date:20150118


On 1/18/2015 10:55 PM, Kim Jones wrote:

at 5:45 pm, meekerdb  wrote:


Kim: Which is the Turing Universal system that doesn't show some kind of relationship 
with arithmetic? Why do you feel that that reality would have to be "magical" 
if we notice important relations with arithmetical values?

You can notice important relations between Hamlet and Josephine. Does that make 
Hamlet and Joesphine real?  Perhaps if you're a magician.

Brent


You are the magician here. You say it is possible to notice the "not-real". 
It's not possible to notice something that doesn't exist. The not-real therefore cannot 
be noticed. Hamlet and Josephine exist, I assure you.


I know, you have a flexible meaning of "exist" so Hamlet and Josephine exist and so do 
Bill and Hilary.


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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?


On 1/18/2015 10:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 3:48 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 1/18/2015 9:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

If you assume it is true (independent of our ability or anything in the 
universe's
ability to conceive it), then it is true independently of the universe, and 
hence
you get arithmetical realism.


No, you just keep assuming that true=real. The truths of arithmetic are 
about the
relation of numbers.  And they are true whether or not the numbers exist, 
just as
Dr. Watson is Holmes sidekick.


If it is true that 8 is a composite, doesn't that require the existence of a number 
between 1 and 8 which divides 8?


Only in the mathematicians sense of "exist" which means "satisfies an expression", Dr 
Watson satisfies the expression "X is a sidekick of Holmes."


Brent



In any case, while I agree there is always room to doubt the existence of the numbers 
and their relations, it is the most plausible explanation for existence that I have 
encountered.


Jason

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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: Digest for everything-list@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic


On 1/18/2015 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:34 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 1/18/2015 7:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 6:26 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/15/2015 6:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:01 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

How would you define "intelligence" for this thing?


Jupiter Brain / Omega Point / Result of post-singularity intelligence
explosion / Platonic mind with access infinite computing resources / 
Dyson's
sphere powered computer, take your pick. It's capable enough to run a
planet-wide simulation down to whatever necessary detail it desires, 
and be
able to infer any being's thoughts on the planet by analyzing its brain
activity. Beyond that I'm not sure how to quantify or define its 
intelligence.

  I think of intelligence as the ability to observe and infer and learn. 
Of course the traditional God was not only the creator of everything He

was also a person who knew everything and so could not learn 
anything.


Maybe this one is only a mere demi-god then. You can only say it knows
everything about its simulation.

1. Would you consider such a demi-god a theistic god for the entities 
within
its simulation?


Not necessarily.  One of the defining characteristics of the theist God 
is that
He cares about human behavior (especially when they're nude).


If I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if it were 
demonstrated that
our universe was created and is maintained by a theistic God simulating the 
whole
universe, you would not call it a theistic God unless it happened to care 
about
your behavior when you're nude? You will go to any stretch to avoid 
entertaining
the possibility that atheism might be wrong.


There's already a word for the religion that says a god creates and runs 
things but
doesn't much care about human behavior; it's called deism and deists, like 
Thomas
Jefferson, were commonly called atheists by their political opponents.

I don't understand your complaint about avoiding disproof of atheism.  I 
have given
a fairly specific definition of it which easily admits of empirical refutation. 
Yaweh could show up tomorrow.  It's not my fault if theism is false.  You're the one

that wants to fuzz out theism to mean almost anything except reductive 
materialism.





2. Can you rule out that some demi-god somewhere isn't simulating this 
planet?


No.


I take back my last sentence.



3. Do you think the existence of such a demi-god follows from the
UDA/arithmetical realism?


Probably not.  But in any case I'm not a fan of arithmetical realism.  
Truth
=/= existence.


You're right it doesn't. But the truth of the statement "There exists a 
program X
that computes Y" is proof of the existence of program X which computes Y.


But "existence" only in the mathematical sense which is tautological; i.e. 
implicit
in some axioms, which you've left unstated in your example, relying on 
common
assumption of the Church-Turing thesis to define "computes".


And relying on the "multiple realizability" implication of computationalism, it 
shouldn't matter what the substrate is for the computed minds, be it neurons, silicon, 
electrons and quarks, or platonic objects. So the "mathematical existence" of something, 
can be and feel just as real to the computed minds within that mathematical reality, as 
the world would feel to the mind existing in a physical reality.


So there's no difference between simulated and fundamental reality? And there's no 
difference between physical reality and mathematical reality (Tegmarkism).




I have more doubt for physical reality than the mathematical reality, however.


How can that be when you've said you think they are the same thing?

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: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?


On 1/18/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:

On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


Because 2+2=4, and there's nothing you (or anyone/anything) can do to 
change that.


Sure there is.  2+2=0 in mod 4 arithmetic - which is good for 
describing some
things.


I hope you are being flippant and don't really think that disproves what 
Jason has
said!

If in doubt consider whether the phrase "in mod 4 arithmetic" was necessary 
to what
you wrote. If it is, then arithmetic remains necessarily so until you can 
come up
with something that is self-contradictory /without/ any such qualifiers 
being required.


As you must know from my other posts, I don't consider self-consistency to 
entail
existence.  So the fact that 2+2=4 is true doesn't imply anything about 
existence.


It implies the existence of an equality relation between (2+2) and 4. Other facts, such 
as "the Nth state of the execution of the UD contains a subject who believes his name is 
Brent Meeker" is a fact that implies the existence of other things,


You continually assume that the truth of some mathematical relations imply the existence 
of things (like a running UD), which begs the question.


such as Brent Meeker's conscious state in which he doubts in the significance of 
mathematical truths in relation to existence and reality.


That you consider "mod 4" to be a qualifier is just a convention of 
language.  If we
were talking about time what's six hours after 1900: answer 0100, because 
there the
convention is mod 24.  But my serious point is that arithmetic is a model of
countable things we invented and it's not some magic that controls what 
exists.


What leads you to say relations between numbers are invented rather than 
discovered?


Some are discovered, from the properties we invented (like every number has a 
successor).

Will the person who proves (or disproves) the Goldbach conjecture invent that truth (or 
falsehood), or will he discover it?


He will discover a sequence of inferences from Peano's axioms to Goldbach's 
conjecture.

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.

The Weakness of Panpsychism?

On Monday, January 19, 2015, David Nyman > wrote:

> On 18 January 2015 at 23:28, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 19, 2015, David Nyman  wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 January 2015 at 14:42, Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What's wrong with "merely adventitious parallelism, on the lines of
 epiphenomenalism"? If it seems to leave the mystery untouched, that is
 because there is no logically possible solution to the hard problem of
 consciousness.

>>>
>>> Before we get into that, do you agree that formulations such as Smolin's
>>> are just missing the reference problem? I'm not at all sure that he means
>>> to say that the 'internal' properties amount to an epiphenomenon (although
>>> I find it a little difficult to be sure exactly what he means to say). That
>>> is, I don't understand him to mean that all *references* to sensations are
>>> the consequence of externally-observable properties of matter, but
>>> additional, 'internal' properties fortuitously happen to correspond to
>>> those references, despite there being no lawful interaction involving both
>>> sets of properties.
>>>
>>
>> If the internal properties supervene on the observable properties, isn't
>> this a kind of lawful interaction?
>>
>
> Well, it would hardly be *inter* action because, given external causal
> closure, internal properties could have no possible role in the observable
> causal account. That makes the hypothesis of such properties both ad hoc
> (i.e. merely tacked-on in the face of troublesome a posteriori facts) and
> gratuitously lacking in parsimony (since the hypothesised properties can
> have no other explanatory role).
>

I agree that the term "internal properties" is somewhat confusing. If these
properties are the qualia, then it's unnecessary to introduce a new term,
and if they give rise to the qualia, then they are ad hoc. Better to just
say the qualia supervene on the observable properties. I'm not sure what
Smolin meant exactly.

After all, he wants to say that more complex aspects of mind (i.e. than
>>> 'pure' qualia) may be due to a 'combination' of the two types of property
>>> (perhaps something about the problem of reference has struck him here). But
>>> how can there plausibly be any such combining if the two sets of properties
>>> never interact? And how can we suppose them to interact when the external
>>> relations on their own give every evidence, both in theory and in practice,
>>> of being causally closed?
>>>
>>
>> I guess he means that when we do things there is both the observable
>> behaviour and the experience. The experience can still be unobservable
>> (except to the experiencer) but intimately associated with the observable
>> in a supervenient relationship.
>>
>> What if zombies could be shown to be logically impossible? That would
>> then mean that experiences were necessarily associated with certain
>> processes. One could complain that this was unsatisfactory, but that would
>> be like complaining that it was unsatisfactory that sqrt(2) was not
>> rational.
>>
>
> That's a poor example, given that it is obviously and analytically true as
> soon as you comprehend the meaning of "sqrt(2)" and "not rational". In
> other words, in such cases the right understanding of the terms warrants
> the conclusion as self-evident. The association of particular physical
> processes with conscious experiences isn't analytically obvious or
> necessary in any equivalent sense. Rather, if true, it would merely be a
> contingent a posteriori fact.
>

But if zombies were *logically* impossible, as I believe Dennett for
example claims, then it would be analytically true, not a contingent fact.


> In point of contrast, a key virtue of the comp hypothesis is that it
> associates mechanism (albeit digital mechanism) with consciousness
> (modelled as truth) in just this analytic or constitutive way. Further, the
> mode of association of digital mechanism with both consciousness and
> matter, far from being ad hoc, is given a priori in the base assumptions. I
> cite this not as a warrant for the specific correctness of the hypothesis,
> but rather as an example of a mode of explanation that might tend towards a
> *resolution* of the problem I posed, as opposed to a dismissal or
> trivialisation of it.
>

I agree to an extent, but someone could still invoke a version of the Hard
Problem by asking why there should be any consciousness at all rather than
just dumb arithmetic.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?


On 1/18/2015 9:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:44 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 1/18/2015 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, 
or at
least having an idea of, what God is.


I would go further and say one cannot disbelieve in God 
without
knowing, or at least having an idea of what reality is, for
unless one claims to know the extent of reality, how can one
suppose to know what it does or doesn't contain?


You can easily know that things with self contradictory
properties are not in reality.


I agree with that.

If something has properties that are inconsistent with
observation that is fairly strong evidence it doesn't exist.

"Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but
does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to.  If he
wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does 
not
want to, he is wicked.  If he neither can, nor wants to, he 
is
both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and 
wants
to, then how comes evil in the world?'"
  --- Epicurus


That's a nice example of an application of rational thought 
towards
the advancement of theology. You've proven that an omnipotent 
God
with the power and desire to prevent any bad thing from 
happening
does not exist.

What else might we have been able to prove or disprove if 
theology
had remained open to free inquiry over the past several 
millennia?


And then there are things that are consistent with both 
logic
and observation, but are very unlikely on our best theories 
of
how the world works, e.g. teapots orbiting Jupiter.  Are you
"agnostic" about the teapot orbiting Jupiter?


To disbelieve in a particular thing orbiting Jupiter requires a
working theory of our solar system.

To disbelieve in a particular thing existing at all (neither in 
this
universe, nor in any other place in reality) requires a working
theory of reality. What is yours?

Does "agnostic" just mean "I don't know for certain" or 
does it
mean "I'm equally disposed to believe or disbelieve." or "I
think it's impossible to decide the question."


That's a good question. I think a definitive answer can be drawn
from one's working theory of reality, but I don't know if an 
answer
to that question is decidable or not, though perhaps it's 
possible
to accumulate evidence towards one. So far I think man has made
little progress in this endeavor, but Bruno and Tegmark seem to 
be
farther ahead than most towards developing one. Working under 
those
theories, I might say I am more of a "rational theist" in the 
sense
that I can identify at least three things one might call god 
within
those ontologies. However, as to which theory of reality is 
correct,
I might call myself agnostic (even though I might be in the high
90's percentage wise leaning towards it, I could never be 
certain).





Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find the
idea highly unlikely


Why do you find it highly unlikely (what is the conception 
you
are assuming here?),


When I write "God" with caps, I mean a god who is a
superpowerful person and who wants to be worshipped; not 
some
abstract organizing principle or the set of true 
propositions.


Subtract "and who wants to be worshiped"

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

2015-01-18 Thread Kim Jones

at 5:45 pm, meekerdb  wrote:

>> Kim: Which is the Turing Universal system that doesn't show some kind of 
>> relationship with arithmetic? Why do you feel that that reality would have 
>> to be "magical" if we notice important relations with arithmetical values?
> 
> You can notice important relations between Hamlet and Josephine. Does that 
> make Hamlet and Joesphine real?  Perhaps if you're a magician.
> 
> Brent


You are the magician here. You say it is possible to notice the "not-real". 
It's not possible to notice something that doesn't exist. The not-real 
therefore cannot be noticed. Hamlet and Josephine exist, I assure you. 

Somewhere. Out there. 

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: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

On 1/18/2015 9:28 PM, Kim Jones wrote:

On 19 Jan 2015, at 2:51 pm, meekerdb wrote:

But my serious point is that arithmetic is a model of countable things we
invented and it's not some magic that controls what exists.

Brent

Magic? Hmmyou wish..still having trouble with the comp reversal,
you are, sir.

I observe there are many Turing Universal systems - they are all equivalent in
terms of their ability to encode information and arithmetic is merely a choice
of convenience because we cannot reduce arithmetic to anything else. We could
even use music as our system if we wanted to as music encodes arithmetical
values and in addition provides complete structures which are physically
encoded as sound and therefore exist in a perfectly real sense. I guess you can
say that Man invented music but the system that man chose to base music on is a
Turing Universal system which is mathematical to the core.

Which is the Turing Universal system that doesn't show some kind of relationship with
arithmetic? Why do you feel that that reality would have to be "magical" if we
notice important relations with arithmetical values?

You can notice important relations between Hamlet and Josephine. Does that make Hamlet and
Joesphine real? Perhaps if you're a magician.

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: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

2015-01-18 Thread Kim Jones

On 19 Jan 2015, at 4:40 pm, Jason Resch  wrote:

>> That you consider "mod 4" to be a qualifier is just a convention of 
>> language.  If we were talking about time what's six hours after 1900: answer 
>> 0100, because there the convention is mod 24.  But my serious point is that 
>> arithmetic is a model of countable things we invented and it's not some 
>> magic that controls what exists.
> 
> What leads you to say relations between numbers are invented rather than 
> discovered? Will the person who proves (or disproves) the Goldbach conjecture 
> invent that truth (or falsehood), or will he discover it?
> 
> Jason

This is indeed the core issue. It seems that whether you believe in this or not 
is really a matter of personal taste because it actually cannot be proven 
either way. 

I merely simplify it by saying (via comp) that number alone is real. 
Mathematics is the means by which we are learning to understand the way reality 
is encoded, so naturally enough, we should suppose that Mathematics shares some 
of the transcendental qualities of number. Did we invent Math or did Math 
invent us? That's now better put as "we invented our altogether reasonable 
belief that we invented Math" and there is a line of reasoning that explains 
why we universal machines would suppose that, something that means that we 
continually fail to see that the much longed-for ToE has been hiding all along 
in plain sight. It's very annoying, I agree. 

In much the same way, a composer writing a piece of music feels that the object 
in sound he is creating is actually more like something discovered than 
created, the work involved in composing the notes and rhythms etc. more like 
the effort required to polish the muck off something to reveal its true nature. 

Mathematics is just the infinity of relations between numbers. Your realisation 
of that perhaps entails that you worry less about the nature of Math - that's 
not the issue.

The real issue is (wait for it) "what is number?" Here, only taste and acts of 
faith can have any currency. We all kind of need to get over ourselves 
regarding this, I think.

 As I said:  the world is divided into two tribes, in all cultures and at all 
times. 

These are: the Gay Platonist Mystics who believe number cannot be accounted for 
(even by God) and are annoyingly happy with that, and the Tough Guy 
Aristotelian SWAT team who shoot mystics on sight because they don't serve 
their type around here. 

I also believe I am the first human to draw attention to this fundamental 
syzygy of human belief types. I don't think you can reduce Platonist and 
Aristotelian to something else. Humans confront the ultimate questions wearing 
one or the other of these two masks. I think.

We simply cannot know certain things, boys and girls. There is a limitation to 
knowledge. Deutsch is wrong. Get over it already. Incompleteness. There is 
always more - mathematical reality: uncountably infinite. And expanding. And 
accelerating.

So, it's a simulation - who cares. I gotta tell ya it's a fucking great 
simulation and I reckon VR still has a long way to go to beat it. I love it.

Don't ask what is being simulated, please!

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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 2:52:34 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:48 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 12:27:06 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>>


 On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:11 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List <
 everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> Roger,
>>
>> I have a question for you.
>>
>> Do you believe the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of Pi has a
>> certain definite value, which is either 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9?
>>
>> If so, would you still believe this if you knew that this number is
>> too difficult to ever compute by anyone in this universe?
>>
>> Does this not point to a discontinuity between mathematical truth and
>> conceivably of that truth by us limited creatures with limited minds in a
>> limited universe? Perhaps it does take faith to believe that digit takes 
>> a
>> certain value between 0 and 9, but it's easier for me to accept that on
>> faith than the converse (that it is not any one of those digits).
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
> Jason,
>
> What I believe is that there is no proposition outside a mind/head
> that relates a circle's circumference and its diameter to get a number
> called pi.
>

 But that wasn't my question. Do you think that that the digit has a
 certain definite value (despite not being known by any human) or perhaps
 any being in this physical universe?  Let's work by steps, do you think the
 10^1th digit has a definite value? Do you think the 10^6th digit has a
 certain definite value? Do you think the 10^Nth digit has a definite value
 (for any given N)) ?



> What I think does exist is:
>
> o A circle could exist either outside the mind or inside the mind/head
> as the mental construct labeled "a circle".
>
> o It takes a mind to come up with a proposition that says that if you
> divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter, you get pi, and that
> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of this pi is one of the numbers from
> 0-9.
>

 Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following statements is
 true?

 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0
 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 1
 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 2
 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 3
 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 4
 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 5
 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 6
 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 7
 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 8
 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 9

 Either you answer yes, or no to that question. If you answer yes, I
 don't see how you can escape mathematical realism.

 Jason


>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> I believe the following:
>>>
>>> o I do believe that the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi is either
>>> 0-9.
>>>
>>
>> Yet no mind has conceived what it is. It exists and yet it exists outside
>> the mind of any person, which seems counter to your clams below.
>>
>
>>
>>>
>>> o That 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi and its value of 0-9
>>> exists only in the mind of the person where the proposition defining pi
>>> exists.
>>>
>>
>> So does defining what Pi is lead to the existence of all of its infinite
>> digits, even if those digits are never considered by a conscious mind?
>>
>> If a conscious mind can reify other things it doesn't concevie why does
>> any mind need to reify the first concept (of pi) at all?
>>
>
> Roger:  Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th
> decimal point of pi, the pi proposition and therefore the process of
> calculating its 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point and being confident that
> if you do the process that that number is either 0-9 are all located inside
> the mind/head.  My view is that whenever we talk about something existing,
> we have to specify where and when it exists, that is, in what context or
> domain it exists.  A thing can exist in one place and not another.  A ball
> can exist outside the head, and a mental construct labeled "the concept of
> a ball" can exist inside the head.
>

If a ball can exist outside the mind/head, why can't the 10^(10^(10^100))th
decimal point of pi exist outside the mind/head? What property must a thing
have to have an independent existence outside of any mind? (according to
your theory?)

Jason


> So, if the pi process were carried out inside the mind/head long enough to
> figure out the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point, that mental construct for
> that number (which would be 0-9) would exi

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 3:48 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/18/2015 9:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> If you assume it is true (independent of our ability or anything in the
> universe's ability to conceive it), then it is true independently of the
> universe, and hence you get arithmetical realism.
>
>
> No, you just keep assuming that true=real. The truths of arithmetic are
> about the relation of numbers.  And they are true whether or not the
> numbers exist, just as Dr. Watson is Holmes sidekick.
>

If it is true that 8 is a composite, doesn't that require the existence of
a number between 1 and 8 which divides 8?

In any case, while I agree there is always room to doubt the existence of
the numbers and their relations, it is the most plausible explanation for
existence that I have encountered.

Jason

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

Re: Digest for everything-list@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:34 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/18/2015 7:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 6:26 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 1/15/2015 6:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:01 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  How would you define "intelligence" for this thing?
>>>
>>
>>  Jupiter Brain / Omega Point / Result of post-singularity intelligence
>> explosion / Platonic mind with access infinite computing resources /
>> Dyson's sphere powered computer, take your pick. It's capable enough to run
>> a planet-wide simulation down to whatever necessary detail it desires, and
>> be able to infer any being's thoughts on the planet by analyzing its brain
>> activity. Beyond that I'm not sure how to quantify or define its
>> intelligence.
>>
>>
>>>I think of intelligence as the ability to observe and infer and
>>> learn.  Of course the traditional God was not only the creator of
>>> everything He was also a person who knew everything and so could not learn
>>> anything.
>>>
>>
>>  Maybe this one is only a mere demi-god then. You can only say it knows
>> everything about its simulation.
>>
>>  1. Would you consider such a demi-god a theistic god for the entities
>> within its simulation?
>>
>>
>>  Not necessarily.  One of the defining characteristics of the theist God
>> is that He cares about human behavior (especially when they're nude).
>>
>
>  If I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if it were
> demonstrated that our universe was created and is maintained by a theistic
> God simulating the whole universe, you would not call it a theistic God
> unless it happened to care about your behavior when you're nude? You will
> go to any stretch to avoid entertaining the possibility that atheism might
> be wrong.
>
>
> There's already a word for the religion that says a god creates and runs
> things but doesn't much care about human behavior; it's called deism and
> deists, like Thomas Jefferson, were commonly called atheists by their
> political opponents.
>
> I don't understand your complaint about avoiding disproof of atheism.  I
> have given a fairly specific definition of it which easily admits of
> empirical refutation.  Yaweh could show up tomorrow.  It's not my fault if
> theism is false.  You're the one that wants to fuzz out theism to mean
> almost anything except reductive materialism.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>  2. Can you rule out that some demi-god somewhere isn't simulating this
>> planet?
>>
>>
>>  No.
>>
>>
>  I take back my last sentence.
>
>
>>
>>  3. Do you think the existence of such a demi-god follows from the
>> UDA/arithmetical realism?
>>
>>
>>  Probably not.  But in any case I'm not a fan of arithmetical realism.
>> Truth =/= existence.
>>
>
>  You're right it doesn't. But the truth of the statement "There exists a
> program X that computes Y" is proof of the existence of program X which
> computes Y.
>
>
> But "existence" only in the mathematical sense which is tautological; i.e.
> implicit in some axioms, which you've left unstated in your example,
> relying on common assumption of the Church-Turing thesis to define
> "computes".
>
>
And relying on the "multiple realizability" implication of
computationalism, it shouldn't matter what the substrate is for the
computed minds, be it neurons, silicon, electrons and quarks, or platonic
objects. So the "mathematical existence" of something, can be and feel just
as real to the computed minds within that mathematical reality, as the
world would feel to the mind existing in a physical reality.

I have more doubt for physical reality than the mathematical reality,
however.

Jason

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

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Because 2+2=4, and there's nothing you (or anyone/anything) can do to
>> change that.
>>
>>
>>  Sure there is.  2+2=0 in mod 4 arithmetic - which is good for
>> describing some things.
>>
>
>  I hope you are being flippant and don't really think that disproves what
> Jason has said!
>
>  If in doubt consider whether the phrase "in mod 4 arithmetic" was
> necessary to what you wrote. If it is, then arithmetic remains necessarily
> so until you can come up with something that is self-contradictory
> *without* any such qualifiers being required.
>
>
> As you must know from my other posts, I don't consider self-consistency to
> entail existence.  So the fact that 2+2=4 is true doesn't imply anything
> about existence.
>

It implies the existence of an equality relation between (2+2) and 4. Other
facts, such as "the Nth state of the execution of the UD contains a subject
who believes his name is Brent Meeker" is a fact that implies the existence
of other things, such as Brent Meeker's conscious state in which he doubts
in the significance of mathematical truths in relation to existence and
reality.


> That you consider "mod 4" to be a qualifier is just a convention of
> language.  If we were talking about time what's six hours after 1900:
> answer 0100, because there the convention is mod 24.  But my serious point
> is that arithmetic is a model of countable things we invented and it's not
> some magic that controls what exists.
>
>
What leads you to say relations between numbers are invented rather than
discovered? Will the person who proves (or disproves) the Goldbach
conjecture invent that truth (or falsehood), or will he discover it?

Jason

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

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

2015-01-18 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:44 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/18/2015 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>   On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
   On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

 On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least
>> having an idea of, what God is.
>>
>
>  I would go further and say one cannot disbelieve in God without
> knowing, or at least having an idea of what reality is, for unless one
> claims to know the extent of reality, how can one suppose to know what it
> does or doesn't contain?
>
>
>  You can easily know that things with self contradictory properties
> are not in reality.
>

  I agree with that.

> If something has properties that are inconsistent with observation
> that is fairly strong evidence it doesn't exist.
>
> "Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but
> does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to.  If he
> wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not
> want to, he is wicked.  If he neither can, nor wants to, he is
> both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and wants
> to, then how comes evil in the world?'"
>   --- Epicurus
>

  That's a nice example of an application of rational thought towards
 the advancement of theology. You've proven that an omnipotent God with the
 power and desire to prevent any bad thing from happening does not exist.

  What else might we have been able to prove or disprove if theology
 had remained open to free inquiry over the past several millennia?

>
> And then there are things that are consistent with both logic and
> observation, but are very unlikely on our best theories of how the world
> works, e.g. teapots orbiting Jupiter.  Are you "agnostic" about the teapot
> orbiting Jupiter?
>

  To disbelieve in a particular thing orbiting Jupiter requires a
 working theory of our solar system.

  To disbelieve in a particular thing existing at all (neither in this
 universe, nor in any other place in reality) requires a working theory of
 reality. What is yours?

>  Does "agnostic" just mean "I don't know for certain" or does it mean
> "I'm equally disposed to believe or disbelieve." or "I think it's
> impossible to decide the question."
>

  That's a good question. I think a definitive answer can be drawn from
 one's working theory of reality, but I don't know if an answer to that
 question is decidable or not, though perhaps it's possible to accumulate
 evidence towards one. So far I think man has made little progress in this
 endeavor, but Bruno and Tegmark seem to be farther ahead than most towards
 developing one. Working under those theories, I might say I am more of a
 "rational theist" in the sense that I can identify at least three things
 one might call god within those ontologies. However, as to which theory of
 reality is correct, I might call myself agnostic (even though I might be in
 the high 90's percentage wise leaning towards it, I could never be 
 certain).

>
>
>
>>  Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find the idea highly
>> unlikely
>>
>
>  Why do you find it highly unlikely (what is the conception you are
> assuming here?),
>
>
>  When I write "God" with caps, I mean a god who is a superpowerful
> person and who wants to be worshipped; not some abstract organizing
> principle or the set of true propositions.
>

  Subtract "and who wants to be worshiped" then re-answer that
 question.  Why should we suppose that super-powerful minds are not likely
 to exist in reality?

  There's a difference between "super-powerful minds" and "a
 superpowerful person".  By superpowerful person I meant one who could
 transcend physical laws, i.e. perform miracles.

>>>
>>>
>>>  A super powerful mind (or person) simulating some reality could of
>>> course cause the simulation to deviate from its "physical laws".
>>>
>>>
>>>  But in a simulation, not in reality.
>>>
>>>
>>  The simulation is as much "reality" to those in the simulation as our
>> reality is to us, to the point where it's impossible for anyone to know
>> whether they're in a simulation or not.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
   By the very definition of miracles these ar

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

2015-01-18 Thread Kim Jones

> On 19 Jan 2015, at 2:51 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> 
> But my serious point is that arithmetic is a model of countable things we 
> invented and it's not some magic that controls what exists.
> 
> Brent

Magic? Hmmyou wish..still having trouble with the comp reversal, 
you are, sir.

I observe there are many Turing Universal systems - they are all equivalent in 
terms of their ability to encode information and arithmetic is merely a choice 
of convenience because we cannot reduce arithmetic to anything else. We could 
even use music as our system if we wanted to as music encodes arithmetical 
values and in addition provides complete structures which are physically 
encoded as sound and therefore exist in a perfectly real sense. I guess you can 
say that Man invented music but the system that man chose to base music on is a 
Turing Universal system which is mathematical to the core.

Which is the Turing Universal system that doesn't show some kind of 
relationship with arithmetic? Why do you feel that that reality would have to 
be "magical" if we notice important relations with arithmetical values? What 
does it feel like to be living in a magical universe, Brent? 

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: Democracy

2015-01-18 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Concerning thread: Perhaps I'm wrong and everybody is right.

Perhaps it's also ignoring some perceived set of mentalities that get us
into these kinds of positions in the first place.

Just remember maybe to have a good day whenever we can? And if we can
afford it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYi7uEvEEmk

That's enough proof that we can do better than sneering Onion satire.
Freedom of speech also means we can indeed argue taste above that freedom,
without authority.

Vacuous mysticism served neat. Are there better drinks?

Onions have always struck me as a bit vulgar, even if necessary at times,
they force us to cry. This onion was a lemon. Full of seeds and noxious
juice. Bad canteens would scoff at this produce despite the low price (It's
just advertising in the end). 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: Democracy

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 7:18 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

Well, this is exactly what your buddy Bamer does as president, ordering drone 
strikes, sending troops into Syria to "train", as well as continued US 
involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. barry, nor kerry, nor even archaic folk 
singer, James Taylor,  in Paris are leading the charge now, are they? Your 
strident insistence that the world let the Islamists kill them, so you can feel 
self righteous is unhelpful, to say the least, and likely some sort of 
atavistic psychological trait that is concomitant with your ideology. Be that 
as it may, i'd advise the rest of us to ignore this mentality and lay our head 
upon the tracks and wait for the freight train of history to roll upon us all. 
That'd be suicidal.

You might want to get back on those medications

-Chris

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 08:52 PM
Subject: RE: Democracy

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 

It matches my BHO visage toilet paper quite nicely. 

How brave of you… by all means do whatever it takes to compensate and make 
yourself feel like a man, but it don’t change the fact that you are the worst 
kind of coward there is… the coward who shrilly calls for other people to go to 
war. 

-Chris

You must wear it like a brown shirt! Do you also sport an armband?

- Chris

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 7:16 pm
Subject: RE: Democracy

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 

I even have a T-shirt with the printing, I Tea Bagged Nancy Pelosi. I ordered 
it from zazzle. Its still hold up after 4 years 

You must wear it like a brown shirt! Do you also sport an armband?

- Chris

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 9:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

Yah! Typical proggie, 

Must be one of your tea party pejoratives? 

Technically, Buckwheat, I am not a White Christian dude. 

More of a Tea Party idiot.. yes.

Secondly, since we have drifted into your personal vitriol, allow me, unlike 
Mr. Jesus, to not turn the other cheek, but rather to reply in kind. The term 
WASP used to describe the white anglo saxon protestants, who in this land were 
believed to be the central culture of racism, religious hatred, exclusivism. My 
new way of thinking is that WASP now connotes White Anglo Saxon Progressives, 
which to my mind are the true fascists in America's midst, and in my more 
corrosive moments terms them as White Aryan Socialist Pigfuckers. WASP's being, 
the willing enablers of Islamic fanaticism, women hatred, Jew hatred, Christian 
hatred and sadly, America hatred. To wit, the WASP's of whichever terminology, 
do indeed which this nation state wiped out, and they the neo-Wasps will 
somehow be the lone survivors.  As to your country? Are we speaking of Castro's 
Cuba, because that's my own reply to assholes like Michael Moore (Where's My 
Country Dude? 2002) which I surmised, must have been communist Cuba, a place of 
repression, poverty-along with all that nice free health care :-)

I could not have done a better job myself, in exposing you as being a paranoid, 
vulgar and violently fascist ignorant human being. Fortunately your sick views 
are a small minority in this country (even within the Republican party). 
America has no appetite for your lurid crusade, in spite of all the noise being 
made by your neocon thought leaders.

Fortunately, for us -- and the rest of the world -- America has not become all 
that captivated by your fascist movement. You idiots  have already reached your 
high water mark politically. Crawl back in the hole you slithered out.

I am not particularly concerned by the deaths you cited below of the Jihadist 
peoples waging their wars of domination and extermination worldwide, across 
many nations, any more than I would have been deeply, troubled, by the 
incineration of Tokyo by incendiary bombs dropped by the US Air corp in 1944 
(then). 

I can see that… all that death and suffering. I bet thinking about it gives you 
a hard on?

Nor, would I bleed heavily for the worthies of Nuremberg during the same 
period, as both citizens of those nations were participating in Camp 731 in 
Manchuria, where tens of thousands suffered torture murders b

RE: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

2015-01-18 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

 

Yeah they might indeed be 'americanized' so to speak, or it might be that you 
simply don't care whether they eventually start bombing and shooting when 
things seem right to them to do so. 

 

So says the unemployable, angry tea party, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, redneck 
who could not afford to live in a converted garage in the city where I live. 

 

 

As to your economic analysis, you mean after 6 years Seattle is all that's 
pulling the Obama economy from sliding back down into recession-ville? Man, 
that is some strong bud you are imbibing.

 

We have some of the strongest world beating companies headquartered and 
operating out of here. And zero almost unemployment in the tech sector. And 
yeah, Washington state also has the best legal bud in the world and a happening 
music and arts scene. What does your rust belt has-been, industrially decaying, 
backwater have going for it?

 

But your statements indicate to me a narcissistic mentality that believes after 
you get done damaging the old US, you, somehow, will be the last stalinoid 
standing. Fascinating that. Good luck. 

 

It is lazy self-absorbed angry idiots like you who have been dragging this 
country down with your low productivity, abyssimal skill sets and all around 
ignorance. The state of Washington (like most blue states and areas) is a net 
tax contributor to the federal government (and to the US economy. If bitter 
angry white male losers like you would instead of blaming others for “stealing 
your jobs” instead take some actual responsibility for yourselves and learn new 
skills in life – skills that are in demand – then you might have a little more 
luck yourself. Your kind always preaches using the language of personal 
responsibility, but I bet you blame others for your poor socio-economic status 
and low personal achievement.

I am sure somehow this also must be the fault of those Islamic devils. Typical 
hypocrisy, easier to blame others for one’s ills and short comings. 

All of this would just be your business, but your psychopathic love affair with 
an existential clash of civilizations makes you impossible to ignore, which – 
believe me -- would be my preference.

-Chris

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 2:29 pm
Subject: RE: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 

 

Yah, could be. I was just strumming through the news when I hit this item, and 
it made me think of adding it to our discussion here. 

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/01/muslim-immigrants-smash-urinate-on-virgin-mary-statue-in-italy/

 

Sikh's mix in, Hindu's mix in, Buddhists and Daoists mix in, Jews and Atheists, 
all mix in (Jews funded and fought in th 1776 revo-a conspiracy?) and so forth 
and Deists, and Agnostics, and Platonists, and so forth. Why not the Muslims? I 
have pointed out one answer. But its not something you can live with. Alas or 
meh! 

Muslims, mix in fine in the state of Washington. They are my colleagues – 
highly educated software engineers – working along-side other programmers and 
technology workers from all ethnicities and religious backgrounds in the 
globally significant high technology cluster in the Seattle metro area. They 
are my neighbors, along with all the other diverse technology immigrant 
communities that now live here. My city… my metro area in this American 
continent, is one of the engines that keeps our country from sinking down into 
economic collapse, decline and historical irrelevance. There are communities 
from every part of the earth, living side by side and thriving here… and the 
collective energy and brilliance of this technology-cluster diaspora is the 
secret sauce that makes this world class technology cluster engine possible.

You live somewhere in the American rust belt… in a declining industrial 
has-been-heartland.. a hollowed out husk of the former glory days. Is this what 
drives your bitterness?

-Chris

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 1:27 pm
Subject: RE: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 

 

Because its not part of the party line is why. It's the ideology of progies to 
enable the jihad attacks against the west, perhaps so as to winnow down the 
forces of resistance, via Islamist attacks, and thus, get the party worldwide 
into power, placed their by beleaguered votes? Paranoid indeed, but it kind of 
makes sense. 

 

Yes, very paranoid indeed… and yes, of course it would make “sense” to you; due 
to your own existential lo

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?


On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb > wrote:


On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


Because 2+2=4, and there's nothing you (or anyone/anything) can do to 
change that.


Sure there is.  2+2=0 in mod 4 arithmetic - which is good for describing 
some things.


I hope you are being flippant and don't really think that disproves what Jason 
has said!

If in doubt consider whether the phrase "in mod 4 arithmetic" was necessary to what you 
wrote. If it is, then arithmetic remains necessarily so until you can come up with 
something that is self-contradictory /without/ any such qualifiers being required.


As you must know from my other posts, I don't consider self-consistency to entail 
existence.  So the fact that 2+2=4 is true doesn't imply anything about existence.  That 
you consider "mod 4" to be a qualifier is just a convention of language.  If we were 
talking about time what's six hours after 1900: answer 0100, because there the convention 
is mod 24.  But my serious point is that arithmetic is a model of countable things we 
invented and it's not some magic that controls what exists.


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: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?


On 1/18/2015 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at
least having an idea of, what God is.


I would go further and say one cannot disbelieve in God without
knowing, or at least having an idea of what reality is, for 
unless
one claims to know the extent of reality, how can one suppose to
know what it does or doesn't contain?


You can easily know that things with self contradictory 
properties
are not in reality.


I agree with that.

If something has properties that are inconsistent with 
observation
that is fairly strong evidence it doesn't exist.

"Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but
does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to.  If he
wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not
want to, he is wicked.  If he neither can, nor wants to, he is
both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and 
wants
to, then how comes evil in the world?'"
  --- Epicurus


That's a nice example of an application of rational thought towards 
the
advancement of theology. You've proven that an omnipotent God with 
the
power and desire to prevent any bad thing from happening does not 
exist.

What else might we have been able to prove or disprove if theology 
had
remained open to free inquiry over the past several millennia?


And then there are things that are consistent with both logic 
and
observation, but are very unlikely on our best theories of how 
the
world works, e.g. teapots orbiting Jupiter.  Are you "agnostic" 
about
the teapot orbiting Jupiter?


To disbelieve in a particular thing orbiting Jupiter requires a 
working
theory of our solar system.

To disbelieve in a particular thing existing at all (neither in this
universe, nor in any other place in reality) requires a working 
theory of
reality. What is yours?

Does "agnostic" just mean "I don't know for certain" or does it 
mean
"I'm equally disposed to believe or disbelieve." or "I think 
it's
impossible to decide the question."


That's a good question. I think a definitive answer can be drawn 
from
one's working theory of reality, but I don't know if an answer to 
that
question is decidable or not, though perhaps it's possible to 
accumulate
evidence towards one. So far I think man has made little progress 
in this
endeavor, but Bruno and Tegmark seem to be farther ahead than most
towards developing one. Working under those theories, I might say I 
am
more of a "rational theist" in the sense that I can identify at 
least
three things one might call god within those ontologies. However, 
as to
which theory of reality is correct, I might call myself agnostic 
(even
though I might be in the high 90's percentage wise leaning towards 
it, I
could never be certain).





Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find the idea
highly unlikely


Why do you find it highly unlikely (what is the conception you 
are
assuming here?),


When I write "God" with caps, I mean a god who is a 
superpowerful
person and who wants to be worshipped; not some abstract 
organizing
principle or the set of true propositions.


Subtract "and who wants to be worshiped" then re-answer that question. 
Why should we suppose that super-powerful minds are not likely to exist

in reality?


There's a difference between "super-powerful minds" and "a 
superpowerful
person". By superpowerful person I meant one who could transcend 
physical
laws, i.e. perform miracles.



A super powerful mind (or p

Re: Digest for everything-list@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic

On 1/18/2015 7:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 6:26 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 1/15/2015 6:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:01 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

How would you define "intelligence" for this thing?

Jupiter Brain / Omega Point / Result of post-singularity intelligence
explosion /
Platonic mind with access infinite computing resources / Dyson's sphere
powered
computer, take your pick. It's capable enough to run a planet-wide
simulation down
to whatever necessary detail it desires, and be able to infer any being's
thoughts
on the planet by analyzing its brain activity. Beyond that I'm not sure how
to
quantify or define its intelligence.

I think of intelligence as the ability to observe and infer and
learn. Of
course the traditional God was not only the creator of everything He
was also a
person who knew everything and so could not learn anything.

Maybe this one is only a mere demi-god then. You can only say it knows
everything
about its simulation.

1. Would you consider such a demi-god a theistic god for the entities
within its
simulation?

Not necessarily. One of the defining characteristics of the theist God is
that He
cares about human behavior (especially when they're nude).

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if it were demonstrated that our
universe was created and is maintained by a theistic God simulating the whole universe,
you would not call it a theistic God unless it happened to care about your behavior when
you're nude? You will go to any stretch to avoid entertaining the possibility that
atheism might be wrong.

There's already a word for the religion that says a god creates and runs things but
doesn't much care about human behavior; it's called deism and deists, like Thomas
Jefferson, were commonly called atheists by their political opponents.

I don't understand your complaint about avoiding disproof of atheism. I have given a
fairly specific definition of it which easily admits of empirical refutation. Yaweh could
show up tomorrow. It's not my fault if theism is false. You're the one that wants to
fuzz out theism to mean almost anything except reductive materialism.

2. Can you rule out that some demi-god somewhere isn't simulating this
planet?

No.

I take back my last sentence.

3. Do you think the existence of such a demi-god follows from the
UDA/arithmetical
realism?

Probably not. But in any case I'm not a fan of arithmetical realism.
Truth =/=
existence.

You're right it doesn't. But the truth of the statement "There exists a program X that
computes Y" is proof of the existence of program X which computes Y.

But "existence" only in the mathematical sense which is tautological; i.e. implicit in
some axioms, which you've left unstated in your example, relying on common assumption of
the Church-Turing thesis to define "computes".

Brent

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>  Because 2+2=4, and there's nothing you (or anyone/anything) can do to
> change that.
>
>
> Sure there is.  2+2=0 in mod 4 arithmetic - which is good for describing
> some things.
>

I hope you are being flippant and don't really think that disproves what
Jason has said!

If in doubt consider whether the phrase "in mod 4 arithmetic" was necessary
to what you wrote. If it is, then arithmetic remains necessarily so until
you can come up with something that is self-contradictory *without* any
such qualifiers being required.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

Thank you for those kind words! :-)

On 17 January 2015 at 13:21, Kim Jones  wrote:

>
>
> On 17 Jan 2015, at 6:59 am, LizR via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Of course I do believe in Daleks
> 
> ...)
>
>
> Jesus, you design a difficult bloody crossword! I thought I knew my Dr
> WHO...
>
> 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.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>   On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
  On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



 On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR  wrote:

> Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least
> having an idea of, what God is.
>

  I would go further and say one cannot disbelieve in God without
 knowing, or at least having an idea of what reality is, for unless one
 claims to know the extent of reality, how can one suppose to know what it
 does or doesn't contain?


  You can easily know that things with self contradictory properties are
 not in reality.

>>>
>>>  I agree with that.
>>>
>>>
 If something has properties that are inconsistent with observation that
 is fairly strong evidence it doesn't exist.

 "Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but
 does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to.  If he
 wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not
 want to, he is wicked.  If he neither can, nor wants to, he is
 both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and wants
 to, then how comes evil in the world?'"
   --- Epicurus

>>>
>>>  That's a nice example of an application of rational thought towards
>>> the advancement of theology. You've proven that an omnipotent God with the
>>> power and desire to prevent any bad thing from happening does not exist.
>>>
>>>  What else might we have been able to prove or disprove if theology had
>>> remained open to free inquiry over the past several millennia?
>>>
>>>

 And then there are things that are consistent with both logic and
 observation, but are very unlikely on our best theories of how the world
 works, e.g. teapots orbiting Jupiter.  Are you "agnostic" about the teapot
 orbiting Jupiter?

>>>
>>>  To disbelieve in a particular thing orbiting Jupiter requires a
>>> working theory of our solar system.
>>>
>>>  To disbelieve in a particular thing existing at all (neither in this
>>> universe, nor in any other place in reality) requires a working theory of
>>> reality. What is yours?
>>>
>>>
  Does "agnostic" just mean "I don't know for certain" or does it mean
 "I'm equally disposed to believe or disbelieve." or "I think it's
 impossible to decide the question."

>>>
>>>  That's a good question. I think a definitive answer can be drawn from
>>> one's working theory of reality, but I don't know if an answer to that
>>> question is decidable or not, though perhaps it's possible to accumulate
>>> evidence towards one. So far I think man has made little progress in this
>>> endeavor, but Bruno and Tegmark seem to be farther ahead than most towards
>>> developing one. Working under those theories, I might say I am more of a
>>> "rational theist" in the sense that I can identify at least three things
>>> one might call god within those ontologies. However, as to which theory of
>>> reality is correct, I might call myself agnostic (even though I might be in
>>> the high 90's percentage wise leaning towards it, I could never be certain).
>>>
>>>
>>>



>  Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find the idea highly
> unlikely
>

  Why do you find it highly unlikely (what is the conception you are
 assuming here?),


  When I write "God" with caps, I mean a god who is a superpowerful
 person and who wants to be worshipped; not some abstract organizing
 principle or the set of true propositions.

>>>
>>>  Subtract "and who wants to be worshiped" then re-answer that
>>> question.  Why should we suppose that super-powerful minds are not likely
>>> to exist in reality?
>>>
>>>
>>>  There's a difference between "super-powerful minds" and "a
>>> superpowerful person".  By superpowerful person I meant one who could
>>> transcend physical laws, i.e. perform miracles.
>>>
>>
>>
>>  A super powerful mind (or person) simulating some reality could of
>> course cause the simulation to deviate from its "physical laws".
>>
>>
>>  But in a simulation, not in reality.
>>
>>
>  The simulation is as much "reality" to those in the simulation as our
> reality is to us, to the point where it's impossible for anyone to know
> whether they're in a simulation or not.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>   By the very definition of miracles these are not reliably observed and
>>> so the empirical evidence makes their existence very unlikely.
>>>
>>
>>  You could only draw this conclusion if you believed it highly likely
>> that should any miracle have occurred in this universe, humankind wou

Re: Digest for everything-list@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic

2015-01-18 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 6:26 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/15/2015 6:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:01 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  How would you define "intelligence" for this thing?
>>
>
>  Jupiter Brain / Omega Point / Result of post-singularity intelligence
> explosion / Platonic mind with access infinite computing resources /
> Dyson's sphere powered computer, take your pick. It's capable enough to run
> a planet-wide simulation down to whatever necessary detail it desires, and
> be able to infer any being's thoughts on the planet by analyzing its brain
> activity. Beyond that I'm not sure how to quantify or define its
> intelligence.
>
>
>>I think of intelligence as the ability to observe and infer and
>> learn.  Of course the traditional God was not only the creator of
>> everything He was also a person who knew everything and so could not learn
>> anything.
>>
>
>  Maybe this one is only a mere demi-god then. You can only say it knows
> everything about its simulation.
>
>  1. Would you consider such a demi-god a theistic god for the entities
> within its simulation?
>
>
> Not necessarily.  One of the defining characteristics of the theist God is
> that He cares about human behavior (especially when they're nude).
>

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if it were
demonstrated that our universe was created and is maintained by a theistic
God simulating the whole universe, you would not call it a theistic God
unless it happened to care about your behavior when you're nude? You will
go to any stretch to avoid entertaining the possibility that atheism might
be wrong.


>
>
>  2. Can you rule out that some demi-god somewhere isn't simulating this
> planet?
>
>
> No.
>
>
I take back my last sentence.


>
>  3. Do you think the existence of such a demi-god follows from the
> UDA/arithmetical realism?
>
>
> Probably not.  But in any case I'm not a fan of arithmetical realism.
> Truth =/= existence.
>

You're right it doesn't. But the truth of the statement "There exists a
program X that computes Y" is proof of the existence of program X which
computes Y.

Jason


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

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

RE: Democracy

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

 

It matches my BHO visage toilet paper quite nicely. 

 

How brave of you… by all means do whatever it takes to compensate and make 
yourself feel like a man, but it don’t change the fact that you are the worst 
kind of coward there is… the coward who shrilly calls for other people to go to 
war. 

-Chris

 

You must wear it like a brown shirt! Do you also sport an armband?

- Chris

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 7:16 pm
Subject: RE: Democracy

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 

 

I even have a T-shirt with the printing, I Tea Bagged Nancy Pelosi. I ordered 
it from zazzle. Its still hold up after 4 years 

 

You must wear it like a brown shirt! Do you also sport an armband?

- Chris

 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 9:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

 

Yah! Typical proggie, 

 

Must be one of your tea party pejoratives? 

 

Technically, Buckwheat, I am not a White Christian dude. 

 

More of a Tea Party idiot.. yes.

 

 

 

Secondly, since we have drifted into your personal vitriol, allow me, unlike 
Mr. Jesus, to not turn the other cheek, but rather to reply in kind. The term 
WASP used to describe the white anglo saxon protestants, who in this land were 
believed to be the central culture of racism, religious hatred, exclusivism. My 
new way of thinking is that WASP now connotes White Anglo Saxon Progressives, 
which to my mind are the true fascists in America's midst, and in my more 
corrosive moments terms them as White Aryan Socialist Pigfuckers. WASP's being, 
the willing enablers of Islamic fanaticism, women hatred, Jew hatred, Christian 
hatred and sadly, America hatred. To wit, the WASP's of whichever terminology, 
do indeed which this nation state wiped out, and they the neo-Wasps will 
somehow be the lone survivors.  As to your country? Are we speaking of Castro's 
Cuba, because that's my own reply to assholes like Michael Moore (Where's My 
Country Dude? 2002) which I surmised, must have been communist Cuba, a place of 
repression, poverty-along with all that nice free health care :-)

 

I could not have done a better job myself, in exposing you as being a paranoid, 
vulgar and violently fascist ignorant human being. Fortunately your sick views 
are a small minority in this country (even within the Republican party). 
America has no appetite for your lurid crusade, in spite of all the noise being 
made by your neocon thought leaders.

Fortunately, for us -- and the rest of the world -- America has not become all 
that captivated by your fascist movement. You idiots  have already reached your 
high water mark politically. Crawl back in the hole you slithered out.

 

 

I am not particularly concerned by the deaths you cited below of the Jihadist 
peoples waging their wars of domination and extermination worldwide, across 
many nations, any more than I would have been deeply, troubled, by the 
incineration of Tokyo by incendiary bombs dropped by the US Air corp in 1944 
(then). 

 

I can see that… all that death and suffering. I bet thinking about it gives you 
a hard on?

 

 

Nor, would I bleed heavily for the worthies of Nuremberg during the same 
period, as both citizens of those nations were participating in Camp 731 in 
Manchuria, where tens of thousands suffered torture murders by the Japanese 
Army to develop bioweapons, and the Germans were doing the same at Dachau, 
respectively. So, the Jihadists worldwide are doing mayhem wherever they can, 
against Buddhists in Thailand,

 

Hard to have a discussion with someone who is as ignorant of world demographics 
and history as you. Thailand's three Southernmost provinces of Yala, Pattani 
and Narathiwat, have a Muslim AND ethnic (linguistic) Malay majority. Thailand 
as a whole is dominated by its Buddhist and ethnic Thai majority and for 
decades subjected this religious and ethnic majority Muslim and Malay region to 
a process of forced assimilation into majority Thai culture. 

Your ignorant mind demands that this separatist movement be worked into your 
cherished clash of civilizations meme, but reality is far more complex and 
nuanced than intellectual simpletons such as yourself demand it to be.

 

 

and against Hindus in India, 

 

Stupid idiot – It is the Muslim minorities in India who regularly get murdered, 
burned out of their homes and driven off their land by Hindu extremists. 
Narendra Modi, the current Prime Minister of India was the man in charge in 
Gujurat state during one of these anti-

RE: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

2015-01-18 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 2:09 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On 1/18/2015 10:03 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Because its not part of the party line is why. It's the ideology of progies to 
enable the jihad attacks against the west, perhaps so as to winnow down the 
forces of resistance, via Islamist attacks, and thus, get the party worldwide 
into power, placed their by beleaguered votes? Paranoid indeed, but it kind of 
makes sense. 

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question. 

  John K Clark

-Original Message-
From: John Clark   
To: everything-list   

Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:33 PM, PGC  wrote:

>> A fair question.  

>I'm not so sure about that. The question presupposes ironically that violence 
>is a justified response to insult.

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question.

Of course it is not all Muslims who become homicidal, only a small number; yet 
certainly a much larger proportion than among those other religions.  But the 
Tamil Tigers are Hindu and have engaged in suicide bombing and other terrorist 
acts.  Christians and Jews certainly also in different times.  Buddhist and 
Jains and Quakers not so much.  Atheists...depends on how you count Stalin, 
Mao, and Pol Pot.  I don't think they had their 'religion' insulted; they just 
wanted power, but that might be true of imams too.  I think the important 
difference is Muslims have been marginalized by the advance of technological 
civilization and the Enlightenment.  So disaffected young men, like the Kouchai 
brothers, see fighting for Islam as a worthy and noble venture to give meaning 
to their lives, without having give it themselves.  By comparison, fighting for 
communism would have been attractive in the 50's but is passe now.  Fighting 
for Capitalism makes no sense because Capitalism is dominant.  

I am glad you see the distinction, and recognize that there are all kinds of 
people living in the middle east and Iran. The Arab/Persian/Turkish spheres all 
have long and glorious histories. They are complex places. Up to a point I 
agree with the analysis you provide. One cannot totally discount the experience 
of European Colonialism and later on the petro-dollar empire the victorious 
post WWII US. We have backed brutal tyrants (the Shah, whom we installed in a 
1953 CIA run coup in Iran, instigated by that countries democratically elected 
governments refusal to continue allowing BP to take 90% of oil revenues out as 
profit). The opulent narcissistic kleptocracies of the Gulf & Egypt also backed 
and supported… certainly not in the name of freedom.

Iraq has been destroyed by more than twenty years of war (actually more than 
thirty, counting the Iraq/Iran war). Even in the periods between the two later 
Iraq wars it was strangled by economic war. Predictably it has fallen apart now 
and the most extreme elements of that society have emerged in the vacuum of the 
absence of state power. 

Should anyone really  be surprised that a people traumatized by a multi 
generations long war, with all infrastructure basically destroyed (rebuilt 
“somewhat” to soon become destroyed again), with everything that comes with 
living under those kinds of harsh, brutalizing, dehumanizing conditions… should 
the West be surprised with the psychopathic freak/horror show that subsequently 
emerges?

The Neocon prescription has been followed for almost 15 years. Iraq and 
Afghanistan were bombed into freedom; the United States went in and broke the 
pottery – just as Collin Powell had warned.  You break it; you own it. 

ISIS and the other criminal gangs that have emerged may all adopt the messianic 
cloth of Islamic extremism, but the cause of their emergence is more the result 
of a many decade long US military action. What we see is what emerges from 
shock and awe and nation “building”… it is war’s bumper crop… this is classic 
blowback.

Quite conveniently for the neocon airbags that still blather on (as they have 
been now for 15 years) exhorting  others to go out to wage war, to kill and be 
killed… quite conveniently for them, ISIS makes the perfect bogey man (they are 
scary monsters, no doubt, I have seen some truly gruesome footage). 

History is complex and multi-faceted. I understand the motivations for 
pr

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

2015-01-18 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> The question is not if God exists or not. But if
> God = the physical universe?
> God = a mathematical structure? Which one?
> God = a dream by a universal machine?
> God = a sum on all dreams by all universal machines?
> God = the one who lost itself in a labyrinth of dreams?
> God = the one who plays hide and seek with Itself?
> God = the universal person?
> God = the universal person completions? (if that exists)
> God = Allah?
> God = Jesus?
> God = Krishna?
> God = my tax collector?
> God = the one who made the cat in its own image, and then made the humans
> to gives the vat the modern comfort, with TV nad bag of catnip?
> etc.
>

If you're correct about that, and I think you are, and it could mean a tax
collector or the mathematical universe or anything in between then the word
"God" has exactly ZERO information content and writing about "God"
accomplishes nothing except cause excessive wear and tear on the O D and G
keys on your computer.
And yet some people still insist on using the word. Go figure.

  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: Digest for everything-list@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic


I have ran this idea by Bruno, once, where as God is a Boltzmann Brain, popping 
out of where ever, like a virtual particle. He didn't like it, needless to say. 
The BB would somehow pop with its own false memories, and personality, I have 
read. A few internet kooks conjecture that this BB would also encompass all our 
minds and the multiverse as well. Mind numbing ain't it?  In this email I have 
stacked a unicorn, atop a dragon, atop a leprechaun, atop a smurf. This is all 
fitting as Bruno hails from Belgium where the cartoonist created the smurfs 
years ago. 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 7:26 pm
Subject: Re: Digest for everything-list@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic


  

On 1/15/2015 6:35 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:


  



  
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:01 PM,meekerdb  
   wrote:

  

How would you define "intelligence" for this thing?
  





Jupiter Brain / Omega Point / Result of  post-singularity 
intelligence explosion / Platonic mind  with access infinite 
computing resources / Dyson's sphere  powered computer, take your 
pick. It's capable enough to  run a planet-wide simulation down to 
whatever necessary  detail it desires, and be able to infer any 
being's  thoughts on the planet by analyzing its brain activity.
  Beyond that I'm not sure how to quantify or define its  
intelligence.


 

  

  I think of intelligence as the ability to observe  and infer 
and learn.  Of course the traditional God  was not only the 
creator of everything He was also a  person who knew everything 
and so could not learn  anything.
  





Maybe this one is only a mere demi-god then. You can  only say it 
knows everything about its simulation.
  


1. Would you consider such a demi-god a theistic god  for the 
entities within its simulation?

  

  


Not necessarily.  One of the defining characteristics of the theistGod 
is that He cares about human behavior (especially when they'renude).


  

  




2. Can you rule out that some demi-god somewhere isn't  simulating 
this planet?

  

  


No.


  

  




3. Do you think the existence of such a demi-god  follows from the 
UDA/arithmetical realism?

  

  


Probably not.  But in any case I'm not a fan of arithmeticalrealism.  
Truth =/= existence.

Brent
  

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

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

Re: The Weakness of Panpsychism?

2015-01-18 Thread David Nyman

On 18 January 2015 at 23:28, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, January 19, 2015, David Nyman  wrote:
>
>> On 18 January 2015 at 14:42, Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>> What's wrong with "merely adventitious parallelism, on the lines of
>>> epiphenomenalism"? If it seems to leave the mystery untouched, that is
>>> because there is no logically possible solution to the hard problem of
>>> consciousness.
>>>
>>
>> Before we get into that, do you agree that formulations such as Smolin's
>> are just missing the reference problem? I'm not at all sure that he means
>> to say that the 'internal' properties amount to an epiphenomenon (although
>> I find it a little difficult to be sure exactly what he means to say). That
>> is, I don't understand him to mean that all *references* to sensations are
>> the consequence of externally-observable properties of matter, but
>> additional, 'internal' properties fortuitously happen to correspond to
>> those references, despite there being no lawful interaction involving both
>> sets of properties.
>>
>
> If the internal properties supervene on the observable properties, isn't
> this a kind of lawful interaction?
>

Well, it would hardly be *inter* action because, given external causal
closure, internal properties could have no possible role in the observable
causal account. That makes the hypothesis of such properties both ad hoc
(i.e. merely tacked-on in the face of troublesome a posteriori facts) and
gratuitously lacking in parsimony (since the hypothesised properties can
have no other explanatory role).

>
>> After all, he wants to say that more complex aspects of mind (i.e. than
>> 'pure' qualia) may be due to a 'combination' of the two types of property
>> (perhaps something about the problem of reference has struck him here). But
>> how can there plausibly be any such combining if the two sets of properties
>> never interact? And how can we suppose them to interact when the external
>> relations on their own give every evidence, both in theory and in practice,
>> of being causally closed?
>>
>
> I guess he means that when we do things there is both the observable
> behaviour and the experience. The experience can still be unobservable
> (except to the experiencer) but intimately associated with the observable
> in a supervenient relationship.
>
> What if zombies could be shown to be logically impossible? That would then
> mean that experiences were necessarily associated with certain processes.
> One could complain that this was unsatisfactory, but that would be like
> complaining that it was unsatisfactory that sqrt(2) was not rational.
>

That's a poor example, given that it is obviously and analytically true as
soon as you comprehend the meaning of "sqrt(2)" and "not rational". In
other words, in such cases the right understanding of the terms warrants
the conclusion as self-evident. The association of particular physical
processes with conscious experiences isn't analytically obvious or
necessary in any equivalent sense. Rather, if true, it would merely be a
contingent a posteriori fact.

In point of contrast, a key virtue of the comp hypothesis is that it
associates mechanism (albeit digital mechanism) with consciousness
(modelled as truth) in just this analytic or constitutive way. Further, the
mode of association of digital mechanism with both consciousness and
matter, far from being ad hoc, is given a priori in the base assumptions. I
cite this not as a warrant for the specific correctness of the hypothesis,
but rather as an example of a mode of explanation that might tend towards a
*resolution* of the problem I posed, as opposed to a dismissal or
trivialisation of it.

David

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

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


It matches my BHO visage toilet paper quite nicely. 

You must wear it like a brown shirt! Do you also sport an armband?
- Chris

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 7:16 pm
Subject: RE: Democracy



 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
 

I even have a T-shirt with the printing, I Tea Bagged Nancy Pelosi. I ordered 
it from zazzle. Its still hold up after 4 years 
 

You must wear it like a brown shirt! Do you also sport an armband?
- Chris

 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 


 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 9:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

 


Yah! Typical proggie, 

 

Must be one of your tea party pejoratives? 


 


Technically, Buckwheat, I am not a White Christian dude. 

 

More of a Tea Party idiot.. yes.

 

 

 

Secondly, since we have drifted into your personal vitriol, allow me, unlike 
Mr. Jesus, to not turn the other cheek, but rather to reply in kind. The term 
WASP used to describe the white anglo saxon protestants, who in this land were 
believed to be the central culture of racism, religious hatred, exclusivism. My 
new way of thinking is that WASP now connotes White Anglo Saxon Progressives, 
which to my mind are the true fascists in America's midst, and in my more 
corrosive moments terms them as White Aryan Socialist Pigfuckers. WASP's being, 
the willing enablers of Islamic fanaticism, women hatred, Jew hatred, Christian 
hatred and sadly, America hatred. To wit, the WASP's of whichever terminology, 
do indeed which this nation state wiped out, and they the neo-Wasps will 
somehow be the lone survivors.  As to your country? Are we speaking of Castro's 
Cuba, because that's my own reply to assholes like Michael Moore (Where's My 
Country Dude? 2002) which I surmised, must have been communist Cuba, a place of 
repression, poverty-along with all that nice free health care :-)

 


I could not have done a better job myself, in exposing you as being a paranoid, 
vulgar and violently fascist ignorant human being. Fortunately your sick views 
are a small minority in this country (even within the Republican party). 
America has no appetite for your lurid crusade, in spite of all the noise being 
made by your neocon thought leaders.

Fortunately, for us -- and the rest of the world -- America has not become all 
that captivated by your fascist movement. You idiots  have already reached your 
high water mark politically. Crawl back in the hole you slithered out.

 

 


I am not particularly concerned by the deaths you cited below of the Jihadist 
peoples waging their wars of domination and extermination worldwide, across 
many nations, any more than I would have been deeply, troubled, by the 
incineration of Tokyo by incendiary bombs dropped by the US Air corp in 1944 
(then). 

 

I can see that… all that death and suffering. I bet thinking about it gives you 
a hard on?

 

 

Nor, would I bleed heavily for the worthies of Nuremberg during the same 
period, as both citizens of those nations were participating in Camp 731 in 
Manchuria, where tens of thousands suffered torture murders by the Japanese 
Army to develop bioweapons, and the Germans were doing the same at Dachau, 
respectively. So, the Jihadists worldwide are doing mayhem wherever they can, 
against Buddhists in Thailand,

 

Hard to have a discussion with someone who is as ignorant of world demographics 
and history as you. Thailand's three Southernmost provinces of Yala, Pattani 
and Narathiwat, have a Muslim AND ethnic (linguistic) Malay majority. Thailand 
as a whole is dominated by its Buddhist and ethnic Thai majority and for 
decades subjected this religious and ethnic majority Muslim and Malay region to 
a process of forced assimilation into majority Thai culture. 

Your ignorant mind demands that this separatist movement be worked into your 
cherished clash of civilizations meme, but reality is far more complex and 
nuanced than intellectual simpletons such as yourself demand it to be.

 

 

and against Hindus in India, 

 

Stupid idiot – It is the Muslim minorities in India who regularly get murdered, 
burned out of their homes and driven off their land by Hindu extremists. 
Narendra Modi, the current Prime Minister of India was the man in charge in 
Gujurat state during one of these anti-Muslim pogroms; and has ridden a wave of 
Hindu nationalism to power. 

 

 

 

and nary a peep of protests against the Islamist movement, dominating the Uma 
(Islamic Community). I will save my pity for those that deserve it, and so far 
most Muslims seem ok with all this. I do see though that through speeches and 
writing's the WASP's of the world, will make up the existence of supposedly, 
nice, tolerant Muslims, as part of their

Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

Brent, Hindus are not on a campaign worldwide to ensure their rule. Today its 
the Muslims, tomorrow it may be the Hawaiian shirt wearers. The communists were 
the biggest mass murderers in human history, in part due to the fact they spent 
 so much effort slaughtering their own people, unlike the Nazis, the Aztecs, 
the Conquistadores, who spent so much time slaughtering others. The Islamists 
come in even-steven with massacring outsiders (qufar-infidels) and also wish to 
destroy each other, Sunni v Shia, etc. 
 So what to do? 

-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On 1/18/2015 10:03 AM, spudboy100 via  Everything List wrote:

Because its not part of the partyline is why. It's the ideology of 
progies to enable thejihad attacks against the west, perhaps so as 
to winnow downthe forces of resistance, via Islamist attacks, and 
thus,get the party worldwide into power, placed their by
beleaguered votes? Paranoid indeed, but it kind of makessense. 

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like  homicidal 
imbeciles when their religion is insulted, but  Christians and Jews 
and Hindus and Buddhist do not.Why the  difference? It is a 
perfectly legitimate question. 

  John K Clark

-Original Message-
  From: John Clark 
  To: everything-list 
  Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 4:31 pm
  Subject: Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:33  PM, PGC 
  wrote:

>> A fair question.  

>I'm not so sure about that. The question   
 presupposes ironically that violence is a
justified response to insult.

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave likehomicidal 
imbeciles when their religion is insulted,but Christians 
and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist donot.Why the difference? 
It is a perfectly legitimatequestion.

Of course it is not all Muslims who become homicidal, only a small
number; yet certainly a much larger proportion than among thoseother 
religions.  But the Tamil Tigers are Hindu and have engaged insuicide 
bombing and other terrorist acts.  Christians and Jewscertainly also in 
different times.  Buddhist and Jains and Quakersnot so much.  
Atheists...depends on how you count Stalin, Mao, andPol Pot.  I don't think 
they had their 'religion' insulted; theyjust wanted power, but that might 
be true of imams too.  I think theimportant difference is Muslims have been 
marginalized by theadvance of technological civilization and the 
Enlightenment.  Sodisaffected young men, like the Kouchai brothers, see 
fighting forIslam as a worthy and noble venture to give meaning to their 
lives,without having give it themselves.  By comparison, fighting for
communism would have been attractive in the 50's but is passe now. Fighting 
for Capitalism makes no sense because Capitalism isdominant.  

Brent

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

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

Re: Digest for everything-list@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic


On 1/15/2015 6:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:01 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


How would you define "intelligence" for this thing?


Jupiter Brain / Omega Point / Result of post-singularity intelligence explosion / 
Platonic mind with access infinite computing resources / Dyson's sphere powered 
computer, take your pick. It's capable enough to run a planet-wide simulation down to 
whatever necessary detail it desires, and be able to infer any being's thoughts on the 
planet by analyzing its brain activity. Beyond that I'm not sure how to quantify or 
define its intelligence.


  I think of intelligence as the ability to observe and infer and learn.  
Of course
the traditional God was not only the creator of everything He was also a 
person who
knew everything and so could not learn anything.


Maybe this one is only a mere demi-god then. You can only say it knows everything about 
its simulation.


1. Would you consider such a demi-god a theistic god for the entities within 
its simulation?


Not necessarily.  One of the defining characteristics of the theist God is that He cares 
about human behavior (especially when they're nude).




2. Can you rule out that some demi-god somewhere isn't simulating this planet?


No.



3. Do you think the existence of such a demi-god follows from the 
UDA/arithmetical realism?


Probably not.  But in any case I'm not a fan of arithmetical realism.  Truth 
=/= existence.

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: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

2015-01-18 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

Yeah they might indeed be 'americanized' so to speak, or it might be that you 
simply don't care whether they eventually start bombing and shooting when 
things seem right to them to do so. As to your economic analysis, you mean 
after 6 years Seattle is all that's pulling the Obama economy from sliding back 
down into recession-ville? Man, that is some strong bud you are imbibing. But 
your statements indicate to me a narcissistic mentality that believes after you 
get done damaging the old US, you, somehow, will be the last stalinoid 
standing. Fascinating that. Good luck. 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 2:29 pm
Subject: RE: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

Yah, could be. I was just strumming through the news when I hit this item, and 
it made me think of adding it to our discussion here. 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/01/muslim-immigrants-smash-urinate-on-virgin-mary-statue-in-italy/

Sikh's mix in, Hindu's mix in, Buddhists and Daoists mix in, Jews and Atheists, 
all mix in (Jews funded and fought in th 1776 revo-a conspiracy?) and so forth 
and Deists, and Agnostics, and Platonists, and so forth. Why not the Muslims? I 
have pointed out one answer. But its not something you can live with. Alas or 
meh! 
Muslims, mix in fine in the state of Washington. They are my colleagues – 
highly educated software engineers – working along-side other programmers and 
technology workers from all ethnicities and religious backgrounds in the 
globally significant high technology cluster in the Seattle metro area. They 
are my neighbors, along with all the other diverse technology immigrant 
communities that now live here. My city… my metro area in this American 
continent, is one of the engines that keeps our country from sinking down into 
economic collapse, decline and historical irrelevance. There are communities 
from every part of the earth, living side by side and thriving here… and the 
collective energy and brilliance of this technology-cluster diaspora is the 
secret sauce that makes this world class technology cluster engine possible.
You live somewhere in the American rust belt… in a declining industrial 
has-been-heartland.. a hollowed out husk of the former glory days. Is this what 
drives your bitterness?
-Chris

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 1:27 pm
Subject: RE: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

Because its not part of the party line is why. It's the ideology of progies to 
enable the jihad attacks against the west, perhaps so as to winnow down the 
forces of resistance, via Islamist attacks, and thus, get the party worldwide 
into power, placed their by beleaguered votes? Paranoid indeed, but it kind of 
makes sense. 

Yes, very paranoid indeed… and yes, of course it would make “sense” to you; due 
to your own existential lock-in into your paranoid delusional world views. 

-Chris

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question. 

  John K Clark

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:33 PM, PGC  wrote:

>> A fair question.  

>I'm not so sure about that. The question presupposes ironically that violence 
>is a justified response to insult.

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question. 

  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.co

RE: Democracy

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

 

I even have a T-shirt with the printing, I Tea Bagged Nancy Pelosi. I ordered 
it from zazzle. Its still hold up after 4 years 

 

You must wear it like a brown shirt! Do you also sport an armband?

- Chris

 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 9:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

 

Yah! Typical proggie, 

 

Must be one of your tea party pejoratives? 

 

Technically, Buckwheat, I am not a White Christian dude. 

 

More of a Tea Party idiot.. yes.

 

 

 

Secondly, since we have drifted into your personal vitriol, allow me, unlike 
Mr. Jesus, to not turn the other cheek, but rather to reply in kind. The term 
WASP used to describe the white anglo saxon protestants, who in this land were 
believed to be the central culture of racism, religious hatred, exclusivism. My 
new way of thinking is that WASP now connotes White Anglo Saxon Progressives, 
which to my mind are the true fascists in America's midst, and in my more 
corrosive moments terms them as White Aryan Socialist Pigfuckers. WASP's being, 
the willing enablers of Islamic fanaticism, women hatred, Jew hatred, Christian 
hatred and sadly, America hatred. To wit, the WASP's of whichever terminology, 
do indeed which this nation state wiped out, and they the neo-Wasps will 
somehow be the lone survivors.  As to your country? Are we speaking of Castro's 
Cuba, because that's my own reply to assholes like Michael Moore (Where's My 
Country Dude? 2002) which I surmised, must have been communist Cuba, a place of 
repression, poverty-along with all that nice free health care :-)

 

I could not have done a better job myself, in exposing you as being a paranoid, 
vulgar and violently fascist ignorant human being. Fortunately your sick views 
are a small minority in this country (even within the Republican party). 
America has no appetite for your lurid crusade, in spite of all the noise being 
made by your neocon thought leaders.

Fortunately, for us -- and the rest of the world -- America has not become all 
that captivated by your fascist movement. You idiots  have already reached your 
high water mark politically. Crawl back in the hole you slithered out.

 

 

I am not particularly concerned by the deaths you cited below of the Jihadist 
peoples waging their wars of domination and extermination worldwide, across 
many nations, any more than I would have been deeply, troubled, by the 
incineration of Tokyo by incendiary bombs dropped by the US Air corp in 1944 
(then). 

 

I can see that… all that death and suffering. I bet thinking about it gives you 
a hard on?

 

 

Nor, would I bleed heavily for the worthies of Nuremberg during the same 
period, as both citizens of those nations were participating in Camp 731 in 
Manchuria, where tens of thousands suffered torture murders by the Japanese 
Army to develop bioweapons, and the Germans were doing the same at Dachau, 
respectively. So, the Jihadists worldwide are doing mayhem wherever they can, 
against Buddhists in Thailand,

 

Hard to have a discussion with someone who is as ignorant of world demographics 
and history as you. Thailand's three Southernmost provinces of Yala, Pattani 
and Narathiwat, have a Muslim AND ethnic (linguistic) Malay majority. Thailand 
as a whole is dominated by its Buddhist and ethnic Thai majority and for 
decades subjected this religious and ethnic majority Muslim and Malay region to 
a process of forced assimilation into majority Thai culture. 

Your ignorant mind demands that this separatist movement be worked into your 
cherished clash of civilizations meme, but reality is far more complex and 
nuanced than intellectual simpletons such as yourself demand it to be.

 

 

and against Hindus in India, 

 

Stupid idiot – It is the Muslim minorities in India who regularly get murdered, 
burned out of their homes and driven off their land by Hindu extremists. 
Narendra Modi, the current Prime Minister of India was the man in charge in 
Gujurat state during one of these anti-Muslim pogroms; and has ridden a wave of 
Hindu nationalism to power. 

 

 

 

and nary a peep of protests against the Islamist movement, dominating the Uma 
(Islamic Community). I will save my pity for those that deserve it, and so far 
most Muslims seem ok with all this. I do see though that through speeches and 
writing's the WASP's of the world, will make up the existence of supposedly, 
nice, tolerant Muslims, as part of their speech-response. Non-existent nice 
guys who are really ok. Will this be your response as well??? It sure followers 
the party line of 'pretend' doesn't it?

 

My response: Get some help, you need it. There are medications for people like 
you.

RE: Free Speech is not Free unless it is allowed for every point of view

2015-01-18 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

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

Seconded (I am allowed to say that, right?)

Of course it isn't just France. And some countries go one step further and 
actively brainwash their citizens from an early age into thinking they are 
wonderful, and thus try to prevent even the possibility of "thoughtcrime".

If only this was just a French phenomenon… and the rest of the world was sane! 
The post 911 US has substantially surrendered itself to a neocon inspired state 
of being in permanent war, a war buttressed by new draconian and sweeping legal 
powers (delivered by in secrecy, in secret courts, by secret judges – In truth 
there is no justice in “secret justice”) We lost our legal protections and 
individual freedoms more than a decade ago with the PATRIOT Act (I & II) 
subsequently reconfirmed and extended – during Obama’s tenure. It is sad for me 
to see this Neocon inspired American nightmare (e.g. our countries  docile 
descent –like slowly boiled frogs – into totalitarianism and a growing adoption 
of an Orwellian mindset) so enthusiastically embraced in Western Europe.

But also in Australia and Canada as well. I don’t know about NZ, hopefully for 
you this totalitarian cultural disease has not infected your society to the 
extent it has infected the US and the EU. 

The water is getting rather hot.. said one frog to the other…. Then they went 
back to watching the game… 

-Chris

P.S. Speaking of watching the game… Go Seahawks!

On 18 January 2015 at 17:06, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

It is sad to see, for France has such a heritage, but it seems there is 
diminishing actual functioning Free Speech rights in France; when scores of 
people are getting arrested and thrown into jail for unpopular free speech, 
which in France has now become the new Orwellian thought crime of “supporting 
terrorism”.

Either Free Speech applies to all; or it does not apply. If unpopular – and 
even repugnant -- free speech is punished with long jail terms; then the state 
sanctioned mechanisms are in place for destroying effective right of free 
speech, which soon becomes free only when it reflects the desire of those who 
rule.

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

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

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

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

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

On 1/18/2015 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:32, LizR wrote:

Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least having an idea of,
what God is. Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find the idea highly
unlikely and don't find that it contributes anything to discussions such as "why is
there something rather than nothing?" So I am agnostic, as I am about all the other
gods, not to mention Santa, who I recently saw on "Doctor Who".

(Of courseI do believe in Daleks
...)

If you believe in Daleks, you believe enough to believe in the God of the machine. We
need it, to use the theory of machine's dream as an explanation why we see physical
universes and sometimes pink elephants, despite nothing like that really exists.

I give the math to see if we get right the number of pink elephants in the many-dreams
(by number) interpretation of elementary arithmetic (0 I guess, and hope).

Keep in mind that God is defined by being the object of the theory of everything, or, by
definition, the answer we look for with the question "why is there something instead of
nothing?".

The question is not if God exists or not. But if

But that's silly. You presume God exists, but with no description, so the only task is to
find a description to go with the word "God". If you're going to ask whether something
exists that cannot be defined ostensively, then you need to define it by description.
Otherwise it's just wordplay. Compare:

The question isn't whether Paul Bunyan exists or not. But if

Paul Bunyan = the physical universe?
Paul Bunyan = a mathematical structure? Which one?
Paul Bunyan = a dream by a universal machine?
Paul Bunyan = a sum on all dreams by all universal machines?
Paul Bunyan = the one who lost itself in a labyrinth of dreams?
Paul Bunyan = the one who plays hide and seek with Itself?
Paul Bunyan = the universal person?
Paul Bunyan = the universal person completions? (if that exists)
Paul Bunyan = Allah?
Paul Bunyan = Jesus?
Paul Bunyan = Krishna?
Paul Bunyan = my tax collector?
Paul Bunyan = the one who made the cat in its own image, and then made the humans to gives
the vat the modern comfort, with TV nad bag of catnip?

etc.

Brent

God = the physical universe?
God = a mathematical structure? Which one?
God = a dream by a universal machine?
God = a sum on all dreams by all universal machines?
God = the one who lost itself in a labyrinth of dreams?
God = the one who plays hide and seek with Itself?
God = the universal person?
God = the universal person completions? (if that exists)
God = Allah?
God = Jesus?
God = Krishna?
God = my tax collector?
God = the one who made the cat in its own image, and then made the humans to gives the
vat the modern comfort, with TV nad bag of catnip?

etc.

"Theo" in greek run around the idea of contemplation, examination and speculation. A
religion is only an as large as possible conception of reality, and God is a nickname
for what is real,

That's disingenuous. "Reality" is a common word, so we don't need a nickname. You seem
to be just making up excuses to use "God".

Brent

Re: Democracy

I even have a T-shirt with the printing, I Tea Bagged Nancy Pelosi. I ordered 
it from zazzle. Its still hold up after 4 years 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 2:12 pm
Subject: RE: Democracy

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 9:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

Yah! Typical proggie, 

Must be one of your tea party pejoratives? 

Technically, Buckwheat, I am not a White Christian dude. 

More of a Tea Party idiot.. yes.

Secondly, since we have drifted into your personal vitriol, allow me, unlike 
Mr. Jesus, to not turn the other cheek, but rather to reply in kind. The term 
WASP used to describe the white anglo saxon protestants, who in this land were 
believed to be the central culture of racism, religious hatred, exclusivism. My 
new way of thinking is that WASP now connotes White Anglo Saxon Progressives, 
which to my mind are the true fascists in America's midst, and in my more 
corrosive moments terms them as White Aryan Socialist Pigfuckers. WASP's being, 
the willing enablers of Islamic fanaticism, women hatred, Jew hatred, Christian 
hatred and sadly, America hatred. To wit, the WASP's of whichever terminology, 
do indeed which this nation state wiped out, and they the neo-Wasps will 
somehow be the lone survivors.  As to your country? Are we speaking of Castro's 
Cuba, because that's my own reply to assholes like Michael Moore (Where's My 
Country Dude? 2002) which I surmised, must have been communist Cuba, a place of 
repression, poverty-along with all that nice free health care :-)

I could not have done a better job myself, in exposing you as being a paranoid, 
vulgar and violently fascist ignorant human being. Fortunately your sick views 
are a small minority in this country (even within the Republican party). 
America has no appetite for your lurid crusade, in spite of all the noise being 
made by your neocon thought leaders.
Fortunately, for us -- and the rest of the world -- America has not become all 
that captivated by your fascist movement. You idiots  have already reached your 
high water mark politically. Crawl back in the hole you slithered out.

I am not particularly concerned by the deaths you cited below of the Jihadist 
peoples waging their wars of domination and extermination worldwide, across 
many nations, any more than I would have been deeply, troubled, by the 
incineration of Tokyo by incendiary bombs dropped by the US Air corp in 1944 
(then). 

I can see that… all that death and suffering. I bet thinking about it gives you 
a hard on?

Nor, would I bleed heavily for the worthies of Nuremberg during the same 
period, as both citizens of those nations were participating in Camp 731 in 
Manchuria, where tens of thousands suffered torture murders by the Japanese 
Army to develop bioweapons, and the Germans were doing the same at Dachau, 
respectively. So, the Jihadists worldwide are doing mayhem wherever they can, 
against Buddhists in Thailand,

Hard to have a discussion with someone who is as ignorant of world demographics 
and history as you. Thailand's three Southernmost provinces of Yala, Pattani 
and Narathiwat, have a Muslim AND ethnic (linguistic) Malay majority. Thailand 
as a whole is dominated by its Buddhist and ethnic Thai majority and for 
decades subjected this religious and ethnic majority Muslim and Malay region to 
a process of forced assimilation into majority Thai culture. 
Your ignorant mind demands that this separatist movement be worked into your 
cherished clash of civilizations meme, but reality is far more complex and 
nuanced than intellectual simpletons such as yourself demand it to be.

 and against Hindus in India, 

Stupid idiot – It is the Muslim minorities in India who regularly get murdered, 
burned out of their homes and driven off their land by Hindu extremists. 
Narendra Modi, the current Prime Minister of India was the man in charge in 
Gujurat state during one of these anti-Muslim pogroms; and has ridden a wave of 
Hindu nationalism to power. 

and nary a peep of protests against the Islamist movement, dominating the Uma 
(Islamic Community). I will save my pity for those that deserve it, and so far 
most Muslims seem ok with all this. I do see though that through speeches and 
writing's the WASP's of the world, will make up the existence of supposedly, 
nice, tolerant Muslims, as part of their speech-response. Non-existent nice 
guys who are really ok. Will this be your response as well??? It sure followers 
the party line of 'pretend' doesn't it?

My response: Get some help, you need it. There are medications for people like 
you.
-Chris

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 2:18 pm
Subject: RE: Democracy

Re: The Weakness of Panpsychism?

On Monday, January 19, 2015, David Nyman  wrote:

> On 18 January 2015 at 14:42, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> What's wrong with "merely adventitious parallelism, on the lines of
>> epiphenomenalism"? If it seems to leave the mystery untouched, that is
>> because there is no logically possible solution to the hard problem of
>> consciousness.
>>
>
> Before we get into that, do you agree that formulations such as Smolin's
> are just missing the reference problem? I'm not at all sure that he means
> to say that the 'internal' properties amount to an epiphenomenon (although
> I find it a little difficult to be sure exactly what he means to say). That
> is, I don't understand him to mean that all *references* to sensations are
> the consequence of externally-observable properties of matter, but
> additional, 'internal' properties fortuitously happen to correspond to
> those references, despite there being no lawful interaction involving both
> sets of properties.
>

If the internal properties supervene on the observable properties, isn't
this a kind of lawful interaction?


> After all, he wants to say that more complex aspects of mind (i.e. than
> 'pure' qualia) may be due to a 'combination' of the two types of property
> (perhaps something about the problem of reference has struck him here). But
> how can there plausibly be any such combining if the two sets of properties
> never interact? And how can we suppose them to interact when the external
> relations on their own give every evidence, both in theory and in practice,
> of being causally closed?
>

I guess he means that when we do things there is both the observable
behaviour and the experience. The experience can still be unobservable
(except to the experiencer) but intimately associated with the observable
in a supervenient relationship.

What if zombies could be shown to be logically impossible? That would then
mean that experiences were necessarily associated with certain processes.
One could complain that this was unsatisfactory, but that would be like
complaining that it was unsatisfactory that sqrt(2) was not rational.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On 1/18/2015 10:03 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Because its not part of the party line is why. It's the ideology of progies to enable 
the jihad attacks against the west, perhaps so as to winnow down the forces of 
resistance, via Islamist attacks, and thus, get the party worldwide into power, placed 
their by beleaguered votes? Paranoid indeed, but it kind of makes sense.

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when 
their
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the
difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question.

  John K Clark

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:33 PM, PGC > wrote:

>> A fair question.

>I'm not so sure about that. The question presupposes ironically that 
violence is a
justified response to insult.

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their religion 
is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do not.Why the difference? 
It is a perfectly legitimate question.

Of course it is not all Muslims who become homicidal, only a small number; yet certainly a 
much larger proportion than among those other religions.  But the Tamil Tigers are Hindu 
and have engaged in suicide bombing and other terrorist acts.  Christians and Jews 
certainly also in different times.  Buddhist and Jains and Quakers not so much.  
Atheists...depends on how you count Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.  I don't think they had 
their 'religion' insulted; they just wanted power, but that might be true of imams too.  I 
think the important difference is Muslims have been marginalized by the advance of 
technological civilization and the Enlightenment.  So disaffected young men, like the 
Kouchai brothers, see fighting for Islam as a worthy and noble venture to give meaning to 
their lives, without having give it themselves.  By comparison, fighting for communism 
would have been attractive in the 50's but is passe now. Fighting for Capitalism makes no 
sense because Capitalism is dominant.

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: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

2015-01-18 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List


On 1/18/2015 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 15 Jan 2015, at 19:18, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself as an atheist. I 
realized that atheists believe to much in the christian God, paradoxically enough.


By your logic one cannot disbelieve in anything


?

I disbelieve in a number P which would be prime and such that all y with x > P would be 
composite numbers.


I disbelieve in triangular square. I can't conceive them.

I can conceive a personal god, but if it is literally the one of this or that text, I am 
skeptical, especially if endowed with positive attributes and even more so if it is 
claimed he gave normative rules.






because to do so you have to conceive of what it is your are failing to believe



Yes, a contradiction. I can conceive that I *was* wrong or inconsistent. Or that I am or 
will be.




(otherwise you don't know what you're talking about); and therefore you believe in it 
because you conceive it.


Not really, because even if I can conceive it, I can conceive also that it 
might not exist.


Then you need to stop saying atheist who conceive that the God of theism is unlikely to 
exist are really supporting the Christian god.


Brent



My belief in God is trivial. All machine introspecting are confronted to it, and from 
outside, in the metatheory, we can see that they can confused it (correctly, or not) 
with truth.


The problem of the aristotelians is that they often take for granted the physical 
reality, which is comprehensible when doing physics, but when doing theology, the 
physical universe is an hypothesis, and as such, there are no evidences for it.


That's fine, but it has no bearing on the relation of atheism to Christianity.  And it's 
not at all clear what Aristotle meant by physical reality (I doubt he even used that 
term).  Aristotle postulated the existence of substances which filled all space and had 
certain teleological tendencies.  The latter fit well with Christian eschatology and so 
his ideas were taught in the ecclesiastical schools.  Aristotle didn't engage in 
experimental science; he was as much driven by "pure" thought as Plato.  As JKC says he 
was a very bad physicist - and not "just for his time"; he could have followed the Ionian 
school which did measure as well as reason.


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: Free Speech is not Free unless it is allowed for every point of view

 

 

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

 

Seconded (I am allowed to say that, right?)

 

Of course it isn't just France. And some countries go one step further and 
actively brainwash their citizens from an early age into thinking they are 
wonderful, and thus try to prevent even the possibility of "thoughtcrime".

 

If only this was just a French phenomenon… and the rest of the world was sane! 
The post 911 US has substantially surrendered itself to a neocon inspired state 
of being in permanent war, a war buttressed by new draconian and sweeping legal 
powers (delivered by in secrecy, in secret courts, by secret judges – In truth 
there is no justice in “secret justice”) We lost our legal protections and 
individual freedoms more than a decade ago with the PATRIOT Act (I & II) 
subsequently reconfirmed and extended – during Obama’s tenure. It is sad for me 
to see this Neocon inspired American nightmare (e.g. our countries  docile 
descent –like slowly boiled frogs – into totalitarianism and a growing adoption 
of an Orwellian mindset) so enthusiastically embraced in Western Europe.

But also in Australia and Canada as well. I don’t know about NZ, hopefully for 
you this totalitarian cultural disease has not infected your society to the 
extent it has infected the US and the EU. 

The water is getting rather hot.. said one frog to the other…. Then they went 
back to watching the game… 

-Chris

 

 

On 18 January 2015 at 17:06, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

It is sad to see, for France has such a heritage, but it seems there is 
diminishing actual functioning Free Speech rights in France; when scores of 
people are getting arrested and thrown into jail for unpopular free speech, 
which in France has now become the new Orwellian thought crime of “supporting 
terrorism”.

Either Free Speech applies to all; or it does not apply. If unpopular – and 
even repugnant -- free speech is punished with long jail terms; then the state 
sanctioned mechanisms are in place for destroying effective right of free 
speech, which soon becomes free only when it reflects the desire of those who 
rule.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?


On 1/18/2015 9:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If you assume it is true (independent of our ability or anything in the universe's 
ability to conceive it), then it is true independently of the universe, and hence you 
get arithmetical realism.


No, you just keep assuming that true=real. The truths of arithmetic are about the relation 
of numbers.  And they are true whether or not the numbers exist, just as Dr. Watson is 
Holmes sidekick.


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: Free Speech is not Free unless it is allowed for every point of view

Seconded (I am allowed to say that, right?)

Of course it isn't just France. And some countries go one step further and
actively brainwash their citizens from an early age into thinking they are
wonderful, and thus try to prevent even the possibility of "thoughtcrime".

On 18 January 2015 at 17:06, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> It is sad to see, for France has such a heritage, but it seems there is
> diminishing actual functioning Free Speech rights in France; when scores of
> people are getting arrested and thrown into jail for unpopular free speech,
> which in France has now become the new Orwellian thought crime of
> “supporting terrorism”.
>
> Either Free Speech applies to all; or it does not apply. If unpopular –
> and even repugnant -- free speech is punished with long jail terms; then
> the state sanctioned mechanisms are in place for destroying effective right
> of free speech, which soon becomes free only when it reflects the desire of
> those who rule.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email 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: Existence of an information unit as a postulate of quantum theory

Looks interesting, thanks. (I'm sure it will soon be on the cover of New
Scientist as "the riddle of creationsolved!")

On 24 Dec 2014, at 00:51, meekerdb wrote:
>
> Bruno should like this formulation of QM.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-18 Thread 'Roger' via Everything List

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 2:52:34 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:48 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 12:27:06 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:11 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>

 Roger,
>
> I have a question for you.
>
> Do you believe the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of Pi has a 
> certain definite value, which is either 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9?
>
> If so, would you still believe this if you knew that this number is 
> too difficult to ever compute by anyone in this universe?
>
> Does this not point to a discontinuity between mathematical truth and 
> conceivably of that truth by us limited creatures with limited minds in a 
> limited universe? Perhaps it does take faith to believe that digit takes 
> a 
> certain value between 0 and 9, but it's easier for me to accept that on 
> faith than the converse (that it is not any one of those digits).
>
> Jason
>
>
 Jason,

 What I believe is that there is no proposition outside a mind/head 
 that relates a circle's circumference and its diameter to get a number 
 called pi.  

>>>
>>> But that wasn't my question. Do you think that that the digit has a 
>>> certain definite value (despite not being known by any human) or perhaps 
>>> any being in this physical universe?  Let's work by steps, do you think the 
>>> 10^1th digit has a definite value? Do you think the 10^6th digit has a 
>>> certain definite value? Do you think the 10^Nth digit has a definite value 
>>> (for any given N)) ?
>>>
>>>  
>>>
 What I think does exist is:

 o A circle could exist either outside the mind or inside the mind/head 
 as the mental construct labeled "a circle".  

 o It takes a mind to come up with a proposition that says that if you 
 divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter, you get pi, and that 
 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of this pi is one of the numbers from 
 0-9.

>>>
>>> Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following statements is 
>>> true?
>>>
>>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0
>>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 1
>>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 2
>>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 3
>>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 4
>>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 5
>>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 6
>>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 7
>>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 8
>>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 9
>>>
>>> Either you answer yes, or no to that question. If you answer yes, I 
>>> don't see how you can escape mathematical realism.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> I believe the following:
>>
>> o I do believe that the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi is either 
>> 0-9.
>>
>
> Yet no mind has conceived what it is. It exists and yet it exists outside 
> the mind of any person, which seems counter to your clams below.
>

>
>>
>> o That 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi and its value of 0-9 exists 
>> only in the mind of the person where the proposition defining pi exists.
>>
>
> So does defining what Pi is lead to the existence of all of its infinite 
> digits, even if those digits are never considered by a conscious mind?
>
> If a conscious mind can reify other things it doesn't concevie why does 
> any mind need to reify the first concept (of pi) at all?
>

Roger:  Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th 
decimal point of pi, the pi proposition and therefore the process of 
calculating its 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point and being confident that 
if you do the process that that number is either 0-9 are all located inside 
the mind/head.  My view is that whenever we talk about something existing, 
we have to specify where and when it exists, that is, in what context or 
domain it exists.  A thing can exist in one place and not another.  A ball 
can exist outside the head, and a mental construct labeled "the concept of 
a ball" can exist inside the head.   So, if the pi process were carried out 
inside the mind/head long enough to figure out the 10^(10^(10^100))th 
decimal point, that mental construct for that number (which would be 0-9) 
would exist inside the mind/head but not outside the mind/head.  So, the 
mind is able to reify things (like the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of 
pi) so that they exist but so that they only exist inside the mind/head and 
not outside the mind/head.

>  
>
>>
>> o That 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi does not exist outside the 
>> mind of the person where the proposition defining pi is.
>>
>> I also believe that the above was easily deducibl

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?


On 1/18/2015 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a logician, "true"  means "satisfied by a reality", with *reality* modeled by the 
notion of *model*. This helps to avoid unnecessary philosophical debates.


They are only unnecessary for those who have already decided which model to 
believe.

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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?


On 1/18/2015 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With the definition you gave in a preceding post, and with which I agree, everyone 
believe in some God. The question is always: which one? And where it does come from, and 
why.


All philosophers and most scientists have some idea about what is fundamental reality - 
but (unless they are theologians) they recognize it is just a working hypothesis.  I'd say 
most people don't even think about it enough to have a definite opinion.


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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?


On 1/18/2015 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But observation and personal experience never prove anything. 


Spoken like a true Platonist - who never sat on a jury.

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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-18 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List


On 1/18/2015 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Like 0 universe, 1 universe, 2 universe, ... aleph_0 universes, aleph_1 
universes, etc.

We need faith to believe in anything different from our own consciousness 
here-and-now.


But our perception (part of our consciousness) provides evidence for 1 universe.  It is 
disingenuous to pretend it's just an arbitrary choice of "faith".


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: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

Yah, could be. I was just strumming through the news when I hit this item, and 
it made me think of adding it to our discussion here. 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/01/muslim-immigrants-smash-urinate-on-virgin-mary-statue-in-italy/

Sikh's mix in, Hindu's mix in, Buddhists and Daoists mix in, Jews and Atheists, 
all mix in (Jews funded and fought in th 1776 revo-a conspiracy?) and so forth 
and Deists, and Agnostics, and Platonists, and so forth. Why not the Muslims? I 
have pointed out one answer. But its not something you can live with. Alas or 
meh! 

Muslims, mix in fine in the state of Washington. They are my colleagues – 
highly educated software engineers – working along-side other programmers and 
technology workers from all ethnicities and religious backgrounds in the 
globally significant high technology cluster in the Seattle metro area. They 
are my neighbors, along with all the other diverse technology immigrant 
communities that now live here. My city… my metro area in this American 
continent, is one of the engines that keeps our country from sinking down into 
economic collapse, decline and historical irrelevance. There are communities 
from every part of the earth, living side by side and thriving here… and the 
collective energy and brilliance of this technology-cluster diaspora is the 
secret sauce that makes this world class technology cluster engine possible.

You live somewhere in the American rust belt… in a declining industrial 
has-been-heartland.. a hollowed out husk of the former glory days. Is this what 
drives your bitterness?

-Chris

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 1:27 pm
Subject: RE: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 

Because its not part of the party line is why. It's the ideology of progies to 
enable the jihad attacks against the west, perhaps so as to winnow down the 
forces of resistance, via Islamist attacks, and thus, get the party worldwide 
into power, placed their by beleaguered votes? Paranoid indeed, but it kind of 
makes sense. 

Yes, very paranoid indeed… and yes, of course it would make “sense” to you; due 
to your own existential lock-in into your paranoid delusional world views. 

-Chris

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question. 

  John K Clark

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:33 PM, PGC  wrote:

>> A fair question.  

>I'm not so sure about that. The question presupposes ironically that violence 
>is a justified response to insult.

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question. 

  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.

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

RE: Democracy

2015-01-18 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 9:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

Yah! Typical proggie, 

Must be one of your tea party pejoratives? 

Technically, Buckwheat, I am not a White Christian dude. 

More of a Tea Party idiot.. yes.

Secondly, since we have drifted into your personal vitriol, allow me, unlike 
Mr. Jesus, to not turn the other cheek, but rather to reply in kind. The term 
WASP used to describe the white anglo saxon protestants, who in this land were 
believed to be the central culture of racism, religious hatred, exclusivism. My 
new way of thinking is that WASP now connotes White Anglo Saxon Progressives, 
which to my mind are the true fascists in America's midst, and in my more 
corrosive moments terms them as White Aryan Socialist Pigfuckers. WASP's being, 
the willing enablers of Islamic fanaticism, women hatred, Jew hatred, Christian 
hatred and sadly, America hatred. To wit, the WASP's of whichever terminology, 
do indeed which this nation state wiped out, and they the neo-Wasps will 
somehow be the lone survivors.  As to your country? Are we speaking of Castro's 
Cuba, because that's my own reply to assholes like Michael Moore (Where's My 
Country Dude? 2002) which I surmised, must have been communist Cuba, a place of 
repression, poverty-along with all that nice free health care :-)

I could not have done a better job myself, in exposing you as being a paranoid, 
vulgar and violently fascist ignorant human being. Fortunately your sick views 
are a small minority in this country (even within the Republican party). 
America has no appetite for your lurid crusade, in spite of all the noise being 
made by your neocon thought leaders.

Fortunately, for us -- and the rest of the world -- America has not become all 
that captivated by your fascist movement. You idiots  have already reached your 
high water mark politically. Crawl back in the hole you slithered out.

I am not particularly concerned by the deaths you cited below of the Jihadist 
peoples waging their wars of domination and extermination worldwide, across 
many nations, any more than I would have been deeply, troubled, by the 
incineration of Tokyo by incendiary bombs dropped by the US Air corp in 1944 
(then). 

I can see that… all that death and suffering. I bet thinking about it gives you 
a hard on?

Nor, would I bleed heavily for the worthies of Nuremberg during the same 
period, as both citizens of those nations were participating in Camp 731 in 
Manchuria, where tens of thousands suffered torture murders by the Japanese 
Army to develop bioweapons, and the Germans were doing the same at Dachau, 
respectively. So, the Jihadists worldwide are doing mayhem wherever they can, 
against Buddhists in Thailand,

Hard to have a discussion with someone who is as ignorant of world demographics 
and history as you. Thailand's three Southernmost provinces of Yala, Pattani 
and Narathiwat, have a Muslim AND ethnic (linguistic) Malay majority. Thailand 
as a whole is dominated by its Buddhist and ethnic Thai majority and for 
decades subjected this religious and ethnic majority Muslim and Malay region to 
a process of forced assimilation into majority Thai culture. 

Your ignorant mind demands that this separatist movement be worked into your 
cherished clash of civilizations meme, but reality is far more complex and 
nuanced than intellectual simpletons such as yourself demand it to be.

and against Hindus in India, 

Stupid idiot – It is the Muslim minorities in India who regularly get murdered, 
burned out of their homes and driven off their land by Hindu extremists. 
Narendra Modi, the current Prime Minister of India was the man in charge in 
Gujurat state during one of these anti-Muslim pogroms; and has ridden a wave of 
Hindu nationalism to power. 

and nary a peep of protests against the Islamist movement, dominating the Uma 
(Islamic Community). I will save my pity for those that deserve it, and so far 
most Muslims seem ok with all this. I do see though that through speeches and 
writing's the WASP's of the world, will make up the existence of supposedly, 
nice, tolerant Muslims, as part of their speech-response. Non-existent nice 
guys who are really ok. Will this be your response as well??? It sure followers 
the party line of 'pretend' doesn't it?

My response: Get some help, you need it. There are medications for people like 
you.

-Chris

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 2:18 pm
Subject: RE: Democracy

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 

I am sure, not that your summaries listed are not accurate, but they pale into 
comparison, from a religious-ideology p

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?



On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:32, LizR wrote:

Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least  
having an idea of, what God is. Personally I don't disbelieve in  
God, I merely find the idea highly unlikely and don't find that it  
contributes anything to discussions such as "why is there something  
rather than nothing?" So I am agnostic, as I am about all the other  
gods, not to mention Santa, who I recently saw on "Doctor Who".


(Of course I do believe in Daleks...)


If you believe in Daleks, you believe enough to believe in the God of  
the machine. We need it, to use the theory of machine's dream as an  
explanation why we see physical universes and sometimes pink  
elephants, despite nothing like that really exists.


I give the math to see if we get right the number of pink elephants in  
the many-dreams (by number) interpretation of elementary arithmetic (0  
I guess, and hope).


Keep in mind that God is defined by being the object of the theory of  
everything, or, by definition, the answer we look for with the  
question "why is there something instead of nothing?".


The question is not if God exists or not. But if

God = the physical universe?
God = a mathematical structure? Which one?
God = a dream by a universal machine?
God = a sum on all dreams by all universal machines?
God = the one who lost itself in a labyrinth of dreams?
God = the one who plays hide and seek with Itself?
God = the universal person?
God = the universal person completions? (if that exists)
God = Allah?
God = Jesus?
God = Krishna?
God = my tax collector?
God = the one who made the cat in its own image, and then made the  
humans to gives the vat the modern comfort, with TV nad bag of catnip?

etc.

"Theo" in greek run around the idea of contemplation, examination and  
speculation. A religion is only an as large as possible conception of  
reality, and God is a nickname for what is real, or for what we are  
confronted with. No need to believe literally in any theory proposed  
by any human on this subject, but we can make clear what we assume and  
how we reason and test the theories.


Bruno

I have to go. Will answer other posts probably tomorrow.







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

To post to this group, send email 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: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

2015-01-18 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

Yah, could be. I was just strumming through the news when I hit this item, and 
it made me think of adding it to our discussion here.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/01/muslim-immigrants-smash-urinate-on-virgin-mary-statue-in-italy/

Sikh's mix in, Hindu's mix in, Buddhists and Daoists mix in, Jews and Atheists, 
all mix in (Jews funded and fought in th 1776 revo-a conspiracy?) and so forth 
and Deists, and Agnostics, and Platonists, and so forth. Why not the Muslims? I 
have pointed out one answer. But its not something you can live with. Alas or 
meh! 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 1:27 pm
Subject: RE: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

Because its not part of the party line is why. It's the ideology of progies to 
enable the jihad attacks against the west, perhaps so as to winnow down the 
forces of resistance, via Islamist attacks, and thus, get the party worldwide 
into power, placed their by beleaguered votes? Paranoid indeed, but it kind of 
makes sense. 

Yes, very paranoid indeed… and yes, of course it would make “sense” to you; due 
to your own existential lock-in into your paranoid delusional world views. 
-Chris

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question. 

  John K Clark

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:33 PM, PGC  wrote:

>> A fair question.  

>I'm not so sure about that. The question presupposes ironically that violence 
>is a justified response to insult.

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question. 

  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.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

Because its not part of the party line is why. It's the ideology of progies to 
enable the jihad attacks against the west, perhaps so as to winnow down the 
forces of resistance, via Islamist attacks, and thus, get the party worldwide 
into power, placed their by beleaguered votes? Paranoid indeed, but it kind of 
makes sense. 

Yes, very paranoid indeed… and yes, of course it would make “sense” to you; due 
to your own existential lock-in into your paranoid delusional world views. 

-Chris

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question. 

  John K Clark

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:33 PM, PGC  wrote:

>> A fair question.  

>I'm not so sure about that. The question presupposes ironically that violence 
>is a justified response to insult.

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question. 

  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.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?


On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at 
least
having an idea of, what God is.


I would go further and say one cannot disbelieve in God without 
knowing,
or at least having an idea of what reality is, for unless one 
claims to
know the extent of reality, how can one suppose to know what it 
does or
doesn't contain?


You can easily know that things with self contradictory properties 
are not
in reality.


I agree with that.

If something has properties that are inconsistent with observation 
that is
fairly strong evidence it doesn't exist.

"Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but
does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to.  If he
wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not
want to, he is wicked. If he neither can, nor wants to, he is
both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and wants
to, then how comes evil in the world?'"
  --- Epicurus


That's a nice example of an application of rational thought towards the
advancement of theology. You've proven that an omnipotent God with the 
power
and desire to prevent any bad thing from happening does not exist.

What else might we have been able to prove or disprove if theology had
remained open to free inquiry over the past several millennia?


And then there are things that are consistent with both logic and
observation, but are very unlikely on our best theories of how the 
world
works, e.g. teapots orbiting Jupiter.  Are you "agnostic" about the 
teapot
orbiting Jupiter?


To disbelieve in a particular thing orbiting Jupiter requires a working 
theory
of our solar system.

To disbelieve in a particular thing existing at all (neither in this 
universe,
nor in any other place in reality) requires a working theory of 
reality. What
is yours?

Does "agnostic" just mean "I don't know for certain" or does it mean 
"I'm
equally disposed to believe or disbelieve." or "I think it's 
impossible to
decide the question."


That's a good question. I think a definitive answer can be drawn from 
one's
working theory of reality, but I don't know if an answer to that 
question is
decidable or not, though perhaps it's possible to accumulate evidence 
towards
one. So far I think man has made little progress in this endeavor, but 
Bruno
and Tegmark seem to be farther ahead than most towards developing one. 
Working
under those theories, I might say I am more of a "rational theist" in 
the
sense that I can identify at least three things one might call god 
within
those ontologies. However, as to which theory of reality is correct, I 
might
call myself agnostic (even though I might be in the high 90's 
percentage wise
leaning towards it, I could never be certain).





Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find the idea 
highly
unlikely


Why do you find it highly unlikely (what is the conception you are
assuming here?),


When I write "God" with caps, I mean a god who is a superpowerful 
person
and who wants to be worshipped; not some abstract organizing 
principle or
the set of true propositions.


Subtract "and who wants to be worshiped" then re-answer that question. 
Why
should we suppose that super-powerful minds are not likely to exist in 
reality?


There's a difference between "super-powerful minds" and "a superpowerful
person".  By superpowerful person I meant one who could transcend 
physical
laws, i.e. perform miracles.



A super powerful mind (or person) simulating some reality could of course 
cause the
simulation to deviate from its "physical laws".


But in a simulation, not in reality.


The simulation is as much "reality" to those in the simulation as our reality is to us, 
to the point where it's impossible for anyone to know whether they're in a simulation or 
not.



  By the very definition of miracles these are not reliably obser

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?



On 17 Jan 2015, at 02:46, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2015 8:31 PM, Kim Jones wrote:




On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:18 am, meekerdb  wrote:


On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify  
myself as an atheist. I realized that atheists believe to much in  
the christian God, paradoxically enough.


By your logic one cannot disbelieve in anything because to do so  
you have to conceive of what it is your are failing to believe  
(otherwise you don't know what you're talking about);



Well, yes. Of course you have to be able to conceive of what you  
are going to make a choice to believe in or not! Implying that you  
"have the right" to disbelieve in something you cannot conceive of  
is the height of sophistry. You are merely testifying to the  
limitation of your own, or of human imagination but that is  
precisely the terrain we are treading here: the interface of human  
ignorance with what is really real.


Of course the human imagination cannot conceive of God the way God  
is. This is because WE ARE ALL THE EYES AND EARS OF GOD. The eye  
cannot see itself. The hammer cannot hit itself. It can only infer  
it's true nature using the imagination and HOPE that the  
description adopted is exact. It never is. We cannot know what or  
who we are. It's a pretty miserable state of affairs, particularly  
if you are a hard-nosed scientist, I gather.


Hard-nosed scientists are inured to not knowing things.  It's  
mystics who insist on making up an answer because they are  
uncomfortable with uncertainty.


It is false mystics. True mystics (if I can say) just learn to be  
comfortable with uncertainty, indeed up to the point of seeing it as  
even more incomprehensible, and getting mute on it. Alan watts  
explains this well in the "the wisdom of insecurity".
Those who makes up public answer are the people who repeat without  
understanding what possible true mystic says, and this with the  
purpose of controlling its fellow, instead of liberating it.


Religion, science, and technics should be distinguished from the many  
peculiar human use of those things.


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: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

Because its not part of the party line is why. It's the ideology of progies to 
enable the jihad attacks against the west, perhaps so as to winnow down the 
forces of resistance, via Islamist attacks, and thus, get the party worldwide 
into power, placed their by beleaguered votes? Paranoid indeed, but it kind of 
makes sense. 

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question. 

  John K Clark

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:33 PM, PGC  wrote:

>> A fair question.  

>I'm not so sure about that. The question presupposes ironically that violence 
>is a justified response to insult.

I observe a empirical fact, Muslims behave like homicidal imbeciles when their 
religion is insulted, but Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhist do 
not.Why the difference? It is a perfectly legitimate question. 

  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: Democracy



On 15 Jan 2015, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2015 9:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I would have said by nature. Apes does not sent his fellows in gas  
chambers.


But they do.  Sometimes chimpanzees gang up on member of their pack  
and kill him.


You are right. Chimps was not the best example. Mammals!





people misbehave in a large part due to civilisation, which reacts  
naturally in developing those software at a different level, which  
is slow adaptation.


Civilisation is the extension of tribal relations to all the people  
of a city (or state).  Humans tend to have natural tribal relations  
with a few dozen people.  To have those extended to hundreds or  
thousands requires culture, laws, and government.  So it is not that  
civilisation causes misbehavior, it's that it redefines the  
boundaries within which fraternal behavior is mandated.  Steven  
Pinker's book "The Better Angels of Our Nature" argues that this  
civilizing influence has been very successful in reducing misbehavior.


I think so too, but it is better in non-obscurantist era, when we  
learn to do our job, and stop imposing religion in academy, by making  
it a field of inquiry instead.


The rejection of my thesis was not by the scientists, but by a  
philosopher, based explictly on his convictions, as anyone can see  
with the official report. In my university, some atheists limit free- 
thinking by explicitly silencing anything capable of leading to  
doubting the weak materialist dogma. Since John XXIII, the popes are  
better than that.


It is important, I think, because many believes in mechanism and  
materialism, but this leads to nihilism and person eliminativism (as  
illustrated by the Churchland, and Dennett, but also Sade and  
LaMettrie, 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: Democracy


Yah! Typical proggie, 
 
Technically, Buckwheat, I am not a White Christian dude. Secondly, since we 
have drifted into your personal vitriol, allow me, unlike Mr. Jesus, to not 
turn the other cheek, but rather to reply in kind. The term WASP used to 
describe the white anglo saxon protestants, who in this land were believed to 
be the central culture of racism, religious hatred, exclusivism. My new way of 
thinking is that WASP now connotes White Anglo Saxon Progressives, which to my 
mind are the true fascists in America's midst, and in my more corrosive moments 
terms them as White Aryan Socialist Pigfuckers. WASP's being, the willing 
enablers of Islamic fanaticism, women hatred, Jew hatred, Christian hatred and 
sadly, America hatred. To wit, the WASP's of whichever terminology, do indeed 
which this nation state wiped out, and they the neo-Wasps will somehow be the 
lone survivors.  As to your country? Are we speaking of Castro's Cuba, because 
that's my own reply to assholes like Michael Moore (Where's My Country Dude? 
2002) which I surmised, must have been communist Cuba, a place of repression, 
poverty-along with all that nice free health care :-)

I am not particularly concerned by the deaths you cited below of the Jihadist 
peoples waging their wars of domination and extermination worldwide, across 
many nations, any more than I would have been deeply, troubled, by the 
incineration of Tokyo by incendiary bombs dropped by the US Air corp in 1944 
(then). Nor, would I bleed heavily for the worthies of Nuremberg during the 
same period, as both citizens of those nations were participating in Camp 731 
in Manchuria, where tens of thousands suffered torture murders by the Japanese 
Army to develop bioweapons, and the Germans were doing the same at Dachau, 
respectively. So, the Jihadists worldwide are doing mayhem wherever they can, 
against Buddhists in Thailand, and against Hindus in India, and nary a peep of 
protests against the Islamist movement, dominating the Uma (Islamic Community). 
I will save my pity for those that deserve it, and so far most Muslims seem ok 
with all this. I do see though that through speeches and writing's the WASP's 
of the world, will make up the existence of supposedly, nice, tolerant Muslims, 
as part of their speech-response. Non-existent nice guys who are really ok. 
Will this be your response as well??? It sure followers the party line of 
'pretend' doesn't it?
 
 
-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 2:18 pm
Subject: RE: Democracy



 
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
 

I am sure, not that your summaries listed are not accurate, but they pale into 
comparison, from a religious-ideology pov, with the followers of sharia. 
 
How many Afghanis, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans, Yemenis, Palestinians, Lebanese… 
how many civilians living in these countries (and occupied territories) have 
been murdered in acts of war waged on them by Western (+Israeli) military 
forces?
 
Do their lives not matter? Is it only white Christian lives that matter to you?
 
Even on a per capita basis, I will argue that these guys are now the heavy 
hitters for intolerance and violence. And, tomorrow it may be the Cult of 
Cthulu, or the Shriners Circus. Today they are the vanguard proletariat back to 
the future. Have you put any thought into how to blunt their effectiveness, for 
they are now quite successful, in their own estimation? This would be my 
question to the group concerning this. I have batted around one idea over the 
last couple of years (fully aware that I am the pimple on a amoeba's ass in the 
scheme of things), but it unsurprisingly goes over like neptunium balloon, not 
only in our emails, but at a couple of other forums I attend. The less said the 
better. 
 
 
The second method to blunt them by giving  them other targets to lunge for, to 
wit, lighting fires in their own territories-so they'll be less time and energy 
and monies, to set off explosives in the US or Stockholm. 
 
Screw you chickenhawk, go fight your own damn crusade, leave me and my country 
out of it.
-Chris

 

 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Jan 16, 2015 10:10 pm
Subject: RE: Democracy


 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 4:58 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

 


Right now, Chris, it ain't the Hindus, or the Buddhists, or the Pastafarians, 
or the Jains, nor, the Daoists, nor even the 700 Clubbers, that are causing 
hell on earth and massive repression and intimidation. Its the Muslims. Perhaps 
in 50 years it will be bloody Star Wars Force fanatics, but today its these 
guys. 


 

You so sure of that?

 

In 2002 Hindu extremists in Gujurat state, with the tacit encouragement and

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?

2015-01-18 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:49 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Krauss kind of irritates me, too.  His book title "A universe from
> nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing" is basically false
> advertising, IMHO.
>

Considering the fact that Krauss talks about the title on the very first
page of the book and spends several chapters discussing the difference
between *NOTHING *NOTHING  nothing and* nothing  *I very much doubt you
have even read the book, you just read the title.

 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: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?



On 15 Jan 2015, at 19:18, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself  
as an atheist. I realized that atheists believe to much in the  
christian God, paradoxically enough.


By your logic one cannot disbelieve in anything


?

I disbelieve in a number P which would be prime and such that all y  
with x > P would be composite numbers.


I disbelieve in triangular square. I can't conceive them.

I can conceive a personal god, but if it is literally the one of this  
or that text, I am skeptical, especially if endowed with positive  
attributes and even more so if it is claimed he gave normative rules.





because to do so you have to conceive of what it is your are failing  
to believe



Yes, a contradiction. I can conceive that I *was* wrong or  
inconsistent. Or that I am or will be.




(otherwise you don't know what you're talking about); and therefore  
you believe in it because you conceive it.


Not really, because even if I can conceive it, I can conceive also  
that it might not exist.


My belief in God is trivial. All machine introspecting are confronted  
to it, and from outside, in the metatheory, we can see that they can  
confused it (correctly, or not) with truth.


The problem of the aristotelians is that they often take for granted  
the physical reality, which is comprehensible when doing physics, but  
when doing theology, the physical universe is an hypothesis, and as  
such, there are no evidences for it. Then with comp, we get an  
explanation of the physical reality, without the need of a physical  
universe.
A testable/refutable explanation (but for this you need a good  
understanding of, say, Boolos 79).


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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On 18 January 2015 at 18:43, Jason Resch  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:12 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/17/2015 9:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you believe that one and only one of the following statements is
> true?
> >>
> >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0
> >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 1
> >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 2
> >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 3
> >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 4
> >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 5
> >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 6
> >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 7
> >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 8
> >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 9
> >>
> >> Either you answer yes, or no to that question. If you answer yes, I
> don't
> >> see how you can escape mathematical realism.
> >>
> >>
> >> By observing that "real" and "true" are different attributes.
> >
> >
> > True is enough to yield reality, under computationalism.
>
> Isn't that circular?
>

If you assume it is true (independent of our ability or anything in the
universe's ability to conceive it), then it is true independently of the
universe, and hence you get arithmetical realism. Number relations and
numbers exist independently of the physical universe. If number relations
exist then program's and their executions exist, and by computationalism
some of those programs will have beliefs like that they're living on a
planet called Earth and reading a post on the Everything list.

If on the other hand you assume it is false (that not one and only one of
the above 10 statements is true) then you can avoid mathematical realism,
but that seems to assume some kind of ultrafinitism.

Jason

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

Re: Democracy



On 15 Jan 2015, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/14/2015 11:52 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
In case no one has noticed, our dear president Obama has changed  
the rhetoric used as cover for our Orwellian systems state of  
permanent war…. The term “War on Terror” is bad enough, it implies  
an endless war requiring an Orwellian intrusive state. But at least  
it seemed circumscribed to opponents it could describe as being  
involved in terror.


Obama is now calling it the “War on extremism”. That term sends  
Orwellian shivers down my spine; it is so broad and arbitrary in  
nature and can be used to describe any and all opponents.




Sigh, everybody's so paranoid about government.  Obama started using  
"extremism" because the chattering classes kept pointing out that  
terrorism is just a tactic and you can't make war on a tactic.


But 'extremism' is not a so lucky term either. If you cut the  
extremes, you get ... new extremes.


Wars like "war on drugs", or "war on terror", or "war on extremism"  
are "infinite wars", quasi by definition.

Such type of war benefits to the enemies.

Since Obama signed (and countersigned!) the NDAA 2012 bill, without  
accepting the addition of simple clarifications, I don't know what to  
think.


He could have said aswell: the terrorists have won.
The NDAA 2012 bill seems to nullify the US constitution.

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: The Weakness of Panpsychism?

2015-01-18 Thread David Nyman

On 18 January 2015 at 14:42, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

What's wrong with "merely adventitious parallelism, on the lines of
> epiphenomenalism"? If it seems to leave the mystery untouched, that is
> because there is no logically possible solution to the hard problem of
> consciousness.
>

Before we get into that, do you agree that formulations such as Smolin's
are just missing the reference problem? I'm not at all sure that he means
to say that the 'internal' properties amount to an epiphenomenon (although
I find it a little difficult to be sure exactly what he means to say). That
is, I don't understand him to mean that all *references* to sensations are
the consequence of externally-observable properties of matter, but
additional, 'internal' properties fortuitously happen to correspond to
those references, despite there being no lawful interaction involving both
sets of properties.

After all, he wants to say that more complex aspects of mind (i.e. than
'pure' qualia) may be due to a 'combination' of the two types of property
(perhaps something about the problem of reference has struck him here). But
how can there plausibly be any such combining if the two sets of properties
never interact? And how can we suppose them to interact when the external
relations on their own give every evidence, both in theory and in practice,
of being causally closed?

David

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

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year

On 12 Jan 2015, at 23:07, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/2/2015 2:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:40 PM, John Clark   
wrote:

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> Define telepathy, telekinesis, and remote viewing.

No. Buy a dictionary, if you're still confused after that I'll try  
to help you out but first you'll need to define define.

If you continued with the other steps of the universal dovetailer  
argument, you would realize some of these questions aren't so cut  
and dry.

If your brain has many instantiations in many universes/realities/ 
mathematical structures, then your consciousness is reviewing these  
remote locations (and may next find itself in such a remote  
location).

> So we don't have a bet,

I can't say I'm surprised, I've been offering this bet at the  
beginning of the year for over a decade but even the staunchest  
believer in the paranormal always chickens out when asked to put  
his money where his mouth is.

The intention of your bet is unclear. Is it to show that close- 
minded scientists who have a history of deciding not to even review  
a paper that disagrees with their presuppositions will continue to  
decide not even to review papers that disagree with their  
presuppositions?  Even if one strongly believed a surprising result  
would be made in psi, the prejudice shown by leading journals on  
the matter would still make such a debt unlikely to pay off.

Your insistence that scientists open with welcome arms ground- 
shaking discoveries is disproved by the case of Hugh Everett, who  
was met with ridicule and (worse) inattention.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its  
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its  
opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is  
familiar with it." -- Max Planck

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight  
you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Einstein was never recognized with a Nobel prize for his discovery  
of relativity, the council thought his discovery was too  
controversial.

> BTW, why sending this to the list. I have never heard people  
defending para-psy.

Don't you remember Craig Weinberg? And my attack on parapsychology  
upset you so much you called me a bigot.

parapsychology
1. the branch of psychology that deals with the investigation of  
purportedly psychic phenomena, as clairvoyance, extrasensory  
perception, telepathy, and the like.

psychic
1. of or relating to the human soul or mind; mental (opposed to  
physical).

2. Psychology. pertaining to or noting mental phenomena.
3. outside of natural or scientific knowledge; spiritual.
4. of or relating to some apparently nonphysical force or agency:  
psychic research; psychic phenomena.
5. sensitive to influences or forces of a nonphysical or  
supernatural nature.

Much of what is discussed on this list concerns ontologies where  
the mental exists beyond the physical, or is the foundation of the  
physical, and so would be a "psychic" and accordingly a  
"parapsychological" phenomenon.

> most scienstist practice argument of authority, given that they  
believe or not a paper just by the title of a journal

Most scientists believe in reputation and in induction, so even if  
they have not personally duplicated the  exparament they think that  
the numbers published in Science or Nature or Physical Review  
Letters are probably correct.

A policy to only publish things that are well established serves to  
protect the reputation of the journal as a reliable source for  
probably valid results, but it serves to slow down the rate of  
progress by hiding from view controversial but nonetheless correct  
ideas.

But things would be quite different if experimental results were  
printed on a processed dead tree in a fifth rate "science journal"  
that nobody has ever heard of, or worse just data on a website run  
by somebody nobody has heard of, or if they have wished they  
hadn't. I know how to type too, I could easily start a website  
saying perpetual motion is possible and even provide results of  
experiments that I say I  have performed supporting my claim. It  
wouldn't take me 20 minutes.

I might add that with the exception of religion, a closely related  
delusion, no area of human activity has been as riddled with as  
much fraud as psi or ESP or spiritualism or whatever buzzword is in  
fashion today for that drivel.

> the interesting question is what is the nature of God: a thing, a  
person, a mathematical reality, etc.

It is none of those things, "God" is a 3 letter ASCII sequence with  
the binary value of 01000111 0110 01100100. And I have to  
disagree with you, I don't find that very interesting.

> atheists are ally to the institutionalized religion.

And up is down and black is white and atheism is just a slight  
variation of Christianity.

Atheists almost universally use the Christian's c

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 18 Jan 2015, at 08:43, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:12 AM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 1/17/2015 9:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Do you believe that one and only one of the following statements is  
true?


the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 1
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 2
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 3
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 4
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 5
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 6
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 7
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 8
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 9

Either you answer yes, or no to that question. If you answer yes, I  
don't see how you can escape mathematical realism.


By observing that "real" and "true" are different attributes.

True is enough to yield reality, under computationalism.


Good point.

For a logician, "true"  means "satisfied by a reality", with *reality*  
modeled by the notion of *model*. This helps to avoid unnecessary  
philosophical debates.


Bruno





Jason

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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: "Animals think like autistic humans"



On 04 Jan 2015, at 01:51, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/3/2015 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List  
wrote:





From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Kim Jones

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:55 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: "Animals think like autistic humans"




On 1 Jan 2015, at 2:52 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List  
 wrote:




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

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:30 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: "Animals think like autistic humans"

On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote:


>>You seem to be saying that we can do nothing new about thinking.
No, not that at all. I am saying that first we need to understand  
what thinking really is and move beyond our primitive  
anthropocentric views that have come to us from our past. We have  
a long heritage of thinking about what thinking is, so lots of  
material to draw from.
The more humbly we come to understand that our self-aware inner  
dialogue is the mind’s (simplified and summarized) narration of a  
deeper and much vaster non verbalized intelligence which is that  
which is doing the individuals *thinking*


OK, but then you can't stop the descend and you will need to say  
that the thinking is done by the arithmetical realizations, but  
that is 3p descriptible (even if infinite) so something has gone  
wrong (we get trapped in a cinfusion between the 3p, []p, and the  
1p, []p &p).


What's wrong with being 3p describable (aside from mystic prejudices)?


It is usually accepted by philosophers of mind, theologian, poet, and  
most people capable of some aount of introspection, that experiences,  
consciousness, qualia, pain, etc. are not 3p describable. It is a  
chance for mechanism, as most arithmetical truth a machine can be  
confronted to by introspection are not 3p describable. For example the  
"classical" knower, []p & p, if it can be defined for each  
arithmetical proposition p, cannot be defined by a predicate in  
arithmetic knowable('p'), (for reason similar that True('p') cannot be  
defined). This has been shown by Scott and Montague. Despite being not  
definable by a machine, a machine can still reason on it and find that  
it obeys a precise mathematics (with the propositional part obeying  
the modal logic S4Grz).


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: Existence of an information unit as a postulate of quantum theory


I will take a look. Thanks.

Hmm.. Still very aristotelician. It can't work, but that kind of  
reflexion might help to solve the problem. Hmm still very fuzzy on the  
basic assumptions ..., his definition of information assume a universe  
(and a machine).


Bruno



On 24 Dec 2014, at 00:51, meekerdb wrote:


Bruno should like this formulation of QM.

Brent


 Forwarded Message 


Existence of an information unit as a postulate of quantum theory

Lluis Masanes, Markus P. Mueller, Remigiusz Augusiak, David Perez- 
Garcia
(Submitted on 2 Aug 2012 (v1), last revised 22 Oct 2013 (this  
version, v2))
Does information play a significant role in the foundations of  
physics? Information is the abstraction that allows us to refer to  
the states of systems when we choose to ignore the systems  
themselves. This is only possible in very particular frameworks,  
like in classical or quantum theory, or more generally, whenever  
there exists an information unit such that the state of any system  
can be reversibly encoded in a sufficient number of such units. In  
this work we show how the abstract formalism of quantum theory can  
be deduced solely from the existence of an information unit with  
suitable properties, together with two further natural assumptions:  
the continuity and reversibility of dynamics, and the possibility of  
characterizing the state of a composite system by local 
measurements. This constitutes a new set of postulates for quantum  
theory with a simple and direct physical meaning, like the ones of  
special relativity or thermodynamics, and it articulates a strong  
connection between physics and information.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0493v2.pdf

See also attached PNAS paper.

YF


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

To post to this group, send email 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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 18 January 2015 at 18:43, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:12 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>> On 1/17/2015 9:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> Do you believe that one and only one of the following statements is true?
>>
>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0
>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 1
>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 2
>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 3
>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 4
>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 5
>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 6
>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 7
>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 8
>> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 9
>>
>> Either you answer yes, or no to that question. If you answer yes, I don't
>> see how you can escape mathematical realism.
>>
>>
>> By observing that "real" and "true" are different attributes.
>
>
> True is enough to yield reality, under computationalism.

Isn't that circular?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 17 Jan 2015, at 23:29, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 3:47 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 1/17/2015 12:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Saturday, January 17, 2015, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 1/17/2015 2:29 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Do you believe the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of Pi has a  
certain definite value, which is either 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,  
or 9?
> If so, would you still believe this if you knew that this number  
is too difficult to ever compute by anyone in this universe?
> Does this not point to a discontinuity between mathematical truth  
and conceivably of that truth by us limited creatures with limited  
minds in a limited universe? Perhaps it does take faith to believe  
that digit takes a certain value between 0 and 9, but it's easier  
for me to accept that on faith than the converse (that it is not  
any one of those digits).

>
> That supports my contention that mystics insist on making up  
answers even about things that are defined as unknowable.  How do  
you feel about, "That's a meaningless question."

>

I don't like it because it's theoretically answerable, just not  
accessible to us. Was the question what are stars meaningless to  
the cave men who had no hope of solving it in their time? No, it at  
least provided an impetus to keep searching.

The trillionth digit of pi didn't miraculously only come into  
existence when computers capable of determining it were invented.

Does it exists even when calculated?

I think the digit has a definite value (whether calculated or not).

  Does pi exist - even though it cannot be calculated?

I don't know if Pi exists, but a program exists that computes  
successive digits of Pi.

Yes, Pi is a computable real number. It can be represented by some  
total computable function in arithmetic, so PA can prove the existence  
of Pi, through some Gödel number of a program generating Pi. Of  
course, this existence can already be considered epistemological: it  
is an abstract property of natural numbers. It is not a natural  
number, which in the TOEs that I proposed, are the only basically, or  
primary, ontological object.

  Does the number two exist?

I think so. In so far as it has objective properties which can be  
studied (as any other object in science).

OK. And everybody believes in RA axioms, and in RA theorems, and of  
course Ex(x= s(s(0))) is a simple theorem of RA.

It *might* make sense to say that 2 does not exist like a chair can  
exist, but it is easier to explain how a chair work by using numbers,  
than explaining the existence of 2 (even in just the mind) from  
complex object like chair or other bosons and fermions, which assumes  
the existence of the numbers.

Bruno

Jason

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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: The Weakness of Panpsychism?

On 18 January 2015 at 04:25, David Nyman  wrote:
> I've been reading some of the responses to the Edge 2015 question "What do
> you think about machines that think?":
>
> http://edge.org/contributors/q2015
>
> Lee Smolin's contribution contains the following statement:
>
> "So let us hypothesize that qualia are internal properties of some brain
> processes. When observed from the outside, those brain processes can be
> described in terms of motions, potentials, masses, charges. But they have
> additional internal properties, which sometimes include qualia. Qualia must
> be extreme cases of being purely internal. More complex aspects of mind may
> turn out to be combinations of relational and internal properties."
>
> This formulation seems to be a version of panpsychism. Earlier in the piece,
> Smolin states a commitment to 'naturalism', which I presume commits him
> ultimately to grounding all explanation in the material (whatever that may
> specifically entail). Within this framework, his hypothesis is that there
> are internal properties of matter that are inaccessible to external
> observation. Such internal properties must be involved, he says, in the
> phenomenon of qualia (their 'extreme' form) and in addition they are somehow
> implicated in other more 'complex' aspects of mind.
>
> My question is this: is this position just obviously wrong? My reason for
> asking it is that ISTM that Smolin and other proponents of this view seem to
> entirely miss the glaring problem of reference. Smolin suggests that "the
> more complex aspects of mind may turn out to be combinations of relational
> and internal properties". But if this were indeed the case, how are such
> relational (i.e. observable) properties (which, lest we forget , are
> supposed to constitute a closed causal system) supposed to refer to (i.e. be
> lawfully or logically connected with) those that are 'internal' (i.e.
> unobservable)? Is this supposed to be a merely adventitious parallelism, on
> the lines of epiphenomenalism? If it were, it would leave the mysteries
> untouched, in my view. ISTM that panpsychist notions such as these founder
> hopelessly on this issue, even though it doesn't seem to be generally
> recognised as their Achilles' heel.
>
> Any thoughts?

What's wrong with "merely adventitious parallelism, on the lines of
epiphenomenalism"? If it seems to leave the mystery untouched, that is
because there is no logically possible solution to the hard problem of
consciousness.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 17 Jan 2015, at 13:29, Samiya Illias wrote:


http://m.deseretnews.com/
Michael Gerson: Modern science: Design of the divine?

By Michael Gerson, Washington Post

Published: Fri, Jan. 16 12:43 a.m.

WASHINGTON — The biographer Eric Metaxas recently made waves by  
arguing that modern science increasingly "makes the case for God."


Writing in The Wall Street Journal, he framed some rather weak  
arguments about planetary science, claiming that the parameters for  
the emergence of life are so precise and unlikely that they point to  
divine design. We don't really know what physical processes drive  
the development and remarkable resilience of life — which somehow  
includes moss on Mount Everest and tube worms in deep-sea  
hydrothermal vents — but it strikes me as likely that science will  
eventually find an explanation. Further research may reveal how the  
deck is stacked in favor of life by impersonal, natural forces. God  
is probably not needed to fill this particular gap.




But Metaxas goes on to make a broader, sounder point about the "fine- 
tuning" of physical constants that allow an observable universe to  
exist in the first place. After centuries of inquiry, we have found  
that everything that is — the whole shebang — balances precariously  
on the head of a pin. If electrons were a little lighter, there  
could be no stable stars. If protons were slightly heavier, no atoms  
could form. If the weak nuclear force were weaker, there would be no  
hydrogen. If the electromagnetic force were stronger, carbon would  
decay away. If a variety of physical constants were off by even a  
smidgen, we would not exist to engage in science or argue about God.  
This, presumably, requires an explanation.


Metaxas' column brought a predictable reaction from a certain type  
of atheist who sees no need for an explanation. The universe is  
because it is. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't be observing it.


But the belief that our precisely balanced universe is a fluke is in  
tension with the scientific method. Physicist Max Tegmark, for  
example, points to dark energy as a dramatic example of fine-tuning.  
If dark energy had a larger density, no galaxies would have formed.  
If it had a negative density, the universe would have collapsed back  
on itself before life could emerge. Tegmark imagines the full range  
of densities for dark energy represented on a dial. In order to get  
a habitable universe, the dial needs to be rotated past the halfway  
point by a precise, vanishingly minuscule amount. "The fine-tuning  
appears extreme enough to be quite embarrassing," Tegmark writes.  
"To me, an unexplained coincidence can be a telltale sign of a gap  
in our scientific understanding. Dismissing it by saying, 'We got  
lucky — now stop looking for an explanation!' is not only  
unsatisfactory, but also tantamount to ignoring a potentially  
crucial clue."


Tegmark is a leading advocate of the theory of the "multiverse. " He  
explains fine-tuning by postulating an infinite variety of other  
universes, in which physical constants have all possible values. We  
happen to be located in one of the habitable versions.




This does not work. "we" are not located. Only our relative "bodies"  
are located, and those "bodies" are convenient fiction. Tegmark uses  
an identity thesis which does not work, unless based on very special  
actual infinities in nature, for which there is no evidence.




The existence of an infinite number of universes has mind-bending  
implications. There would be one, for example, in which the  
dinosaurs didn't go extinct. In which Hitler died in World War I, or  
won World War II. In which the column you are reading differed by  
one word, or two.


The multiverse allows for fine-tuning without a divine tuner. But it  
would change and lower our view of the scientific enterprise. Newton  
and Einstein sought to describe the universe in terms of simple,  
elegant, physical laws and mathematical equations. "If the  
multiverse idea is correct," argued MIT physicist Alan Lightman in  
"The Accidental Universe," "then the historic mission of physics to  
explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental  
principles — to explain why the properties of our universe must  
necessarily be what they are — is futile, a beautiful philosophical  
dream that simply isn't true. Our universe is what it is simply  
because we are here."




That is correct, but only if we use the multiverse as an explanation  
of everything, and stop trying to solve the intersting problem, like  
God, soul, intelligibility, the mind-body problem, etc.




Believing in the multiverse also seems to involve a considerable  
amount of faith.




Like 0 universe, 1 universe, 2 universe, ... aleph_0 universes,  
aleph_1 universes, etc.


We need faith to believe in anything different from our own  
consciousness here-and-now.



"Not only must we accept that basic properties of our univers

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 16 Jan 2015, at 22:24, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> Take my definition of God in the Plotinus paper. That is God = the  
set of Gödel numbers of the true (in the standard model) sentences  
of arithmetic.

So since according to you it was Christianity who invented the idea  
that God was a intelligent conscious being I guess all those statues  
that the Egyptians and Babylonians carved were of the set of Godel  
numbers that were sentences of arithmetic.  It must be tricky making  
a statue of Godel numbers, but somehow they pulled it off.

I have never said that christians invented the notion of personal god.  
Only that they have enforced that definition at above the time they  
bannished the scientific inquiry in the domain.

> Evolutionary biologist Richard  Dawkins has said that "theology is  
not a field of inquiry, it is little more than erudite noisemaking".

> You don't cite the context,

OK, when Dawkins said that he also said "theology should not be  
taught or have a department at Oxford where I teach". Thomas  
Jefferson would have agreed with him, he founded the University of  
Virginia and insisted that "a professorship of theology should have  
no place in our institution".

No, problem. It is indeed annoying that some academies allows  
confessional theologies without allowing the non-confessional one.

> and I am not sure which theologians he has in mind.

I think he was referring to the sort of theologians that breathe.

You should quote me entirely. We were talking about the two main type  
of theology: the one with some belief  in an ontological creation  
(like Aristotle, christians, atheists, etc.) and those agnostic on  
this (Plato, greek, indians, all classical universal machines, etc.).

>> Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss also has something interesting to say  
about theologians and theology:
"In regards to theology not being a real subject, I put this  
challenge out to all theologians. Name me one piece of knowledge  
theology has contributed to human society in the last 500 years.  
When I speak to theologians, they always seem to answer “well, what  
do you mean by knowledge?”, but when I talk to chemists, physicists  
and medical doctors, they give me concrete facts straight away not  
this epistemological stuff."

>Which theology?

What a flabby gutless mealymouthed reply, if it's not "what do you  
mean by knowledge?" its "Which theology?"!  Nobody would ask for  
such a ridiculous "clarification" unless they had nothing better to  
respond with.  If you asked a astronomer to name one piece of  
knowledge astronomy has contributed to human society in the last 500  
years he'd just tell you and would have no need to resort to these  
silly evasions; he'd name something, lots and lots of things actually.

Sorry, I meant: "which theologian" and is the same question as above.

> What about step 4?

What about the blunders in step 3?

You did not succeed in showing them, and never answered the many  
refutation of them by many people on the list. In all case you either  
begged the question, or changed the definitions, or ... accepted the  
conclusion but adding ad hominem irrelevant unrelated thing of the  
type "my niece can also prove this", which is why I asked to you what  
your niece thinks about the next step (4).

Bruno

  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.

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: What over 170 people think about machines that think

2015-01-18 Thread Alberto G. Corona

   - The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant
    as the question of whether
   Submarines Can Swim.
  - Dijkstra (1984) The threats to computing science
  
  (EWD898).


2015-01-18 1:24 GMT+01:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com>:

>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 3:28 PM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think
>
> There's a whole organization, the Machine Intelligence Research Insitute
> (Google MIRI) which seems to do little except think about how to ensure
> that a superhuman AI is "friendly" - which I'm pretty sure is provably
> impossible.
>
> I agree with you there. However, even though it may be impossible to
> ensure AI is friendly; we should do what is within our power -- as we
> develop its precursors -- to attempt to improve the likelihood that it will
> look kindly upon the hairless apes that gave rise to it.
> Read a few of those essays, by the way; an interesting compilation. Plan
> on reading some more of them.
> -Chris
>
> Brent
>
> On 1/17/2015 2:20 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
> >
> > Some interesting short essays.
> >
> > Thanks, they do seem interesting. Also topical, on this subject: AI
> experts around the globe are signing an open letter issued Sunday by the
> Future of Life Institute that pledges to safely and carefully coordinate
> progress in the field to ensure it does not grow beyond humanity's control.
> Signees include co-founders of Deep Mind, the British AI company purchased
> by Google in January 2014; MIT professors; and experts at some of
> technology's biggest corporations, including IBM's Watson supercomputer
> team and Microsoft Research.
> > -Chris
> >
> > http://edge.org/contributors/q2015
> >
> >
> > Brent
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Alberto.

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

Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?