date:20130709

On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck > wrote:

there are many words like that which we use without any fuss.

The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a myriad
of
properties which are shared by some and not others. In fact there doesn't
seem to be
a set of properties sufficient to capture the nature of all games.
Nevertheless, we
use the word without any fuss.

Words with broad meanings are fine. Where they lead to trouble is when one asserts the
non-existence of all things that belong to very wide classes. For example "I don't
believe there exists any game that I would enjoy". As you point out, this statement
applies to an immense set of possible objects because so many possible games exist.
Without knowing or experiencing every possible game, how can such a belief be justified?

It's justified by introspection as to what one believes. Note that it is NOT the same as
the assertion, "There is no game that I would enjoy." So does an "agameist" simply fail
to believe there is a game he would enjoy or does an "agameist" assert, as a fact, there
is no game he would enjoy.

Likewise, when Dawkins says he believes in no Gods, how can he make rightfully make such
a statement without knowing all possible religions and conceptions of God in those
religions?

The same way he can say believes in no teapots orbiting Jupiter.

Isn't it possible, (even suggested by some of our scientific theories), that something
that is infinite, uncreated, eternal, and responsible for your existence exists?

Logically possible. Nomologically?

Isn't it possible that the simulation hypothesis could be true and that a
hyper-intelligent mind could explore (create?) reality through simulation? Such hyper
intelligent beings could even "save" other simpler beings by copying and pasting them
into a reality under its control.
Isn't it possible that universalism is the correct theory of personal identity, and
there is in truth only one experiencer, the one soul behind all the eyes of all creatures?

And it's possible we are the puppets of supernatural demons bent on creating the worst of
all possible worlds.

Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even realizing it has
done so.

"Rejects" as in "fails to believe" - as any rational person would.

Various existing religions across the world have described God in terms essentially
identical to the three examples above.

No religion with more than a handful of adherents posits an impersonal God. Of course the
apologists for religions have used such terms, because they realize much the evidence is
against a personal God and so they have sought to invent something on which they can hang
the word "God".

What motivation does atheism have to reject these notions of god? It seems the only
reason is the dogma: "there is no god", and so it was proven "anything that even has the
appearance of a god is obviously false at the start."

The atheists I know (including Dawkins and Stenger) are careful to define "God" as the god
of Abraham as described in the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, the god of theism. They
directly admit that the god of deism is possible - though there is no reason to be;o

Isn't it better to have an unbiased, agnostic, and open mind on ontological questions
which are no where close to being settled?

But if you believe things just because they are possible then you're so open minded you're
in danger of having your brains fall out.

And in a way the fact 'God' means different things to different people
isn't a
problem. If I say someone is an atheist, you can say that this person has
some
conception of God, whatever it is, and doesn't believe that thing exists.
You can
say that much at the very least.

In that case everyone is an atheist, as you could cook up any definition of some God
that person will not believe in.

Which is just the converse of dreaming up "possible" gods in order that you can claim
everyone MUST believe in one of them and so everyone is religious.

The word atheist is either meaningless (if it applies to specific or certain God/gods),
or it is inconsistent/unsupported if you apply it to more general definitions of god.
It's a word that seems to carry less than 1 bit of information.

I think a far better term (one that perhaps many people really mean when they say they
are agnostic or atheist) is that they are a "free thinker" as in:
"The philosophical viewpoint that holds
opinions should be formed on the basis of logic ,
reason , and empiricism
, rather than authority
, tradition
,

Re: Hitch

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck wrote:

> there are many words like that which we use without any fuss.
>
> The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a myriad
> of properties which are shared by some and not others. In fact there
> doesn't seem to be a set of properties sufficient to capture the nature of
> all games. Nevertheless, we use the word without any fuss.
>

Words with broad meanings are fine.  Where they lead to trouble is when one
asserts the non-existence of all things that belong to very wide classes.
For example "I don't believe there exists any game that I would enjoy". As
you point out, this statement applies to an immense set of possible objects
because so many possible games exist.  Without knowing or experiencing
every possible game, how can such a belief be justified?  Likewise, when
Dawkins says he believes in no Gods, how can he make rightfully make such a
statement without knowing all possible religions and conceptions of God in
those religions?

Isn't it possible, (even suggested by some of our scientific theories),
that something that is infinite, uncreated, eternal, and responsible for
your existence exists?
Isn't it possible that the simulation hypothesis could be true and that a
hyper-intelligent mind could explore (create?) reality through simulation?
Such hyper intelligent beings could even "save" other simpler beings by
copying and pasting them into a reality under its control.
Isn't it possible that universalism is the correct theory of personal
identity, and there is in truth only one experiencer, the one soul behind
all the eyes of all creatures?

Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even
realizing it has done so.  Various existing religions across the world have
described God in terms essentially identical to the three examples above.
What motivation does atheism have to reject these notions of god?  It seems
the only reason is the dogma: "there is no god", and so it was proven
"anything that even has the appearance of a god is obviously false at the
start."

Isn't it better to have an unbiased, agnostic, and open mind on ontological
questions which are no where close to being settled?

>
> And in a way the fact 'God' means different things to different people
> isn't a problem. If I say someone is an atheist, you can say that this
> person has some conception of God, whatever it is, and doesn't believe that
> thing exists. You can say that much at the very least.
>

In that case everyone is an atheist, as you could cook up any definition of
some God that person will not believe in.  The word atheist is either
meaningless (if it applies to specific or certain God/gods), or it is
inconsistent/unsupported if you apply it to more general definitions of
god.  It's a word that seems to carry less than 1 bit of information.

I think a far better term (one that perhaps many people really mean when
they say they are agnostic or atheist) is that they are a "free thinker" as
in:
"The philosophical  viewpoint
that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of
logic,
reason , and
empiricism,
rather than authority ,
tradition,
or other dogmas ."

Free thought is also more in line with the a genuine scientific attitude,
whereas many sects of atheism are prone to authority and dogmas.

Jason

> In the unlikely event that you are really confused about what he means by
> God you can ask for clarification.
>
> What I think has happened here is that a bunch of folk like Harris,
> unfamiliar with the philosophical territory, have stumbled over the fact
> that words don't quite get defined in as strict a manner as they thought.
> They think they have stumbled upon something of import but in reality the
> 'problem', such that there is one, generalizes easily to much of language
> and yet language remains as useful as it always was.
>
> --
> From: jasonre...@gmail.com
>
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Hitch
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:33:43 -0500
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, chris peck  wrote:
>
> If some one says "look, cat" I don't know what kind of cat they are
> refering to. I nevertheless can be confident that they have seen something
> feline.
>
>
> True, but cats are things people can see, and this the variety of possible
> meanings for the word cat is greatly constrained.
>
> When someone says god do they mean something that is (check any or all of
> the following):
> - immanent
> - transcendant
> - uncreated
> - eternal
> - intelligent
> - benevolent
> - creator
> - infinite
> - answerer of prayers
> - judge
> - designer
> - truth
> - love
> - universal mind
> - everything
>
> ?
>
> Be

RE: Hitch

2013-07-09 Thread chris peck

there are many words like that which we use without any fuss. 

The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a myriad of 
properties which are shared by some and not others. In fact there doesn't seem 
to be a set of properties sufficient to capture the nature of all games. 
Nevertheless, we use the word without any fuss.

And in a way the fact 'God' means different things to different people isn't a 
problem. If I say someone is an atheist, you can say that this person has some 
conception of God, whatever it is, and doesn't believe that thing exists. You 
can say that much at the very least. In the unlikely event that you are really 
confused about what he means by God you can ask for clarification.

What I think has happened here is that a bunch of folk like Harris, unfamiliar 
with the philosophical territory, have stumbled over the fact that words don't 
quite get defined in as strict a manner as they thought. They think they have 
stumbled upon something of import but in reality the 'problem', such that there 
is one, generalizes easily to much of language and yet language remains as 
useful as it always was.

From: jasonre...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:33:43 -0500



On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, chris peck  wrote:


If some one says "look, cat" I don't know what kind of cat they are refering 
to. I nevertheless can be confident that they have seen something feline.



True, but cats are things people can see, and this the variety of possible 
meanings for the word cat is greatly constrained.
When someone says god do they mean something that is (check any or all of the 
following):- immanent- transcendant- uncreated- eternal- intelligent- 
benevolent- creator- infinite- answerer of prayers- judge- designer- truth- 
love- universal mind- everything
?
Because there are many types of possible and very different meanings for the 
word "god", using the word atheist to describe someone who does not believe in 
some particular conception of god is much like using the word "acatist" to 
describe someone who does not believe in 6-legged bright-pink saber tooth 
tigers, but nonetheless believes in lions and house cats. 
Even if you reject the particular god of some particular religious sect, I am 
confident there are particular selections of the above words that you would 
admit to believing in.
Jason 





--- Original Message ---



From: "Jason Resch" 

Sent: 10 July 2013 8:35 AM

To: "Everything List" 

Subject: Re: Hitch











On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck 
 wrote:



Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful word. If 
someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not belive in God.










But you don't know what God the atheist doesn't believe in.




Jason







-- 

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.

 

 






-- 

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.

Re: Hitch




On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, chris peck   
wrote:


If some one says "look, cat" I don't know what kind of cat they are  
refering to. I nevertheless can be confident that they have seen  
something feline.




True, but cats are things people can see, and this the variety of  
possible meanings for the word cat is greatly constrained.


When someone says god do they mean something that is (check any or all  
of the following):

- immanent
- transcendant
- uncreated
- eternal
- intelligent
- benevolent
- creator
- infinite
- answerer of prayers
- judge
- designer
- truth
- love
- universal mind
- everything

?

Because there are many types of possible and very different meanings  
for the word "god", using the word atheist to describe someone who  
does not believe in some particular conception of god is much like  
using the word "acatist" to describe someone who does not believe in 6- 
legged bright-pink saber tooth tigers, but nonetheless believes in  
lions and house cats.


Even if you reject the particular god of some particular religious  
sect, I am confident there are particular selections of the above  
words that you would admit to believing in.


Jason




--- Original Message ---

From: "Jason Resch" 
Sent: 10 July 2013 8:35 AM
To: "Everything List" 
Subject: Re: Hitch




On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck  
 wrote:
Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful  
word. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they  
do not belive in God.



But you don't know what God the atheist doesn't believe in.

Jason
--
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.




--
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: Hitch

Or at least they don't believe in the theist god - which isn't very well defined either.  
Harris'es point is just that we don't go around characterizing ourselves as not believing 
in other imaginary things. When someone proposed that there should be a study as to why 
97% of the members of the National Academy of Science don't believe in God, Neil Degrasse 
Tyson said, "We should study the 3%.  They're the ones who're puzzling."


Brent

On 7/9/2013 3:33 PM, chris peck wrote:
Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful word. If someone 
tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not belive in God.


--- Original Message ---

From: "meekerdb" 
Sent: 10 July 2013 7:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch

On 7/9/2013 11:57 AM, John Clark wrote:


 > I agree with Sam Harris that "atheist" is not a very useful appellation 
because
it only describes someone in contrast to "theist". 



That makes no sense. The word "nonfiction" is useful but it only describes something in 
contrast to "fiction".


I didn't say it was completely useless.  But it's less useful than "nonfiction" because 
"fiction" exists.


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.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3204/6477 - Release Date: 07/09/13

--
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.
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: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?

2013-07-09 Thread Alberto G. Corona

The use of the radius instead of diameter is historic and constructive: the
circumference was make by turning a rope or a compass a full turn instead
of turning a rigid stick half a turn around his center. The former is
easier.


2013/7/9 Jason Resch 

>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  >> I think the fact that e^i*PI +1 = 0 surprises almost everyone when
 they first hear of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> > This one is very interesting, but the fact that Pi was a poor choice
>>> for the constant makes the equation considerably more ugly than it should
>>> be.  There is a growing movement to usurp the number Pi with the much more
>>> important constant "2*Pi" (see: http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.html ).
>>>  If we call that new number tau (t).  Then Euler's identity becomes:
>>> e^(t * i) = 1
>>>
>>
>> There is no disputing matters of taste but I think the original equation
>> is more beautiful because it shows a relationship between 5 of the most
>> important numbers in all of mathematics. Your new equation only has 4
>> important numbers, it doesn't include  zero, it has the multiplicative
>> identity but not the additive identity.
>>
>
> If you want to see all the constants at once there is an easy correction:
> e^(t*i) - 1 = 0
>
> Circles are defined by their radius, not their diameter.  The mistake of
> using Pi leads to circles being 2*Pi radians, rather than tau radians.  The
> area formula for circles obscures the fact that an integration took place
> (1/2) tau r^2 makes it clearer that there was an integration.  The period
> of sin and cosine are tau, cos(t) = 1 rather than -1, etc.  Pi is simply a
> less elegant circle constant than tau.
>
> Jason
>
>  --
> 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: Hitch

2013-07-09 Thread chris peck

If some one says "look, cat" I don't know what kind of cat they are refering 
to. I nevertheless can be confident that they have seen something feline.



--- Original Message ---

From: "Jason Resch" 
Sent: 10 July 2013 8:35 AM
To: "Everything List" 
Subject: Re: Hitch

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck wrote:

>  Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful
> word. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not
> belive in God.
>
>
But you don't know what God the atheist doesn't believe in.

Jason

--
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.

Re: Hitch

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck wrote:

>  Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful
> word. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not
> belive in God.
>
>
But you don't know what God the atheist doesn't believe in.

Jason

-- 
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: Hitch

2013-07-09 Thread chris peck

Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful word. If 
someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not belive in God.

--- Original Message ---

From: "meekerdb" 
Sent: 10 July 2013 7:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch

On 7/9/2013 11:57 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
>  > I agree with Sam Harris that "atheist" is not a very useful 
> appellation because
> it only describes someone in contrast to "theist".
>
>
> That makes no sense. The word "nonfiction" is useful but it only describes 
> something in
> contrast to "fiction".

I didn't say it was completely useless.  But it's less useful than "nonfiction" 
because
"fiction" exists.

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.


-- 
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: Hitch


On 7/9/2013 11:57 AM, John Clark wrote:


 > I agree with Sam Harris that "atheist" is not a very useful appellation 
because
it only describes someone in contrast to "theist". 



That makes no sense. The word "nonfiction" is useful but it only describes something in 
contrast to "fiction".


I didn't say it was completely useless.  But it's less useful than "nonfiction" because 
"fiction" exists.


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: Hitch

2013-07-09 Thread John Mikes

(See below): I do not fall for Brent's quip that you want to impose your
extended (non-religious?) religion on us, so I continue.

Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia-long habits, hard
to break. The Hindus have different ones - yet it IS religion.
Atheists? Atheism? comes within the package. I am agnostic, BUT not in the
God-related sense - agnostic of anything all we can state as 'knowable'.
Including proof, evidence, and - yes -
appearance, (of course "testability" included) what you use FOR the
mind-body fantasy. It appears to our human 'mind' (in our latest human
logic). What I am agnostic about.
*
Now about my 'Steckenpferd': *natural numbers*. I asked you so many times
to no avail. You hide behind "it is *SSOOO* simple that you cannot explain
it by even simpler cuts" or something similar.
In my 'narrative' I figured that pre-caveman looking at his HANDS, FEET,
EYES, and found that PAIR makes sense. (2, not 1). Then (s)he detected that
PAIR consists of - well, - a PAIR, meaning 2 similars of ONE. And (s)he
counted: ONE, ONE, PAIR (=TWO.)
The rest may not exceed the mental capabilities of conventional
anthropologists. Here we go into the NATURAL numbers. Some other animals
got similarly into 3, 5, maybe the elephant into even more.
Then came the originators of the subsequent Roman (what I know of)
numbering - looking at a HAND counting *fingers*. The group on a palm looks
like a V, so it represented 5. With 2 drawn together at their pointed end
for 10 (No decimal idea at this point). Four was too much, to count, so
they took 1 off from the V:* IV, *(repeated later as IX etc.) and when it
came to 4 X-s they got bored and drew only 2 lines recangulary together for
50, -- 40 similarly marked as XL (49 as IL).

Remember: subtracting was different in ancient Rome, you also included the
start-up figure and subtracted it like 9-3 = (9,8,7) = 7 as the original
old Julian calendar counted the dates, e.g. today: July 9: "ante diem
septimum (7) Idus Julii" (the 7th day before the Idus of July) because July
is a MILMO month when the Idus is not on the 13th as usual, but on the
15th). And NO ZERO, please.
So I doubt that the 'natural numbers' created the world.
Humans created the natural numbers. Just like they created the
not-so-naturals (irrationals, infinites, you name them).

John M

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> John,
>
>
> On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:03, John Mikes wrote:
>
> After some million years of 'mental' development this animal arrived at
> the 'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating superpowers to target
> it with assigned intent to help, or destroy. The details were subject to
> the 'founders' benefit of enslaving the rest of the people into their rule.
> Such unquestionable tyranny lasted over the past millennia and it takes a
> long, hard, dangerous work to get out of it. The USA Constitution (18th c.)
> stepped ahead in SOME little political and economical ways, yet only a tiny
> little in liberating the people from the religious slavery: a so called
> 'separation' of state and church (not clearly identified to this day).
>
>
> The problem is that once we separate religion from state, people still
> continue to be "religious" (authoritative) on something else. But it was a
> progress. Now we know that we have to separate also health from the state.
>
>
>
> Th French revolution similarly targetted the religion, yet today - after
> numerous vocal enlightened minds - the country is still divided between
> Christian and Islamic fundamentalist trends.
>
>
> Yes (even more clearly when including atheists in the christians).
>
>
> In my view an 'atheist requires a god to disbelieve (deny?).
>
>
> Indeed. Many atheists seems to take more seriously the Christian Gods than
> most christians theologians, who can seriously debate on the
> Aristotle/Plato difference.
>
>
>
> Matter is figmentous and the 'origins' are beyond our reach.
>
>
> It is certainly beyond any form of certainty, but simple theories
> (conjecture, ides, hypotheses) might exist. In particular the idea that we
> are machine can explain the origin of mind and matter appearances, in a
> testable way, except for the origin of the natural numbers which have to
> remain a complete mystery beyond reach of all machines.
>
>
>
>
> Physical is a level of human development and there is infinite unknown -
> unknowable - we don't even guess.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
> Just musing
>
>
> Thanks for that,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> John M
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08 Jul 2013, at 19:53, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>

 On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:

  On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.salon.com/2013/07/**06/god_is_not_great_**
>>> christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_**liar/

Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>
>>  >> I think the fact that e^i*PI +1 = 0 surprises almost everyone when
>>> they first hear of it.
>>
>>
>> > This one is very interesting, but the fact that Pi was a poor choice
>> for the constant makes the equation considerably more ugly than it should
>> be.  There is a growing movement to usurp the number Pi with the much more
>> important constant "2*Pi" (see: http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.html ).
>>  If we call that new number tau (t).  Then Euler's identity becomes:
>> e^(t * i) = 1
>>
>
> There is no disputing matters of taste but I think the original equation
> is more beautiful because it shows a relationship between 5 of the most
> important numbers in all of mathematics. Your new equation only has 4
> important numbers, it doesn't include  zero, it has the multiplicative
> identity but not the additive identity.
>

If you want to see all the constants at once there is an easy correction:
e^(t*i) - 1 = 0

Circles are defined by their radius, not their diameter.  The mistake of
using Pi leads to circles being 2*Pi radians, rather than tau radians.  The
area formula for circles obscures the fact that an integration took place
(1/2) tau r^2 makes it clearer that there was an integration.  The period
of sin and cosine are tau, cos(t) = 1 rather than -1, etc.  Pi is simply a
less elegant circle constant than tau.

Jason

-- 
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: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:


> >> I think the fact that e^i*PI +1 = 0 surprises almost everyone when they
>> first hear of it.
>
>
> > This one is very interesting, but the fact that Pi was a poor choice for
> the constant makes the equation considerably more ugly than it should be.
>  There is a growing movement to usurp the number Pi with the much more
> important constant "2*Pi" (see: http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.html ).
>  If we call that new number tau (t).  Then Euler's identity becomes:
> e^(t * i) = 1
>

There is no disputing matters of taste but I think the original equation is
more beautiful because it shows a relationship between 5 of the most
important numbers in all of mathematics. Your new equation only has 4
important numbers, it doesn't include  zero, it has the multiplicative
identity but not the additive identity.

John K Clark

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

Re: Hitch

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb  wrote:

> Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism="that whether or not
> God exists is unknown" with agnosticism="that whether or not God exists is
> impossible to know".

If God created the universe that would be a fact about physics that would
be very interesting to know, and I see no reason in principle we couldn't
detect it; and if He was constantly tinkering with His creation as many
think then He would be even easier to detect. But we see nothing.

 > I agree with Sam Harris that "atheist" is not a very useful appellation
> because it only describes someone in contrast to "theist".

That makes no sense. The word "nonfiction" is useful but it only describes
something in contrast to "fiction".

  John K Clark

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

Re: Hitch

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> "atheism" is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized
> now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not Hitchens. Many
> people confuse agnosticism and atheism.
>

1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea of God, although some don't
have the courage to also dismiss the word G-O-D.

2) Christopher Hitchens said "What can be asserted without evidence can
also be dismissed without evidence"

3) There is no evidence the idea of God is true.

4) Christopher Hitchens dismissed the idea of God (and he had the courage
to do the same with the word G-O-D).

Therefore Christopher Hitchens was a atheist.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Hitch

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones  wrote:

>>>I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an
>>> anticlerical than an atheist to me ...
>>>
>>
>> >> Everybody called him an atheist.  He called himself an atheist.  I
>> think you just don't like the term.
>>
>
>
> Forgivable though, don't you think?
>

No I do not, I think it's unforgivable to value a word more than the
concept it represents.

> IF you can handle the comp definition of atheism as a sibling public
> religion of the Jesus cult [...]

Then the meanings of words change according to your whim and logical
contradictions do not bother you.

> I mean - either you believe in Big Daddy, JC and Spooky or you do not.

I do not. Believing in God is stupid, believing in Big Daddy JC and Spooky
is the Power Set of stupid, 2 raised to the power of stupid.

> Let me clarify: there is organised ('public' or 3-p) religion

And now religion enters the pee pee realm! Well maybe you have a point, it
is all a bunch of shit.

> the only authentic definition of 'personal religion' is "what you
> believe".
>

As I said it's unforgivable to value a word more than the concept it
represents.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Hitch


On 7/9/2013 2:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

In my view an 'atheist requires a god to disbelieve (deny?).


Indeed. Many atheists seems to take more seriously the Christian Gods than most 
christians theologians, who can seriously debate on the Aristotle/Plato difference.


Of course.  If the theologians took the Christian God seriously they couldn't believe He 
existed.  So they twist and turn and obfuscate in order to hang the appellation "God" onto 
something: "Ground of all being" "Whatever is most important to you" "Love"  
"Arithmetic".  But the Church makes sure the minds of parishoners and contributors are not 
troubled by too much thinking.


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: Re: computationalism as a form of magic

2013-07-09 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Jason Resch  

Leibniz also wrote a book on jurisprudence and was a mining engineer.
  
 
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough


- Receiving the following content -  
From:  Jason Resch  
Receiver:  Everything List  
Time: 2013-07-08, 18:44:36 
Subject: Re: computationalism as a form of magic 




>From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz 
> 
>Computation[edit 
>] 
> 
>Leibniz may have been the first computer scientist and information theorist. 
>[65]  
>Early 
>in life, he documented the binary numeral 
>system 
> (base  2), then revisited that system 
>throughout his career.[66] 
>He 
>anticipated Lagrangian 
>interpolation 
> and algorithmic information 
>theory. 
>His calculus ratiocinator 
>anticipated 
>aspects of the universal Turing 
>machine. 
>In 1934, Norbert Wiener claimed 
>to have found in Leibniz's writings a mention of the concept of 
>feedback, 
>central to Wiener's later cybernetic 
> theory. 
> 
>In 1671, Leibniz began to invent a machine that could execute all four 
>arithmetical operations, gradually improving it over a number of years. 
>This "Stepped Reckoner " 
>attracted fair attention and was the basis of his election to the Royal 
>Society  in 1673. A number of 
>such machines were made during his years in 
>Hanover, 
>by a craftsman working under Leibniz's supervision. It was not an 
>unambiguous success because it did not fully mechanize the operation of 
>carrying. Couturat reported finding an unpublished note by Leibniz, dated 
>1674, describing a machine capable of performing some algebraic operations. 
>[67]  
>Leibniz 
>also devised a (now reproduced) cipher machine, recovered by Nicholas 
>Rescher  in 
>2010.[68] 
> 
>Leibniz was groping towards hardware and software concepts worked out much 
>later by Charles Babbage  
> and Ada Lovelace . In 1679, 
>while mulling over his binary arithmetic, Leibniz imagined a machine in 
>which binary numbers were represented by marbles, governed by a rudimentary 
>sort of punched 
>cards.[69] 
>Modern 
>electronic digital computers replace Leibniz's marbles moving by gravity 
>with shift registers, voltage gradients, and pulses of electrons, but 
>otherwise they run roughly as Leibniz envisioned in 1679. 
> 
> 
>On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
> 
>>  Dear Prof. Tegmark, 
>> 
>> I have been trying to think of a way to make computationalism work 
>> but I can see no force that numbers might have on the physical world 
>> that might empower them. 
>> 
>> Instead I see computationalism as a form of magic. Serious magic if you 
>> will, 
>> but still magic, magic in the sense that saying the proper magic words or 
>> drawing certain figures or performing certain incantations or rituals will 
>> cause things to happen, presumably in imitation of those forms. 
>> 
>> But even though it is a form of magic, it may be that the numbers 
>> can be causal in some paranormal sense, if you can accept Leibniz's 
>> view that ideas seek perfection and physical realization is the 
>> highest perfection. If you can accept that, you might give some 
>> acceptance to the idea, and that actions can be preformed 
>> by intentions. 
>> 
>> Best, 
>> 
>>  Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] 
>> See my Leibniz site at 
>>  http://independent.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. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

-- 
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 quantization of spacetime.

2013-07-09 Thread Richard Ruquist

Smolin's quantization of spacetime has been falsified buy Fermi telescope
observation of gamma rays of variable energies.
Presumably that includes Leibniz.


On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Leibniz's quantization of spacetime.
>
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-physics/
>
> Leibniz, the Idealist 17th century german philosopher, saw the world in 
> suprisingly modern, even
>
> premoderm. In the field of electericity, the name of Tesla comes to mind. 
> Leibniz's conceptualHis quantization of spacetime is only now being 
> implemented by quantum cosmlogists such as Smolin..
>
>
> a) Spacetime, since it is infinitely divisible, does not qualify as a 
> substance, since one can always furether divide space (what one considers to 
> be a substance) in two.
>
>
> b) Thus space is only dimensional and intuitive but not physical. It is thus 
> not absolute, as Newton saw it, but only a relative measure of distance 
> between bodies, this distance not being
>
>  physical but only mathematical. It is an empty receptacle, sotospeak, filled 
> entirely with monads (complete, real, mental concepts of physical objects).
>
>
> (c) Although Einstein in fact discovered the quantized notion of photons, he 
> did not apply this quantized thinking to his theory of relativity, in which 
> the speed of time was taken as relative to the speed of light, an asolute 
> value.
>
>
>
> (d) Time similarly was taken by Leibniz to be quantized, for God constantly 
> views and adjusts the universe only in discrete steps, at a very rapid 
> sampling rate to accord with the hanging indirectly
>
> perceived perceptions? of each monad. To use a homely example, it is s if the 
> succession of the universe were written on a deck of cards. Then as in movies 
> of the early twentieth century, the
> illusion of continuous motion is perceived by fanning the deck with one's 
> thumb.
>
>
> (e) Leibniz believed, as did Einstein much later, that space was a raceway of 
> possible paths, these paths curved according to the mass of the object.
>
>
> f) That being so, we can consider a particle with mass and its possible paths 
> of travel,
>
> as a particle-spacetime quantum, even through the "particle" might be the 
> earth.
>
>
> g) Due to the holographic nature of Leibniz's monadic particles, the universe 
> is completely entangled and one cannot change a part without changing the 
> entire universe.
>
> Thus, for example, every action creates a reaction. The spacetime field of 
> every particle being possible rather than actual paths, the particle and its 
> spacetime field is a quantum.
>
> Thus the universe consists of a possible universe, which is a quantum 
> probability field.
>
>
>
> Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
> See my Leibniz site at
> http://independent.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.
>
>
>

-- 
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.

Leibniz's quantization of spacetime.

2013-07-09 Thread Roger Clough

Leibniz's quantization of spacetime.  


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-physics/  

Leibniz, the Idealist 17th century german philosopher, saw the world in 
suprisingly modern, even  
premoderm. In the field of electericity, the name of Tesla comes to mind. 
Leibniz's conceptualHis quantization of spacetime is only now being implemented 
by quantum cosmlogists such as Smolin..  

a) Spacetime, since it is infinitely divisible, does not qualify as a 
substance, since one can always furether divide space (what one considers to be 
a substance) in two.  

b) Thus space is only dimensional and intuitive but not physical. It is thus 
not absolute, as Newton saw it, but only a relative measure of distance between 
bodies, this distance not being 
 physical but only mathematical. It is an empty receptacle, sotospeak, filled 
entirely with monads (complete, real, mental concepts of physical objects).  

(c) Although Einstein in fact discovered the quantized notion of photons, he 
did not apply this quantized thinking to his theory of relativity, in which the 
speed of time was taken as relative to the speed of light, an asolute value.  

(d) Time similarly was taken by Leibniz to be quantized, for God constantly 
views and adjusts the universe only in discrete steps, at a very rapid sampling 
rate to accord with the hanging indirectly 
perceived perceptions? of each monad. To use a homely example, it is s if the 
succession of the universe were written on a deck of cards. Then as in movies 
of the early twentieth century, the 
illusion of continuous motion is perceived by fanning the deck with one's 
thumb.  

(e) Leibniz believed, as did Einstein much later, that space was a raceway of 
possible paths, these paths curved according to the mass of the object.   

f) That being so, we can consider a particle with mass and its possible paths 
of travel,  
as a particle-spacetime quantum, even through the "particle" might be the 
earth.   

g) Due to the holographic nature of Leibniz's monadic particles, the universe 
is completely entangled and one cannot change a part without changing the 
entire universe.  
Thus, for example, every action creates a reaction. The spacetime field of 
every particle being possible rather than actual paths, the particle and its 
spacetime field is a quantum.  
Thus the universe consists of a possible universe, which is a quantum 
probability field.   


Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]  
See my Leibniz site at  
http://independent.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: computationalism as a form of magic



On 09 Jul 2013, at 00:44, Jason Resch wrote:


From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz

Computation[edit]
Leibniz may have been the first computer scientist and information  
theorist.[65] Early in life, he documented the binary numeral system  
(base 2), then revisited that system throughout his career.[66] He  
anticipated Lagrangian interpolation and algorithmic information  
theory. His calculus ratiocinator anticipated aspects of the  
universal Turing machine. In 1934, Norbert Wienerclaimed to have  
found in Leibniz's writings a mention of the concept of feedback,  
central to Wiener's later cybernetic theory.
In 1671, Leibniz began to invent a machine that could execute all  
four arithmetical operations, gradually improving it over a number  
of years. This "Stepped Reckoner" attracted fair attention and was  
the basis of his election to the Royal Society in 1673. A number of  
such machines were made during his years in Hanover, by a craftsman  
working under Leibniz's supervision. It was not an unambiguous  
success because it did not fully mechanize the operation of  
carrying. Couturat reported finding an unpublished note by Leibniz,  
dated 1674, describing a machine capable of performing some  
algebraic operations.[67] Leibniz also devised a (now reproduced)  
cipher machine, recovered by Nicholas Rescher in 2010.[68]
Leibniz was groping towards hardware and software concepts worked  
out much later by Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace. In 1679, while  
mulling over his binary arithmetic, Leibniz imagined a machine in  
which binary numbers were represented by marbles, governed by a  
rudimentary sort of punched cards.[69] Modern electronic digital  
computers replace Leibniz's marbles moving by gravity with shift  
registers, voltage gradients, and pulses of electrons, but otherwise  
they run roughly as Leibniz envisioned in 1679.


Leibniz seems to have been very close indeed.
Thanks to a work by Jacques Lafitte(*), I tend to consider that  
Babbage made the "full discovery" of the universal computer. "Full"  
means that he discovered Church thesis. He discovered it when  
realizing that the functional language that he invented to just  
describe his machine was as much conceptually powerful than his machine.
To understand/discover Church thesis you have to discover two (rather  
different) universal machines :)


Bruno

(*) Lafitte, J. Réflexion sur la science des machines, Vrin, 1931.


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: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?



On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:22, Johnathan Corgan wrote:


On 07/08/2013 02:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

This one is very interesting, but the fact that Pi was a poor  
choice for

the constant makes the equation considerably more ugly than it should
be.  There is a growing movement to usurp the number Pi with the much
more important constant "2*Pi"
(see: http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.html ).  If we call that  
new

number tau (t).  Then Euler's identity becomes:

e^(t * i) = 1


I think part of the appeal of the original formulation is realizing  
that

the result of an exponentiation of a positive number can be a negative
number.  While this is unremarkable with complex exponents, many  
people

are only used to seeing real (or even just integer) exponents.


I like and often give the following exercise: compute i^i. Is it real  
or imaginary?


Since sometimes my most amazing result in math is the Turing  
universality of the diophantine polynomials.


My favorite simple result is the irrationality of sqr(2). A good  
exercise, using the fundamental theorem of arithmetic (existence and  
uniqueness of decomposition of numbers in prime factors) generalizes  
this for sqr(n) for any n not being a square. A result often  
attributed to Theaetetus.


Of course the existence of universal numbers is also an amazing,  
stunning results, especially if you know how weak are the pretense of  
"universality"  for mathematical notions. This needs Church thesis,  
which I consider as the most amazing thesis in cognitive science.


Bruno







Johnathan

--
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.




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: Hitch



On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:22, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/8/2013 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We are all believers, and when a machine pretend to be a non  
believer, it means "I know", and she will impose her religion to  
you, by all means.


?? So when you say comp is just an hypothesis, to be tested like any  
other scientific theory, you're really saying you believe it and you  
will impose that belief on others??



??
No I say the contrary. If the machine admit she is a believer, in  
comp, say, she does NOT say "I know", and she will NOT impose that  
belief to you.


I was saying that only those pretending to know will impose beliefs on  
others. Those who agree it is a mere belief are really saying that  
they are open to refutation and alternate theories.


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: Hitch



On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:18, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/8/2013 12:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:

On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote:




http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/


I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more  
an anticlerical than an atheist to me ...


Everybody called him an atheist.  He called himself an atheist. I  
think you just don't like the term.


"atheism" is different in America and in Europa, although I have  
realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but  
not Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and atheism. Some  
atheists maintains the confusion to hide that they  
are  believers (in "matter" and in the non  
existence of God).


I don't know any atheists who are shy about their belief that  
matter exists and God doesn't.


Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism="that whether or  
not God exists is unknown" with agnosticism="that whether or not  
God exists is impossible to know".  I agree with Sam Harris that  
"atheist" is not a very useful appellation because it only  
describes someone in contrast to "theist".  It just means they fail  
to believe in a God who is a person and whose approval one should  
seek.  As Harris points out we don't invent words like awarmist to  
describe one who fails to believe there is global warming or  
anummerist to describe someone who's not sure about the existence  
of numbers.



There is the term "Bright", which perhaps better describes someone  
who seeks to include only naturalistic explanations in their world- 
view:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement

But what would happen if naturalistic explanations lend credence to  
the existence of God or gods?


Then people would have a greater degree of belief in gods; but they  
wouldn't have "faith", i.e. unquestioning belief, in them.  In fact  
that's the way it was at one time.  The belief in storm gods,  
volcano gods, deer spirits, rain gods, plague's as punishment for  
impiety,...were all 'naturalistic' explanations at the time.  It was  
just assumed that important, unpredictable events must be the work  
of a powerful being.  It wasn't forbidden to doubt these models  
andtheir effectiveness as predictors was not supposed to depend  
on how pious or faithful you were.  There was no distinction between  
natural and supernatural.  Those were later developments as religion  
was split from science and subsumed into an instrument of social 
control.


Exactly.

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: Hitch