On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 2:20:37 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > On 6 Mar 2018, at 00:50, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net <javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 3/5/2018 6:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >>> On 4 Mar 2018, at 23:00, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net 
> <javascript:>> wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 3/3/2018 11:48 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 
> >>>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 7:43 AM, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net 
> <javascript:>> wrote: 
> >>>>> On 3/3/2018 1:47 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 
> >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Telmo Menezes <
> te...@telmomenezes.com <javascript:>> 
> >>>>>> wrote: 
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net 
> <javascript:>> 
> >>>>>>> wrote: 
> >>>>>>>> On 2/28/2018 3:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> So what do you find more convincing:  An axiomatic proof that God 
> >>>>>>>> exists, 
> >>>>>>>> e.g. St Anslem's or Goedel's.  or The mere empirical absence of 
> >>>>>>>> evidence. 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> In these proves, God = Totality / Ultimate Reality / The Whole 
> >>>>>>>> Shebang. They don't mention commandments, or talking snakes or 
> burning 
> >>>>>>>> bushes. I think you are proposing a false equivalence. 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> No, you are inserting one.  St Anselm proves that perfect 
> being/agent 
> >>>>>>>> exists.  He didn't claim to prove any other mythology.  So the 
> question 
> >>>>>>>> stands: Who ya gonna believe?  the axiomatic proof or your lyin' 
> eyes? 
> >>>>>>> I find St. Anselm's proof meaningless, because perfection is a 
> human 
> >>>>>>> concept, i.e. it is relative to our evolutionary niche and 
> >>>>>>> circumstances. The perfect shot for the hunter is not the perfect 
> shot 
> >>>>>>> for the prey. Ok, so let's say that reality as a whole counts as 
> the 
> >>>>>>> perfect being. Perhaps. Could it be any other way that would be 
> worse? 
> >>>>>> I meant "that would be better", of course. 
> >>>>> Well I have a friend whose 12yr old daughter died of leukemia in 
> great pain. 
> >>>>> I think it could be better. 
> >>>> I understand what you are saying. 
> >>>> My point is this: could some totally that supports something as 
> >>>> complex as human beings not include little girls with leukemia? 
> >>> "Could" implies a question about possibilities.  It's certainly 
> logically possible that there not be such a disease as leukemia.  Is it 
> nomologically possible?...not as far as we know. 
> >> Assuming mechanism it is logically impossible. Biological viruses and 
> molecular diseases are, globally (like the notion of Turing machine) 
> universal, and so there is no algorithm or program making such “totality” 
> immune for such diseases. They necessarily coevolve. 
> > 
> > That's fallacious reasoning.  Just because there is no algorithm 
> creating immunity doesn't mean the disease exists.  I can imagine many 
> diseases that happen not to exist (e.g. airborne ebola). 
> Me too. That is straw man. I was saying that there is no algorithm saving 
> us  from all *possible* disease. 
> > 
> >> 
> >> Of course, we can progress, and win the battles on larger class of 
> diseases and parasites, 
> > 
> > As we, for example, eliminated smallpox.  So it is not only logically, 
> but nomologically possible that smallpox not exist. 
> > 
> >> but after some time, they will find the way to “hack” the body again. 
> That can be related to the halting problem, or to the second recursion 
> theorem. 
> >> 
> >> I fell sorry for your daughter’s friend, as having great pain seems to 
> mean she got some therapy and not others, which seems to cure better and 
> are much less painful, but here it is human lies which hides the possible 
> help … (I know it is quite difficult and delicate to mess with the health 
> of other people, doubly so when ignorance and lies play a so big role in 
> the economy). 
> > 
> > She got the best known care.   For pain she got morphine, but the bone 
> marrow expands and causes great pain in the bones that even morphine 
> doesn't relieve.  At the end she asked permission to die. 
> So sad, 

According to the discourse that propagates itself on this list as Bruno's 
one could ask: why? A few posts ago, every Löbian was minimally conscious 
for all the filters and richness of their logic/brains, and therefore more 
delusional than spiders etc. Therefore every person dying, following the 
reasoning, is just another trapped deluded soul headed for freedom. Suicide 
becomes the most rational act.

Similarly, because no machine knows which computations support which 
sinfully rich delusion of their falling soul, infinite abuses and violences 
are justified as inevitable outcomes of multi-subject scenarios (aka 
competitions). Every joy/beauty reduced to mere tricks of evolution and the 
violence of others. 

Such "metaphysics" is on some level sadder and more hopeless than asking 
for permission to die because *it would forbid the same for its catholic 
tasting modesty biases* - I don't know which computation supports me, 
therefore I shouldn't be too quick to judge consistent pain to be what it 
is because I could never know- and wait perhaps an infinite time longer for 
it to subside. 

It's metaphysics for the perpetually wrong sinner of the catholic type, who 
deserves + is made to suffer. Even if such discourse proved QM in more 
accurate/surprising ways than current retrodiction blahblah, you still have 
no sale here because this discourse continues to mix personal 
psycho-theological informal, unreflected, mystical conjecture (definitely 
WITHOUT the cards on the table despite listing successor function in every 
post; this just possibly hides actual mathematical derivation + definitions 
+ proofs of the unbounded self-validating conjectures posted here 
regularly) with the work of recognized mathematical giants where the 
possibilities of misleading oneself and others, by moving the goal posts in 
every post are a red flag. Additionally, this set of ever changing 
ingredients, help justify and enable emotional withdrawal from the mystery 
of multi subject reality and placing bets to preserve the ability to laugh 
and smile, or share good times... genuinely. How is this not too high a 
price for a non-solution to the body mind problem? Given such reasoning, 
there is no difference in abusing or educating people that would be 

Then, you could still take a step back and state that PGC is unwilling to 
see the larger picture 3p blah blah etc. If that's your truth though, if 
your metaphysics opens up infinite channels of abuse (possibility suffices) 
towards those more ignorant than ourselves... to catch them using 2+2=4 
without worshipping arithmetic to our liking and recognizing our authority 
on the matter, pun intended, concerning the origin of physics + solving 
body mind etc... then I require no physics, metaphysics, computer science 
to state: that truth can go fuck itself + perhaps people are correctly too 
busy with their delusions to participate in validating somebody's 
self-image to this degree for the nothing theories they "offer". PGC

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to