> extremely dull answer.
>>
>>  > I wrote once a little silly 'ode' about ontology. I started:
>>>  "In the beginning there was Nothingness.
>>>  And when Nothingness realised it's nothingness
>>>  It turned into Somethingness
>>>
>>
>> Then your version of nothing had something, the potential to produce
>> something. I also note the use of the word "when", thus time, which is
>> something, existed in your "nothing" universe as well as potential.
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On 5/8/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:

On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbwrote:

...

Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and fragmentation of
Christianity.
When Christianity was strong and in control is what we call "The Dark Ages".
Now that it
is no longer in control and the Western world relies on the technology of
science,
Christian apologists are writing revisionist histories.

I agree, organized religion has been a catastrophe for the world, and
it still is, but that doesn't change the historical emergence of
science from spiritual contemplation.

I would suggest you to consider Soviet Union under Stalin when military
atheists took the power over. I guess that the absolute number of
victims was even more.

Just one examples. Nikolai Vavilov - a famous biologist working in
genetics (compare his fate with that of Copernicus and Galileo)

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

Late 1930s - Lysenko, who has conceived a hatred for genetics is put in
charge of all of Soviet agriculture
1940 - arrested for allegedly wrecking Soviet agriculture; delivered
more than a hundred hours of lectures on science while in prison
1943 - died imprisoned and suffering from dystrophia (faulty nutrition
of muscles, leading to paralysis), in the Saratov prison.

Craig

Any world view that attracts 'true believers' and promises 'a better world' can be
co-opted for political power. Humans are social animals and like to belong to greater
organizations. This is useful, but like most useful things, also dangerous. Science
tends to avoid this because it institutionalizes skeptical testing.

Brent
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it
is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.

--- Karl Marx

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-05-08 Thread John Mikes

John:
who told you that "anything" evolved? especially: from nothing? that is our
human stupidity presuming a world according to our figments. We "think" in
our terms, i.e. if something seems to be, it had to 'evolve'. (I almost
wrote: 'be created'!)
We 'think' there is something. Do we have the capacity of going back *
further* than *we can*? Certainly not, - YET - we draw conclusions fitting
into our today's liking about such.

Thanks for your remarks on my - now obsolete - memory.

John Mikes

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:24 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, May 5, 2012  John Mikes  wrote:
>
>  > Is it so hard to understand a "word"?
>>
>
> Yes, the word "nothing" keeps evolving. Until about a hundred years ago
> "nothing" just meant a vacuum, space empty of any matter; then a few years
> later the meaning was expanded to include lacking any energy too, then
> still later it meant also not having space, and then it meant not even
> having time. Something that is lacking matter energy time and space may not
> be the purest form of nothing but it is, you must admit, a pretty pitiful
> "thing", and if science can explain (and someday it very well may be able
> to) how our world with all it's beautiful complexity came to be from such
> modest beginnings then that would not be a bad days work, and to call such
> activities "incredibly shallow" as some on this list have is just idiotic.
>
>
>
>> *>** N O T H I N G  -  *is not a set of anything, no potential
>>
>
> Then the question "can something come from nothing?" has a obvious and
> extremely dull answer.
>
>  > I wrote once a little silly 'ode' about ontology. I started:
>>  "In the beginning there was Nothingness.
>>  And when Nothingness realised it's nothingness
>>  It turned into Somethingness
>>
>
> Then your version of nothing had something, the potential to produce
> something. I also note the use of the word "when", thus time, which is
> something, existed in your "nothing" universe as well as potential.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
> On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
>
> > On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >> Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and fragmentation 
> >> of Christianity.
> >> When Christianity was strong and in control is what we call "The Dark 
> >> Ages". Now that it
> >> is no longer in control and the Western world relies on the technology of 
> >> science,
> >> Christian apologists are writing revisionist histories.
>
> > I agree, organized religion has been a catastrophe for the world, and
> > it still is, but that doesn't change the historical emergence of
> > science from spiritual contemplation.
>
> I would suggest you to consider Soviet Union under Stalin when military
> atheists took the power over. I guess that the absolute number of
> victims was even more.
>
> Just one examples. Nikolai Vavilov - a famous biologist working in
> genetics (compare his fate with that of Copernicus and Galileo)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov
>
> Late 1930s - Lysenko, who has conceived a hatred for genetics is put in
> charge of all of Soviet agriculture
> 1940 - arrested for allegedly wrecking Soviet agriculture; delivered
> more than a hundred hours of lectures on science while in prison
> 1943 - died imprisoned and suffering from dystrophia (faulty nutrition
> of muscles, leading to paralysis), in the Saratov prison.
>

I don't think we can say that was caused by atheism though. Soviet
communism was still atheistic after Stalin, wasn't it? There are
secular authorities in power in other countries where there has not
been any genocidal consequences. It seems like there have been and
continue to be bloody crusades and inquisitions in the name of
religion specifically that we haven't really seen associated with
movements for the sake of atheism.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

2012-05-08 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:

On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdb  wrote:


...



Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and fragmentation of 
Christianity.
When Christianity was strong and in control is what we call "The Dark Ages". 
Now that it
is no longer in control and the Western world relies on the technology of 
science,
Christian apologists are writing revisionist histories.


I agree, organized religion has been a catastrophe for the world, and
it still is, but that doesn't change the historical emergence of
science from spiritual contemplation.


I would suggest you to consider Soviet Union under Stalin when military 
atheists took the power over. I guess that the absolute number of 
victims was even more.


Just one examples. Nikolai Vavilov - a famous biologist working in 
genetics (compare his fate with that of Copernicus and Galileo)


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

Late 1930s - Lysenko, who has conceived a hatred for genetics is put in 
charge of all of Soviet agriculture
1940 - arrested for allegedly wrecking Soviet agriculture; delivered 
more than a hundred hours of lectures on science while in prison
1943 - died imprisoned and suffering from dystrophia (faulty nutrition 
of muscles, leading to paralysis), in the Saratov prison.


Evgenii

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

2012-05-08 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


On 07.05.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


> To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum

mechanics.



Perverse it may be but it's not my business to judge what quantum
mechanics
does in private when nobody is looking, that's up to quantum
mechanics and
the electron, but the point is that love it or hate it the logic of
quantum
mechanics works, it makes correct predictions on how the world works
and if
you don't like it complain to the universe not me. But the logic of the
trinity does nothing and is just brain dead dumb.

John K Clark



You are wrong. With the trinity logic you can find for example an
answer why human language allows us to describe events that has
happened long before the life has been created.


A remarkable discovery. The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians (and the
present day Muslims) were unable to describe events before life on Earth
(but maybe there was life elsewhere?). Or maybe you just refer to ex
falso quodlibet, so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.

Brent


For the development of science, it is necessary to have a believe that 
equations discovered by a human mind could be used for the whole history 
of Universe. At that time, this belief came from trinity.


The logic of trinity is more complex, it concerns that words can explain 
Nature. I will report on this more, when I will work out Collingwood's 
An Essay on Metaphysics. Roughly speaking "In the Beginning was the 
Word". The trinity, by the way, is not the invention of Christianity, it 
comes from ancient times.


You have mentioned that you have another explanation why neuron nets not 
only obey the physical laws but they also can comprehend the physical 
laws. Could you please sketch it?


Evgenii

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

2012-05-08 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


On 07.05.2012 22:19 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/7/2012 12:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 07.05.2012 20:11 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdb wrote:


Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were
dominated by theology.

All of them were still theological thinkers though,


Theological in that the concerned themselves with fundamentals and god



(although Laplace famously said he had no need of that hypothesis),
but
all unconventional. Descarte was on the index of prohibited books
until
the index was abandoned in 1962. Newton was an Aryan heretic.


The statement of Laplace is a part of the story when Newton called in
God to preserve the stability of the Sun system. Two quotes from
Feyerabend

“Laplace showed a century later, that the planetary system did not fall
apart but oscillated with a very large period. ‘I do not need this
hypothesis’, he said, when Napoleon asked him about the need for a
divine being.”


Napoleon was not asking about the stability of the solar system. He had
not even read Laplace's book.



“But this was not yet the end of matter. … A precise calculation would
have given infinities. … But this meant that Newton’s theory gave
correct results only when used in an ad hoc way.”


Where has Feyerbrand written this? Is he claiming that the solar system
cannot be stable within Newton's theory? Does he think GR is needed
(NASA doesn't)?


This is a quote from Tyranny of Science

http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/04/god-as-a-cosmic-operator.html


He is really saying that using Laplaces method of series, taking the
limit of the series would have given infinities. He recognizes that
Poincare showed how the solar system is stable within Newtonian physics.
So it is not the case "that Newton's theory gave correct results only
when used in an ad hoc way."


It is exactly the case that at the time of Newton and Laplace, Newtonian 
physics was used in an ad hoc way. We should consider event in the 
historical perspective, otherwise it does not make sense to discuss the 
development of science.


Evgenii

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-05-08 Thread Stephen P. King


On 5/7/2012 9:16 AM, R AM wrote:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote:


Hi Stephen,


- If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a
property, then "nothing" cannot have any limitations, including
the limitation of generating "something". Therefore, "something"
may come from "nothing".


Can nothing be treated as an object itself? Can we "hang"
properties on it?


Some people claim that something cannot come from "nothing". I think 
they are hanging a property on it.


Hi Ricardo,

Yes and some other people claim that something can indeed come out 
of nothing - so long as that something comes with its antithesis so that 
the sum of the two is equal to nothing, kinda like 1 and -1 popping out 
of zero. I think that they are "hanging a property on it" and thus they 
are assuming that it has "hooks" - to follow the metaphor. But I think 
that here we are looking at the symptoms of something else, the symptoms 
of the word "come from" or "caused by" or "emergent". They all involve 
some kind of transformation. Are transformations possible within a 
"nothing"? What about automorphisms? Those transformations that leave 
some pattern or object unchanged?




Are we actually talking about "substance" as synonomous with what
the philosophers of old used to use as the object minus its
properties? I like to use the word "Existence" in this case, as it
would seen to naturally include "nothing" and "something" as its
most trivial dual categories.



- Given that something exists, it is possible that something
exists (obviously). The later would be true even if "nothing" was
the case. Therefore, we should envision the state of "nothing"
co-existing with the possibility of "something" existing, which
is rather bizarre.


Does Nothingness exist? Can Nothingness non-exist? At what
point are we playing games with words and at what point are we
being meaningful?


I think a proper philosopher would say that "nothing" is the state of 
affairs (rather than "nothing" exists).


Umm, OK, but would this not make "affairs" more primitive than 
nothing?  I think that this way of thinking starts of with a collection 
of "somethings" (plural) and classifies "nothing" as that particular 
member of the collection that is the place holder for the absence of a 
state. This is the patterns that we see in the Natural numbers, where 
ZERO (0) marks the spot that divides the positive numbers from the 
negative numbers.



You are pointing out how "possibility" seems to be implicitly tied
to the relation between something and nothing. In my reasoning
this is why I consider existence as "necessary possibility".
Unfortunately, this consideration suffers from the ambiguity
inherent in semiotics known as the figure-frame relation
.
Is the word we use to denote
 or connote
 a referent?
What if we mean to use both denotative and connotative uses?


One way of intuiting "nothing" is that which remains when you have 
removed everything.


Right.

In fact, I believe that the philosophical "nothing" is nothing else 
than classical empty space elevated to metaphysical heights.


I agree. We see this in the modern notion of the vacuum or vacua 
(plural).


The problem is that even after you have removed everything (including 
time and space), there is something that cannot be removed: the 
possibility of something existing.


Exactly! Possibility itself can never be completely extracted, it 
can only be countered.


It would seem that "nothing" (or rather, NOTHING) shouldn't allow even 
for the logical possibility of something existing. But given that 
something exists, this possibility cannot be removed. That is why I 
said that the idea of "nothing" and the logical possibility of 
existence, sharing the same state of affairs, is bizarre (if not 
incompatible).


I agree. This is what I have in mind as well.



- Why should "nothing" be the default state? I think this is
based on the intuition that "nothing" would require no
explanation, whereas "something" requires an explanation.
However, given that the possibility of something existing is
necessarily true, an explanation would be required for why there
is "nothing" instead of "something".


I agree. We might even think or intuit "nothing" as the
absolute absence of 'everything' : the sum of all particulars that
piece-wise and collection-wise are not-nothing; whereas
'something' is a special case of 'everything'; a particular case
of everything.


Probably the best way of defining "nothing" is the absence of 
everything (not this, not that, ...). But isn't it funny t

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?



On 08 May 2012, at 11:49, R AM wrote:




On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
As for the remark about nothingness having only one way of being  
and there being a lot more ways of existing, it's cute, but it's  
sophistry. Non-being is not a countable way of being.


I agree.

Hi Bruno, what do you agree with exactly? That non-being is not  
being is obvious but irrelevant. The real question here is whether  
nothing and the multiple "somethings" can be put in the same  
collection in a non-arbitrary way. And they can: the collection of  
elements created by removing "things" from one another. And  
"nothing" is one of these elements.


Why? If you remove all elements of a set, it remains an empty set. If  
you remove all sets of a universe of sets, it remains an empty  
collection, which in this case is also a set.





It's the absence of being - obviously - so can't be presented as  
one among a myriad of possible configurations of the universe.


I never claimed that "nothing" is a possible configuration of the  
universe. All I said is that there are more ways of being than of  
non-being, which is obviously true, in the same way that there is  
just one zero, but many positive integers.


This confirms that when we use the term nothing, it will make sense  
only if we are already agreeing working in some theory of the things  
we are talking about. Numbers => 0. Set theory => empty set, QM => Q  
vacuum, etc.


Bruno


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On May 7, 5:22 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 2:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 3:44 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> >> On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdb    wrote:
>  The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't 
>  issue
>  contradictory statements.
> >>> You have to have logic to begin with to conceive of the desirability
> >>> of avoiding contradiction. Something has to put the 'contra' into our
> >>> 'diction'.
> >> No, you only need to understand negation, to have a language with the word 
> >> 'not'.  Then if
> >> someone says to you "X" and "not-X" you immediately realize the need to 
> >> avoid
> >> contradiction, because a contradiction fails to express anything.
> > "You immediately realize" = logic. A baby doesn't immediately realize
> > that there is a need to avoid contradiction, even though they may
> > understand bottle and not-bottle.
>
> They don't have language either.  "Bottle and not-bottle" can only occur in 
> language,
> there is no fact corresponding to "bottle and not-bottle".

Huh? The fact of 'bottle' is the experience of seeing, holding, and
using the bottle. The experience of wanting or expecting the bottle
when it is no longer present is 'not-bottle'.

>
> > An insane person or just irrational
> > person may not care about avoiding contradiction even though they
> > understand negation.
>
> They may not care to make sense.  But then why should we listen to them.

I'm not saying that we should listen to them or whether or not they
care to make sense, I'm pointing out how you are taking sense and
logic completely for granted when you say "you immediately realize the
need to avoid contradiction, because a contradiction fails to express
anything"; when you claim that "The 'laws' of logic are just the rules
of language that ensure we don't issue contradictory statements."

>
> > Any anticipation of an outcome which results in a
> > modification of one's intention is a form of logic. If I avoid
> > something for a reason, I am using logic.
>
> Yes, but not logic alone.  You're using it to connect facts and values and 
> actions that
> you know about in other ways.

Yes, those other ways are through perception, experience, and thought,
ie sense. They don't appear from language, language develops through
sense.

>
>
>
> >>>    The 'laws' of quantum mechanics also follow from simple
>  assumptions about the world having symmetries (c.f. Russell Standish's 
>  "Theory of Nothing"
>  and Vic Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos") and having a symmetry is 
>  a kind of
>  'nothing', i.e. having no distinguishing characteristic under some 
>  transformation.
> >>> Invariance is one aspect of symmetry,
> >> It's an essential aspect. A symmetry is a property that is invariant under 
> >> some
> >> transformation.
> > All properties are invariant under some transformation, that's what
> > makes them a property. Symmetry is a very specific sense of combined
> > variance, invariance, but most of all a sense of conjugation by
> > opposition.
>
> You seem to think of symmetry a as single thing.

In one sense it is, in other senses it isn't. Symmetry is just a word,
but it points to a subject, which always extends to other subjects.

> Of course all properties are invariant
> under the identity transformation.  But some things are invariant under 
> discrete
> translations, some under continuous translation, some under reflection, some 
> under
> interchange,...

I'm just talking about a common sense use of property and invariant.
By definition a property is a characteristic that persists. Invariance
is necessary but not sufficient to describe symmetry or asymmetry.

>
>
>
> >>> but you cannot reduce symmetry
> >>> to being a 'kind of nothing'. Symmetry cannot be anything less than a
> >>> feature of sense.
> >> I can if I explicitly say what kind it is - which I did.
> > Your reduction reduces symmetry to be no different from asymmetry.
> > Asymmetry is invariant under some transformation also. You have only
> > made the word symmetry meaningless.
>
> Symmetry isn't a thing and asymmetry isn't either.

It's not a thing in the sense of being an object, no, but it is a
qualitative property of pattern recognition.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> As for the remark about nothingness having only one way of being and there
> being a lot more ways of existing, it's cute, but it's sophistry. Non-being
> is not a countable way of being.
>
>
> I agree.
>

Hi Bruno, what do you agree with exactly? That non-being is not being is
obvious but irrelevant. The real question here is whether nothing and the
multiple "somethings" can be put in the same collection in a non-arbitrary
way. And they can: the collection of elements created by removing "things"
from one another. And "nothing" is one of these elements.

It's the absence of being - obviously - so can't be presented as one among
> a myriad of possible configurations of the universe.
>
> I never claimed that "nothing" is a possible configuration of the
universe. All I said is that there are more ways of being than of
non-being, which is obviously true, in the same way that there is just one
zero, but many positive integers.

Ricardo.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On 07 May 2012, at 22:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/7/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It's like saying that that apes didn't evolve as hominids did,
therefore apes are inherently an evolutionary dead end. Logic and
scholasticism are what science is made of. The ideas of empirical
testing and skeptical observation are direct outgrowths of
theology in

the specific case of Western science,

I guess I just imagined Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake,
Copernicus refusing to
have his theories published till he was dying, Galileo under house
arrest, Cardinal
Bellarmine writing "To assert that the earth revolves around the
sun is as erroneous
as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." The Church
burning books and creating a

list of prohibited works.

The Catholic Church may indeed be the most repressive influence in the
history of the world, but that doesn't mean that science and theology
aren't part of the same root impulse.

Yes. Fundamental science and theology cannot been separated.
Fundamental scientists pretending not doing theology are scientists
taking Aristotle theology for granted. It is only a form of
authoritarianism, made worse by not always being conscious. To say "I
don't do theology" means de facto "I cannot doubt Aristotle primary
matter".

And the inability to doubt is madness, in all domains.

Bruno

I see nothing in theology that says test your theories, see if you
can falsify them.
Tertullian says he believes *because* it is absurd and writes, "
When we come to believe,
we have no desire to believe anything else, for we begin by
believing that there is
nothing else which we have to believe . I warn people not to seek
for anything beyond what
they came to believe, for that was all they needed to seek for. In
the last resort,
however, it is better for you to remain ignorant, for fear that you
come to know what you
should not know . Let curiosity give place to faith, and glory to
salvation. Let them at
least be no hindrance, or let them keep quiet. To know nothing
against the Rule [of faith]
is to know everything. Augustine warned against studying
mathematics. Later Martin Luther
writes, "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out
of his Reason."

Martin Luther opposed the Catholic Church doctrines too.
Epistemological fascism exists in science as well as religion. While
belief may inherently be more insular and naive than disbelief,
neither of them have a formula for transcending their own cognitive
bias. Religion advanced civilization for 10,000 years while the
advance of science in the last 500 has arguably provided us with the
tools for our own extinction. By only looking through the lens of the
last few decades, we distort the contribution of earlier ways of
thinking. I will always appreciate science more than religion, as I
appreciate using language over walking upright, but that doesn't mean
that one thing can be completely isolated from the other or that
either one can be completely bad or good.

Christian apologists are writing revisionist histories.

I agree, organized religion has been a catastrophe for the world, and
it still is, but that doesn't change the historical emergence of
science from spiritual contemplation.

but in all cases and all
cultures that I know of, things like astronomy and medicine arise
out

of things like astrology and divination. Science has never appeared
out of whole cloth in a society.

Of course not. At one time belief in agency in nature and magic and
spirits were all part

of a reasonable world view.

That's what I'm saying. Now disbelief in agency in nature and self are
parts of a reasonable worldview.

Eventually those views divided. Magic begat alchemy and
astrology which begat science. The belief in spirits evolved into
religion which served a
useful unifying function in tribes and the early city states. But
it stagnated with the
invention of writing and the adoption of holy writings as dogma and
the emphasis on faith.

Similarly, science has become bogged down in legal and commercial
agendas, serving to delay and suppress innovation in many cases. It's
a pendulum swing. We are in the decadent phase of the Enlightenment,
printing indulgences on the stationary of elite universities for the
well-heeled offspring of the ruling class.

Craig

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

On 07 May 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/7/2012 10:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 06.05.2012 22:06 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/6/2012 10:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 05.05.2012 23:34 meekerdb said the following:

...

I would agree with that. Rome fell for other, more material
reasons. But

its fall created a power vacuum which was filled by organized
Christianity and Christianity like any dogmatic religion is in
conflict

with the skeptical, inquiring, testing nature of science. When the
reformation broke the intellectual monopoly of the Church, science
flowered and for a time it was regarded as an adjunct to theology:
discovering the creator through nature. But that only lasted up
till

Darwin.

I am afraid that the conflict between Christianity and science that
you describe is not consistent with historical facts. According to
Prof Hoenen, who is an expert on Middle Age, science and theology
has

been developed rather like a brother and a sister.

More like a master and slave - until the slaves revolted. Honen is a
professor of philosophy and theology who specializes in commenting
on
theologians of the middle ages: Marilius, Boethius, and Albert
Magnus.
Although Bruno (not Marchal) was burned at the stake and Galileo
was put
under house arrest, science was allowed as a servant of the church
up

until the Victorian era. Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were
dominated
by theology. And the real break came with Darwin. To say they
developed
like brother and sister is to suppose theology developed. While
science

has advance enormously in scope and accuracy, theologians now do no
better than in the 13th century.

For science to be started in a sense that you have mentioned, the
society should reach a certain limit of development. I am afraid
that you forget about this simple fact. Science in the middle ages
has started from logic, grammatic, etc. Without this there would be
no science that you mean.

Logic, grammar, mathematics were developed for a long time before
science. They are necessary for science, but what marks science as a
distinct intellectual enterprise is skeptical observation and
empirical testing. The scholastics inbred study of logic, grammar,
etc was sterile - as theology has continued to be.

Theology has been kept out from science for political reason. But the
initial theology of the greek has given science, and "modern science"
exists as a refutation of Aristotle theology. To bad this trends is
still blocked for the same fear of losing control.
Once science is separate from theology, science itself becomes a
pseudo-theology, as the many books by atheists shows.
You criticize theology, but by doing so you just defend a particular
theology which is made taken for granted.

Bruno

Again, the science has developed in the Christian Europe. This
could be coincidence but one cannot exclude that this was destiny.

It must have had its causes, but I note that it coincided with the
reformation and the fragmentation of the Church's power. Science
developed most in England where Henry VIII had divorced the Church
from Rome and made it much weaker.

You are talking about skeptical inquiry but you do not want to
apply it for all questions. I am afraid that you take some answers
just from ideological considerations, not from historical research.
The favorite authors of Prof Hoenen are Anselm of Canterbury and
Thomas von Aquin.

It's not my field to research - nor yours. You rely a few experts
two of whom I note are noted Catholic apologists - hardly skeptical
thinkers, but promoters of faith.

Brent
“There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger.
This is the disease of curiosity…. It is this which draws us to try
and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should
not wish to learn.”

-- St. Augustine

I like a lot On Truth by Anselm of Canterbury. Prof Hoenen has
demonstrated nicely that his work influenced many thinkers in the
West a lot that pondered on what is truth.

Right now I listen to Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch. The
book is not bad but the style is just terrible: "I know the truth
because this truth (that I know) is objective." Anselm and Thomas
in this respect were more clever.

Evgenii

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
T

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?