Re: saying no to the doctor...
On 04 May 2014, at 21:18, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. I have no explanation for consciousness. My current inclination is panpsychism. The problem here is twofold: 1) what pan refers to? (A physical world, then you need to say no to the doctor, Arithmetical truth? perhaps, if the brain is really a consciousness filter (I am still not sure if this makes really sense with comp). 2) what *is* psychisme (is it Turing emulable? if yes primitive matter is an illusion, and physics is a branch of theology, if not what is it?) Bruno Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Hey, I like 70's punk rock too! Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. I believe that science is the only valid tool we have to understand public reality. If you have a good consciousness between the ears theory then... I'm all ears. Other theories are ok too. My position is that what makes a theory scientific is it's falsifiability, that's all. It doesn't matter how weird the theory sounds, it only matters if it makes valid predictions or not. Common sense has been shown to be misleading many times, and to an amazing degree with quantum mechanics. I am not sure that consciousness will ever be investigated by science, because I'm not sure it will ever be possible to measure it or test for it's presence. In this case (or meanwhile), we have to make do with thought experiments and introspection on private reality. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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: saying no to the doctor...
On 04 May 2014, at 22:12, John Mikes wrote: Telmo, some 2+ decades ago I think I had a reason to avert from the topic called panpsychism (would be hard to recall it adequately now). As I remember I called the phenomenon covered by this misnomer PANSENSITIVITY (what I would not like to defend today anymore). Psych seems to me too 'human' to be applicable to the entire world (=Mme. Nature). The problem, as I said to Telmo, is that panpsychism is neutral on Aristotle/Plato, and as such does not say much things. What does pan refers too, and what *is* psychism. If psychism is Turing emulable (like the observation of bodies and brain suggests) then Nature is too much small, and itself an emergent information pattern in the mind of the 'numbers' (the person that we can associate to machine in that case). Why would you reduce the MWI reflexibility into ourflimsy human brainfunctions? (Even i f you extend them into human? mentality total). I don't understand this. Bruno On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. I have no explanation for consciousness. My current inclination is panpsychism. Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Hey, I like 70's punk rock too! Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. I believe that science is the only valid tool we have to understand public reality. If you have a good consciousness between the ears theory then... I'm all ears. Other theories are ok too. My position is that what makes a theory scientific is it's falsifiability, that's all. It doesn't matter how weird the theory sounds, it only matters if it makes valid predictions or not. Common sense has been shown to be misleading many times, and to an amazing degree with quantum mechanics. I am not sure that consciousness will ever be investigated by science, because I'm not sure it will ever be possible to measure it or test for it's presence. In this case (or meanwhile), we have to make do with thought experiments and introspection on private reality. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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 Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On 04 May 2014, at 22:42, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, your 'scientific' logic supersedes me. Explaining ontology by existing and - I suppose - existing by the likes of 'ontology' (etc.) is more than what I buy. There is no metaphysics here. I am just saying that if you do a theory, you have to be clear on what we will agree to be primitively existing, and what we derive from that assumption. We might still stumble on truth, (or you do not?), what we may believe as truth and draw very important consequences upon OTHER concepts from it as well. In my agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that may change whatever we THINK is included - as historic examples show. Sure. That is why an (ideal) scientist will never pretend he has a true theory. It is not really is job, even when he tackles metaphysical or theological question, it will be under the form IF this THEN that, etc. I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the H U M A N mind so your formula (besides being hard to follow for me) is not convincing. The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar calculation how Nature arrived at them. The point is only that IF we are Turing emulable THEN physics is given by ... (and I give the equations). So we can test computationalism and move forward. Unfortunately, thanks to Gödel and Everett, comp is confirmed up to now. (See the early (even recent???) explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if 'analogue' covers them all, what I would not suggest). 'Analog' is compatible with computationalism, unless you mean that the brain uses very special infinities. They might exist, and thanks to the kind of reasoning I suggest we do, we can test this. But until such confirmation of non-comp (or refutation of comp), I think we should not make a theory more complex just by wishful thinking. We can be agnostic on comp, and still understand its consequences, so that we can test it, and perhaps refute it. Bruno John M On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote: Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between stable patterns of information, e.g. perception... and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as): the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence, Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and Perception. I would say ontology is a word. But ontology is what exist, and that can be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a dinosaur, or a planet, or a number, in this or that other theory. The same for existence, information and perception, those are words. But I don't see why information, perception and existence would be word. (Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)), and denote the sequence s(s(0)) by the number 2^(code of s)*5^(code of (; , which will give a large number s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...). This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code for that number.) Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/ mentality. We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those abilities can be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any computer language. Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to as we perceive something, the epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental capabilities. All right. None cuts into anything R E A L . You don't know that. WE CAN NOT. You cannot know that too. What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express that we cannot do it either. We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we might still stumble on some truth. Why not? Bruno On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote: So what does existence mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,... I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence, which are the appearance that we derive at some higher emergent level. With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory (like Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive from them the emergence of all universal machines, their interactions and the resulting first person statistics, which should explains the origin and development (in some mathematical space) of the law of physics. I like when David Mermin said once: Einstein asked if the moon still exist when nobody
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 04 May 2014, at 22:48, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 8:17:29 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 01:14, LizR wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Some ism can be good and nice, but even in that case, after a while, some people will use it and pervert it for special/personal interest. Always. Then criticizing the ism protects them, somehow you're absolutely right OK. . For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society. On the money Bruno. Hey this might be were we finally touch heads man! It's amazing the dogma and self-serving ideological bolt ons currently crept already fully into the conception what a free market is. It's barely recognizable as it stands at the moment. OK. A large part of the reason this is possible to happen is because there's no scientific theory of economy. . The real war is between the good guy and the bad guy. There is no ism capable of guaranty the good, but allowing some ism to com fairly, allow them to evolve and this is harm reduction. Now, if some same ism lasts too long, it get rotten and as good as it could have been, it will be perverted by some special interest. I don't think so Bruno, and even if there was, there's no place for morality in a theory of economy, not as primary operator...because all that will ever get us, is philosophy-guru's into the market next, to tell us about the morality...and among them will be even more bad guys, Which'd be a magnet for yet more. Indeed. But the value of money is based on our trust, and this, without doing morality, is based on the fact that money represent genuine work, and not work to give employment (like in some form of socialism) or based on propaganda (like with prohibition). My feeling is that capitalism today is sick due to prohibition. Alcohol and then marijuana has been a trojan horse for very bad people to gain a lot of power, and corrupt some layers of the society, internationally. There are bad guys in practice, but the scientific theory of economy...it won't just be a theory on paper. The day for that is nearly over now. The shape of things to come are theories that no longer embody human guesses any more, but instead embody that which can be anticipated once discovered...which will always be at the methodological level. And that which must be discovered as part of an ongoing unfolding process. All which will attach, to economy, technology, physical theory, mathematics, a problem...whatever we wantattachment by translation from more abstracted form, attachment by intersection, discovery as the product, within in a feedback and other ways ever more complex organism. The theory of economy work its way through markets and industries and nations and individuals and abstract theories...discovering principles and strategies and corruption..discovering all the time, and correcting. The 2nd Scientific Revolution.that's what it will be. We might not get there thoughbut if we could it be every dream cometh true. But there's a limited window, and if we fail, it's hive and hell...the end of us, but with time in the middle plenty to have a go at being animals I am not sure. Honesty is the base of an economy, but once the economy is perverted by lies, then honesty is an handicap, until the catastrophes. Honesty is not moral here, it makes the difference between investing for your own special interest, and investing for the interest
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 04 May 2014, at 23:34, John Mikes wrote: Somebody wrote (Liz?): It was me, answering to Liz. For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society. Who is that YOU?? Power and force are in the hands of the plutocrats. They do whatever they see fit. Money does not 'vote': people (stupid and 'for sale' voters do. Once you have financial help from lobbying, people will vote for those who they heard about. Capitalism, BTW, as I wrote many times, died in the 1970s to give it over to some Economical Global Feudalism, (including corporatism and monopolism) - That's my point, except that the root of this comes from prohibition, as defended *only* by bandits at the start (I tend to think). The problem is black and grey money. not less brutal than the Medieval Feudalism was, only with higher sophistication and pretension. The lords OWN things (including Nature) and the serfs work for money (for them) - sometimes for many many money, like bankers, lawyers, legislators, enforcers, scientists, etc. Serfs are disregardable chattel - fodder for wars, work-slaves, etc. OK. I did try to live in pre- and real nazism, in a (mock) communism and in capiatlism, in all of them as an underdog (scientist), twice arrested - but survived. Glad that you survive, John :) Bruno JM On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 8:17:29 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 01:14, LizR wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Some ism can be good and nice, but even in that case, after a while, some people will use it and pervert it for special/personal interest. Always. Then criticizing the ism protects them, somehow you're absolutely right . For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society. On the money Bruno. Hey this might be were we finally touch heads man! It's amazing the dogma and self-serving ideological bolt ons currently crept already fully into the conception what a free market is. It's barely recognizable as it stands at the moment. A large part of the reason this is possible to happen is because there's no scientific theory of economy. . The real war is between the good guy and the bad guy. There is no ism capable of guaranty the good, but allowing some ism to com fairly, allow them to evolve and this is harm reduction. Now, if some same ism lasts too long, it get rotten and as good as it could have been, it will be perverted by some special interest. I don't think so Bruno, and even if there was, there's no place for morality in a theory of economy, not as primary operator...because all that will ever get us, is philosophy-guru's into the market next, to tell us about the morality...and among them will be even more bad guys, Which'd be a magnet for yet more. There are bad guys in practice, but the scientific theory of economy...it won't just be a theory on paper. The day for that is nearly over now. The shape of things to come are theories that no longer embody human guesses any more, but instead embody that which can be anticipated once discovered...which will always be at the methodological level. And that which must be discovered as part of an ongoing unfolding process. All
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 04 May 2014, at 23:46, LizR wrote: On 5 May 2014 07:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. This is true, however real capitalism - free market capitalism - doesn't work because it doesn't pay the full (i.e. environmental) price of production. Free market capitalism just stop to work when it is not free, and when money is used to hide the fact that the products does not work or have bad side effects. At least it hasn't to date, which means so far it's just been a bubble / ponzi scheme. It has became like that. The power separations leak. A system that paid fair wages and the full costs of production, and had a free market and a government limited to providing infrastructure could be called successful capitalism (or it could equally be called successful communism) but we don't have it yet, We lost it, from time to time. and until we do we can't claim that we've ever had a system that works. Capitalism works very well, unless it get sick. Everything alive can get think. To attack capitalism, is like judging that blood is the culprit of cancer, because blood feed the cancer cells. But blood (money) is not the culprit: it is the cancer cells which pervert the blood circulation, and it is the bandits which pervert the economy. Hence my earlier comments about (what we've been calling) capitalism heading towards the greatest death toll of all, unless we sort out the encironmental aspects p.d.q. Why use non sustainable oil instead of sustainable hemp like we did since always? asked Henry Ford in the early years of the 20th century. Answer: because hemp is the mexican horrible killing drug (was the answer, based on fake studies, propaganda, etc.). That's not capitalism, that's banditism. It destroys both bodies and environment, which are the last things the bandits are concerned with. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
On 04 May 2014, at 11:34, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-05-04 6:24 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 4 May 2014 15:20, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I have forwarded your query to an expert in Arabic Grammar. Your quote from Wikipedia is correct. What I can inform you, based on my understanding, is that the pronoun 'ha' used in the verse is for female singular with a plural masculine noun 'butuun' indicates that it is specifically about a female bee. OK. I hope you are prepared to accept that if Arabic gives genders to everything, including things which are in fact genderless (like tables), then that demolishes any claim that bees being described as female in ancient texts has any particular significance. I will look at the other claims once this one has been settled, if you don't mind. I think one at a time is best if we are attempting to establish the truth in each case. Anyway, before that, he should also show why such knowledge would have not been accessible to people of that era... because... that's what he claims. What *she* claims, I would say. Samiya seems to be a feminine name: http://www.google.be/search?q=Samiyasafe=offsource=lnmstbm=ischsa=Xei=TzhnU7qsFKSw0QXezYG4Awved=0CAYQ_AUoAQbiw=1457bih=1102 Regards, Quentin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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: Honey Bee
On 05 May 2014, at 00:25, LizR wrote: PS did I get that right about the queen being fed special stuff? My knowledge is also badly informed on many things...) On 5 May 2014 10:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, good point. It seems likely to me that people would notice that there was a queen bee who laid all the eggs, and perhaps make some assumptions based on that. If they noticed that the queen started as a normal worker but was fed special stuff to make her into the queen... well, people weren't stupid in those days! (Just badly informed on many matters).. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also quote the Bible. Proverbs, Chapter 6, verse 6: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Worker ants are indeed female... and they too have queens... but as you say Samiya needs to show that this couldn't be ascertained, or reasonably assumed, by ancient people before he makes any claims about it being provided by divine inspiration (which I assume is his aim). That was a good point Liz. It illustrates how very complex is the interpretation of prose and poetry, and how easy we might draw invalid conclusions. It is nice of you trying to help Samiya in that regard. We will see if she is able to abandon *that* argument, or if she biased in favor of a theory. The existence, for a period, of muslim neoplatonism suggests to me that the Quran is agnostic on the main conceptual divide between reality conceptions (Plato or Aristotle). Not so for the bible, which seems to take for granted both a creator and a creation, and very few mystics, even among Christians, refer to it. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On 05 May 2014, at 01:36, LizR wrote: On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: In my agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that may change whatever we THINK is included - as historic examples show. I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the H U M A N mind What do you think of Max Tegmark's argument for mathematical realism - that all the clues we have so far indicate that nature is inherently mathematical, and that if we ever find a ToE, and it turns out to be just a bunch of equations, then there will be no reason to think the universe is anything other than those equations - as he puts it, how they look from the inside ? Obviously this is speculative, of course, Well, it is a logical consequence of comp and the weak occam, and I would say that all theories are speculative, but some more, some less. in that we don't have a ToE yet. Come on. I gave a scheme of equivalent TOE. May be you mean that the mainstream thought has not yet swallow that. OK, that will take time. We will plausibly become artificial machines before understanding the consequences. But everything we have learnt about reality so far does appear to indicate it has (in some sense) a mathematical nature. If this trend continues and we eventually discover a TOE, and it is mathematical, would you agree with Max that maths isn't an invention of the human mind, but something we have discovered about reality? (That it is even, perhaps, ALL that reality is?) But I don't think that the term math is precise enough. It is too big, and cannot be itself entirely mathematical. But with comp, the 3p truth is arithmetical, and the 1p truth is vastly mathematical, yet got some irreductible non computable and non digital theological or psychological aspects. The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even recent???) explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if 'analogue' covers them all, what I would not suggest). Relativity is analogue, quantum mechanics is (perhaps) digital. However, assuming that nature is analogue - i.e., continuously differentiable - doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical. Indeed. And comp justifies entirely why the 3p big thing can be digital/arithmetical, yet should appear bigger from inside. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 05 May 2014, at 03:57, meekerdb wrote: It creates a parallel medium of exchange in which those who make bitcoins first hope to profit from their appreciation. Bitcoin was at first a way to go around the sickness (the non free- ness) of current capitalism, notably to reflect the demand of drugs and weapon. But they abandoned the weapon market, and apparently it might be perverted in the same ways. Bitcoin is not enough, as long as we tolerate the lies ... Bruno Brent On 5/4/2014 6:12 PM, LizR wrote: I don't know much about bitcoin, except you can mine bitcoins at some expense - to your power bill, your time and the environment. What's the point? (And how does it manipulate the medium of exchange?) On 5 May 2014 12:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2014 12:38 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. I think that confuses financialism with capitalism. If you can invest in labor and equipment and produce something that returns a profit, you're a capitalist. Bitcoin looks to me like just another attempt to manipulate the medium of exchange and profit from it - a role traditionally taken by Wall Street and the Federal Reserve in the U.S. 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- l...@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- l...@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. 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: Honey Bee
On 05 May 2014, at 06:16, Samiya Illias wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:24 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, good point. It seems likely to me that people would notice that there was a queen bee who laid all the eggs, and perhaps make some assumptions based on that. If they noticed that the queen started as a normal worker but was fed special stuff to make her into the queen... well, people weren't stupid in those days! (Just badly informed on many matters).. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also quote the Bible. Proverbs, Chapter 6, verse 6: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. [Quran 27:18] Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an (female) ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving. Worker ants are indeed female... and they too have queens... but as you say Samiya needs to show that this couldn't be ascertained, or reasonably assumed, by ancient people before he makes any claims about it being provided by divine inspiration (which I assume is his aim). I believe the scriptures were revealed by Divine decree. I sincerely think that this might be a problem. Believing this might create a bias. By sharing verses of scientific relevance from the Quran, I hope to establish that it is factually correct, and without any human errors, so that anyone who wishes may include it in their quest for scientific knowledge. Do my posts give an impression of being from a man, or do you also employ the general style of the Quran, of speaking in the male tense about living things, unless specifically speaking about a female? Not that I mind, but in the interest of being factually correct, the feminine pronoun will be more appropriate when referring to Samiya :) Ah! :) Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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: Evolution from Scripture
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 11:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 07:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. This is true, however real capitalism - free market capitalism - doesn't work because it doesn't pay the full (i.e. environmental) price of production. At least it hasn't to date, which means so far it's just been a bubble / ponzi scheme. It is fair to argue that free market capitalism provides no mechanism to create some concerted effort to reduce environmental impact. However, neither does the current system. This is one problem one faces when defending the free market: one is usually cornered into comparing it with an *idealised* version of the current system. It will never live up to that. What makes something a bubble / ponzi scheme is the implicit necessity of infinite growth for sustainability. This is precisely the requirement of the current system, in which countries can run public debts that are larger than the total money supply. We just saw one iteration of the ponzi scheme explode in 2007. Or the current european pensions scheme, where workers pay the pensions of retired people -- which require infinite population growth for it not to collapse. In fact, my generation is the one in whose hands the system exploded, we are likely not going to have any pensions, and there are already aggressive cuts happening even for the currently retired (who payed for full pensions all their lives but now only get a part of it, they would be better off had they been allowed to just save that money). A free market where the government cannot issue money is the furthest possible thing from a ponzi scheme: you cannot lend money that does not exist. The opposite of ponzi scheme is an economy based on deflation, which also has another nice property: your money tends to increase in value with time, so it also solves the pensions issue in a sustainable manner, which is directly indexed to economic activity. It can only increase in value insofar as there is a matching increase in resources. Also, the environmental costs don't make it a ponzi scheme because the savings they enable are reflected in the cost of goods: provided there is free competition. A system that paid fair wages and the full costs of production, and had a free market and a government limited to providing infrastructure could be called successful capitalism (or it could equally be called successful communism) but we don't have it yet, and until we do we can't claim that we've *ever* had a system that works. Hence my earlier comments about (what we've been calling) capitalism heading towards the greatest death toll of all, unless we sort out the encironmental aspects p.d.q. -- 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: Evolution from Scripture
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:48 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It creates a parallel medium of exchange in which those who make bitcoins first hope to profit from their appreciation. Hm. It all sounds a bit Ponzi-like to me. If you go by that definition alone. In reality, mining becomes increasingly harder as we approach the hard limit of 21 million btc. The hard limit is already very non-ponzi-like. Fiat money is the one that doesn't have such a limit, and gives you no assurance about how much is going to be issued. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
2014-05-05 10:30 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:48 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It creates a parallel medium of exchange in which those who make bitcoins first hope to profit from their appreciation. Hm. It all sounds a bit Ponzi-like to me. If you go by that definition alone. In reality, mining becomes increasingly harder as we approach the hard limit of 21 million btc. The hard limit is already very non-ponzi-like. Fiat money is the one that doesn't have such a limit, and gives you no assurance about how much is going to be issued. As the goods available in exchange of that money are not limited (nor is the population able to use that money), this arbitrary limit is bad... new comers have less, first times users become rich, the money is extremely deflationist, it does not encourage to do investment... lost bitcoin are lost forever augmenting its deflationist nature. The system is totally unfair. Why would we replace a bad system by another bad system ? Why would we thanks the first time users by an unfair amount of wealth ? Between two bad systems, I prefer keeping the current one. Quentin Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-05-05 10:30 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:48 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It creates a parallel medium of exchange in which those who make bitcoins first hope to profit from their appreciation. Hm. It all sounds a bit Ponzi-like to me. If you go by that definition alone. In reality, mining becomes increasingly harder as we approach the hard limit of 21 million btc. The hard limit is already very non-ponzi-like. Fiat money is the one that doesn't have such a limit, and gives you no assurance about how much is going to be issued. As the goods available in exchange of that money are not limited (nor is the population able to use that money), this arbitrary limit is bad... new comers have less, first times users become rich, True, but they also take more risk. If the system works, they are rewarded for providing the seed money that allows the market to exist in the first place. The amount by which they became rich is proportional to the value created by the system. the money is extremely deflationist, it does not encourage to do investment... lost bitcoin are lost forever augmenting its deflationist nature. I am of the opinion that deflation is a good thing, because it is precisely the system that can liberate us from the job-based mentality we are currently under. Humanity could run on people working just a couple of hours a day, yet most people are enslaved doing unnecessary work for most of their waking hours, because jobs are the only way to distribute wealth under an inflationist economy. Under a deflationist economy you can work until you have enough money and then stop, and you can better control the rate at which you wish to accumulate wealth: work hard for a few years or spread it more and work just a few hours. The rigged game of inflationist economies became obvious with feminism: once women joined the work force, it became harder for families to survive on a single salary. It's an enslavement system that deprives children of spending time with their parents, with all the well known psychological outcomes. The system is totally unfair. Fairness is a problematic concept, firstly because it's uncomputable and secondly because it's easily manipulated. For example, humans have a cognitive bias were they are more likely empathise with attractive people than ugly people. Charismatic speakers can skew the perception of fairness to their will. Why would we replace a bad system by another bad system ? Why would we thanks the first time users by an unfair amount of wealth ? If bitcoin replaces the current system, it will have to be on its own merits. It does not have the power to enforce its own use, like fiat currency has. So, if you're right, you have nothing to worry about. Between two bad systems, I prefer keeping the current one. And that's a nice feature of bitcoin: you're not forced to use it. Telmo. Quentin Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: saying no to the doctor...
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 10:12 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo, some 2+ decades ago I think I had a reason to avert from the topic called *panpsychism* (would be hard to recall it adequately now). As I remember I called the phenomenon covered by this misnomer PANSENSITIVITY (what I would not like to defend today anymore). Psych seems to me too 'human' to be applicable to the entire world (=Mme. Nature). Why would you reduce the MWI reflexibility into ourflimsy human brainfunctions? (Even i f you extend them into human? mentality total). John, Maybe I used the term incorrectly. What I mean by panpsychism is that I suspect that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality and not generated at a higher level by neuron interactions. So I see no reason to assume that my tea cup is not conscious, although I suspect that the contents of its experience are null, so it's if it was. I don't see consciousness as inherent to human beings. I am fully convinced that higher animal, at least, are conscious just like us. Telmo. On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. I have no explanation for consciousness. My current inclination is panpsychism. Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Hey, I like 70's punk rock too! Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. I believe that science is the only valid tool we have to understand public reality. If you have a good consciousness between the ears theory then... I'm all ears. Other theories are ok too. My position is that what makes a theory scientific is it's falsifiability, that's all. It doesn't matter how weird the theory sounds, it only matters if it makes valid predictions or not. Common sense has been shown to be misleading many times, and to an amazing degree with quantum mechanics. I am not sure that consciousness will ever be investigated by science, because I'm not sure it will ever be possible to measure it or test for it's presence. In this case (or meanwhile), we have to make do with thought experiments and introspection on private reality. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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: saying no to the doctor...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 21:18, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. I have no explanation for consciousness. My current inclination is panpsychism. The problem here is twofold: 1) what pan refers to? (A physical world, then you need to say no to the doctor, Arithmetical truth? perhaps, if the brain is really a consciousness filter (I am still not sure if this makes really sense with comp). 2) what *is* psychisme (is it Turing emulable? if yes primitive matter is an illusion, and physics is a branch of theology, if not what is it?) I just mean that I am inclined to see consciousness as fundamental, so I believe this puts me on the Platonic camp. The idea that physical reality is a dream of consciousness appeals to me. I think your theory provides a very compelling path to understanding how the dream(s) arise, but I don't think it can tell us what the dreamer is. I'm inclined to take the dreamer as fundamental, the absolute, god in a non-theistic sense... I also like your idea of machines introspecting. This leads us to something that match our intuitions: a dog is conscious, a tea cup is not. But not because the dog's brain magically generates consciousness, just because the dog's brain is capable of machine introspection, and thus capable of providing content to the dream. Telmo. Bruno Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Hey, I like 70's punk rock too! Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. I believe that science is the only valid tool we have to understand public reality. If you have a good consciousness between the ears theory then... I'm all ears. Other theories are ok too. My position is that what makes a theory scientific is it's falsifiability, that's all. It doesn't matter how weird the theory sounds, it only matters if it makes valid predictions or not. Common sense has been shown to be misleading many times, and to an amazing degree with quantum mechanics. I am not sure that consciousness will ever be investigated by science, because I'm not sure it will ever be possible to measure it or test for it's presence. In this case (or meanwhile), we have to make do with thought experiments and introspection on private reality. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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. -- 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: saying no to the doctor...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 14:43, Telmo Menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 LOL. Not bad. Actually I made myself comic trips to explain UDA in the earlier version. I was used to draw a lot. Comics are pretty to use to describe that type of thought experiment. Come on Bruno, show us! Have you seen if that author tackles the duplication theme? I don't think so, but (s)he makes fun of logicians: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/10 :) (Like in UDA or in the movie prestige). Let us know if and when (that should exist) you find one. I might scan my own comics and send it here. Cheers, Bruno Cheers, Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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. -- 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 British Comedian's Joke
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:49 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: The late Bob Monkhouse was way before my time and never trendy. But aft er he died they looked at his jokes, which were just simple and so funny they decided he was a genius. Here is one of his jokes that makes me laugh every time: He's a stand up comedian and he says to the audience: When I told them I wanted to be a comedian they laughed in my face. Well no one's laughing now Nice :) I have a theory: a culture cannot be simultaneously good at comedy and gastronomy. Case in point: the British vs. the French. -- 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: Video of VCR
On Saturday, May 3, 2014 3:53:48 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2014, at 23:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:15:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 May 2014, at 20:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: What generates Platonia? Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it scientifically. To define, is a reasonable precise sense, expectations, sequence, identity, position, or motivation (which I doubt is a simple notion) you need arithmetic. How can arithmetic exist without sequence and then define sequence? If you agree on logic and 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Then you can study how to define sequence in that theory. Only because you have an a priori expectation of sequence which can be inferred. Otherwise nothing is defined and you have only unrelated statements. You need sense to draw them together and match your intuition. Gödel is the fist who did that. He invented the Gödel beta function, based on a generalization of a famous chinese lemma, about set of modular equations in arithmetic. Eventually (not easy exercice) you can define from the axiom and the chine lemma a representation of the exponential function, and with its you can define a sequence in arithmetic by using the unique factorization of the natural numbers. But eventually means that you must follow a sequence of steps to do your defining. You smuggle the expectation for sequence in from the start. It is not the existence of arithmetic, it is the existence of 0, s(0), etc. + the basic relation that you can derive from the axioms. Derive requires sequence and sense. It is the same capacity to reason which tells me that 5-3=2 which tells me that sequence can exist without arithmetic but arithmetic cannot exist without sequence. It is a bit imprecise. I can define sequence in *any* turing complete language, and they are all equivalent for computationalism. You can define a notion of sequence as primitive, instead of numbers, yes. That is the case for LISP, somehow, which is close to combinators and lambda calculus. Yo have never provide any theory, so I can't figure what you talk about. The theory is that logic and arithmetic are particular continuations of sense, not the other way around. Before arithmetic can exist, there must exist a sense of expectation for counting. Counting includes a sense of recursive steps as well as sequence, comparison, memory, change, digits, etc. It cannot be primitive as it is a manipulation of attention. It is, I think, your unwillingness to study a bit of math and logic which prevents you from seeing this. Just the opposite. It is your unwillingness to question the supremacy of math and logic which prevents you from even seeing that there is something to question. On the contrary I did ask people to question anything I say, which is of the type verifiable. That's how science work. Then it is not a question of supremacy. Only a good lamp to search the key. There are other lamps...other keys. Craig I stop when you attribute to me the contrary on point On which I insist a lot. Bruno You get a lot about the numbers with few axioms written in first order language. I don't see why any axioms would be possible. Where do they come from? Who is writing them? I doubt you can define expectation of sequence in such a simple way. How can you doubt it? How will you define sequence without mentioning some function from N (the set of natural numbers) to some set? With rhythmic patterns and pointing - the way that everyone learns to count. A horse can understand sequence without a formal definition derived from set theory. What you are saying sounds to me like 'you cannot make an apple unless you ask an apple pie how to do it'. Again, I remind you that simple means simple in the 3p sharable sense, not simple in the 1p personal experiential sense. Why is that not an arbitrary bias? If I don't allow the possibility of 3p without 1p, then simplicity can only be 1p. All scientists agree on the arithmetic axioms, If that's true, its an argument from authority, and it could be the reason why all scientists
Re: The British Comedian's Joke
Some sort of selection mechanism? People who laugh while they're eating choke to death? On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:49 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: The late Bob Monkhouse was way before my time and never trendy. But aft er he died they looked at his jokes, which were just simple and so funny they decided he was a genius. Here is one of his jokes that makes me laugh every time: He's a stand up comedian and he says to the audience: When I told them I wanted to be a comedian they laughed in my face. Well no one's laughing now Nice :) I have a theory: a culture cannot be simultaneously good at comedy and gastronomy. Case in point: the British vs. the French. -- 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: saying no to the doctor...
On 05 May 2014, at 12:59, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 21:18, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. I have no explanation for consciousness. My current inclination is panpsychism. The problem here is twofold: 1) what pan refers to? (A physical world, then you need to say no to the doctor, Arithmetical truth? perhaps, if the brain is really a consciousness filter (I am still not sure if this makes really sense with comp). 2) what *is* psychisme (is it Turing emulable? if yes primitive matter is an illusion, and physics is a branch of theology, if not what is it?) I just mean that I am inclined to see consciousness as fundamental, Consciousness is fundamental. But not necessarily primitive. Indeed with computationalism, consciousness is a non computable reality related to truth or to the intersection of truth and belief. so I believe this puts me on the Platonic camp. OK. The idea that physical reality is a dream of consciousness appeals to me. I think your theory provides a very compelling path to understanding how the dream(s) arise, but I don't think it can tell us what the dreamer is. I'm inclined to take the dreamer as fundamental, the absolute, god in a non-theistic sense... Hmm I think currently that the dreamers are the 'machines' (that is intensional number, or number taken relatively to a universal system, programs if you want, relatively to a computer). God seems to be closer to some universal consciousness. It is what makes the meaning meaningful. Well, the inner god, at least. The outer god is the the ultimate reality (and is played by the concept of truth in Plato and comp). I also like your idea of machines introspecting. This leads us to something that match our intuitions: a dog is conscious, a tea cup is not. OK. Very plausibly so. I thought so, but was uneasy about how to interpret your use of panpsychism. But not because the dog's brain magically generates consciousness, just because the dog's brain is capable of machine introspection, and thus capable of providing content to the dream. OK. I still would say that the raw content of the dream is the consciousness' business, which eventually will be related to the sheaf of computations going through the relevant dogs brain. Bruno Telmo. Bruno Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Hey, I like 70's punk rock too! Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. I believe that science is the only valid tool we have to understand public reality. If you have a good consciousness between the ears theory then... I'm all ears. Other theories are ok too. My position is that what makes a theory scientific is it's falsifiability, that's all. It doesn't matter how weird the theory sounds, it only matters if it makes valid predictions or not. Common sense has been shown to be misleading many times, and to an amazing degree with quantum mechanics. I am not sure that consciousness will ever be investigated by science, because I'm not sure it will ever be possible to measure it or test for it's presence. In this case (or meanwhile), we have to make do with thought experiments and introspection on private reality. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
UDA video (was Re: saying no to the doctor...)
On 05 May 2014, at 13:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 14:43, Telmo Menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 LOL. Not bad. Actually I made myself comic trips to explain UDA in the earlier version. I was used to draw a lot. Comics are pretty to use to describe that type of thought experiment. Come on Bruno, show us! My scanner does not work. But I found the diary, so I need just to think taking it next time I go at IRIDIA (and that someone show me how to find and use some scanner which should be there) ... Meanwhile, to console you, here is my last talk at IRIDIA. It is a playlist of 3 videos not yet publicly available on YouTube (you can't find it by searching on YT, but feel free to share). The sound in that room was terrible, so please believe I can be less bad---in english, but for the talk itself I missed some occasion to be clearer. I regret also my comment on atheism (which was not useful). My friends who did the video made a good job to save as much as possible from that bad sound though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW2WWQylbwMlist=PLvvqQQ-1XfwzKceR7ciJTtij3nj1PRtiYfeature=mh_lolz Feel free to comment, here or there. Have you seen if that author tackles the duplication theme? I don't think so, but (s)he makes fun of logicians: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/10 A bit a classical theme, yet I always laugh at such logician humor :) Bruno :) (Like in UDA or in the movie prestige). Let us know if and when (that should exist) you find one. I might scan my own comics and send it here. Cheers, Bruno Cheers, Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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. -- 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: Video of VCR
On 05 May 2014, at 14:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, May 3, 2014 3:53:48 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2014, at 23:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:15:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 May 2014, at 20:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: What generates Platonia? Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it scientifically. To define, is a reasonable precise sense, expectations, sequence, identity, position, or motivation (which I doubt is a simple notion) you need arithmetic. How can arithmetic exist without sequence and then define sequence? If you agree on logic and 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Then you can study how to define sequence in that theory. Only because you have an a priori expectation of sequence which can be inferred. Otherwise nothing is defined and you have only unrelated statements. You need sense to draw them together and match your intuition. No. Logic is the art of making derivation without sense. That is even why so many people think that a machine which can reason is just doing syntactical manipulation without understanding, and at the low level, that's correct. A derivation, in a formal theory, is valid or non valid, independently of any of its possible interpretation (all those terms are well defined). Gödel is the fist who did that. He invented the Gödel beta function, based on a generalization of a famous chinese lemma, about set of modular equations in arithmetic. Eventually (not easy exercice) you can define from the axiom and the chine lemma a representation of the exponential function, and with its you can define a sequence in arithmetic by using the unique factorization of the natural numbers. But eventually means that you must follow a sequence of steps to do your defining. You smuggle the expectation for sequence in from the start. Hmm, ... I will not insist here, as this will be the object to the next post in the math thread. It is not the existence of arithmetic, it is the existence of 0, s(0), etc. + the basic relation that you can derive from the axioms. Derive requires sequence and sense. Not at all. It is the same capacity to reason which tells me that 5-3=2 which tells me that sequence can exist without arithmetic but arithmetic cannot exist without sequence. It is a bit imprecise. I can define sequence in *any* turing complete language, and they are all equivalent for computationalism. You can define a notion of sequence as primitive, instead of numbers, yes. That is the case for LISP, somehow, which is close to combinators and lambda calculus. Yo have never provide any theory, so I can't figure what you talk about. The theory is that logic and arithmetic are particular continuations of sense, not the other way around. Sense is a vague term. Not two human being understand it in the same way. It is a bit like God. Important notion, but hardly usable in theories. Before arithmetic can exist, there must exist a sense of expectation for counting. Counting includes a sense of recursive steps as well as sequence, comparison, memory, change, digits, etc. It cannot be primitive as it is a manipulation of attention. Not at all. More in the math thread, but you might need to reread all posts. It is, I think, your unwillingness to study a bit of math and logic which prevents you from seeing this. Just the opposite. It is your unwillingness to question the supremacy of math and logic which prevents you from even seeing that there is something to question. On the contrary I did ask people to question anything I say, which is of the type verifiable. That's how science work. Then it is not a question of supremacy. Only a good lamp to search the key. There are other lamps...other keys. Yes, that's the point. Bruno Craig I stop when you attribute to me the contrary on point On which I insist a lot. Bruno You get a lot about the numbers with few axioms written in first order language. I don't see why any axioms would be possible. Where do they come from? Who is writing them? I doubt you can define expectation of sequence in such a simple way. How can
RE: TRONNIES
My ideas are very well summarized at Amazon.com. Just click “books” and search for “tronnies”. J Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Terren Suydam Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 6:25 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: TRONNIES Well sir, you've come to the right place, if you want to test your ideas. Speaking for myself, I don't have the time to read even the books at the top of my pile, much less speculative physics books. So you would do me and the rest of the list a favor if you could try to summarize your ideas. Most people here are fairly open minded and smart as hell. If your ideas can be expressed mathematically, so much the better. Welcome, Terren On May 3, 2014 1:24 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Some of you may be interested in taking a look at my new book, recently made available at amazon.com. It is: TRONNIES The Source of the Coulomb Force And The Building Blocks of Universes Just go to amazon.com, click “books” and search for “tronnies”. -- 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. -- 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: Evolution from Scripture
The YOU is, of course, getting someone to look at things from a first person point of view, as if I was Prime Minister I'd.. I agree 100% that we are ruled by plutocrats, what you likely will violently oppose is my observation that worldwide both progressives and conservatives rule their perspective politicians, and these politically minded billionaires control what goes on. Both groups that is, not just conservatives. -Original Message- From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 4, 2014 5:34 pm Subject: Re: Evolution from Scripture Somebody wrote (Liz?): For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society. Who is that YOU?? Power and force are in the hands of the plutocrats. They do whatever they see fit. Money does not 'vote': people (stupid and 'for sale' voters do. Capitalism, BTW, as I wrote many times, died in the 1970s to give it over to some Economical Global Feudalism, (including corporatism and monopolism) - not less brutal than the Medieval Feudalism was, only with higher sophistication and pretension. The lords OWN things (including Nature) and the serfs work for money (for them) - sometimes for many many money, like bankers, lawyers, legislators, enforcers, scientists, etc. Serfs are disregardable chattel - fodder for wars, work-slaves, etc. I did try to live in pre- and real nazism, in a (mock) communism and in capiatlism, in all of them as an underdog (scientist), twice arrested - but survived. JM On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 8:17:29 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 01:14, LizR wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Some ism can be good and nice, but even in that case, after a while, some people will use it and pervert it for special/personal interest. Always. Then criticizing the ism protects them, somehow you're absolutely right . For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society. On the money Bruno. Hey this might be were we finally touch heads man! It's amazing the dogma and self-serving ideological bolt ons currently crept already fully into the conception what a free market is. It's barely recognizable as it stands at the moment. A large part of the reason this is possible to happen is because there's no scientific theory of economy. . The real war is between the good guy and the bad guy. There is no ism capable of guaranty the good, but allowing some ism to com fairly, allow them to evolve and this is harm reduction. Now, if some same ism lasts too long, it get rotten and as good as it could have been, it will be perverted by some special interest. I don't think so Bruno, and even if there was, there's no place for morality in a theory of economy, not as primary operator...because all that will ever get us, is philosophy-guru's into the market next, to tell us about the morality...and among them will be even more bad guys, Which'd be a magnet for yet more. There are bad guys in practice, but the scientific theory of economy...it won't just be a theory on paper. The day for that is nearly over now. The shape of things to come are theories that no longer embody human guesses any more, but instead
Re: TRONNIES
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I believe I address every major issue in physics, from the internal structure of an electrons [...] That is not a major issue in physics or even a minor one. There is not one shred of experimental evidence that indicates electrons have a internal structure and no theoretical reason so suppose that they do. 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: TRONNIES
Thanks. I assume, or hope, you're not here merely to peddle your wares. In that spirit, would you care to share a few of your 101 predictions? Terren On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.comwrote: My ideas are very well summarized at Amazon.com. Just click “books” and search for “tronnies”. J Ross *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Terren Suydam *Sent:* Saturday, May 03, 2014 6:25 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* RE: TRONNIES Well sir, you've come to the right place, if you want to test your ideas. Speaking for myself, I don't have the time to read even the books at the top of my pile, much less speculative physics books. So you would do me and the rest of the list a favor if you could try to summarize your ideas. Most people here are fairly open minded and smart as hell. If your ideas can be expressed mathematically, so much the better. Welcome, Terren On May 3, 2014 1:24 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Some of you may be interested in taking a look at my new book, recently made available at amazon.com. It is: TRONNIES The Source of the Coulomb Force And The Building Blocks of Universes Just go to amazon.com, click “books” and search for “tronnies”. -- 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. -- 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.
Modal logic (derivation of physics sum up till end)
Craig, Liz, Brent and/or anyone interested, Again, it is just an attempt. Take it easy. I have to train myself, and a bit yourself. You might tell me if this helps, if only a little bit. *** (it is also a second attempt to send this mail, as it looks my emailer has some problem) If you understand UDA step 1-7, normally you understand that physics becomes: 1) a measure on computations, 2) when seen from some first person perspective. Now, the machine which believe/assume elementary arithmetic (and perhaps more as long as they remain arithmetically sound), will have its rational believability notion acquires a non trivial modal logic, known today as G (or GL, PrL, KW4, it has some story so get many names). Actually the machines acquire a couple of logics: G and G*. G is the logic of provability (believability) that the machine can believe, and G* is the logic of believability (that the machine can believe or not, and indeed G* extends properly G. Technically: Solovay's first theorem is that G proves A iff Peano Arithmetic proves the natural translation of A in arithmetic, where the natural transformation interpret the atomic p by arithmetical sentences, preserves the boolean relations, and translate the modal box []A by the arithmetical translation of provability in arithmetic, Gödel's beweisbar predicate, applied to the transformation of A, that is beweisbar(transformation of A)). Solovay's second theorem is that G* proves A iff A is true (in the standard model of Peano Arithmetic). G is decidable, and Solovay shows that G* is representable in G, making G* decidable (at that propositional level). For example self-consistency, I don't prove the false, with I taken in the third person descriptive sense, the machine talks about that machine, which happens to be itself. It represent more the code you discuss with the doctor, *supposed* to be at the right substitution level, than anything like a (conscious) first person view, still less a probability on those views, yet. To fix the idea I will use Peano Arithmetic, as generic ideally correct machine, It is equivalent with Robinson arithmetic (which seen as a machine, is already a Church-Post-Turing Universal Machine) together with an infinity of induction axioms. For all arithmetical formula F, PA believes if F(0) and if for all n we have that (F(n) - F(n+1)) then we have the right to conclude that F(n) applies to all n. Later, we might talk about Analysis, or second order arithmetic, which admits a much more powerful induction axiom, so powerful that such a theory is no more a well defined machine (more a set of possible machines): for all set S of natural numbers, If 0 belongs to S, and if ((n belongs to S) implies (n+1 belongs to S)) then we have the right conclude that all number belongs to S. The number of subset of N is non enumerable, and this makes such a belief set non well defined. Which sets are we talking about, what is a set? That is the Dedekind theory of the natural numbers, and it has many interesting weakening in which you can develop the whole semantics of Peano Arithmetic. Aparte for Liz and Brent, but useful for Craig. What we have seen: Classical propositional logic. Both the proof theory and the semantics, and the relation between. Modal logic. Only the semantics. Not yet the proof theory. And the crux of the matter remains: define the notion of believability above in the arithmetical language (the thing Gödel basically did in his 1931 paper). Craig, we will define the notion of finite sequence (of symbols) in arithmetic. I will only be able to sketch the basic idea. It is quite standard, well known material in theoretical computer science and mathematical logic, but I am aware this is not well known by the general public. When done with all details, it is very long and tiedous to follow, like programming in assembly language. And physics? UDA explains that physics is given by 1) a measure on computation 2) seen from inside. By a theorem by Kleene, computation can be translated by true and provable Sigma_1 sentences, and the Sigma_1 sentences will play the role of the universal dovetailing. Such sentences enjoy, I mean verify, the law p - []p, in the G* minus G logic. That plays some key role. That's the way comp is translated itself in arithmetic. But what about the seen from inside. G provides a rational believer, but not a knower, which characterizes a first person view. In modal logic, knowledge is axiomatized by a logic, called T, which has as main axiom []A - A. More introspective ability (and totally so in some sense defined by Smullyan), are given by the formula, badly named, 4, which is []A - [][]A. The axiom K + T + 4 gives the theory of knowledge S4. The miracle here, is that the simplest and oldest definition of knowledge, defining it by true belief, provides here a logic
RE: TRONNIES
What is your experiments evidence that the electron does not have an internal structure? Electrons have a size and a mass. According to my model, an electron is comprised of three tronnies, two minus and one plus and a positron is comprised of two plus tronnies and one minus tronnie. An entron is comprised of one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie both traveling in a circle at a speed of π/2 times the speed of light. Repulsive and attractive forces between the two tronnies exactly cancel in the diametrical direction. Every photon is comprised of one entron traveling in a circle at twice the speed of light and forward at the speed of light. This path defines the photon’s wavelength and frequency. Tronnies being mass-less point particles with a charge of e must always travel faster than the speed of light to stay ahead of their own Coulomb forces which are traveling at the speed of light. When electrons and positrons are destroyed at least two photons are produced (my model says there are three photons produced). There are six tronnies in a positron and an electron and six tronnies in three photons. Photons also have and internal structure according to my model as explained above. And according to my model they also have a mass and a size depending on their energy. The third photon in electron-positron annihilations is a neutrino photon which is not detected. Each neutrino photon is comprised of one neutrino entron. A proton is comprised of two positrons, one electron and one neutrino entron. The neutrino entron gives the proton almost all of its mass. Protons are destroyed in Black Holes releasing the neutrino entrons that exit the Black Holes to provide the gravity of galaxies. Most neutrino photons pass through stars and planets applying a reverse Coulomb force directed back to the source of the neutrino photon. Some are stopped temporally in the stars and planets then released randomly giving them their gravity. John R From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 9:51 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:05 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I believe I address every major issue in physics, from the internal structure of an electrons [...] That is not a major issue in physics or even a minor one. There is not one shred of experimental evidence that indicates electrons have a internal structure and no theoretical reason so suppose that they do. 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: Video of VCR
On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:26:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 May 2014, at 14:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, May 3, 2014 3:53:48 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2014, at 23:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:15:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 May 2014, at 20:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: What generates Platonia? Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it scientifically. To define, is a reasonable precise sense, expectations, sequence, identity, position, or motivation (which I doubt is a simple notion) you need arithmetic. How can arithmetic exist without sequence and then define sequence? If you agree on logic and 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Then you can study how to define sequence in that theory. Only because you have an a priori expectation of sequence which can be inferred. Otherwise nothing is defined and you have only unrelated statements. You need sense to draw them together and match your intuition. No. Logic is the art of making derivation without sense. There is no art without sense. If logic could be accomplished without sense then it would be impossible to make an error in logic. There would be no need to formalize logic because it would be inescapable in every state of consciousness. That isn't what we see though. In fact, logic is very tenuous and requires a particularly sober intellect which is focused on modeling concepts in an impersonal sense. That is even why so many people think that a machine which can reason is just doing syntactical manipulation without understanding, and at the low level, that's correct. A derivation, in a formal theory, is valid or non valid, independently of any of its possible interpretation (all those terms are well defined). Syntactical manipulation is still sense, it just has relatively limited aesthetic qualities. Gödel is the fist who did that. He invented the Gödel beta function, based on a generalization of a famous chinese lemma, about set of modular equations in arithmetic. Eventually (not easy exercice) you can define from the axiom and the chine lemma a representation of the exponential function, and with its you can define a sequence in arithmetic by using the unique factorization of the natural numbers. But eventually means that you must follow a sequence of steps to do your defining. You smuggle the expectation for sequence in from the start. Hmm, ... I will not insist here, as this will be the object to the next post in the math thread. It is not the existence of arithmetic, it is the existence of 0, s(0), etc. + the basic relation that you can derive from the axioms. Derive requires sequence and sense. Not at all. Does that mean that dead people would be good at deriving relations from axioms? It is the same capacity to reason which tells me that 5-3=2 which tells me that sequence can exist without arithmetic but arithmetic cannot exist without sequence. It is a bit imprecise. I can define sequence in *any* turing complete language, and they are all equivalent for computationalism. You can define a notion of sequence as primitive, instead of numbers, yes. That is the case for LISP, somehow, which is close to combinators and lambda calculus. Yo have never provide any theory, so I can't figure what you talk about. The theory is that logic and arithmetic are particular continuations of sense, not the other way around. Sense is a vague term. Not two human being understand it in the same way. It is a bit like God. Important notion, but hardly usable in theories. If theories can't use sense, and sense is important, then surely it is the theories that should change. Before arithmetic can exist, there must exist a sense of expectation for counting. Counting includes a sense of recursive steps as well as sequence, comparison, memory, change, digits, etc. It cannot be primitive as it is a manipulation of attention. Not at all. More in the math thread, but you might need to reread all posts. Sounds like a dodge. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Evolution from Scripture
In the US, if I may be so opinionated, would tell Lenny that Mr. Joe.. is now US president, even though he hates the other 50% of the country. Those people of Joe's hue, like anyone else, can, if one possess a bit of talent, and ambition, can do fair for themselves, and I know this, because I used to school with some Joe's and Joe's instructors, and they were quite good at C++, and C# programming. Mr. Cohen, knows what he feels, while trying to make a point, but it's inaugurate. Lots of people here in the US, are now happy with SNAP or food stamps, (200-400$) per month for individuals and family, plus, increased disability payments, plus, long term unemployment, plus, supposedly, healthcare as of Jan 1st of this year. If you are good with France's government, you'd be good with the US, Mr. Cohen not withstanding. Yes, I listened to Cohen's poetry sing quite a bit, and yes, I do drone on with my lecturing. Whatever economic track you chose, my response to you and Leonard is guilt is a very, poor, reason for helping the working poor. It's enough that we want to help. If you identify Joe as people overseas, then we get in the same go-round about pollution lectures about the West, and ignore the Asian tiger in the room. Yes, people look for dropped change under a street lamp because they can see better. Yes, dear Brutus, but the fact is our selves are the product of an education system which inculcates certain values - like the death penalty being OK in the USA, despite having been abolished in most civilised countries for decades. Note its racial bias too, as Leonard Cohen put it Old black Joe still pickin' cotton to make your ribbons and bows indeed. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 4, 2014 5:40 pm Subject: Re: Evolution from Scripture On 5 May 2014 00:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Liz, I am guessing the capitalism remark is undeserved, in the sense that making money is inherently evil (making goods, and providing services?), for me that is It's only undeserved if everyone is paid fairly for their work, which is manifestly not so when all the hard labour is outsourced to the third world to be carried out by workers who are effectively slaves. And it is only undeserved if everyone pays the full price for the things they produce, rather than offloading some of the cost into the environment for the entire human race to clean up later. too broad a brush you paint with for that observation. Now, if you want a glaring example, we look to the millions killed by Belgium (Heart of Darkness) which was driven by the need for cheap rubber from plantations in central africa. The death toll for the rubber plantations is estimated at 8 million over 20 years. We both need to ask if the commies, nazis, and ww2 japanese, were also part-capitalists. Stalin, before ww2, and even after did capitalist (westerners) trade deals, and The Nazis were of course hand in hand with big business (have you seen or read The resistable rise of Arturo Ui ?) The Stalinist system (which only paid lip service to being communist of course) was one vast state-owned corporation (which used slavery, just like the modern capitalist system). Maybe the fault lies not in the 'ism' strictly, but in ourselves? Yes, dear Brutus, but the fact is our selves are the product of an education system which inculcates certain values - like the death penalty being OK in the USA, despite having been abolished in most civilised countries for decades. Note its racial bias too, as Leonard Cohen put it Old black Joe still pickin' cotton to make your ribbons and bows indeed. -- 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: Evolution from Scripture
On 5 May 2014 19:02, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 23:46, LizR wrote: On 5 May 2014 07:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. This is true, however real capitalism - free market capitalism - doesn't work because it doesn't pay the full (i.e. environmental) price of production. Free market capitalism just stop to work when it is not free, and when money is used to hide the fact that the products does not work or have bad side effects. I'm not sure it works because what about the commons (infrastructure etc). People need to get together in larger groups that companies to provide those, i.e. you need some government. Or is this just quibbling over definitions? At least it hasn't to date, which means so far it's just been a bubble / ponzi scheme. It has became like that. The power separations leak. It was always like that, whenever the environmental cost wasn't paid. The Earth was able to hide the cost for a while but the natural carbon sinks are getting full. A system that paid fair wages and the full costs of production, and had a free market and a government limited to providing infrastructure could be called successful capitalism (or it could equally be called successful communism) but we don't have it yet, We lost it, from time to time. And place to place. As long as you have an unfair system somewhere (e.g. Third World) the rest will exploit it any the whole system becomes unfair. We've always done this in the West (well for centuries). and until we do we can't claim that we've *ever* had a system that works. Capitalism works very well, unless it get sick. Everything alive can get think. To attack capitalism, is like judging that blood is the culprit of cancer, because blood feed the cancer cells. But blood (money) is not the culprit: it is the cancer cells which pervert the blood circulation, and it is the bandits which pervert the economy. Quite possibly but it has never yet been very healthy. Always there's been the British Empire in India or the slave trade of whatever (JUST RANDOM EXAMPLES (like the Crusaders) THERE ARE A MILLION MORE!!!) -- 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: Evolution from Scripture
On 5 May 2014 20:19, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 11:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 07:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. This is true, however real capitalism - free market capitalism - doesn't work because it doesn't pay the full (i.e. environmental) price of production. At least it hasn't to date, which means so far it's just been a bubble / ponzi scheme. It is fair to argue that free market capitalism provides no mechanism to create some concerted effort to reduce environmental impact. However, neither does the current system. This is one problem one faces when defending the free market: one is usually cornered into comparing it with an *idealised* version of the current system. It will never live up to that. I'm not comparing it. I'm saying it doesn't work. I don't say anything does work, but I would hope our best minds would be trying to work out what might work, rather than defending a system that doesn't. What makes something a bubble / ponzi scheme is the implicit necessity of infinite growth for sustainability. This is precisely the requirement of the current system, in which countries can run public debts that are larger than the total money supply. We just saw one iteration of the ponzi scheme explode in 2007. Or the current european pensions scheme, where workers pay the pensions of retired people -- which require infinite population growth for it not to collapse. In fact, my generation is the one in whose hands the system exploded, we are likely not going to have any pensions, and there are already aggressive cuts happening even for the currently retired (who payed for full pensions all their lives but now only get a part of it, they would be better off had they been allowed to just save that money). A free market where the government cannot issue money is the furthest possible thing from a ponzi scheme: you cannot lend money that does not exist. The opposite of ponzi scheme is an economy based on deflation, which also has another nice property: your money tends to increase in value with time, so it also solves the pensions issue in a sustainable manner, which is directly indexed to economic activity. It can only increase in value insofar as there is a matching increase in resources. I agree, I have long said that the problem with the current system is the religious desire for economic growth, which leads to the production of baubles while elsewhere people starve. (But unlimited growth is the mantra of free market capitalism, at least in its current form...) Unlimited growth = ponzi scheme, environmentally if in no other way. If we can exploit the resources of the solar system, at least, it would make more sense. We have a long way to go to Kardashev One. But no sign of that happening and the Earth passed its carrying capacity in (it's estimated) the 1980s. Since then we've been running on empty. Also, the environmental costs don't make it a ponzi scheme because the savings they enable are reflected in the cost of goods: provided there is free competition. They do, because if no one pays (ie cleans up, restores the atmosphere, replaces the fossil fuels etc) we are forcing future generations to live in a degraded world, and possibly even die to pay our bills. -- 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 British Comedian's Joke
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:09:47PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:49 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: The late Bob Monkhouse was way before my time and never trendy. But aft er he died they looked at his jokes, which were just simple and so funny they decided he was a genius. Here is one of his jokes that makes me laugh every time: He's a stand up comedian and he says to the audience: When I told them I wanted to be a comedian they laughed in my face. Well no one's laughing now Nice :) I have a theory: a culture cannot be simultaneously good at comedy and gastronomy. Case in point: the British vs. the French. Not sure about standup, but the French do do a good farce. Examples: La Cage aux Folles, or Topaz. (The American version of La Cage aux Folles (Birdcage, IIRC) was rubbish compared with the French original). Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 5 May 2014 22:44, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: The rigged game of inflationist economies became obvious with feminism: once women joined the work force, it became harder for families to survive on a single salary. It's an enslavement system that deprives children of spending time with their parents, with all the well known psychological outcomes. Something else I've been saying for years, much to the disgust of some of my feminist friends. What has feminism achieved? A doubling in house prices. Yes, what we have now is everyone working harder to enrich the 1% even more. -- 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: Evolution from Scripture
On 6 May 2014 08:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: In the US, if I may be so opinionated, would tell Lenny that Mr. Joe.. is now US president, even though he hates the other 50% of the country. Those people of Joe's hue, like anyone else, can, if one possess a bit of talent, and ambition, can do fair for themselves, and I know this, because I used to school with Cohen's point is that a particular group in society is economically disadvantaged (and far more likely to end up on death row, disgustingly) due to the country's Imperialist past. Whatever economic track you chose, my response to you and Leonard is guilt is a very, poor, reason for helping the working poor. It's enough that we want Correct. I don't like A Christmas Carol either. The only good way to do it is to redistribute wealth more fairly, unfortunately that is very hard to arrange in practice. The Chinese execute corrupt financiers, given the US's love affair with the medieval death penalty, maybe you will think they have a good point? to help. If you identify Joe as people overseas, then we get in the same go-round about pollution lectures about the West, and ignore the Asian tiger in the room. Yes, people look for dropped change under a street lamp because they can see better. I have never ignored the Asian tiger. *Everyone* who pollutes and doesn't pay for the cleanup and other consequences is running the same Ponzi scheme. -- 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 British Comedian's Joke
On 6 May 2014 10:45, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:09:47PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:49 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: The late Bob Monkhouse was way before my time and never trendy. But aft er he died they looked at his jokes, which were just simple and so funny they decided he was a genius. Here is one of his jokes that makes me laugh every time: He's a stand up comedian and he says to the audience: When I told them I wanted to be a comedian they laughed in my face. Well no one's laughing now Nice :) I have a theory: a culture cannot be simultaneously good at comedy and gastronomy. Case in point: the British vs. the French. Not sure about standup, but the French do do a good farce. Examples: La Cage aux Folles, or Topaz. I have seen a few good French comedy films. M. Hulot's holiday comes to mind (and La Cage aux Folles) but there have been a lot of more recent ones but I can't recall the names offhand. On the other hand, I'm told their cuisine has gone downhill, and has in fact been surpassed by many countries (mainly due to complacency, I think). And their wines, I'm told on good authority (that of a French vineyard owner) are rubbish compared to New Zealand's. Mind you, NZ can definitely do good comedy AND good food (see Flight of the Conchords and Peter Gordon for example). -- 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: TRONNIES
I thought that book was something to do with The Two Ronnies 8) I must be thinking of that other thread on British comedy. -- 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: TRONNIES
I checked them out on U-Tube. Pretty funny. J Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 4:53 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES I thought that book was something to do with The Two Ronnies 8) I must be thinking of that other thread on British comedy. -- 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: TRONNIES
On 6 May 2014 07:00, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Here are the first 14. You can see more of my model at Amazon.com. I don't wish to be contrary, but most of those aren't predictions. A prediction has to involve something that can be observed and / or measured. Most of the 14 predictions are concerned with describing the *elements of*the theory; they aren't testable predictions that can be derived *from *the theory. In Frank Tipler's book The Physics of Immortality he described a theory and made several testable predictions based on it. For example, he predicted that the mass of the Higgs boson would be around 220 GeV. Since the Higgs' mass has now been measured as around 125 GeV his theory has been shown to be wrong (well, the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe also made the Omega point somewhat harder to achieve). I would consider a prediction to be something similar to Tipler's. -- 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: Video of VCR
On 3 May 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:07:13 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: Do you believe that mathematical truths are true independent of mind? I'm not sure what mind is. I understand that nothing can exist independently of sensory experience, including mathematical truths. That seems to be a no. So if things don't exist independently of sensory experience, where do they come from when we first observe them? Did the planet Uranus not exist before William Herschell observed it? -- 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: Honey Bee
As Dr Seuss might have put it, Sam - I - am - not! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
On 06-May-2014, at 6:20 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: As Dr Seuss might have put it, Sam - I - am - not! :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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: UDA video (was Re: saying no to the doctor...)
First I get to see Max Tegmark giving a talk, and now you! :-) (Or at least I will when I have time.) On 6 May 2014 02:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 May 2014, at 13:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 14:43, Telmo Menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 LOL. Not bad. Actually I made myself comic trips to explain UDA in the earlier version. I was used to draw a lot. Comics are pretty to use to describe that type of thought experiment. Come on Bruno, show us! My scanner does not work. But I found the diary, so I need just to think taking it next time I go at IRIDIA (and that someone show me how to find and use some scanner which should be there) ... Meanwhile, to console you, here is my last talk at IRIDIA. It is a playlist of 3 videos not yet publicly available on YouTube (you can't find it by searching on YT, but feel free to share). The sound in that room was terrible, so please believe I can be less bad---in english, but for the talk itself I missed some occasion to be clearer. I regret also my comment on atheism (which was not useful). My friends who did the video made a good job to save as much as possible from that bad sound though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW2WWQylbwMlist=PLvvqQQ-1XfwzKceR7ciJTtij3nj1PRtiYfeature=mh_lolz Feel free to comment, here or there. Have you seen if that author tackles the duplication theme? I don't think so, but (s)he makes fun of logicians: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/10 A bit a classical theme, yet I always laugh at such logician humor :) Bruno :) (Like in UDA or in the movie prestige). Let us know if and when (that should exist) you find one. I might scan my own comics and send it here. Cheers, Bruno Cheers, Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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. -- 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. -- 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.
