Re: Manifesto Rex

On 1/22/2015 9:44 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 23 Jan 2015, at 4:06 pm, meekerdb > wrote: On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb > wrote: On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 23 Jan 2015,

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

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote >> Do we know that? Do we know that such a digit exists? >> > > > It follows from the axioms that there is a certain definite digit. > They show you how to generate terms in a sequence and if you add up enough of them you'd get the the 10^(10^(1

Re: Manifesto Rex

> On 23 Jan 2015, at 4:06 pm, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >> >> On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb wrote: >> On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb wrote: >> On 1/22/2015 9:2

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb > wrote: On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb > wrote: On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan

Re: Manifesto Rex

> On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >> >> On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb wrote: >> On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, T

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb > wrote: On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: If you completely discard the concept

Re: Manifesto Rex

> On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote: >>> On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely > with "evol

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

On 1/22/2015 1:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:25 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 1/22/2015 3:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 1/21/2015 3:46 PM, LizR wrote

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote: 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. Fo

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

On 1/22/2015 8:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2015, at 02:00, meekerdb wrote: 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?

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

On 1/22/2015 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In 1910, Henri Ford already asked why to use non renewable oil and not renewable hemp? And the answer was that it was a lot cheaper to use oil from the ground. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Every

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

On 1/22/2015 7:45 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-01-22 16:37 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>: On 21 Jan 2015, at 19:46, 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 ob

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/22/2015 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, 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 t

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

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:28 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> >> >> So one of them is true, but can you (or anyone in this universe) prove: >> >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0 ? >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th de

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 1/22/2015 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: False beliefs are detrimental to survival. E.g. if a society believed that winter would not come again, they might not store food away for those harder times. If another society didn't believe in GR, they wouldn't have been able to make GPS satellites and

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 1/22/2015 4:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb > wrote: 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"

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

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:25 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/22/2015 3:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> 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 o

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

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> So one of them is true, but can you (or anyone in this universe) prove: > > 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 decima

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

On 1/22/2015 3:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 1/21/2015 3:46 PM, LizR wrote: On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: Do you believe that *one and only

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 1/22/2015 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, 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

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

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:48 AM, Bruce Kellett 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^(1

Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:12 PM, chris peck wrote: > We know that the overwhelmingly vast majority of muslims do not turn > psychotic in the face of cartoons. > And we know that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who turn psychotic in the face of cartoons are Muslims. And thanks to a re

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 22 Jan 2015, at 05:58, 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. But Gödel + Church + Kleene + Post + Turing + Matiyazevich..

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.

Tronnies may explain the need for π’s precission. Coulomb’s Law requires that all charged particles be point particles or made from point particles. Tronnies are point particles with a charge of plus e or minus e. Their charge of e means the tronnies are the source of the Coulomb force whi

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote: 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 consciousn

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

On 22 Jan 2015, at 07:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: John Clark wrote: On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com >> 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

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

On 22 Jan 2015, at 06:06, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote: 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/

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

On 22 Jan 2015, at 02:00, meekerdb wrote: 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 digit of

Re: The Weakness of Panpsychism?

On 22 January 2015 at 08:22, Bruno Marchal wrote: Because with sufficiently big infinity in both mind and matter, you can a > priori singularize the experience and the body in a way such that > duplication is no more possible, and there is no more FPI, and we can use > the old identity thesis bra

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

On 22 Jan 2015, at 00:53, LizR wrote: 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 i

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

On 21 Jan 2015, at 21:56, John Clark wrote: 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

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

2015-01-22 16:37 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal : > > On 21 Jan 2015, at 19:46, 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...

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

On 21 Jan 2015, at 19:46, 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... No problem with this. Actually, it is because I

Re: Manifesto Rex

Hi John, I just have a simple question then. Do you know you're conscious? Cheers! Telmo. 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

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

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:21 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: >> >> John Clark wrote: >> >> On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch >

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 20 Jan 2015, at 13:43, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Hi Rex, > > Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been thinking > about, along these lines (I believe). > > It is interesting that there are a number of models of reality

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:49 PM, John Clark wrote: > > 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

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:58 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. > > The purpose of brains is to find/discover useful i

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

Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: John Clark wrote: On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com> >> wrote:

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb wrote: > 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 t

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

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > John Clark wrote: > >> On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch > jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> > Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following >> statements is true? >> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decim

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

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:26 PM, 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 pi is 1 >>>

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

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb wrote: > 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 >> t

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

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:46 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 digit of pi is 1 >

Re: Manifesto Rex

> On 22 Jan 2015, at 6:07 pm, meekerdb wrote: > >> 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

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 20 Jan 2015, at 21:43, 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 there is only one c

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, 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 reality into pheno

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 20 Jan 2015, at 13:43, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Rex, Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been thinking about, along these lines (I believe). It is interesting that there are a number of models of reality that are prima facie as plausible as any other but are more co

Re: Manifesto Rex

On 20 Jan 2015, at 16:28, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: We need not transcend Darwinism. Darwin doesn't explain the entire universe, but much of it rather successfully, perhaps as Lee Smolin indicates, stars, galaxies, black holes, etc as well? My interest and guess is that QI, and

Re: The Weakness of Panpsychism?

On 20 Jan 2015, at 18:18, David Nyman wrote: On 20 January 2015 at 17:11, Bruno Marchal wrote: At this point, I'm somewhat persuaded that this broader sense of truth, in approximately Descartes' sense, is in fact highly relevant to what is special and, so to speak, non-negotiable about c

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 21 Jan 2015, at 01:33, meekerdb wrote: On 1/20/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Ex(x+x=4) just means there is number OK. as defined by Peano's axioms that provably satisfies the expression. Not at all. That means that PA believes Ex(x+x=4). ?? But you use []p to equally mean "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 21 Jan 2015, at 01:27, meekerdb wrote: On 1/20/2015 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The only problem with using god for definition of god (large or small) is that it's circular. You repeatedly write things like above, "My belief in God is trivial. All machine introspecting are confronte

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 23:19, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > I use God in the sense of the platonist, who introduced the field of inquiry "theology". Not that it matters much what some guy who lived 2500 years ago thought but Plato didn't believe in God he be