Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 6/29/2014 10:47 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 June 2014 17:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: agnosticism is of course the defining principle of the scientific method, so we really need the concept in order to understand the status of scientific theories. I like what Isaac Asimov, a fellow who knew a thing or two about science, had to say on this subject: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time. So he knows that he only has enough evidence to be agnostic, but he is emotionally convinced to be an atheist nonetheless. OK, so that puts him on a par with religious believers who are also emotionally convinced, though not of the same thing. No more so that being an aSanta-Clausist. Well there you go then. I rest my case. Actually I think there is enough evidence to prove (in the 'beyond reasonable doubt' sense) that the God of the bible does not exist. But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably fail to believe that it does. I don't have proof that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter, but that doesn't make me epitemologically irresponsible to assert I don't believe there is one. Atheists don't just believe that the biblical god doesn't exist, they believe that there are no supernatural forces involved in the operation of the universe. Where is this written? Do you speak for all atheists, or just ones in NZ? No just the ones I've come across, like Richard Dawkins. While I consider this likely, I don't consider it 100% proven, because as Arthur C Clark said, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and it's at least conceivable that there are sufficiently advanced beings out there that they can act outside what we call nature. That seems to really waffle. If we knew these beings could so act wouldn't we just readjust what we call nature. In fact that's a general problem with saying what it would mean for some events to be supernatural. In the past many events were thought to be supernatural, acts of God, e.g. sickness, lightning, drought, earthquakes,...but are now thought to be natural. So it some new phenomena is observed why wouldn't we just assume it was natural even if we didn't have an explanation. Hmm, well that's all-inclusive. I guess if whatever happens, you will call it natural - Biblical god appears, that's naturalOK, you've got me there. Exactly. When people talk about god being supernatural, they don't just mean beyond our current conception of the natural. They mean in accordance with our myths and having special significance for human values. When pulsar signals were first observed they were outside our current conception of the natural. But nobody called them supernatural. They were just no understood. Yet when some water condenses under the eye of a statue of the virgin Mary nobody says, An interesting natural phenomenon. They say Miracle. So the question then is, do you believe (in the positive sense) in the supernatural? Or do you fail to believe in the supernatural? Given a new phenomenon, what would it have to be like for you to say it was definitely supernatural? And do you think there are such phenomenon? For example I am not 100% sure that the universe wasn't created by some intelligent beings with sufficiently advanced technology to create big bangs (they may of course have evolved naturally in another universe). I don't think it's likely, but that's my emotional prejudices at work. I can't see that I can claim with certainty that it's impossible, and since these being would fit with some definitions of god (creator of the unvierse) then I can't say it is 100% proven that god doesn't exist. Didn't you slip
Re: Selecting your future branch
Liz: Another way of looking at it Kim (interrupting in annoying fashion): There speaks a real thinker with precisely those words. Perception and observation is where we start. There is - wait for it - more than one way of viewing a bunch of data. It depends which glasses you have on your nose as to what you see when you look. Liz is wearing her Green Hat here (hG) - the search for alternatives; the foundation of creative thinking, which logically starts with perception. These are the other set of options you can access in terms of belief after looking at something other than the standard set. It takes effort to go to the trouble of looking at things differently. But there you are. That's not thinking yet. That's perception. I hear a bird. A Gloccamorra bird. Or something. is that if H guy is scanned and in the process destroyed, then recreated so that he is identical (below the substitution level -- e.g. this might mean atom for atom, which is where the Heisenberg compensators come into play :-) then his identity and consciousness is recreated with him, and they actually are his identity and consciousness, not just a copy which thinks it's him. You are all of these people. You can only experience one of these people. You or God can never know which one you will most likely experience 5 minutes from now let alone after a year's storage before being emailed to Uranus or Washington or Scotland. Hence there is a true randomness in the access you have to your various selves, moment to moment. You are these computational relations. They don't cease to exist so how could you? It may be this is why our individual lives are so ridiculously short compared to the age of the universe. It may be that We (the Royal 'We' have all of eternity to experience our self. Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurzweil are complete wankers, you know that? They want to conquer death so they can live forever. Someone tell these two that they're wasting their time because it happens anyway. Liz: Yet another way of looking at it is that this sort of process goes on all the time as the cells of our bodies are gradually replaced, and our identity is preserved during cell replacement to the same extent that it is preserved by a hypothetical matter transmitter, whatever extent that might be. (PS This is all discussed quite cogently in the Star Trek novel Spock must die! by James Blish, in which Dr McCoy worries that every time someone goes through the transporter, he's being murdered and a clone created which only thinks it's the same person. Kim: This woman grew up on Star Trek, like I did Liz: It also has something very similar to Bruno's thought experiment happen except that the duplicate is in this case an evil twin due to having been mirrored in the process :- Kim: That's a great episode of Star Trek eh! and Leo Nimoy got to wear a moustache which makes him look very devilish. Conscious entities are infinite numbers of computations in the sense of the relations that naturally exist between the numbers, as Bruno says. Nothing is happening; everything just is. When numbers are considered real, numbers look a certain way to each other. The way numbers look to each other looks remarkably like what you look like when I look at you and when I look at the world in general and vice versa. Perception. Kim -- 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: Speaking of free speech...
This seems to be a student union thing. Maybe the university should intervene and ban the student union from banning things. It probably will, for the sake of it's own reputation. I can't help but desire that the university does not intervene, though. It is perhaps more instructive to let the students experience, in a somewhat safe environment, what happens when you give absolute power to ideologues, and let them figure out how to recover freedom in their own terms. The Neitzsche club people are smart, they will hold meetings in the Starbucks in front of the university and embarrass the apprentice censors. Cheers Telmo. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Nothing like a good university stimulate intellectual debate - about who should be prohibited from debating and what should not be mentioned. Brent On 6/29/2014 10:41 PM, LizR wrote: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/05/university-college-london-s-nietzsche-club-is-banned.html This is sheer insanity, to quote that bloke from Dad's Army. I can only hope that the Neitzsche Club will not be killed off, but made stronger - and if it *is* full of rabid ideogogues misrepresenting Friedrich's ideas, let them do it in public so everyone can have a good laugh. -- 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: American Intelligence
Pantheists are cool, as are Lobian machines, immaterialists, materialist, Schrodinger wave stuff. I do have probs with Marxists-Progressives because of the destabilization issue. Udder den dat, let a thousand flowers bloom (as Marxist Mao once said). Progressives get very huffy when one publically disagrees with them (how dare they!) Looks like Magister Criss did too. It's how some people get their amygylas work. It needs a good workout every now and then. I am happy to provide the stimuli in this sense. But, yes, it does divert the awareness from the nature of consciousness-but that's how reality is, as we do the ivory tower waltz-life breaks in like a bomb going off in Falujah. You maggots think you can get away with ignoring the titles of your superiors? 50 Laps and N pushups, all of you except spud: Humans, machines, universal ones, Löbian ones, materialists, immaterialists, physicalists, Darwinists, pantheists, recursive fetishists, atheists, agnostics, idiotics, MSR, P-time nutheads, tronifiers, computationalists, magicians, quantum jerks (with AND without collapse of wave function, I don't care) and the rest of your foul undisciplined ontological technically genderless asses! This is an argument of authority! From an ignorant, hypocrite jerk that doesn't believe in them, no less! Don't provoke me to deter your asses any more than this. Ok? Good. Emulate it. Yes, emulate the goodness. Run it. You won't know whether it'll ever stop. That's better, see? :-) PGC -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 8:33 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:14 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. So, if one fights, why hold back? Observe, the results of the US's partial warfare model, and decide for yourself if it has been a brimming success or not? The nuclear war thing, I likely fret more about then any.other participant, on this mailing list. The primary reason for this is that fission, and fusion weapons, are now very old, and the missile tech to carry the bombs are only a bit younger. If I was a citizen of Europe, I would be very concerned that the deliberate diminishment of US power, would invite aggression from places where it would have seemed a laughable, fiction, only a decade ago. To wit, you folks are now on your own, with the current US leadership. It may not bother you, even a bit, but I see that this is a new geopolitical fact. Be well. Uhm... thanks for your help and strategic advise, sir. We, speaking for all european leftist pacifist tree hugging conspirators present, know what to do now: we'll keep relations with US at optimum rimming status as we have done for the last 60 odd years, and you can chill a bit with the right wing spam editorials on the list. That's just the geopolitical situation right now according to PGC HQ (first and therefore most prestigious HQ of the list by far!), you get our allegiance, but we need a bit of freedom in return. You know qpq sir, strengthen troop morale and such. Also we should all take your example and call Russell Prof. Standish or Professor, from now on exclusively! Any slip up with titles and I will ceremonially curse your name with modest restraint in the forest with my scary looking but kind canine; only if nobody is watching though, otherwise it'll look weird which would be going too far. You maggots think you can get away with ignoring the titles of your superiors? 50 Laps and N pushups, all of you except spud: Humans, machines, universal ones, Löbian ones, materialists, immaterialists, physicalists, Darwinists, pantheists, recursive fetishists, atheists, agnostics, idiotics, MSR, P-time nutheads, tronifiers, computationalists, magicians, quantum jerks (with AND without collapse of wave function, I don't care) and the rest of your foul undisciplined ontological technically genderless asses! This is an argument of authority! From an ignorant, hypocrite jerk that doesn't believe in them, no less! Don't provoke me to deter your asses any more than this. Ok? Good. Emulate it. Yes, emulate the goodness. Run it. You won't know whether it'll ever stop. That's better, see? :-) PGC -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 29-Jun-2014 18:35:58 + Subject: Re: American Intelligence I support mil actions as long as its fought like
Re: American Intelligence
Nuremberg was the who Gobbels propaganda thing, but Stalin had mass rallies as well, and North Korea and Iran still does. Malice can wear different forms. Le Bon was a fav or Both Adolf and Lenin (not Lennon). -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 8:34 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 30 June 2014 08:56, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Oh, absolutely true. But Lenin did as well, and no word about Stalin or Mao. My sense of the temptation of The Crowd, seems nowadays, a proggie feature, to feel the buzz, let me say of having a 'Black' president, versus, how's unemployment doing? or What's the best way to afford a national healthcare system? It's a different skill set. But the crowd is a Left thing Nuremburg rallies. -- 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: American Intelligence
Well, I somehow do remember MAD, and it worked with the Sovs, but I suspect less so with Iran, Isis and North Kor. Do you disagree? Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 30 June 2014 11:14, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. So, if one fights, why hold back? Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -- 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: American Intelligence
Heh, your words say no, but your keyboard says yes yes yes. Which is weird since I am not bent that way. I do worry a bit about why your president is arming up his agencies, like EPA, and the Post Office with swat teams and weapons. My guess is, it is to ensure that the Party remains in power permanently, I mean, why else do it? I guess Banana Republic isn't just a clothing franchise, anymore. Oh... no worries mate I will live just fine... don't over-estimate your own importance to me or anyone else... I am merely making the point that you are a war-mongering coward. I don't expect to change you. Who cares if I am a US citizen or not? If I was not a US citizen would I therefore not have the right -- for some strange reason -- to not be calling you a coward? I am however a US citizen, sorry buddy -- see you have to deal with me and millions of other US citizens who think people like you are off their rockers. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 10:57 pm Subject: RE: RE: RE: American Intelligence -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 5:04 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: American Intelligence Chris, so how will you be able to live with yourself, if, say, you cannot budge me from my horrible views? Secondly, you are not a US citizen, are you? How will you control America if you cannot even control, influence, or browbeat me? Just curious. Oh... no worries mate I will live just fine... don't over-estimate your own importance to me or anyone else... I am merely making the point that you are a war-mongering coward. I don't expect to change you. Who cares if I am a US citizen or not? If I was not a US citizen would I therefore not have the right -- for some strange reason -- to not be calling you a coward? I am however a US citizen, sorry buddy -- see you have to deal with me and millions of other US citizens who think people like you are off their rockers. You see things in the optic of control -- quite telling actually, illuminating in fact of your own psychology that you used that particular term... you see, not everyone sees things the way you see things. Not everyone seeks to control outcomes. I, usually like to work things out, except when dealing with intolerant individuals, such as say yourself spudboy. In such cases, since I know a-priori that there is no working things out I will be right there in your face and have no interest in even trying to work it out -- you don't operate on that wavelength spudboy -- you seek to impose your world view and wish to do so with violent means... you pine for total war A-hole, but are too much of a coward to go do the fighting yourself. No, there is no working anything out with individuals such as you, who portray anyone who does not share their desire for a global conflagration as being a traitor. Thus I do not even bother; why waste any energy. But I will make the point that you are a coward; and have some fun with it. Chris -- 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: American Intelligence
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:14 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. Indeed. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. Of course. So, if one fights, why hold back? Probably because the war was started on false pretences and there was no real threat to being with. Observe, the results of the US's partial warfare model, and decide for yourself if it has been a brimming success or not? I wouldn't call it partial warfare, but instead the initiation of war for its own sake. In real wars, against people your own size, like WWII, no half-measure were took. No one in their right mind desires such a war. If you do, I suspect that participating in one would quickly change your mind. The nuclear war thing, I likely fret more about then any.other participant, on this mailing list. The primary reason for this is that fission, and fusion weapons, are now very old, and the missile tech to carry the bombs are only a bit younger. If I was a citizen of Europe, I would be very concerned that the deliberate diminishment of US power, would invite aggression from places where it would have seemed a laughable, fiction, only a decade ago. To wit, you folks are now on your own, with the current US leadership. It may not bother you, even a bit, but I see that this is a new geopolitical fact. Be well. I am not for the deliberate diminishment of US military power. I have nothing against it if used only as a deterrent. In a world where nuclear weapons are possible, we must have nuclear weapons. My problem (and a common sentiment in Europe) is with the USA initiating unnecessary wars against weak opponents. Civilisation clash style wars had their penultimate instalment with WWII. If if happens again, it will probably be for the last time, and everyone is aware of this. The geo-political conditions that you allude to are a thing of the past, that's all I'm saying. Keeping deterrent weapons in good condition and attacking failed nations for the control of cocaine fields are two very different things. Even the dubious nuclear power of North Korea is sufficient to let them get away with total insanity. I'm sure Europe is safe, given the real nuclear power of France, the UK and all the US military bases around. Cheers, Telmo. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 29-Jun-2014 18:35:58 + Subject: Re: American Intelligence I support mil actions as long as its fought like total war. Think WW2. Note, that nuanced responses have done little since WW2, although the Korean War is the most solid, maybe? If its worth fighting, then its worth willing to the max. Nuanced responses became quite popular after WW2 because of the invention of atomic bombs. Any civilisation that you can clash with will offer you MAD. Witch is an apt name, because you have to be batshit crazy to desire war. -- 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: American Intelligence
You do raise some critical points, and I am not sure I ever disagreed with your reasoning. However, the lack of US 'bloody-mindedness' use a British term, may spin up war, rather than suppress it. Then we turn to unnecessary wars, to which, after dealing with Scandinavians, over the years, provides me with the importance of cultural influences effecting decision making. In my opinion, looking at the recent past, the US pursuing Bin Laden into Pakistan was far more important then overthrowing Saddam. Likely, all, are horrified on this list, with this notion. I was and am deeply suspicious of the Bush regime with this change in strategy, and saw the hand of the Saudis in this decision. Having stated that, I do not know if this is true, but merely a 'good guess on my part. Protect Musharef in Pakistan, while removing a threat to Kuwait and Saudi. I would have gone after Bin Laden, ISI, and if necessary, the Paki military-with a lot of troops, a lot more, then the Iraq debacle. Curiously, enough, Telmo, the WMD's which did exist, then didn't exist, then do now exist, are under the control, this day, of the Sunni ISIS organization, now creating a new Caliphate in Iraq and Syria. It does appear that nerve gases and anthrax powderized, are now available. Are there work-arounds, to avoid war? Sure, many times there are. One thing that would work-around for my nation-state, are fraking shale gas, and importing Canadian oil from tar sands via pipeline. The Administration, de facto, has fought these developments, tooth and nail. This is because of Obama and his party's ideology, their belief system. This would back the US out of the danger zone. Please ask yourself, if this would serve Swedish national interests or harm them? You have the right to protect your own nation state, even against the US, so bring forth your opinion (my ethics). I wouldn't call it partial warfare, but instead the initiation of war for its own sake. In real wars, against people your own size, like WWII, no half-measure were took. No one in their right mind desires such a war. If you do, I suspect that participating in one would quickly change your mind. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 8:53 am Subject: Re: American Intelligence On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:14 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. Indeed. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. Of course. So, if one fights, why hold back? Probably because the war was started on false pretences and there was no real threat to being with. Observe, the results of the US's partial warfare model, and decide for yourself if it has been a brimming success or not? I wouldn't call it partial warfare, but instead the initiation of war for its own sake. In real wars, against people your own size, like WWII, no half-measure were took. No one in their right mind desires such a war. If you do, I suspect that participating in one would quickly change your mind. The nuclear war thing, I likely fret more about then any.other participant, on this mailing list. The primary reason for this is that fission, and fusion weapons, are now very old, and the missile tech to carry the bombs are only a bit younger. If I was a citizen of Europe, I would be very concerned that the deliberate diminishment of US power, would invite aggression from places where it would have seemed a laughable, fiction, only a decade ago. To wit, you folks are now on your own, with the current US leadership. It may not bother you, even a bit, but I see that this is a new geopolitical fact. Be well. I am not for the deliberate diminishment of US military power. I have nothing against it if used only as a deterrent. In a world where nuclear weapons are possible, we must have nuclear weapons. My problem (and a common sentiment in Europe) is with the USA initiating unnecessary wars against weak opponents. Civilisation clash style wars had their penultimate instalment with WWII. If if happens again, it will probably be for the last time, and everyone is aware of this. The geo-political conditions that you allude to are a thing of the past, that's all I'm saying. Keeping deterrent weapons in good condition and attacking failed nations for the control of cocaine fields are two very different things. Even the dubious nuclear power of North Korea is sufficient to let them get away with total insanity. I'm sure Europe is safe, given the real nuclear power of France, the UK and all
Re: American Intelligence
2014-06-30 14:38 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Well, I somehow do remember MAD, and it worked with the Sovs, but I suspect less so with Iran, Isis and North Kor. Do you disagree? Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 30 June 2014 11:14, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. So, if one fights, why hold back? Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -- 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: American Intelligence
Quentin, I am more concerned that if North Korea attacks the US, Obama and his party will do nothing. It'll just make things worse! We cannot risk things getting out of hand. The entire human species is at stake. We can absorb the damage done and minimize our losses. We'd be killing their children as well as their leaders, we cannot do this! This is what I see, in reaction to a Kim Strike. Also, as you rightly mentioned: do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? lay back and enjoy it, maybe ;-D ? I am more worried about what our elites do than what China and Russia do. I don't see this as a hollow threat, or a paper tiger, Quentin, as this article indicates. Its from Reuters, which is a progressive news agency. I never post stuff from Fox, or some blog, when I engage in polly discussions, because its more meaningful when the news comes from ones' own. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA4102S20140502 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA4102S20140502 Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 10:16 am Subject: Re: American Intelligence 2014-06-30 14:38 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Well, I somehow do remember MAD, and it worked with the Sovs, but I suspect less so with Iran, Isis and North Kor. Do you disagree? Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 30 June 2014 11:14, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. So, if one fights, why hold back? Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -- 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. -- 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: American Intelligence
The USA has the capacity to destroy the missile before it even touch the US... USA has not the capacity to do this for all the Russian ICBM *by treaties* not because it's too difficult... USA has enough anti-ICBM to destroy any north korean ICBM who would threaten them... I doubt that North Korea has developed stealth ICBM... Quentin 2014-06-30 17:01 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Quentin, I am more concerned that if North Korea attacks the US, Obama and his party will do nothing. It'll just make things worse! We cannot risk things getting out of hand. The entire human species is at stake. We can absorb the damage done and minimize our losses. We'd be killing their children as well as their leaders, we cannot do this! This is what I see, in reaction to a Kim Strike. Also, as you rightly mentioned: *do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ?* lay back and enjoy it, maybe ;-D ? I am more worried about what our elites do than what China and Russia do. I don't see this as a hollow threat, or a paper tiger, Quentin, as this article indicates. Its from Reuters, which is a progressive news agency. I never post stuff from Fox, or some blog, when I engage in polly discussions, because its more meaningful when the news comes from ones' own. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA4102S20140502 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA4102S20140502 Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 10:16 am Subject: Re: American Intelligence 2014-06-30 14:38 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Well, I somehow do remember MAD, and it worked with the Sovs, but I suspect less so with Iran, Isis and North Kor. Do you disagree? Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 30 June 2014 11:14, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. So, if one fights, why hold back? Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: American Intelligence
And anyway.. I really hope nobody will ever use nuclear weapons anymore; this will only result in our own extinction (if anybody ever survive, it will be at minima the end of our civilization). There is really no point to ever think it could be a safe detterent to use one. Quentin 2014-06-30 17:07 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: The USA has the capacity to destroy the missile before it even touch the US... USA has not the capacity to do this for all the Russian ICBM *by treaties* not because it's too difficult... USA has enough anti-ICBM to destroy any north korean ICBM who would threaten them... I doubt that North Korea has developed stealth ICBM... Quentin 2014-06-30 17:01 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Quentin, I am more concerned that if North Korea attacks the US, Obama and his party will do nothing. It'll just make things worse! We cannot risk things getting out of hand. The entire human species is at stake. We can absorb the damage done and minimize our losses. We'd be killing their children as well as their leaders, we cannot do this! This is what I see, in reaction to a Kim Strike. Also, as you rightly mentioned: *do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ?* lay back and enjoy it, maybe ;-D ? I am more worried about what our elites do than what China and Russia do. I don't see this as a hollow threat, or a paper tiger, Quentin, as this article indicates. Its from Reuters, which is a progressive news agency. I never post stuff from Fox, or some blog, when I engage in polly discussions, because its more meaningful when the news comes from ones' own. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA4102S20140502 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA4102S20140502 Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 10:16 am Subject: Re: American Intelligence 2014-06-30 14:38 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Well, I somehow do remember MAD, and it worked with the Sovs, but I suspect less so with Iran, Isis and North Kor. Do you disagree? Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 30 June 2014 11:14, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. So, if one fights, why hold back? Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -- 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
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 29 Jun 2014, at 12:22, David Nyman wrote: On 29 June 2014 05:47, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: t's the materialist hat (I'm not sure which colour it is). Calling bullshit! on comp and similar ideas without stopping to understand them seems to stem from a religious belief in materialism (Bill Taylor on the FOAR forum is another example of this). There is endless spluttering and shouting and often even (gasp) capital letters, but never any sign that the person concerned has stopped and thought it through, in the spirit of what if he's got a point? Yeah, occasionally I find myself re-reading conversations I had with Bruno years ago (usually as a result of googling for some reference). It reminds me that in the beginning I was pretty certain he must be wrong, but his patience and persistence forced me repeatedly to refine and reconsider my arguments, to the point that eventually I started to see the holes in my own logic. This is the value of really sticking to a line of thought in discussion (as opposed to point scoring). It helps us, if we are willing to make the effort, to expose the contradictory assumptions in our own thinking. So encouraging. Thanks for telling. Honey for the heart and I think humanity's one. Bruno David -- 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: Selecting your future branch
On 29 Jun 2014, at 18:33, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: the H-guy cannot be sure about its future 1-view *from the unique 1-view Unique? That implies that there is one and only one correct answer to the question of what the Helsinki Man will see, so after the exparament is over there should be enough information to know what that one correct answer should have been. So what was it? Would that that one unique correct prediction have been Washington or Moscow? Before you flip a coin you don't know if the correct prediction is heads or tails, but at least after you flip it you know what the correct prediction would have been; but in your thought exparament even after all the dust has settled there still isn't one correct answer. The difference is that although the bodies of the Helsinki Man is duplicated there is still only one Helsinki Man until one copy sees something the other doesn't. The Helsinki Man only turns into the Moscow Man when he sees Moscow and not before; so the only unique correct prediction is that the Moscow man will be the Man who sees Moscow. What more could you expect? predict with certainlty the unique city you will see The city who will see? The H-guy. I predict that the H-guy will see Helsinki, unless you destroy him immediately after duplication That is indeed the case in the step 3 protocol. in which case the H-guy will see absolutely nothing. Then the H-person dies already at step 1 and 0. So you are showing that ~(step 3) - ~(step 0), that is: ~(step 3) implies not-comp, that is, comp implies step 3. You can move on step 4. Incidentally, this contradicts the fact that you have already agreed that both the W-person and the M-person are genuinely the H-person. You made an effort to do a different error, this time. I appreciate the effort. I further predict that Mr. You will see Moscow AND Washington because MR. YOU HAS BEEN DUPLICATED. you forget also the question asked, which is about what you will live [...] What who will live? You, the H-guy, in the first person sense. The question is always asked to John Clark, before any duplication, when he is in the city of Helsinki. You know you will survive in only ONE city from any of your first person perspective of the continuation. You just cannot be sure of which one, as any prediction on which precise city you will see will be contradicted by the other guy in the other city. in the 1p sense from the 1p view and not any 3p view on where those unique 1-view appears. That's just a tad too much peepee for my taste. Then I can understand that you will never understand, because that is exactly what you should focus on. You are not answering the question asked. That's because the question asked is gibberish. You want to know which one of the 2 will see Moscow, but there is only one not two, there is no 2 until one sees Moscow and the other does not. The question is what you expect from your first person experience. W and M denotes feeling being at W (resp. M). The question is not about the body, nor where your first person experience will be instantiated, but about which city you will feel to be in when doing the experience of opening the door after having pushed the device button in Helsinki. You assume comp, and so you know that you (the H-guy) will survive, one and entire, in ONE city from the first person perspective. So (W M) is excluded: you know in advance in Helsinki that if you write the prediction (W M) in your diary, the inscription (W M) will be itself duplicated in both places, as by definition the first person discourse is the content of the diary that the experiencer take with him in the scanner-annihilation-duplication machine. But the copy in Moscow, when opening the door will see only Moscow, and so (M W) is refuted. from the first person perspective (on which the question is all about), M has been selected from M and W. He got one bit of information, and it is the same for the guy in W. One bit of information has been offered to him, from his first person perspective, as he will write W in his diary, contradicting his prediction in Helsinki. The Moscow Man will be the one who sees Moscow, what more do you want me to say for you to count it as a successful prediction? The prediction must be successful from the first person perspective of *all* copies. W v M is an example of always successful prediction (for that protocol). W M is always false. W and M are correct one have of the time. In the iterated case, the P(W) is given by the binomial coefficients, and the gaussian integral for big value of the number of iteration. OK? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To
Re: Pluto bounces back!
Chris, I could respond in many ways, but none seems adequate. I could say that I believe because I find the Quran to be factually correct, but that only vindicated my belief... I could say that as I studied and observed the beauty and the patterns in nature, the finest details, I became convinced that there had to be a Creator behind it, but that also only vindicated my belief... I could think that may be since I was born in the faith, perhaps that's why it was natural, but I was asking questions, and I must admit, sometimes even fantasising how it would have been to be born in another faith or culture... I can say that the trials and experiences of life brought me closer to God, made me study the faith earnestly, and helped me discover the endless patience and my loving God through it all. Yet, I think, the latent belief was there all along, it was only my conscious self which took its own sweet time to realise and appreciate it! Whatever may the reason be, I'm glad that I'm a believer, and I lovingly worship my Creator. Perhaps this short video expresses it more eloquently: http://www.andiesisle.com/creation/magnificent.html Regards, Samiya On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:41 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Samiya…. May I ask you why you believe. It is obvious that you do believe, but why… and please not the canned answer supplied by dogma but the deep inner personal reasons that motivate you to believe? Can we cut through all the bull shit and get straight at the core of the matter… with the simple direct question of why? Not in the generic sense, but rather in the exquisitely personal dimension of your own innermost wellspring of being.. your own emergent self-awareness. (which you believe was given to you by your God) Why? What is your personal story. Dogma does not interest me in the least; personal stories I do however find fascinating. Chris, in the Pacific Northwest (one of the best spots on the earth) *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias *Sent:* Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:04 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Pluto bounces back! On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be wrong etc? PGC No, it doesn't, as explained above. It allows for human evaluation, Which is pretty pointless, if the text is god's truth written large. This kind of fake advertising of scientific doubt is also present in the Bible; e.g. doubting apostle Thomas. As in yes, if you are the doubting type... we've reserved a place for you. My answer is: Sorry, you don't allow real doubt. Thomas and these figures can only doubt inside the book, not the book itself. Your doubt is false doubt. and suggests parameters that we can use such as discrepancy, falsifiability, trying to write a similar book without God's help, How can we even be sure the Quran, Bible, etc. are written with god's help? How can we be sure it is not a political tool of men, pretending to be god's voice simply, for obvious human reason? etc., and repeatedly claims that this Book is without any crookedness, You do not address the problem of blaspheme raised and continue to make statements about him, even though you believe you cannot understand him. Apologies, but that is crooked to me. errors or mistakes, and a guidance and blessing from the Lord of the Worlds. If I may suggest, keep asking questions and doubting, I do such with or without Quran. and at the same time, also read through the entire text of the Quran. I think I've had enough for some time: the way you present it in these quotes, Allah is vain, boastful (needs a book and people to do advertising for him), vengeful and cruel tester of creation he despises (why test and punish? why cultural preferences?), and the crooked move of writing about god when you admit that nothing can be said about god. For today, that is enough for me and it looks from your quotes like the book wants to convert people in typical manipulation through fear mechanism. I'm sure there are deeper ways to comprehend Quran, but today and through these quotes I don't see them. And since I can hypnotize myself to like almost anything, given enough time, I'm sure I could do it with Quran as well. But today I choose to doubt + it doesn't look much fun from the scripture quoted here; like I have to run around and convert people to some book that tells them to be frightened if they don't read it, and if they doubt, I just repeat them to keep reading. I respect a possible god's creation
RE: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Heh, your words say no, but your keyboard says yes yes yes. Which is weird since I am not bent that way. I do worry a bit about why your president is arming up his agencies, like EPA, and the Post Office with swat teams and weapons. My guess is, it is to ensure that the Party remains in power permanently, I mean, why else do it? I guess Banana Republic isn't just a clothing franchise, anymore. Are you trying to be witty perchance? Oh... no worries mate I will live just fine... don't over-estimate your own importance to me or anyone else... I am merely making the point that you are a war-mongering coward. I don't expect to change you. Who cares if I am a US citizen or not? If I was not a US citizen would I therefore not have the right -- for some strange reason -- to not be calling you a coward? I am however a US citizen, sorry buddy -- see you have to deal with me and millions of other US citizens who think people like you are off their rockers. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 10:57 pm Subject: RE: RE: RE: American Intelligence -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com? ] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 5:04 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: American Intelligence Chris, so how will you be able to live with yourself, if, say, you cannot budge me from my horrible views? Secondly, you are not a US citizen, are you? How will you control America if you cannot even control, influence, or browbeat me? Just curious. Oh... no worries mate I will live just fine... don't over-estimate your own importance to me or anyone else... I am merely making the point that you are a war-mongering coward. I don't expect to change you. Who cares if I am a US citizen or not? If I was not a US citizen would I therefore not have the right -- for some strange reason -- to not be calling you a coward? I am however a US citizen, sorry buddy -- see you have to deal with me and millions of other US citizens who think people like you are off their rockers. You see things in the optic of control -- quite telling actually, illuminating in fact of your own psychology that you used that particular term... you see, not everyone sees things the way you see things. Not everyone seeks to control outcomes. I, usually like to work things out, except when dealing with intolerant individuals, such as say yourself spudboy. In such cases, since I know a-priori that there is no working things out I will be right there in your face and have no interest in even trying to work it out -- you don't operate on that wavelength spudboy -- you seek to impose your world view and wish to do so with violent means... you pine for total war A-hole, but are too much of a coward to go do the fighting yourself. No, there is no working anything out with individuals such as you, who portray anyone who does not share their desire for a global conflagration as being a traitor. Thus I do not even bother; why waste any energy. But I will make the point that you are a coward; and have some fun with it. Chris -- 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.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's job to convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very small. I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here or not. PGC We agree that it is blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on God's behalf what God hasn't stated. However, we also consider it blasphemy to deny God or God's communication, pretending that God hasn't sent any message, when God has indeed provided guidance for humans. I don't know this and I challenge you, the Quran, indeed anybody, to provide convincing evidence. Okay, challenge the Quran... read it and see if it answers you with convincing evidence. Your claim in this regard, could be the very blasphemy you speak of. You seem to think that the Message is for a particular culture, I tell you its for all humanity from the Lord of the Worlds. Cultures compete. War is our collective history. That's besides the point. If I grow up in Jewish or Christian background, this preselects me to be more accessible to Jewish or Christian theology/books/interpretations than to Quran. Ok, the Quran is for all culture; but then the Bible says the same. You still avoid the question of why the Quran above all other sacred books. Because it is the last in the series of revelations: the final revelation, and because it has been protected from changes. We Muslims are required to believe in all revelations, not just the Quran. Its an article of faith. And also because the prior scriptures foretell the coming of Prophet Muhammad. If this were a matter of personal religion, that would be private. But since you want factual accuracy, and to tie scientific/rational approach to Quran, the question is valid. Science, ability to doubt, question, and strive for accuracy in facts and descriptions belongs to all of us, no matter the religion. Agree God doesn't need us or our service, it is we who need God and God's guidance, since it is our future that depends on our beliefs and actions. If God had wanted an army of slaves, he would not allow them to think and doubt. He could build an army of robot zombies, that he wouldn't even need to test. This testing idea, and why a supreme being would engage in testing a perfect creation, makes no sense to me. Yes, its difficult to rationalize, if at all. But, once one is convinced about the existence of God, and the scriptures being God's message, then to accept things which our minds cannot understand is just a matter of faith It seems it could be misused to frighten and control people. If a writing can be used to control people, to manipulate them dishonestly, to blaspheme god's name for violence, how perfect is this writing/book? Wouldn't a perfect writing stop this from happening? When student are taking an exam, does the professor intervene and correct the mistakes? Life is an open-book exam, but it is the student's job to study and use it properly. Just as we have no choice over our own self's birth and death, similarly we have no choice in being resurrected for an immortal life. How do you know God has stated this as fact? Yes, some people state this in some books. But perhaps these are statements that, in your words, constitute blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on God's behalf what God hasn't stated. Yes, it could be god's greatness, but it could also be people trying to control others through fear. We'll find out, all in good time Samiya Our future well-being depends on the sincerity of our thoughts and actions in the present! On this we agree. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 29 Jun 2014, at 19:24, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I care about the notion behind. Call it the ONE
Let's call it the BULLSHIT.
Why not. But it can be confusing.
I don't see how THE BULLSHIT is more confusing than THE ONE.
By the common sense of the world, the term the one fits better the
intended *monism* of the theory proposed.
Theological monotheism is a cousin of of the metaphysical monism.
Bullshit invokes only insult.
It looks like according to you we just have no right to raise
doubts on the Aristotelian Primary Matter notion.
Why in hell do we keep talking about ancient ignoramuses like
Plotinus and the worst physicist who ever lived, Aristotle?
Aristotle was a brilliant physicist. Indeed, his word initiates physics.
That his theories were all refuted has nothing to do with that.
Then, as we have not solved the mind-body problem, we have to be open
to many possibilities and changes of mind.
Also, Aristotle conception of his primary matter is actually the one
that Plotinus used, and that we recover from computationalism. But I
don't expect you to get this at this stage. Aristotle is the first to
define matter by what is indeterminate, notably. Platon understand
the need of a bastard calculus, as Plotinus grasped too.
In neoplatonism, we can say, roughly, that God did not create matter,
but matter is God's limitation, or limit. It is where God loses control.
Look, you treat current theology as bullshit, but you keep defending
the one of today, when it is lcear, when you study history, that the
freedom of though (the minimum needed to do science) in theology has
been repressed more or less since 523 after J. So it is not so
astonishing that we can find a lot of interesting debate among the
theologians before the 'madness/fairy-tales get imposed to us.
PS I think I will come back to the term god as it is less
confusing than bullshit, to refer to the unknown cause or reason
of why we are here.
So these are the properties of God:
1) God does not answer prayers.
How do you know that?
By the way, it might be possible that with comp, you can't pray God.
It could already be a blaspheme. God gives only if you don't ask,
apparently.
2) God is not omnipotent.
Well, omnipotence is self-contradictory.
3) God is not omniscient.
With comp, God is 3p first order omniscient, and he knows a lot of the
higher order, but can't be omniscient. I agree with Grim that
omniscience is also self-contradictory.
4) God is not intelligent.
How do you know that?
5) God is not conscious.
With comp (+ classical epistemology), this is subtle. God, the ONE,
arithmetical truth splits into the 3p outer realm, for which the
conscious adjective might not make sense. But then through all
universal numbers, filtered by the truth, that one defines the first
person, the you which has no name, and which seems to play the role
of the third God of the greeks: the universal soul.
That is the inner god that, according to the mystic, you can awaken
through variate technics.
6) God has nothing to do with morality.
I think it has to do. That is probablmy the act of faith of the
Platonist, that God is Good, and that it makes it possible for us to
be attracted by the good and detracted by the bad.
Anyway, this depend on the theology. With comp, truth is good, because
falsity leads to your non existence, in many ways.
But morality and all Protagorean virtue can only be taught by you
examples, and can only be perverted when being patronized.
7) God is not a being at all just some sort of vague undefined
principle.
It is responsible for the whole being, and usually, does not belong to
its created realm. It is not nameable, and has quite fuzzy border,
when known from the inner god views.
God is a bit of the standard model (in the logician sense). No (rich)
theory at all can prove the existence of a model of itself, as this
would be a proof of self-consistency, and that is forbidden by the
second theorem of completeness. This does not prevent such theories to
get some good approximation, and even to prove theorems about that
thing (depsite being unnameable. Peano Arithmetic cannot define V,
the set of arithmetical true propositions, but still can define
somehow the singleton {V}. Askanas showed that PA can prove its own
Tarski theorem, with naming the truth that, by that theorem, it cannot
ascribe a name.
That sure doesn't leave much stuff for God to do,
Here you are infinitely to much quick, I'm afraid.
so it shouldn't bother us very much that even that wimpy anemic low
rent sort of God may not exist; there may be no cause for the
universe, there may be no reason there is something rather than
nothing, there may be no ultimate reason we exist.
You are right. May be. But also,
Re: American Intelligence
I hear you and I do follow our anti-missile announcements by the mils. I am not confident of US ability to zoink missiles and warheads in flight-but for the sake of brevity, let me concede your rational point. There are a couple of work-arounds for North K, or anyone else, to do the US severe damage. One is the deployment of North Kor missiles. They are working on miniaturizing warheads for ICBM missiles. Another facet would be to hit the US where it ain't, such as a Gulf of Mexico southern attack. Fuels and warheads would need enough fuel to place a warhead on a south attack approach, and not on the US West Coast, Hawaii, Alaska. Another possibility is to use cargo ships as missile launchers, suitably, disguised. Lastly, there is always the argument about EMP, as the debate with Jon Postrel of MIT and other physicists consider is EMP an Unreal threat or a Real one? On this matter, the lives of many could hang in the balance. The USA has the capacity to destroy the missile before it even touch the US... USA has not the capacity to do this for all the Russian ICBM *by treaties* not because it's too difficult... USA has enough anti-ICBM to destroy any north korean ICBM who would threaten them... I doubt that North Korea has developed stealth ICBM... Quentin -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 11:07 am Subject: Re: American Intelligence The USA has the capacity to destroy the missile before it even touch the US... USA has not the capacity to do this for all the Russian ICBM *by treaties* not because it's too difficult... USA has enough anti-ICBM to destroy any north korean ICBM who would threaten them... I doubt that North Korea has developed stealth ICBM... Quentin 2014-06-30 17:01 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Quentin, I am more concerned that if North Korea attacks the US, Obama and his party will do nothing. It'll just make things worse! We cannot risk things getting out of hand. The entire human species is at stake. We can absorb the damage done and minimize our losses. We'd be killing their children as well as their leaders, we cannot do this! This is what I see, in reaction to a Kim Strike. Also, as you rightly mentioned: do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? lay back and enjoy it, maybe ;-D ? I am more worried about what our elites do than what China and Russia do. I don't see this as a hollow threat, or a paper tiger, Quentin, as this article indicates. Its from Reuters, which is a progressive news agency. I never post stuff from Fox, or some blog, when I engage in polly discussions, because its more meaningful when the news comes from ones' own. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA4102S20140502 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA4102S20140502 Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 10:16 am Subject: Re: American Intelligence 2014-06-30 14:38 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Well, I somehow do remember MAD, and it worked with the Sovs, but I suspect less so with Iran, Isis and North Kor. Do you disagree? Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 30 June 2014 11:14, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. So, if one fights, why hold back? Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable?
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 29 Jun 2014, at 21:20, LizR wrote: On 29 June 2014 20:04, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: With comp, what i showed is that we have indeed to extract the law of the qubits (quantum logic) from the laws of the bits (the laws of Boole, + Boolos). IMO, Everett + decoherence already shows the road qubits to bits. But comp provides a double (by G/G*) reverse of that road, which separates quanta and qualia (normally, although quanta must be a first person plural). It sounds to me as though you are saying that information is real if arithmetic is real...? What do you mean by real here? The question is not so much about what is real, but about what is primitively real. With computationalism, and the TOE chosen, 0, s(0), ... and + and * are primitively real, as we assume the RA axioms. Information is derived from it, both the classical one, and the quantum one. But a physicist like Landauer(*) would say that information is real because it is an essentially physical things: (*) http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~biophy09/Biophysik-Vorlesung_2009-2010_DATA/QUELLEN/LIT/A/B/3/Landauer_1996_physical_nature_information.pdf (If so, deriving the entropy of a black hole would be support for comp :-) I don't see why. It would be consistent with Landauer's notion of physical information, ISTM. Maybe I jumped the gun here, or something. I should have written: It would be consistent with Landauer's notion of *primitive* physical information, ISTM. Deriving the entropy of a black hole seems to me - upon reflection - to show that information is physically real, That's not clear to me. deriving the number of items in my fridge might makes those items real, but not necessarily the number itself real. I mean that a physicalist can argue in that sense. so it makes it as real as the physical world. Not for a primitive materialist, who will say that the information are only in your mind. According to comp the physical world is not primitively real, so information would be not primitively real either. No. Although you get shannon information quasi directly with the self- duplication, and get some trace of the quantum information in the first person plural. OK. However, it WOULD be physically real, The quantum one, yes. which is a step away from just something convenient for humans to use (like temperature, as mentioned elsewhere). I agree. This seems to accord with fundamental particles appearing to be little bundles of information, which I think is roughly A Garrett Lisi's view, amongst others (JA Wheeler?) JA Wheeler, sure. Garret Lisi? If you can give a quote. I don't see him even addressing the question of the nature of his particles. He proposed a very cute and quasi-convincing theory (except it does not work), very mathematical. But he does not address the reality question. May be I am wrong on this, but then I would be happy with a reference. The fact that only erasing information needs energy is fascinating, and still a bit weird in the comp perspective. It might be a very fundamental fact, and the shadow of it in arithmetic might be the symmetry of the logic of observable on the atomic (sigma_1) proposition, and the antisymmetry just above. But I don't want get too much technical. 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: American Intelligence
You have a splendid idea there and many people round the world agree with you. This is not an irrational argument, though likely, too optimistic. Your sensibilities, and mine, are not shared globally. look to the new Caliphate, for an example on people differing in world view. And anyway.. I really hope nobody will ever use nuclear weapons anymore; this will only result in our own extinction (if anybody ever survive, it will be at minima the end of our civilization). There is really no point to ever think it could be a safe detterent to use one. Quentin -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 11:15 am Subject: Re: American Intelligence And anyway.. I really hope nobody will ever use nuclear weapons anymore; this will only result in our own extinction (if anybody ever survive, it will be at minima the end of our civilization). There is really no point to ever think it could be a safe detterent to use one. Quentin 2014-06-30 17:07 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: The USA has the capacity to destroy the missile before it even touch the US... USA has not the capacity to do this for all the Russian ICBM *by treaties* not because it's too difficult... USA has enough anti-ICBM to destroy any north korean ICBM who would threaten them... I doubt that North Korea has developed stealth ICBM... Quentin 2014-06-30 17:01 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Quentin, I am more concerned that if North Korea attacks the US, Obama and his party will do nothing. It'll just make things worse! We cannot risk things getting out of hand. The entire human species is at stake. We can absorb the damage done and minimize our losses. We'd be killing their children as well as their leaders, we cannot do this! This is what I see, in reaction to a Kim Strike. Also, as you rightly mentioned: do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? lay back and enjoy it, maybe ;-D ? I am more worried about what our elites do than what China and Russia do. I don't see this as a hollow threat, or a paper tiger, Quentin, as this article indicates. Its from Reuters, which is a progressive news agency. I never post stuff from Fox, or some blog, when I engage in polly discussions, because its more meaningful when the news comes from ones' own. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA4102S20140502 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA4102S20140502 Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 10:16 am Subject: Re: American Intelligence 2014-06-30 14:38 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Well, I somehow do remember MAD, and it worked with the Sovs, but I suspect less so with Iran, Isis and North Kor. Do you disagree? Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 30 June 2014 11:14, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. So, if one fights, why hold back? Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -- 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
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 30 Jun 2014, at 01:20, meekerdb wrote: On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all simulations. Saying that some of those are more real than other is a metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows that it is a gap-of-the- god type of assumption. But it is not a physical fact that arithmetic exists. OK. And to say that arithmetic emulates all simulations seems to me to 'prove to much'. It's just saying that whatever exists in your physical theory is already in my arithmetical theory. Yes. But at first sight with the measure all wrong. I submit (and solve partially) that measure problem. That your physical reality is in the arithmetical reality is trivial. But the UDA shows that the physical reality has to be given by the measure on all computations. It means, roughly, that the SWE ,must be derived from the measure on the sigma_1 sentences, like the collapse phenomenology can be derived from the SWE. Which is a god-of-the-substrate type argument. It would be, if we were not just deriving this reversal from a simple general, but fertile, assumption: that we are (universal) machine emulable. I give a theorem, which leads to a problem. Not a solution. (although a partial one, which already gives a different (than usual) theological perspective. 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: Disproving physicalism from COMP
On 30 Jun 2014, at 02:14, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 26 June 2014 12:03, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 June 2014 16:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/24/2014 2:29 AM, LizR wrote: On 24 June 2014 17:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: If primitive matter existed, and if it has a role for consciousness, or for consciousness instantiation, step 8, and the argument above, makes that role very mysterious, so much that it is not clear why we could still say yes to the doctor in virtue of correct digital rendering. You can still say yes to the doctor because he is going to use matter to make your brain prosthesis. Surely that will just be a copy that thinks it's you - it won't be you, so if you are destroyed in the process of making the digital copy, you really do die. While in comp the digital copy is you, by definition. ?? Comp is the theory that it will be you after the doctor gives you a prothesis for your brain (plus some other assumptions). It will be you even after you are duplicated (though it's troubling for JKC that you is both singular and plural). Yes, that's right. And primitive materialism would distinguish between two identical versions of you, if only because they occupy different positions (and due to no-cloning). So a PM copy could only ever be a copy that thinks it's you, while a comp copy would be one that actually is you (assuming comp is correct, of course). I don't think comp necessarily includes the idea that the copy would be you, just that the copy would be conscious in the same way as you. Then you are using comp in a different sense than in the UDA. I mean that if the copy is conscious in the same way as you, but still is not you (which is often argued with the teleportation without annihilation), then you would not say that you survive in the usual clinical sense of surviving from the first person perspective. The other guy would only be a well done impostor and you would say No thanks to the doctor. Obviously it is *necessary* that the copy be conscious if it is also you, but whether it is *sufficient* is a further argument in the philosophy of personal identity. I think it is sufficient, but not everyone agrees. Derek Partfit's book Reasons and Persons discusses these questions. I think Parfit is wrong on this, and I vaguely remember having thought that it was that error which prevents him to see the FPI. I thought that he would have grasped the SWE, he would have understood (as I think you do) that such a personal identity notion (distinguishing the two comp notion referred above) makes not much sense. I might take a further look. Bruno -- 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. 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 28 Jun 2014, at 14:00, Kim Jones wrote: On 28 Jun 2014, at 5:39 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Given that your average 6th grader knows far more about the universe than he ever did why in hell should I read Plotinus?? Yes, kids have the ability to understand a lot more than we give them credit for, don't they? I walked into a class of 8th graders at a school last week and explained to them the concept of First Person Indeterminacy and they all understood from it that there is a very strong indeterminism at the heart of reality which is usually decribed as deterministic. Amazing; 8th graders (and Plotinus) can understand it, yet you can't. Actually, I believe you do understand it, but you just don't like it. Congrats! Without attenuating your merit, I think that the FPI is plausibly easier to explain to kids than to adults, I am afraid. LOL 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 29 Jun 2014, at 23:19, Kim Jones wrote: On 29 Jun 2014, at 7:19 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I think it is more related with ego-psychological issue than with the matter subject. Bruno Precisely. Which is why you will understand that to respond any further to the belligerence of his posts is merely an invitation to do battle with his ego rather than to seriously explore the subject? Each post is a trap that he has laid, a bait. Do not take the hameçon. I appreciate John Clark effort. he is probably the only detractor of the UDA that I know doing this openly and publicly. It is far more respectable than any others, which I got only reports by some wutness that they said something negative, always behind the back. I have never met detractors. Academically, I met only enthusiasm, except form those people who told me that there Gödel's theorem was not interesting and who like to mock computer scientists (those guys too much stupid to do pure mathematics), and which demolished me before I could even met them. Then Clark is more and more clear, making his mistakes more and more clear too. And I progress on this somehow delicate point. I think John Clark is not completely hopeless .He understood all the points but still go out of the body in the duplication, and refuse to consider the (many) copies *first person experience*. It is still a bit of a mystery why he seems to avoid that. Bruno Kim -- 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
-- 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: Selecting your future branch
On 6/30/2014 12:51 AM, Kim Jones wrote: You are all of these people. You can only experience one of these people. You or God can never know which one you will most likely experience 5 minutes from now let alone after a year's storage before being emailed to Uranus or Washington or Scotland. Hence there is a true randomness in the access you have to your various selves, moment to moment. You are these computational relations. They don't cease to exist so how could you? But not all computational relations are you. So the ones that are you can cease, as when you are under anesthesia. I put you in scare quotes because it refers to the stream of conscious thoughts - which is not the usual meaning of you. Much is made of observer-moments and their sequence, but I just got back from my mother's 100th birthday party. She's still relatively sharp and lives alone, but it's also clear that she's fading. Her sensory perceptions are weak and her thoughts are slower than they once were. I expect that one day she will just fade out altogether, as her mother did at age 99. So why imagine that the next observer-moment for her will be any different than the observer moment of a rock? If you want immortality, then I suppose you can imagine some ghost-in-arithmetic that will recur in some other place and time, but without you memories why suppose it's you? Brent If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. -- John Kenneth Galbraith -- 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: Pluto bounces back!
Dear Samiya: I don't argue with you (like PGC) I ask a question going back further than this entire discussion: you wrote: *I could say that as I studied and observed the beauty and the patterns in nature, the finest details, I became convinced that there had to be a Creator behind it, but that also only vindicated my belief... I could think that may be since I was born in the faith, perhaps that's why it was natural, but I was asking questions, and I must admit, sometimes even fantasising how it would have been to be born in another faith or culture... I can say that the trials and experiences of life brought me closer to God, made me study the faith earnestly, and helped me discover the endless patience and my loving God through it all. Yet, I think, the latent belief was there all along, it was only my conscious self which took its own sweet time to realise and appreciate it! Whatever may the reason be, I'm glad that I'm a believer, and I lovingly worship my Creator.* A simple question: Do you have any idea why and how you 'formulated' in your conscious self the idea of a god? You mention since I was born in the faith... - nonsense, nobody has been born in any thinking decision, a newborn gradually develops ideas about the world (god, or no god) and a fetus has even less thoughts. You were born without faith, or ideas of god, just as people are born pagan before they get circumcised, or baptised. You must have absorbed the first faith-related ideas from your mother as a little ignorant infant when she prayed. The rest comes from here. Once you started believing in 'GOD' it is but a small step to believe that (s)he wrote the scripts and all the rest religion*S *include. With Inquisition, Jihad, reincarnation etc. And now the REAL question I want to ask: We (scientists? mainly) know about zillions of galaxies, zillions of starsystems in all of them, many planets with those z^z^n stars capable of supporting some *bio* of their own circumstances, many-many of them potentially leading to thinking units. Are we the ones selected from all those to be the sole God's Children, or *all* of them are entitled to Her care and particular fitting rules? But the question goes on: how about the animals? are they God's children as we are, or are they just fodder? and please, do not stop here: PLANTS have a similar DNA-based *bio* to ours and to most animals' so they may also claim to be God's Children? Some animals are hard to distinguish from humans, in certain characteristics. If we go into that: how about insects, and in-between life-forms? That would raise the originally counted (today) ~8 billion human 'souls' to z^z^z times over with life circumstances varying in uncanny varieties. Do they all have the same 1 God, or each kind a separate one? One word about reincarnation I mentioned it and you questioned back. I am no expert in it, but the little what I read from the Sanskrit faith, people can (re)incarnate in any 'living' creature-form and vice versa. So 'they' provide a wider variety for gathering merits-sins than during a single-term human life-span. In my agnostic worldview, however, death means a decomposition of a *living?* complexity (person) with functioning 'chunks' surviving with/in other complexities (a hint to seers/dreamers with personal fragments showing up). Such idea - of course - opposes the judgemental-day recombination into the original person to be judged. But I never claimed my ideas to be correct. So: when and how did a recognisable God first talk to you and/or disclose Herself? (I accept no must be, consequently - or obviously). In due time is a threat. Please read carefully my text: I never denied the existence of God, did not place words in Her speaking, did not denigrate faith or followers. A student I am John Mikes On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's job to convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very small. I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here or not. PGC We agree that it is blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on God's behalf what God hasn't stated. However, we also consider it blasphemy to deny God or God's communication, pretending that God hasn't sent any message, when God has indeed provided guidance for humans. I don't know this and I challenge you, the Quran, indeed anybody, to provide convincing evidence. Okay, challenge the Quran... read it and see if it answers you with convincing evidence. Your claim in this regard, could be the very blasphemy you speak of. You seem to think that the
Re: Selecting your future branch
On 1 Jul 2014, at 4:57 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Much is made of observer-moments and their sequence, but I just got back from my mother's 100th birthday party. She's still relatively sharp and lives alone, but it's also clear that she's fading. Her sensory perceptions are weak and her thoughts are slower than they once were. I expect that one day she will just fade out altogether, as her mother did at age 99. So why imagine that the next observer-moment for her will be any different than the observer moment of a rock? I think the brain fades but not the self. The older I get the more bizarre the disparity between how young I feel and certain things that relate to the jouney of the body toward its inevitable demise. The self can only remain conerent insofar as the hosting apparatus is up to its job. Any apparent fuzziness of self with age is surely the result of loss of signal? The brain does start to go down the toilet after about 80 so one would expect interference or patchy signal strength. I have an elderly mother in precisely the same situation but not quite as old as your mum. She now feels trapped by her body because she feels young of spirit and can certainly pick an argument just like she used to. Kim -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi, Bruno wrote previously ...the physical reality has to be given by the measure on all computations. Would this not imply that physical reality has a zero measure? My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me? If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why bother measuring what doesn't exist?! On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Jun 2014, at 01:20, meekerdb wrote: On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all simulations. Saying that some of those are more real than other is a metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows that it is a gap-of-the-god type of assumption. But it is not a physical fact that arithmetic exists. OK. And to say that arithmetic emulates all simulations seems to me to 'prove to much'. It's just saying that whatever exists in your physical theory is already in my arithmetical theory. Yes. But at first sight with the measure all wrong. I submit (and solve partially) that measure problem. That your physical reality is in the arithmetical reality is trivial. But the UDA shows that the physical reality has to be given by the measure on all computations. It means, roughly, that the SWE ,must be derived from the measure on the sigma_1 sentences, like the collapse phenomenology can be derived from the SWE. Which is a god-of-the-substrate type argument. It would be, if we were not just deriving this reversal from a simple general, but fertile, assumption: that we are (universal) machine emulable. I give a theorem, which leads to a problem. Not a solution. (although a partial one, which already gives a different (than usual) theological perspective. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi, Bruno wrote previously ...the physical reality has to be given by the measure on all computations. Would this not imply that physical reality has a zero measure? My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me? If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why bother measuring what doesn't exist?! I don't see where you're going with this. With COMP, the chance of our physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero is if COMP is false. Where measure comes into it is what is the measure of our observations - that is necessarily a non-zero number as our observations will always be finite. It is important to work out what this measure is, as a relatively low measure for our observed reality would be an embarrassment for COMP. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi Russell, Let me rephrase. You wrote: With COMP, the chance of our physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero is if COMP is false. I never understood where the measure 1 comes from unless we first take the existence of an observer to be completely defined by the UDA. If we introduce a finite measure onto the UD, are we not screwing around with the usual way of doing statistics? It is not unlike being OK with a very biased sample. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi, Bruno wrote previously ...the physical reality has to be given by the measure on all computations. Would this not imply that physical reality has a zero measure? My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me? If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why bother measuring what doesn't exist?! I don't see where you're going with this. With COMP, the chance of our physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero is if COMP is false. Where measure comes into it is what is the measure of our observations - that is necessarily a non-zero number as our observations will always be finite. It is important to work out what this measure is, as a relatively low measure for our observed reality would be an embarrassment for COMP. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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: Speaking of free speech...
I don't see how the university can stop the student union from banning things if they want to, but then I can't see how the SU can stop students from forming a club either! This all seems rather weird... as you say they can just meet in a bar or cafe if they want to. Wasn't it students calling for someone to be stoned recently, in a slightly nastier example of students trying to uphold idiotic laws? (In my day students GOT stoned, damn it. Never thoght I'd be holding that up as an example of moral rectitude...) On 1 July 2014 00:29, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: This seems to be a student union thing. Maybe the university should intervene and ban the student union from banning things. It probably will, for the sake of it's own reputation. I can't help but desire that the university does not intervene, though. It is perhaps more instructive to let the students experience, in a somewhat safe environment, what happens when you give absolute power to ideologues, and let them figure out how to recover freedom in their own terms. The Neitzsche club people are smart, they will hold meetings in the Starbucks in front of the university and embarrass the apprentice censors. Cheers Telmo. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Nothing like a good university stimulate intellectual debate - about who should be prohibited from debating and what should not be mentioned. Brent On 6/29/2014 10:41 PM, LizR wrote: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/05/university-college-london-s-nietzsche-club-is-banned.html This is sheer insanity, to quote that bloke from Dad's Army. I can only hope that the Neitzsche Club will not be killed off, but made stronger - and if it *is* full of rabid ideogogues misrepresenting Friedrich's ideas, let them do it in public so everyone can have a good laugh. -- 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: American Intelligence
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Pantheists are cool, as are Lobian machines, immaterialists, materialist, Schrodinger wave stuff. I do have probs with Marxists-Progressives because of the destabilization issue. Udder den dat, let a thousand flowers bloom (as Marxist Mao once said). Progressives get very huffy when one publically disagrees with them (how dare they!) Looks like Magister Criss did too. It's how some people get their amygylas work. It needs a good workout every now and then. I am happy to provide the stimuli in this sense. But, yes, it does divert the awareness from the nature of consciousness-but that's how reality is, as we do the ivory tower waltz-life breaks in like a bomb going off in Falujah. I think it should be obvious that this was a bad try towards humor, and not an attempt to sell personal politics. PGC You maggots think you can get away with ignoring the titles of your superiors? 50 Laps and N pushups, all of you except spud: Humans, machines, universal ones, Löbian ones, materialists, immaterialists, physicalists, Darwinists, pantheists, recursive fetishists, atheists, agnostics, idiotics, MSR, P-time nutheads, tronifiers, computationalists, magicians, quantum jerks (with AND without collapse of wave function, I don't care) and the rest of your foul undisciplined ontological technically genderless asses! This is an argument of authority! From an ignorant, hypocrite jerk that doesn't believe in them, no less! Don't provoke me to deter your asses any more than this. Ok? Good. Emulate it. Yes, emulate the goodness. Run it. You won't know whether it'll ever stop. That's better, see? :-) PGC -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 8:33 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:14 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. So, if one fights, why hold back? Observe, the results of the US's partial warfare model, and decide for yourself if it has been a brimming success or not? The nuclear war thing, I likely fret more about then any.other participant, on this mailing list. The primary reason for this is that fission, and fusion weapons, are now very old, and the missile tech to carry the bombs are only a bit younger. If I was a citizen of Europe, I would be very concerned that the deliberate diminishment of US power, would invite aggression from places where it would have seemed a laughable, fiction, only a decade ago. To wit, you folks are now on your own, with the current US leadership. It may not bother you, even a bit, but I see that this is a new geopolitical fact. Be well. Uhm... thanks for your help and strategic advise, sir. We, speaking for all european leftist pacifist tree hugging conspirators present, know what to do now: we'll keep relations with US at optimum rimming status as we have done for the last 60 odd years, and you can chill a bit with the right wing spam editorials on the list. That's just the geopolitical situation right now according to PGC HQ (first and therefore most prestigious HQ of the list by far!), you get our allegiance, but we need a bit of freedom in return. You know qpq sir, strengthen troop morale and such. Also we should all take your example and call Russell Prof. Standish or Professor, from now on exclusively! Any slip up with titles and I will ceremonially curse your name with modest restraint in the forest with my scary looking but kind canine; only if nobody is watching though, otherwise it'll look weird which would be going too far. You maggots think you can get away with ignoring the titles of your superiors? 50 Laps and N pushups, all of you except spud: Humans, machines, universal ones, Löbian ones, materialists, immaterialists, physicalists, Darwinists, pantheists, recursive fetishists, atheists, agnostics, idiotics, MSR, P-time nutheads, tronifiers, computationalists, magicians, quantum jerks (with AND without collapse of wave function, I don't care) and the rest of your foul undisciplined ontological technically genderless asses! This is an argument of authority! From an ignorant, hypocrite jerk that doesn't believe in them, no less! Don't provoke me to deter your asses any more than this. Ok? Good. Emulate it. Yes, emulate the goodness. Run it. You won't know whether it'll ever stop. That's better, see? :-) PGC -Original
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:44:20PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Russell, Let me rephrase. You wrote: With COMP, the chance of our physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero is if COMP is false. I never understood where the measure 1 comes from unless we first take the existence of an observer to be completely defined by the UDA. If we introduce a finite measure onto the UD, are we not screwing around with the usual way of doing statistics? It is not unlike being OK with a very biased sample. By definition, UD* contains all possible experiences for all possible COMP observers. Therefore, you will find our reality somewhere in UD* with certainty. That has nothing to do with measure. Measure has to do with how likely our observed reality is, when sampled from the set of all possible observed realities. And that number is non-zero, simply by virtue that our observed reality is constrained by a finite number of observations. You just need to ask the right question... Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi Russell, I don't get it. How does the constraint of a finite sample overcome the inherent zero measure? On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:44:20PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Russell, Let me rephrase. You wrote: With COMP, the chance of our physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero is if COMP is false. I never understood where the measure 1 comes from unless we first take the existence of an observer to be completely defined by the UDA. If we introduce a finite measure onto the UD, are we not screwing around with the usual way of doing statistics? It is not unlike being OK with a very biased sample. By definition, UD* contains all possible experiences for all possible COMP observers. Therefore, you will find our reality somewhere in UD* with certainty. That has nothing to do with measure. Measure has to do with how likely our observed reality is, when sampled from the set of all possible observed realities. And that number is non-zero, simply by virtue that our observed reality is constrained by a finite number of observations. You just need to ask the right question... Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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: Disproving physicalism from COMP
On 1 July 2014 03:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Jun 2014, at 02:14, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 26 June 2014 12:03, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 June 2014 16:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/24/2014 2:29 AM, LizR wrote: On 24 June 2014 17:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: If primitive matter existed, and if it has a role for consciousness, or for consciousness instantiation, step 8, and the argument above, makes that role very mysterious, so much that it is not clear why we could still say yes to the doctor in virtue of correct digital rendering. You can still say yes to the doctor because he is going to use matter to make your brain prosthesis. Surely that will just be a copy that thinks it's you - it won't be you, so if you are destroyed in the process of making the digital copy, you really do die. While in comp the digital copy is you, by definition. ?? Comp is the theory that it will be you after the doctor gives you a prothesis for your brain (plus some other assumptions). It will be you even after you are duplicated (though it's troubling for JKC that you is both singular and plural). Yes, that's right. And primitive materialism would distinguish between two identical versions of you, if only because they occupy different positions (and due to no-cloning). So a PM copy could only ever be a copy that thinks it's you, while a comp copy would be one that actually is you (assuming comp is correct, of course). I don't think comp necessarily includes the idea that the copy would be you, just that the copy would be conscious in the same way as you. Then you are using comp in a different sense than in the UDA. I mean that if the copy is conscious in the same way as you, but still is not you (which is often argued with the teleportation without annihilation), then you would not say that you survive in the usual clinical sense of surviving from the first person perspective. The other guy would only be a well done impostor and you would say No thanks to the doctor. OK, I misunderstood this part of your definition. You have suggested that comp requires faith, but I thought that this faith involves believing that the computerised brain will have the same sort of consciousness as the original; not faith that the copy will be the same person as the original. The latter claim, I think, follows from the former logically and not as a matter of faith, because its negation would result in absurdity as I could then state that I do not survive from one moment to the next but only have the delusional belief that I do. Obviously it is *necessary* that the copy be conscious if it is also you, but whether it is *sufficient* is a further argument in the philosophy of personal identity. I think it is sufficient, but not everyone agrees. Derek Partfit's book Reasons and Persons discusses these questions. I think Parfit is wrong on this, and I vaguely remember having thought that it was that error which prevents him to see the FPI. I thought that he would have grasped the SWE, he would have understood (as I think you do) that such a personal identity notion (distinguishing the two comp notion referred above) makes not much sense. I might take a further look. Bruno -- 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. 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. -- 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: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from solar (Update)
On 6/30/2014 10:50 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 2:55 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: LFTR does not exist in reality (at least yet) And that is not surprising given that the amount of money spent of LFTR research during the last half century is virtually zero. I have however looked at some interesting solid breeder designs namely TerraPower’s travelling wave breeder proposal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower Curious of you have looked at travelling wave breeder concept at all? I am not impressed with the traveling wave reactor, it's just a even more complicated type of solid fuel Uranium breeder that was already complacated enough, and it still uses molten sodium as a coolant. It's only advantage is that it pushes the the waste disposal problem under the rug for 40 or 50 years, but it doesn't burn all the transuranics or even all the Uranium so at the end of the reactor's lifetime you've got about 240 tons of heavy elements like Uranium and Plutonium and even heavier more exotic stuff and 60 tons of lighter radioactive fission products. And a traveling wave reactor is big, not in power output but in physical size. A LFTR is extremely compact, believe it or not Alvin Weinberg originally came up with the LFTR idea because he was told by the Air Force to find a nuclear reactor that could power an airplane. Weinberg never thought that a nuclear airplane was a very good idea but he took the Air Force money anyway because he was sure that a small very high temperature nuclear reactor that operated at atmospheric pressure would be useful for other things. We are going to disagree on the ultimate impact of nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl or Fukushima –I feel that there is actuary evidence to suggest a strong linkage to these events and subsequent cancer deaths Actually there is no such evidence except when the exposure is huge. I'll have a lot more to say about that shortly but I've got to go to work now. John K Clark In fact most deaths due to radiation accidents come from mishandling or misusing medical radioisotopes. Here's a list of all fatalities from radiation accidents. The “injured” counts anyone significantly exposed. The blue ones are reactor related; the green ones are medical related. Of course there's a lot of controversy about how many were exposed by the Chernobyl accident and there will be similar controversy about Fukushima. The Ksythym accident happened in the Soviet Union in 1957. It was at a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility that had been built in 1948. There were large underground tanks for storing liquid radioactive waste. Because of the radioactivity it was necessary to cool the tanks. The cooling system failed on one tank and temperature went up to the point that there was a chemical explosion which blew off the top of the tank and spreading a lot of radioactive material including a cloud that reach 300Km northeastward. Windscale was a reactor fire in the U.K. Also in 1957. The reactor had been built in 1950. The fire released large amounts of radioactive material. Of particular concern was Iodine131 which can cause cancer of the thyroid. All milk in a 500Km2 area was destroyed for a month after the accident. A 2010 followup study of personnel involved in the cleanup found no significant health effects. The other accidents shown here in green are all medical radiation accidents. . The ones shown are all from accidental overdose in radiotherapy. The K ones are Soviet submarine accidents. SL-1 was a steam explosion and meltdown due to improper withdrawal of a control rod in an experimental Army reactor. 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 08:32:37PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I don't get it. How does the constraint of a finite sample overcome the
inherent zero measure?
Because a finite constraint matches an infinite number of zero measure
items.
Consider the set of real numbers matching the constraint that the
initial sequence in the binary expansion is 0.110000111
Even though each real number has measure zero, the set of all numbers
matching that constraint has measure 2^{-13} (about 0.000122).
Assuming the standard measure on the reals, of course.
--
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.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: American Intelligence
On 1 July 2014 00:38, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter measures end up quite badly. If one can achieve peace, justice, and free beer, without doing violence to one's fellow primates, this is a great thing. But it is not assured, that simply because one tries a peaceable track, that it will even work. So, if one fights, why hold back? Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? Well, I somehow do remember MAD, and it worked with the Sovs, but I suspect less so with Iran, Isis and North Kor. Do you disagree? (I assume that the above comment is intended as a reply to my comment above, which was a reply to the comment above that...) If so, the original question was if one fights, why hold back? to which I replied that not holding back might destroy the planet. To which spudboy100 says he somehow does remember MAD - I don't honestly see the connection with my comment. MAD is posturing, the end result of which is NOT to have a war. But the original question was IF we had a war, THEN why hold back? Which I thought I answered quite sensibly. -- 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: Selecting your future branch
Well, that's quite straightforward. Brent is assuming the (so called) Aristotelean paradigm, and hence that his mother *is* her brain. Kim is assuming that it's possible the (so called) Platonic paradigm holds, and she may not be (and that something like comp may therefore be correct). I wonder who's right. I guess I'll find out eventually (or not). -- 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: American Intelligence
On 1 July 2014 00:37, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Nuremberg was the who Gobbels propaganda thing, but Stalin had mass rallies as well, and North Korea and Iran still does. Malice can wear different forms. Le Bon was a fav or Both Adolf and Lenin (not Lennon). OK, so you agree with me that it isn't just a Left thing as you said it was earlier, which is what prompted my comment about Nuremberg rallies in the first place. -- 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
ISTM... In primitive materialism, what exists are space / time and matter / energy. Information is an emergent property of the arrangements of those things, like entropy. Neither of these exist at the level of fundamental particles, or Planck cells, or strings, or whatever else may be the primitive mass-energy/space-time) involved. There are problems with this view if information has primitive status, which would indicate that the real picture is something like it from bit or what might be called primitive informationism. Evidence for PI come from the entropy of black holes, the black hole information paradox, the Landauer limit, the Beckenstein bound, the holographic principle, and (unless I already covered that) the requirement that erasing a bit of information requires some irreducible amount of energy. (And maybe some other things I don't know about ... perish the thought). PI isn't equivalent to comp, but from what you said above PI might be a necessary consequence of comp, which would give the ontological chain arithmetic - consciousness - information - matter (I think ... this is all ISTM of course). As for A Garrett Lisi, I was under the impression that his particles were something like a point in a weight diagram - or something - which sounds to me at least like some form of information theoretic entity. But I have to admit my understanding of how birds and flowers could emerge from the E8 group or whatever it's called is, well, about like 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 29 Jun 2014, at 19:24, John Clark wrote: Why in hell do we keep talking about ancient ignoramuses like Plotinus and the worst physicist who ever lived, Aristotle? Likewise why mention Galileo or Newton or Maxwell, when they've been shown to be wrong? Or Einstein or Heisenberg, since we know relativity and quantum mechanics are only approximations to some as yet unknown TOE? I think the answer is that you should give credit to whoever originated an idea, even if s/he only came up with an approximate version that was later refined (after all, the Ancient Greeks were *very *limited by the available technology, so merely having these ideas, with essentially no empirical support, wasn't bad going!). So atoms and the void (Democritus?) is a reasonable approximation to primitive materialism even now, and the reflection of perfect forms is a reasonable approximation to It from Bit. -- 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 1 July 2014 06:53, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Thinking that atheism could be bad, is like believing that red hair is a sign of the devil. Red hair, like atheism, is a difference without a distinction. Not, on the other hand is it axiomatically, the sign of a great mind. If Tyson is, it's of little concern, unless one is in it for gossip. Then it becomes compelling. Was it the writer, Truman Capote who said, there are three great things in the world, religion, science, and gossip. As for me, I am often quite envious of people who are atheists, not for the brilliance of their thoughts, but for the cocksure, self-confidence, and their apparent ability to be matter of fact in how they deal with the great turbulence of the Human Condition. By the way,.this is the first time I have use the phrase, cocksure, in a sentence. Anyway,.it's something.I admire, unlike when they.chose to egg on the Jesus people, when the Islamistand roll red with blood and severed body parts. This, I find objectionable, even though I am not a Christian. But I still admire the Atheists sureity. Hmm, I'm not sure I admire complete certainty about non-trivial matters myself. But as Brent has explained elsewhere it's all down to semantics anyway, apparently Richard Dawkins believes there may be gods, and hence is in my terminology agnostic even as he loudly proclaims himself an atheist. But anyone married to an actor from Doctor Who is good in my book (well, apart from David Tennant...) -- 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.
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
A little humor. https://www.youtube.com/embed/-u6XXOELs_s?feature=player_embedded -- 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: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 9:54 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: American Intelligence You have a splendid idea there and many people round the world agree with you. This is not an irrational argument, though likely, too optimistic. Your sensibilities, and mine, are not shared globally. look to the new Caliphate, for an example on people differing in world view. This boogie monster, this Caliphate you brandish about as if it should somehow inspire chills and shivers of fear in all who hear the dread word mentioned. is nothing more than a few thousand well-armed Salafi thugs in the deserts of Syria Iraq. We should be afraid. why exactly? The funny thing for me is that you will no doubt produce some kind of answer. so please do humor me. Why should a few thousand scary looking thugs with automatic weapons in some far away desert scare anybody beyond their immediate neighbors? And anyway.. I really hope nobody will ever use nuclear weapons anymore; this will only result in our own extinction (if anybody ever survive, it will be at minima the end of our civilization). There is really no point to ever think it could be a safe detterent to use one. Quentin -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 11:15 am Subject: Re: American Intelligence And anyway.. I really hope nobody will ever use nuclear weapons anymore; this will only result in our own extinction (if anybody ever survive, it will be at minima the end of our civilization). There is really no point to ever think it could be a safe detterent to use one. Quentin 2014-06-30 17:07 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: The USA has the capacity to destroy the missile before it even touch the US... USA has not the capacity to do this for all the Russian ICBM *by treaties* not because it's too difficult... USA has enough anti-ICBM to destroy any north korean ICBM who would threaten them... I doubt that North Korea has developed stealth ICBM... Quentin 2014-06-30 17:01 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Quentin, I am more concerned that if North Korea attacks the US, Obama and his party will do nothing. It'll just make things worse! We cannot risk things getting out of hand. The entire human species is at stake. We can absorb the damage done and minimize our losses. We'd be killing their children as well as their leaders, we cannot do this! This is what I see, in reaction to a Kim Strike. Also, as you rightly mentioned: do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? lay back and enjoy it, maybe ;-D ? I am more worried about what our elites do than what China and Russia do. I don't see this as a hollow threat, or a paper tiger, Quentin, as this article indicates. Its from Reuters, which is a progressive news agency. I never post stuff from Fox, or some blog, when I engage in polly discussions, because its more meaningful when the news comes from ones' own. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA410 2S20140502 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSBREA410 2S20140502 Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 10:16 am Subject: Re: American Intelligence 2014-06-30 14:38 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: Well, I somehow do remember MAD, and it worked with the Sovs, but I suspect less so with Iran, Isis and North Kor. Do you disagree? Yes, from what I've read, a local nuclear conflict is pretty sure to escalate to a full blown global nuclear conflict leading to global destruction... do you really think that if the USA use nuke against those countries, China and Russia (and others who have the bomb) will do nothing ? Quentin Because all out nuclear war would make large chunks of the planet uninhabitable? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 30 June 2014 11:14, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I tend to agree with your sentiments, Telmo. My idea, should you care, is that if one goes to war, half measures and quarter
Re: Selecting your future branch
On 6/30/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: Well, that's quite straightforward. Brent is assuming the (so called) Aristotelean paradigm, and hence that his mother /is/ her brain. I'm assuming (on some evidence) that she, her stream of consciousness, is what her brain does. For example, she remembers her childhood very clearly, better than the recent past (like whether or not she's told you about her childhood in the last two days). I don't see how this jibes with Kim's idea of poor reception. Brent Kim is assuming that it's possible the (so called) Platonic paradigm holds, and she may not be (and that something like comp may therefore be correct). I wonder who's right. I guess I'll find out eventually (or not). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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.
