date:20140320

Yay! More gravity waves! [?]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/wired-space-photo-of-the-day-2014#slide-id-513201:full


On 21 March 2014 15:37, LizR  wrote:

> An article on the secrecy involved.
>
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/secret-bicep-inflation/
>
>
> On 21 March 2014 11:58, LizR  wrote:
>
>> > Lubos Motl has a good discussion of what's ruled out  on his blog.
>>
>> http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/bicep2-some-winners-and-losers.html
>>
>> Very interesting! (IF)
>>
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<<360.gif>>

Re: Gravity Wave Signature Discovered

An article on the secrecy involved.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/secret-bicep-inflation/


On 21 March 2014 11:58, LizR  wrote:

> > Lubos Motl has a good discussion of what's ruled out  on his blog.
>
> http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/bicep2-some-winners-and-losers.html
>
> Very interesting! (IF)
>
>

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

Re: Modality Independence

2014-03-20 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:01:43 PM UTC-4, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:16:19 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:09:39 AM UTC-4, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>>  
>>
>>>   It formed increasingly high-level associations between bundles of 
>>> sensory data, eventually also combining sounds and vocal behavior into 
>>> those associations.  There's nothing obviously intractable about describing 
>>> such data input and analysis in computational terms.
>>>
>>
>> If that were true, the oldest words would describe things like danger or 
>> food, but they don't. They are concepts like I, who, two, three and five (
>> http://media.tumblr.com/8b5d411063f5291737c4a36681474205/tumblr_inline_mmrdbhECQY1qz4rgp.png
>> )
>>
>
> BTW, that chart is about the most-conserved words in the Indo-European 
> family of languages.  It says nothing either way about what the earliest 
> words were.
>

Most conserved = earliest words that are still in use.
 

>  
>
>> Sure, yeah I'm not saying that animals can't reason abstractly, I'm 
>> pointing out yet another example where the computationalist theory fails to 
>> match up with what it would predict. If we apply CTM to communications, we 
>> should expect all language to develop independent of modality and develop 
>> modal dependence through increasing layers of complexity. CTM demands that 
>> qualia is complex, not simple - that something like pain is not actually a 
>> feeling but in fact a tremendously complex computation that is labeled as a 
>> feeling by a complex computation (for no particular reason, other than 
>> labels could theoretically be feelings). 
>>
>
> Pardon?  The computational theory of mind is an attempt to explain what 
> the mind is and how it relates to the brain.  It doesn't make any 
> predictions about how the brain should function unless you add a host of 
> additional assumptions.  To get to your prediction, you'd need CTM plus 
> assumptions like these:
>
> * The mind-computation is fundamental and the brain is derivative of it. 
>

Computationalism need not have anything to do with the brain. It's about 
consciousness arising from computation, i.e., it supports strong AI, which 
would not be about brains.
 

> The brain is a physical reification of the mind-computation that "fleshes 
> out" the mind-computation with somewhat arbitrary additional physical 
> detail.
> * The mind-computation underlying the brain is an indepedent process from 
> any computation underlying the brain's environment.
>

The brain doesn't figure into this at all. My point was that if 
consciousness is computation, and qualia are just complex computational 
labels, then we should expect languages to develop from simple, 
modal-independent forms to modal-dependent forms in which computations 
become so diversified that the lose any common vocabulary. Would you agree 
that this is precisely the opposite of what is seen in nature?
 

>
> If we keep CTM but reject these assumptions, then we can't conclude that 
> language should develop independently of modality
>

But it doesn't.
 

> and develop it due to the outworking of the mind-computation adding 
> increasing layers of complexity.  If instead the mind-computation is 
> derivative of the brain, as most advocates of CTM suppose, then the brain's 
> development would constrain the computation, not the reverse. 
>

If the brain is constrained, even more reason to presume 
modality-independence from the start. If you don't have a lot of RAM, then 
your text is more likely to have fewer fonts, and the first digital systems 
have only a single font. What we see in nature is that everyone but us has 
lots of alphabets and fonts but they don't share a common logic. They don't 
reduce to a binary code like we would expect them to in CTM.
 

> If the mind-computation is embedded in a larger computation, say, of the 
> universe, then there is no reason to expect it to develop independently.
>

The reason is that computation is based on simple logical rules which are 
independent of complex labels that are supposed to be interpreted as qualia.
 

>
> All that is to say that I think you're using a very particular variation 
> on CTM.  Your conclusions are sensible regarding it, but they don't apply 
> to CTM generally.
>

I think that they apply to any philosophy or theory which is sympathetic to 
the idea that computation or information is more fundamental than qualia or 
consciousness

Craig
. 

>
> -Gabe
>

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

Sorry that should read "equal opportunitie*d*" - serves me right for
throwing in a neologism.


On 21 March 2014 14:23, LizR  wrote:

> Spudboy100,
>
> I'm not sure where you're coming from. You seem to agree that there is a
> looming environmental / resources problem, and that we should use
> technology to make a transition to more renewable energy sources and so on.
> And you agree that we should ideally reduce the population long term (the
> rate at which the population of a country rises appears to be inversely
> proportional to how well educated and equal-opportunities women are, by the
> way). So in other words you sound like an environmentalist ... apart from
> the way you keep fulminating against some idea you have that Greenies are
> secretly plotting to take over the world. It's all a bit confusing.
>
>
>
> On 21 March 2014 13:59,  wrote:
>
>>  Edgar, understood. But this shouldn't be the top of our priority,
>> unless we are spreading homo sapiens to various parts of the solar system
>> where humanity, and biomes, can be sustained for a very long time. Getting
>> away from science fiction, there are things we can do until this golden
>> interplanetary age. I don't see that a Paul Ehrlich response is a good way
>> to go, or even achievable at this point. Hence, I'd prefer the technology
>> path, rather than adopting China's one child policy.
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Edgar L. Owen 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:52 pm
>> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>>
>>  Spud,
>>
>>  The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to
>> drastically reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels
>> would be a good target ~half to 1 billion...
>>
>>  Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us...
>>
>>  Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>  You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on
>>> the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers,
>>> might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping
>>> then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard
>>> of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry
>>> more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others
>>> are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates
>>> permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment.
>>>
>>> Mitch
>>>
>>> Spud,
>>>
>>>  Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used
>>> firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead
>>> trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes.
>>> Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or
>>> very
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

Spudboy100,

I'm not sure where you're coming from. You seem to agree that there is a
looming environmental / resources problem, and that we should use
technology to make a transition to more renewable energy sources and so on.
And you agree that we should ideally reduce the population long term (the
rate at which the population of a country rises appears to be inversely
proportional to how well educated and equal-opportunities women are, by the
way). So in other words you sound like an environmentalist ... apart from
the way you keep fulminating against some idea you have that Greenies are
secretly plotting to take over the world. It's all a bit confusing.



On 21 March 2014 13:59,  wrote:

> Edgar, understood. But this shouldn't be the top of our priority, unless
> we are spreading homo sapiens to various parts of the solar system where
> humanity, and biomes, can be sustained for a very long time. Getting away
> from science fiction, there are things we can do until this golden
> interplanetary age. I don't see that a Paul Ehrlich response is a good way
> to go, or even achievable at this point. Hence, I'd prefer the technology
> path, rather than adopting China's one child policy.
>  -Original Message-
> From: Edgar L. Owen 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:52 pm
> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
>  Spud,
>
>  The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to
> drastically reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels
> would be a good target ~half to 1 billion...
>
>  Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us...
>
>  Edgar
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the
>> environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers,
>> might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping
>> then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard
>> of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry
>> more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others
>> are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates
>> permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment.
>>
>> Mitch
>>
>> Spud,
>>
>>  Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used
>> firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead
>> trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes.
>> Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or
>> very
>>
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Edgar, understood. But this shouldn't be the top of our priority, unless we are 
spreading homo sapiens to various parts of the solar system where humanity, and 
biomes, can be sustained for a very long time. Getting away from science 
fiction, there are things we can do until this golden interplanetary age. I 
don't see that a Paul Ehrlich response is a good way to go, or even achievable 
at this point. Hence, I'd prefer the technology path, rather than adopting 
China's one child policy. 


-Original Message-
From: Edgar L. Owen 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:52 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Spud,


The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to drastically 
reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels would be a good 
target ~half to 1 billion...


Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us...


Edgar




On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the 
environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might 
have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you 
do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living 
improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about 
wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to 
gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a 
method to protect the environment. 
 
Mitch

Spud,


Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood 
for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my 
own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do 
I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very 

...


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

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


I am very ok with a transition, I believe we have the time. But I maintain that 
we won't get there with controlling people, but we can with innovations in 
technology. What I oppose is using AGW as an excuse to rule the serfs.  Here's 
a break down from The Guardian, which you may guess is not my kind of paper, 
but it gives up with the notion of redistributed wealth worldwide and so forth. 
Conclusion: civilizational collapse is inevitable. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

I disagree with this forecast. Color me anti-scientific.


-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:23 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating






On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:55 AM,   wrote:

Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, 
take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or 
horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why 
that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of 
the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your 
guys tell us).




No, nobody says it "cannot wait" and therefore we have to shut off all fossil 
fuel based power now, what some people say "cannot wait" is adopting some 
long-term plan that will transition away from fossil fuel gradually over 
several decades. I'm sure virtually all those concerned about global warming 
would be happy if we adopted any one of a number of plans which would end with 
a transition to majority-renewables by 2050, such as the ones below:



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508004072 (the "solar 
grand plan" I mentioned to you earlier which is summarized at 
http://web.chem.ucsb.edu/~feldwinn/greenworks/Readings/solar_grand_plan.pdf )


http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ (articles summarizing this one at 
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thebalancesheet/2012/07/09/renewable-energy/5430/ 
and 
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428284/the-us-could-run-on-80-percent-renewable-electricity-by-2050/
 )




http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/october19/jacobson-energy-study-102009.html 
and 
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html 
(other articles discussing this plan at 
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/07/30/charting-the-course-to-a-100-percent-renewable-energy-future/
 and 
http://theenergycollective.com/hermantrabish/352551/another-blueprint-100-percent-renewables-mid-century
 and a Scientific American summary by the authors at 
http://books.google.com/books?id=pGfQmBtXYx0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PT11)



http://www.udel.edu/V2G/resources/BudischakEtAl-2013-CostMinimizedWindSolarPJM.pdf
 (discussed at 
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-about-99.9-percent-renewables )




 

 Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to 
a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable 
solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority





By "technical solutions" do you just mean technical plans laying out in detail 
how the transition to a renewable-dominated power grid would work, and how much 
it would cost? If so, see above. On the other hand, maybe you mean "I'm waiting 
for some technological breakthrough that will make renewable energy so 
cost-effective that the free market will rush to abandon fossil fuels without 
the government having to lift a finger, until then we should do nothing  to cut 
back on emissions even if it would be economically feasible." In that case, no 
that hasn't happened, but at least the plans above show that fearmongering 
about how trying to curb emissions would destroy the economy don't have any 
basis in fact.


Jesse


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

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Oh we can. However the environmentalists and their funders indicate that its 
all over, and kiss it all goodbye I profoundly disagree and guess that there's 
plenty of time before the shit hits the fan. Panic is the tool or those wishing 
to benefit from political rush to judgment. I submit that these types are not 
doing this primarily for public benefit. We can do several things as well, like 
carbon capture, efficiency, solar and wind energy storage, amid other things. 
But panic serves those who use problems to attain more power over the serfs. 
Their intentions are not benign. Also, if the war to save ourselves is already 
lost, as the NASA report indicates then what's the point. Last, the ruling 
class, for example, are not ordering us to build artificial reefs and dams to 
protect New Zealand from the permanent tsunamis. This day may come, but not 
today, nor, are they preparing for such. Incongruity city.

What do you mean by this? Why couldn't solar replace SOME of the above?





-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 7:11 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



On 21 March 2014 02:34,   wrote:

Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all 
uranium, all petro that all cities and cars.



What do you mean by this? Why couldn't solar replace SOME of the above?



I'm sorry but you haven't really answered my post at all. The above is directed 
at a straw man, and you've then ignored everything else I said.


Maybe I should be used to this...



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

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-20 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Spud,

The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to drastically 
reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels would be a good 
target ~half to 1 billion...

Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us...

Edgar



On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the 
> environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, 
> might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping 
> then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard 
> of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry 
> more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others 
> are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates 
> permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. 
>  
> Mitch
>
> Spud, 
>
>  Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used 
> firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead 
> trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. 
> Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or 
> very 
>
> ...

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the 
environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might 
have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you 
do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living 
improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about 
wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to 
gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a 
method to protect the environment. 

Mitch

Spud,


Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood 
for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my 
own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do 
I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very occasionally where 
it's shading out a better quality tree. And then I spread all the ashes from my 
wood stove back onto the land.


This is sustainable living at its best and improves the forest, not degrading 
it as you suggest, especially when compared to most alternatives


Edgar




-Original Message-
From: Edgar L. Owen 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 1:24 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Spud,


Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood 
for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my 
own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do 
I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very occasionally where 
it's shading out a better quality tree. And then I spread all the ashes from my 
wood stove back onto the land.


This is sustainable living at its best and improves the forest, not degrading 
it as you suggest, especially when compared to most alternatives


Edgar




On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:16:32 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Tackling thing technically will save lots or preaching, in emails, and public 
speaking. For example, if you cook all your food by wood-gathering, you are 
more likely to disrupt the forests by your gatherings. If you have access to 
cheap solar, wind, and maybe natural gas lines, then the urge for gathering 
wood and chopping trees three times a day diminishes. On the other hand if you 
want Bobby Bureaucrat to run your life, even if his laws don't actively change 
whatever you wish to achieve (air quality?), then you're good with that. 
Looking over the last 20 years, government, rather then being a beneficial 
force, now appears, worldwide, to be a malign force. If you are wanting results 
that please you, then perhaps, despite their promises and guarantees, the 
politicians and the billionaires that own them, have failed mightily. Feel free 
to disagree with this observation.  


-Original Message-
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 10:32 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM,   wrote:

Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, 
take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or 
horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why 
that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of 
the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your 
guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It 
comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual 
workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, 
as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled 
and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help 
people,



...


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

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-20 Thread Jesse Mazer

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:55 AM,  wrote:

> Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the
> lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy
> coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to
> replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already
> upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and
> seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us).
>

No, nobody says it "cannot wait" and therefore we have to shut off all
fossil fuel based power now, what some people say "cannot wait" is adopting
some long-term plan that will transition away from fossil fuel gradually
over several decades. I'm sure virtually all those concerned about global
warming would be happy if we adopted any one of a number of plans which
would end with a transition to majority-renewables by 2050, such as the
ones below:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508004072 (the
"solar grand plan" I mentioned to you earlier which is summarized at
http://web.chem.ucsb.edu/~feldwinn/greenworks/Readings/solar_grand_plan.pdf)

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ (articles summarizing this one at
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thebalancesheet/2012/07/09/renewable-energy/5430/
 and
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428284/the-us-could-run-on-80-percent-renewable-electricity-by-2050/
 )

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/october19/jacobson-energy-study-102009.htmland
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html(other
articles discussing this plan at
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/07/30/charting-the-course-to-a-100-percent-renewable-energy-future/and
http://theenergycollective.com/hermantrabish/352551/another-blueprint-100-percent-renewables-mid-centuryand
a Scientific American summary by the authors at
http://books.google.com/books?id=pGfQmBtXYx0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PT11)

http://www.udel.edu/V2G/resources/BudischakEtAl-2013-CostMinimizedWindSolarPJM.pdf(discussed
at
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-about-99.9-percent-renewables)

> Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes
> down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual
> workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the
> minority
>

By "technical solutions" do you just mean technical plans laying out in
detail how the transition to a renewable-dominated power grid would work,
and how much it would cost? If so, see above. On the other hand, maybe you
mean "I'm waiting for some technological breakthrough that will make
renewable energy so cost-effective that the free market will rush to
abandon fossil fuels without the government having to lift a finger, until
then we should do nothing  to cut back on emissions even if it would be
economically feasible." In that case, no that hasn't happened, but at least
the plans above show that fearmongering about how trying to curb emissions
would destroy the economy don't have any basis in fact.

Jesse

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 21 March 2014 06:24, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Spud,
>
> Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used
> firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead
> trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes.
> Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or
> very occasionally where it's shading out a better quality tree. And then I
> spread all the ashes from my wood stove back onto the land.
>
> This is sustainable living at its best and improves the forest, not
> degrading it as you suggest, especially when compared to most
> alternatives
>
> Great if you own a forest. Some of us aren't so lucky.

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 21 March 2014 02:34,  wrote:

> Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal,
> all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars.
>

What do you mean by this? Why couldn't solar replace SOME of the above?

I'm sorry but you haven't really answered my post at all. The above is
directed at a straw man, and you've then ignored everything else I said.

Maybe I should be used to this...

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

Re: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization

http://dieoff.org/

On 21 March 2014 02:24,  wrote:

> die-off.org
>
>
>

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

Re: Gravity Wave Signature Discovered

> Lubos Motl has a good discussion of what's ruled out  on his blog.

http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/bicep2-some-winners-and-losers.html

Very interesting! (IF)

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

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

On 21 March 2014 05:10, John Clark  wrote:

> Jesse Mazer  Wrote:
>
>>
>> > you made a sweeping statement that "If there are 2 different states of
>> the universe that could have produced things as they are now then the laws
>> of physics are not reversible."
>>
>
> Yes I said that and is one of the most non-controversial things I ever
> said.
>
>
>> > This would be true if [...]
>>
>
> There is no "if" about it!  What I said was a tautology and like all
> tautologies it has the virtue of always being true.
>

Sorry, but I disagree about it being both true and a tautology. The
statement is only true if the laws of physics working in reverse can't
produce *both* the states that could have produced the current state. In
the MWI that isn't so, however - the universe branches into all states that
can result from the current state, and does so in both time directions, as
far as I know (looked at in the normal time direction, a universe branching
into the past is equivalent to different branches merging once they become
indistinguishable at the quantum level).

Quantum alogorithms like Shor's wouldn't work unless this was so, at least
that's my understanding of it?

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

Re: Gravity Wave Signature Discovered

2014-03-20 Thread Gabriel Bodeen

 
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:12:33 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> It looks like you have not yet grasped the UDA. 
>
>
My post was not about the UDA; your comments are appreciated but they miss 
the mark widely.
-Gabe

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

Re: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization

2014-03-20 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Russell and everyone

I appreciate the comments in the thread such as those on entropy vs 
universe dynamics which reveal the fact that I may be somewhat old school 
re physics.

In the blog discussion I pointed to in my earlier post I do cover many 
points.

For example at definition #3, I discuss closed systems.  I hypothetically 
designate our solar system as essentially closed for the purposes of the 
blog post.

Over the duration of my posting on this list I have presented a 
collection of models regarding how the Everything can allow and implement 
dynamic universes at least as viewed by life entities inside those 
universes.

I am currently interested in several aspects of the results of 
the observation of life in our local life system, how the observational 
results can be understood, and what impact do the resulting conclusions 
have on models of the Everything and humanities [Homo Sapiens Sapiens] 
continued existence or perhaps imposed life style changes. 

In the blog post I am trying to explain why numerous warnings of impending 
socio-economic disaster have been, by prior trials, largely ignored. 

I would like to refine the blog [or even abandon it if it is shown to be 
unrealistic] so I would deeply appreciate comments on it.  
Hal Ruhl

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:28:15 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:44:17PM +1300, LizR wrote: 
> > > Yes, I think that's what Carl Sagan said about the possibility of life 
> > existing indefinitely, too. The entropy ceiling goes up indefinitely, 
> but 
> > the energy remaining goes down, and ultimately I would imagine it ends 
> up 
> > at the noise level. Since entropy is an emergent concept I'm not sure 
> where 
> > the rising ceiling gets us in the long run, although it certainly helps 
> in 
> > the "short" term (the big bang was near equilibrium, yet we're now far 
> from 
> > it). 
> > 
>
> It's not as clear cut as that. In a Friedman universe, gravity 
> eventually slows the expansion of the universe, (whether open or 
> closed) so the entropy ceiling slows down in being raised.  This would 
> imply that eventually that dissipative process will eventually 
> assymptotically consume the available free energy. 
>
> (Apparently, in a closed Friedman universe, it is possible to obtain 
> energy from the big crunch - Tipler's Omega point, so I probably 
> haven't got this quite right for closed universes. Something to do 
> with reversing the direction of the second law, I suppose.) 
>
> But it now appears that the universe's expansion is accelerating due 
> to dark energy. This would entail that free energy will forever be 
> created faster than the dissipative processes can consume it. 
>
> Again, consider this to all be revised again in our lifetimes. 
>
> Cheers 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

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

Re: Gravity Wave Signature Discovered

2014-03-20 Thread meekerdb


On 3/20/2014 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 19 Mar 2014, at 23:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/19/2014 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:20, ghib...@gmail.com  wrote:


Sodid anyone's ToE predict this outcome?


I am not sure you are 100% serious on this, but the question is very interesting, so I 
will make some comments, which might not been taken 100% seriously.


At first, we might say that any evidence that something is finite hereby already look 
like a refutation of comp, and this basically at the start, by taking seriously the 
FPI on *all* true sigma_1 sentences  (which I recall somehow emulate the universal 
dovetailing).
So, the apparent existence of a finite past might be a trouble for the 
computationalist hypothesis, below the substitution level, a first person plural 
reality should look like a superposition of more and more ever "possible states", up 
to the still possible inflation of "white rabbits".


The concordance model of cosmogony (including gravity waves influencing the CMB) 
doesn't imply a finite past - only a finite past for this universe.


Nice. (Not entirely sure what you mean precisely by "this universe", though).


The one whose history includes the big bang and the CMB we observe. The observation of 
strong B-mode polarization at long wavelengths is consistent with predictions of the 
eternal inflation model and inconsistent with several others, such as the ekpyrotic and 
M-brane collision models.  Lubos Motl has a good discussion of what's ruled on his blog.


Brent

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3



On 19 Mar 2014, at 23:53, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

I still remember back maybe in the 1990's, having to keep a sick  
bucket nearby, for every tirme some daft comp scientist wheeled  
himself out to say consciousness was purely about processing speed.  
Remember that one? That was pretty big in its day. I remember the  
same expressions and the solemnlu offered corrections every time I  
pointed out it was just totally groundless and thoughtless. Same  
corrections "This would seem to suggest not-comp"


?

Not sure I relate. What I have often explained, is that one role of  
consciousness, in the Löbian theory of mind, is that consciousness can  
speed-up computations. But in that context, consciousness is  
approximated by the bet on self-consistency, or self-correctness, and  
handled mathematically. That result is related to Gödel's length of  
proof theorem, or Blum speed theorem and its generalization on  
"creative and subcreative" sets of numbers. In fact, self-speedability  
characterize subcreativity.


Then - the notion of Computation being intrinsically conscious  - a  
basic assaumption that I'[d call a major recurrent theme of  
computionralism  over a pretty long period. A lot o.f your friends  
have said they buy it. Russll has said it a few times.




yes, sure. You must not take those expression literally. There are  
shorthand for not repeating the whole UDA, all the time. Conceptually  
it is an error if youy mean it literally, as no 3p object can think,  
it can only supports a thinking person, with some probabilities  
relatively to a universal environment.


That one seems quiety dropped now. But for old time's sake Bruno,  
hand on heart, was that something you were saying too? If the answer  
is paradoxical then how about coming out against it...is that  
something you also did?



There is nothing paradoxical. That is the type of thing which became  
intuitively clearer once we distinguish the 1p and the 3p.
Then it became mathematically clear in the math part, but this  
requires more work.





ou...
It just cannot be the right way to go about thingsor maybe these  
two instances aren't tycical of what you do, If they were, it'd  
quickly become meaningless what you  thought you had been shown  
right about in the fullness of time, how consistently you'd held  
onto a key set of ideas, how rigourous you thought your logic was.  
All of require the same things you can be shown right about, to show  
you wrong about also,



You lost me, here. That's really not clear. it looks again like a  
critic, but without any specific points. Start from the paper, and try  
to understand, or tell me anything that you would not understand, and  
I will explain.



Bruno



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



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

Re: Gravity Wave Signature Discovered



On 19 Mar 2014, at 23:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/19/2014 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:20, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


Sodid anyone's ToE predict this outcome?


I am not sure you are 100% serious on this, but the question is  
very interesting, so I will make some comments, which might not  
been taken 100% seriously.


At first, we might say that any evidence that something is finite  
hereby already look like a refutation of comp, and this basically  
at the start, by taking seriously the FPI on *all* true sigma_1  
sentences  (which I recall somehow emulate the universal  
dovetailing).
So, the apparent existence of a finite past might be a trouble for  
the computationalist hypothesis, below the substitution level, a  
first person plural reality should look like a superposition of  
more and more ever "possible states", up to the still possible  
inflation of "white rabbits".


The concordance model of cosmogony (including gravity waves  
influencing the CMB) doesn't imply a finite past - only a finite  
past for this universe.


Nice. (Not entirely sure what you mean precisely by "this universe",  
though).


Bruno





Brent

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

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


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



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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3



On 19 Mar 2014, at 21:21, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:19:52 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 Mar 2014, at 23:19, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46:23 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:03, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



I am not sure if I have any clue where we would differ, nor if that  
has any relevance with the reasoning I suggest, to formulate a  
problem, and reduce one problem into another.ia


Well, I do differ in general on the view that Science - why it  
worked - has been understood. I also differ on the idea that  
philosophy - which is pre-scientific or non-scientific - can explain  
science. The problem is that logicallyjust the act of doing  
philosophy on science, pre-assumes that philosophy *can* explain  
science. I meando you really think that if, as it turned out,  
philosophy cahnnot explain science, that doing philosophy on science  
would actually reveal that? no! the philosopher would find an  
explanation.


So just doing philosophy on science pre-assumes the answer to the  
question.


I can agree. I don't believe in "philosophy". Nor do I really  
believe in "science". I believe in scientific attitude, and it has  
no relation with the domaon involved. Some astrolog can be more  
scientific than some astronomers.


The problem is that since theology has been excluded from academy,  
"science" is presented very often as a pseudo-theology, with its God  
(very often a primitive physical universe), etc.




There's two camps Bruno. One is that science was just an extension  
of philosophy, among other things. Almost everyone is in this camp,  
whether explicitly or by default.


Many believe that philosophy is an extension, sometimes without  
rigor, of science.




The other camp is that something fundamental, and profound, happened  
with science, that is extremely mysterious and unresolved.


With science and with "conscience", I can agree with that. In the  
comp theory, it is the birth of the universal (Löbian) machine. The  
singling out of the "[]", from the arithmetical reality.




Membership of either camp is an act of faith. I'm in the second  
camp. Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one.


I might feel to be more in "the second camp" myself, except that  
precisely here, computationalism explains what happens, somehow.





You do look unhappy with something, apparently related to comp, or  
to the UDA, or to AUDA?


Absolutely not. I've recently concluded my personal work on the  
wider matter. It's been hugely valuable. Talking to you has been a  
part of it.


Thanks for reassuring me.



I would like to give you something back...maybe I feel frustrated  
that I can't get you to see what I am saying.


We might be closer than you thought, especially from above.




But never unhappy with you or your work. I'm very appreciative that  
you talk to me at all. I'm not careful with what I say. I touch type  
about 100wpm and rarely check what I said before posting. I'm sorry  
if that is conveying an impression of not being happy. It isn't the  
case I assure you. If I was unhappy, or I thought you were, I'd  
leave you alone. You don't owe me anything...I'd consider it very  
rude to put emotional shit onto you.


OK. No problem.



I just try sincerely to understand your point.

I know

OK. Keep in mind, that I am really a sort of simple minded  
scientist. I understand only mathematical theories, and, when  
applied, I believe to criterion of testability, or to the  
simplification they provide to already tested theories.





?
Case is both mathematic standard, and theoretical computer science  
standard.


These aren't the parts that matter. It's possible to use math in  
philosophy. It's possible to do philosophy of computing. The part  
that matters is the analysis of the philosophy and the nature of the  
refutation.


I didn't write the refutation to be a proper standard of argument. I  
wrote for youbecause I thought you'd get it.




I would not classify this as philosophy (a word which has different  
meaning from one university to another one).





How many different methodologies are used in the course of producing  
all those definitions?


If science is fundamentally different in 'kind' then the differences  
in method only count at the core.



?

On the contrary, science is not different in kind of philosophy, or  
gardening or whatever. Science is only a question of attitude, which,  
beyond curiosity and some taste for astonishment, is an attitude of  
doubt, and attempt to be clear enough for colleagues.







So if that's your hunch the question becomes..are there any  
definitions not derived from creative analysis? Are there any that  
define how the different definitions should be analysed, compared,  
and the superior model selected


Which - not Unhappy with you about it - but  I'm frequently on  
record  that it's easy to make as much as you want "Science" if

Re: Gravity Wave Signature Discovered

Very nice Richard. Not easy read though, but you preach a choir. I
believe that string theory is "testable". Like comp.

Yet, even if string theory is confirmed, we would still have to
derived it from comp, if it is the real theory, and not a local
panorama.

Bruno

On 19 Mar 2014, at 20:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Here is a prediction of the ratio of tensor to scalar of
gravitational waves.
They just got the ratio a bit low at 0.07 whereas the measured ratio
is 0.2.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0706

Gravity Waves and Linear Inflation from Axion Monodromy

Liam McAllister, Eva Silverstein, Alexander Westphal
(Submitted on 5 Aug 2008 (v1), last revised 5 Aug 2008 (this
version, v2))
Wrapped branes in string compactifications introduce a monodromy
that extends the field range of individual closed-string axions to
beyond the Planck scale. Furthermore, approximate shift symmetries
of the system naturally control corrections to the axion potential.
This suggests a general mechanism for chaotic inflation driven by
monodromy-extended closed-string axions. We systematically analyze
this possibility and show that the mechanism is compatible with
moduli stabilization and can be realized in many types of
compactifications, including warped Calabi-Yau manifolds and more
general Ricci-curved spaces. In this broad class of models, the
potential is linear in the canonical inflaton field, predicting a
tensor to scalar ratio r=0.07 accessible to upcoming cosmic
microwave background (CMB) observations.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:20, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

Sodid anyone's ToE predict this outcome?

I am not sure you are 100% serious on this, but the question is very
interesting, so I will make some comments, which might not been
taken 100% seriously.

At first, we might say that any evidence that something is finite
hereby already look like a refutation of comp, and this basically at
the start, by taking seriously the FPI on *all* true sigma_1
sentences (which I recall somehow emulate the universal dovetailing).
So, the apparent existence of a finite past might be a trouble for
the computationalist hypothesis, below the substitution level, a
first person plural reality should look like a superposition of more
and more ever "possible states", up to the still possible inflation
of "white rabbits".

What restricts, possibly the inflation is the non triviality of the
logic of relative self-referential universal numbers.
Basically, the intensional variant ([]p & p, []p & Dt, []p & Dt & p,
with Gödel's arithmetical beweisbar predicate, and p for the sigma_1
arithmetical sentences (which I recall are the sentences of the type
ExP(x), with P a decidable predicate. Being able to prove all true
sigma_1 sentences is computably equivalent with being Turing
universal).

Comp would have preferred, so to speak, a confirmation of brane
collisions, or supersymmetries, but to be be 100% serious, at least
one second, all this is still way above what comp can decide: open
problems.
Gathering information on a possible local physical beginning might
gives us clues on the first person plural sharable substitution
level, or of the depth (in Bennett sense of "intrinsically long
computation") of our cosmologies and cosmogonies. Beginning or
beginnings?

Now classical computationalism and mathematical logic, and number
theory, can be many years late compared to physics, that's sure, but
it might be a bit slightly in advance in theology.
Certainly in machine theology. In the platonist sense of "theology"
where "God = Truth" at some "G*" level (the machine should not say
that "God = Truth", for example: but we can see it for simple
machine we can trust, and study their theology).

Advantage of comp: it does not eliminate the first-person, the
knower, the soul. On the contrary it attaches one to any universal
number, with varying induction powers, and it provides a role in the
emergence of laws and illusions. But the UDA shows that the
quantization H -> e^iH has to come from that first person (plural)
view, notably from p -> []<>p, with [] being the intensional
variants of the beweisbar [], and much work remain to be done.

Comp is not a solution, comp is a problem. I give the beginning of
the solution to illustrate the problem.

Oops, I am 110% serious here, sorry!

Bruno

On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:14:00 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
Inflation appears now to be evidenced

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_campaign=hootsuite

Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL

Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com

"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark
Twain

--
You received this mes

Re: Gravity Wave Signature Discovered



On 19 Mar 2014, at 18:58, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:


I think the argument usually goes like this:

Suppose there's an infinite ensemble of the computations that  
include a mental state that remembers having been you as you are  
now.  There are a lot of details needed to support such a mental  
state.  Let's say it takes a minimum of N bits.  Longer programs in  
the universal dovetailing may contain smaller subroutines, so we  
might expect that a given N-bit subroutine is twice as dense as a  
given (N+1)-bit subroutine.  In consequence, we would expect our  
subsequent mental states to find themselves well explained by the  
simplest compatible program, and [insert handwaving here] the Big  
Bang with subsequent inflation is that simplest compatible scenario.


That type of explanation does not met the FPI problem, where by the  
invariance of the first person experience for "delays in the UD*"  
inherit, notably below its substitution level, infinitely many  
experiences brought by very large, even aberrant, computational  
histories.
Qm solves this through  phase randomization, and computer science  
justifies the existence of a quantization in arithmetic which might  
provide a similar solution.






You can also translate the above from terms of "computations" to  
terms of "mathematical structures" or if you prefer a different ToE  
ontology.



Only for the notion of computation, do we have a Church's thesis. Then  
if the brain works like a machine, the TOE can use any Turing  
universal system. I use Robinson Arithmetic for the ontology, and  
Peano Arithmetic for the "observer".





You can probably also translate into physicalist terms given the  
right kind of infinitely varied physical multiverse.  Any ontology  
that you can wrangle into being isomorphic to computation should do,  
I suppose.


It looks like you have not yet grasped the UDA.
It is not a matter of choice, just of taking seriously the idea that  
the brain is not a analogous machine using actual infinities.


I just show a problem, and show how we can solve it thanks to computer  
science and mathematical logic.








In any case: yeah, it's a wonderful post-hoc rationalization, not  
science.


It is a theorem: if comp is correct then the mind-body problem is  
reduced into the problem of justifying the physical and the sensible  
from arithmetic and arithmetical self-reference, and this in some  
precise ways.




Nobody's deriving real testable predictions from it yet.  If we're  
lucky it's proto-science and maybe someday we can make it science.



I am sorry that you are judging without having read the work. On the  
contrary the propositional logic of the observable have already been  
derived, and compared to quantum logic. It is an open problem if we  
can derive the full universal quantum machinery, that would explain  
why below our substitution level, or at least why at some level,  
things looks like a quantum topology.


Please follow the thread where I explain how to derive physics from  
the "machine's interview", but you might study the UDA to understand  
the "obligation" to proceed in that way, to avoid person elimination.


It is hard science, and very modest science, Gabe, so be cautious  
being negative on it, unless you find a flaw, of course. It shows that  
comp is a big problem, but then shows that computer science provides a  
sort of solution, whose shape is closer to a Platonic view of reality,  
than an aristotelian one. It is modest, yet radical, but the subject  
itself, the mind-body problem, is radical by itself, especially for  
the fundamentalist aristotelians.


You must understand the problem, and the UDA exposes the main  
problem.. You might read the argument and the "solution" (path toward  
an infinite domain of investigations) here:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
The math part assumes some familiarity with logic, and incompleteness.  
Boolos 79 and Boolos 93 are very good book, but you need to study  
Mendelson, or some other good introduction to logic.



Bruno


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



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

Re: Video of VCR



On 19 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 5:02:15 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Monday, March 17, 2014 2:18:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 Mar 2014, at 17:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:

I'm mirroring back to you what my impression is of what you say to  
me. I say it is obvious that machines are impersonal, cold,  
mechanical, and that it is obvious that sophisticated technology  
can be developed that will make them seem less mechanical without  
actually feeling anything. Your response has been that I'm only  
looking at machines that exist now, not the more advanced  
versions. I see no significant between the two arguments, except  
that mine is facetious. You say that there is no reason why  
certain kinds of computations could not produce consciousness, and  
I say there is no reason why certain kinds of configurations of  
mirrors or cameras couldn't produce computation.



You go from a mirror to a configuration of mirror. I discussed that  
case.


I am comparing the argument against zombies in comp with your  
argument against the VCR. I see a double standard in comp which is  
very left wing in presuming equality with living creatures,


?
The "argument against zombies" presume equality for equal behavior.  
Your "theory" single out the living.


I don't single out the living, I discern between directly  
experienced histories and generic information.


A chance!  (comp too)



Our histories just so happen to follow the  
biological>zoological>anthropological branch, but I would not expect  
any kind of proprietary experience to be possible to emulate with  
generic information.



My fault, perhaps. I suppose people to get well the 1p and 3p person  
notion, at step 2 of the UDA already. Then I indulge myself in  
shortening, like saying that a machine can think (be conscious), where  
I always mean it in the sense of comp: that is the bet, or act of  
faith, in a level of description of my"body" so that a digital  
emulation would preserve my first person experience, with the normal  
"probabilities" conserved.


But the "proprietary experience" is NOT "generic information". (except  
perhaps in some "God's eyes", but not hereby).


That would be a confusion between []p and []p & p.

UDA illustrates the difference in some intuitive way, and just  
arithmetic justify how correct machine *already* knows the difference,  
once they have the introspective ability []A -> [][]A, like PA, ZF,  
and many other "theories/machines/numbers".








but very right wing in presuming lower status for phenomena in  
which computation is not apparent.


Behavior is not apparent.

Why not?



For a 3p unknown creature, we have to be cautious in denying first- 
personality and consciousness, but by default we can stay trivially  
agnostic.
If we can suspect computations indeed somewhere, like a mobile for  
example, then why not enlarge the opening to such an attribution,  
indeed.








Because you believe that comp associate consciousness to machine/ 
bodies, or to behavior, despite I have explained many times this is  
not what comp does. Consciousness is an attribute of a person,  
which own a body (well, infinitely many bodies).


Then the explanatory gap is moved from mind/brain to person/ 
computation, with no improvement on bridging it.


On the contrary, computation handles both the first and third person  
reference and this by using only the existing standard definition  
(of knowledge, etc.). It lead to a mathematical theory of qualia,  
and of quanta, 100% precise and this testable, and indeed partially  
tested. You make affirmation just showing that you are not studying  
neither the posts nor the papers.


The gap is still there.



But with comp it acquires 8 mathematical descriptions, some explicit  
in terms of the Z* \  Z, X* \  X, inheritated from the Gödel-Solovay   
"gap" G* \ G.


The gap vanishes only in the outer God's point of view (Arithmetical  
truth), and curiously enough, in the first person point of view (the  
inner God, the soul).


Your "sense" fits well the machine's soul (S4Grz, []p & p, the inner  
God, the soul).






Math offers no first person theory of computation,


I offer you a counter-example on a plate.

More precisely, a theory of the soul (and matter) based on  
computations (motivated by the computationalist assumption).


You just ignore it, or refute it with straw man argument, or begging  
the question.






nor third person theory of qualia,



For qualia, you get them in X1* \ X1.




it only correlates the *idea* of first and third person perspectives  
(devoid of aesthetic content)


No, you are wrong here: it is not devoid of the "aesthetic content",  
unless the theory is shown wrong, but the basic theory of knowledge  
used is independent of comp, and it applies to many arithmetical non- 
machine entities (like PI_1 complete set, which are like

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-20 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Spud,

Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used 
firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead 
trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. 
Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or 
very occasionally where it's shading out a better quality tree. And then I 
spread all the ashes from my wood stove back onto the land.

This is sustainable living at its best and improves the forest, not 
degrading it as you suggest, especially when compared to most 
alternatives

Edgar



On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:16:32 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Tackling thing technically will save lots or preaching, in emails, and 
> public speaking. For example, if you cook all your food by wood-gathering, 
> you are more likely to disrupt the forests by your gatherings. If you have 
> access to cheap solar, wind, and maybe natural gas lines, then the urge for 
> gathering wood and chopping trees three times a day diminishes. On the 
> other hand if you want Bobby Bureaucrat to run your life, even if his laws 
> don't actively change whatever you wish to achieve (air quality?), then 
> you're good with that. Looking over the last 20 years, government, rather 
> then being a beneficial force, now appears, worldwide, to be a malign 
> force. If you are wanting results that please you, then perhaps, despite 
> their promises and guarantees, the politicians and the billionaires that 
> own them, have failed mightily. Feel free to disagree with this 
> observation.  
>  -Original Message-
> From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 10:32 am
> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
>  
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, > wrote:
>
> Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the 
> lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy 
> coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to 
> replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already 
> upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and 
> seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put 
> into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the 
> green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical 
> solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side 
> (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished) 
> and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people,
>
> ...

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Tackling thing technically will save lots or preaching, in emails, and public 
speaking. For example, if you cook all your food by wood-gathering, you are 
more likely to disrupt the forests by your gatherings. If you have access to 
cheap solar, wind, and maybe natural gas lines, then the urge for gathering 
wood and chopping trees three times a day diminishes. On the other hand if you 
want Bobby Bureaucrat to run your life, even if his laws don't actively change 
whatever you wish to achieve (air quality?), then you're good with that. 
Looking over the last 20 years, government, rather then being a beneficial 
force, now appears, worldwide, to be a malign force. If you are wanting results 
that please you, then perhaps, despite their promises and guarantees, the 
politicians and the billionaires that own them, have failed mightily. Feel free 
to disagree with this observation.  


-Original Message-
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 10:32 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM,   wrote:

Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, 
take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or 
horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why 
that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of 
the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your 
guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It 
comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual 
workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, 
as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled 
and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help 
people, liberate them, rather that 'manage' them. If I was one of the people 
who decided things, what would you do?



You are one of the people who decides things.


Energy costs are on the rise, no matter our political outlooks. You can decide 
to take a risk to try and mitigate this, which is complex and not as easy as 
listing your political preferences and intolerance.

You talk "I'm in minority", which does not make sense because the majority of 
the world is not taking steps to make energy and environment more sustainable. 
You are in the majority, talking/chatting and not doing. Even if you feel 
you're in the minority: do something.


You talk "liberating people"... then do it and save us the sermon.


You talk "anti-state" but you advocate inaction. So basically the right for us 
to live in the effects of our trash/wasteful behavior, complaining about 
powerful interests, that through your inaction and ideological fox chanting 
extend their range by just another person.


You talk "technical solutions" and you hope for some revolution among 
engineers. Good luck with that, but why judge people with a more nuanced and 
differentiated approach to the problems you state, who will not hope/wait for 
instructions or engineer revolution and start to plan and invest in transition 
means to mitigating energy's rising costs?


The question has long shifted from your black and white "yes-no" to the grey 
complexities of real life with "how" on local, personal, and global levels. If 
you don't see this, then why keep preaching your political stance? Just be as 
wasteful as you can for as long as you can, before somebody shows up and says: 
"Business as usual will keep costs rising and poverty increasing, which we 
can't sustain long term; this behavior is stupid." Join fossil fuel lobby or 
something. Well paid job and you'll be more effective there than on this list, 
regarding this set of problems. PGC





 


No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything 
that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who 
decide things.







-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:36 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00  :

Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all 
uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. 



No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything 
that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who 
decide things.


Quentin
 

There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50 years, that 
for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers from 
admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the rugged, robust, work, 
of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot simply be artist 
work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My point: propaganda doesn't feed 
empty stomachs. 

If that solar farm

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

2014-03-20 Thread meekerdb

On 3/20/2014 9:10 AM, John Clark wrote:
WHY?? How would it change anything about how we imagine the world works? Regardless of 
what English word you call it  if  X is proportional to the logarithm of the number of 
microstates something can be in and still have the same macrostate then X is also 
proportional  to the logarithm of the number of ways the thing could have been produced 
and still have the same macrostate.  AND if X is proportional  to the logarithm of the 
number of ways the thing could have been produced and still have the same macrostate 
then X is also proportional to the logarithm of the number of microstates something can 
be in and still have the same macrostate.

  ...

>> why in hell do you say Entropy is proportional to the logarithm of 
the number
of microstates something can be in and still have the same macrostate,  
but it
is not proportional to the logarithm of the number of ways the thing 
could have
been produced?

> Because it's logically possible to have laws where, unlike in unitary QM, 
it's NOT
true that two notions are equivalent--this would be true if information is 
genuinely
lost when a black hole swallows up matter and later evaporates.

If Physics is not unitary then the old definition of Entropy becomes meaningless with 
regard to Black Holes because it would contain no microstates you could take a logarithm 
of, but it would still be true that the Entropy of a Black Hole is proportional to the 
logarithm of the ways it could have been formed.

Among the ways a black hole could be formed are the different order in which things fall 
in.  As an object falls in it will in theory cause a temporary disturbance of the black 
hole which is damped out by gravitational radiation (plus EM if it's charged) so the BH 
returns to the macrostate defined by mass, charge, and angular momentum.  But the BH 
doesn't retain the information about when this happened.  That information is in the 
radiation.  So although the overall physics is reversible it doesn't follow that the BH 
contains all the information necessary for the reversal.

Brent

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Quentin, simply make your choice. Are you trusting of this mix of politicians 
and billionaires doing what is smart on energy and the environment, or are you 
suspicious of these guys because they appear to be doing poor job on either? 
Inconsistencies in behavior regarding public policy, a lack of cause and 
effect? If you are good with their rule, life goes on, and if you're suspicious 
that they are lying like a rug on several issues, then, you are more or less in 
my camp. I don't believe after reading the science documents released by people 
who ought to know better, that we are getting an incomplete picture to address 
their political ends. On the human side of things, are you content with 
resolving problems through new laws controlling people, or would you rather 
have peoples' and the environment's quality of life improved? There is no false 
dichotomy here. 

What sort of crazy are you ? Why are you adding things not written ? Can you 
just count in binary ? Everything is always an all or nothing in your mind ?


Quentin




-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:59 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







2014-03-20 14:55 GMT+01:00  :

Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, 
take a bike. 



What sort of crazy are you ? Why are you adding things not written ? Can you 
just count in binary ? Everything is always an all or nothing in your mind ?


Quentin
 

Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, 
while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take 
decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere 
and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or 
what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a 
culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable 
solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you 
indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled and 
dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people, 
liberate them, rather that 'manage' them. If I was one of the people who 
decided things, what would you do?


No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything 
that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who 
decide things.







-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:36 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00  :

Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all 
uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. 



No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything 
that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who 
decide things.


Quentin
 

There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50 years, that 
for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers from 
admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the rugged, robust, work, 
of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot simply be artist 
work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My point: propaganda doesn't feed 
empty stomachs. 

If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been 
carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship




-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 

Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating




On 20 March 2014 07:10,   wrote:

Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate 
thing is.
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html
 
Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living 
down, to fit the ideal "environmental foot print."  Improving the standard of 
living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the 
ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the 
public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach 
to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a 
prime example. 







If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been 
carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship. Part of 
the point of having a government is to provide things that no individual or 
profit-based organisation would wish to do, such as building motorways, 
communications networks, hospitals, schools, power plants, rail networks, and 
other infrastructure. This would apply to some clean power schemes that are too 
large for a private investor, which applies

Re: Modality Independence

2014-03-20 Thread Gabriel Bodeen

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:16:19 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:09:39 AM UTC-4, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>  
>
>>   It formed increasingly high-level associations between bundles of 
>> sensory data, eventually also combining sounds and vocal behavior into 
>> those associations.  There's nothing obviously intractable about describing 
>> such data input and analysis in computational terms.
>>
>
> If that were true, the oldest words would describe things like danger or 
> food, but they don't. They are concepts like I, who, two, three and five (
> http://media.tumblr.com/8b5d411063f5291737c4a36681474205/tumblr_inline_mmrdbhECQY1qz4rgp.png
> )
>

BTW, that chart is about the most-conserved words in the Indo-European 
family of languages.  It says nothing either way about what the earliest 
words were.

> Sure, yeah I'm not saying that animals can't reason abstractly, I'm 
> pointing out yet another example where the computationalist theory fails to 
> match up with what it would predict. If we apply CTM to communications, we 
> should expect all language to develop independent of modality and develop 
> modal dependence through increasing layers of complexity. CTM demands that 
> qualia is complex, not simple - that something like pain is not actually a 
> feeling but in fact a tremendously complex computation that is labeled as a 
> feeling by a complex computation (for no particular reason, other than 
> labels could theoretically be feelings). 
>

Pardon?  The computational theory of mind is an attempt to explain what the 
mind is and how it relates to the brain.  It doesn't make any predictions 
about how the brain should function unless you add a host of additional 
assumptions.  To get to your prediction, you'd need CTM plus assumptions 
like these:

* The mind-computation is fundamental and the brain is derivative of it.  
The brain is a physical reification of the mind-computation that "fleshes 
out" the mind-computation with somewhat arbitrary additional physical 
detail.
* The mind-computation underlying the brain is an indepedent process from 
any computation underlying the brain's environment.

If we keep CTM but reject these assumptions, then we can't conclude that 
language should develop independently of modality and develop it due to the 
outworking of the mind-computation adding increasing layers of complexity.  
If instead the mind-computation is derivative of the brain, as most 
advocates of CTM suppose, then the brain's development would constrain the 
computation, not the reverse.  If the mind-computation is embedded in a 
larger computation, say, of the universe, then there is no reason to expect 
it to develop independently.

All that is to say that I think you're using a very particular variation on 
CTM.  Your conclusions are sensible regarding it, but they don't apply to 
CTM generally.

-Gabe

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

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

2014-03-20 Thread meekerdb


On 3/20/2014 9:10 AM, John Clark wrote:
The fact remains that if  Entropy is proportional to the logarithm of the number of 
microstates something can be in and still have the same macrostate then it's also 
proportional  to the logarithm of the number of ways the thing could have been produced 
and still have the same macrostate.


That doesn't follow. It's true only if it's a closed system so that there can't be two 
different ways to reach the same microstate.  But in general, systems, such as a black 
hole, can be put in the same microstate in more than one way because they are not closed 
and the unitary (reversible) evolution applies only to the system plus environment.


Brent

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

Re: Modality Independence

2014-03-20 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:09:39 AM UTC-4, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:25:44 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:06:37 PM UTC-4, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> But all the forms of language do share a common logical basis, according 
>>> to many linguists.  How is it relevant to the logic of a language that it 
>>> can be expressed in different modalities?
>>>
>>
>> It's not relevant to the logic of the language, its relevant to the 
>> overall nature of language. If language were logical, then they would be 
>> universally modality-independent, but what the evidence seems to indicate 
>> is that pure logic or information is not the relevant aspect in developing 
>> language. What matters is the aesthetic engagement. It's about touching and 
>> feeling, not knowing and believing. 
>>>
>>>
> Why would a logical language have to modality-independent? 
>

Because the whole point of logic is to be modality independent.We use logic 
to program computers so that all of our computers can talk to each other. 
If we add a new kind of file for flavors, we don't need to change the 
language, only add a new piece of hardware to stimulate our taste buds or 
brain.

> My language developed, presumably, because my brain had sensory data and 
> reward signals it could use to form associations between useful sensory 
> coincidences.
>

Can't your brain form associations between useful sensory coincidences 
without language? Think of your immune system for example. Hundreds of 
billions of cells making billions of new cells all the time...all 
coordinated and integrated to identify and neutralize pathogens. They 
presumably form useful and critically important associations, yet with no 
brain, and possibly no language. I think that the less we presume about the 
development of anything related to consciousness the better off we'll be.

>   It formed increasingly high-level associations between bundles of 
> sensory data, eventually also combining sounds and vocal behavior into 
> those associations.  There's nothing obviously intractable about describing 
> such data input and analysis in computational terms.
>

If that were true, the oldest words would describe things like danger or 
food, but they don't. They are concepts like I, who, two, three and five 
(http://media.tumblr.com/8b5d411063f5291737c4a36681474205/tumblr_inline_mmrdbhECQY1qz4rgp.png)

I'm not saying that language isn't computational, I'm saying that for every 
animal except humans, the computational aspect is not primary.

>  
>
>>  Since only humans have evolved to create an abstraction layer that cuts 
>>> across aesthetic modalities,
>>>
>>
>> That appears untrue.  I know birds, mammals, some molluscs, and some fish 
>> can reason abstractly about motor behaviors and achieve the same goal with 
>> very different kinds of motor behaviors.
>>
>> You'll have to argue with the Wiki about that...
>>
>> "Animal communication systems routinely combine visible with audible 
>> properties and effects, but not one is modality independent. No vocally 
>> impaired whale, dolphin or songbird, for example, could express its song 
>> repertoire equally in visual display. Indeed, in the case of animal 
>> communication, message and modality are not capable of being disentangled. 
>> Whatever message is being conveyed stems from intrinsic properties of the 
>> signal." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_speech
>>
>> 'Intrinsic properties of the signal' = aesthetic texture.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>
> Ah - You didn't specify at first that the "abstraction layer" had to be 
> about communication.  It looked like you were intending to make a general 
> point about aesthetic modality and information content.  As a general point 
> it's untrue.  Lots of animals reason abstractly in certain circumstances.  
> But I could believe it's true or nearly true about communication.  
>

Sure, yeah I'm not saying that animals can't reason abstractly, I'm 
pointing out yet another example where the computationalist theory fails to 
match up with what it would predict. If we apply CTM to communications, we 
should expect all language to develop independent of modality and develop 
modal dependence through increasing layers of complexity. CTM demands that 
qualia is complex, not simple - that something like pain is not actually a 
feeling but in fact a tremendously complex computation that is labeled as a 
feeling by a complex computation (for no particular reason, other than 
labels could theoretically be feelings).

>
> There are some cases even then that, even if not strictly counterexamples, 
> stretch the humans-only claim to the breaking, and lead me to be doubtful 
> of it.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpTG3bgHLjk : dogs will communicate their 
> desire for attention vocally and visually, depending on the situation
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iGkpLq5L5Y : Koko the gorilla is 
> controve

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

2014-03-20 Thread John Clark

Jesse Mazer  Wrote:

>
> > you made a sweeping statement that "If there are 2 different states of
> the universe that could have produced things as they are now then the laws
> of physics are not reversible."
>

Yes I said that and is one of the most non-controversial things I ever said.


> > This would be true if [...]
>

There is no "if" about it!  What I said was a tautology and like all
tautologies it has the virtue of always being true.


> > "things as they are now" referred exclusively to the MICROstate, but if
> it referred to the MACROstate it would be wrong, since classical
> statistical mechanics is definitely a reversible theory,
>

Chaos theory tells us that even in classical physics a change in a micro
state can soon lead to a change in the macro state. And if it's a
reversible theory then there are NOT 2 different states of the universe
that could have produced things as they are now.


> >> I am saying that Kip Thorn, one of the world's best physicists, wrote
>> on page 446 of his book  "A Black Hole's entropy is the logarithm of the
>> number of ways that the hole could have been made".
>>
>
> > He didn't say that was a new DEFINITION of entropy though
>

Who gives a damn if it's a definition or a popsicle? And what's with the
all capital letters? It's almost as if you think the word is especially
relevant to the question at hand.  The fact remains that if  Entropy is
proportional to the logarithm of the number of microstates something can be
in and still have the same macrostate then it's also proportional  to the
logarithm of the number of ways the thing could have been produced and
still have the same macrostate.


> > I already linked in my last post to another book by Kip Thorne where he
> [...]
>

In one of your typical posts you provide about 6.02 * 10^23 links, but you
never give any indication that you understand one word in them.  As a
example see below:


> >  the "entropy of a black hole", which had already been DEFINED to be the
> surface area times a specific constant factor based on arguments from black
> hole thermodynamics
>

MEGA-BULLSHIT!!! Bekenstein DERIVED that the entropy of a Black Hole was
proportional to it's 2D surface area, to just define it that way without
any arguments showing how it was consistent with physics previous use of
the word "entropy" would have been imbecilic,  and Jacob Bekenstein is not
an imbecile.


> > If physicists were actually proposing a change in the basic statistical
> mechanics definition of entropy as a result of the theoretical study of
> black holes then one would expect modern statistical mechanics textbooks
> would reflect this re-definition,
>

WHY?? How would it change anything about how we imagine the world works?
Regardless of what English word you call it  if  X is proportional to the
logarithm of the number of microstates something can be in and still have
the same macrostate then X is also proportional  to the logarithm of the
number of ways the thing could have been produced and still have the same
macrostate.  AND if X is proportional  to the logarithm of the number of
ways the thing could have been produced and still have the same macrostate
then X is also proportional to the logarithm of the number of microstates
something can be in and still have the same macrostate.


> >> And I'm saying that in classical physics a state can produce only one
>> future state, but any given state can have been produced in more than one
>> way
>>
>
> > Many models in classical physics are reversible,
>

Some deterministic laws are reversible and some, like the deterministic
laws of the Game of Life, are not reversible.  But even if the laws of
physics were 100% reversible that wouldn't necessarily mean that a given
system was symmetrical with regard to time; even the second law of
thermodynamics by itself is not enough to explain the arrow of time. It's
true that there are vastly more high entropy states than low ones so it's
overwhelmingly likely that tomorrow entropy will be higher than it was
today, but by using the very same reversible logic and reversible physical
laws we could also conclude that entropy was almost certainly higher
yesterday than it was today, but that is clearly not the case. So if
time's preferred direction doesn't come from physical law it must come from
the initial conditions, and we need to add a past hypothesis, namely that
in the distant past for some reason entropy was much lower than it is
today. We call that distant past event "The Big Bang".


> >> why in hell do you say Entropy is proportional to the logarithm of the
>> number of microstates something can be in and still have the same
>> macrostate,  but it is not proportional  to the logarithm of the number of
>> ways the thing could have been produced?
>>
>
> > Because it's logically possible to have laws where, unlike in unitary
> QM, it's NOT true that two notions are equivalent--this would be true if
> information is genuinely lost when a black hol

Re: Modality Independence

2014-03-20 Thread Gabriel Bodeen



On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:25:44 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:06:37 PM UTC-4, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>>
>>
>> But all the forms of language do share a common logical basis, according 
>> to many linguists.  How is it relevant to the logic of a language that it 
>> can be expressed in different modalities?
>>
>
> It's not relevant to the logic of the language, its relevant to the 
> overall nature of language. If language were logical, then they would be 
> universally modality-independent, but what the evidence seems to indicate 
> is that pure logic or information is not the relevant aspect in developing 
> language. What matters is the aesthetic engagement. It's about touching and 
> feeling, not knowing and believing. 
>>
>>
Why would a logical language have to modality-independent?  My language 
developed, presumably, because my brain had sensory data and reward signals 
it could use to form associations between useful sensory coincidences.  It 
formed increasingly high-level associations between bundles of sensory 
data, eventually also combining sounds and vocal behavior into those 
associations.  There's nothing obviously intractable about describing such 
data input and analysis in computational terms.
 

>  Since only humans have evolved to create an abstraction layer that cuts 
>> across aesthetic modalities,
>>
>
> That appears untrue.  I know birds, mammals, some molluscs, and some fish 
> can reason abstractly about motor behaviors and achieve the same goal with 
> very different kinds of motor behaviors.
>
> You'll have to argue with the Wiki about that...
>
> "Animal communication systems routinely combine visible with audible 
> properties and effects, but not one is modality independent. No vocally 
> impaired whale, dolphin or songbird, for example, could express its song 
> repertoire equally in visual display. Indeed, in the case of animal 
> communication, message and modality are not capable of being disentangled. 
> Whatever message is being conveyed stems from intrinsic properties of the 
> signal." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_speech
>
> 'Intrinsic properties of the signal' = aesthetic texture.
>
> Craig
>

Ah - You didn't specify at first that the "abstraction layer" had to be 
about communication.  It looked like you were intending to make a general 
point about aesthetic modality and information content.  As a general point 
it's untrue.  Lots of animals reason abstractly in certain circumstances.  
But I could believe it's true or nearly true about communication.  

There are some cases even then that, even if not strictly counterexamples, 
stretch the humans-only claim to the breaking, and lead me to be doubtful 
of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpTG3bgHLjk : dogs will communicate their 
desire for attention vocally and visually, depending on the situation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iGkpLq5L5Y : Koko the gorilla is 
controversially claimed to understand certain signs, images, and spoken 
words, and to produce signs and point to pictures to communicate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSjqEopnC9w : dolphins apparently can 
express and learn from each other via squeals what they learned from humans 
via signs, which similarly requires abstracted communication skills

-Gabe

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

Re: Modality Independence

2014-03-20 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:05:08 AM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 20 March 2014 15:25, Craig Weinberg  >wrote:
>
>> It means that birds squawk because they like the feeling and sound of it. 
>> The intention of using the squawking to convey information is optional and 
>> evolves much later.
>>
>
> As stated, that strikes me as unlikely, because simply squawking for the 
> hell of it is liable to get you eaten, or to give away your location to 
> your prey. So it carries a negative evolutionary "cost" (so to squawk) and 
> seems unlikely to have evolved *just *because birds enjoy doing it.
>

Not necessarily. If the other birds like the squawking also, they may stick 
around and their collective squawking may drive away predators, or make 
them more confident and vigilant. The squawking may invigorate the birds 
(after all, roosters have been used as something of a natural alarm clock 
for humans). I challenge anyone to come up with one of these just-so 
stories about evolution that cannot be negated by an equally likely 
counter-narrative. Without knowing the totality of the environment, 
exterior and interior, past and future, there is really no way to falsify 
any hypothesis about behaviors that involve subjectivity. For purely 
morphological phenomena, purely evolutionary explanations work well, but 
there is nothing scientific in my view about presuming that life is 
essentially about survival and work. The universe is primarily decorative 
IMO. It's about play. The work is in the service of more interesting play.

> However, that having been said, it *also* seems very unlikely to me that 
> squawking appeared because it was useful for communication. Because it 
> wouldn't have been, to start with - noises can only convey information once 
> someone else knows what they mean - and of course, evolution can't "look 
> ahead" to see that something might come in useful in 100 generations time.
>

Yes, exactly. 

>
> It seems most likely to me that certain sounds just tend to accompany 
> certain physical actions or emotional states (or both) as a by-product, 
>

Emergence and by-products are Santa Claus to me. The universe is a 
by-product of the unknown to begin with.

> and that for some of these noises there isn't any evolutionary pressure to 
> keep them quiet (as there would be, say, to stop a bird of prey shrieking 
> with joy when it sees a potential dinner scampering across the grass 
> below). So most noises made by animals would start as "spandrels" - 
> by-products of existence with no significance. 
>

The concept of spandrels only makes sense if there is some compelling 
reason to expect that some mutation had some initial reason for propagating 
that is no longer relevant, but in cases like these, when we are really 
talking about the entire animal kingdom's desire to gesture and make 
noises, I think it's wayy too convenient of an explanation.

> Some noises would, in fact, have an evolutionary cost, and hence selection 
> pressure would tend to suppress them. This has happened to cats, for 
> example, for various movements accompanying hunting. Others might be useful 
> for panicking prey or letting you locate other members of your species, 
> even if they didn't convey any information except "I'm here!" And some 
> would be evolutionarily neutral, so evolving a method of keeping them quiet 
> would be more trouble than it was worth from the viewpoint of a selfish 
> gene 
>

> But given that such noises existed, over time they might come to be 
> recognised by other members of the same species as denoting certain things 
> - hence members of the species "realised" they could get useful information 
> from some noise their species made (or their genes did, at least). 
>

I doubt it. Useful information is overrated. "*It is a tale told by an 
idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.*" Life is experience, not 
information.

> Once that happened, the information content of the noise would be able to 
> co-evolve with the ability to detect and understand it, and once that 
> process started, it could branch out into unexpected side-alleys - mating 
> cries, warning cries, and even in our case a full-blown language.
>

We use language to convey information, information would not need anything 
else to convey itself. How could it? We are real, and our language is real, 
but the information that we convey through our language is only the 
relation between us, our experience, and our language. We are not part of 
information, information is a description of what we impart to each other.

Craig 

-- 
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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-20 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM,  wrote:

> Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the
> lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy
> coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to
> replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already
> upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and
> seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put
> into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the
> green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical
> solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side
> (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished)
> and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people, liberate them, rather
> that 'manage' them. If I was one of the people who decided things, what
> would you do?
>

You are one of the people who decides things.

Energy costs are on the rise, no matter our political outlooks. You can
decide to take a risk to try and mitigate this, which is complex and not as
easy as listing your political preferences and intolerance.

You talk "I'm in minority", which does not make sense because the majority
of the world is not taking steps to make energy and environment more
sustainable. You are in the majority, talking/chatting and not doing. Even
if you feel you're in the minority: do something.

You talk "liberating people"... then do it and save us the sermon.

You talk "anti-state" but you advocate inaction. So basically the right for
us to live in the effects of our trash/wasteful behavior, complaining about
powerful interests, that through your inaction and ideological fox chanting
extend their range by just another person.

You talk "technical solutions" and you hope for some revolution among
engineers. Good luck with that, but why judge people with a more nuanced
and differentiated approach to the problems you state, who will not
hope/wait for instructions or engineer revolution and start to plan and
invest in transition means to mitigating energy's rising costs?

The question has long shifted from your black and white "yes-no" to the
grey complexities of real life with "how" on local, personal, and global
levels. If you don't see this, then why keep preaching your political
stance? Just be as wasteful as you can for as long as you can, before
somebody shows up and says: "Business as usual will keep costs rising and
poverty increasing, which we can't sustain long term; this behavior is
stupid." Join fossil fuel lobby or something. Well paid job and you'll be
more effective there than on this list, regarding this set of problems. PGC

>  No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace
> everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're
> not the one who decide things.
>
>   -Original Message-
> From: Quentin Anciaux 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:36 am
> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
>
>
>
> 2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00 :
>
>>  Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all
>> coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars.
>>
>
>  No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace
> everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're
> not the one who decide things.
>
>  Quentin
>
>
>> There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50
>> years, that for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting
>> cheers from admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the
>> rugged, robust, work, of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It
>> cannot simply be artist work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My
>> point: propaganda doesn't feed empty stomachs.
>>
>> If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have
>> been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship
>>
>>-Original Message-
>> From: LizR 
>> To: everything-list 
>>  Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
>> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>>
>>On 20 March 2014 07:10,  wrote:
>>
>>>  Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the
>>> climate thing is.
>>>
>>> http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html
>>>
>>> Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of
>>> living down, to fit the ideal "environmental foot print."  Improving the
>>> standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions
>>> and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans,
>>> government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are
>>> horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great
>>> Leap Forward from 1958-62, as

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


I am pragmatic enough to see that if government worked best on tackling a 
problem, I would endorse it. There does seem to be a rule of elites, a ruling 
class, in effect, worldwide, that consists of billionaires, their politicians, 
and academics, media, union leaders, and their choices in governance, seem off  
the mark. These seems especially true, concerning the environment, energy 
(closely related)  and economics. Hence, unless one is very rich, or directly 
benefits from the beneficence of the billionaires and the paid political 
agents, what's one to do? This is why I ask for technical solutions to things 
like overpopulation, resource depletion, AGW, and what have you. The elites 
seem more focused on corralling the serfs, who put such a strain on resources, 
than shooting for workarounds or even trade offs. The NASA proclamation of a 
kind of global communism, for want of a better word, is an example of 
corralling the serfs-for their own good. Very weird.


-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 8:27 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


  

On 3/18/2014 4:12 PM, LizR wrote:


  

  
On 19 March 2014 08:46, wrote:

  Breaking your ideas down,I do still hold that the 
figure cited as 10,000 isimprecise. It seems as a selling 
point. But with a focuson accurate measures, and I say that 
whats beenpresented is not accurate. However, it could even be  
  worse than 10,000. As I have tried to get
environmentalists here, to cite ideas on remediation,sans 
government control. Why? Because then it becomes anexcuse to 
rule us more and more, on the pretense offixing a problem. 
  

  


It's not an *excuse* nor a *pretense* because there is no plausibleway 
that the problem will be addressed without government action. When there is 
an air pollutant that it costs money to avoid orremove (like automobile 
exhaust pollutants) it is only a*disadvantage* to individuals and 
enterprises to spend their moneyto clean up.  But the government can 
provide incentives to makecleaner energy production cheaper.  This is only 
forcing costs thathad been externalized to be internalized.  

There is also the development of technologies which are tooexpensive, 
too riskly, or too likely to be stopped by litigation forany private 
organization to develop. LFTRs are the obvious example,but also various CO2 
sequestering schemes and insolation reductionby aerosols.



  

  

So, I try to focus on technology and ask"what do you want to 
do, what technology?" I getsuspicious when, if I receive any 
response at all, itsvague, and indistinct. I would fix issues 
with tech, 
  

  


But technology development takes money and sometimes protection.


  

  

rather than having bureaucratic fascistsrule us all, Few on 
this list agree with this approach.  
  

  


Few agree with your ridiculous equation of all bureaucrats withfascists 
and all government programs with communism.



  

  

They want everything under governmentcontrol, as long as they 
agree with the dictator. Whenit becomes apparent that people 
are after the control ofothers, it needs to be resisted. The 
market is closer tohuman freedom then government rule, but it 
is not to betrusted completely. Again, technology first please,

  

  


The market means you can have as much freedom as you can pay for.

Brent
  

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

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-20 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-03-20 14:55 GMT+01:00 :

>  Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the
> lights, take a bike.
>

What sort of crazy are you ? Why are you adding things not written ? Can
you just count in binary ? Everything is always an all or nothing in your
mind ?

Quentin


> Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible
> uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that
> will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of
> the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your
> guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real
> life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather
> than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am
> in the minority, as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants
> people controlled and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone
> who'd rather help people, liberate them, rather that 'manage' them. If I
> was one of the people who decided things, what would you do?
>
> No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace
> everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're
> not the one who decide things.
>
>   -Original Message-
> From: Quentin Anciaux 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:36 am
> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
>
>
>
> 2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00 :
>
>>  Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all
>> coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars.
>>
>
>  No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace
> everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're
> not the one who decide things.
>
>  Quentin
>
>
>> There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50
>> years, that for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting
>> cheers from admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the
>> rugged, robust, work, of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It
>> cannot simply be artist work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My
>> point: propaganda doesn't feed empty stomachs.
>>
>> If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have
>> been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship
>>
>>-Original Message-
>> From: LizR 
>> To: everything-list 
>>  Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
>> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>>
>>On 20 March 2014 07:10,  wrote:
>>
>>>  Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the
>>> climate thing is.
>>>
>>> http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html
>>>
>>> Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of
>>> living down, to fit the ideal "environmental foot print."  Improving the
>>> standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions
>>> and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans,
>>> government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are
>>> horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great
>>> Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example.
>>>
>>>   If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have
>> been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a
>> dictatorship. Part of the point of having a government is to provide things
>> that no individual or profit-based organisation would wish to do, such as
>> building motorways, communications networks, hospitals, schools, power
>> plants, rail networks, and other infrastructure. This would apply to some
>> clean power schemes that are too large for a private investor, which
>> applies to (some) tidal, wind, hydro, solar, nuclear etc. I can't imagine
>> many private companies would have been building nuclear power plants off
>> their own bat in the 1950s.
>>
>> So we need government to do stuff above the level that private enterprise
>> can manage. Dictatorship is simply government done wrong.
>>
>>   --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroup

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, 
take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or 
horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why 
that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of 
the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your 
guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It 
comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual 
workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, 
as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled 
and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help 
people, liberate them, rather that 'manage' them. If I was one of the people 
who decided things, what would you do?

No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything 
that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who 
decide things.





-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 9:36 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00  :

Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all 
uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. 



No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace everything 
that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're not the one who 
decide things.


Quentin
 

There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50 years, that 
for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers from 
admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the rugged, robust, work, 
of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot simply be artist 
work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My point: propaganda doesn't feed 
empty stomachs. 

If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been 
carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship




-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 

Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating




On 20 March 2014 07:10,   wrote:

Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate 
thing is.
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html
 
Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living 
down, to fit the ideal "environmental foot print."  Improving the standard of 
living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the 
ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the 
public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach 
to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a 
prime example. 







If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been 
carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship. Part of 
the point of having a government is to provide things that no individual or 
profit-based organisation would wish to do, such as building motorways, 
communications networks, hospitals, schools, power plants, rail networks, and 
other infrastructure. This would apply to some clean power schemes that are too 
large for a private investor, which applies to (some) tidal, wind, hydro, 
solar, nuclear etc. I can't imagine many private companies would have been 
building nuclear power plants off their own bat in the 1950s.

So we need government to do stuff above the level that private enterprise can 
manage. Dictatorship is simply government done wrong.





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




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







-- 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger 
Hauer)



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving em

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Good point, but this is what things are veering towards, or we are already 
there! Plutocracy, rule by the rich, who influence purchased politicians, who 
know how to successfully bribe people who want food stamps (in the US), who 
need free cell phones, who need free health services (no matter how awfully 
thought out) and then get screwed when the gravy train runs dry. This is why, I 
prefer technical solutions that by-pass the oligarchs. Some of these 
billionaires are, I am certain, accidental oligarchs, taking advantage of our 
stupidity, or willingness to trade freedoms for goodies. Yes, I remember 
Voltaire's cynical comment that "both the rich and the poor have the right to 
sleep under bridges."  Perhaps the only thing anyone can do, barring being a 
billionaire yourself, is to follow the works of remediation that have been 
proposed by scientists and engineers. 

It seems to me that you are for the management of ALL people(s) by the very 
small constricted oligarchy of globally dominant crime families.  What kind of 
freedom is that? The freedom to live under the rule of psychopaths?




-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 11:01 pm
Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



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

I heartily agree, but I was focusing on technological remediation for AGW, for 
energy, etc. I am against the management of people by government edict. Yes, 
computer and electronics engineers are abetting a fascist system worldwide, but 
I am hoping that physicists, mechanical and chemical engineers, will step up, 
where the electronics engineers have failed us. 
 
It seems to me that you are for the management of ALL people(s) by the very 
small constricted oligarchy of globally dominant crime families.  What kind of 
freedom is that? The freedom to live under the rule of psychopaths?
 
 

-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 7:12 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


On 19 March 2014 08:46,  wrote:
Breaking your ideas down, I do still hold that the figure cited as 10,000 is 
imprecise. It seems as a selling point. But with a focus on accurate measures, 
and I say that whats been presented is not accurate. However, it could even be 
worse than 10,000. As I have tried to get environmentalists here, to cite ideas 
on remediation, sans government control. Why? Because then it becomes an excuse 
to rule us more and more, on the pretense of fixing a problem. So, I try to 
focus on technology and ask "what do you want to do, what technology?" I get 
suspicious when, if I receive any response at all, its vague, and indistinct. I 
would fix issues with tech, rather than having bureaucratic fascists rule us 
all, Few on this list agree with this approach. They want everything under 
government control, as long as they agree with the dictator. When it becomes 
apparent that people are after the control of others, it needs to be resisted. 
The market is closer to human freedom then government rule, but it is not to be 
trusted completely. Again, technology first please,

 

Technology is being used to place almost everything under government control 
right now. At the risk of repeating myself...

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/22635-focus-former-top-nsa-official-qwe-are-now-in-a-police-stateq

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

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


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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving email

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-20 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-03-20 14:34 GMT+01:00 :

>  Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all
> coal, all uranium, all petro that all cities and cars.
>

No it doesn't have to... it's not because it can't currently replace
everything that it can't replace part of it... and it does thanks you're
not the one who decide things.

Quentin


> There are wonderful looking projects that have been proposed for 50 years,
> that for technical reasons, cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers
> from admirers in the media. I love it too, but it must do the rugged,
> robust, work, of replacement of the dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot
> simply be artist work on paper and splashed to the tech heads. My point:
> propaganda doesn't feed empty stomachs.
>
> If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been
> carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship
>
>   -Original Message-
> From: LizR 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
>   On 20 March 2014 07:10,  wrote:
>
>>  Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the
>> climate thing is.
>>
>> http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html
>>
>> Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of
>> living down, to fit the ideal "environmental foot print."  Improving the
>> standard of living with better energy technology will sustain the billions
>> and flourish the ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans,
>> government rule of the public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are
>> horrible. Use Mao's approach to agricultural production during the Great
>> Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a prime example.
>>
>>   If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have
> been carried out by a democratically elected government, not a
> dictatorship. Part of the point of having a government is to provide things
> that no individual or profit-based organisation would wish to do, such as
> building motorways, communications networks, hospitals, schools, power
> plants, rail networks, and other infrastructure. This would apply to some
> clean power schemes that are too large for a private investor, which
> applies to (some) tidal, wind, hydro, solar, nuclear etc. I can't imagine
> many private companies would have been building nuclear power plants off
> their own bat in the 1950s.
>
> So we need government to do stuff above the level that private enterprise
> can manage. Dictatorship is simply government done wrong.
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Please remember, solar, to remediate, must replace all nat gas, all coal, all 
uranium, all petro that all cities and cars. There are wonderful looking 
projects that have been proposed for 50 years, that for technical reasons, 
cannot achieve much, other than getting cheers from admirers in the media. I 
love it too, but it must do the rugged, robust, work, of replacement of the 
dirty-to be any good at all. It cannot simply be artist work on paper and 
splashed to the tech heads. My point: propaganda doesn't feed empty stomachs. 

If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been 
carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship




-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



On 20 March 2014 07:10,   wrote:

Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate 
thing is.
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html
 
Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living 
down, to fit the ideal "environmental foot print."  Improving the standard of 
living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the 
ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the 
public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach 
to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a 
prime example. 






If that solar farm described in SciAm had been realised it would have been 
carried out by a democratically elected government, not a dictatorship. Part of 
the point of having a government is to provide things that no individual or 
profit-based organisation would wish to do, such as building motorways, 
communications networks, hospitals, schools, power plants, rail networks, and 
other infrastructure. This would apply to some clean power schemes that are too 
large for a private investor, which applies to (some) tidal, wind, hydro, 
solar, nuclear etc. I can't imagine many private companies would have been 
building nuclear power plants off their own bat in the 1950s.

So we need government to do stuff above the level that private enterprise can 
manage. Dictatorship is simply government done wrong.




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

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Yes, or neomarxist, neostalinst, die-offs. Billionaire, elites, pols, greens, 
Marxists, sort of a toxic stew. Obama, the UN, the EU. Good problems to attack, 
but merely using them as an excuse for control and exploitation. No technical 
responses, only, more totalitarianism. 

Paint and troll your fox cartoons on this list if you want. The green party as 
Marxist cult?




-Original Message-
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 4:01 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:34 PM,   wrote:


To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA 
Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them
 

If I wanted lectures from the Green Party, the International Socialist 
Movement.  or any Marxist cult, I'd have joined them and would be agreeing with 
you. I want technical solutions while some demand, in essence, a dictatorship 
that is conducive to themselves.  Your point seems to be you don't really 
desire answers that would benefit the forests, fields, seas, and skies, but 
instead simply insist on total government rule. It goes to my point earlier, 
about using troubles as an excuse to gain more power, rather then trouble 
shoot. 



Paint and troll your fox cartoons on this list if you want. The green party as 
Marxist cult? You seem to have your political ideas sorted. Here, the 
conservatives are accused of stealing the green agenda, the left is accused by 
the ecologists of not being green enough etc. So the fox cartoons only hold in 
your bubble far from helpful or clarifying data.

I don't care about your answers to "benefit the forests, fields, seas, and 
skies" because I do the things, even shoulder the economic risk, you chat 
about. Thus I really have no time to quibble politics with you or read your 
stuff.


If you can point to solutions or re-frame current sustainability issues outside 
of the standard literature, please do, because up to now, you haven't. But go 
ahead with trolling of fox cartoons if you want. PGC

 


To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA 
Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them





-Original Message-
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
To: everything-list 


Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:10 PM,   wrote:

Here's an article that informs me, if nobody else, how complicated the climate 
thing is.
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilocks-principle-hypothesis-earth-habitability.html
 
Beyond that I agree with John on his estimate of cutting the standard of living 
down, to fit the ideal "environmental foot print."  Improving the standard of 
living with better energy technology will sustain the billions and flourish the 
ecosystem-if done right. Technology is the answer, sans, government rule of the 
public. Dictatorships, even well-meaning ones, are horrible. Use Mao's approach 
to agricultural production during the Great Leap Forward from 1958-62, as a 
prime example. 



To both you and John: If I wanted a subscription to Wall Street journal, USA 
Today, Fox etc. I'd buy them. Your posts are just redundant because skimming 
them, I see all the same word groups as the above media channels; thus I don't 
even bother to read. I appreciate rational posts that are not naive to global 
systemic imbalances, how they can be formulated by which data, how they can be 
accelerated, mitigated etc. 

So grind your political axes elsewhere please or open political threads, that I 
and the members that feel similarly on the issue, can ignore. From Europe, I 
don't really care for the whole US progressives vs. conservatives thing... Just 
data concerning sustainability of energy, ecological systems etc. on specified 
levels, and what can/could be done about it, and not some preaching for how 
liberated ego should do all the ugly and stupid things it wants because this is 
what freedom means and scientists are flawed, complexity makes everything 
relative/undecidable etc. kind of junk. 

It's the same voice that rings through those media channels: I don't need a 
lesson in freedom from the lobbies that eavesdrop and conduct unilateral 
military stuff on the entire world for the "security of said freedom"; again: I 
can buy those subscriptions to dictatorship propaganda of those interests 
myself, if I cared. PGC

 



-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 


Sent: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 12:22 pm
Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



 
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:16 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
 

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Chris de Morsella  
wrote:

 


> I have offered quite a few prescript

Re: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization