On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:06:21 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 2 June 2014 03:50, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, [email protected] < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Richard, >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single >>>>>> universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which >>>>>> only in aggregate contain all possible universes? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Neither is religiously acceptable >>>>> Richard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know >>>>> what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible >>>>> experience? >>>>> >>>> >>>> According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block >>>> timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is >>>> omniscient to that extent including knowing "what it is like to be every >>>> possible observer having every possible experience." >>>> >>>> But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my >>>> religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also >>>> provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the >>>> bad for example in the rebirth process.. >>>> >>>> God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in >>>> every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that >>>> maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much >>>> of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within >>>> comp. >>>> Richard >>>> >>> >>> what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that >>> they are at the level of religion >>> >>> I'm not sure I like an explanation that involves a supernatural being >> inspecting all the 10^80 (or whatever) atoms in the universe every time one >> undergoes a transition, and deciding which one is best. There's a lot of >> cold hydrogen out there radiating at 21 cm, for example, so every time one >> emits a photon god has to check it to see it it's the right photon. I feel >> like I may turn into an Occam's razor-wielding maniac just thinking about >> it. >> > > Oh, well that's perfectly true (what you say) as well, and why, although I > would anyway call him a friend (internet tense) and have known Richard > Ruquist almost from the start in terms of my personal history of > idea-exchange/discussion on the Internet medium, we've almost never managed > to agree about anything at all. Not sure what his side of that would be, > and probably wouldn't agree with that either, nor he mine, but FWIW mine > was the same as my trouble with agreeing with our Bruno, that being the > point you (seem to ) make right here. That being an apparent contradiction > of what I say above, which presumably would be why you make the point > within this context, if that is the point that you make (and why). That > being to my reading how Richard Ruquist's world view is an intractable > composition, one way or another, of real or apparent attempts to blue the > distinctiveness of Science. > > However, through much learning and personal misreading, something I > haven't realized until more recently, and which no doubt he won't agree > with so continuing the tradition, is the twinkle in the eye (so hard to see > over the Internet) that has consistently been there throughout. He says it, > and it apparently looks as it apparently looks. But the twinkle in the eye > that says it ain't so, is that he encapsulates it, and always has, with > candour as to what he believes, and it's status in, and purely in, > religion. As he does here. >
and there's another layer of twinkly encapsulation, of totally hilarious, gentle and only ever self-depreciating, humour and sense of humour. Of that I'm sure, but what I am not sure of, is which encapsulates which, only that the scientism or whatever is last, or least, or otherwise at the bottom, inclusive of not being, or least or last or at the bottom after the others of being, the basis or any sense fundamental or foundational or in the wider/deeper senses of what those things are, reducible from, nor they constructions or divisible into, those two encapsulations of the Richard Ruquist worldview. Which encapsulates which, though, I do not have a clue. Which is typical, actually, of him..that everything comes down to that, and not knowing that amounts to knowing nothing at all. And that's the third encapsulation that I am fairly convinced of now, both what it is, and it's position of encapsulating the first two and the fag-end gutter scientism at the dirt end of everything, and that is that he makes it so everything is for the beholder to say. But the fourth encapsulating layer, I am only just beginning to suspect that encapsulates even that, is a mirror. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
