Re: Plato's cave analogy
Dear Stephen, On 14 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/14/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Dear Bruno, My claim is that the phrase that you used above ...we agree that for all is just another way of thinking of my definition of reality as That which is incontrovertible for some collection of observers that can communicate with each other. It is the mutual agreement between all participants, be they electrons or amoeba or human or galactic clusters, that makes a reality real. OK. That is recovered in comp by the notion of first person plural (duplication of machine population) Dear Bruno, How exactly is the duplication achieved? What indexes the differences? A Blum complexity measure? The way the duplication are done is not relevant, as in step 7, there is no more duplication, but more something like infinite preparation/ generation of the many identical state (identical from a first person pov). What indexes the difference is, for example, the place in the UD work, that is the place in UD*, where the state occur in some computation. With comp, there exist an infinity of number k, j and s, such that the comp state of Stephen here and now, is given by phi_k(j)^s (the sth state of a the kth computations in the UD when computing phi_i(j). k might be the codes of the descriptions in the Heisenberg picture of the cluster of galaxies, or some higher level description of the neuronal description of you right now, etc. The Blum complexity can be relevant, but not for indexing the difference. The complexity of the computation can play a role in the measure problem (but that must be justified), but not in the presence or not of your conscious state in a computation. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
I'm back, thanks to Windows 7
Hi everybody, I need to catch up with some of you. I've been offline for a few days because of computer problems and even thought I had lost all of my email. But the recover feature of Windows 7 works like a charm even though you thought you had lost the whole OS and wondered if you still had a backup. But now it's all fixed and I don't seem to have lost anything. Roger -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Hi Roger, I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/book.php?titleID=37. It discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: the God hypothesis
Hi Stephen Hawking, So quantum gravity was designed and created by mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ? This nonsense you apparently believe shows that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40 Subject: Re: the God hypothesis On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Roger Clough, Actually the action of mathematical physics gives everything the reason to live. As Hawking says, there is no need for god if you got quantum gravity. I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving consciousness, that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental possibilities, according to Leibniz... But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it. Bruno Richard Ruquist On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to explain that by anything other than the the God hypothesis. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed them during manufacture. Hi Roger, The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it. er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside. No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be perfectly lined up. ... Right. That's Platonia. Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world. Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are
Re: Re: I am a realist rather than a nominalist because universal gravityexists.
Hi Craig Weinberg Yes, Berkeley's solopsism is impossible to disprove, so your theory that perception causes existence holds. But, forgive me, how do you know that there are other people to report your findings to ? We could all be chimeras. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 07:07:07 Subject: Re: I am a realist rather than a nominalist because universal gravityexists. On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 8:32:27 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Physics thus tells us that a falling tree will make a sound even if nobody is there to witness the event. Just the opposite. Physics tells us that sound is an experience for subjects who have some kind of ear. Without that, there is only a recurring change in the position of bodies (vibration), which requires that there be bodies which can detect that this change is occurring. There doesn't need to be a human witness unless by 'make a sound' we mean an experience interpreted with human qualities of sound discernment and sensitivity. Because existence then is independent of mind (the realist position), But it is not independent of experience. This also refutes Berkeley's position that things exist because we perceive them. Yes, Berkeley didn't take it far enough and realize that perception was the sole universal principle, and not just a human privilege. Those are the complaints of the far left. They hate everything that has authority or power. I think that the far left would argue that they do not hate powerful authorities like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, etc. You know, leaders who rise to positions of adoration without taking power from others. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/qzVxV_EizvMJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of computers
Hi Craig Weinberg Everything has at least some intelligence or consciousness, according to Leibniz's metaphysics, even rocks. But these bare naked monads are essentially in deep, drugged sleep and darkness, or at best drunk. Leibniz called such a state the unconscious way before Freud and Jung. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 09:54:53 Subject: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of computers Doesn't mean that a coffee filter is intelligent too? If so, is a series of coffee filters more intelligent than one? What about one with a hole in it? Craig On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:14:05 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi I was wrong. According to my own definition of intelligence-- that it is the ability of an entity, having at least some measure of free will, to make choices on its own (without outside help)-- a computer can have intelligence, and intelligence in no small measure. The ability to sort is an example. To give a simple example, a computer can sort information, just as Maxwell's Demon could, into two bins. Instead of temperature, it could just be a number. Numbers larger than A go into one bin, smaller than A go into another bin. It does it all on its own, using an if statement. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 11/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/4uRvNZH9oIsJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: the God hypothesis
Hi Roger Clough, As you have been told, quantum gravity is contained within each string theory monad. No one knows where that came from, certainly not any god that humans are connected to. Richard On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen Hawking, So quantum gravity was designed and created by mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ? This nonsense you apparently believe shows that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40 Subject: Re: the God hypothesis On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Roger Clough, Actually the action of mathematical physics gives everything the reason to live. As Hawking says, there is no need for god if you got quantum gravity. I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving consciousness, that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental possibilities, according to Leibniz... But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it. Bruno Richard Ruquist On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to explain that by anything other than the the God hypothesis. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed them during manufacture. Hi Roger, The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it. er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside. No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be perfectly lined up. ... Right. That's Platonia. Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world. Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- 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
Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy 12 tone music can be refreshing for a while but I soon get bored. On the other hand, Stravinksy and many others can do exciting things with dissonance. The Firebird Suite and the Rites of Spring enhance this marvellously with dance. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-14, 12:42:32 Subject: Re: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance Hi Roger, The definition of harmony you cite above is entertainment biased, because: Virtually all music is dissonant as the vast majority of music includes more complex fundamental frequency ratios than unison and octave: anything more complex than 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 etc. is by strict definition already dissonant, leading to rational number ratios etc. Note this is true independently of somewhat muddled and defective senses. But there's not a large target market for such music: it would be fun to compose music with little dissonance and just Octaves all day... but they already do a version of this with New Age, meditation music etc. but they still need more than the octave, to not bore the listeners to death with static sine wave @ 440hz. But you can't mix 12-tone music with more traditional systems of harmony, unless you build larger musical contexts, because conjunction, transition, simultaneity, harmony, dissonance are defined very differently. Like instead of either this chord or that chord for this genre in this musical context in more traditional harmony, you get this chord AND that chord in 12-tone music; with either chord on its own being false in most 12-tone context. Mark On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Russell Standish I left out the part that the perfect harmony is only possible in Platonia, but when performed and/or listened to on earth by people with somehat muddled or defective senses (us), will contain distortions and dissonances. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-08, 19:23:50 Subject: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 05:59:15AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Yes, the orchestra with the supreme monad as composer/conductor playing a pleasing orchestra composition (not 12-tone !) that he dug up out of his a priori files works fine. That is what is incompatible with QM. Sorry... -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance
Hi Roger, I'm not trying to convince you to listen to 12-tone music, as it is even misleading to talk about is as a unified whole = every composer that uses these tools and their funky harmonic logic approaches them differently. And composers have been doing this since in some form or the other since 16th century. It's science in its current atheist, political form that was late with this kind of thinking. Also unifying this kind of musical vision with more conjunct and decidable harmony has also been around musically since the 16th and 17th century, if not earlier. So I shrug my shoulders at the novel scientific paradigms of 20th and 21st century and say: meh not impressed if we can only build bombs and dirty energy with it: just follow our lead and make it so that people can love and like the fruits of that thinking and logics with a good conscience, without making a mess. We've shown its possible in our domain for hundreds of years. Quantum Cowboy :) On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy 12 tone music can be refreshing for a while but I soon get bored. On the other hand, Stravinksy and many others can do exciting things with dissonance. The Firebird Suite and the Rites of Spring enhance this marvellously with dance. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-11-14, 12:42:32 *Subject:* Re: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance Hi Roger, The definition of harmony you cite above is entertainment biased, because: Virtually all music is dissonant as the vast majority of music includes more complex fundamental frequency ratios than unison and octave: anything more complex than 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 etc. is by strict definition already dissonant, leading to rational number ratios etc. Note this is true independently of somewhat muddled and defective senses. But there's not a large target market for such music: it would be fun to compose music with little dissonance and just Octaves all day... but they already do a version of this with New Age, meditation music etc. but they still need more than the octave, to not bore the listeners to death with static sine wave @ 440hz. But you can't mix 12-tone music with more traditional systems of harmony, unless you build larger musical contexts, because conjunction, transition, simultaneity, harmony, dissonance are defined very differently. Like instead of either this chord or that chord for this genre in this musical context in more traditional harmony, you get this chord AND that chord in 12-tone music; with either chord on its own being false in most 12-tone context. Mark On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Russell Standish I left out the part that the perfect harmony is only possible in Platonia, but when performed and/or listened to on earth by people with somehat muddled or defective senses (us), will contain distortions and dissonances. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-08, 19:23:50 Subject: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 05:59:15AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Yes, the orchestra with the supreme monad as composer/conductor playing a pleasing orchestra composition (not 12-tone !) that he dug up out of his a priori files works fine. That is what is incompatible with QM. Sorry... -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If he's a devout Muslim he believes he will go to heaven with 77 virgins when he pushes that button, but as I said I really don't care what he believes will happen, I care about what will happen. That was my point. What happen does not depend on the beliefs. Then why in the name of all that's holy do you keep going on and on about what the man expects to happen? What the Helsinki man expects to happen depends entirely on the particular man involved. The Muslim will be very surprised after he pushes the button when he doesn't see 77 virgins that he was so certain he would see. I would not be at all surprised to see what I see after I push the button. And even though you make the exact same predictions I do nevertheless you say you would be surprised to see what you see after you push the button, apparently you would be surprised to find out that you were correct. You keep looking at this backward and trying to establish a chain of identity from the present to the future but that's never going to work, you've got to look from the present to the past. I know for certain that I am the John Clark of yesterday because I remember being him; if the Many Worlds theory is true then I'm not the only one who was John Clark of yesterday and some of them are now experiencing things that the John Clark of yesterday would say were astronomically (but not infinitely) unlikely, some are now experiencing vastly different things than I am now, but that doesn't make me or them any less the John Clark of yesterday. I am the John Clark of yesterday from my viewpoint, and the John Clark who was just elected Pope is the John Clark of yesterday from his viewpoint, and the John Clark who decided to become a rodeo clown is the John Clark of yesterday from his viewpoint. As for the John Clark of yesterday himself he has no voice in any of this because he is no longer around. And I know nothing for certain about the John Clark of tomorrow, I don't even know if he will exist. he is not the only Helsinki man because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED, and that means the 1P view has been duplicated too As seen from the 3-views on the 1-views. But not as seen by the 1-views. Who's 1-views? Find somebody after the experiment who complains my view was not duplicated! I dare you, show me! and that means the 1P view from the 1P view has been duplicated too, and that means the 1P view from the 1P view from the 1P view has been duplicated too As seen each time from some 3-view, but that is not what is asked. So even after a infinity of iterations you still think there has not been enough peeing and you can still factor out a p. Well where the hell is it? There is nothing in those diaries, nothing about the bodies and no third party description that I failed to predict. Indeed, but you fail to predict the first party description Using a word like the implies there is only one first party description and of course that is untrue because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. And before you start peeing I should tell you that I don't know what a 3p of a 1p is, much less a future 3p of a 1p. like if by some magic, you are all the copies at once, which would contradict comp. I don't care if it contradicts comp or not, I'm not its advocate and apparently know next to nothing about it. You keep telling me that comp implies all sorts of loony screwy things stuff that is clearly untrue, so I can only conclude that whatever comp means I don't believe a word of it. And the Helsinki man being all the copies is only a contradiction if you look at things through the wrong end of the telescope, its perfectly logical if you look from the present into the past. After the pushing on the button, nobody is in helsinki. Correct. But the helsinki man survived in W and M, Correct. And I note with pleasure that you said and not or. where both copies agree they are in once city Correct. and that they could not predict which one in advance. That depends on who's doing the prediction, I could make the correct prediction while the Muslim could not and would be surprised when he doesn't find his 77 virgins; but of course a bad prediction will not destroy his identity. The Muslim Helsinki man may be surprise to find himself in Washington and the Muslim Helsinki man may be surprise to find himself in Moscow but both remember being the Muslim Helsinki man so both are him, and predictions, good or bad, have nothing to do with it. Bad predictions are made all the time but that doesn't mean the thing making them ceases to exist, just look at Romney and the Republican party of the USA. you are still confused by the fact that I is no longer singular because I HAS BEEN DUPLICATED AND SO HAS ALL OF I'S VIEWPOINTS. Obviosuly not from the 1p perspective. Obviously?! If duplicating your body and your brain as perfectly as Mr. Heisenberg allows does not duplicate your
Re: Re: the God hypothesis
Hi Richard Ruquist That's just my point. You can't have quantum gravity unless it emerged from mind ior universal intelligence. Where there's smoke, there's fire. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list,Swines,zoo_no_facts Time: 2012-11-12, 08:55:09 Subject: Re: the God hypothesis Hi Roger Clough, Actually the action of mathematical physics gives everything the reason to live. As Hawking says, there is no need for god if you got quantum gravity. I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving consciousness, that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental possibilities, according to Leibniz... But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. Richard Ruquist On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to explain that by anything other than the the God hypothesis. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed them during manufacture. Hi Roger, The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it. er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside. No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be perfectly lined up. ... Right. That's Platonia. Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world. Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: the God hypothesis
Hi Richard Ruquist and Bruno, There is (infinite) regress in physical nature, but not in mind, because mind is non-existent (not created). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 11:46:34 Subject: Re: the God hypothesis On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Roger Clough, Actually the action of mathematical physics gives everything the reason to live. As Hawking says, there is no need for god if you got quantum gravity. I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving consciousness, that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental possibilities, according to Leibniz... But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it. Yes. My reasoning is incomplete as all reasonings should be. Bruno Richard Ruquist On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to explain that by anything other than the the God hypothesis. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed them during manufacture. Hi Roger, The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it. er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside. No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be perfectly lined up. ... Right. That's Platonia. Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world. Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group,
Re: Re: Re: the God hypothesis
Hi Richard Ruquist Call it what you want, but anything existent exists according to some pre-existing physical rules etc. Some Cosmic intelligence. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 08:54:54 Subject: Re: Re: the God hypothesis Hi Roger Clough, As you have been told, quantum gravity is contained within each string theory monad. No one knows where that came from, certainly not any god that humans are connected to. Richard On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen Hawking, So quantum gravity was designed and created by mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ? This nonsense you apparently believe shows that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40 Subject: Re: the God hypothesis On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Roger Clough, Actually the action of mathematical physics gives everything the reason to live. As Hawking says, there is no need for god if you got quantum gravity. I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live. http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving consciousness, that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental possibilities, according to Leibniz... But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving. Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth, for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner.. Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it. Bruno Richard Ruquist On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to explain that by anything other than the the God hypothesis. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed them during manufacture. Hi Roger, The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it. er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23 Subject: Re: Communicability On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside. No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be perfectly lined up. ... Right. That's Platonia. Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world. Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-
Re: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi Perhaps strings might better model materials and their behavior than current chemistry and materials science can. And suggest the possibioity of creating new materials (composistes) as well as explaining little understood materials phenomena. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 07:18:56 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On 04.11.2012 08:37 Richard Ruquist said the following: On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following: On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable alternatives: o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is mistaken, or o that scientific representation is not at bottom mathematical representation alone, or o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know it to be incomplete, or o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across isomorphism, are illusory. In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological question: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? It seems to me he left out the most likely case: that our science is incomplete in a way we know. Brent Could you please express this knowledge explicitly? String theory is an example of knowledge of incomplete science as for the most part string theory has not been verified/falsified experimentally. Richard Let us imagine that the superstring theory is completed and even experimentally verified. So what's then? How the superstring theory would change engineering practice? Evgenii -- p. 278 ... the regularities must derive from not just natural but logical necessity. This sentiment is sometimes encountered still, not so much among philosophers but in physicists' dreams of a final theory so logically airtight as to admit of no conceivable alternative, one that would be grasped as true when understood at all. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
In the beginning were the numbers
Hi Stephen P. King and Bruno,
Perhaps these problems below fade away if you think
of numbers in this way:
In the beginning were the numbers
and the numbers were with Mind and
the numbers were Mind.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-01, 14:21:55
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a concrete robust
physical universe.
?
Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I explicitly do
assume a primitive physical reality.
In step 8, it is done for the reductio ad absurdum.
Dear Bruno,
I have cut and pasted your exact words from SANE04 and you still didn't
understand... From:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf
...what if we don抰 grant a concrete robust physical universe?
Actually the 8th present step will explain
that such a move is nevertheless without purpose. This will make the notion of
concrete and
existing universe completely devoid of any explicative power. It will
follow that a much
weaker and usual form of Ockham抯 razor can be used to conclude that not only
physics has
been epistemologically reduced to machine psychology, but that 憫matter拻
has been
ontologically reduced to 憫mind拻 where mind is defined as the object study of
fundamental
machine psychology.
My claim is that neither physical worlds nor numbers (or any other object
that must supervene on mind) can be ontologically primitive. Both must emerge
from a neutral ground that is neither and has no particular properties.
[SPK] He goes on to argue that Occam's razor would demand that we reject the
very idea of the existence of physical worlds
Only of primitive physical worlds. And you did agree with this. I just prove
this from comp. That's the originality. A bit of metaphysics is made into a
theorem in a theory (comp).
Can we agree that physical worlds emerge somehow from sharable aspects of
multiple sheaves of computations?
[SPK] given that he can 'show' how they can be reconstructed or derived from
irreducible - and thus ontologically primitive - Arithmetic 'objects' {0, 1, +,
*} that are operating somehow in an atemporal way. We should be able to make
the argument run without ever appealing to a Platonic realm or any kind of
'realism'. In my thinking, if arithmetic is powerful enough to be a TOE and run
the TOE to generate our world, then that power should be obvious. My problem is
that it looks tooo much like the 'explanation' of creation that we find in
mythology, whether it is the Ptah of ancient Egypt or the egg of Pangu or
whatever other myth one might like. What makes an explanation framed in the
sophisticated and formal language of modal logic any different?
I use the self-reference logic, for obvious reason. Again, this entails the sue
of some modal logics, due to a *theorem* by Solovay. All correct machine whose
beliefs extend RA obeys to G and G*. There is no choice in the matter.
That is not changed or involved by my argument.
[SPK] I agree 10% with your point about 'miracles'. I am very
suspicions of special explanations' or 'natural conspiracies'. (This comes
from my upbringing as a Bible-believing Fundamentalist and eventual rejection
of that literalist mental straight-jacket.) As I see things, any condition or
situation that can be used to 'explain' some other conceptually difficult
condition or situation should be either universal in that they apply anywhere
and anytime
But even in your theory anywhere and anytime must be defined by something more
primitive, given that you agree that physics cannot be the fundamental theory,
given that the physical reality is not primitive.
The concepts of where and when (positions in a space-time) would seem
to be rendered meaningless if there is no space-time (or observers/measurements
to define it), no? OH, BTW, I don't think that we disagree that physics cannot
be the fundamental theory. Physics requires measurements/observations to be
meaningful. Where I agree with you is in your considerations of 1p and observer
indeterminacy. Where you and I disagree is on the question of resources.
Resources are required for computations to run so there has to be the
availability of resources involved in *any* consideration of computations.
Ignoring these considerations by only considering computations as Platonic
objects is wrong, IMHO.
You seem to be OK with computations as purely timeless objects (in
Platonia) that are such that somehow we finite entities can create physical
objects that can implement (in their dynamical functions) instances of such,
while I claim that computations are equivalence classes
The fundamental primitive
Hi Stephen P. King Truth or mind or numbers or life or intelligence is the ultimate primitive. They are what the spacetime universe and man emerged from ultimately. This is called downward causation. In the beginning were the numbers and the numbers were with Mind and the numbers were Mind. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 09:17:02 Subject: Re: The two types of truth On 11/3/2012 7:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and Stephen, http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/leibniz.html Leibniz declares that there are two kinds of truth: truths of reason [which are non-contradictory, are always either true or false], and truths of fact [which are not always either true or false]. Truths of reason are a priori, while truths of fact are a posteriori. Truths of reason are necessary, permanent truths. Truths of fact are contingent, empirical truths. Both kinds of truth must have a sufficient reason. Truths of reason have their sufficient reason in being opposed to the contradictoriness and logical inconsistency of propositions which deny them. Truths of fact have their sufficient reason in being more perfect than propositions which deny them. Dear Roger, Is truth, either of reason or of fact, independent of the mind or in the collective minds of all that could apprehend them? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Emergence of Properties
Hi Stephen P. King But many minds are in agreement that God exists, so that must be true ? And must unicorns exist because I believe that they do ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 12:31:14 Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties On 11/3/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: The properties of spacetime things are what can be measured (ie facts). The properties of beyond spacetime things are propositions that can't be contradicted (necessary truths). Hi Roger, I do not assume that the can't be contradicted is an a priori fixed apartheid on truths. I define necessary truths to be contingent on many minds in agreement. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
Hi Stephen P. King Infinity is not communicable. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 12:33:49 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/3/2012 9:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Necessary truths are/were/shall be always true. They can't be invented, they have to be discovered. Numbers are such. Yes, but not just discovered, they must be communicable. Arithmetic or had to exist before man or the Big Bang woujld not have worked. I do not restrict entities with 1p to humanity. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
Hi Stephen P. King He's got his work cut out for him, not so much as casting doubt on other's theories, but in explaining all of the data obtained with alternate theorie. In which case, the Big Bang simply happened another way than that taught. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 06:41:21 Subject: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Hi Roger, I invite you to read James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow. It discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 15.11.2012 17:10 Roger Clough said the following: Hi Evgenii Rudnyi Perhaps strings might better model materials and their behavior than current chemistry and materials science can. And suggest the possibioity of creating new materials (composistes) as well as explaining little understood materials phenomena. Chemists need numerical models to reduce the number of experiments. In my view, it is highly unlikely that the superstring theory will furnish better numerical models for chemists. Evgenii -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Monads and the Diophantine equantions.
On 11/15/2012 11:06 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal No connection, I was just looking at the meaning of the Diophantine equations. Their meanings as categories possibly. Ie, can numbers be categorized by the D eqns they fit ? If some numbers fit these equations , do they have some particular meaning (are categories) ? Note also that the monads are individuals and so could fit some of the D eqns. Then if the eqns have some meanings or categories , that might be the Dear Roger, Do you conceptualize Monads as primitive substances or actions? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: In the beginning were the numbers
On 11/15/2012 11:18 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King and Bruno, Perhaps these problems below fade away if you think of numbers in this way: In the beginning were the numbers and the numbers were with Mind and the numbers were Mind. Dear Roger, In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God http://biblos.com/john/1-1.htm. I am very familiar with that vision. I am proposing a complementary vision that does not have its short comings. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of computers
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:42:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Everything has at least some intelligence or consciousness, according to Leibniz's metaphysics, even rocks. But these bare naked monads are essentially in deep, drugged sleep and darkness, or at best drunk. Leibniz called such a state the unconscious way before Freud and Jung. I believe that there is an experience on the micro-level of what the coffee filter is made of - molecules held together as fibers maybe, bit I don't think that it knows or cares about filtering. It's like if you write the letters A and B on a piece of paper - I think there is an experience there on the molecular level, of adhesion, evaporation, maybe other interesting things we will never know, but I don't think that the letter A knows that there is a letter B there. Do you? I don't think the letters have a consciousness because they aren't actually beings, the patterns which they embody to us are in our experience, not independent beings. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-11-12, 09:54:53 *Subject:* Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of computers Doesn't mean that a coffee filter is intelligent too? If so, is a series of coffee filters more intelligent than one? What about one with a hole in it? Craig On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:14:05 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi I was wrong. According to my own definition of intelligence-- that it is the ability of an entity, having at least some measure of free will, to make choices on its own (without outside help)-- a computer can have intelligence, and intelligence in no small measure. The ability to sort is an example. To give a simple example, a computer can sort information, just as Maxwell's Demon could, into two bins. Instead of temperature, it could just be a number. Numbers larger than A go into one bin, smaller than A go into another bin. It does it all on its own, using an if statement. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 11/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/4uRvNZH9oIsJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Ewl6J7rU8jgJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: I am a realist rather than a nominalist because universal gravityexists.
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:36:44 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Yes, Berkeley's solopsism is impossible to disprove, so your theory that perception causes existence holds. But, forgive me, how do you know that there are other people to report your findings to ? We could all be chimeras. Logically you could be, but we don't live in a logical universe, we live in a universe of sense. Some sense can be explained in terms of other senses, but other senses can't. The sense of realism is one example of the latter. We don't need to prove that there is a difference between waking and dreaming, because proof supervenes on that difference to begin with. The miracle of sense is that it is translucent and reflective. You can sort of know things that it seems like you shouldn't be able to be sure about. But you are sure enough, and that's all that you need to be ultimately. If you are chimeras, then there word chimera has no meaning anyhow since it means there would be no way to tell the difference. The fact that we can conceive of 'illusion' and 'reality' means that some part of us cares to discern the difference. Why would that be the case in a solipsistic universe, and if it were, what would be the point of caring about it? Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-11-12, 07:07:07 *Subject:* Re: I am a realist rather than a nominalist because universal gravityexists. On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 8:32:27 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Physics thus tells us that a falling tree will make a sound even if nobody is there to witness the event. Just the opposite. Physics tells us that sound is an experience for subjects who have some kind of ear. Without that, there is only a recurring change in the position of bodies (vibration), which requires that there be bodies which can detect that this change is occurring. There doesn't need to be a human witness unless by 'make a sound' we mean an experience interpreted with human qualities of sound discernment and sensitivity. Because existence then is independent of mind (the realist position), But it is not independent of experience. This also refutes Berkeley's position that things exist because we perceive them. Yes, Berkeley didn't take it far enough and realize that perception was the sole universal principle, and not just a human privilege. Those are the complaints of the far left. They hate everything that has authority or power. I think that the far left would argue that they do not hate powerful authorities like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, etc. You know, leaders who rise to positions of adoration without taking power from others. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/qzVxV_EizvMJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/LL0wh4qTC2oJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Hi Roger, I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/book.php?titleID=37. It discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light. In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside mainstream science: HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, bacteria don't develop drug immunity,... Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Arithmetic doesn't even suggest geometry, let alone awareness.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can think of. There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry can describe numbers. What more do you need? So the fact that arithmetic can produce the exact same sort of behavior that minds are so proud of, like playing Chess or solving equations or winning millions on Jeopardy, is all just a big coincidence. If you really believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you. It's not a coincidence at all, but neither is the fact that arithmetic fails miserably at producing the sort of behavior that minds take for granted, like caring about something or having a personality. The thing I'm most eager to hear is why you said minds and not Craig Weinberg's mind. They [potassium and sodium ions in your brain] only matter to me because of the feelings and experiences their configurations make available to me. OK, there is no disputing matters of taste. what we feel is in no way linked to those objects except through empirical relation. Except for that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? There is no theory by which their configuration should lead to anything beyond the configuration itself. To hell with theories. Just because there is no theory to explain a phenomenon does not mean the phenomenon does not exist; nobody has a theory worth a damn to explain why the universe is accelerating but all astronomers know that it is nevertheless doing so. And there may not be a theory to explain why but there is not the slightest doubt that changes in those potassium and sodium ions cause PROFOUND changes in your consciousness and your subjective emotional state. So if ions in a few pounds of grey goo inside the bone box on your shoulders can create consciousness I don't understand why its such a stretch to imagine that electrons in a semiconductor can do the same thing, especially if they produce the same behavior. Einstein made more sense of the data was through imagination and discovery, OK. not through mechanistic data processing or accumulation of knowledge. What's the difference? How do you know that Bugs Bunny isn't tasting anything when he eats a carrot? I don't know it for a fact but I strongly suspect it because Bugs fails the Turing Test. we are a single cell which knows how to divide itself into trillions of copies. A cell in your body can divide into two or a trillion cells, but you don't know how it does it. We are not an assembly of disconnected parts. Nothing is an assembly of disconnected parts. no inorganic lever system seems to aspire to anything other than doing the same thing over and over again. A computer calculating the value of PI never repeats itself, it never returns to a previous state. It never leaves the state it's in. Calculating the value of Pi is one of the kinds of acts which requires infinite resources to complete, therefore it never gets chance to repeat itself. It's true that a real computer, unlike a theoretical Turing Machine, does not have a infinite memory and so can't be in a infinite number of states, but you don't have a infinite memory either and so your brain can't be in a infinite number of states. You and the computer are in the same boat. you have to finish 'peating' to be able to re-peat. If you believe that a real computer can't finishing peating and thus can't repeat I take it that you're retracting your comment that a computer just does the same thing over and over again. I do think that my approach does solve the Hard Problem of consciousness And your approach is that people are conscious because they use free will to make decisions and they use free will to make decisions because they are conscious. That doesn't sound very hard to me, or very deep. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the God hypothesis
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to exist as it does. And we now know that Leibniz was DEAD WRONG about that, we now know that some things happen for no reason whatsoever. And in general that's the trouble with modern philosophers, they keep on quoting their ancient hero blissfully unaware of the developments made in physics or mathematics or biology that occurred in the last 400 years; they actually believe that scientific and mathematical illiteracy is no handicap in figuring out how the world works. I don't know how to explain that by anything other than the the God hypothesis. So everything needs a reason to exist. EVERYTHING. And thus God is the total explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. Are you trying to tell us with a straight face that you don't see the logical flaw in that argument? John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:20:14AM -0600, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: Of course, but the big bang is not the same thing as the beginning of the universe. Also, the cosmic microwave background, which is the direct observational evidence of the big bang comes from the last scattering, when electrons and nuclei combined for the last time into atomic matter and stayed that way. Red shift surveys can only give information about the age of the last scattering, and even then, interpreting it as a certain number of years can only occur within a specific model of the universe - the Friedmann model is often used because of its simplicity - even though we now know the universe evolved quite differently from the Friedmann model due to things like dark energy, which introduces far too much uncertainty to claim that the inverse of an accurate Hubble constant is the age of the universe The big bang theory gives an account of the evolution of the universe from a quark-gluon soup to the last scattering, and gives quite a good account of the 300,000 years before the last scattering. Accounts of what happened prior to the quark-gluon plasma are highly speculative, including inflation theory, and are likely to be revised as science progresses. In some of those speculations, the actual beginning of the universe occurred much earlier, or in the infinite past. Actually, according to Wikipedia: Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, the International Astronomical Union [4] presently use age of the universe to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang in the current observable universe. Lambda-CDM is apparently the most widely accepted model of how the universe expanded since the big bang. I didn't realise the IAU has defined an age of the universe, but its anything but. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:55:10AM +1100, Russell Standish wrote: Actually, according to Wikipedia: Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, the International Astronomical Union [4] presently use age of the universe to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang in the current observable universe. Lambda-CDM is apparently the most widely accepted model of how the universe expanded since the big bang. I didn't realise the IAU has defined an age of the universe, but its anything but. Hence I retract my crack about journalists -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Emergence of Properties
On 11/15/2012 11:27 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King But many minds are in agreement that God exists, so that must be true ? Hi Roger, In my proposed definitions, must only follows if and only if there is no accessible possible world where a contraindication of the agreement occurs. Put more simply, a statement is true iff there is no knowable contradiction of the statement. The possible existence of an unknowable contradiction to the truth of a statement acts to support the idea of fallibility. And must unicorns exist because I believe that they do ? The existence or non-existence is not contingent on anything, especially the belief of one person. Your question should be phrased as: Must unicorns be a physical creature because of my belief in such? The answer might be yes is there is some means by which your belief has the causal power to generate a physical being. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Arithmetic doesn't even suggest geometry, let alone awareness.
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43:03 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can think of. There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry can describe numbers. What more do you need? A reason that there could possibly be a difference between the two. So the fact that arithmetic can produce the exact same sort of behavior that minds are so proud of, like playing Chess or solving equations or winning millions on Jeopardy, is all just a big coincidence. If you really believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you. It's not a coincidence at all, but neither is the fact that arithmetic fails miserably at producing the sort of behavior that minds take for granted, like caring about something or having a personality. The thing I'm most eager to hear is why you said minds and not Craig Weinberg's mind. I was imitating you, since that was how you said it I wanted to be equally presumptuous. They [potassium and sodium ions in your brain] only matter to me because of the feelings and experiences their configurations make available to me. OK, there is no disputing matters of taste. what we feel is in no way linked to those objects except through empirical relation. Except for that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? If you mean that bullet-induced mortality is an argument for the supervenience of qualia on physics I don't think that it is. A brain with a hole in it is just as likely or unlikely to be associated with an experience of consciousness as anything else from a functional point of view. There is no theory by which their configuration should lead to anything beyond the configuration itself. To hell with theories. Just because there is no theory to explain a phenomenon does not mean the phenomenon does not exist; nobody has a theory worth a damn to explain why the universe is accelerating but all astronomers know that it is nevertheless doing so. Astronomers can't see neurons turning acoustic patterns into music though. Nobody can see that, because it may not be happening at all. And there may not be a theory to explain why but there is not the slightest doubt that changes in those potassium and sodium ions cause PROFOUND changes in your consciousness and your subjective emotional state. So if ions in a few pounds of grey goo inside the bone box on your shoulders can create consciousness They can't, and they don't. Just as the pixels on your screen do not speak in my voice, the grey goo is only a thin slice of what a person actually is. The brain is not creating consciousness. The brain is not creating consciousness. The computer on your desk is not creating the internet. The radio receiver is not creating the radio station. I don't understand why its such a stretch to imagine that electrons in a semiconductor can do the same thing, especially if they produce the same behavior. It isn't a stretch at all - atoms in a semiconductor do make sense of conditions which affect them - the sense they make of those conditions we think are electrons (and other bosons, mesons, and fermions), but that's because we are using atoms to look at atoms and imagining that we are seeing through a neutral medium. What atoms in a semiconductor don't make is the sense with which we employ them. Just as a coffee filter is not aware of its role as a coffee filter, the computer knows nothing about the computations as a whole. It isn't even a computer, it's just traffic signals on a clock for the mindless traffic of unrelated events in the semiconductor neighborhoods. Einstein made more sense of the data was through imagination and discovery, OK. not through mechanistic data processing or accumulation of knowledge. What's the difference? A filing cabinet can accumulate knowledge, and Google can sort the contents semantically, but there is nothing there that cares about it. It's just going to sit there forever. How do you know that Bugs Bunny isn't tasting anything when he eats a carrot? I don't know it for a fact but I strongly suspect it because Bugs fails the Turing Test. We could have a conversation over the phone where I imitate Bugs voice and describe the flavor of the carrots. Then Bugs passes the Turing Test. we are a single cell which knows how to divide itself into trillions of copies. A cell in your body can divide into two or a trillion cells, but you don't know how it does it. The how isn't important. I don't know how computers get distributed to specific stores either, but that doesn't change that there is a fundamental basis for distinction between living organisms and inorganic assemblies. We are not an assembly of disconnected parts. Nothing is
Re: (mathematical) solipsism
On 11/15/2012 11:28 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Mind is the fundamental nonphysical primitive out of which all physical things were created and which governs them. Dear Roger, That implies a subtle contradiction as the postulation of mind as primitive implies that its property of being a mind is somehow necessary and sufficient without any means that selects the properties from the class of all possible properties. This is the fundamental problem with the theory of innate properties. It seems to me that such thinking is just an appeal to authority and has no explanatory power. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On 11/15/2012 11:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King He's got his work cut out for him, not so much as casting doubt on other's theories, but in explaining all of the data obtained with alternate theorie. In which case, the Big Bang simply happened another way than that taught. Dear Roger, It is important to the note the difference between explanations of facts and facts. ;-) It is not a fact that there was an explosion some 13 billion years ago. It is a fact that we observe a pattern of red shifting of light from stars at various distances. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On 11/15/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Hi Roger, I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/book.php?titleID=37. It discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light. In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside mainstream science: HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, bacteria don't develop drug immunity,... Brent Hi Brent, I find your blind trust in orthodoxy appalling. Science never advances until orthodoxy is overthrown. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On 11/15/2012 5:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Hi Roger, I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/book.php?titleID=37. It discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light. In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside mainstream science: HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, bacteria don't develop drug immunity,... Brent Hi Brent, I find your blind trust in orthodoxy appalling. Science never advances until orthodoxy is overthrown. So you expect to advance science by accepting every unorthodox, contrarian theory? Brent They laughed at Bozo the Clown too. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On 11/15/2012 7:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 5:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Hi Roger, I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/book.php?titleID=37. It discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light. In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside mainstream science: HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, bacteria don't develop drug immunity,... Brent Hi Brent, I find your blind trust in orthodoxy appalling. Science never advances until orthodoxy is overthrown. So you expect to advance science by accepting every unorthodox, contrarian theory? Brent Of course not! What an absurd statement! Some modicum of common sense must prevail. Hogan's discussions are clear and even handed and point out many examples of how innovative thinking is often suppressed by activities that would be criminal if they occurred in an open court. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On 11/15/2012 6:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 7:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 5:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Hi Roger, I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/book.php?titleID=37. It discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light. In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside mainstream science: HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, bacteria don't develop drug immunity,... Brent Hi Brent, I find your blind trust in orthodoxy appalling. Science never advances until orthodoxy is overthrown. So you expect to advance science by accepting every unorthodox, contrarian theory? Brent Of course not! What an absurd statement! Some modicum of common sense must prevail. Hogan's discussions are clear and even handed and point out many examples of how innovative thinking is often suppressed by activities that would be criminal if they occurred in an open court. ?? Speaking without permission of the judge may be illegal in open court. Why is that the standard for anything? If you think Hogan has some insight into cosmology, let's hear it. I'm certainly not going to waste my money on his book. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On 11/15/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 7:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 5:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Russell, The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Hi Roger, I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/book.php?titleID=37. It discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light. In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside mainstream science: HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, bacteria don't develop drug immunity,... Brent Hi Brent, I find your blind trust in orthodoxy appalling. Science never advances until orthodoxy is overthrown. So you expect to advance science by accepting every unorthodox, contrarian theory? Brent Of course not! What an absurd statement! Some modicum of common sense must prevail. Hogan's discussions are clear and even handed and point out many examples of how innovative thinking is often suppressed by activities that would be criminal if they occurred in an open court. ?? Speaking without permission of the judge may be illegal in open court. Why is that the standard for anything? If you think Hogan has some insight into cosmology, let's hear it. I'm certainly not going to waste my money on his book. My My Brent, what has soured your life so? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On 11/15/2012 8:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: ?? Speaking without permission of the judge may be illegal in open court. Why is that the standard for anything? If you think Hogan has some insight into cosmology, let's hear it. I'm certainly not going to waste my money on his book. My My Brent, what has soured your life so? My life is just fine. What makes you think disagreeing with you affects it? Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On 11/15/2012 9:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/15/2012 8:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: ?? Speaking without permission of the judge may be illegal in open court. Why is that the standard for anything? If you think Hogan has some insight into cosmology, let's hear it. I'm certainly not going to waste my money on his book. My My Brent, what has soured your life so? My life is just fine. What makes you think disagreeing with you affects it? Brent I am curious why you chose to answer my post. If what I posted was, in your opinion, merit-less, why bother responding? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
