date:20140702

Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
 and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > > > Hi Russell,
> > > >
> > > > Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this
> example. We
> > > > had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does
> that
> > > > come from?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
> > > expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
> > > measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
> > > default assumption for most purposes.
> >
> >
> > The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is close
> to
> > the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
> > In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the
> measure
> > of the reals is invariant.
> > Richard
> >
>
> What do you mean? What is this "quantum measure"?
>
> --
>
>
> 
> 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.
>

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

2014-07-02 Thread Russell Standish

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > > Hi Russell,
> > >
> > > Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
> > > had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
> > > come from?
> > >
> >
> > The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
> > expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
> > measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
> > default assumption for most purposes.
> 
> 
> The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is close to
> the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
> In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the measure
> of the reals is invariant.
> Richard
> 

What do you mean? What is this "quantum measure"?

-- 


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: Speaking of free speech...

On 3 July 2014 02:17, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> I wonder how you bully someone politely :)
>

I would think you politely ask them to stop what they're doing, in the
process calling attention to them. Assuming they're in a corner of a
college bar or something with other people around who were ignoring them,
but may subsequently be watching their every move with interest, they may
feel uncomfortable enough to stop / leave.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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 Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> >
> > Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
> > had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
> > come from?
> >
>
> The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
> expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
> measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
> default assumption for most purposes.


The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is close to
the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the measure
of the reals is invariant.
Richard


>
> We get a rather similar measure induced on UD* by observing the first
> person probability for observing W or M (in the WM duplication
> scenario) is 0.5.


The late

>
> 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.
>

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

2014-07-02 Thread Russell Standish

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
> had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
> come from?
> 

The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
default assumption for most purposes.

We get a rather similar measure induced on UD* by observing the first
person probability for observing W or M (in the WM duplication
scenario) is 0.5.

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: American Intelligence

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:27 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>   --
>  *From:* spudboy100 via Everything List 
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 2, 2014 6:01 PM
> *Subject:* Re: American Intelligence
>
> >>Oh, I think it is totally doable.
>
> Of course you do -- you are a couch potato, on a holy mission, pining for
> a bloody clash of civilizations total war. Go fight your crusade by
> yourself -- coward --  stop trying to drag my country into this quagmire --
> any more than neocon chickenhawks -- cut from the same cowardly cloth as
> you -- have already done.
>
> >> All you need are the right ingredients. Notice that even as a
> nationalist, I do not disinclude the likely success of a well financed and
> executed attack. 9-11 was the primo example, where the political will
> wasn't there to prevent a successful attack with limited goals.
>
> There is no universal agreement on 911, but even assuming the story you
> believe in is the truth -- 911 was NO knockout punch. Not even remotely
> close.
>
> >>So now that ISIS has now allegedly, goodies in their hands like sarin
> and vx nerve agents, as well as weaponized anthrax, why not go for the
> choke points that Allah, in his benificence has rewarded you with?
> Depending on the condition of the bug juice, it may not even be leather
> anymore, the may try for Saudi, Israel, or Jordan, or Europe, and then
> watch the Kufar run for cover. It may be that hitting the US is the most
> emotionally rewarding target, or it may wind in in the sunni-shia war. The
> lib notion is that the US is so big, powerful, immense of wealth,that it is
> unassailable. This is ego, emotion, propaganda, un-reason. Our ancient
> ancestors we able to drive much larger and stronger mammoths over cliffs.
> Let's not be those mammoths.
>
> You keep pulling your most scary rabbits out of your hat -- in your
> attempt to conjure up some imminent threat. But there is no imminent
> threat.. by any stretch of reasonable evaluation posed by a few thousand
> lightly armed fighters in some far away desert.
>
> Who are you trying to convince with your wild eyed fact challenged
> prognostications?
>

You grant "prognostication" here, where I wouldn't even bother.

If you have, in face of our histories, inflexible social contract plus
distribution of powers, there will be opposition with violent subset. So
naturally the evil subset keep trying, and every time they do it's just
plain chickenhawk 101 to yell "see, I told you!". Doesn't change the fact
that every effective bomb or bullet multiplies the gap between people and
their histories.

It's not a prediction, merely propaganda to keep military interest
legitimized, because some possible threat by those evil guys is just always
the case.

And the cash this eats up; if we were just half as diligent with our
education, leveling economic playing fields, environment etc. as we are
with our arms...PGC = Peace Give Chance, stupid cliche monster: "Get out!
Get the fuck out, I say! The hippie shit makes sense if it isn't dumb, ok?"

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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 3 July 2014 05:51, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> No I see that Bruno's point is valid if atheism is equated with
> physicalism and the negation of the Abrahamic god (as he does here)... But
> it is a narrow view... most atheist would agree that they are agnostic on
> first cause and about what is the reality (those who do not have really in
> fact a religious attitude made of beliefs). He even point in the sentence
> you quote " Atheism, ***as I know it***, is".
>

Yes, I was trying to make that point earlier. Or I thought I was.

>
> On the fact you're an asshole... again my mistake, it's simply a true fact
> and cannot be part of your list... I even wonder if a fact could be truer
> than that.
>
> Can't we leave these poor donkeys out of the discussion?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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 3 July 2014 04:46, John Clark  wrote:

> That is no excuse! The technology at the time was good enough to
> demonstrate that a heavy rock does not fall faster than a slightly lighter
> rock, and Aristotle was supposed to be a master of logic and should have
> realized from pure logic alone that contradictions followed from that idea.
> And I must say I think this ancestor worship for the ancient Greeks is
> downright unhealthy and the idea that they (or even some 18th century
> philosopher) could help us  solve today's cutting edge scientific mysteries
> is just ridiculous.
>

You have some good points, especially about the rocks. I don't think anyone
is suggesting that we use Aristotle's ideas on physics (or Plato's ideas on
philosopher kings) - as I understand it we use their names just as
convenient shorthand for "primary materialism" and what I believe is called
neutral monism. (As someone pointed out, Democritus might be a better
person for the former in any case.)

However, it *does* appear that a mindset introduced around the time of
Aristotle is seen as the only answer to religious views - that to oppose
the supernatural you can ONLY use primary materialism. At least that is the
impression I have got from discussions with and reading things by many
self-styled atheists, and it's certainly implicit in a lot of posts on this
forum which say "such and such is obvious / common sense / etc" - what is
"obvious" is always what we're calling primary materialism, and generally
this is a view I would adhere to as the default common sense view of things
myself (as for example when looking for problems with a DIY theory like
tronnies or Edgar Owenism, I would certainly start by asking how it stacks
up on a primary materialist front - and indeed these theories are both
examples of the assumption that the world is only made of space-time and
mass-energy).

However this is a forum for discussing the possibility that the world isn't
necessarily as common sense would dictate, with comp being the main
contender for a relatively counter-intuitive view but several others
floating around. So I think having convenient shorthands for various
stances on these matters is a handy convention, which I would hope everyone
who contributes to the forum recognises. (Although personally I'm still not
sure who Plotinus was or what he had to say about these matters :(

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

2014-07-02 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

They're definitely trying to go for a Pertwee vibe, which is fine by me
(Pert is my 4th favourite Doctor from "classic" Who)





On 2 July 2014 11:17, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> What about the newest guy? Reminds me of Jon Pertwee, minus the fluff
> heads.
>
> 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.

Re: American Intelligence

 From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: American Intelligence

>>Yeah, we all deal with the oceans rising because, hey, its a much, bigger, 
>>problem, and then avoid the knock out punch from outside the US. Nice advice, 
>>thanks. Though nowadays, even BHO doesn't like the results of his policies. 
>>You'd better be lecturing him instead of myself. 

If you believe that the few thousands of fundamentalist fighters who are 
rampaging in a desert far away can deliver a "knockout punch" to the United 
States then you must be on some very good (or maybe very bad) drugs. Do you 
have any idea of the strategic depth of the United States and how truly hard it 
would be to deliver a knockout punch to this continental sized industrialized 
highly armed super power?

You slip off  into the absurd.
Chris

Of course you are spudhead... you choose to live in dread. The world has much 
bigger problems than a couple thousand malcontents in the Middle East -- 
invoking a return to medieval-ism as their rallying cry. The fact that you are 
obsessed with this distraction reveals a rather poor analytic functionality 
operating in your brain (such as it is)
>Chris

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: American Intelligence

 From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: American Intelligence

You might as well dismiss these guys as there is probably zero worth doing now. 
However the now has gases and anthrax so we'll see what they will do if 
anything. I am betting they will.

Of course you are spudhead... you choose to live in dread. The world has much 
bigger problems than a couple thousand malcontents in the Middle East -- 
invoking a return to medieval-ism as their rallying cry. The fact that you are 
obsessed with this distraction reveals a rather poor analytic functionality 
operating in your brain (such as it is)
Chris

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?

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 1:28 am
Subject: 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 
To: everything-list 
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 :
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 N

Re: American Intelligence


In all these discussions we often simply complex issues, because hey, its a 
mailing list. So let me add two other components. One is the ability to degrade 
incoming mass attacks (MIRV'd warheads) with missiles, and or, rail guns, and 
or lasers. The US developed this missile tech around 1960' It was nominally 
called the NIKE program. One can have Containment (shades of George Kenan) but 
if one doesn't have or want and this is the US President. We could contain 
North Korea or Iran, but we, the US, will not. Two things for Kiwis to consider.

Originally I said the reason to notgo all out in a nuclear war was "large areas 
of the Earth would be made uninhabitable" or something similar. It was 
spudboy100 who introduced MAD.


 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Jul 2, 2014 3:31 pm
Subject: Re: American Intelligence



On 2 July 2014 18:17, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:


2014-07-02 3:30 GMT+02:00 LizR :




On 2 July 2014 11:09, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

SMad will likely not work with say, an Iranian guv mint, but it worked ok with 
the Sovs. You fear a Pyrrhic victory, I fear capitulation.




Yes, MAD wouldn't work with a nation of suicide bombers, for example, it 
requires the other side to have a rational desire to stay alive. I suspect that 
covers most world leaders myself but who knows you may have a point. Assuming 
you do, then you're basically saying you'd rather the human race died on its 
feet than lived on its knees, a view with which I have some sympathy (although 
having died on its feet there isn't a chance for a later slaves' revolt...) 






It would certainly not work because MAD is *mutually* assured destruction... 
While I can't deny they would be able to ensure some destruction, they would be 
the only one to have the "assured destruction" part in case of a nuclear 
conflict with the US, they do not have the necessary weapons power to ensure 
the US would be destroy, if and when then will have the bomb, they'll have 
nothing compared to the stockpile of the US (unless another nuclear power 
escalate the thing and the whole world goes "MAD")




Yes it would only be MAD if the destruction was assured, so obviously I was 
only speaking hypothetically, as I assume was spudboy100 at this time (and 
hopefully long into the future).


Originally I said the reason to notgo all out in a nuclear war was "large areas 
of the Earth would be made uninhabitable" or something similar. It was 
spudboy100 who introduced MAD.




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


Just by historical experience it is better do die on your feet, merely, 
because, it seems to afford a greater chance at survival. This reminds me of 
the novel Catch-22, by Joseph Heller, where Yossarian's friend has a dialogue 
with the Spirit of Ancient Rome, where he states, "It is better to die of your 
feet then live on your knees, to which the ancient spirit says, No! no! it is 
better to live on your knees then die on your feet." People like Chris try to 
sell the idea that fear is only paranoia. I don't think it is in the case of 
the Jihad, which rewards dying in battle along with killing in battle, with 
endless women, and food.  If one believes in this path to Jannah, paradies, 
what then is the disincentive?

you may have a point. Assuming you do, then you're basically saying you'd 
rather the human race died on its feet than lived on its knees, 

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: American Intelligence



On 2 July 2014 11:09, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

SMad will likely not work with say, an Iranian guv mint, but it worked ok with 
the Sovs. You fear a Pyrrhic victory, I fear capitulation.



Yes, MAD wouldn't work with a nation of suicide bombers, for example, it 
requires the other side to have a rational desire to stay alive. I suspect that 
covers most world leaders myself but who knows you may have a point. Assuming 
you do, then you're basically saying you'd rather the human race died on its 
feet than lived on its knees, a view with which I have some sympathy (although 
having died on its feet there isn't a chance for a later slaves' revolt...) 






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

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:16 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>  --
>  *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:27 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: Pluto bounces back!
>
> You make statements where the difference between science and theology is a
> matter of degree:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> You are being a purist.
>
>  We all begin with the assumption that an external reality actually
> exists. So on some level sure everything is based on assumptions. It is a
> question of degree.
>
>
> >>Brent has said things sounding like "doesn't matter, whatever works who
> cares how and why", to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all
> ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry.
>
>
> Here ethics should play a role in science according to you. I would offer
> that ethics finally is derived from humanism, religious views, flavors of
> existentialism and other theological phenomena. I agree and think there is
> merit in reflecting whether there is a fundamental difference at all.
>
>
>
> Who is suggesting that ethics should play no role? WHo is suggesting that
> human activity dominated by the profit motive is science -- even when it is
> dressed up in the forms and language of science? Not me for sure. When big
> pharma does drug studies with scary NDAs and then buries all the results
> that do not support the profit driven desired results... this is not
> science in action. And I am NOT claiming that that kind of human activity
> is science. It is marketing perhaps, but it is not science.
>
> >>But we can expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for
> people to suffer verdicts of science infallibility.
>
> We can expect that if people -- in their ignorance of the actual nature of
> science accept this kind of marketing -- that uses the langauge and forms
> of science to produce marketing materials for drugs etc. -- blindly accept
> anything that seems "scientific" as actually being science. When -- I think
> you clearly know -- it is not!
>
> That's just swapping overly transcendental materialist theology with
> overly untranscendental materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up
> with reductionism sharp enough to justify hurting the other camp.
>
> A blind acceptance of any claim made by someone wearing a white lab coat
> and producing some study written in scientific sounding language and
> employing scientific sounding methodologies would be a materialist
> theology. I am not proposing that however and apologies if you
> misunderstood me.
>
>
> Agree on most points here.
>
>
>
> I'm sick of the camp business frankly.
>
> And I am sick of religion (or anything) demanding that I (we) take it
> seriously based on blind faith and ancient texts.. When we do not know,
> then we should have the courage of admitting that we do not know. Science
> (in the ideal at least) admits the bounds of its own ignorance; it has the
> humility to accept that it cannot provide an answer for many questions.
>
>
> So what, should we build some camps now? You seem vexed... doughnut
> perhaps?
>
> No, but that does not mean we should all accept claim's that arise from
> dogma either. Had, a "free" doughnut earlier (they bring them and usually I
> try to avoid them not wishing to become fat, but today, walking by the
> table and seeing them all laid out.. beckoning me as I was there holding a
> espresso coffee in my hand... impulse won out and I grabbed my 600 calorie
> bomb and quite enjoyed it, thank you)
>

Lol! I too got one today!

And because of Liz's recent article, I pondered, but of course didn't have
the balls, to walk up to the lady at the counter and say: "I want nothing
organic full of weird toxins! To know at least what I get: show me the most
neon colored, artificially flavored, purely chemical calorie bomb that you
guys have ever made!" But I chickenhawked on it of course, and just took a
violent looking neon blue one with weird topping, only to find that it was
filled with real blueberry. Meh!


>
>
> I love camping though.
>
> Me too -- some of the best camping on the planet in the region I live in.
>

On my list. Time's a bitch.


>
>
>
>
>
> Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion
> overarches and encompasses everything, including science.
>
> It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly
> deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more
> solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions
> must stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that
> it is falsifiable.
>
>
> >>You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent
> weeks display the opposite.
>
> I am not pretending anyth

Re: American Intelligence


Yeah, we all deal with the oceans rising because, hey, its a much, bigger, 
problem, and then avoid the knock out punch from outside the US. Nice advice, 
thanks. Though nowadays, even BHO doesn't like the results of his policies. 
You'd better be lecturing him instead of myself. 

Of course you are spudhead... you choose to live in dread. The world has much 
bigger problems than a couple thousand malcontents in the Middle East -- 
invoking a return to medieval-ism as their rallying cry. The fact that you are 
obsessed with this distraction reveals a rather poor analytic functionality 
operating in your brain (such as it is)
Chris

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: American Intelligence







  
 
 
 
   From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 4:20 PM
 Subject: Re: American Intelligence
  
 



You might as well dismiss these guys as there is probably zero worth doing now. 
However the now has gases and anthrax so we'll see what they will do if 
anything. I am betting they will.


Of course you are spudhead... you choose to live in dread. The world has much 
bigger problems than a couple thousand malcontents in the Middle East -- 
invoking a return to medieval-ism as their rallying cry. The fact that you are 
obsessed with this distraction reveals a rather poor analytic functionality 
operating in your brain (such as it is)
Chris



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?

 
 
 




-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 1:28 am
Subject: 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 
To: everything-list 
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 :

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 
: 


 

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 (

Re: American Intelligence

2014-07-02 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List


Of course you are happy, but this is more likely that you want the US to be 
essentially neutralized. To this point, do you have an example for which you 
approve of the US using military force, and lets us leave out WW2. This will be 
more telling then mere argument. Name a couple. 
 
 
US CIA and military assessments of the Iranian regime, that have all concluded 
that it is a rational actor

Now this claim, I find interesting. I will take a peak online to confirm or 
deny this view. Thanks.
 
 
You really should refrain from prognosticating on military affairs, of which 
you are consistently wrong on and for which you display a surprising ignorance 
-- perhaps due to your being psychologically crippled by your own passionate 
hatred of Islam.



Go eat a doughnut or something.
Chris [happy that spudboy will never be a general or involved in defense 
planning]

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 7:21 pm
Subject: Re: American Intelligence







  
 
 
 
   From: spudboy100 via Everything List 


SMad will likely not work with say, an Iranian guv mint, but it worked ok with 
the Sovs. You fear a Pyrrhic victory, I fear capitulation.


That is bullshit -- couch potato general man -- you don't know that! And the BS 
you just spouted is directly contradicted by the US CIA and military 
assessments of the Iranian regime, that have all concluded that it is a 
rational actor. You really should refrain from prognosticating on military 
affairs, of which you are consistently wrong on and for which you display a 
surprising ignorance -- perhaps due to your being psychologically crippled by 
your own passionate hatred of Islam.


Go eat a doughnut or something.
Chris [happy that spudboy will never be a general or involved in defense 
planning]

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.


 
 
 




-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 10:56 pm
Subject: Re: American Intelligence



On 1 July 2014 00:38, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 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.


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

Re: What's the answer? What's the question?

2014-07-02 Thread David Nyman

On 2 July 2014 22:04, meekerdb  wrote:

>> Since the primary truth of what I
>> see is simply what I see (i.e. it is incorrigible) it can't be subject
>> to Gettier's paradox. I can't be right about what I see for the wrong
>> reasons because what I see is constitutively true.
>
> But is it incorrigble?  An optical illusion can cause you to see "A is
> bigger than B" even though A is smaller than B.  Of course you can say,
> "Well, it's still incorrigbly true that A *appeared* bigger than B." but
> that's different.

Well, it isn't different to my point, which is precisely that what I
see (i.e. the 1p part) corresponds in the first instance to the truth
content of my visual belief system (i.e. the 3p part). Note that
"there is nothing I can do about it". Hence in this case belief and
truth are necessarily, constitutively, or analytically, equivalent.
Only in the second instance are they vulnerable to correction. One
might say that belief and truth in this first sense are incorrigibly
bound together in a common vulnerability to secondary, or empirical,
error.

> What you literally *saw* was that A was bigger than B,
> i.e. that is the immediate perception
> and it only later that you are
> persuaded that it was "mere" appearance.
> So the perception that your brain
> forms is really creating a model based on sensory input

Yes, that's the "first instance" to which I refer above..

>  and it can be wrong

Yes, primary belief, though necessarily incorrigible in the first
instance, is nonetheless vulnerable in the second instance to
correction or reinterpretation. Just as well, really.

> In other words
> there is no "seeing at all without interpretation"; There is no "simply what
> I see".

I think you have been conflating two different senses of
"interpretation" that I specifically intended to distinguish. The
first corresponds to the immediate perception associated with the
visual belief system and the second with subsequent correction or
reinterpretation. Only the first sense is incorrigible.

> But that's not the point of Gettier's paradox.  Gettier's paradox is that
> you may believe something that is true by accident, e.g. with no causal
> connection to the facts that make it true.  Under Theaetetus's definition
> this counts as knowledge, but not under a common sense understanding.

I think you may now see that this doesn't contradict my point. If the
visual belief system and its associated truth content are
constitutively equivalent, there is no question of "truth by accident"
in the first instance. Of course any second-order reinterpretation of
such first-order beliefs may be empirically "true" by accident, or
wholly untrue for that matter, but that is a different question.

>> Specifically, if a theory lacks an
>> explicit epistemological strategy then, in despite of any success in
>> elucidating the structure of appearance, it may in the end tend to
>> obfuscate, rather than illuminate, fundamental questions pertaining to
>> the knowledge of such appearances.
>
> "May tend" is fairly weak criticism in face to enormous success. The success
> is because science "closes the loop" by testing its theories.  The
> "epistemological strategy" is to pass those tests.

But "science" and comp are not in opposition. To the contrary, if comp
as an explanatory strategy is to have any hope of being successful it
must *become* "science" and hence pass all empirical tests that are
thrown at it. And in any case I'm not criticising the success of the
current paradigm, I'm merely speculating, on grounds that I've argued,
as to whether that same success can ultimately extend to questions
which were, in a certain sense, deliberately sidelined at the start.
But such apparently "subsidiary" questions may ultimately expose an
explanatory Achilles' heel. Time will tell, I guess.

>> Is that true? In what way do the collapse hypothesis or Everett's
>> interpretation depend on how human beings work in detail?
>
> They depend on human thought being quasi-classical, even though humans
> are (presumably) made of quantum systems.  This is just part of the bigger
> question of how does the appearance of the classical world arise from a
> quantum substrate.

OK, thanks, I see what you mean. But I suppose you didn't mean to say
that this implies a dependency on any theory of knowledge in
particular, other than it be capable of being represented
quasi-classically. Is that accurate?

David

> On 7/2/2014 8:51 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>> On 2 July 2014 01:24, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
 Well, I was trying to be short, hence "to put it simply". Would you
 take issue with the preceding statement that "The point, again in
 principle at least, is that nothing *above* the level of the basic
 ontology need be taken into account in the evolution of states defined
 in terms of it."? And if so, what essential difference would your
 specific disagreement make to the point in question?
>>>
>>> I agree with that.
>>
>> Good, that

Re: Pluto bounces back!







 From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
 


You make statements where the difference between science and theology is a 
matter of degree:




On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:


>
>
>
>You are being a purist. 
>
We all begin with the assumption that an external reality actually exists. So 
on some level sure everything is based on assumptions. It is a question of 
degree.
>
>
>
>
>>>Brent has said things sounding like "doesn't matter, whatever works who 
>>>cares how and why", to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all 
>>>ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry.

Here ethics should play a role in science according to you. I would offer that 
ethics finally is derived from humanism, religious views, flavors of 
existentialism and other theological phenomena. I agree and think there is 
merit in reflecting whether there is a fundamental difference at all.

 

>
>Who is suggesting that ethics should play no role? WHo is suggesting that 
>human activity dominated by the profit motive is science -- even when it is 
>dressed up in the forms and language of science? Not me for sure. When big 
>pharma does drug studies with scary NDAs and then buries all the results that 
>do not support the profit driven desired results... this is not science in 
>action. And I am NOT claiming that that kind of human activity is science. It 
>is marketing perhaps, but it is not science.
>
>
>>>But we can expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for 
>>>people to suffer verdicts of science infallibility. 
>
>
>We can expect that if people -- in their ignorance of the actual nature of 
>science accept this kind of marketing -- that uses the langauge and forms of 
>science to produce marketing materials for drugs etc. -- blindly accept 
>anything that seems "scientific" as actually being science. When -- I think 
>you clearly know -- it is not!
>
>
>That's just swapping overly transcendental materialist theology with overly 
>untranscendental materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up with 
>reductionism sharp enough to justify hurting the other camp.
>
>
>
>A blind acceptance of any claim made by someone wearing a white lab coat and 
>producing some study written in scientific sounding language and employing 
>scientific sounding methodologies would be a materialist theology. I am not 
>proposing that however and apologies if you misunderstood me. 

Agree on most points here.

 

>
>I'm sick of the camp business frankly.
>
>
>
>And I am sick of religion (or anything) demanding that I (we) take it 
>seriously based on blind faith and ancient texts.. When we do not know, then 
>we should have the courage of admitting that we do not know. Science (in the 
>ideal at least) admits the bounds of its own ignorance; it has the humility to 
>accept that it cannot provide an answer for many questions.

So what, should we build some camps now? You seem vexed... doughnut perhaps? 

No, but that does not mean we should all accept claim's that arise from dogma 
either. Had, a "free" doughnut earlier (they bring them and usually I try to 
avoid them not wishing to become fat, but today, walking by the table and 
seeing them all laid out.. beckoning me as I was there holding a espresso 
coffee in my hand... impulse won out and I grabbed my 600 calorie bomb and 
quite enjoyed it, thank you)


I love camping though.


Me too -- some of the best camping on the planet in the region I live in.
 
 
> 
>>Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion overarches 
>>and encompasses everything, including science. 
>> 
>>It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly 
>>deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more 
>>solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions 
>>must stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that 
>>it is falsifiable.
>
>
>>>You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent weeks 
>>>display the opposite. 
>
>
>I am not pretending anything. I feel that the experimental method is superior 
>within the physically verifiable material realm than taking some ancient 
>person's idealization of reality as literal TRUTH. 

>>Then we can use that method to derive appropriate ethics/theology and share 
>>the results. I don't see much of this happening. 


We should derive our ethical belief systems based on what works rather than 
based on ancient texts of dubious origin.
 

>
>
>
>>>But as suspect only as the claims of any school of thought, sure.
>
>
>
>I disagree. The Laws of Gravity stand on much firmer ground than the Virgin 
>Mary's alleged virgin birth. Are you really suggesting that these two claims 
>have equivalent basis for being believable?

Now it no lon

Re: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from solar (Update)

On 3 July 2014 05:56, John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
> > I'm all for sun and wind, but the storage and transmission issue may be
>> a lot harder to solve in the short term than building LFTRs.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> > And even building LFTRs will probably take ten years for development.
>>
>
> In today's environment it would take a lot longer than that to build a
> LFTR, but not for any scientific or technological reason; if there was a
> consensus that it REALLY needed to get done it  could happen mighty quick.
> It was only in 1939 that we realized nuclear fission was even theoretically
> possible, and yet by 1945 2 nuclear bombs had destroyed 2 cities; and they
> achieved fission in 2 completely different ways. A small amount of
> electricity was first generated by a nuclear reactor in late 1951, and by
> 1954 we'd figured out how to make such a reactor small enough and powerful
> enough to power a submarine; today that wouldn't be enough time to even
> fill out the paperwork requesting a environmental impact study of the
> project. I don't think the first LFTR will be built in the USA or anywhere
> in the western world; in China probably.
>

I heard recently (ish) that India was going to start a LFTR programme, or
at least look into the possibility. But I haven't heard anything about it
since. Did it fizzle?

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

We may need to use nuclear power but there are sensible and stupid ways to
do it, and maybe it's time to try the first of these.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/271-38/24557-nuclear-radiation-releases-continue-in-new-mexico


On 3 July 2014 05:56, John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
> > I'm all for sun and wind, but the storage and transmission issue may be
>> a lot harder to solve in the short term than building LFTRs.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> > And even building LFTRs will probably take ten years for development.
>>
>
> In today's environment it would take a lot longer than that to build a
> LFTR, but not for any scientific or technological reason; if there was a
> consensus that it REALLY needed to get done it  could happen mighty quick.
> It was only in 1939 that we realized nuclear fission was even theoretically
> possible, and yet by 1945 2 nuclear bombs had destroyed 2 cities; and they
> achieved fission in 2 completely different ways. A small amount of
> electricity was first generated by a nuclear reactor in late 1951, and by
> 1954 we'd figured out how to make such a reactor small enough and powerful
> enough to power a submarine; today that wouldn't be enough time to even
> fill out the paperwork requesting a environmental impact study of the
> project. I don't think the first LFTR will be built in the USA or anywhere
> in the western world; in China probably.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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 7/2/2014 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.


Careful as "I don't believe there is a teapot" is different from "I believe there is 
no teapot".


Personally, I don't believe that there is teapot orbiting Jupiter, but why would I 
believe that there is no teapot? I have no real evidences for that too. I have only a 
speculation extrapolated from my limited knowledge of teapot and Jupiter.


 I might *bet* that there is no teapot, but then I can easily conceive losing the bet, 
by the usual "bad luck".


How you would bet and at what odds is the real measure of belief.  I think you believe 
there is no teapot.


I think that the presence of such teapot is highly implausible. But I can't be 
sure.


Then doesn't this illustrate the difference between belief and your logical 
mode []p.



But the god notion of the neoplatonist makes sense with comp, and it allows us to study 
canonical number theology (G*, Z*, X*, G1*,Z1*,  X1*)


I prefer to use "God" for reality (or semantics, truth conditions), because if I use 
"reality", I have to first explain that science has not yet decide if reality is 
material and immaterial.


And science /has/ decided whether "God" is material or immaterial??




To study the mind body problem, it is preferable to not start from a theology (like 
*assuming* in the theory that "there is a physical universe").


How that any different than starting from "arithmetic and a UD" exist?

Brent
Reality is the leading cause of stress among those in touch with it.
--- Lily Tomlin

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


On 7/2/2014 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The classical theory of knowledge, already present in ancien epistemology is the modal 
KT theory, or KT4.


K is [](A -> B) -> ([]A -> []B). It is equivalent with  ([]A & [](A -> B)) -> []B. It is 
a belief in the modus ponens rule.


T is the important thing: the incorrigibility: you know only truth. []A -> A. The 
knowers knows. He might realize latter that he was wrong, but this disqualify his ancien 
"knowledge" as knowledge: admitting being wrong provides the admitting it was a belief, 
which can be wrong.


"4" is the formula []A -> [][]A. It is used for more stable knowledge than an immediate 
sort of knowledge. You know implies that you know that you know.


That makes no sense to me.  You define knowing and X as "Believing X and X."  But then you 
say the knower might be wrong!?  You've already assumed he's right as part of defining 
"knower".  So really you meant "believer" when you wrote "knower"?


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: Selecting your future branch

2014-07-02 Thread Kim Jones

On 3 Jul 2014, at 5:09 am, meekerdb  wrote:

>> A brain simply hosts a self, best generalised as a mind. This might be the 
>> same as soul, but I'm not really into the supernatural, only a vastly 
>> expanded reality.
> 
> Based on assertions about your feelings?
> 
> Brent

Yes. This is theology, remember. The feeling that there is something ageless 
and eternal about the self is a kind of religious assertion. I think it is 
possible to see this as a "self-referentially correct" (Löbian) statement, 
based only on 1P evidence. The religion you have when you are not using any 
formal, institutionalised religious framework. When you throw out all public 
religion, this does not mean that you have given away religion. Thomas Aquinas 
said "the soul is naturally religious." Well, he said it in Latin.

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: Pluto bounces back!


On 7/2/2014 9:46 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Brent has said things sounding like "doesn't matter, whatever works who cares how and 
why", to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all ethical/theological 
consideration from scientific inquiry.


If you think I said science should not use ethics and theology evaluate which models work 
and which don't; you're right.  If you think I said scientists should not consider ethical 
implications in choosing what they study; you're wrong.


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: What's the answer? What's the question?

On 7/2/2014 8:51 AM, David Nyman wrote:

On 2 July 2014 01:24, meekerdb wrote:

Well, I was trying to be short, hence "to put it simply". Would you
take issue with the preceding statement that "The point, again in
principle at least, is that nothing *above* the level of the basic
ontology need be taken into account in the evolution of states defined
in terms of it."? And if so, what essential difference would your
specific disagreement make to the point in question?

I agree with that.

Good, that's the essential premise I've been reasoning from.

I'm saying that comp uses its basic ontological assumptions to
motivate an epistemology - i.e. a theory of knowledge and knowers.

Well, it assumes one; although I'm not sure how the ontology of arithmetical
realism motivated it. It assumes that provable+true=known. I don't think
this is a good axiom in the sense of "obviously true". It's subject to
Gettier's paradox.

I don't think this is the right way to think about it. Take, for
example, the truth of what I see (i.e. the truth-consequence of my
"visual belief system"). The truth of what I see is incorrigible and
quite distinct from any interpretations that may subsequently be
imposed on it (as we can intuit from demonstrations of how easily our
visual belief system can be fooled). Since the primary truth of what I
see is simply what I see (i.e. it is incorrigible) it can't be subject
to Gettier's paradox. I can't be right about what I see for the wrong
reasons because what I see is constitutively true.

But is it incorrigble? An optical illusion can cause you to see "A is bigger than B" even
though A is smaller than B. Of course you can say, "Well, it's still incorrigbly true
that A *appeared* bigger than B." but that's different. What you literally *saw* was that
A was bigger than B, i.e. that is the immediate perception and it only later that you are
persuaded that it was "mere" appearance. So the perception that your brain forms is
really creating a model based on sensory input and it can be wrong - which is why you're
not usually aware of your blind spot. In other words there is no "seeing at all without
interpretation"; There is no "simply what I see".

But that's not the point of Gettier's paradox. Gettier's paradox is that you may believe
something that is true by accident, e.g. with no causal connection to the facts that make
it true. Under Theaetetus's definition this counts as knowledge, but not under a common
sense understanding.

To the contrary, the irreducible relation between truth and belief in
this sense may point towards a resolution of a different and more
intractable paradox, the POPJ. I think the thrust of Bruno's argument
is that the truth of what I see and the logic of my visual beliefs
(both of which, as manifested physically, I take to be represented in
my neurology) converge on the same referents by means of distinct
epistemological logics. More crudely, they represent the same thing
under two different ways of knowing.

By contrast it is difficult to see how any theory relying on a
reductionist ontology without recourse to an explicit epistemology can
avoid the POPJ. My judgements about what I see cannot be a consequence
of what I see, since ex hypothesi both what I see and my judgements
about it are "really" my neurology (as in the case of "one part of the
brain monitoring another"). At least, that's the conventional take on
the paradox. More stringently, one might say that under reductionism
(as I think Stathis has, in effect, suggested) the POPJ is eliminated
in the same move as the phenomena and the judgements. Whether this
outcome is an improvement is, I guess, a matter of taste.

But there's nothing wrong with assuming a model and
seeing where it leads.

My point exactly. And my argument, in general, has been that where a
model can lead may fundamentally be delimited by the explanatory
strategy adopted at the outset. Specifically, if a theory lacks an
explicit epistemological strategy then, in despite of any success in
elucidating the structure of appearance, it may in the end tend to
obfuscate, rather than illuminate, fundamental questions pertaining to
the knowledge of such appearances.

"May tend" is fairly weak criticism in face to enormous success. The success is because
science "closes the loop" by testing its theories. The "epistemological strategy" is to
pass those tests.

What is interesting, at the very
least, is that Bruno has presented some general grounds for hoping
that a suitably developed "general theory of epistemology" may be
capable of illuminating both.

Maybe. But Bruno also wants to reach empirical tests. Otherwise it's armchair
philosophizing - as was so common and unproductive among the scholastics.

I disagree. I'm using epistemological in the sense of what is
consequential on an explicit theory of knowledge and knowers. AFAIK
physics deploys no such explicit theory and relies on no such
consequences; in fac

Fwd: Brain and Mind (Interesting video clip)





 Original Message 

Interesting video clip, and there's some nice music at the end by the Amygdaloids (nice 
pun there!)


17 minutes.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/01/the_truth_about_free_will_new_answers_to_humanitys_biggest_riddle_partner/

Bill

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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 2 July 2014 18:17, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> 2014-07-02 3:30 GMT+02:00 LizR :
>
> On 2 July 2014 11:09, spudboy100 via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> SMad will likely not work with say, an Iranian guv mint, but it worked
>>> ok with the Sovs. You fear a Pyrrhic victory, I fear capitulation.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, MAD wouldn't work with a nation of suicide bombers, for example, it
>> requires the other side to have a rational desire to stay alive. I suspect
>> that covers most world leaders myself but who knows you *may *have a
>> point. Assuming you do, then you're basically saying you'd rather the human
>> race died on its feet than lived on its knees, a view with which I have
>> some sympathy (although having died on its feet there isn't a chance for a
>> later slaves' revolt...)
>>
>
> It would certainly not work because MAD is *mutually* assured
> destruction... While I can't deny they would be able to ensure some
> destruction, they would be the only one to have the "assured destruction"
> part in case of a nuclear conflict with the US, they do not have the
> necessary weapons power to ensure the US would be destroy, if and when then
> will have the bomb, they'll have nothing compared to the stockpile of the
> US (unless another nuclear power escalate the thing and the whole world
> goes "MAD")
>
> Yes it would only be MAD if the destruction was assured, so obviously I
was only speaking hypothetically, as I assume was spudboy100 at this time
(and hopefully long into the future).

Originally I said the reason to notgo all out in a nuclear war was "large
areas of the Earth would be made uninhabitable" or something similar. It
was spudboy100 who introduced MAD.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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 7/2/2014 5:07 AM, Kim Jones wrote:

On 2 Jul 2014, at 12:46 pm, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Brent:

I don't think that's true. I think differently than I did as a child. As
a child
one experiences many more things as new, fresh, surprising.

Liz:

OK, so you disagree with Kim (or my reading of Kim) on that. You're on different sides
in the "what is consciousness vs what are the contents of consciousness?" debate. Or
indeed the materialist vs comp debate, which come to the same conclusion (physicalism =
we are "nothing but" our memories, predispositions etc - consciousness is not anything
fundamental, it is just a "user illusion," to quote Dan Dennett, a sort of glorified
desktop created by the brain, with no user except itself. Comp = consciousness exists
and is (more or less) fundamental.)

Kim: I am a self that has not felt any different throughout its existence.

How could you know that if "you" is independent of your memory?

I take from this that my self is one thing and then there is everything else, including
the body. I have never identified "me" with anything material. I don't know what age I am.

I'll bet you know how long ago your earliest memory is.

The self simply exists. It always did and it always will. I have died a multitude of
times and will yet die a multitude of times. This is what life is. Death eternal. A
brain simply hosts a self, best generalised as a mind. This might be the same as soul,
but I'm not really into the supernatural, only a vastly expanded reality.

Based on assertions about your feelings?

Brent

I speak of phenomenon and noumenon. Brain is phenomenon. Mind is noumenon, to be
perfectly Kant for a moment...

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

You make statements where the difference between science and theology is a
matter of degree:

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> You are being a purist.
>
 We all begin with the assumption that an external reality actually exists.
> So on some level sure everything is based on assumptions. It is a question
> of degree.
>
>
> >>Brent has said things sounding like "doesn't matter, whatever works who
> cares how and why", to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all
> ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry.
>

Here ethics should play a role in science according to you. I would offer
that ethics finally is derived from humanism, religious views, flavors of
existentialism and other theological phenomena. I agree and think there is
merit in reflecting whether there is a fundamental difference at all.

>
> Who is suggesting that ethics should play no role? WHo is suggesting that
> human activity dominated by the profit motive is science -- even when it is
> dressed up in the forms and language of science? Not me for sure. When big
> pharma does drug studies with scary NDAs and then buries all the results
> that do not support the profit driven desired results... this is not
> science in action. And I am NOT claiming that that kind of human activity
> is science. It is marketing perhaps, but it is not science.
>
> >>But we can expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for
> people to suffer verdicts of science infallibility.
>
> We can expect that if people -- in their ignorance of the actual nature of
> science accept this kind of marketing -- that uses the langauge and forms
> of science to produce marketing materials for drugs etc. -- blindly accept
> anything that seems "scientific" as actually being science. When -- I think
> you clearly know -- it is not!
>
> That's just swapping overly transcendental materialist theology with
> overly untranscendental materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up
> with reductionism sharp enough to justify hurting the other camp.
>
> A blind acceptance of any claim made by someone wearing a white lab coat
> and producing some study written in scientific sounding language and
> employing scientific sounding methodologies would be a materialist
> theology. I am not proposing that however and apologies if you
> misunderstood me.
>

Agree on most points here.

>
> I'm sick of the camp business frankly.
>
> And I am sick of religion (or anything) demanding that I (we) take it
> seriously based on blind faith and ancient texts.. When we do not know,
> then we should have the courage of admitting that we do not know. Science
> (in the ideal at least) admits the bounds of its own ignorance; it has the
> humility to accept that it cannot provide an answer for many questions.
>

So what, should we build some camps now? You seem vexed... doughnut
perhaps?

I love camping though.

>
>
>
> Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion
> overarches and encompasses everything, including science.
>
> It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly
> deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more
> solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions
> must stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that
> it is falsifiable.
>
>
> >>You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent
> weeks display the opposite.
>
> I am not pretending anything. I feel that the experimental method is
> superior within the physically verifiable material realm than taking some
> ancient person's idealization of reality as literal TRUTH.
>

Then we can use that method to derive appropriate ethics/theology and share
the results. I don't see much of this happening.

>
>
> >>But as suspect only as the claims of any school of thought, sure.
>
> I disagree. The Laws of Gravity stand on much firmer ground than the
> Virgin Mary's alleged virgin birth. Are you really suggesting that these
> two claims have equivalent basis for being believable?
>

Now it no longer seems you are arguing for "matter of degree"; more like
"fundamental difference reflecting truth (with your capital T)".

It's perhaps double standard to claim "pesticides are bad example, not
really science, don't be such literal purist..." and then throw back some
relatively convenient example to "debunk religion" in such transparent
manner.

Easy to invert, what is more plausible: existence of dark energy or that
people fooling around, without intercourse, could still exchange genetic
material? This is as specious as your example perhaps.

It's definitely cherry picking truths with capital Ts, as non-confessional
theology is not about literal, fanatical interpretation of text in the
first place, just as science is not about merely wearing lab coat and
maximizing profit margin. I nee

Re: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from solar (Update)

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> I'm all for sun and wind, but the storage and transmission issue may be a
> lot harder to solve in the short term than building LFTRs.
>

I agree.

> And even building LFTRs will probably take ten years for development.
>

In today's environment it would take a lot longer than that to build a
LFTR, but not for any scientific or technological reason; if there was a
consensus that it REALLY needed to get done it  could happen mighty quick.
It was only in 1939 that we realized nuclear fission was even theoretically
possible, and yet by 1945 2 nuclear bombs had destroyed 2 cities; and they
achieved fission in 2 completely different ways. A small amount of
electricity was first generated by a nuclear reactor in late 1951, and by
1954 we'd figured out how to make such a reactor small enough and powerful
enough to power a submarine; today that wouldn't be enough time to even
fill out the paperwork requesting a environmental impact study of the
project. I don't think the first LFTR will be built in the USA or anywhere
in the western world; in China probably.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014-07-02 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-07-02 19:23 GMT+02:00 John Clark :

> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>
>   >>> Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.

>>>
>>> >> Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following
>>> two statements must be true:
>>>   1) If ET exists then ET is a christian.
>>>   2)  Bruno Marchal is not a logician.
>>>
>>> > Or John Clark is an asshole.
>>
>
> I see, Quentin Anciaux also thinks that atheism is a slight variant of
> Christianity.
>

No I see that Bruno's point is valid if atheism is equated with physicalism
and the negation of the Abrahamic god (as he does here)... But it is a
narrow view... most atheist would agree that they are agnostic on first
cause and about what is the reality (those who do not have really in fact a
religious attitude made of beliefs). He even point in the sentence you
quote " Atheism, ***as I know it***, is".

On the fact you're an asshole... again my mistake, it's simply a true fact
and cannot be part of your list... I even wonder if a fact could be truer
than that.

Quentin




> Therefore logically at least one of the following statements must be true:
>
> 1) If ET exists then ET is a christian AND John Clark is an asshole
>
> 2) Quentin Anciaux is not very bright.
>
> QED
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
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: Is Consciousness Computable?



On 01 Jul 2014, at 22:10, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/1/2014 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


In a way, all of fundamental physics posits information theoretic  
entities.  "Particles" are nothing more than "what satisfies  
particle equations".  Bruno complains about Aristotle and  
"primitive matter", but I don't know any physicists who go around  
saying,"I've discovered primitive matter."


That's is exactly why I have no complains on physicists. Most are  
neutral on this. Some are christians.


I "complain" only about physicalist. And I don't complain, I just  
show them epistemologically inconsistent if they assumes comp  
together with physicalism.


I certainly complain when they eliminate person and consciousness.






or "Let's work on finding primitive matter."  They just want a  
theory that is a little more comprehensive, a little more  
accurate, a little more predictive than the one they have now.   
And they couldn't care less what stuff is needed in their theory -  
only that it works.



That is your right, but that is not an argument to defend this or  
that theory when the goal is the search of the truth.


I'm all for searching for what is true.  I'm suspicious of searches  
for THE truth.


I am suspicious only for those who claims to know the truth.

Bruno








Brent
Is that the truth?
No, but it's a lot simpler.
  --- Walt Kelly in "Pogo"

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

To post to this group, send email 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

2014-07-02 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



On 01 Jul 2014, at 19:56, John Clark wrote:


>  "omnipotence" is self-contradictory.

I know, but a little thing like being self-contradictory would never  
stop a good theologian.



Lol. Good humor.

Or we have a big vocabulary problem.

Let me make something clear. By a good theologian, I mean one which  
abandon his theory if shown contradictory. (Unlike you in step 3, btw)


Let me limit "theologian" by either the academic theologians (which  
disappeared at 523 after J in our country, or only survive well  
hidden), and the good scholar on them (although most would not accept  
this).


You really talk like a priest, unable to doubt its religious belief in  
what is not yet clear (I guess a primary physical universe).


According to you what exists?

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: Pluto bounces back!

 From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

> 
>From:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
>Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 2:00 AM
>
>To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
> 
> 
> 
>On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>This invitation to parse the text for some written truth with a capital T does 
>not rise to the same level of experimental verification… e.g. religion does 
>not stand on the same footing as science. 

>>I would not be that quick. The level of experimental verification? Who's 
>>experiment assuming what? Experiments to make plants more genetically robust 
>>to withstand even more pesticide? That's science laced with poor theology and 
>>high profit margin.

When anything becomes driven by the profit motive all other values become 
subordinated. Not disagreeing with that. What you describe is not science it is 
greed taking possession of scientific forms and perverting them to further its 
own narrow interests. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

>> I agree with Liz on this, we cannot NOT assume/believe, for any reasoning to 
>> happen at all. But please make me wrong by showing a line of reasoning that 
>> doesn't assume a single thing.

You are being a purist. We all begin with the assumption that an external 
reality actually exists. So on some level sure everything is based on 
assumptions. It is a question of degree.

>>Brent has said things sounding like "doesn't matter, whatever works who cares 
>>how and why", to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all 
>>ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry.

Who is suggesting that ethics should play no role? WHo is suggesting that human 
activity dominated by the profit motive is science -- even when it is dressed 
up in the forms and language of science? Not me for sure. When big pharma does 
drug studies with scary NDAs and then buries all the results that do not 
support the profit driven desired results... this is not science in action. And 
I am NOT claiming that that kind of human activity is science. It is marketing 
perhaps, but it is not science.

>>But we can expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for people 
>>to suffer verdicts of science infallibility. 

We can expect that if people -- in their ignorance of the actual nature of 
science accept this kind of marketing -- that uses the langauge and forms of 
science to produce marketing materials for drugs etc. -- blindly accept 
anything that seems "scientific" as actually being science. When -- I think you 
clearly know -- it is not!

That's just swapping overly transcendental materialist theology with overly 
untranscendental materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up with 
reductionism sharp enough to justify hurting the other camp.

A blind acceptance of any claim made by someone wearing a white lab coat and 
producing some study written in scientific sounding language and employing 
scientific sounding methodologies would be a materialist theology. I am not 
proposing that however and apologies if you misunderstood me. 

I'm sick of the camp business frankly.

And I am sick of religion (or anything) demanding that I (we) take it seriously 
based on blind faith and ancient texts.. When we do not know, then we should 
have the courage of admitting that we do not know. Science (in the ideal at 
least) admits the bounds of its own ignorance; it has the humility to accept 
that it cannot provide an answer for many questions.

>Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion overarches 
>and encompasses everything, including science. 
> 
>It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly 
>deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more 
>solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions must 
>stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that it is 
>falsifiable.

>>You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent weeks 
>>display the opposite. 

I am not pretending anything. I feel that the experimental method is superior 
within the physically verifiable material realm than taking some ancient 
person's idealization of reality as literal TRUTH. 

>>You don't even have to invoke different standards between human and exact 
>>sciences; even in single domains there is debate as to what constitutes valid 
>>proof and evidence.

Sure and debate is integral to science. Science, unlike religion does not make 
absolute claims... there will always be debate and questioning in science. This 
is its strength.

I like the way Logician Julia Robertson apparently put it in one her logic 
classes in 1969:

A proof is a demonstration that

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture



On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:26, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/1/2014 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Jun 2014, at 07:41, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote:

On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb  wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:

On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark  wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, LizR  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?


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.



I agree with you. I think we can relate this to Occam. If we have a  
theory which explains a lot, and fail to explain a new phenomena,  
we should not abandon the theory, unless the new phenomena does  
violate the theory.


I think that "supernatural" has no meaning at all. No more than the  
incompatibilist theory of free will which I think does not make  
sense (I agree with John Clark on this).


Supernatural would mean violating the laws of physics, and that  
makes no sense because physics, by quasi-definition, changes itself  
each time she is violated.


(But comp + materialism do introduce something close to magic:  
primitive matter capable of selecting consciousness, but without  
any role in the computations).







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 from "something or someone beyond our current  
explanation" to "god".  You speak for atheists, what do you have  
to say for religionists?  Are they just worshiping some unknown  
possibility.  What is the god they believe in - that's the god I  
don't believe in.  I think you have muddled the word "god" in  
order make it seem unreasonable to assert definitively that "god"  
doesn't exist.  But in the process you've made "god" into  
something quite different from the god of religion. A mere shadow  
of the once powerful Yaweh, Baal, Zeus, Thor,...



Earth was thought to be a tortoise, then we learn better.

Similarly the notion of God is the notion of an all encompassing  
one unifying all things. It was thought to be a sort of father in  
the sky,

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>>> Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
>>>
>>
>> >> Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following
>> two statements must be true:
>>   1) If ET exists then ET is a christian.
>>   2)  Bruno Marchal is not a logician.
>>
>> > Or John Clark is an asshole.
>

I see, Quentin Anciaux also thinks that atheism is a slight variant of
Christianity.  Therefore logically at least one of the following statements
must be true:

1) If ET exists then ET is a christian AND John Clark is an asshole

2) Quentin Anciaux is not very bright.

QED

  John K Clark

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

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture



On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.


Careful as "I don't believe there is a teapot" is different from "I  
believe there is no teapot".


Personally, I don't believe that there is teapot orbiting Jupiter,  
but why would I believe that there is no teapot? I have no real  
evidences for that too. I have only a speculation extrapolated from  
my limited knowledge of teapot and Jupiter.


 I might *bet* that there is no teapot, but then I can easily  
conceive losing the bet, by the usual "bad luck".


How you would bet and at what odds is the real measure of belief.  I  
think you believe there is no teapot.


I think that the presence of such teapot is highly implausible. But I  
can't be sure.


But the god notion of the neoplatonist makes sense with comp, and it  
allows us to study canonical number theology (G*, Z*, X*, G1*,Z1*,  X1*)


I prefer to use "God" for reality (or semantics, truth conditions),  
because if I use "reality", I have to first explain that science has  
not yet decide if reality is material and immaterial.


To study the mind body problem, it is preferable to not start from a  
theology (like *assuming* in the theory that "there is a physical  
universe"). Of course it exists in the meta-theory, but we can decide  
to note define its status before proceeding.


Machine's theology is really just computer science, with some emphasis  
on the difference between computer science and computer's computer  
science (G* \ G, X* \ X, etc.).


Bruno





Brent

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

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


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



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

Re: Pluto bounces back!

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 02, 2014 2:00 AM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pluto bounces back!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> This invitation to parse the text for some written truth with a capital T
> does not rise to the same level of experimental verification… e.g. religion
> does not stand on the same footing as science.
>

I would not be that quick. The level of experimental verification? Who's
experiment assuming what? Experiments to make plants more genetically
robust to withstand even more pesticide? That's science laced with poor
theology and high profit margin. I agree with Liz on this, we cannot NOT
assume/believe, for any reasoning to happen at all. But please make me
wrong by showing a line of reasoning that doesn't assume a single thing.

Brent has said things sounding like "doesn't matter, whatever works who
cares how and why", to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all
ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry. But we can
expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for people to
suffer verdicts of science infallibility. That's just swapping overly
transcendental materialist theology with overly untranscendental
materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up with reductionism sharp
enough to justify hurting the other camp.

I'm sick of the camp business frankly.

>
>
> Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion
> overarches and encompasses everything, including science.
>
>
>
> It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly
> deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more
> solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions
> must stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that
> it is falsifiable.
>

You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent
weeks display the opposite. You don't even have to invoke different
standards between human and exact sciences; even in single domains there is
debate as to what constitutes valid proof and evidence.

I like the way Logician Julia Robertson apparently put it in one her logic
classes in 1969:
*A proof is a demonstration that will be accepted by any reasonable person
acquainted with the facts.*

Contrast/compare with R.L. Wilder:
*What is the role of proof? It seems only a testing process that we apply
to these suggestions of intuition. Obviously we don't possess, and probably
will never possess, any standard of proof that is independent of time, the
thing to be proved, or the person or school of thought using it.*

> All and any claims by any religion are suspect.
>

But as suspect only as the claims of any school of thought, sure.

>
>
>
>
> If a book contains no mistakes in the verifiable part, what chances are
> there of it being correct o the non-verifiable part?
>
>
>
> Plenty of chances.
>

In the 1st person private sense that could be wishful thinking in disguise,
yes. In the third person shareable sense, you might want to elaborate. 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.

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014-07-02 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:42 AM, LizR  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?
>

Because unlike Aristotle Newton and Maxwell could not be easily proven
wrong even in their own time, and even today they are not wrong within
their area of applicability, Maxwell's work is still valid provided things
don't get too small, and things work fine for Newton if things don't move
too fast or gravity gets too strong. And that is why we teach and will
always continue to teach those theories in schools. But Aristotle's
physical theories are and have always been completely worthless and the
only place they should be taught is a course on the history of bad ideas.

> Or Einstein or Heisenberg, since we know relativity and quantum mechanics
> are only approximations to some as yet unknown TOE?
>

The trouble is that Aristotle's shallow ideas are not even approximately
correct, they're just flat out wrong.

> the Ancient Greeks were *very *limited by the available technology,
>

That is no excuse! The technology at the time was good enough to
demonstrate that a heavy rock does not fall faster than a slightly lighter
rock, and Aristotle was supposed to be a master of logic and should have
realized from pure logic alone that contradictions followed from that idea.
And I must say I think this ancestor worship for the ancient Greeks is
downright unhealthy and the idea that they (or even some 18th century
philosopher) could help us  solve today's cutting edge scientific mysteries
is just ridiculous.

  John K Clark

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

RE: Pluto bounces back!

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 2:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:54 PM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 02-Jul-2014, at 7:44 am, "'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List" 
 wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias

Now I see why I am unable to answer you. Thanks for explaining! 

So, in principle, you are against any claims of factual accuracy from any 
person or religion, and therefore prejudiced against all scriptures?  

I apologize for interjecting… 

however questioning a faith’s claims to factual accuracy in support of its 
central tenets and dogma does not amount to prejudice. How is this prejudice? 

A faith can be held for deeply felt reasons, but can faith present its central 
dogmas in a manner that is falsifiable 

Science accepts the need for experiment & falsification; why shouldn’t religion?

Chris

Religion does accept the need for experiment & falsification. Rather, the Quran 
invites it's readers to think deeply and verify, as if this book was from other 
than God, it would have contained much discrepancy. 

This invitation to parse the text for some written truth with a capital T does 
not rise to the same level of experimental verification… e.g. religion does not 
stand on the same footing as science. 

Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion overarches and 
encompasses everything, including science. 

It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly 
deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more 
solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions must 
stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that it is 
falsifiable.

All and any claims by any religion are suspect.

Inviting me to parse some ancient text for meaning is not equivalent to 
providing me with experimental evidence for this hypothesis of this alleged 
monotheist deity you are proposing exists. 

Can you provide such experimental evidence? 

No, nor do I attempt to. I believe the monotheistic deity I worship exists, but 
I do not expect others to embrace my faith. I am guessing that since I 
suggested that the Quranic statements are scientifically correct, and hence 
should be considered, the members on this list assume that I'm preaching Islam? 
Is that why you ask for experimental evidence?   

Yes, I am asking for experimental proof of the existence of your deity. If you 
can provide none; why then should I take your faith any more seriously than any 
other faith (which all also make overarching claims of infallibility and so 
forth)? You are welcome to hold your faith, but you cannot claim that it rises 
to the same level of self-correcting external validation that science does.

Science is superior to religion, because it is humble -- unlike (overarching) 
religion -- and demands that its propositions stand up to the test of 
experimental verification. 

Chris

I posted a selection of verses which contained info verifiable by today's 
science, PGC doesn't agree to their being as proofs of 'factual accuracy'. 

You presented some interesting perhaps, but inconsequential little tidbits that 
have nothing to do with the central hypothesis you are defending. Correct me if 
I am wrong, but it is my impression that you are proposing your brand of 
monotheism as being scientific and on equal footing. If this is indeed what you 
are attempting to state then I am going to respectfully disagree and challenge 
you to provide something more relevant to the core hypothesis, i.e. the 
existence of this particular monotheist deity. 

If a book contains no mistakes in the verifiable part, what chances are there 
of it being correct o the non-verifiable part? 

Plenty of chances. 

Samiya 

He asked for what the Quran says, so I quoted other verses explaining the 
faith, which obviously is non-verifiable. Hence, I asked what he was looking 
for. Perhaps 'prejudice' is too strong a word. I'll apologise to PGC. Thanks 
for interjecting :) 

Samiya faith is a matter for you to decide for yourself in your own heart… to 
hopefully quietly meditate upon it in solitude and reflection. You, I and each 
of us must decide ultimately for themselves on matters of faith. You have yours 
and you surely do believe in your faith, but your faith is not science.

No faith is… not even Scientology J

Chris

Samiya 

Given that I am co

Re: What's the answer? What's the question?

2014-07-02 Thread David Nyman

On 2 July 2014 01:24, meekerdb  wrote:

>> Well, I was trying to be short, hence "to put it simply". Would you
>> take issue with the preceding statement that "The point, again in
>> principle at least, is that nothing *above* the level of the basic
>> ontology need be taken into account in the evolution of states defined
>> in terms of it."? And if so, what essential difference would your
>> specific disagreement make to the point in question?
>
> I agree with that.

Good, that's the essential premise I've been reasoning from.

>> I'm saying that comp uses its basic ontological assumptions to
>> motivate an epistemology - i.e. a theory of knowledge and knowers.
>
> Well, it assumes one; although I'm not sure how the ontology of arithmetical
> realism motivated it.  It assumes that provable+true=known.  I don't think
> this is a good axiom in the sense of "obviously true".  It's subject to
> Gettier's paradox.

I don't think this is the right way to think about it. Take, for
example, the truth of what I see (i.e. the truth-consequence of my
"visual belief system"). The truth of what I see is incorrigible and
quite distinct from any interpretations that may subsequently be
imposed on it (as we can intuit from demonstrations of how easily our
visual belief system can be fooled). Since the primary truth of what I
see is simply what I see (i.e. it is incorrigible) it can't be subject
to Gettier's paradox. I can't be right about what I see for the wrong
reasons because what I see is constitutively true.

To the contrary, the irreducible relation between truth and belief in
this sense may point towards a resolution of a different and more
intractable paradox, the POPJ. I think the thrust of Bruno's argument
is that the truth of what I see and the logic of my visual beliefs
(both of which, as manifested physically, I take to be represented in
my neurology) converge on the same referents by means of distinct
epistemological logics. More crudely, they represent the same thing
under two different ways of knowing.

By contrast it is difficult to see how any theory relying on a
reductionist ontology without recourse to an explicit epistemology can
avoid the POPJ. My judgements about what I see cannot be a consequence
of what I see, since ex hypothesi both what I see and my judgements
about it are "really" my neurology (as in the case of "one part of the
brain monitoring another"). At least, that's the conventional take on
the paradox. More stringently, one might say that under reductionism
(as I think Stathis has, in effect, suggested) the POPJ is eliminated
in the same move as the phenomena and the judgements. Whether this
outcome is an improvement is, I guess, a matter of taste.

> But there's nothing wrong with assuming a model and
> seeing where it leads.

My point exactly. And my argument, in general, has been that where a
model can lead may fundamentally be delimited by the explanatory
strategy adopted at the outset. Specifically, if a theory lacks an
explicit epistemological strategy then, in despite of any success in
elucidating the structure of appearance, it may in the end tend to
obfuscate, rather than illuminate, fundamental questions pertaining to
the knowledge of such appearances. What is interesting, at the very
least, is that Bruno has presented some general grounds for hoping
that a suitably developed "general theory of epistemology" may be
capable of illuminating both.

>> I disagree. I'm using epistemological in the sense of what is
>> consequential on an explicit theory of knowledge and knowers. AFAIK
>> physics deploys no such explicit theory and relies on no such
>> consequences; in fact it seeks to be independent of any particular
>> such theory, which is tacitly regarded as being irrelevant to what is
>> to be explained. That is my criterion for distinguishing the two types
>> of theory I had in mind.
>
> OK.  Although, physics does struggle with that it means to observe something
> because observation is never as a superposition.  It is assumed that we need
> to know about how humans work to answer this in detail.

Is that true? In what way do the collapse hypothesis or Everett's
interpretation depend on how human beings work in detail?

>> However, you seem to be saying that
>> you personally favour theories of the first type and that you suppose
>> the effect of the continuing success of such an approach will be to
>> eliminate discussion, or possibly even recognition, of any remaining
>> "explanatory gap". Is that accurate?
>
> Almost. I think the explanatory gap will remain, just as true but unprovable
> theorems of arithmetic will remain.  But it will be a side issue, not a
> subject of scientific research.

I agree that you may well be right in your prediction, but I think it
may be an inevitable consequence of the explanatory strategy adopted.
A model that succeeds, even spectacularly, in answering its chosen
questions can still fail catastrophically in the face of certain
others. It ca

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014-07-02 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-07-02 17:08 GMT+02:00 John Clark :

> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> > Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
>>
>
> Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following two
> statements must be true:
>
> 1) If ET exists then ET is a christian.
>
> 2)  Bruno Marchal is not a logician.
>
>
Or John Clark is an asshole... hmm no, excuse me, that one is true.

Quentin


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



-- 
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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
>

Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following two
statements must be true:

1) If ET exists then ET is a christian.

2)  Bruno Marchal is not a logician.

  John K Clark

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

Re: QM and oil droplets

It seems to me that double-slit/single-photon experiments
illustrate the approach to quantum equilibrium in great detail.
Richard


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:22 AM,  wrote:

> Who knows? Perhaps the De Broglie-Bohm enthousiast can get some further
> insights from this experiments allowing them to e.g. predict subtle
> patterns in interference phenomena that shouldn't be there acording to
> orthodox quantum mechanics.
>
> De Broglie-Bohm theory looks to me a bit like the old aether theory of
> electromagnetism that preceded special relativity. Strictly speaking there
> can be devations from the Born rule, but they always assume that there is
> so-called "quantum equlibrium" making the Born rule is valid. So, my
> (non-expert) opinion is that you should look here first, why can't you
> device some experiment where you are most likely going to violate this
> assumption?
>
> This is also explained here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_non-equilibrium
>
> "The existence of quantum non-equilibrium states has not been verified
> experimentally; quantum non-equilibrium is so far a theoretical construct.
> The relevance of quantum non-equilibrium states to physics lies in the fact
> that they can lead to different predictions for results of experiments,
> depending on whether the De Broglie–Bohm theory in its stochastic form or
> the Copenhagen interpretation is assumed to describe reality. (The
> Copenhagen interpretation, which stipulates the Born rule a priori, does
> not foresee the existence of quantum non-equilibrium states at all.) That
> is, properties of quantum non-equilibrium can make certain classes of
> Bohmian theories falsifiable according to the criterion of Karl Popper."
>
>
>
> Citeren Telmo Menezes :
>
>
>  Hi all,
>>
>> I would like to know what people here make of this...
>> http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality
>>
>> Cheers
>> Telmo.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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: QM and oil droplets

2014-07-02 Thread smitra

Who knows? Perhaps the De Broglie-Bohm enthousiast can get some further 
insights from this experiments allowing them to e.g. predict subtle 
patterns in interference phenomena that shouldn't be there acording to 
orthodox quantum mechanics.


De Broglie-Bohm theory looks to me a bit like the old aether theory of 
electromagnetism that preceded special relativity. Strictly speaking 
there can be devations from the Born rule, but they always assume that 
there is so-called "quantum equlibrium" making the Born rule is valid. 
So, my (non-expert) opinion is that you should look here first, why 
can't you device some experiment where you are most likely going to 
violate this assumption?


This is also explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_non-equilibrium

"The existence of quantum non-equilibrium states has not been verified 
experimentally; quantum non-equilibrium is so far a theoretical 
construct. The relevance of quantum non-equilibrium states to physics 
lies in the fact that they can lead to different predictions for 
results of experiments, depending on whether the De Broglie–Bohm 
theory in its stochastic form or the Copenhagen interpretation is 
assumed to describe reality. (The Copenhagen interpretation, which 
stipulates the Born rule a priori, does not foresee the existence of 
quantum non-equilibrium states at all.) That is, properties of quantum 
non-equilibrium can make certain classes of Bohmian theories 
falsifiable according to the criterion of Karl Popper."




Citeren Telmo Menezes :


Hi all,

I would like to know what people here make of this...
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality

Cheers
Telmo.

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

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

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:46 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I do not know if a fetus does or does not have any thoughts or ideas at
> birth, maybe its as fearful of entering the world outside the womb as we
> are of the hereafter.
> Indeed, parents/family do have a keen impression on a child. Yes, I was
> born in a conservative, practicing muslim family, hence my earliest
> impressions must be from my mother. I do think my father's quest for truth
> had a more lasting and formative impression on my thinking and beliefs.
> When I was about ten, plus minus a couple of years, my father turned
> religious. About the same time, someone tried to convert my father to
> another faith. An elderly person, he started visiting us every weekend.
> Initially, my father would just listen to him out of courtesy, but
> eventually he realized that it is important to seek the truth. Hence, he
> started researching the scriptures, including the Old Testament, the New
> Testament, and the Quran, as well as other books. This opened up a whole
> new world where the conservatives are fearful of treading, lest they lose
> their way. Though it was much later that I would read them for myself, I
> learnt to be open to various faiths and belief systems, while still a
> child, by observing my father.
>
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> We are all God's creations, not God's children.
> No, we are not 'selected from all those to be the sole "God's Children" ',
> but, according to the Quran, we have been selected above a greater part of
> creation. There exist other beings who are 'greater' than humans, such as
> the 'exalted assembly' mentioned in the Quran (37:8 and 38:69)
> All creation is, bio or non-bio, willing or unwilling, and in gratitude or
> not, under God's care and rule.
>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> The same one God. If there were more than one, who would have ruled and
> who would have taken a back seat. Two kings can't rule a realm. How can
> there be more than one God?
>
>
>> One word about reincarnation  I mentioned it and you ques

Re: Speaking of free speech...

2014-07-02 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:52 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 1 July 2014 23:05, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see how the university can stop the student union from banning
>>> things if they want to,
>>>
>>
>> I guess, assuming the student union owns the buildings in which such bans
>> apply.
>>
>> I don't think the union's likely to own any buildings on the college
> campus - only their HQ in Malet Street (where I once went to see Arthur C
> Clark give a talk :-) ...
>

I'm envious!


> but they may well be able to make life difficult for anyone who  wants to
> do "banned" things by, essentailly, bullying them politely until they stop.
>

I wonder how you bully someone politely :)


>
> As I think you already said, they can always convene in the local cafe.
> This all reflects far worse on the U.L.U. than it does on the Neitzsche Soc.
>

Perhaps for you and me, but I worry about the perception of the majority
these days.

I remember when my philosophy teacher in high-school made us watch
"Fahrenheit 451". At the time it felt like a dated message. I was under the
impression that the idea of banning certain books was a thing of the past.
Now I feel that the film is relevant again, and that it would be good if a
lot of people watched it. This scares me.

Cheers,
Telmo.


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

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion
> overarches and encompasses everything, including science.
>

Which religion? How do you know? You still don't address the problem "why
this book over all others?" You perhaps confuse again advertising personal
faith with respectful exchange concerning theology.

If a theologian is honest with assumptions, shows how she/he reaches which
conclusion, so that others can (perhaps internally) verify them and derive
them on their own, and these conclusions are of real value to others to
continue the search, then this basic scientific attitude dissolves the
border between good science and theology.

And that's a problem for too many religious text: they make so many
assumptions, that it creates contradictions like: "Be kind and merciful";
but we live in a world of violence, so we are forced to deal with the
contradiction between reality and the sacred book. If the practitioner
doesn't wrestle with these problems and just points towards faith, they
imply a lazy god who doesn't want his creation to learn to think, and to
stay stupid slaves of his will, finally.

That is why I bring up the example: Faust goes directly against the holy
scripture and its strict literal rules and meaning. Nonetheless the eternal
feminine principle embraces him because he chose to seek truth beyond the
rules and literal meaning of scripture.

So Faust answers, in his fictional universe, the problem of people abusing
a sacred text, by insisting it is true for all, beyond the personal level,
at all cost, at all time; our problem of blasphemy, in a way that the
quoted scripture in this thread fails to answer.

The eternal feminine principle in Faust's universe admits that the
scripture could never be as pure as the heart of the open, honest seeker,
even if he might do wrong in his search.

God admits here that the scripture about her could be wrong!

And this is, if you allow the universe of Faust to just exist poetically, a
theological result echoed by mystics, platonist, Text of Tao etc; a step
forward perhaps from the texts with the strict rules that imply a
tyrannical god that wants subjects to pray and repeat things without
question like: "I believe in unchangeable G, so if x happens I do y, in any
case because this is god's true rule, even if I have to hurt, make
violence, preach, and kill, I believe in the holy Patati and I believe in
the holy Patata etc."

In Faust example therefore, the blasphemy problem is partially solved
though doubting the god's scripture and rules in search. This implies a god
so cool and loving, she doesn't have to play commander, enforcer of violent
and/or simplistic rules. It doesn't mean that it is true; but within Göthe
poetic universe, this is "fact and true". And on this level, with this kind
of distance, theological/scientific exchange is possible if we can be nice
and non-patronizing.

>
>> Inviting me to parse some ancient text for meaning is not equivalent to
>> providing me with experimental evidence for this hypothesis of this alleged
>> monotheist deity you are proposing exists.
>>
>> Can you provide such experimental evidence?
>>
>
> No, nor do I attempt to. I believe the monotheistic deity I worship
> exists, but I do not expect others to embrace my faith. I am guessing that
> since I suggested that the Quranic statements are scientifically correct,
> and hence should be considered, the members on this list assume that I'm
> preaching Islam?
>

Yes, because you aim at scientifically correct "fact" of Quran statements,
but have not demonstrated in the quoted passages what the standards for
"facts" are that you work with. Because you do not demonstrate this in a
way that is shareable, that everybody, no matter culture or beliefs can
verify with their inner self, all that a reader can do is:

a) believe you repeating "I believe patati-patata! Patati-Patata! Because
book says Patati-Patata, and because Patati is obviously true, patata must
be true". The Quran is factually accurate!

b) not believe you.

You then even asked "what is fact?"; which is a humbling, deep question
that should warn all of us about doing things like a), because it is
convincing only to people that think their faith is perfect/saves
them/gives them privilege in the eyes of god/creation/truth. It's a
theological trap because it results in suffering and separation of peoples.

> Is that why you ask for experimental evidence?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I posted a selection of verses which contained info verifiable by today's
>> science, PGC doesn't agree to their being as proofs of 'factual accuracy'.
>>
>>
>>
>> You presented some interesting perhaps, but inconsequential little
>> tidbits that have nothing to do with the central hypothesis you are
>> defending. Correct

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-07-02 Thread Samiya Illias

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:46 AM, John Mikes  wrote:

> 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.
>

I do not know if a fetus does or does not have any thoughts or ideas at
birth, maybe its as fearful of entering the world outside the womb as we
are of the hereafter.
Indeed, parents/family do have a keen impression on a child. Yes, I was
born in a conservative, practicing muslim family, hence my earliest
impressions must be from my mother. I do think my father's quest for truth
had a more lasting and formative impression on my thinking and beliefs.
When I was about ten, plus minus a couple of years, my father turned
religious. About the same time, someone tried to convert my father to
another faith. An elderly person, he started visiting us every weekend.
Initially, my father would just listen to him out of courtesy, but
eventually he realized that it is important to seek the truth. Hence, he
started researching the scriptures, including the Old Testament, the New
Testament, and the Quran, as well as other books. This opened up a whole
new world where the conservatives are fearful of treading, lest they lose
their way. Though it was much later that I would read them for myself, I
learnt to be open to various faiths and belief systems, while still a
child, by observing my father.

> 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?
>

We are all God's creations, not God's children.
No, we are not 'selected from all those to be the sole "God's Children" ',
but, according to the Quran, we have been selected above a greater part of
creation. There exist other beings who are 'greater' than humans, such as
the 'exalted assembly' mentioned in the Quran (37:8 and 38:69)
All creation is, bio or non-bio, willing or unwilling, and in gratitude or
not, under God's care and rule.

>
> 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?
>
> The same one God. If there were more than one, who would have ruled and
who would have taken a back seat. Two kings can't rule a realm. How can
there be more than one God?

> 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,
>

You are referring to the monotheistic Vedic faith or its later evolution
into the po

QM and oil droplets

2014-07-02 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi all,

I would like to know what people here make of this...
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality

Cheers
Telmo.

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

Re: Selecting your future branch

2014-07-02 Thread Kim Jones

On 2 Jul 2014, at 12:46 pm, LizR  wrote:

Brent: 

>> I don't think that's true.  I think differently than I did as a child.  As a 
>> child one experiences many more things as new, fresh, surprising.

Liz:
> 
> OK, so you disagree with Kim (or my reading of Kim) on that. You're on 
> different sides in the "what is consciousness vs what are the contents of 
> consciousness?" debate. Or indeed the materialist vs comp debate, which come 
> to the same conclusion (physicalism = we are "nothing but" our memories, 
> predispositions etc - consciousness is not anything fundamental, it is just a 
> "user illusion," to quote Dan Dennett, a sort of glorified desktop created by 
> the brain, with no user except itself. Comp = consciousness exists and is 
> (more or less) fundamental.)

Kim: I am a self that has not felt any different throughout its existence. I 
take from this that my self is one thing and then there is everything else, 
including the body. I have never identified "me" with anything material. I 
don't know what age I am. The self simply exists. It always did and it always 
will. I have died a multitude of times and will yet die a multitude of times. 
This is what life is. Death eternal. A brain simply hosts a self, best 
generalised as a mind. This might be the same as soul, but I'm not really into 
the supernatural, only a vastly expanded reality. I speak of phenomenon and 
noumenon. Brain is phenomenon. Mind is noumenon, to be perfectly Kant for a 
moment...

K

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

On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 7/1/2014 9:42 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>OK, so how does that work? Like I said, I don't understand it.
>> Intuitively, saying that A causes B and B causes A doesn't appear to make
>> sense,
>>
>>  It's not a causal relationship, it's an explanatory "->".
>>
>
>  Sorry I should have said "explains" although I thought it was obvious I
> was using causal in an explanatory sense, not a physical one. Anyway,
> please continue the explanation.
>
>
> You don't understand what is meant by "physics -> biology" or "biology ->
> evolution -> mathematics" or "mathematics -> physics"?
>
> Yes I do.

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