RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

[Chris de Morsella]

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb

Fortunately, the University of Western Australia was not so timid; so you
can read the original paper here:

http://www.psychology.uwa.edu.au/research/cognitive/?a=2523540

Nice... don't have the time now to read it. Beautiful title though :)
Read the abstract and skimmed and spot read -- am saving it off for a later
read when I have more time... haha
Chris

Brent

On 4/3/2014 4:29 PM,
> "Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds 
> They Believe Conspiracy Theories"
>
> Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of
this fact!
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-j
> ournal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theori
> es

--
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: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

[Quentin Anciaux]

2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR :

> "Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They
> Believe Conspiracy Theories"
>
> Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of
> this fact!
>
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories
>
> PS I know this isn't about "everything" but there seems to be some
> interest in this topic on this forum.
>

It is strange, because when I did mention that here, the answer was that it
was perfectly normal and rational to believe in global conspiracy theories
and irrational not to.

Quentin


>
>  --
> 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: Daphne du Maurier was right!

[Samiya Illias]

To see what I mean, please read the book by Dr Maurice Bucaille
https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf


Samiya


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/3/2014 9:59 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
> I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit,
>
>
> You mean whether or not it is true when taken literally?  Literally it
> would mean that there was crow and someone name "God" gave it
> intelligence.  But that crow would be dead by now, so we can't evaluate
> whether it is intelligent.  Were there any witnesses who saw this gift?
> And how was it given?  Did "God" operate on the brain of the crow?  How
> would be make it more intelligent and still fit the brain back in the
> crow's skull?  I'd say taken literally, the story is almost certainly false.
>
> Brent
>
>
>  rather than 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths
> surrounding it. Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined
> the scriptures in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation:
>
> https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf
>
>
>  Samiya
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:41 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 4/3/2014 9:16 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>
>> Whether we consider intelligent beings as ' being intelligent in their
>> own right' or intelligence as being God-gifted is a matter of faith and
>> perspective. The subject of your email is Daphne du Maurier was right! 
>> Perhaps
>> the scriptures were also right? Perhaps its time to also consider the
>> scriptures as a source of plausible knowledge, and study it along with
>> scientific inquiry to gain a clearer understanding of everything?
>>
>>
>>  We may consider it plausible, but before it gives clearer understanding
>> we need an operational definition of what it means and how we might test
>> whether it is true or false.
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>  --
> 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: Daphne du Maurier was right!

[Samiya Illias]

What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly believe
in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its a
disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to
question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to
test what we accept as from God.
If we believe in Life After Death, then the quality of our life in the
Hereafter is dependent on the version of scripture that we took on faith.
If Judgement is inevitable, then it is of utmost importance that we base
our beliefs and actions upon critical inquiry and honest understanding.

Samiya


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
>
> On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>
>> I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than
>> 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it.
>> Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures
>> in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation:
>>
>> https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf
>>
>>
>
> To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy in
> a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got the
> science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word
> of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded in
> this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that
> they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> 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: Daphne du Maurier was right!

[meekerdb]

On 4/3/2014 9:59 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:

I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit,


You mean whether or not it is true when taken literally?  Literally it would mean that 
there was crow and someone name "God" gave it intelligence.  But that crow would be dead 
by now, so we can't evaluate whether it is intelligent.  Were there any witnesses who saw 
this gift?  And how was it given?  Did "God" operate on the brain of the crow?  How would 
be make it more intelligent and still fit the brain back in the crow's skull?  I'd say 
taken literally, the story is almost certainly false.


Brent

rather than 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it. 
Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures in the light 
of scientific knowledge. Online translation:
https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf 



Samiya





On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:41 AM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 4/3/2014 9:16 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:

Whether we consider intelligent beings as ' being intelligent in their own 
right'
or intelligence as being God-gifted is a matter of faith and perspective. 
The
subject of your email is Daphne du Maurier was right!Perhaps the scriptures 
were
also right? Perhaps its time to also consider the scriptures as a source of
plausible knowledge, and study it along with scientific inquiry to gain a 
clearer
understanding of everything? 


We may consider it plausible, but before it gives clearer understanding we 
need an
operational definition of what it means and how we might test whether it is 
true or
false.

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.


--
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: Daphne du Maurier was right!

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias  wrote:

> I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than
> 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it.
> Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures
> in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation:
>
> https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf
>
>

To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy in a
holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got the
science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word
of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded in
this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that
they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore bad.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Daphne du Maurier was right!

[Samiya Illias]

I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than 'what
it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it. Dr.
Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures in
the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation:
https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf


Samiya





On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:41 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/3/2014 9:16 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
> Whether we consider intelligent beings as ' being intelligent in their own
> right' or intelligence as being God-gifted is a matter of faith and
> perspective. The subject of your email is Daphne du Maurier was right! Perhaps
> the scriptures were also right? Perhaps its time to also consider the
> scriptures as a source of plausible knowledge, and study it along with
> scientific inquiry to gain a clearer understanding of everything?
>
>
> We may consider it plausible, but before it gives clearer understanding we
> need an operational definition of what it means and how we might test
> whether it is true or false.
>
> 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: Daphne du Maurier was right!

[meekerdb]

On 4/3/2014 9:16 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
Whether we consider intelligent beings as ' being intelligent in their own right' or 
intelligence as being God-gifted is a matter of faith and perspective. The subject of 
your email is Daphne du Maurier was right!Perhaps the scriptures were also right? 
Perhaps its time to also consider the scriptures as a source of plausible knowledge, and 
study it along with scientific inquiry to gain a clearer understanding of everything? 


We may consider it plausible, but before it gives clearer understanding we need an 
operational definition of what it means and how we might test whether it is true or false.


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: Daphne du Maurier was right!

[Samiya Illias]

Whether we consider intelligent beings as ' being intelligent in their own
right' or intelligence as being God-gifted is a matter of faith and
perspective. The subject of your email is Daphne du Maurier was right! Perhaps
the scriptures were also right? Perhaps its time to also consider the
scriptures as a source of plausible knowledge, and study it along with
scientific inquiry to gain a clearer understanding of everything?

Samiya


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:59 AM, LizR  wrote:

> I'm not sure what that quote is supposed to mean, but the article was
> about birds being intelligent in their own right, not acting intelligently
> because they're under the control of God.
>
>
> On 4 April 2014 16:55, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>
>> Qur'an Chapter 5, Verse 31: Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the
>> ground, to show him how to hide his brother's naked corpse. He said: Woe
>> unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother's naked
>> corpse? And he became repentant. (Translator: Pickthal)
>> http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=5&translator=4#31
>>
>> Samiya
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:17 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 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: Daphne du Maurier was right!

[LizR]

I'm not sure what that quote is supposed to mean, but the article was about
birds being intelligent in their own right, not acting intelligently
because they're under the control of God.


On 4 April 2014 16:55, Samiya Illias  wrote:

> Qur'an Chapter 5, Verse 31: Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the
> ground, to show him how to hide his brother's naked corpse. He said: Woe
> unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother's naked
> corpse? And he became repentant. (Translator: Pickthal)
> http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=5&translator=4#31
>
> Samiya
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:17 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html
>>
>> --
>> 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: Daphne du Maurier was right!

[Samiya Illias]

Qur'an Chapter 5, Verse 31: Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the
ground, to show him how to hide his brother's naked corpse. He said: Woe
unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother's naked
corpse? And he became repentant. (Translator: Pickthal)
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=5&translator=4#31

Samiya



On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:17 AM, LizR  wrote:

> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html
>
> --
> 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.

Daphne du Maurier was right!

[LizR]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.html

-- 
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: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything

[Hal Ruhl]

 

Hi Bruno, John, Liz, and everyone:

 

Bruno:

 

Your comments helped me to refine my thoughts about my model and the model 
itself.

 

See below.

 

Thank you.

 

I believe my model as clarified below has convinced me that Comp to the 
degree I may understand it and to the degree it is “machine” is at least 
one component of a correct and complete description of our observer 
experience.  This because I believe it to be a different expression part of 
if not all of my approach.  There may be other components but this may be 
TBD. 

 

On 01 Apr 2014, at 01:48, Hal Ruhl wrote:

 

Reintroducing some mathematical terms to my model:

A distinction is a description of a boundary between two things see 
definition ”i”.  As a description it is a number - I suppose [a positive 
integer ?].

-

Do you mean the code of a program computing a predicate P(x), that is a 
function from N to {0, 1}, so that some digital machine can distinguish if 
some number, of finite input, verifies or not that property?

---

*I am not very strong on computer science but just an MSEE minted in 60’s, 
however I think my answer would be a qualified yes with the following 
qualifications:*

 

*a) I take your “predicate” to be the subject number itself.*

*b) The program for the machine is in that number.*

*c) The rest of the number is the data for the machine.*

*d) Not all numbers, such as maybe zero, can be distinctions since they 
encode an incomplete machine and or incomplete data.*

---

This makes a divisor - a collection of distinctions by definition “ii” - a 
collection of numbers.

Why use "divisor", where "x is divisor of y" already means Ez(z*x = y), 
 (i.e. it exists a number z such that z times x is equal to y).



*By definition “ii” regarding “divisors” I merely give a relevant short 
name to a subset of numbers.*

 

*Also by “ii” some divisors contain zero distinctions [the “N”s by 
definition “iii”] but nevertheless can contain numbers that contain 
incomplete code.  *

 

*Further some divisors can contain numbers that are distinctions and some 
that are not because such numbers encode incomplete machines or data or 
both.*

 

*Notes:*

*I need to clarify definition “ii” per the underlined words above*

 

*Here I have tried to structure the clarifications so that there is no need 
to resort to a machine that is external to a divisor.*



The collection of numbers (codes of the total computable predicates) will 
not be a computable set of numbers, but you can compute a superset of them, 

--

*I am not sure I understand.  Some numbers [+integers] are excluded from 
being distinctions in the above because they contain incomplete codes. *

 

*However the full set of distinctions [call it “d”] should still be [I 
think] a countable infinite set of integers.  *

 

*Divisors include all subsets of the set {“d” Union [the set of all 
integers that are not distinctions - call this set “I”]}*

 

* This I think makes “A” -  the set of all divisors -  an uncountable 
infinite powerset of {“d” U “I”}.  So by your comment I think both {“d” U 
“I”} and “A” are computable (perhaps some with the aid of a random oracle. 
  *

 

--

by accepting that some code will not output any answer for some predicate 
("distinction")

---

*I think the above covers that.*

--

No machine can distinct the totally distinguishable from the non 
distinguishable.

--

*I do not think this applies, but I think my clarifications may  help 
decide the issue.*

 

*Many incomplete codings [machine, data or both] should produce output 
which is at least partly a guess on some of the incomplete coding [output 
of a random oracle].  I would identify this as the transition from an 
incomplete divisor [a universe state by assumption A2] to a successor 
divisor [universe state] which itself may be incomplete – a trace in “A” is 
started, continued or terminated [on a complete divisor].  *


--

Since I think any number can be description and thus a member of a divisor, 
“A” since it contains all divisors by assumption A1 contains all numbers.  I 
consider “A” to be the Everything.

---

*See the clarification of “Divisor” above.*



It works with the superset above. I think. As you are a bit unclear, I take 
the opportunity to understand you in the frame which makes already some 
sense to me (mainly the mechanist hypothesis).

--

*See my last comment below.*

--

To get a dynamic in the “A” - one of my personal goals - I point to the 
incompleteness of a subset of divisors.

A universe [see assumption A2] needs to answer all meaningful questions 
relevant to it, so it must eventually become complete in this sense.

Thus a trace from state to state is created within “A” for each universe.  The 
trace eventually ends on a complete divisor. 

I see “A” and its tra

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

[meekerdb]

Fortunately, the University of Western Australia was not so timid; so you can read the 
original paper here:


http://www.psychology.uwa.edu.au/research/cognitive/?a=2523540

Brent

On 4/3/2014 4:29 PM,
"Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe 
Conspiracy Theories"


Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of this 
fact!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories


--
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.

If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

[LizR]

"Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They
Believe Conspiracy Theories"

Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of
this fact!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories

PS I know this isn't about "everything" but there seems to be some interest
in this topic on this forum.

-- 
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 Shale unconventional oil play is just a bubble (and one that is about to burst) -- reserves have been wildly overstated.

[LizR]

On 4 April 2014 08:16, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>
> This article from Bloomberg delves into some detail on how the
> unconventional oil sector is actually based on unreliable numbers -- with
> reserve estimates and production curves that have proven to have been
> wildly overstated -- to the point of criminal conspiracy to defraud
> investors (I would argue)
>
> Not to mention the rest of us.

-- 
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: Climate models

[LizR]

On 4 April 2014 04:46, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

>
> You don't even have to be "green" to understand that it's not productive
> or rational to keep having mountains of redundant material and poison keep
> accumulating and multiplying around us. The "discussion" in the total black
> white form displayed occasionally in this thread, is a U.S. phenomenon.
>
> Sadly this does seem to be the case. Every time I see a knee-jerk reaction
on this issue it's always some (North) American who thinks the lefties are
out to get him, and the world would be fine if we all had free markets and
guns. It's ironic that the USA, which was so terrified of COmmunist
inflitration and propaganda, has done such a good job of brainwashing its
own citizens into believing the exact opposite - beliefs which may yet
spell the end of humanity.

-- 
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: Climate models

[Chris de Morsella]

 From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Climate models
 


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Chris de Morsella  
wrote:



> Not a single LFTR unit is operating

>>That's true today but wasn't always the case,  the last operating thorium 
>>reactor on this planet, the MSRE at Oak Ridge  was shut down in 1969. Of 
>>course after 40 years of doing nothing and not spending a dime a lot of R&D 
>>would be required before we could switch over to a Thorium based economy, but 
>>it would be trivial compared with what would be required to make a practical 
>>fusion reactor.

I have cited that reactor multiple times -- so it is not news to me. That is 
all you have for LFTR -- a single research reactor that operated for a few 
years some forty years ago. 

Solar PV is here today -- and is being produced at industrial scales of 
production as we speak; there is no contest between what technology is ramped 
up and ready... and it is not LFTR.


> nor are there any blueprints to build one. 

BULLSHIT. 


Okay then loudmouth where are these actual blueprints? 
Real, project ready blueprints. Not some back of the napkin calculations or the 
ancient dust covered material from the single example of a small research scale 
LFTR that was operated for a few years some forty years ago at Oak Ridge.

> There is no Thorium mining, refining

>> Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4 times as 
>> abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and we can 
>> only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the Thorium! 
>> So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because we can't 
>> get enough of it??  

Wrong again the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached 
within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped up 
peak uranium will be reached that much sooner). Uranium reserves -- like most 
other reserve figures have been highly overstated by the mine operators and 
reserve owners -- the motive to do so is clear. A physicist friend of mine (who 
works at CERN -- has written extensively about the issue of future uranium 
supply)


>>As I say nobody would bother but even with today's primitive technology do 
>>you have any evidence that it would take more energy than what 37 tons of 
>>coal could provide to extract 12 grams of Thorium from one cubic meter of 
>>randomly selected dirt?
>
>
>> You are the one making the claim; it is up to you to show how it can be done.

>> You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium from 
>> one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could produce, so 
>> it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be dumb enough to 
>> bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50% Thorium available. 
>>  

Whatever. I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live 
in. I see the practical technological limits that constrain what can actually 
be accomplished. 

>>> My point remains valid and salient. Whenever anyone speaks of some resource 
>>> reserve figure in practice what they are (or should be) referring to is the 
>>> recoverable reserve figures. The quantity of some resource in the earth's 
>>> crust may be interesting, but it is irrelevant in a discussion of reserves.
 
>
>> So let's review * Thorium is a element that is TWICE as common as TIN. * 
>> Some natural ores are 50% Thorium. * One POUND of Thorium can provide as 
>> much energy as 1,362 TONS of coal. * The best argument Chris de Morsella can 
>> come up with against the use of Thorium is that there just isn't enough of 
>> it.
 
>> Bull shit John. I have given you many different arguments 

>> Many? You have only given 2 basic arguments. The first one is that we won't 
>> be able to find enough Thorium to meet our needs and that argument is 
>> downright imbecilic. Your second argument is that nobody has ever made a 
>> large number of Thorium reactors and that is true, but from that you 
>> conclude  nobody ever could and that does not follow at all.  And then you 
>> say you like Thorium after all which contradicts everything you said before. 

Nobody has made more than a single small scale research LFTR reactor let alone 
a large number.  You are smoking crack -- as we say in the software business. I 
never said there was not recoverable Thorium either -- so stop trying to frame 
me as having taken that position. What I have said and continue to say is that 
there is no existing extraction infrastructure and that it would take a lot of 
work and fossil energy to ramp such an infrastructure up.


You really do not understand the logistics very well, typical of magical 
thinking.


>> The Cantarell oil field is not only the third biggest it is also the most 
>> technologically primitive in the world, the reason is easy to understand. If 

Re: Climate models

[John Clark]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

> Not a single LFTR unit is operating
>

That's true today but wasn't always the case,  the last operating thorium
reactor on this planet, the MSRE at Oak Ridge  was shut down in 1969. Of
course after 40 years of doing nothing and not spending a dime a lot of R&D
would be required before we could switch over to a Thorium based economy,
but it would be trivial compared with what would be required to make a
practical fusion reactor.

> nor are there any blueprints to build one.
>

BULLSHIT.

> There is no Thorium mining, refining
>

Oh for heavens sake! There is no Uranium shortage and Thorium is 4 times as
abundant and easier to separate from it's ore than Uranium is, and we can
only get energy from .7% of the Uranium but  we can use 100% of the
Thorium! So do you REALLY want to say we shouldn't consider Thorium because
we can't get enough of it??

>>As I say nobody would bother but even with today's primitive technology
>> do you have any evidence that it would take more energy than what 37 tons
>> of coal could provide to extract 12 grams of Thorium from one cubic meter
>> of randomly selected dirt?
>>
>
> > You are the one making the claim; it is up to you to show how it can be
> done.
>

You are the one making the claim that extracting 12 grams of Thorium from
one meter of dirt would take more energy than the Thorium could produce, so
it is up to you to show it's true; although nobody would be dumb enough to
bother with such dirt when there is ore that contains 50% Thorium
available.

>>> My point remains valid and salient. Whenever anyone speaks of some
>>> resource reserve figure in practice what they are (or should be) referring
>>> to is the recoverable reserve figures. The quantity of some resource in the
>>> earth's crust may be interesting, but it is irrelevant in a discussion of
>>> reserves.
>>>
>>
>
>> So let's review * Thorium is a element that is TWICE as common as TIN. *
>> Some natural ores are 50% Thorium. * One POUND of Thorium can provide as
>> much energy as 1,362 TONS of coal. * The best argument Chris de Morsella
>> can come up with against the use of Thorium is that there just isn't enough
>> of it.
>
>
>
> > Bull shit John. I have given you many different arguments
>

Many? You have only given 2 basic arguments. The first one is that we won't
be able to find enough Thorium to meet our needs and that argument is
downright imbecilic. Your second argument is that nobody has ever made a
large number of Thorium reactors and that is true, but from that you
conclude  nobody ever could and that does not follow at all.  And then you
say you like Thorium after all which contradicts everything you said
before.

>> The Cantarell oil field is not only the third biggest it is also the
>> most technologically primitive in the world, the reason is easy to
>> understand. If you're a Mexican farmer and oil is discovered on your land
>> you don't own a drop of it, the government owns it all and government
>> bureaucrats have little expertise in the science of oil drilling; and those
>> experts who do have such ability work for no government and prefer to apply
>> their trade in places like the USA where they can get a nice share of the
>> profits. For this reason the USA has not the largest but the most
>> technologically advanced oil fields in the world, and is why the USA has
>> experienced such a huge increase in oil and natural gas production in the
>> last few years.
>>
>
>
> > BULLSHIT John  BULLSHIT to your BULLSHIT!!!
>

Copycat.


> > PEMEX is not some dirt poor Mexican farmer
>

PEMEX is not dirt poor but judging from the way they operate their oil
fields they are as dumb as dirt, the technology is medieval compared with
what's going on in the USA.

 John K Clark

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

Re: The Shale unconventional oil play is just a bubble (and one that is about to burst) -- reserves have been wildly overstated.

[Chris de Morsella]

This article from Bloomberg delves into some detail on how the unconventional 
oil sector is actually based on unreliable numbers -- with reserve estimates 
and production curves that have proven to have been wildly overstated -- to the 
point of criminal conspiracy to defraud investors (I would argue)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-03/old-math-casts-doubt-on-accuracy-of-oil-reserve-estimates.html

Old Math Casts Doubt on Accuracy of Oil Reserve Estimates

Jan Arps is the most influential oilman you’ve never heard of.
In 1945, Arps, then a 33-year-old petroleum engineer for British-American Oil 
Producing Co., published a formula to predict how much crude a well will 
produce and when it will run dry. The Arps method has become one of the most 
widely used measures in the industry. Companies rely on it to predict the 
profitability of drilling, secure loans and report reserves to regulators. When 
Representative Ed Royce, a California Republican, said at a March 26 hearing in 
Washington that the U.S. should start exporting its oil to undermine Russian 
influence, his forecast of “increasing U.S. energy production” can be traced 
back to Arps.
The problem is the Arps equation has been twisted to apply to shale technology, 
which didn’t exist when Arps died in 1976. John Lee, a University of Houston 
engineering professor and an authority on estimating reserves, said billions of 
barrels of untapped shale oil in the U.S. are counted by companies relying on 
limited drilling history and tweaks to Arps’s formula that exaggerate future 
production. That casts doubt on how close the U.S. will get to energy 
independence, a goal that’s nearer than at any time since 1985, according to 
data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.Photographer: Ken 
James/Bloomberg
To replace the Arps calculation, researchers are testing new formulas with 
names worthy... Read More
“Things could turn out more pessimistic than people project,” said Lee. “The 
long-term production of some of those oil-rich wells may be overstated.”
Calculate Reserves
Lee’s criticisms have opened a rift in the industry about how to measure the 
stores of crude trapped within rock formations thousands of feet below the 
earth’s surface. In a newsletter published this year by Houston-based Ryder 
Scott Co., which helps drillers calculate reserves, Lee called for an industry 
conference to address what he said are inconsistent approaches. The Arps method 
is particularly open to abuse, he said.
U.S. oil production has increased 40 percent since the end of 2011 as drillers 
target layers of oil-bearing rock such as the Bakken shale in North Dakota, the 
Eagle Ford in Texas, and the Mississippi Lime in Kansas andOklahoma, according 
to the EIA. The U.S. is on track to become the world’s largest oil producer by 
next year, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. A report 
from London-based consultants Wood Mackenzie said that by 2020 the Bakken’s 
output alone will be 1.7 million barrels a day, from 1.1 million 
now.Photographer: Matthew Staver/Bloomberg
U.S. oil production has increased 40 percent since the end of 2011 as drillers 
target... Read More
U.S. crude benchmark West Texas Intermediate fell 41 cents to $99.21 a barrel 
at 10:10 a.m London time in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile 
Exchange. It has risen 0.8 percent this year.
Inherently Uncertain
Predicting the future is an inherently uncertain business, and Arps’s method 
works as well as any other, said Scott Wilson, a senior vice president in Ryder 
Scott’s Denver office.
“No one method does it right every time,” Wilson said. “Arps is just a tool. If 
you blame Arps because a forecast turns out to be wrong, that’s like blaming 
the gun for shooting somebody. As far as Arps being old, the wheel was invented 
a long time ago too but it still comes in handy.”
Rising reserve estimates gives the U.S. a false sense of security, said Tad 
Patzek, chairman of the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at 
the University of Texas at Austin.
“We have deceived ourselves into thinking that since we have an infinite 
resource, we don’t need to worry,” Patzek said. “We are stumbling like blind 
people into a future which is not as pretty as we think.”
The Arps formula is only as good as the assumptions a company puts into it, 
Patzek said. Estimates can be inflated when Arps is based on limited drilling 
history for data or on a few high-performing wells to predict performance 
across a wide swath of acreage. Forecasts can also be skewed higher by assuming 
slower production declines than Arps observed.
Reserves Cut
In November 2012, SandRidge Energy Inc. cut its reserve predictions to the 
equivalent of 422,000 barrels per well from 456,000. Five months later, the 
estimate was cut again, to 369,000 barrels, company records show. Oklahoma 
City-based SandRidge has since made an adjustment upward to 380,000 barrels per 
well.
The early, more optim

RE: Climate models

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 11:56 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

 

 

On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:





On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl

It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they
are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the belief in
the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has been hijacked by
ultra left wing environmental pressure groups.

Saibal

A conspiracy theory that has become spread through massive funding by the
big holders of fossil carbon reserves -- seeking to protect the future
valuation of those reserves, which has a large impact on the current
valuation of their carbon holdings. An eminently rational (if cynical)
motive, for these narrow carbon interests, but one that has sowed confusion
and doubt, using the same "junk science" (and "left wing hijacked science")
accusations that were perfected by Big Tobacco in the preceding decades. It
worked then for Big Tobacco and this same strategy of sowing falsehoods,  is
working now for the big carbon interests.

Exactly. It's even been making some headway in the interests of denying
evolution, for God (as it were) knows what reason.

 

 

That is why I don't think politics is possible as long as prohibition
continue. It has been used as a sort of Trojan horse for bandits, and they
will sell you what they want.

 

Stopping prohibition will not be enough. We must separate politics from
money. We should vote on ideas and not humans. We should find a way to
prevent democracies against propaganda, if not corporatism.

 

The green should be ally with the antiprohibitionists. I do think that
"prohibition" is the deep reason of possible climate perturbation, and
economy. 

Like the abandon of rationality in the "spiritual" is the deep reason of why
the non-sensical prohibition has seem conceivable today.

 

I agree - the prohibition is the funding pipeline that enables the
imposition of rule by the global criminal crime families. as well as
promotes the regime of criminality and terror and police state response that
these crime families (organized crime families embedded within institutions)
require in order to leverage their power into global control.

 

Chris

 

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.

-- 
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: Climate models

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark

 

Chris de Morsella  wrote:
 

> No one is ever going to "recover" the dispersed Thorium in your garden's
dirt
 

They could but no one will bother doing anything like that until ores of
much much higher concentrations are used up, and at current consumption
rates that won't happen for about a billion years.   

 

I am amazed how much certainty you have about a back of the napkin idea that
does not exist. Not a single LFTR unit is operating, nor are there any
blueprints to build one. There is no Thorium mining, refining industrial
scale sector and all the other impediments that exist between John Clark's
certainty and actual reality.

So forgive me if I take your billion year certainty with a billion grains of
salt.


 

> Only the much smaller amount of Thorium or Uranium that is actually
recoverable  and that means not only technically recoverable, but also
energetically

 
>>As I say nobody would bother but even with today's primitive technology do
you have any evidence that it would take more energy than what 37 tons of
coal could provide to extract 12 grams of Thorium from one cubic meter of
randomly selected dirt?

 

You are the one making the claim; it is up to you to show how it can be
done.


 

> Again only a very small fraction of the Thorium dispersed throughout the
earth's crust is recoverable and can be counted as a reserve. Which was my
point in bringing up the large quantities of gold dissolved in the world's
oceans.

 
And Thorium is 2000 times as common as Gold and is in fact almost as common
as lead. And if that little one troy ounce Gold coin in your pocket were
made of Thorium instead of Gold it could produce as much energy as 114 tons
of coal.

 

I get it you love Thorium, but love of Thorium does not make it a reality.
Breeder reactors - including LFTR - are not easy things to build and they
push materials to the limit. 

I am not even especially opposed to LFTR - and have stated many times that
out of all the breeder types - and I have looked at the Gen IV reference
design proposals for various types - so it is kind of funny you arguing with
me about this.

My skepticism that LFTR can take off is because it has to go from absolute
zero - there is no Thorium sector to speak of; there is no Thorium mining
sector, or refining capacity. There are no LFTR reactors (or even blueprints
for that matter). There is nothing, except the wishes of the small cadre of
thorium enthusiasts.

How does all of this industrial scale activity occur in a regime of
shrinking energy supplies - wherein multiple constituent sectors will all be
clamoring that they need as much available energy as they can get.

Guess which sector will get its claims satisfied - hint it won't be the
Thorium sector - more like the military industrial complex and the funding
of increasingly nasty energy wars to control the world's last big oil and
gas reserves.


 

> My point remains valid and salient. Whenever anyone speaks of some
resource reserve figure in practice what they are (or should be) referring
to is the recoverable reserve figures. The quantity of some resource in the
earth's crust may be interesting, but it is irrelevant in a discussion of
reserves.

 

So let's review:

* Thorium is a element that is TWICE as common as TIN.
* Some natural ores are 50% Thorium.
* One POUND of Thorium can provide as much energy as 1,362 TONS of coal.
* The best argument Chris de Morsella can come up with against the use of
Thorium is that there just isn't enough of it.

 

Bull shit John. I have given you many different arguments and just gave you
others in this very email. Stop lying and framing my position - you are a
dishonest actor John CLark! 

Where are the LFTR reactors? Where are the LFTR blueprints? Where is the
entire logistical chain that would be needed in order for an LFTR sector to
exist?

 


 

> If LFTR is so great then why has it not been pursued

 
Four reasons:
 
1) in the early days military applications were considered much more
important than civilian power plants, and small pressurized water Uranium
reactors worked pretty well in submarines so Admiral Rickover decreed that's
where virtually all reactor developmental money should go.

 

Yes. we all heard that.


 
2) By their very nature uranium reactors create copious amounts of Plutonium
but Thorium reactors do not. In the early days this was considered a huge
advantage Uranium reactors had over Thorium reactors, but today not so much.

 

I have stated this myself many times. Not new news.


 
3) The culture of fission reactor design is far more conservative and
resistant to change than any other area of science or technology.

 


 
4) LFTR's aren't just theoretical but could actually work, so
environmentalists feel duty bound to oppose it with every fiber of their
being.   

 

Again - distorting the positions of those you feel the need to 

Re: Climate models

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

They're trying to find that jet that got lost on the Indian Ocean
somewhere. But most of the objects the satellites zoom in on are just...
trash. Ocean garbage is creating so many false positives, that it impedes
finding a missing plane.

You don't even have to be "green" to understand that it's not productive or
rational to keep having mountains of redundant material and poison keep
accumulating and multiplying around us. The "discussion" in the total black
white form displayed occasionally in this thread, is a U.S. phenomenon.

Everybody else has moved on from yes/no to the how-question and its
economic, political, regulatory traps/subtleties, which, with prohibition
background, are complex/insane enough.

For instance, people I know involved in monitoring plant species to assess
efficacy of local measures to help biodiversity do its thing, are often
trapped in some political game of stakeholders. Scientists: "It would be
good to reseed those plots properly with local species now." Green
Politics/Money: "Don't do it now! Wait until next year, so we have more
'devastation leverage' in our data. Otherwise, no contract."

So yes, prohibition/politics are very much intertwined with the question
and hinder simple scientific common sense; even by the "green political
conspirators". PGC



On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:
>
> On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella  wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of smi...@zonnet.nl
>>
>> It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they
>> are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the belief in
>> the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has been hijacked
>> by
>> ultra left wing environmental pressure groups.
>>
>> Saibal
>>
>> A conspiracy theory that has become spread through massive funding by the
>> big holders of fossil carbon reserves -- seeking to protect the future
>> valuation of those reserves, which has a large impact on the current
>> valuation of their carbon holdings. An eminently rational (if cynical)
>> motive, for these narrow carbon interests, but one that has sowed
>> confusion
>> and doubt, using the same "junk science" (and "left wing hijacked
>> science")
>> accusations that were perfected by Big Tobacco in the preceding decades.
>> It
>> worked then for Big Tobacco and this same strategy of sowing falsehoods,
>>  is
>> working now for the big carbon interests.
>>
>> Exactly. It's even been making some headway in the interests of denying
> evolution, for God (as it were) knows what reason.
>
>
>
> That is why I don't think politics is possible as long as prohibition
> continue. It has been used as a sort of Trojan horse for bandits, and they
> will sell you what they want.
>
> Stopping prohibition will not be enough. We must separate politics from
> money. We should vote on ideas and not humans. We should find a way to
> prevent democracies against propaganda, if not corporatism.
>
> The green should be ally with the antiprohibitionists. I do think that
> "prohibition" is the deep reason of possible climate perturbation, and
> economy.
> Like the abandon of rationality in the "spiritual" is the deep reason of
> why the non-sensical prohibition has seem conceivable today.
>
>
> 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.
>

-- 
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: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback

[Gabriel Bodeen]

FWIW, on a flight this weekend I read a bit of Amoeba's Secret on my kindle 
while the stranger in the seat next to me was reading Tegmark's book.  If 
plane rides didn't make me fall unconscious almost immediately, that might 
have been grounds for an interesting live discussion. :)

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:35:57 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Thanks Russell, just ordered a copy as well. It will dovetail in nicely 
> with Max Tegmark’s book, ...
>

-- 
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: Max and FPI

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Apr 2014, at 08:49, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/2/2014 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The original proof of Gleason is not easy, but a more elementary  
proof (which remains not that simple) has been found by Cooke,  
Keane and Moran, and can be found in the (very good) book by  
Richard Hugues (you can find a PDF on the net).


Only if you look for "Richard Hughes"


Oops sorry.

(In french, "Hugues" is a common first name, without the second "h").  
Normally Google proposes alternate spelling, when there is no more  
than few mistakes, so I doubt your statement, but thanks for helping  
me to realize there is a "h" more in that name.


let me try: yes Google corrects it, apparently "hugues" does not seem  
exist.


Showing results for richard hughes
Search instead for Richard Hugues

Well, if you search *only* on  "Richard Hughes" you find a poet, then  
a musician, then a footballer, then a jockey player, then an  
architect, an evangelist, an optician, a minister, ... gosh the  
quantum physicists does not seem to appear quickly ... But all their  
names have the two "h".


Ah! There is french (of course) "Richard Hugues", who is a ...  
computational biologist !


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: Max and FPI

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Apr 2014, at 05:12, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?

I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was  
alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were  
mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as  
if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I  
think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence  
to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field  
in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an  
infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one  
+  a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function  
collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you  
find most fitting.


MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized  
to this day - assumptions built in at the start.


?

MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without  
collapse).
It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a  
multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a  
universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points  
toward a multiverse though).





It's like, local realism - a reasonable assumed universal.


Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct  
consequence of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the  
linearity of the tensor products.




But only the bare bones. Assuming locarealism means locality as we  
perceive,


As we infer from what we perceive. We cannot *perceive" locality by  
itself.




and classically seems to be. In; these dimensions. But what happens  
when science transforms through a major generalization? The  
hallmark is that not only theories get merged, broken up, such that  
everything looks different. But  that the revolution stretchs right  
out to the conceptual framework itself...the basic concepts that  
are upfront necessary to be shared, for basic communication to take  
place. It's all concepts broken apart, while others merged  
together. We can put some faith in local realism, but in what  
dimensionality it's pure, we don't about that yet..we don't  
know.MWI assumes that it's a safe scientific known. It isn't. In  
fact everything is against that.


Personally, even without comp and without QM, "everything" is  
conceptually more simpler than any one-thing approach, which always  
needs much more particular assumptions.





There literally dozens of others. Like assuming major properties  
are duplicated "as is" between higher and lower macrostate layers.  
MWI'ers need to assume local realism at quantum levels as is.  
Unprecedented if true. Daft in other words.


Is it not more simple to assume the same realism at all scale, that  
to bet on different one?






When I throw this at them, the response if there is one is usually6  
denial that MWI needs those massive assumptions and would not have  
happened without them. Arguments come the lines of MWI is derived  
clean from the wave function or by some other theoretical  
strtucture, involving simple assumptions only none of them things  
like local realism.


I agree, except that local realism is, as I said above, a  
consequence of the SWE.






They just don't get it, science, anymore. theories as internal  
theory structure get improved all the time as part of an ongoing  
progression. Building out an assumption is not a matter of  
improving theory structure alone.


MWI is tied to assuming local realism for all time, because it was  
only the extreme and disturbing - incomprehensible even to the  
greats - character of quantum strangenessl. MWI is tied to it,  
because that is what it took  hat an outrageous, unscientific  
notion like MWI  could be taken seriously at all.


Frankly, I believe the exact contrary. MWI is what you get from  
assuming the axioms of quantum mechanics, and that is the unitary  
evolution.




MWI even now, has not defense for itself, without reference to  
quantum strangeness,, and restorations to classical determinism.


Which I think would be enough to make it most plausible than any  
other (sur)-interpretation. But MWI, which is just the SWE "seen  
from inside", restore not classical determinism, but also, well,  
local locality and well local realism.






It's a quantum theory, and it's wrong, because it's assumptions are  
that the nature of reality is hard tied forever to principles,


That's QM. That tomorrow we might discover that QM is false is just  
science. But if comp and/or QM is correct, the many-thing will  
remain with us, indeed.




hard tied to the complexities of this dimension, this universe  
right here. What a  joke. The harm done by this theory is  
immeasurable. A theory sterile fo

Re: Max and FPI

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Apr 2014, at 01:16, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:

> On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically
> observed fact actually not be.
>
> But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark
> of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum
> strangeness  irreconcilable at that time, with the most core,
> most fundamental accomplishments of science to date?

 MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully
 - determinacy
 - locality
 - physical realism

 The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied
 things, like the water molecules in the ocean, the stars in the
 sky, the galaxies, etc.
 Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get
 burned for saying that stars are other suns, and that they might
 have planets, with other living being.
 It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a
 computationalist, which explains the MW from simple arithmetic,
 where you need only to believe in the consequence of addition and
 multiplication of integers.


>>>
>>> The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would
>>> consider a big price since all observation and record keeping
>>> which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a
>>> theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says
>>> they also recorded not-X.
>>
>> It is helpful when it is part of the only theories which are
>> working, like QM, or arithmetic.
>
> No it's not.  It's reason the Born rule is needed and the source of
> the difficulty of interpreting probability in MWI and the 'white
> rabbit problem' in comp.

In my opinion, Gleason theorem solves this problem for the case of QM.
And if the Zs logic verifies some quite plausible conjecture, the case
of comp is reduced to the case of QM.
This is a technical point, 'course.

But even if such solutions did not exist, the MWI remains
understandable, which is not the case for QM+collapse.

Is this how Science works Bruno?


?
I just said that a theory can make sense, and another theory does not.  
QM+collapse is contradictory, or it introduces new axioms, and they  
can all be summed into some arbitrary dualist cut between macro and  
micro, or subject and object, etc.




That a theory is good even when it fails tests deriving from other  
scientific and/or mathematical domains, or sub-components thereof,  
regarded at the high end of reliability, based on the accumulation  
of different, mutually independent, tests devised and passed?


?
But QM, by which I always mean QM-without-collapse, is the theory  
which has been tested the most, and I think that it is the only theory  
who lived without being refuted for more than 10 years, except perhaps  
for thermodynamic.






If that isn't a falsifiable event, then what is?


But QM has not (yet) been falsified.



Are you saying, the only event that really matters, is what is the  
best explanation currently available? That is totally contradicted,  
by the entirety of scientific history in terms of what actually  
happens you realize?


"actually" happens?
You can't bet that a theoiry is false because it is the best  
explanation. Nobody pretend that QM is true, but it works very well,  
and with comp there is some hope to justify it from a deeper principle  
(computationalism).





So in that caseare you saying  - like Popper, like Deutsch - the  
fact of that is all wrong or irrelevant and nothing to do with Real  
Science, which is all about throwing explanations regardless of  
quality everywhere a gap is spotted, if there's more than one,  
performing some amazingly rational and dispassionate fireplace  
discussion wearing crushed velvet jackets and smoking pipes, the way  
the best friends do the Friday evening the Time Traveller vanishes  
into time, and the Friday after he shoes up covered in lipsticky  
lovebites clutching a dodgy flower.


I am not an expert in philosophy of science. My point was only that QM  
and MWI are the same theory.






Is that how you're defining science? Because you do seem to be  
neglecting falsification - any practical possibility of it.


I don't understand this remark at all. I am just saying that QM is  
equivalent with MWI (the quantum "many", and perhaps even the comp  
"many"), and QM seems working pretty well, and then it confirms the  
comp MW prediction (and others one). The collapse is a metaphysical  
assumption unsupported by zero evidences, and contradicting QM. It  
seems to me.
If you can give me one reference on an

Re: Max and FPI

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:20, LizR wrote:


On 3 April 2014 04:37, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and  
there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)].


I cannot parse that sentence, I guess some word are missing. R is  
not transitive means that there exist alpha, beta and gamma, such that
alpha R beta, and beta R gamma, and ~(alpha R gamma). I will guess  
that this is what you meant.


That's what I took it to mean. (I didn't realise that wasn't what it  
said!)


As a math teacher I am aware that when a student cannot solve a  
problem, it is very often due to their inability to read a text  
literally.
To progress in math you have to try to be dumber, not cleverer.  
Especially in logic.







OK Liz? Others? Feel free to ask definitions or explanations.

Yes, at least at the point where I think very hard about each one,  
they all seem to make sense.


Good, but you might need to train yourself so that "seems" becomes  
"pretty sure".






The next one is important, as it plays a role in the 'derivation of  
physics'.


> (W, R) respects  A -> []<>A if and only R is symmetrical,

R symmetrical means that if (alpha R beta) then (beta R alpha).


Yes, for all alpha and beta in W.
Suppose A is true in alpha; then <>A is true in beta (by symmetry  
of R) and this holds for all alpha and beta so []<>A in alpha.


And so A -> []<>A is true in alpha.  (Here we are using the  
deduction rule in the CPL context, which is valid. Later we will see  
it is not valid in the modal context).


Suppose R is not symmetrical, so there is a pair of worlds (alpha R  
beta) and ~(beta R alpha).  So consider V such that A=t in alpha  
and A=f in all worlds gamma such that (beta R gamma) then ~<>A in  
beta.  So it would be false that []<>A in alpha.


Liz told me this already! OK.

Phew.

> (W,R) respects []A -> <>A if and only if R is ideal,

R is ideal, means that for every alpha there is a beta such that  
(alpha R beta).  Suppose []A is true in alpha, then A must be true  
in every world beta (alpha R beta) and there is a least on such  
beta, so <>A is true in alpha.


OK.


Suppose R is not ideal, then there is a cul-de-sac alpha.  For  
alpha []A is vacously true for all A, but <>A is false so []A-><>A  
is false.


Yes, all cul-de-sac world are counterexample of []A -> <>A. In the  
Kripke semantics, they are counterexamples of <>#, with # put for  
any proposition.

> (W, R) respects <>A -> ~[]<>A if and only if R is realist.

R is realist means that for every world alpha there is a world beta  
such that (alpha R beta) and beta is cul-de-sac.


For every *transitory* world alpha. OK. The cul-de-sac world are  
still world!




Suppose A is true in beta, then <>A is true in alpha but <>A=f in  
beta so []<>A cannot be true in alpha.  Hence <>A->~[]<>A in alpha  
where alpha is any non cul-de-sac world.  Then consider a cul-de- 
sac world like beta; <>A is always false in beta so <>A->X is true  
in beta for any X, including ~[]<>A.


OK. Nice.

So you proved that R is realist implies that (W, R) respects <>A ->  
~[]<>A.


But you have still not prove that if R is *not* realist, (W,R) does  
not respect <>A -> ~[]<>A  (unlike all other cases). OK?


You proved: "(W, R) realist" implies "respects <>A -> ~[]<>A", but  
not yet the converse, that "respects <>A -> ~[]<>A" implies " (W, R)  
realist".


I let you search, and might justify this (with pre-warning to avoid  
spoiling!).


And what about the euclidian multiverse?  May be you did them?

R is euclidian, or euclidean, if  (aRb and aRc) implies bRc, for all  
a, b and c in W.  (I use "a" for the greek alpha!)


Proposition: (W,R) respects <>A -> []<>A   iff   R is euclidian.

Hmm. I'll think about that later.


OK. The time you are using to learn is not important, unless you ...  
forget the work already done. For the long term memorizing, it is  
better to revise 2 minutes everyday, instead of learning day and night  
just before the exams :)


Bruno





--
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: Max and FPI

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:15, LizR wrote:

As instructed I will have a look at Brent's proofs and see if I  
follow them, and agree...



On 2 April 2014 15:45, meekerdb  wrote:
On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently,  
that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A -> []<>A iff R is symmetrical?


Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R)  
respects []A -> [][]A iff R is a transitive?


Bruno

Here's the ones I've done so far.  One more to go.  Hold off on that  
proof (or put a warning in the subject line so I can avoid reading  
it).


Brent

> ***
> Show that
>
> (W, R) respects []A -> A if and only if R is reflexive,

R is reflexive implies (alpha R alpha) for all alpha.  []A in alpha  
implies A is true in all beta where (alpha R beta), which includes  
the case beta=alpha. So R is reflexive implies (W,R) respects []A->A.


I like more words, but I think I follow that and it comes out right.

Assume R is not reflexive.  Then there exists at least one world  
beta such that (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha).  Consider a  
valuation such that p=f in alpha and p=t in all beta.  Then []p is  
true in alpha but p is false so []A->A is false in alpha for some  
A.  R not reflexive implies []A->A is not respected for all alpha  
and all valuations.


Yes that seems right, too. Brent obviously has a far more logical  
mind than I do, but I guess I already knew that.


> (W, R) respects []A -> [][]A if and only R is transitive,

R is transitive means that for all beta such that (alpha R beta) and  
all gamma such that (beta R gamma), (alpha R gamma).  So every []A  
implies A=t in all beta and also A=t in all gamma.  But A=t in all  
gamma means []A is true in beta, which in turn means [][]A is true  
in alpha.  So R is transitive implies (W,R) respects []A->[][]A.


Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and  
there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R  
gamma)].  Let A=t in beta, A=f in gamma.  Then []A is true in alpha  
but []A isn't true in beta, so [][]A isn't true in alpha.  So (W, R)  
respects []A -> [][]A implies R is transitive.


Yes, again, I eventually managed to follow that. You make it seem so  
easy.


> (W, R) respects  A -> []<>A if and only R is symmetrical,

R symmetrical means that if (alpha R beta) then (beta R alpha).  
Suppose A is true in alpha; then <>A is true in beta (by symmetry of  
R) and this holds for all alpha and beta so []<>A in alpha.


Suppose R is not symmetrical, so there is a pair of worlds (alpha R  
beta) and ~(beta R alpha).  So consider V such that A=t in alpha and  
A=f in all worlds gamma such that (beta R gamma) then ~<>A in beta.   
So it would be false that []<>A in alpha.


Again I an overawed.

> (W,R) respects []A -> <>A if and only if R is ideal,

R is ideal, means that for every alpha there is a beta such that  
(alpha R beta).  Suppose []A is true in alpha, then A must be true  
in every world beta (alpha R beta) and there is a least on such  
beta, so <>A is true in alpha.


Suppose R is not ideal, then there is a cul-de-sac alpha.  For alpha  
[]A is vacously true for all A, but <>A is false so []A-><>A is false.


Yes.

> (W, R) respects <>A -> ~[]<>A if and only if R is realist.

R is realist means that for every world alpha there is a world beta  
such that (alpha R beta) and beta is cul-de-sac.  Suppose A is true  
in beta, then <>A is true in alpha but <>A=f in beta so []<>A cannot  
be true in alpha.  Hence <>A->~[]<>A in alpha where alpha is any non  
cul-de-sac world.  Then consider a cul-de-sac world like beta; <>A  
is always false in beta so <>A->X is true in beta for any X,  
including ~[]<>A.


I think my brain is starting to melt down, I can't work out if that  
proves "if and only if" ?


By the way why "realist" ?



By lack of imagination of my part. The idea that is that "we can die  
at each instant (in each "world")" looks realist. " <>A -> ~[]<>A i  
the main axiom of the "smallest theory of life/intelligence".


OK, Liz, but sometimes you say "it seems correct". You should perhaps  
try to convince your son, or Charles, to develop the confidence.


Bruno








--
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 e