RE: Creating an Everything List wiki
Good of you to offer to do this, Jason! A wiki would be both fair and efficient.Stathis From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Creating an Everything List wiki Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:52:35 + On Feb 7, 8:26 pm, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John: I think the idea before was to provide an acronym list and also give each person or like minded group a limit of a few pages in the FAQ document in which to present a summary of their point of view. Hal Ruhl I think this is a great idea. If people are sufficiently interested I will setup WikiMedia software on a server I have access to. We can all use the wiki cooperatively to maintain a growing list of definitions/topics/categories. Additionally we can each have our own user pages which states our world views. I could have something up by the end of this weekend. Jason _ Live Search: New search found http://get.live.com/search/overview --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi, Hal: and you really think there would be an end? Look at this list with allegedly like-minded chaps and no end of picking on 'everything'. Include like-minded lists - meaning 'unlike' really - and the internet would fill up. Does it make a difference to argue here, or at another site? Our (meaning the potential scientific crowd) views are so diversified (what a nice expression for 'underdeveloped') with diverse angles to look at it FROM, that a wider agreement is IMO hopeless. Even with the reason of 'a' George Levy's clarity. I introduced this list to a friend from another list (complexity) who is math-phys minded and his refusal came: these guys are 'too' Platonistic for me. I think Jason's idea is great, if he can do it we will have a maybe wider sortiment of ideas, I doubt a possibility of crystallized-out agreed upon identifications. But I am a skeptic. Best regards John On 2/7/07, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John: I think the idea before was to provide an acronym list and also give each person or like minded group a limit of a few pages in the FAQ document in which to present a summary of their point of view. Hal Ruhl At 11:59 AM 2/7/2007, you wrote: Hal: you really believe that anybody could provide responses acceptable for all others? (I did not say understandable) Everybody sits in his own mindset and speaks his own scientific religion (=scientific belief system) - [said so, whether I aggraveted now (again) Russell or not.] We are in a pretty liquid exchange-state (liquid OM). Otherwise the idea is excellent, with multiple choice. John - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 PM Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds Hi John: Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ for the list. Perhaps we should give it another try. Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote: Hal and list: I do not think anybody fully understands what other listers write, even if one thinks so. Or is it only my handicap? John M - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds Hi Bruno: I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its evolving universes - meaning I take it that all successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. Lets us say that you are correct about this result re your model, this just seems to reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. Yours Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote: Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit : As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as a subset. This means that even if my theory makes disappear all (1-person) white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does not reintroduce new one. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 - Release Date: 2/6/2007 5:52 PM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Thanks, Fellow Uncertain (agnostic...). Let me quote to your question at the end the maxim from Mark's post: I think therefore I am right! - Angelica [Rugrat] (whatever that came from. Of course we value more our (halfbaked?) opinion than the wisdom of others.People die for it. With the religious marvels: I look at them with awe, cannot state it is impossible because 'they' start out beyond reason and say what they please. The sorry thing is, when a crowd takes it too seriously and kill, blow up, beat or burn live human beings in that 'belief'. Same, if for money. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:49 PM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life I don't know a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only trying to make the best guess I can given the evidence. Sometimes I really have no idea, like choosing which way a tossed coin will come up. Other times I do have evidence on which to base a belief, such as the belief that the world was not in fact created in six 24-hr days. It is certainly possible that I am wrong, and the evidence for a very old universe has either been fabricated or grossly misinterpreted, but I would bet on being right. Wouldn't you also, if something you valued depended on the bet? Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:28:25 -0500 And you, Stathis, are very kind to assume that I know' a right position from a wromng one. I may be in indecision before I denigrate... On the contrary. if someone 'believes' the 6 day creation, I start speculating WHAT days they could have been metaphorically, starfting before the solar system led us to our present ways of scheduling. Etc. Etc. Accepting that whatever we 'believe' is our epistemic achievement, anything 'from yesterday' might have been 'right' (maybe except the old Greeks - ha ha). in their own rites. Sometimes I start an argument about a different (questionable?) belief just to tickle out arguments which I did not consider earlier. But that is my dirty way. I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John, Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much kinder to alternative beliefs than I am, but in reality, you *must* think that some beliefs are wrong, otherwise you would hold those beliefs! For example, if you say you don't personally believe the earth was created in six days, but respect the right of others to believe that it was, what you're really saying is that you respect the right of others to have a false belief. I have no dispute with that, as long as it is acknowledged. Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:07:52 -0500 Stathiws, no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the futility of arguing from one belief system (and stressing its solely expanded truth) against a different truth and evidence carrying OTHER belief system. BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept (alternately) ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking the professional). IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with our rather elastic ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est onetrackminded..(the 9th beatitude). To your initial sentence: do you believe (in YOUR criteria of your beliefs) that TWO people may have absolutely identical beliefs? I am almost certain that as your immune system, DNA, fingerprint and the other zillion characteristics are not identical to those of other animals, the mental makeup is similarly unique. We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized machine-identity (Oops, no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John, You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang
RE: The Meaning of Life
John, I agree: being open-minded is more important than being right. Stathis. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeDate: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:09:25 -0500 Thanks, Fellow Uncertain (agnostic...). Let me quote to your question at the end the maxim from Mark's post: I think therefore I am right! - Angelica [Rugrat](whatever that came from. Of course we value more our (halfbaked?) opinion than the wisdom of others.People die for it. With the religious marvels: I look at them with awe, cannot state it is impossible because 'they' start out beyond reason and say what they please. The sorry thing is, when a crowd takes it too seriously and kill, blow up, beat or burn live human beings in that 'belief'. Same, if for money. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:49 PM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life I don't know a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only trying to make the best guess I can given the evidence. Sometimes I really have no idea, like choosing which way a tossed coin will come up. Other times I do have evidence on which to base a belief, such as the belief that the world was not in fact created in six 24-hr days. It is certainly possible that I am wrong, and the evidence for a very old universe has either been fabricated or grossly misinterpreted, but I would bet on being right. Wouldn't you also, if something you valued depended on the bet? Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeDate: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:28:25 -0500 And you, Stathis, are very kind to assume that I know' a right position from a wromng one. I may be in indecision before I denigrate... On the contrary. if someone 'believes' the 6 day creation, I start speculating WHAT days they could have been metaphorically, starfting before the solar system led us to our present ways of scheduling. Etc. Etc. Accepting that whatever we 'believe' is our epistemic achievement, anything 'from yesterday' might have been 'right' (maybe except the old Greeks - ha ha). in their own rites. Sometimes I start an argument about a different (questionable?) belief just to tickle out arguments which I did not consider earlier. But that is my dirty way. I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John,Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much kinder to alternative beliefs than I am, but in reality, you *must* think that some beliefs are wrong, otherwise you would hold those beliefs! For example, if you say you don't personally believe the earth was created in six days, but respect the right of others to believe that it was, what you're really saying is that you respect the right of others to have a false belief. I have no dispute with that, as long as it is acknowledged.Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeDate: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:07:52 -0500 Stathiws, no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the futility of arguing from one belief system (and stressing its solely expanded truth) against a different truth and evidence carrying OTHER belief system. BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept (alternately) ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking the professional). IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with our rather elastic ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est onetrackminded..(the 9th beatitude). To your initial sentence: do you believe (in YOUR criteria of your beliefs) that TWO people may have absolutely identical beliefs? I am almost certain that as your immune system, DNA, fingerprint and the other zillion characteristics are not identical to those of other animals, the mental makeup is similarly unique. We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized machine-identity (Oops, no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and Odyssey must be true, then they would be consistently applying the standards they apply to the Bible. Of course, they
Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki
John M mentioned in a recent post that many on the Everything List may have conflicting or poor understandings of all the various terminology used on the list. Hal Ruhl brought up the fact that someone had previously tried to maintain an acronym list and FAQ for the Everything List. I thought that a wiki would suit this role rather nicely, and offered to set one up for the list. I've finished setting up the site and it is currently running on a webhost which I use and have much underutilized space on. The URL is: http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page I envision the wiki being used to explain the various concepts, acronyms, and theories so often mentioned on this list. Every account created on the wiki has its own dedicated page, which I think would be an ideal place for people to describe their backgrounds and the theories they subscribe to. Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
