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 20 Jan 2015, at 23:58, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Then it is a good thing that computer science did not listen to you Kim, regarding the concept of "abstraction" and "abstract classes" {e.g. templates for concrete entities fully implementing the abstracted methods an

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 1/21/2015 10:09 PM, Kim Jones wrote: But the laws surely are not random. Laws cannot be random. Look, the universe is a setup job. Either we are simulated and the limitation to our minds is intentional or "we" are enjoying a ride of some sort where we are real and the ride is the simulation

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 1/21/2015 8:58 PM, Rex Allen wrote: If we say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is true - this is a problem, since evolution seems to only care about survival and reproduction - not truth. So how do evolved beings like us arrive at a true theory like that? Because inferring from one thing to another is

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

John Clark wrote: On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, 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

Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On 1/21/2015 8:12 PM, chris peck wrote: >> And a fair answer would be they turned psychotic because they believed in a psychotic religion. No that would be a stupid answer because we know that it is hogwash. Firstly, we know that the overwhelmingly vast majority of muslims do not turn psych

Re: Manifesto Rex

> On 22 Jan 2015, at 3:58 pm, Rex Allen wrote: > > I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a mathematical > universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs about the > mathematical nature of the universe. Under Bruno's neoplatonic framework there is no un

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

> > Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't mean >> that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If the pi >> proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown >> outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence for the existence o

Re: Manifesto Rex

That is not what I was thinking, but it makes a certain amount of sense. Rex On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:43 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 Rex Allen wrote: > > > Consciousness precedes axioms. Consciousness precedes logic. >> > > That would be consistent with my idea that conscio

Re: Manifesto Rex

I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs about the mathematical nature of the universe. Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a random (i.e., not specially chosen) set of phys

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Rex Allen > wrote: > >> Hi Telmo, >> >> Is there a better starting point than consciousness? >> > > No. > > >> >> My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to >> it's logical con

RE: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

>> And a fair answer would be they turned psychotic because they believed in a >> psychotic religion. No that would be a stupid answer because we know that it is hogwash. Firstly, we know that the overwhelmingly vast majority of muslims do not turn psychotic in the face of cartoons. Second

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote: > > Hi Telmo, > > Is there a better starting point than consciousness? > > My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to > it's logical conclusion, supports a Kantian division of

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

> On 22 Jan 2015, at 5:46 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > In the end... if you cannot doubt god because of the way you define it... > then not only you're not atheist (seems obvious)... but you're not agnostic > either, you're what is called a believer... > > Quentin Yes. "Believer" doesn'

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

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:01 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/21/2015 3:49 PM, LizR wrote: > >On 18 Jan 2015, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 1/18/2015 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> But observation and personal experience never prove anything. >> >> Spoken like a true Platonist - who nev

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

On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, 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^

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

On 1/21/2015 3:49 PM, LizR wrote: On 18 Jan 2015, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: 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. I've sat on a jury, and since today ha

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

On 1/21/2015 3:46 PM, LizR wrote: On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, 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 digi

Re: The Great Acceleration

Nice, but they missed out war and dictatorships, both of which have been in decline for the last century. (As was the rich-poor gap until Mrs Thatcher and her ilk appeared.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from

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

On 22 January 2015 at 12:53, LizR wrote: > >> "if you think physical reality is more important than mathematics, try > throwing away your computer and flying to the Moon" > > Neil Armstrong was actually forced to do this in the final minutes before Apollo 11 touched down (the computers failed, an

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

On 20 January 2015 at 06:36, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 18 Jan 2015, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote: > > 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 >

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

> > On 18 Jan 2015, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: > > 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. > > I've sat on a jury, and since today has an 'R' in it, I'm a Platonist. How d

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

On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, 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

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 Rex Allen wrote: > Consciousness precedes axioms. Consciousness precedes logic. > That would be consistent with my idea that consciousness is easy but intelligence is hard and is the reason Evolution developed animals that were conscious of environmental stimuli and could

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

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > In the end... if you cannot doubt god because of the way you define it... > then not only you're not atheist (seems obvious).. but you're not agnostic > either, you're what is called a believer... > OK lets redefine the word as follows: "God is anyt

Re: Manifesto Rex

Brent, Telmo and all others 'consciousness' anchored members: It is an easy cop-out to say the "c" term is too complicated to be identified. If we want to use it we better knowWHAT we wnt to use. My definition is "response to relations" - another cop-out, because it is hard to identify RELATION (a

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything? I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same consciousness. It is evolutionary useful to mai

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

On 21 Jan 2015, at 07:45, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote: On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 2:49:12 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2015, at 23:48, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote: Roger: Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi, the p

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > >> the man who invented the condom transcend Darwinism. >> > > >I disagree. We are all still all the product of Darwinist processes. We > are all at the end of a long line of machines that successfully produced > viable offspring. > Abso

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

In the end... if you cannot doubt god because of the way you define it... then not only you're not atheist (seems obvious)... but you're not agnostic either, you're what is called a believer... Quentin 2015-01-21 19:30 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal : > > On 21 Jan 2015, at 01:40, meekerdb wrote: > >

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

On 21 Jan 2015, at 01:40, meekerdb wrote: On 1/20/2015 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The more I think about it, the more I doubt that these subjects were simply "abandoned" in an innocent fashion. The problem is that beliefs about fundamental reality are at the foundations of political p

Re: The Weakness of Panpsychism?

On 20 January 2015 at 19:57, meekerdb wrote: For the very reason that it is necessarily private I think the 'hard' > problem will be regarded as solved, as solved as it can be, when one can > read off veridical emotions, thoughts, perceptions from brain scans. I know you do ;-) David -- You

Re: Manifesto Rex

I used to think that way. If you examine previous posts, you will see my posts reasoning along these natural-selection lines (evolution is a very very bad name for natural selection). But now I think that this is incomplete. More or less your point of view is similar to the Konrad Lorentz when he

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:55 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > I would say the point here is not so much that we need to transcend >> Darwinism in the sense that the theory is insufficient, but because >> evolution has "other plans" for the machinery that w

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Rex Allen wrote: > Hi Telmo, > > Is there a better starting point than consciousness? > No. > > My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to it's > logical conclusion, supports a Kantian division of reality into phenomenal > and noumena

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > > > > On 20 Jan 2015, at 11:43 pm, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > > > These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we are > not what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal because time > itself is a dream. That ther