Wow, a couple of "twinkly encapsulations" that I was not even aware of.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:45 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > -- 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.
