Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:31 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 3:09 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 9:37 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Brent, my analogy, however badly its thought-up, is to force the idealists to produce. My idea was to force the idealist back to painful reality and hard choices, rather then mentally living in La La land. Saying Oh they're working on solar and soon.. How about forcing the libertarians to painful reality. They're going through the six stages of denial: 1. There is no global warming. 2. The science is uncertain. 3. There's global warming but it's just a natural cycle. 4. Global warming will really be good for us. 5. It's too costly to stop global warming. 6. Nothing can be done. Most of them I know are stuck around 3 or 4 now. They're hoping to delay any action so they can get to 6. Why? Because they'd rather face extinction than admit there are some things that you need government to do. Brent, Out of curiosity: why do you care so much about what libertarians think? They are a small minority. I believe most are very much aware that big government is here to stay. Most people in the western world vote for some variation of a conservative or liberal party, both statist. Surely if you are right, and global warming is an existential threat, and government intervention is the only way to solve it, what libertarians think should be quite low in your list of concerns no? Except that they have a disproportionate voice in the public debate because their message is amplified by monied interests who depend on fossil fuel (e.g. the Koch brothers). There was only a small number of lawyers, publicists, and scientists who claimed that: 1. Smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer. 2. There may be a relation but the science is uncertain. 3. Lung cancer just occurs naturally. 4. There are new, healthier cigarettes. 5. It will hurt the economy to limit cigarettes. 6. People should be free to smoke if they want to. and they delayed any government action against smoking for forty years. In fact some of them are *exactly* the same people hired to spread doubt about global warming. To undertake big government action in a democracy you need a solid majority in the populace. As long as libertarians and oil companies can sow doubt that's enough to prevent any action. Come on Brent... You really want to believe... The reason why Bush or Obama or any other President or government in the current system do not take actions that hurt big corporations is that these big corporation fund their careers and campaigns. Once they get in power, the corporations own then. They are not innocent by any means, and they clearly just want the position. If they didn't they would resign once they realised that they won't be able to do any of the things that they supposedly stand for. Are you really going to tell me, with a straight face, that if you managed to convince the libertarians that they should like government more, then the mainstream politicians would start taking measure that could hurt big corps.? Look, I hope global warming is not that serious, because if it is, it's game over. Big government is most definitely not going to solve it. I think you know this too. There isn't a magical point where to government gets so big that it starts doing the right thing. If it's very small, at least there's less opportunity for the already ultra-rich to further their interests with our tax-money, like they do at the moment. Telmo. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 10 November 2013 21:40, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Look, I hope global warming is not that serious, because if it is, it's game over. Big government is most definitely not going to solve it. I think you know this too. There isn't a magical point where to government gets so big that it starts doing the right thing. If it's very small, at least there's less opportunity for the already ultra-rich to further their interests with our tax-money, like they do at the moment. There is however a point at which a problem gets so big that even politicians realise they should do something about it, for their own sakes. Even the ultra rich will eventually realise that their own safety is at stake (they need all those poor people to keep them in the style to which they've become accustomed - they can't actually eat money). Whether they solve the problem by building giant space stations or fixing the earth is another question... -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 21:40, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Look, I hope global warming is not that serious, because if it is, it's game over. Big government is most definitely not going to solve it. I think you know this too. There isn't a magical point where to government gets so big that it starts doing the right thing. If it's very small, at least there's less opportunity for the already ultra-rich to further their interests with our tax-money, like they do at the moment. There is however a point at which a problem gets so big that even politicians realise they should do something about it, for their own sakes. But if the global warming models are correct, that is already too late. If I understand the most common models correctly, it _is_ already too late. Even the ultra rich will eventually realise that their own safety is at stake (they need all those poor people to keep them in the style to which they've become accustomed - they can't actually eat money). Whether they solve the problem by building giant space stations or fixing the earth is another question... The next iteration of humanity will look mostly like Donald Trump and Bill Gates. We'll be better off dead! :) Telmo. -- 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: QM Primer
Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. 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: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to *eventually*find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... Let's say the average life expectancy is a not infinite, but some very large number, like a google plex years. If you were to draw a ball at random from an urn that had a googleplex balls in it, each with its unique number inscribed on it, would you be surprised if the number was less than 100? That is found to be less than 100 is surprising to a lot of people who consider quantum immortality, but it shouldn't be for a few reasons. One's statistical measure decreases over time. This is easiest to see in the quantum suicide experiment, where each pull of the trigger cuts one's measure in half. Imagine someone who did this every day of their life, their measure over time would be an infinite serious with a finite (not infinite) sum. Just like 3.33 is a sum of an infinite number of numbers 3 + 0.3 + 0.003 ... nonetheless, it is still less than 4. If one's measure diminishes geometrically as they live to ever increasingly absurd lifetimes 200 years, 300 years, 400 years, etc., then the same effect is the result, and we should not be surprised at drawing a number less than 100. The other reason we should not be surprised is that we have no idea how old we really are. Let's say heaven is real and all people live eternally. Then probabilistically this moment you are experiencing now is infinitely more likely to be a moment of perfect recall of this moment of life on earth (from heaven) rather than your life as the first time you lived it. In other words, if heaven exists, then you are almost surely already in it. Your age is some infinite number, and you have recalled this moment an infinite number of times. Quantum immortality guarantees you will always have a next experience, but it does not guarantee what memories you will have access to in those next experiences. 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: QM Primer
Telmo, Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will incorporate it into a new and improved version. Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a very small (but light absorbing object), like a dust mote, or a single atom, etc. (something that more intuitively could be moved by light?) Perhaps I could built up with multiple levels, first the light hits an electron, which puts it into two states, and gives it two momentums, then the electron hits a phosphorescent screen, which puts it into multiple states of illumination, and then the person looking at the screeen is finally put into two states? Jason On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. 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: QM Primer
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo, Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will incorporate it into a new and improved version. Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a very small (but light absorbing object), like a dust mote, or a single atom, etc. (something that more intuitively could be moved by light?) Perhaps I could built up with multiple levels, first the light hits an electron, which puts it into two states, and gives it two momentums, then the electron hits a phosphorescent screen, which puts it into multiple states of illumination, and then the person looking at the screeen is finally put into two states? Yeah, I would prefer this. Even if the sequence of events is a bit more complicated, I think the overall cognitive load is lower because you never have to suspend disbelief. Another thing I noticed: you say at one point that the light behaves like red light but there's never a payoff for this bit of information. Telmo. Jason On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
I would say you are incorrect concerning cities which rely on one primary power source, especially, if its local or regional. Power by wire, is common practice, but first we must have sufficient spinning, or ready reserve. My objection is now the source of power, but if it produce enough power at an affordable cost? Your solar and wind may, 17 years from now, do the job that gas turbines, or nukes, or coal, or hydroelectric does right now. Right now, today 40 GW (is that Gigawatt hours or days?) is no more then a trifling amount of what is needed by the human species. I object to governments switching off power, when no sufficient substitute now exists. Many greens are fine with rolling blackouts and brownouts because at least whatever power is produced is environmentally benign. I suspect that when people start doing a die-off, the Greens will state: Oh, then would've died anyway from pollution, contamination, and a ruined environment.. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 11:44 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/9/2013 4:53 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yourbasically saying I am wrong for no contestable reason, you have no city in the world to cite to me that is powered by solarpower or wind, for that matter, And there are none powered exclusively by hydroelectric powereither. It's a completely specious critereon that you cite asthough it meant something. Because B cannot now completely satisfyall demand for X currently supplied by A doesn't make B useless, nordoes it make A desirable or necessary. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
I have zero issue with any energy source that produces enough electrical power and is not too costly. I do have real problems when people advocate technology which cannot, this day, supply enough energy. The grande prize is just incentive, great incentive, to produce a new energy source, a medical treatment, a means of earth transport, a spectacularly, successful spacecraft. I am just guessing that the prize thing may be a better motivator then just a grant. This holds true if you really want results or not? But if you can deliver these goodies the old fashioned way, then, I say, Rock on. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 11:17 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World The rich get richer via the stock exchange and similar financial institutions. This is done with software nowadays - a thousandth of a second delay in investing can mean the difference between accumulating and losing. This doesn't actually produce improvements in anything (except financial modelling software). It's a cloud of abstract numbers spiralling off into never never land with no connection to producing anything useful. On 10 November 2013 12:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 2:49 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yes, Jesse, I do buy into that arguement. If you permit me, I will exclude DailyKos Kos Kids from your evidence, as the are far from a disinterested party in this matter. Whatever the politics, whatever the polemics, a technology has to do this, be successful. If solar is always just a fraction of the world's energy, despite decades and bilions, then I have some problem with proposing it. If, but then you draw conclusions as if you had stated a fact. Decades after oil was discovered it too only supplied a fraction of the world's energy. Or a successful solar tech, that powers all human activity, forever, may be 200 years away, for some unknown reason. What's your point - that you can imagine some insuperable problem with solar power? The Sun might stop shining? What about not nearly so speculative exhaustion of easily extracted fossil fuel? What if fossil fuel runs out? What if it makes large areas of the earth uninhabitably hot and dry. What should we do until that glorious day? We can say exactly, the same with fusion. Tax payer subsudies are fine, if they work. But I surmise these companies live for the subsidies, and not the big win in the market place. You surmise whatever fits your prejudice. Hence, my alternative of a grand prize to spur innovation, and win a giant profit that will wipe out an investors debts. I say we as a society have waited way too long, doing things the Statist way, lets let innovatoes, innovate, for the reward of an avalanche of prize money, plus tons of profits. I sense we are standing still, otherwise. And where are the great entrepreneurial advances of the past? Did private investors invent nuclear power, space flight, GPS, the internet, vaccinations, the Panama Canal, interstate highways. Free market capitalism is great for some things, but it's not going to invest in developing stuff with a 20yr horizon for return. 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. -- 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: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/9/2013 11:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to /eventually/ find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... True, but finding yourself in the first 1/N of your life when N=inf is highly unlikely. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
Ahem, the observation is from behavioral psychologists like BF Skinner, or old. Operant conditioning and all that. Nuclear (especially LFTRs), wind, and solar.?? I am interested in all these types, but are all implementable in time? Will liquid fluoride really be safer, then a Canadian CANDU SLOWPOKE, I don't know. I will guess that all of this to be able to completely replace the dirty stuff will take decades. We might in ten years add these as supplemental electricity makers, but not the lions share of juice, for sure. ?? You mean the U.S. government refuses to act in the best interestsof it's citizens: Vote them out. You are an idealist, aren't you? What if, the majority of citizens, or a large, noisy, minority, demur from your advice of voting them out? Furthermore, what if the People's Republic of China says: We will not ruin ourselves economically on the orders of this fierce, foreigner, Brent Meeker! What will you do Brent, give us a nipple pinch, boycott our products, declare war? Remember, please, that this is your world too. We are spewing poisons into the air and water. Plus, we are melting your Polar Ice Caps. What shall you do against such suicidal, murderous, nations? Ah! I didn't catch it till just now. Economic sanctions. Got ya. What if sanctions do not make us mend our ways, and it hasn't worked on the Ayatiollah's yet, what then? So you've already given up. I hope you've bought land in the Arctic. Brent Sorry, me lad, I am not a real estate guy, and am but a humble, prole, alas! And, yes, I have given up on lots of things. Cheers Complete bullshit from the Faux News talking points. All theclimate scientists are civil servants or tenured academics and havegood job whether AGW is true or not. What they have on the line istheir professional reputations and if any one of them had data todispute AGW they'd be only to glad to make their reputation as theguy who proved AGW wrong. It's the deniers and obfuscators who onlyget paid by Exxon and the Koch brothers if they publish some junkscience to obfuscate the question. If AGW is more nuanced, shall we say,then the salaries, the power is diminished. If the climatepause takes longer, then the people proposing climatechange, have to come up with an excuse. Notice, please thatuntil recently, AGW is now called Climate Change. My bestbet on this is that the term was change to cover all variations in climate, in case it doesn't get warmer, asexemplified by the UK's weather over the last 10 years. NoMiami temps in London so far. This goes against earlierforecasts, doesn't it? Now to your Libertarian denial theme, let us say I am agnostic but deeply suspicious myself, but allow me to counter question. 1. What non-carbon fuel source do you have at the ready to replace climate damaging fossil fuels? Nuclear (especially LFTRs), wind, and solar. 2. Do your solutions include switching off dirty power in the US, without a working substitute? Of course not. No one has ever suggested that (except Denierssetting up a straw man). 3. What do you recommend if the US refuses to comply? ?? You mean the U.S. government refuses to act in the best interestsof it's citizens: Vote them out. 4. Ditto, India, China, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, etc? Economic sanctions. I guess I am at step 5 and 6 on your scheme of things. So you've already given up. I hope you've bought land in theArctic. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 11:52 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/9/2013 5:12 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Brent, let us look at human nature asit exists and not posit perfection to scientists andbureaucrats. Climate scientist who peddle AGW have skin inthe game. What's their reward? They get guaranteed jobs anddo the planning and make policies if true, thus, theircareers are set Bureaucrat's ,like politicians, want power over others and also have guaranteed careers. Complete bullshit from the Faux News talking points. All theclimate scientists are civil servants or tenured academics and havegood job whether AGW is true or not. What they have on the line istheir professional reputations and if any one of them had data todispute AGW they'd be only to glad to make their reputation as theguy who proved AGW
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/10/2013 12:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:31 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 3:09 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 9:37 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Brent, my analogy, however badly its thought-up, is to force the idealists to produce. My idea was to force the idealist back to painful reality and hard choices, rather then mentally living in La La land. Saying Oh they're working on solar and soon.. How about forcing the libertarians to painful reality. They're going through the six stages of denial: 1. There is no global warming. 2. The science is uncertain. 3. There's global warming but it's just a natural cycle. 4. Global warming will really be good for us. 5. It's too costly to stop global warming. 6. Nothing can be done. Most of them I know are stuck around 3 or 4 now. They're hoping to delay any action so they can get to 6. Why? Because they'd rather face extinction than admit there are some things that you need government to do. Brent, Out of curiosity: why do you care so much about what libertarians think? They are a small minority. I believe most are very much aware that big government is here to stay. Most people in the western world vote for some variation of a conservative or liberal party, both statist. Surely if you are right, and global warming is an existential threat, and government intervention is the only way to solve it, what libertarians think should be quite low in your list of concerns no? Except that they have a disproportionate voice in the public debate because their message is amplified by monied interests who depend on fossil fuel (e.g. the Koch brothers). There was only a small number of lawyers, publicists, and scientists who claimed that: 1. Smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer. 2. There may be a relation but the science is uncertain. 3. Lung cancer just occurs naturally. 4. There are new, healthier cigarettes. 5. It will hurt the economy to limit cigarettes. 6. People should be free to smoke if they want to. and they delayed any government action against smoking for forty years. In fact some of them are *exactly* the same people hired to spread doubt about global warming. To undertake big government action in a democracy you need a solid majority in the populace. As long as libertarians and oil companies can sow doubt that's enough to prevent any action. Come on Brent... You really want to believe... The reason why Bush or Obama or any other President or government in the current system do not take actions that hurt big corporations is that these big corporation fund their careers and campaigns. Once they get in power, the corporations own then. They are not innocent by any means, and they clearly just want the position. If they didn't they would resign once they realised that they won't be able to do any of the things that they supposedly stand for. Are you really going to tell me, with a straight face, that if you managed to convince the libertarians that they should like government more, then the mainstream politicians would start taking measure that could hurt big corps.? No, the libertarians are just one of the factions that spread FUD about AGW. But they are particularly effective in providing a don't trust the government gloss - as you do above - and so don't give the government power to do anything. Sure Bush, Obama and other Presidents are influenced by corporate money - but they are not owned. Obama isn't even going to run again. Congressmen are much more subject to corruption because they're always looking to the next election. But they will respond to voters too, IF there's a solid majority. Look, I hope global warming is not that serious, because if it is, it's game over. Read the scientific literature - and cash in your chips. Big government is most definitely not going to solve it. But big government *could* solve it. Big Money is not only not going to solve it, it's trying to keep government from solving it. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/10/2013 1:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 21:40, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Look, I hope global warming is not that serious, because if it is, it's game over. Big government is most definitely not going to solve it. I think you know this too. There isn't a magical point where to government gets so big that it starts doing the right thing. If it's very small, at least there's less opportunity for the already ultra-rich to further their interests with our tax-money, like they do at the moment. There is however a point at which a problem gets so big that even politicians realise they should do something about it, for their own sakes. But if the global warming models are correct, that is already too late. If I understand the most common models correctly, it _is_ already too late. Why don't you read what the IPCC reports actually say. It's too late keep CO2 below 450ppm. It's too late to prevent a temperature rise of 2degC. That doesn't mean it's too late to save civilization. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
I agree with just about everything she notes. I do have an issue with putting pv plantations in the Sahara. I know the Germans were keen on this, and the wired the power to Deutschland. Look no further than the happening with the US embassy in Benghazi about 18 mos ago on 9-11. The subcritical reactor is excellent, but unless it gets to market, it will just be a lab curiosity. Same with fusion. I am good with all energy sources, as long as they can be implemented quickly, and we don't have to keep waiting for tomorrows that never come. That would be the logical thing IF, everyone is convinced about AGW being the chief existential threat. What Greens propose as public policy is really energy starvation rather then CO2 or methane, or particulate containment. If, for example, America, or NZ, tanks economically/collapses, most are good with this, because the environment is helped. It's helped except for the contributions of the BRIC's who will tell us all to go pound sand. Although there are lots of grassroots movements on this, the real power to do some good of course lies with governments and big business. This is an infrastructure thing, like state highways, but on a global scale - there is no bigger commons than the environment, nor a bigger tragedy of the commons than ecological collapse. Can we get our fingers out of our arses and do something? I doubt it, but here are a few suggestions. We need lots more nuclear (yes, I know, and I live in New Zealand where around 70% of the power is hydro and wind). Subcritical reactors are best, they run on thorium, can't melt down, and can be used to reprocess uranium and plutonium into something less dangerous. However they can't be used as part of a weapons programme, which is why they've been ignored (except, I think, by India). We need lots more solar - the Sun produces far more energy that we can use, even the tiny bit that falls on Earth far exceeds our requirements. How much is going begging in (say) the Sahara alone? A useful by-product would be bringing Africa's economy up to speed, if it started exporting cheap power. We probably need some geoengineering like aerosols in the upper atmosphere for a short term fix, given that every week new climate records are broken, Australia and America keep catching fire, we have the biggest storm on record in the Phillipines, hottest year on record, hottest decade on record etc etc etc. We need a ton of research into renewables and carbon sequestration -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 2:43 am Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 10 November 2013 14:12, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Brent, let us look at human nature as it exists and not posit perfection to scientists and bureaucrats. Climate scientist who peddle AGW have skin in the game. What's their reward? They get guaranteed jobs and do the planning and make policies if true, thus, their careers are set Bureaucrat's ,like politicians, want power over others and also have guaranteed careers. If AGW is more nuanced, shall we say, then the salaries, the power is diminished. If the climate pause takes longer, then the people proposing climate change, have to come up with an excuse. Notice, please that until recently, AGW is now called Climate Change. My best bet on this is that the term was change to cover all variations in climate, in case it doesn't get warmer, as exemplified by the UK's weather over the last 10 years. No Miami temps in London so far. This goes against earlier forecasts, doesn't it? Now to your Libertarian denial theme, let us say I am agnostic but deeply suspicious myself, but allow me to counter question. 1. What non-carbon fuel source do you have at the ready to replace climate damaging fossil fuels? 2. Do your solutions include switching off dirty power in the US, without a working substitute? 3. What do you recommend if the US refuses to comply? 4. Ditto, India, China, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, etc? I guess I am at step 5 and 6 on your scheme of things. But if you have knowledge of workable solutions, maybe you could write about it? Even denialists want to hear what we all can do? Although there are lots of grassroots movements on this, the real power to do some good of course lies with governments and big business. This is an infrastructure thing, like state highways, but on a global scale - there is no bigger commons than the environment, nor a bigger tragedy of the commons than ecological collapse. Can we get our fingers out of our arses and do something? I doubt it, but here are a few suggestions. We need lots more nuclear (yes, I know, and I live in New Zealand where around 70% of the power is hydro and wind). Subcritical reactors are best, they run on thorium, can't melt down, and can be used to reprocess uranium and plutonium into something less
RE: Our Demon-Haunted World
Name me one large city that gets its power 100% exclusively from coal or from nuclear? You can't because all major energy markets are fed by a mix of energy generation capacity. Yet you keep on with this straw man argument. Why? From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:14 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World I would say you are incorrect concerning cities which rely on one primary power source, especially, if its local or regional. Power by wire, is common practice, but first we must have sufficient spinning, or ready reserve. My objection is now the source of power, but if it produce enough power at an affordable cost? Your solar and wind may, 17 years from now, do the job that gas turbines, or nukes, or coal, or hydroelectric does right now. Right now, today 40 GW (is that Gigawatt hours or days?) is no more then a trifling amount of what is needed by the human species. I object to governments switching off power, when no sufficient substitute now exists. Many greens are fine with rolling blackouts and brownouts because at least whatever power is produced is environmentally benign. I suspect that when people start doing a die-off, the Greens will state: Oh, then would've died anyway from pollution, contamination, and a ruined environment.. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 11:44 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/9/2013 4:53 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Your basically saying I am wrong for no contestable reason, you have no city in the world to cite to me that is powered by solar power or wind, for that matter, And there are none powered exclusively by hydroelectric power either. It's a completely specious critereon that you cite as though it meant something. Because B cannot now completely satisfy all demand for X currently supplied by A doesn't make B useless, nor does it make A desirable or necessary. 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. -- 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: QM Primer
I'm going to teach a public class on QM and when I saw this email I thought Great! I'll just steal Jason's stuff. And I liked the first part. But at the end you leave out decoherence and leave the impression that it is the mind that produces the classical appearance. That would REALY confuse'm. Brent On 11/10/2013 1:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6823 - Release Date: 11/09/13 -- 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.
RE: Our Demon-Haunted World
Seriously increasing our energy efficiency is key to building a bridge to a living future. One thing this whole discussion is overlooking -- focused as it is, on electric energy supply (a fraction of total energy supply and demand) -- is the low hanging fruit of increasing energy efficiency. There is so much room for improvement in the efficiency with which we use energy. In transportation of course, but especially in heating and cooling and lighting our societies built spaces -- both commercial, industrial residential. Building heating, cooling lighting accounts for the lion's share of all energy use (usually measured in units of Quads -- quadrillion Btus); in fact this area amounts to almost half of all energy use (around 40% -- if I recall the percentage figure). A country like the USA could use half as much energy as it currently does -- if it did so more efficiently -- and still enjoy the same level of heating, cooling, lighting and mobility as we are currently enjoying. Trying to increase supplies -- or shift to renewable supplies -- makes little sense if not also paired with a serious attempt at ramping up energy efficiency. Just simple acts insulating ceilings, floors and walls; like caulking cracks around windows etc. and closing up these many tiny air leaks from buildings, or replacing single pane windows with double or triple pane windows; or using energy efficient lighting can have major impacts in reducing energy requirements. So much of our built space is really crappy in terms of energy efficiency and lighting and the carbon impact of an aggressive national effort at ramping up energy efficiency would be larger than any other single thing we could do. This is not sexy stuff, it is rather low tech, but it does generate a lot of local jobs and provides almost immediate relief from high energy bills. Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:52 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/10/2013 1:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 21:40, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Look, I hope global warming is not that serious, because if it is, it's game over. Big government is most definitely not going to solve it. I think you know this too. There isn't a magical point where to government gets so big that it starts doing the right thing. If it's very small, at least there's less opportunity for the already ultra-rich to further their interests with our tax-money, like they do at the moment. There is however a point at which a problem gets so big that even politicians realise they should do something about it, for their own sakes. But if the global warming models are correct, that is already too late. If I understand the most common models correctly, it _is_ already too late. Why don't you read what the IPCC reports actually say. It's too late keep CO2 below 450ppm. It's too late to prevent a temperature rise of 2degC. That doesn't mean it's too late to save civilization. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
One example might be the San Onofre plant in California, near San Diego. It's a uranium burner, and supplies 90% of the electricity, about 85% of the time. But let us look at your sun and wind power contribution that you mentioned before. 40 GW, which I am assuming, is GW's per kilowatt hour, rather than a day, a week, etc? Lets say, its not inconsiderable (40 x 1000 MW plants) but its also not reliable when the sun don't shine, the winds don't blow. Do you expect these clean sources to fully replace the dirty one's in ten years, twenty years, five years, thirty? When can we turn of these poisonous electricity sources that we have come to rely on? Do you advocate shutting these suckers down, before the solar and wind supplied power is fully, implemented? -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 1:51 pm Subject: RE: Our Demon-Haunted World Name me one large city that gets its power 100% exclusively from coal or from nuclear? You can’t because all major energy markets are fed by a mix of energy generation capacity. Yet you keep on with this straw man argument. Why? From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:14 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World I would say you are incorrect concerning cities which rely on one primary power source, especially, if its local or regional. Power by wire, is common practice, but first we must have sufficient spinning, or ready reserve. My objection is now the source of power, but if it produce enough power at an affordable cost? Your solar and wind may, 17 years from now, do the job that gas turbines, or nukes, or coal, or hydroelectric does right now. Right now, today 40 GW (is that Gigawatt hours or days?) is no more then a trifling amount of what is needed by the human species. I object to governments switching off power, when no sufficient substitute now exists. Many greens are fine with rolling blackouts and brownouts because at least whatever power is produced is environmentally benign. I suspect that when people start doing a die-off, the Greens will state: Oh, then would've died anyway from pollution, contamination, and a ruined environment.. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 11:44 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/9/2013 4:53 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Your basically saying I am wrong for no contestable reason, you have no city in the world to cite to me that is powered by solar power or wind, for that matter, And there are none powered exclusively by hydroelectric power either. It's a completely specious critereon that you cite as though it meant something. Because B cannot now completely satisfy all demand for X currently supplied by A doesn't make B useless, nor does it make A desirable or necessary. 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. -- 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: QM Primer
Thanks for uploading it, great job! Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM: http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/instant_eternal.jpg Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not as literal beams across a vacuum. There are no literal waves or particles. What is happening is that the stimulated physical components are arranged to reflect their stimulation to each other, which occurs in a physical frame of time that is essentially timeless. The physical layer, I am saying is the most primitive layer of experience, within which space and time divergence is generated. Light does not happen in spacetime, spacetime happens in experience (which is light, or any other sensation). On the right hand side, the topological layers of sensitivity slow down the instant and recapitulate larger and larger chunks of eternity into each frame of awareness. I tried to show how the footprint of the inanimate objects extends all the way down to the bottom, but remains indifferent to the spatiotemporal strata on the right hand side. Not the best diagram, I admit, but maybe gives some sense of the model I suggest. Thanks, Craig On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:49:00 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
I used to be a fan of Amory Lovins too but am concerned that better efficiencies might not get us across the bridge to Solar City. Lovin's Kevlar cars never took off, for one reason, is because they were so light that strong winds would guide them off the test track. If we weigh them down to be highway ready, there goes the mileage. New materials might do the trick architecturally, as you stated. I am personally sort of obsessed with the idea of using pumped storage at sea (probably costly) using wind power, ocean current to pump uphill, vast, amounts of sea water into synthetic reservoirs, and then get hydro-electric juice flowing for days or weeks from these structures. But, the efficiencies of moving tons of sea water uphill, may just suck at producing electricity? An energy sink is no energy source. -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 2:08 pm Subject: RE: Our Demon-Haunted World Seriously increasing our energy efficiency is key to building a bridge to a living future. One thing this whole discussion is overlooking -- focused as it is, on electric energy supply (a fraction of total energy supply and demand) -- is the low hanging fruit of increasing energy efficiency. There is so much room for improvement in the efficiency with which we use energy. In transportation of course, but especially in heating and cooling and lighting our societies built spaces -- both commercial, industrial residential. Building heating, cooling lighting accounts for the lion's share of all energy use (usually measured in units of Quads -- quadrillion Btus); in fact this area amounts to almost half of all energy use (around 40% -- if I recall the percentage figure). A country like the USA could use half as much energy as it currently does -- if it did so more efficiently -- and still enjoy the same level of heating, cooling, lighting and mobility as we are currently enjoying. Trying to increase supplies -- or shift to renewable supplies -- makes little sense if not also paired with a serious attempt at ramping up energy efficiency. Just simple acts insulating ceilings, floors and walls; like caulking cracks around windows etc. and closing up these many tiny air leaks from buildings, or replacing single pane windows with double or triple pane windows; or using energy efficient lighting can have major impacts in reducing energy requirements. So much of our built space is really crappy in terms of energy efficiency and lighting and the carbon impact of an aggressive national effort at ramping up energy efficiency would be larger than any other single thing we could do. This is not sexy stuff, it is rather low tech, but it does generate a lot of local jobs and provides almost immediate relief from high energy bills. Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:52 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/10/2013 1:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 21:40, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Look, I hope global warming is not that serious, because if it is, it's game over. Big government is most definitely not going to solve it. I think you know this too. There isn't a magical point where to government gets so big that it starts doing the right thing. If it's very small, at least there's less opportunity for the already ultra-rich to further their interests with our tax-money, like they do at the moment. There is however a point at which a problem gets so big that even politicians realise they should do something about it, for their own sakes. But if the global warming models are correct, that is already too late. If I understand the most common models correctly, it _is_ already too late. Why don't you read what the IPCC reports actually say. It's too late keep CO2 below 450ppm. It's too late to prevent a temperature rise of 2degC. That doesn't mean it's too late to save civilization. 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
RE: Our Demon-Haunted World
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 11:08 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World One example might be the San Onofre plant in California, near San Diego. It's a uranium burner, and supplies 90% of the electricity, about 85% of the time. But let us look at your sun and wind power contribution that you mentioned before. 40 GW, which I am assuming, is GW's per kilowatt hour, rather than a day, a week, etc? Lets say, its not inconsiderable (40 x 1000 MW plants) but its also not reliable when the sun don't shine, the winds don't blow. Do you expect these clean sources to fully replace the dirty one's in ten years, twenty years, five years, thirty? When can we turn of these poisonous electricity sources that we have come to rely on? Do you advocate shutting these suckers down, before the solar and wind supplied power is fully, implemented? The San Onofre nuclear power plant has been decommissioned - it is past its service life and now many more billions of dollars are going to be need to be spent over decades of time in order to decommission this facility - (it was very intelligently sited on an earthquake fault line by the way) Cost estimates for permanently closing and decommissioning San Onofre are over $4 billion. The plant's first unit, Unit 1, operated from 1968 to 1992.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station#cite_not e-5 Unit 2 was started in 1983 and Unit 3 started in 1984. Upgrades designed to last 20 years were made to the reactor units in 2009 and 2010; however, both reactors had to be shut down in January 2012 due to premature wear found on over 3,000 tubes in the recently replaced steam generators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station The actual answer to your question then is that the San Onofre power plants are supplying 0% of the San Diego electric energy market with electric power. You might want to pick a better example to make your case. LOL -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 1:51 pm Subject: RE: Our Demon-Haunted World Name me one large city that gets its power 100% exclusively from coal or from nuclear? You can't because all major energy markets are fed by a mix of energy generation capacity. Yet you keep on with this straw man argument. Why? From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com? ] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:14 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World I would say you are incorrect concerning cities which rely on one primary power source, especially, if its local or regional. Power by wire, is common practice, but first we must have sufficient spinning, or ready reserve. My objection is now the source of power, but if it produce enough power at an affordable cost? Your solar and wind may, 17 years from now, do the job that gas turbines, or nukes, or coal, or hydroelectric does right now. Right now, today 40 GW (is that Gigawatt hours or days?) is no more then a trifling amount of what is needed by the human species. I object to governments switching off power, when no sufficient substitute now exists. Many greens are fine with rolling blackouts and brownouts because at least whatever power is produced is environmentally benign. I suspect that when people start doing a die-off, the Greens will state: Oh, then would've died anyway from pollution, contamination, and a ruined environment.. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 11:44 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/9/2013 4:53 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Your basically saying I am wrong for no contestable reason, you have no city in the world to cite to me that is powered by solar power or wind, for that matter, And there are none powered exclusively by hydroelectric power either. It's a completely specious critereon that you cite as though it meant something. Because B cannot now completely satisfy all demand for X currently supplied by A doesn't make B useless, nor does it make A desirable or necessary. 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
RE: Our Demon-Haunted World
Who knows -- you may be interested in a Dutch idea to build an energy island in the North sea by diking around an area of sea then using periods of surplus wind power generation form the north sea offshore wind farms (of which there are quite a few now) to pump water out from inside of the diked off area lowering the water levels inside with respect to the sea level outside. Creating a reservoir of pumped storage that could be drawn down when supplies did not meet demand. Large scale pumped storage is by far the largest form of electric energy storage that currently exists and there are some interesting projects coming on line now - such as the Eagle Crest project in the deserts of Southern California which will provide 1300 MW of dispatchable power onto the grid and which pairs perfectly with the wind and solar generation facilities that are sited in that region. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 11:19 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World I used to be a fan of Amory Lovins too but am concerned that better efficiencies might not get us across the bridge to Solar City. Lovin's Kevlar cars never took off, for one reason, is because they were so light that strong winds would guide them off the test track. If we weigh them down to be highway ready, there goes the mileage. New materials might do the trick architecturally, as you stated. I am personally sort of obsessed with the idea of using pumped storage at sea (probably costly) using wind power, ocean current to pump uphill, vast, amounts of sea water into synthetic reservoirs, and then get hydro-electric juice flowing for days or weeks from these structures. But, the efficiencies of moving tons of sea water uphill, may just suck at producing electricity? An energy sink is no energy source. -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 2:08 pm Subject: RE: Our Demon-Haunted World Seriously increasing our energy efficiency is key to building a bridge to a living future. One thing this whole discussion is overlooking -- focused as it is, on electric energy supply (a fraction of total energy supply and demand) -- is the low hanging fruit of increasing energy efficiency. There is so much room for improvement in the efficiency with which we use energy. In transportation of course, but especially in heating and cooling and lighting our societies built spaces -- both commercial, industrial residential. Building heating, cooling lighting accounts for the lion's share of all energy use (usually measured in units of Quads -- quadrillion Btus); in fact this area amounts to almost half of all energy use (around 40% -- if I recall the percentage figure). A country like the USA could use half as much energy as it currently does -- if it did so more efficiently -- and still enjoy the same level of heating, cooling, lighting and mobility as we are currently enjoying. Trying to increase supplies -- or shift to renewable supplies -- makes little sense if not also paired with a serious attempt at ramping up energy efficiency. Just simple acts insulating ceilings, floors and walls; like caulking cracks around windows etc. and closing up these many tiny air leaks from buildings, or replacing single pane windows with double or triple pane windows; or using energy efficient lighting can have major impacts in reducing energy requirements. So much of our built space is really crappy in terms of energy efficiency and lighting and the carbon impact of an aggressive national effort at ramping up energy efficiency would be larger than any other single thing we could do. This is not sexy stuff, it is rather low tech, but it does generate a lot of local jobs and provides almost immediate relief from high energy bills. Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com? ] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:52 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/10/2013 1:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 21:40, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Look, I hope global warming is not that serious, because if it is, it's game over. Big government is most definitely not going to solve it. I think you know this too. There isn't a magical point where to government gets so big that it starts doing the right thing. If it's very small, at least there's less opportunity for the already ultra-rich to further their interests with our tax-money, like they do at the moment. There is however a point at which a problem gets so big that even politicians realise they
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/10/2013 9:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to /eventually/ find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... Let's say the average life expectancy is a not infinite, but some very large number, like a google plex years. If you were to draw a ball at random from an urn that had a googleplex balls in it, each with its unique number inscribed on it, would you be surprised if the number was less than 100? That is found to be less than 100 is surprising to a lot of people who consider quantum immortality, but it shouldn't be for a few reasons. One's statistical measure decreases over time. This is easiest to see in the quantum suicide experiment, where each pull of the trigger cuts one's measure in half. Imagine someone who did this every day of their life, their measure over time would be an infinite serious with a finite (not infinite) sum. Just like 3.33 is a sum of an infinite number of numbers 3 + 0.3 + 0.003 ... nonetheless, it is still less than 4. If one's measure diminishes geometrically as they live to ever increasingly absurd lifetimes 200 years, 300 years, 400 years, etc., then the same effect is the result, and we should not be surprised at drawing a number less than 100. So when your measure becomes less than one bit or too small to support your experience - you're dead. The other reason we should not be surprised is that we have no idea how old we really are. Let's say heaven is real and all people live eternally. Then probabilistically this moment you are experiencing now is infinitely more likely to be a moment of perfect recall of this moment of life on earth (from heaven) rather than your life as the first time you lived it. In other words, if heaven exists, then you are almost surely already in it. Your age is some infinite number, and you have recalled this moment an infinite number of times. Nietzsche's eternal return. But is it heaven, or is it hell? Brent Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness of the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence. --- Siddhartha Gautama -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 09 Nov 2013, at 19:09, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I am emphasizing having governments print out (Keynes style) absolutely, colossal, amounts of cash, as a reward for coming up with excellent disease treatments and cures, human solar system tours, and clean energy solution, environmental remediation. If the banks won't fund researchers, then private equity will, if private equity won't then a million contributors-open source-will, provided they get a cut of the reward offered by a government prize. I wouldn't be shocked if you, Professor, Marchal, might summon up 25 ECU's in exchange for receiving 3000 ECU's or Golden Yuans, in payment, 5 years later. Only if this reflects some honest contracts. Honesty is not just moral, it is something which elevates a lot the real value of money. It generates trust. Be honest. If you don't try to be honest for the calm of your conscience, do it for the wealth of your children. Today big corporations are based on lies. That's the problem. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 1:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 21:40, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Look, I hope global warming is not that serious, because if it is, it's game over. Big government is most definitely not going to solve it. I think you know this too. There isn't a magical point where to government gets so big that it starts doing the right thing. If it's very small, at least there's less opportunity for the already ultra-rich to further their interests with our tax-money, like they do at the moment. There is however a point at which a problem gets so big that even politicians realise they should do something about it, for their own sakes. But if the global warming models are correct, that is already too late. If I understand the most common models correctly, it _is_ already too late. Why don't you read what the IPCC reports actually say. It's too late keep CO2 below 450ppm. It's too late to prevent a temperature rise of 2degC. That doesn't mean it's too late to save civilization. Alright, I was being a smart-ass about it because every few years we receive this message that we have some window of opportunity of 5 more minutes or we are doomed. The last one was last month at some complex systems conference. As I said before, I am agnostic on this issue for the following reasons: - I am not educated in climate science and I am sufficiently educated in science to understand that it would take years of full-time effort to get to a point where I could judge the merit of climate science research findings by myself -- even there I would probably have to become an insider, because I understand that a lot of key data is never made publicly available; - I am sufficiently knowledgable of complex systems to be skeptical of the predictive power of any complex systems model at our current level of sophistication; - The issue became so heavily politicised that it is basically not reasonable to trust news reporting on either side of it. I am aware of the 5th IPCC report and I am also aware of claims by reputable climate scientists that the models' predictions appear to be deviating increasingly from the observables: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/ I am not invested in disproving global warming. I like to think I am scientifically-minded, so I accept reality whatever it is. I hope it is wrong. I suspect some people want it to be true. Telmo. 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: Re: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ?
Liz: it all starts with the proper use of words we use so imroperly. What is P H Y S I C A L ? the explanational domain where features are proven by other featires of the explanational theoretical domain? (By instruments from WITHIN) What is M E N T A L ? we live in a maze and use 'language' to communicate. Look at ' M A T E R I A L ' at the final dissolution of the particles: no matter-like in them. Look at ' M E N T A L ' in the (conventional) scientific explanatory figments: you end up with PHYSICAL sites (in the brain) and PHYSICAL processes (electrical etc.) to explain. Another look-up comes from the changes of such figments over the millennia of our developmental process, how ALL of them transformed as we 'learned' more about the circumstances we know so little about. This is why my agnosticism is based on: The only thing we know is We Don't. The rest is 'science' etc. we keep talking about. Belief, doubt, Nobel Prizes, etc. (And maybe: Bruno's numbers? applied by his (Loeb's?) universal machine). John Mikes On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 04:11, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Mathematical proof is all that is lacking. That is that particles like electrons and quarks are strings. That electrons and quarks have mass is established experimentally Well, they appear to, in the sense that they interact in certain ways. Does string theory and / or the higgs mechanism explain the equivalence of gravitational and intertial mass, by the way? -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/10/2013 12:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: As I said before, I am agnostic on this issue for the following reasons: - I am not educated in climate science and I am sufficiently educated in science to understand that it would take years of full-time effort to get to a point where I could judge the merit of climate science research findings by myself -- even there I would probably have to become an insider, because I understand that a lot of key data is never made publicly available; - I am sufficiently knowledgable of complex systems to be skeptical of the predictive power of any complex systems model at our current level of sophistication; - The issue became so heavily politicised that it is basically not reasonable to trust news reporting on either side of it. I am aware of the 5th IPCC report and I am also aware of claims by reputable climate scientists that the models' predictions appear to be deviating increasingly from the observables: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/ Are you aware that Judith Curry was on the Berkley Earth team to resolve the question of whether the earth is actually warming. She and Richard Muller had been critical of the analyses performed by NOAA, Hadley, CRU, and GISS. When the new analysis, which met all the past criticisms, confirmed all the previous conclusions, she quit the team and shifted her criticism from it's not happening to it's not predictable. Notice that means it could be a lot worse than predicted too - but the Deniers and FUDers never mention that. I am not invested in disproving global warming. I like to think I am scientifically-minded, so I accept reality whatever it is. I hope it is wrong. I suspect some people want it to be true. Yes, you're the perfect example of the success of the Deniers FUD campaign. 98% of all climate scientists agree that AGW is happening and it will have bad consequences. But you're aware of skeptical scientists, like Judith Curry (who are given TV time on Faux News), so it's a toss-up. It's been heavily politicized - by money from the fossil fuel companies - so no news can be trusted. You're not expert enough to read the scientific literature - so you're agnostic. You *suspect* some people want it to be true??? In other words you suspect some academics of wanting to trash the world economy for vague, unexpressed personal reasons. But you don't suspect the Koch brothers, Exxon, BP, Faux News, the Discovery Institute, the MacArthur Foundation, and a host of right-wing think tanks of wanting it to be false AND paying a lot of PR firms to obfuscate the issue. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
Bruno and Brent: *Who are you to T E L L society what it needs?* (BTW: I agree perfectly with your position). I had discussions on other lists in aspects of religion and gun-control and received similar offensive repercussions. No universal machine can tell any other universal machine how to think and what to aim at. Voting is a lying hoax, democracy is nonetxistent. A handful people of goodwill will not change the malicious crowd. When I abhor shooting to kill people, it does not prove wrong those crazies who like to do it - just marks a difference of opinions. TELLING society what it needs is fascism, socialism, or religion. Be careful with your words: they are mostly meaningless substitutes. John M. On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 11:50 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen money, and that's the case today. There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia) then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property. Where there is government, the police protect their property and the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth. *I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce more money in two ways, honestly or dishonestly.*... Bruno, before I touch the basics - could you explain what you would consider to produce *M O R E money HONESTLY?* Same question to Brent's text above: *that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively*. I don't see a 'productive' way how 'the rich' get more wealth and power by using their wealth and power. It is exploitation, political scam, bribery, terrorism, etc. - all in the framework of accepted morals of the system (either capitalist, or fascist). I recall some basics (I am no 'Socialist') from Marx: NOBODY *owns *Nature so any natural products (mining, farming, or other) are valued 'honestly' as recompensation for the *efforts* invested into the natural process for getting money - honestly - productively, without exploitation. Does any mine-owner work on his product? Does any Farming conglomerated stockholder work honestly on the crop? I do not advocate the CEO to sweep the floor: there is tasks' - organization in which everyone has a role to perform, but are the roles proportionately paid for? Mao tried to switch 'roles' temporarily - he failed. Lenin realized that such just distribution is impossible in today's society and postulated FIRST the development of som COMMUINST MAN who lives up to such 'just distribution' of benefits - surely realizing the impossibility of such development. All other (Socialist?) countries suffered from the same malaise as the (democraticly?) capitalistic ones: the leadership and its power usurped wealth, acquired MONEY and POWER on the back of the 'not so fortunate' exploited majority. Alas, I have no solution to remedy the situation. Re-hire Dr. Guillotine is unrealistic. JM On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen money, and that's the case today. There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia) then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property. Where there is government, the police protect their property and the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth. I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce more money in two ways,
Re: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ?
On 11/10/2013 12:44 PM, John Mikes wrote: This is why my agnosticism is based on: The only thing we know is We Don't. Do we really know that?? :-) 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/10/2013 1:06 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno and Brent: *_Who are you to T E L L society what it needs?_* (BTW: I agree perfectly with your position). I had discussions on other lists in aspects of religion and gun-control and received similar offensive repercussions. No universal machine can tell any other universal machine how to think and what to aim at. Voting is a lying hoax, democracy is nonetxistent. A handful people of goodwill will not change the malicious crowd. When I abhor shooting to kill people, it does not prove wrong those crazies who like to do it - just marks a difference of opinions. TELLING society what it needs is fascism, socialism, or religion. What about telling society what it needs to survive? Are you telling me fascism, socialism, and religion are bad? 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
Brent wrote: What about telling society what it needs to survive? Are you telling me fascism, socialism, and religion are bad? (earlier): Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth. The 3 belief systems I mentioned are bad - *IN MY OPINION.* This last remark is what I missed in your statement as well. Besides: I did not include the 3 systems' names as some qualifying statement: just referred to their activity as in intruding into peoples' private beliefs. John On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 1:06 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno and Brent: *Who are you to T E L L society what it needs?* (BTW: I agree perfectly with your position). I had discussions on other lists in aspects of religion and gun-control and received similar offensive repercussions. No universal machine can tell any other universal machine how to think and what to aim at. Voting is a lying hoax, democracy is nonetxistent. A handful people of goodwill will not change the malicious crowd. When I abhor shooting to kill people, it does not prove wrong those crazies who like to do it - just marks a difference of opinions. TELLING society what it needs is fascism, socialism, or religion. What about telling society what it needs to survive? Are you telling me fascism, socialism, and religion are bad? 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 12:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: As I said before, I am agnostic on this issue for the following reasons: - I am not educated in climate science and I am sufficiently educated in science to understand that it would take years of full-time effort to get to a point where I could judge the merit of climate science research findings by myself -- even there I would probably have to become an insider, because I understand that a lot of key data is never made publicly available; - I am sufficiently knowledgable of complex systems to be skeptical of the predictive power of any complex systems model at our current level of sophistication; - The issue became so heavily politicised that it is basically not reasonable to trust news reporting on either side of it. I am aware of the 5th IPCC report and I am also aware of claims by reputable climate scientists that the models' predictions appear to be deviating increasingly from the observables: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/ Are you aware that Judith Curry was on the Berkley Earth team to resolve the question of whether the earth is actually warming. She and Richard Muller had been critical of the analyses performed by NOAA, Hadley, CRU, and GISS. When the new analysis, which met all the past criticisms, confirmed all the previous conclusions, she quit the team and shifted her criticism from it's not happening to it's not predictable. Notice that means it could be a lot worse than predicted too - but the Deniers and FUDers never mention that. I've been around long enough to know that she could possibly describe the same sequence of events in a way that makes her look good and her opponents bad. I am more interested in the graphs. I am not invested in disproving global warming. I like to think I am scientifically-minded, so I accept reality whatever it is. I hope it is wrong. I suspect some people want it to be true. Yes, you're the perfect example of the success of the Deniers FUD campaign. Maybe, but I would be more confident that I was witnessing a serious scientific debate if people were not using terms like Deniers and FUD campaign. 98% of all climate scientists agree that AGW is happening and it will have bad consequences. This is a badly disguised argument from authority. It's precisely phrases like 98% of all climate scientists... that triggered my BS alarms in this issue. But you're aware of skeptical scientists, like Judith Curry (who are given TV time on Faux News), so it's a toss-up. It's been heavily politicized - by money from the fossil fuel companies - so no news can be trusted. You're not expert enough to read the scientific literature - so you're agnostic. This may be the case. You *suspect* some people want it to be true??? Well I'm almost sure. In other words you suspect some academics of wanting to trash the world economy for vague, unexpressed personal reasons. I wasn't referring to the academics, nor suggesting wrong-doings. Some people strongly dislike capitalism and take pleasure in the possibility that it could be destructive for the environment. There's a sort of moral reward for them in that. Notice that I'm not saying that they are wrong. They could be right. I am saying that they may be biased. But you don't suspect the Koch brothers, Exxon, BP, Faux News, the Discovery Institute, the MacArthur Foundation, and a host of right-wing think tanks of wanting it to be false AND paying a lot of PR firms to obfuscate the issue. Of course I suspect that too. In fact I'm essentially sure that they are doing all that. But this doesn't mean that the global warming models are correct. Telmo. 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/10/2013 2:19 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 12:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: As I said before, I am agnostic on this issue for the following reasons: - I am not educated in climate science and I am sufficiently educated in science to understand that it would take years of full-time effort to get to a point where I could judge the merit of climate science research findings by myself -- even there I would probably have to become an insider, because I understand that a lot of key data is never made publicly available; - I am sufficiently knowledgable of complex systems to be skeptical of the predictive power of any complex systems model at our current level of sophistication; - The issue became so heavily politicised that it is basically not reasonable to trust news reporting on either side of it. I am aware of the 5th IPCC report and I am also aware of claims by reputable climate scientists that the models' predictions appear to be deviating increasingly from the observables: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/ Are you aware that Judith Curry was on the Berkley Earth team to resolve the question of whether the earth is actually warming. She and Richard Muller had been critical of the analyses performed by NOAA, Hadley, CRU, and GISS. When the new analysis, which met all the past criticisms, confirmed all the previous conclusions, she quit the team and shifted her criticism from it's not happening to it's not predictable. Notice that means it could be a lot worse than predicted too - but the Deniers and FUDers never mention that. I've been around long enough to know that she could possibly describe the same sequence of events in a way that makes her look good and her opponents bad. I am more interested in the graphs. Then look at these: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/ I am not invested in disproving global warming. I like to think I am scientifically-minded, so I accept reality whatever it is. I hope it is wrong. I suspect some people want it to be true. Yes, you're the perfect example of the success of the Deniers FUD campaign. Maybe, but I would be more confident that I was witnessing a serious scientific debate if people were not using terms like Deniers and FUD campaign. But that's exactly the point. You are NOT witnessing a serious scientific debate. There's ZERO serious science on the side of Deniers. They are like anti-evolutionist. All they do is look for some small anomaly (like a prediction that was off) and say, What about THAT?. You are witnessing a disinformation campaign - and the cui bono is pretty obvious. 98% of all climate scientists agree that AGW is happening and it will have bad consequences. This is a badly disguised argument from authority. It's precisely phrases like 98% of all climate scientists... that triggered my BS alarms in this issue. Since you said you didn't feel up to understanding the science what are you going to rely on? Talking heads on Faux News or the IPCC? But you're aware of skeptical scientists, like Judith Curry (who are given TV time on Faux News), so it's a toss-up. It's been heavily politicized - by money from the fossil fuel companies - so no news can be trusted. You're not expert enough to read the scientific literature - so you're agnostic. This may be the case. You *suspect* some people want it to be true??? Well I'm almost sure. In other words you suspect some academics of wanting to trash the world economy for vague, unexpressed personal reasons. I wasn't referring to the academics, nor suggesting wrong-doings. Some people strongly dislike capitalism and take pleasure in the possibility that it could be destructive for the environment. There's a sort of moral reward for them in that. Notice that I'm not saying that they are wrong. They could be right. I am saying that they may be biased. Since they are not the ones publishing studies and analyses what does their opinion have to do with anything? Your implication was that the warnings about AGW were falsely motivated. What difference does it make if Joe Sixpack is biased (and you can bet he's not biased in favor of high fuel prices)? But you don't suspect the Koch brothers, Exxon, BP, Faux News, the Discovery Institute, the MacArthur Foundation, and a host of right-wing think tanks of wanting it to be false AND paying a lot of PR firms to obfuscate the issue. Of course I suspect that too. In fact I'm essentially sure that they are doing all that. But this doesn't mean that the global warming models are correct. Yet you're willing to suspect the IPCC report by scientists is phony because some anti-capitalists believe it??? Seems to me that you're biased because you think that if AGW is serious it will require
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
2013/11/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/9/2013 11:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to *eventually*find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... True, but finding yourself in the first 1/N of your life when N=inf is highly unlikely. Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. Quentin 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
Richard Lindzen from MIT is a serious academic scientist who has some reservations about the IPCC reports and is often labeled as a denier. I put my faith in his research. From wiki-Lindzen: Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer modelshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted warming may be overestimated because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor_feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-stevenswnyt-2 This claim has been sharply criticised.[45]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-47 Contrary to the IPCC's assessmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[46]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-guterlfnewsweek-48 Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5°C based on ERBE data.[47]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-erbe-49These estimates have been criticized by other researchers.[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-50 Lindzen addressed these criticisms in a 2011 paper, still showing the models exaggerating climate sensitivity.[49]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-51 On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 6:04 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 2:19 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 12:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: As I said before, I am agnostic on this issue for the following reasons: - I am not educated in climate science and I am sufficiently educated in science to understand that it would take years of full-time effort to get to a point where I could judge the merit of climate science research findings by myself -- even there I would probably have to become an insider, because I understand that a lot of key data is never made publicly available; - I am sufficiently knowledgable of complex systems to be skeptical of the predictive power of any complex systems model at our current level of sophistication; - The issue became so heavily politicised that it is basically not reasonable to trust news reporting on either side of it. I am aware of the 5th IPCC report and I am also aware of claims by reputable climate scientists that the models' predictions appear to be deviating increasingly from the observables: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for- climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/ Are you aware that Judith Curry was on the Berkley Earth team to resolve the question of whether the earth is actually warming. She and Richard Muller had been critical of the analyses performed by NOAA, Hadley, CRU, and GISS. When the new analysis, which met all the past criticisms, confirmed all the previous conclusions, she quit the team and shifted her criticism from it's not happening to it's not predictable. Notice that means it could be a lot worse than predicted too - but the Deniers and FUDers never mention that. I've been around long enough to know that she could possibly describe the same sequence of events in a way that makes her look good and her opponents bad. I am more interested in the graphs. Then look at these: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/ 2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/ I am not invested in disproving global warming. I like to think I am scientifically-minded, so I accept reality whatever it is. I hope it is wrong. I suspect some people want it to be true. Yes, you're the perfect example of the success of the Deniers FUD campaign. Maybe, but I would be more confident that I was witnessing a serious scientific debate if people were not using terms like Deniers and FUD campaign. But that's exactly the point. You are NOT witnessing a serious scientific debate. There's ZERO serious science on the side of Deniers. They are like anti-evolutionist. All they do is look for some
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
Cool, I didn't bother to look it up, but rather remembered San Onofre. Whatever you want for solar, and if it cannot supply replacement electricity sufficiently, and you still shutdown the dirty sources, anyway, people will die. -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: RE: Our Demon-Haunted World From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 11:08 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World One example might be the San Onofre plant in California, near San Diego. It's a uranium burner, and supplies 90% of the electricity, about 85% of the time. But let us look at your sun and wind power contribution that you mentioned before. 40 GW, which I am assuming, is GW's per kilowatt hour, rather than a day, a week, etc? Lets say, its not inconsiderable (40 x 1000 MW plants) but its also not reliable when the sun don't shine, the winds don't blow. Do you expect these clean sources to fully replace the dirty one's in ten years, twenty years, five years, thirty? When can we turn of these poisonous electricity sources that we have come to rely on? Do you advocate shutting these suckers down, before the solar and wind supplied power is fully, implemented? The San Onofre nuclear power plant has been decommissioned – it is past its service life and now many more billions of dollars are going to be need to be spent over decades of time in order to decommission this facility – (it was very intelligently sited on an earthquake fault line by the way) Cost estimates for permanently closing and decommissioning San Onofre are over $4 billion. “The plant's first unit, Unit 1, operated from 1968 to 1992.[5] Unit 2 was started in 1983 and Unit 3 started in 1984. Upgrades designed to last 20 years were made to the reactor units in 2009 and 2010; however, both reactors had to be shut down in January 2012 due to premature wear found on over 3,000 tubes in the recently replaced steam generators.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station The actual answer to your question then is that the San Onofre power plants are supplying 0% of the San Diego electric energy market with electric power. You might want to pick a better example to make your case. LOL -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 1:51 pm Subject: RE: Our Demon-Haunted World Name me one large city that gets its power 100% exclusively from coal or from nuclear? You can’t because all major energy markets are fed by a mix of energy generation capacity. Yet you keep on with this straw man argument. Why? From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:14 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World I would say you are incorrect concerning cities which rely on one primary power source, especially, if its local or regional. Power by wire, is common practice, but first we must have sufficient spinning, or ready reserve. My objection is now the source of power, but if it produce enough power at an affordable cost? Your solar and wind may, 17 years from now, do the job that gas turbines, or nukes, or coal, or hydroelectric does right now. Right now, today 40 GW (is that Gigawatt hours or days?) is no more then a trifling amount of what is needed by the human species. I object to governments switching off power, when no sufficient substitute now exists. Many greens are fine with rolling blackouts and brownouts because at least whatever power is produced is environmentally benign. I suspect that when people start doing a die-off, the Greens will state: Oh, then would've died anyway from pollution, contamination, and a ruined environment.. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 11:44 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/9/2013 4:53 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Your basically saying I am wrong for no contestable reason, you have no city in the world to cite to me that is powered by solar power or wind, for that matter, And there are none powered exclusively by hydroelectric power either. It's a completely specious critereon that you cite as though it meant something. Because B cannot now completely satisfy all demand for X currently supplied by A doesn't make B useless, nor does it make A desirable or necessary. 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
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
Ok, but this is a technique for priming the intellectual pump. If it produces nothing good, nothing powerful, then this method would be a complete failure. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 2:49 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 09 Nov 2013, at 19:09, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I am emphasizing having governments print out (Keynes style) absolutely, colossal, amounts of cash, as a reward for coming up with excellent disease treatments and cures, human solar system tours, and clean energy solution, environmental remediation. If the banks won't fund researchers, then private equity will, if private equity won't then a million contributors-open source-will, provided they get a cut of the reward offered by a government prize. I wouldn't be shocked if you, Professor, Marchal, might summon up 25 ECU's in exchange for receiving 3000 ECU's or Golden Yuans, in payment, 5 years later. Only if this reflects some honest contracts. Honesty is not just moral, it is something which elevates a lot the real value of money. It generates trust. Be honest. If you don't try to be honest for the calm of your conscience, do it for the wealth of your children. Today big corporations are based on lies. That's the problem. 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. -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
I am not wedded to unworkable ideas, all I maintain, is before we switch off the dirty energy, we must be assured that the clean stuff produces enough watts. -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 2:33 pm Subject: RE: Our Demon-Haunted World Who knows -- you may be interested in a Dutch idea to build an energy island in the North sea by diking around an area of sea then using periods of surplus wind power generation form the north sea offshore wind farms (of which there are quite a few now) to pump water out from inside of the diked off area lowering the water levels inside with respect to the sea level outside. Creating a reservoir of pumped storage that could be drawn down when supplies did not meet demand. Large scale pumped storage is by far the largest form of electric energy storage that currently exists and there are some interesting projects coming on line now – such as the Eagle Crest project in the deserts of Southern California which will provide 1300 MW of dispatchable power onto the grid and which pairs perfectly with the wind and solar generation facilities that are sited in that region. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 11:19 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World I used to be a fan of Amory Lovins too but am concerned that better efficiencies might not get us across the bridge to Solar City. Lovin's Kevlar cars never took off, for one reason, is because they were so light that strong winds would guide them off the test track. If we weigh them down to be highway ready, there goes the mileage. New materials might do the trick architecturally, as you stated. I am personally sort of obsessed with the idea of using pumped storage at sea (probably costly) using wind power, ocean current to pump uphill, vast, amounts of sea water into synthetic reservoirs, and then get hydro-electric juice flowing for days or weeks from these structures. But, the efficiencies of moving tons of sea water uphill, may just suck at producing electricity? An energy sink is no energy source. -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 2:08 pm Subject: RE: Our Demon-Haunted World Seriously increasing our energy efficiency is key to building a bridge to a living future. One thing this whole discussion is overlooking -- focused as it is, on electric energy supply (a fraction of total energy supply and demand) -- is the low hanging fruit of increasing energy efficiency. There is so much room for improvement in the efficiency with which we use energy. In transportation of course, but especially in heating and cooling and lighting our societies built spaces -- both commercial, industrial residential. Building heating, cooling lighting accounts for the lion's share of all energy use (usually measured in units of Quads -- quadrillion Btus); in fact this area amounts to almost half of all energy use (around 40% -- if I recall the percentage figure). A country like the USA could use half as much energy as it currently does -- if it did so more efficiently -- and still enjoy the same level of heating, cooling, lighting and mobility as we are currently enjoying. Trying to increase supplies -- or shift to renewable supplies -- makes little sense if not also paired with a serious attempt at ramping up energy efficiency. Just simple acts insulating ceilings, floors and walls; like caulking cracks around windows etc. and closing up these many tiny air leaks from buildings, or replacing single pane windows with double or triple pane windows; or using energy efficient lighting can have major impacts in reducing energy requirements. So much of our built space is really crappy in terms of energy efficiency and lighting and the carbon impact of an aggressive national effort at ramping up energy efficiency would be larger than any other single thing we could do. This is not sexy stuff, it is rather low tech, but it does generate a lot of local jobs and provides almost immediate relief from high energy bills. Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:52 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/10/2013 1:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 21:40, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Look, I hope global warming is not that serious, because if it is, it's game over. Big government is most definitely not going to solve it. I think you know this too. There isn't a magical
Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 11/9/2013 11:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to /eventually/ find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... True, but finding yourself in the first 1/N of your life when N=inf is highly unlikely. Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/10/2013 4:21 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Richard Lindzen from MIT is a serious academic scientist who has some reservations about the IPCC reports and is often labeled as a denier. I put my faith in his research. I hope you didn't also put your faith in those doctors who had reservations as to whether smoking causes lung cancer? 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
You comment does not merit a response. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 4:21 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Richard Lindzen from MIT is a serious academic scientist who has some reservations about the IPCC reports and is often labeled as a denier. I put my faith in his research. I hope you didn't also put your faith in those doctors who had reservations as to whether smoking causes lung cancer? 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:24 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World Cool, I didn't bother to look it up, but rather remembered San Onofre. Whatever you want for solar, and if it cannot supply replacement electricity sufficiently, and you still shutdown the dirty sources, anyway, people will die. Explain exactly how people will die? Curious to see how your thinking works to make you state this as if it were a fact. -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: RE: Our Demon-Haunted World From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com? ] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 11:08 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World One example might be the San Onofre plant in California, near San Diego. It's a uranium burner, and supplies 90% of the electricity, about 85% of the time. But let us look at your sun and wind power contribution that you mentioned before. 40 GW, which I am assuming, is GW's per kilowatt hour, rather than a day, a week, etc? Lets say, its not inconsiderable (40 x 1000 MW plants) but its also not reliable when the sun don't shine, the winds don't blow. Do you expect these clean sources to fully replace the dirty one's in ten years, twenty years, five years, thirty? When can we turn of these poisonous electricity sources that we have come to rely on? Do you advocate shutting these suckers down, before the solar and wind supplied power is fully, implemented? The San Onofre nuclear power plant has been decommissioned - it is past its service life and now many more billions of dollars are going to be need to be spent over decades of time in order to decommission this facility - (it was very intelligently sited on an earthquake fault line by the way) Cost estimates for permanently closing and decommissioning San Onofre are over $4 billion. The plant's first unit, Unit 1, operated from 1968 to 1992.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station#cite_not e-5 Unit 2 was started in 1983 and Unit 3 started in 1984. Upgrades designed to last 20 years were made to the reactor units in 2009 and 2010; however, both reactors had to be shut down in January 2012 due to premature wear found on over 3,000 tubes in the recently replaced steam generators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station The actual answer to your question then is that the San Onofre power plants are supplying 0% of the San Diego electric energy market with electric power. You might want to pick a better example to make your case. LOL -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 1:51 pm Subject: RE: Our Demon-Haunted World Name me one large city that gets its power 100% exclusively from coal or from nuclear? You can't because all major energy markets are fed by a mix of energy generation capacity. Yet you keep on with this straw man argument. Why? From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com? ] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:14 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World I would say you are incorrect concerning cities which rely on one primary power source, especially, if its local or regional. Power by wire, is common practice, but first we must have sufficient spinning, or ready reserve. My objection is now the source of power, but if it produce enough power at an affordable cost? Your solar and wind may, 17 years from now, do the job that gas turbines, or nukes, or coal, or hydroelectric does right now. Right now, today 40 GW (is that Gigawatt hours or days?) is no more then a trifling amount of what is needed by the human species. I object to governments switching off power, when no sufficient substitute now exists. Many greens are fine with rolling blackouts and brownouts because at least whatever power is produced is environmentally benign. I suspect that when people start doing a die-off, the Greens will state: Oh, then would've died anyway from pollution, contamination, and a ruined environment.. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 11:44 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/9/2013 4:53 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Your basically saying I am wrong for no contestable reason, you have no city in the world to cite to me that is powered by solar power or wind, for
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/10/2013 4:21 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Richard Lindzen from MIT is a serious academic scientist who has some reservations about the IPCC reports and is often labeled as a denier. I put my faith in his research. From wiki-Lindzen: Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted warming may be overestimated because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor_feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming.^[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-stevenswnyt-2 Except all the theory and data says that water vapor is a positive feedback - which is why his theory is sharply criticized. It's just speculative, They might be wrong stuff. Dessler's paper (Science, Vol. 330., http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf) focused on quantifying the cloud feedback. Using the ENSO to study changing cloud patterns during climatic variability, he found that the feedback is likely positive, consistent with the feedback that climate models yield. Lindzen is not a climate scientist, although he's a professor of meteorology. He's notorious for making misleading insinuations about global warming, e.g. This is sufficient to conclude that Lindzen did indeed make the mistake of confusing his temperature indices, though a more accurate replication would need some playing around since the exact data that Lindzen used is obscure. Thus, instead of correctly attributing the difference to the different methods and source data, he has jumped to the conclusion that GISS is manipulating the data inappropriately. At the very minimum, this is extremely careless, and given the gravity of the insinuation, seriously irresponsible. There are indeed issues with producing climate data records going back in time, but nothing here is remotely relevant to the actual issues. Such a cavalier attitude to analysing and presenting data probably has some lessons for how seriously one should take Lindzen's comments. I anticipate with interest Lindzen's corrections of this in future presentations and his apology for misleading his audience last month. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/; 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: QM Primer
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm going to teach a public class on QM and when I saw this email I thought Great! I'll just steal Jason's stuff. And I liked the first part. Thanks. Let me know if you would like the powerpoint slides. But at the end you leave out decoherence If you have suggestions for how I could explain it simply I would be glad to try and enhance the primer with some information on decoherence. and leave the impression that it is the mind that produces the classical appearance. That would REALY confuse'm. How do you suggest I make it more clear what is responsible for classical appearances? Thanks, Jason Brent On 11/10/2013 1:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6823 - Release Date: 11/09/13 -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/wikipedia-bans-real-climate-propagandist On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 4:21 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Richard Lindzen from MIT is a serious academic scientist who has some reservations about the IPCC reports and is often labeled as a denier. I put my faith in his research. From wiki-Lindzen: Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer modelshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted warming may be overestimated because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor_feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-stevenswnyt-2 Except all the theory and data says that water vapor is a positive feedback - which is why his theory is sharply criticized. It's just speculative, They might be wrong stuff. Dessler’s paper (Science, Vol. 330., http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf) focused on quantifying the cloud feedback. Using the ENSO to study changing cloud patterns during climatic variability, he found that the feedback is likely positive, consistent with the feedback that climate models yield. Lindzen is not a climate scientist, although he's a professor of meteorology. He's notorious for making misleading insinuations about global warming, e.g. This is sufficient to conclude that Lindzen did indeed make the mistake of confusing his temperature indices, though a more accurate replication would need some playing around since the exact data that Lindzen used is obscure. Thus, instead of correctly attributing the difference to the different methods and source data, he has jumped to the conclusion that GISS is manipulating the data inappropriately. At the very minimum, this is extremely careless, and given the gravity of the insinuation, seriously irresponsible. There are indeed issues with producing climate data records going back in time, but nothing here is remotely relevant to the actual issues. Such a cavalier attitude to analysing and presenting data probably has some lessons for how seriously one should take Lindzen’s comments. I anticipate with interest Lindzen’s corrections of this in future presentations and his apology for misleading his audience last month. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/ 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: QM Primer
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for uploading it, great job! Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM: http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/instant_eternal.jpg Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not as literal beams across a vacuum. There are no literal waves or particles. What is happening is that the stimulated physical components are arranged to reflect their stimulation to each other, which occurs in a physical frame of time that is essentially timeless. I believe in a four-dimensional existence (timeless physics). The physical layer, I am saying is the most primitive layer of experience, within which space and time divergence is generated. Light does not happen in spacetime, spacetime happens in experience (which is light, or any other sensation). Is this like describing a type of idealism then? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism ) On the right hand side, the topological layers of sensitivity slow down the instant and recapitulate larger and larger chunks of eternity into each frame of awareness. How does some particle carry all that information of its entire history? Aren't particles of the same kind practically (if not theoretically) indistinguishable? Perhaps in QM the multiple values a particle's property can take on represent an ever growing collection of information that can be associated with that particle? I tried to show how the footprint of the inanimate objects extends all the way down to the bottom, but remains indifferent to the spatiotemporal strata on the right hand side. Not the best diagram, I admit, but maybe gives some sense of the model I suggest. It took me a few times re-reading what you wrote but I think I can interpret some of what you are saying. Jason On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:49:00 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. 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: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial? -- 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
I have looked into quite a few climate change deniers in detail, but life is too short to show where every single one of them is cherry pickling or misinterpretting data, and ultimately I feel justified in believing the 99.7% consensus of climate scientists on this one. -- 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: QM Primer
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:42:34 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Thanks for uploading it, great job! Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM: http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/instant_eternal.jpg Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not as literal beams across a vacuum. There are no literal waves or particles. What is happening is that the stimulated physical components are arranged to reflect their stimulation to each other, which occurs in a physical frame of time that is essentially timeless. I believe in a four-dimensional existence (timeless physics). The physical layer, I am saying is the most primitive layer of experience, within which space and time divergence is generated. Light does not happen in spacetime, spacetime happens in experience (which is light, or any other sensation). Is this like describing a type of idealism then? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism ) No, I call it pansensitivity or primordial identity pansensitivity. Idealism implies a subject and and intellect. Sensitivity is about interacting experiences. On the right hand side, the topological layers of sensitivity slow down the instant and recapitulate larger and larger chunks of eternity into each frame of awareness. How does some particle carry all that information of its entire history? A particle is an appearance. If I am a large-now experience looking as a relatively small-now experience, it looks like a particle to me, but actually that appearance is just a sideways glance at a history of small-now experiences. I was trying to use the topographic map to give a sense of this - particles like islands but with roots going all the way down. The particle doesn't carry information, its appearance embodies the significance which relates itself to whatever other experience is encountering it. The entire cosmos is history, which is masked and alienated according to the significance of our own history. This kind of modulation of sense among different experiences on different frames (small-now vs large-now) is what I call eigenmorphism. It's not a smooth hierarchy, as in, we see a sharp distinction between living organisms and minerals, because of what we are and what our history has been. The same distinction would not appear from the mineral's perceptual frame (whatever that is). Aren't particles of the same kind practically (if not theoretically) indistinguishable? To us, yes, but aren't we ultimately using instruments made of particles to detect them? Perhaps in QM the multiple values a particle's property can take on represent an ever growing collection of information that can be associated with that particle? Information access is a matter of sensitivity. The more perceptual frames we can access, the more of the future and the past might be exposed (when we tap into the larger nows externally). I tried to show how the footprint of the inanimate objects extends all the way down to the bottom, but remains indifferent to the spatiotemporal strata on the right hand side. Not the best diagram, I admit, but maybe gives some sense of the model I suggest. It took me a few times re-reading what you wrote but I think I can interpret some of what you are saying. Cool. It really shouldn't be as opaque as I'm making it, it just comes out that way because I'm handicapped as far as putting it into a clear and simple explanation. Mainly it's that all of the 4-D physical histories meet in a transdimensional/transmeaureable hub (which is ordinary sense), so it is the histories themselves which are separated from each other by measure. If it were a giant porcupine, QM is looking at the tips of the quills and inferring a spacetime topology out there on the periphery. We see entanglement as the special case, but it would be sort of like *breaking the space off* between two quills so that they are automatically joined. It's a figure-ground reversal. Spacetime is nothing but insensitivity. The quills are experience, growing outward from the primordial identity. Decoherence then is really Disentanglement, and Emergence is Divergence. Craig Jason On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:49:00 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
I think that, since the forces of progress and human dignity lost Siberia as the location for stablishing psychiatrics to reconduct deviated enemies of the People, The North and South poles can well be used to make global warming negationist to reconsider is position against Humanity and human rights. Don´t you think so, comrade Meekerdb? 2013/11/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/9/2013 3:09 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 9:37 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Brent, my analogy, however badly its thought-up, is to force the idealists to produce. My idea was to force the idealist back to painful reality and hard choices, rather then mentally living in La La land. Saying Oh they're working on solar and soon.. How about forcing the libertarians to painful reality. They're going through the six stages of denial: 1. There is no global warming. 2. The science is uncertain. 3. There's global warming but it's just a natural cycle. 4. Global warming will really be good for us. 5. It's too costly to stop global warming. 6. Nothing can be done. Most of them I know are stuck around 3 or 4 now. They're hoping to delay any action so they can get to 6. Why? Because they'd rather face extinction than admit there are some things that you need government to do. Brent, Out of curiosity: why do you care so much about what libertarians think? They are a small minority. I believe most are very much aware that big government is here to stay. Most people in the western world vote for some variation of a conservative or liberal party, both statist. Surely if you are right, and global warming is an existential threat, and government intervention is the only way to solve it, what libertarians think should be quite low in your list of concerns no? Except that they have a disproportionate voice in the public debate because their message is amplified by monied interests who depend on fossil fuel (e.g. the Koch brothers). There was only a small number of lawyers, publicists, and scientists who claimed that: 1. Smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer. 2. There may be a relation but the science is uncertain. 3. Lung cancer just occurs naturally. 4. There are new, healthier cigarettes. 5. It will hurt the economy to limit cigarettes. 6. People should be free to smoke if they want to. and they delayed any government action against smoking for forty years. In fact some of them are *exactly* the same people hired to spread doubt about global warming. To undertake big government action in a democracy you need a solid majority in the populace. As long as libertarians and oil companies can sow doubt that's enough to prevent any action. 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. -- 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: QM Primer
http://24.media.tumblr.com/81bb846756fd19a9561c4bceae885d3e/tumblr_mw2xreqAQl1qeenqko1_500.jpg Another diagram, maybe better? On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:42:34 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Thanks for uploading it, great job! Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM: http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/instant_eternal.jpg Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not as literal beams across a vacuum. There are no literal waves or particles. What is happening is that the stimulated physical components are arranged to reflect their stimulation to each other, which occurs in a physical frame of time that is essentially timeless. I believe in a four-dimensional existence (timeless physics). The physical layer, I am saying is the most primitive layer of experience, within which space and time divergence is generated. Light does not happen in spacetime, spacetime happens in experience (which is light, or any other sensation). Is this like describing a type of idealism then? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism ) On the right hand side, the topological layers of sensitivity slow down the instant and recapitulate larger and larger chunks of eternity into each frame of awareness. How does some particle carry all that information of its entire history? Aren't particles of the same kind practically (if not theoretically) indistinguishable? Perhaps in QM the multiple values a particle's property can take on represent an ever growing collection of information that can be associated with that particle? I tried to show how the footprint of the inanimate objects extends all the way down to the bottom, but remains indifferent to the spatiotemporal strata on the right hand side. Not the best diagram, I admit, but maybe gives some sense of the model I suggest. It took me a few times re-reading what you wrote but I think I can interpret some of what you are saying. Jason On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:49:00 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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: Our Demon-Haunted World
When somebody doesn’t agree with you, do you then start insulting them? From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:36 PM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World I think that, since the forces of progress and human dignity lost Siberia as the location for stablishing psychiatrics to reconduct deviated enemies of the People, The North and South poles can well be used to make global warming negationist to reconsider is position against Humanity and human rights. Don´t you think so, comrade Meekerdb? 2013/11/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 11/9/2013 3:09 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 9:37 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Brent, my analogy, however badly its thought-up, is to force the idealists to produce. My idea was to force the idealist back to painful reality and hard choices, rather then mentally living in La La land. Saying Oh they're working on solar and soon.. How about forcing the libertarians to painful reality. They're going through the six stages of denial: 1. There is no global warming. 2. The science is uncertain. 3. There's global warming but it's just a natural cycle. 4. Global warming will really be good for us. 5. It's too costly to stop global warming. 6. Nothing can be done. Most of them I know are stuck around 3 or 4 now. They're hoping to delay any action so they can get to 6. Why? Because they'd rather face extinction than admit there are some things that you need government to do. Brent, Out of curiosity: why do you care so much about what libertarians think? They are a small minority. I believe most are very much aware that big government is here to stay. Most people in the western world vote for some variation of a conservative or liberal party, both statist. Surely if you are right, and global warming is an existential threat, and government intervention is the only way to solve it, what libertarians think should be quite low in your list of concerns no? Except that they have a disproportionate voice in the public debate because their message is amplified by monied interests who depend on fossil fuel (e.g. the Koch brothers). There was only a small number of lawyers, publicists, and scientists who claimed that: 1. Smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer. 2. There may be a relation but the science is uncertain. 3. Lung cancer just occurs naturally. 4. There are new, healthier cigarettes. 5. It will hurt the economy to limit cigarettes. 6. People should be free to smoke if they want to. and they delayed any government action against smoking for forty years. In fact some of them are *exactly* the same people hired to spread doubt about global warming. To undertake big government action in a democracy you need a solid majority in the populace. As long as libertarians and oil companies can sow doubt that's enough to prevent any action. 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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. -- 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: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 9:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 November 2013 08:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/9/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Tegmark thinks he will survive, if the gun works sufficiently well. if not he might degrade and eventually ... die. This makes no sense to me. It is annoying, but we can degrade a lot, yet we can't die (with just comp, or, ITSM, with just the quantum MWI). With comp, we can expect jump, and consciousness phase transition, though. Aside from not finding myself the oldest person on the planet, I see a problem with quantum immortality in that quantum mechanics is time-reverse invariant. So I should be 'past immortal' also. But as Mark Twain said, I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. If we are what our brains do it is easy to see why we should live from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy), be born and die. Leaving aside time reversibility (which I am myself rather hot on) for a moment, if you're quantum immortal you can only expect to *eventually* find yourself the oldest person. Give it time. You have to go through the bit beforehand beforehand... Let's say the average life expectancy is a not infinite, but some very large number, like a google plex years. If you were to draw a ball at random from an urn that had a googleplex balls in it, each with its unique number inscribed on it, would you be surprised if the number was less than 100? That is found to be less than 100 is surprising to a lot of people who consider quantum immortality, but it shouldn't be for a few reasons. One's statistical measure decreases over time. This is easiest to see in the quantum suicide experiment, where each pull of the trigger cuts one's measure in half. Imagine someone who did this every day of their life, their measure over time would be an infinite serious with a finite (not infinite) sum. Just like 3.33 is a sum of an infinite number of numbers 3 + 0.3 + 0.003 ... nonetheless, it is still less than 4. If one's measure diminishes geometrically as they live to ever increasingly absurd lifetimes 200 years, 300 years, 400 years, etc., then the same effect is the result, and we should not be surprised at drawing a number less than 100. So when your measure becomes less than one bit or too small to support your experience - you're dead. When it becomes small enough, then more probable extensions become more likely. I don't know if it can ever become zero, that would require some experience which by its definition cannot have a following experience. Even witnessing an atom bomb going off 1000 feet from you does not necessarily count, because even that experience could continue as seen from someone awaking from what turned out to be a simulation. The other reason we should not be surprised is that we have no idea how old we really are. Let's say heaven is real and all people live eternally. Then probabilistically this moment you are experiencing now is infinitely more likely to be a moment of perfect recall of this moment of life on earth (from heaven) rather than your life as the first time you lived it. In other words, if heaven exists, then you are almost surely already in it. Your age is some infinite number, and you have recalled this moment an infinite number of times. Nietzsche's eternal return. Although not quite, for there may still be novel experience in such an eternal life besides those that involve recall of the first life. But then, who is to say that this is the first or only life of that eternal being? But is it heaven, or is it hell? Good question. Jason Brent Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness of the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence. --- Siddhartha Gautama -- 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: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind
On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been 1 year old... it's simply nonsense. So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with it - like why I'm not a Chinaman? There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial? Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences older than 75. So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems improbable, it's not an answer to say, Well, less than 75 is an age you must be sometime. Jason at least had an answer, although I don't think his answer leads to immortality either. 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: QM Primer
On 10 Nov 2013, at 18:36, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will incorporate it into a new and improved version. Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a very small (but light absorbing object), like a dust mote, or a single atom, etc. (something that more intuitively could be moved by light?) Perhaps I could built up with multiple levels, first the light hits an electron, which puts it into two states, and gives it two momentums, then the electron hits a phosphorescent screen, which puts it into multiple states of illumination, and then the person looking at the screeen is finally put into two states? That would be nice I think. One more remark, you seem to avoid formula, at all cost, including a(b +c) = ab+ ac. Of course I am a mathematician, and formula help them. I know some non mathematicians (and publishers) run away from any presence of formula, but it seems some simple one sum up so well what happend (cf one of Albert explanation of the interferometer ..). Anyway, noce work!, Bruno Jason On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. 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. 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.
