On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:28:15 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > > 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. >
OK a small amount of unrealistic grovelling may have been in play there, but any suggestion over and above honest sycophancy will be vigorously denied and may be actionable -- 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.
