Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
Ah! Now this would be a Singularity, indeed. Disadvantage, Internal (to Newtonian Space) life and civilizations would emerge, and perish in a pico-second, without even being noticed by a Newtonian observer. In fact, how could an external observer even see anything processing? It's a cross between Fermi's Great Silence and Dr. Suess's Horton Hears a Who. -Original Message- From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 10:37 pm Subject: Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:21 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dr. Clough, so observation by this Observer, entails creation? This all sort of runs along with Shrodingers (sp) Cats, and, and High Everetts' Many Worlds, and so forth. Lenny Susslind at Stanford postulated huge amounts of observers arising in the universe, which he called Boltzmann Brains. It's an insane concept-but I like it anyway. Jason, yes, many thinkers have seen what you have said in one manner or another. Yet, its not like I can write out a beautiful equation, throw the paper in the air, and as if wafts to ground, a wondrous new world emerges-so to speak. Dr. Clough's special Observer can do this, but not I. If you are suggesting that a simulation, complex enough, with enough computing power, and cycling time, is the same this as a Creation-I will give you no argument. Because from the viewpoint of one of the critters on Conway's screen, it is the world. Your text also suggests the thinking of Stephen Wolfram who once wrote (paraphrasing) Why search the skies for ETI's when we could make a computing system that could, by programing and algorithms' uncover all that they know. This has always puzzled me, on the how, we can do this? It may have just been a very dry joke, by Wolfram-but it does sort of highlight your point about recursion, math, Turing, and so forth. I think it is legitimate, and simulation may be the only viable method for exploration. Especially if you consider the computing power of a Matrioshka brain ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain ). It would be able to simulate the 4 billion year history of all life on Earth in less than a few years (likely hours). Compare this to observation by telescope: It would take billions of years of looking at a planet through a telescope with an aperture that would need to be millions of miles across just to get a few megapixels of resolution looking at an Earth-sized planet 1000 light years away. Or instead of building the computer, you could travel there and camp out (hopefully picking an interesting planet. Information would dribble in so slowly into this solar-system sized brain it would go bad from boredom. On the other hand, if it used a fraction of its computing power it could spend all of eternity exploring any part of reality it could imagine, other worlds, physics of other possible universes, new forms of life not possible in our universe, etc. Surely right now looking through telescopes seems like the best way to gather knowledge, but give computing power a few more decades of doubling every year, and by the end of the century there will be AI's that have a billion times the computing power of the human brain. All the hard problems humans struggle with in trying to figure out the laws of physics, etc. will seem like child's play, and new sources of puzzles and realms of exploration will be required. Jason -Mitch -Original Message- From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 3:29 pm Subject: Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Indeed, Dr. Marchal. But what comes to my mind would be (I suppose) to create an equation and see if it can then become, somehow, energy, or matter to thus, prove that the universe has a arithmatic basis. I understand that Max Tegmark is enthusiatic on the cosmos being mathematical, as, is, Seth Lloyd, but can we create protons, or a stone with a number, a do-while, statement? Computers and simulation enable us to create reality. In truth we are not creating anything, only exploring what was already there. Think of any computer game, they are comparatively simple simulations and lead to new realities we can go to and explore. Likewise, the entire Earth, or Milkyway could be accessed by someone with sufficient computing power. Or you could say they exist already as relations between numbers that exist in math. For illustration, consider the recursive function that goes from binary number to the next in a way that is identical to John Conway's Game of Life. Theis relation implies an infinite series of successive states starting from the initial number. Starting with the right initial number, this
Re: Fictionalism!
On 12 Jun 2013, at 20:49, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Arithmetic is large, and I do not know of any theorem in math which is not a theorem in arithmetic, except in mathematical logic, and universal algebra, which are typically meta-mathematics. What about theorems in calculus and topology? Most, if not all, are theorems of arithmetic in disguise. Few math go really beyond PI-1 or Pi_2 arithmetical complexity, when you study their logical complexity. Only category and set theory go much beyond, and genuinely go beyond arithmetical complexity. I could say more on this when I have more time, but it requires some amount of mathematical logic. Macintyre wrote papers on this, and Torkel Franzen made a similar point in his book inexhaustibility. Some other people makes this points trivial, but only by a *misuse* of comp, note. Bruno 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 12 Jun 2013, at 20:57, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. With comp the cardinality of our reality is absolutely undecidable. I think that the core issue is in finding a simple theory, with the less ontological commitment as possible, and the fewest possible of assumptions, explaining the observation, but also the fist person, consciousness, etc. Here QM is an amazing jewel, but with comp it has to be derived from the math of the first person (hopefully and reasonably plural). Bruno Jason 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr.
On 12 Jun 2013, at 21:03, meekerdb wrote: There's still a free version of PGP available as GnuGP. But people generally don't want the inconvenience of dealing with encryption. On 6/12/2013 3:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote: How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. These days it seems that you need to protect yourself from more than commercial vendors, namely spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. Snowden, the man who recently exposed the NSA activities, says he can from his desktop listen to your telephone and read your email. But it would have been illegal for him to do so. People are always able to do illegal things. The question is what preventive measures should be taken. Snowden was an IT tech who was just supposed to keep the system running, so of course he had the ability to tap data flows. But there should have been some administrative oversight to keep him from doing that beyond what was necessary for his work (and maybe there was). The question is should it be legal for the government to collect this data. The Supreme Court has said it's Constitutional and polls say it's favor 62% to 34% by the public, so... The US government is doing the dictator trick (NDAA 12, NDAA 13). Those are not just non-constitutional they are anti-constitutional. The human rights applies to all humans, or they lost their meaning. The private life has to be respected for all humans. It seems clear to me that prohibition has succeeded in putting bandits into power, which makes legal or illegal things only for special interest. Health should be separated from the state, like religion. Free competition has to be allowed among all art of helping others, and nobody can pretend for you what is good to you. Some people do money on fears and catastrophes. The war on drug is a golden mine for bandits and terrorists. After the NDAA 12 I am afraid that the war on terror begins to look to me suspiciously like the war on drug. The notion legal/illegal must be relativized when the evidences add that the government don't play with the rules. Bruno Brent To do so, at least to a partial extent, start here: 1.) See this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383203092034876.html 2.) Switch your default browser to Mozilla Firefox, as most of the free add-ons only works on it. 3.) Download and install the freeware Firefox add-on from http://www.privacychoice.org/trackerblock/update This so far from a cursory search has not blocked me anywhere. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6403 - Release Date: 06/11/13 -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
On 12 Jun 2013, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2013 3:31 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Please allow my incipid observation. Rather then invoke non- material monads, let us, for arguments sake, assume that thought is a neurochemical phenomena, and that without this neurochemical phenomena, there is no thought. Similarly, mathematics as a phenomena, doesn't exist without a human primate, writing on the soil with a stick, marking clay or wax tablets, ink on paper, or human fingers executing a computer program. All material, from beginning to end. Is there any evidence, of the existence of non- material things? That's why there's been a discussion of whether mathematical objects exist. They certainly exist in the sense of there being proofs of existential formula, such as Ex(x=prime and x2 and x4). But I don't think satisfying an existential formula is existence in the physical sense. I can't agree more. Physical existence admits of ostensive definition - which mathematicians think of as not very definite. Physical existence is about physical reality. With comp, physical existence is about an internal view of a mathematical phenomenon occurring from arithmetic when seen from inside. A collective dream, if you want. It would be an error to put physical existence as mathematical existence. It is more a psychological or theological existence. Bruno 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr.
On 6/13/2013 10:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jun 2013, at 21:03, meekerdb wrote: There's still a free version of PGP available as GnuGP. But people generally don't want the inconvenience of dealing with encryption. On 6/12/2013 3:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote: How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. These days it seems that you need to protect yourself from more than commercial vendors, namely spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. Snowden, the man who recently exposed the NSA activities, says he can from his desktop listen to your telephone and read your email. But it would have been illegal for him to do so. People are always able to do illegal things. The question is what preventive measures should be taken. Snowden was an IT tech who was just supposed to keep the system running, so of course he had the ability to tap data flows. But there should have been some administrative oversight to keep him from doing that beyond what was necessary for his work (and maybe there was). The question is should it be legal for the government to collect this data. The Supreme Court has said it's Constitutional and polls say it's favor 62% to 34% by the public, so... The US government is doing the dictator trick (NDAA 12, NDAA 13). NDAA ?? Those are not just non-constitutional they are anti-constitutional. It's not so clear that collecting phone records is unconstitutional - although I think it should be. The Supreme Courts reasoning was that it is business records which are collected already by the phone company and you have no expectation of privacy; anybody at the phone company could read them already. The human rights applies to all humans, or they lost their meaning. Human rights are a human invention. So far as I know the government watches everybody. :-) The private life has to be respected for all humans. Easy to say, but what constitutes private. I read that (don't know if it's true) the U.K. now has one surveillance camera for every fourteen people. Appearance on the street was always considered public - but it some sense more is different. It seems clear to me that prohibition has succeeded in putting bandits into power, which makes legal or illegal things only for special interest. It's not especially prohibition (we repealed that); but democracy is always subject to pressure from special interests. The founding fathers idea was that many competing interests would cancel out or average to the general interest. But they didn't worry about the power of money and extreme inequality - they were rich white men, most of whom owned slaves. Health should be separated from the state, like religion. Doesn't Belgium have universal health care, mandated by the state? Free competition has to be allowed among all art of helping others, and nobody can pretend for you what is good to you. Some people do money on fears and catastrophes. The war on drug is a golden mine for bandits and terrorists. After the NDAA 12 I am afraid that the war on terror begins to look to me suspiciously like the war on drug. Absolutely! Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes ... known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. - James Madison, Political Observations, 1795 The notion legal/illegal must be relativized when the evidences add that the government don't play with the rules. It's not that they don't play by the rules: They make the rules. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
On 12 Jun 2013, at 22:34, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Indeed, Dr. Marchal. But what comes to my mind would be (I suppose) to create an equation and see if it can then become, somehow, energy, or matter to thus, prove that the universe has a arithmatic basis. Assuming there is some energy somewhere. But we don't need that assumption, once we can explain where the observation of stable and coherent beliefs in such things develop, and are locally correct. If the brain is Turing emulable, there is an explanation why we cannot emulate matter at all. The apparent matter is the result of an indeterminacy on infinities of computational histories. I understand that Max Tegmark is enthusiatic on the cosmos being mathematical, as, is, Seth Lloyd, I hope you understand that comp makes them wrong on this a priori, at least. Unless you extent the sense of mathematical a lot (which would make math inconsistent, again a priori, because you can use non standard set theories to try to make sense of such ideas). With comp, arithmetic seen from inside is *quite* beyond the whole of math and physics. but can we create protons, or a stone with a number, a do-while, statement? Comp predicts that we can't. I see you have missed that comp entails a reversal between physics and machine's psychology/theology. With comp you can't fail a machine for long, on matter. It is super- exponentially costly. To simulate matter exactly, you need to simulate the universal dovetailing in a short finite time. With a quantum computer you can simulate matter exactly, but this is explained by comp by the fact that it uses the universal dovetailing already there (the indeterminacy on all computations). So there is no equation creating matter. But there is a simple arithmetic to explain how such matter emerges necessarily in some stable and sharable dreams by numbers. You might need to study and grasp the UDA and all that, to see precisely the point. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 12:35 pm Subject: Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) On 12 Jun 2013, at 12:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Please allow my incipid observation. Rather then invoke non- material monads, let us, for arguments sake, assume that thought is a neurochemical phenomena, and that without this neurochemical phenomena, there is no thought. Similarly, mathematics as a phenomena, doesn't exist without a human primate, writing on the soil with a stick, marking clay or wax tablets, ink on paper, or human fingers executing a computer program. All material, from beginning to end. Is there any evidence, of the existence of non- material things? Yes, the objectivity of arithmetic or theoretical computer science. Are there evidences that matter has an ontological existence? (Besides the retaively self-moving entity's extrapolation in a local neighborhood) It seems to me there are more evidence that the physical has a mathematical origin. It is indeed a necessity in case we bet the brain/body/local universe is Turing emulable. Matter and energy are interesting, but not necessarily a primitive notion. Physicalism is by itself a strong assumption, incompatible with a simple and elegant theory of mind (computer science/ arithmetic). Anyway, this makes comp testable, so we can test it. Bruno -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 6:44 am Subject: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) A.EXISTENCE LEIBNIZ-- Mental (Nonphysical) + Physical MATERIALISM-- Physical, only in spacetime B. REALITY LEIBNIZ-- Only mental is real MATERIALISM- Only physical is real C. SPACETIME LEIBNIZ Exists only around physical bodies MATERIALISM The nonphysical is beyond spacetime, the physical is within it. D. IDEAS LEIBNIZ-- Exist mentally MATERIALISM --Do not exist , since not phjysical E. MATHEMATICS LEIBNIZ-- Only logic and numbers mentally exist. MATERIALISM-- Does not exist F. PHYSICS LEIBNIZ--Mentally exists as descriptions of particle behavior according to God's Pre- `existing Harmony MATERIALISM—Ill-defined. Physics seems to be embedded (?) in the particles F. GOD LEIBNIZ--Is the only active agent (doer and perceiver) in the universe-- and so is necessary for existence. MATERIALISM-- Is a fairy tale. G. NOTHING LEIBNIZ--- The space vacuum. The absence of a particle MATERIALISM--Can exist everywhere H. HUMAN AFFAIRS LEIBNIZ-- Incorporates psychology and can be applied to sociology MATERIALISM-- Seems to avoid the subject. I. PERCEPTION LEIBNIZ-- The ultimate perceiver is God. MATERIALISM-- Omits the ultimate perceiver since it cannot explain self.
Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
On 12 Jun 2013, at 22:38, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2013 1:34 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Physicalism is by itself a strong assumption, incompatible with a simple and elegant theory of mind (computer science/arithmetic). You say that from time to time, but when pressed it seems to just be that assuming fundamental matter is, assuming comp, otiose - not incompatible. They are epistemologically incompatible, or if you prefer, incompatible with the use of Occam razor, which I assume in the search of the TOE. (I have explained this already, so to be short, I just say incompatible). If it were incompatible, then derivative matter would be incompatible too. Of course. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: There's still a free version of PGP available as GnuGP. But people generally don't want the inconvenience of dealing with encryption. On 6/12/2013 3:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote: How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. These days it seems that you need to protect yourself from more than commercial vendors, namely spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. Snowden, the man who recently exposed the NSA activities, says he can from his desktop listen to your telephone and read your email. But it would have been illegal for him to do so. People are always able to do illegal things. The question is what preventive measures should be taken. Snowden was an IT tech who was just supposed to keep the system running, so of course he had the ability to tap data flows. But there should have been some administrative oversight to keep him from doing that beyond what was necessary for his work (and maybe there was). The question is should it be legal for the government to collect this data. It is most certainly a step towards totalitarianism. The Supreme Court has said it's Constitutional I cannot find any evidence of such a decision. In fact, PRISM has been kept secret, for all intentes and purposes, from all of the checks and balances of democracy. This guy does a very good job of describing the situation: http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/csarchive/Show-255---The-Big-Long-Surveillance-Show/N.S.A.-security-spying and polls say it's favor 62% to 34% by the public, so... This poll says the opposite: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-government-surveillance-programs.aspx?utm_source=add_thisutm_medium=addthis.comutm_campaign=sharing#.UbjX5rNUzns.twitter Also, it appears that a vast number of democrats that opposed this type of surveillance under Bush now approve it under Obama, so these opinions are highly tainted by partisanship. Telmo. Brent To do so, at least to a partial extent, start here: 1.) See this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383203092034876.html 2.) Switch your default browser to Mozilla Firefox, as most of the free add-ons only works on it. 3.) Download and install the freeware Firefox add-on from http://www.privacychoice.org/trackerblock/update This so far from a cursory search has not blocked me anywhere. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6403 - Release Date: 06/11/13 -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dancing in the flames
On 12 Jun 2013, at 22:40, freqflyer07281972 wrote: You're a crackpot and have no business posting on this list and you contribute nothing of value. Crackpot? Perhaps. Terrorist? Certainly. Roger Clough' argument here is close to the old go to hell if ... terrorist argument. The worst authoritative argument of all. To save Roger a bit, there is some poetry there, and I can be happy to see Christopher Hichens dancing in Hell, (I hope there is also a bar, now), especially if is is in the company of Logic. I think logic is more like the cutest Devil's worst enemy (Frankly). Bruno Please go away. On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:33:28 PM UTC-4, Roger Clough wrote: Christopher Hichens made his name Attacking our dear Savior. By now he's dancing in the flames With Logic, that cute Devil's whore. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 12 Jun 2013, at 23:57, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. Some take reality to be whatever can be described in language. Which language and described by whom? I would say the fictionalists. They will say that Sherlock and Santa Klauss exists, because you can predicate them in some meaningful sentences. The realist believes in some reality, that is assumed it explicitly, with basic elements obeying laws, and it will study the complex 1p/3p relations which might ensue, and (at least try) to generate the many notions of existence of that. I would say the TOE goal is to find the simplest theory explaining and classifying the many notions of existence possible. But that's exactly what the ideally correct Lôbian universal machine discovers when looking inward, the 8 nuances between truth (p), provable (Bp), knowable (Bp p), observable (Bp Dt), sensible (Bp a Dt p). There are different precise mathematics for existence in each such (modal, arithmetical) logic. Sensible existence would be, with p arithmetical sigma_1 sentences, []Ex []F(x), with []p = Bp Dt p). (B = Gödel's beweisbar arithmetical predicate, Dp = ~B~p, p = ~[]~p, and p a sigma_1 sentences). Bruno Jason Brent -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Six Pieces of a Dream
SIX PIECES OF A DREAM (2013) i. Almost A flock of grackles in the November sky Races toward the darkening trees. Gone. I called the dog and headed back. Puddles in the road Catch the almost fallen light I stopped My shadow resting at my feet. ii. Before Class I teach english to chinese immigrants. Before class I exchange a few words with a young mother, her young son and daughter. The young girl is shy and stares open-eyed at me, eyeing my strange aging face, my blue eyes and clipped white hair--- We are a rhinocerous and a tiny bird. She stares silently, her black eyes round and open, capturing me completely. Nee jeeow shempe mingshi ? I ask- what is your name ? Linda she says. Inside her eyes is likewise a strange world to me-- a mixed world of mandarin and english. How far apart we are, and yet so close. iii. Pittsburgh 1951 My father was a big Pirates fan (remember Rosy Rosewell ?) so it wasn't unusual to hear a ball game playing somewhere on the radio. Just the sound of a mulling crowd and the crack of the bat, then crowd roar takes me back. Sometimes I will find a ball game on the radio and follow it because of the relaxed slow pace. The mulling of the crowd. The crack of the bat. iv. Salzburg A vase of flowers on a table Is touched by a spring breeze As she opens the door and leaves for school, Just as she opened the grand piano Before playing a Mozart sonata To see the steel strings Strong and tight, not like her soft hands As gentle as can be on the keyboard. The hammered steel and the warm wood inside filling the room with music, and Mozart within the music and the music within her being. But with the last note it is quiet. I reach over and straighten an imprecision of the flowers. v. Stained Glass Breathing in, then together, with the first notes left behind, and firmly the tympani adding authority to the almost a capella choir... eternal God my bass notes supporting the beautiful soprano tones: how wonderful, how wonderful.. the glory as in the Salzburg Cathedral, all gold and blue rococco, with each phrase, except I am not at all singing, I am listening to the chuff of the wind pipes, beside Jesus in the stained glass, the pity and the terror and pain,as real here as my fist, shining now in that broken light, all voices sweetly breathing in together, then repeating. vi.The Theory of Providence Far out at sea, a lone sailboat, headed where-- who knows ? Above, a clear blue sea and sky I cannot touch. As peaceful as Eden. Here, Adam's shadow falls broken on tumbled walls-- with schoolgirls in their plaid uniforms, tossed like broken dolls outside the school. Like wet sticks over mud. Over all, the unbearable sadness, the thirst, the heat of the sun, the cries for help. Far out at sea, the shadow of a gull passes over the sailboat. The wind is in the sails, the waves curl from the rudder. - Roger Clough Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/13/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dancing in the flames
On 6/13/2013 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jun 2013, at 22:40, freqflyer07281972 wrote: You're a crackpot and have no business posting on this list and you contribute nothing of value. Crackpot? Perhaps. Terrorist? Certainly. Roger Clough' argument here is close to the old go to hell if ... terrorist argument. The worst authoritative argument of all. To save Roger a bit, there is some poetry there, and I can be happy to see Christopher Hichens dancing in Hell, (I hope there is also a bar, now), especially if is is in the company of Logic. I think logic is more like the cutest Devil's worst enemy (Frankly). Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. -- Mark Twain -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
What exist means? 2013/6/13 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 12 Jun 2013, at 22:38, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2013 1:34 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Physicalism is by itself a strong assumption, incompatible with a simple and elegant theory of mind (computer science/arithmetic). You say that from time to time, but when pressed it seems to just be that assuming fundamental matter is, assuming comp, otiose - not incompatible. They are epistemologically incompatible, or if you prefer, incompatible with the use of Occam razor, which I assume in the search of the TOE. (I have explained this already, so to be short, I just say incompatible). If it were incompatible, then derivative matter would be incompatible too. Of course. 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
RE: Leibniz's metaphysics is a model of the emerging global brain
l think the angst has more to do with concerns about state power than it has to do with an emergent super brain controlling my noodle with monadic fairy dust, Roger. perhaps the materialists can devise an equivalent explanation of a global mind... Im guessing here but l think they'll stick to the idea that the US government is reading a few emails and not take super global emergent monads seriously. Dreadful thing Common Sense. Regards --- Original Message --- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: 13 June 2013 9:43 AM To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Subject: Leibniz's metaphysics is a model of the emerging global brain Leibniz's metaphysics is a model of the emerging global brain The recent angst over government monitoring of private communications may not so much be due to a dastardly 1984-type plot, but a sign that a giant global brain is emerging all by itself, aided by the growth of world communications and the internet. Incredibly, this has all been foreseen in Leibniz's model of perception, wherein the world is characterized solely by a vast collection of monads, which are thought-forms (mental representations of phytsical brains). The monads themselves do not perceive directly, but are constantly updated by the world-perceptions of the most dominant monad (God or the One). Each monad is thus constantly informed of the activities (perceptions) of all of the other monads. This dominant monad is then the thought-form of the Global Brain, and because of this,there can only be one ultimate perceiver (God or the One). Perhapos the materialists can devise an equivalent explanation of a global mind, but, at least at this moment, I am unable to do so. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr.
James Duane, professor at Regent Law School, notes in his lecturehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nucconcerning legality/crime (the target and justification of supposed surveillance efforts): Estimates of the current size of the body of federal criminal law vary. It has been reported that the Congressional Research Service *cannot even count the current number of federal crimes*. These laws are scattered in over 50 titles of the United States Code, encompassing roughly 27,000 pages. Worse yet, the statutory code sections often incorporate, by reference, the provisions and sanctions of administrative regulations promulgated by various regulatory agencies under congressional authorization. Estimates of how many such regulations exist are even less well settled, but the ABA thinks there are ”nearly 10,000.” From such pov, federal government can’t even count *how many laws there are*. Do we still have to ask: Cui bono factoring in digital surveillance anyone? Supreme Court Justice Breyer elaborateshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-93.ZD.html : The complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, *make it difficult for anyone to know, in advance, just when a particular set of statements might later appear (to a prosecutor) to be relevant to some such investigation*. What made me laugh recently was the following RT Interview of Putin featured in Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/13/vladimir-putin-defends-the-u-s-on-spying-programs-drones-and-occupy-wall-street/ While the article is dull to worthless, the video is surprisingly entertaining, with a ton of salt of course, after few minutes or so of the obligatory mucking about. Makes one wonder: Guess who's come out of media hiding, helping the U.S. pick up the pieces of its shattered privacy dream at this moment? Another odd sync: Snow's billboard platinum hit in the 90s, Informer, with him behind bars in the music video, Snowed-In with all the sexy data girls floating around him, rapping about some secret thing and blame, white guy in Jail, Obama locked in White House reading sexy summaries of data mining and cyber penetration efforts; intelligence of power every morning served up on a silver plate by Keith. Putin is on the same page on this issue at least. Do empires ever step down gracefully or realize the effect of time? We've all seen this movie thousands of times, we just don't seem to get the ending bit. PGC -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
