Re: Men don't get no respect these days
On 17 Dec 2012, at 17:38, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Roger, I am not sure. If you are kind with ùe, I will love you, but if later I hear that you are kind with me because you fear God, I will not sure I will attribute any genuine kindness to you anymore. Love of God can be the beginning of wisdom, and perhaps some fear of the devil can be a beginning of lucidity. But to fear God seems to me a bit weird. It is better to fear yourself. Bruno And it also damps down crime, cruelty and murder. We should not only fear (and love) God, but fear Satan. Because as that mass murder of children over the weekend shows, evil is real. That's the simplest explanation, which you liberals can't accept and so go around searching for some complex psychological reason for why that creep murdered those children. That may be the only thing you can be sure about in this life, that evil is real. It isn't just words. It's real. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:41:13 Subject: Re: Men don't get no respect these days On 12/17/2012 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Wrong! Fear of those things that will kill you is healthy. This is why pain exists. -- 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 . 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.
Re: What is truth ? Take your pick.
On 17 Dec 2012, at 17:31, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King An interesting insight. Hmmm. I may have to disagree with you, possibly because no one arithmetic statement is the whole truth. And comp needs a whole set of equations, no one of which is the whole truth. No, with comp, for the ontology, one equation is enough. We need only the sigma_1 truth. For the epistemology, and thus maind and matter, even the whole of math is not enough. But I think that EVERYTHING comes from the One, even untruth. Necessary truth is just a subset I think. So is contingent truth. OK. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:16:03 Subject: Re: What is truth ? Take your pick. On 12/17/2012 9:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There are many definitions of truth (see below): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth I like Whitehead's, which describes contemporary politics: Whitehead Alfred North Whitehead, a British mathematician who became an American philosopher[citation needed], said: There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that play the devil. The logical progression or connection of this line of thought is to conclude that truth can lie, since half-truths are deceptive and may lead to a false conclusion. Hi Roger, I am a massively huge fan of A.N. Whitehead. ;-) You might make sense of my fight with Bruno given this alternative, non-Platonic, way of thinking of Truth. -- 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.
The pro-life paradox
On 17 Dec 2012, at 17:49, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I define good as that which enhances life and evil as that which diminishes it. Is pro-life activism enhancing life or diminishing life? Some pro-life doctor are against euthanasia, even passive euthanasia, with the result that they transform dying patient into machines. But most of them are naive believer, and as such, they disbelieve comp, and so their pro-life activity begins to be contradictory. The question is: does an artificial, or even virtual body, enhance life or suppress life? Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 14:31:22 Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows On 12/16/2012 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do bad things and then say that they are good. Hi Craig, To me it boils down to a willingness to be objective. If one defines a standard of measure of good and bad, then one must apply it consistently. Otherwise there is no such thing as good' or 'bad. Tribalism comes with a shiftable measure of good and bad (stealing from non-members of the tribe is OK, stealing from tribe members is bad, for example), this makes tribalism bad, IMHO, not matter what kind of tribalism it is! -- 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.
Re: What is truth ? Take your pick.
On 17 Dec 2012, at 17:50, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I may have to disagree with you, possibly because no one arithmetic statement is the whole truth. And comp needs a whole set of equations, no one of which is the whole truth. But I think that EVERYTHING comes from the One, even untruth. Necessary truth is just a subset I think. So is contingent truth. Dear Roger, I see the ONE as a superposition of Nothing and Everything... The Many is the classical case. /evil grin Necessary truths are the only kind that can be known, So weird. Bruno they are conditional to context. Absence the specifiably of context even properties vanish and truths with 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 . 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.
Re: What is truth ? Take your pick.
On 12/19/2012 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Dec 2012, at 17:50, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I may have to disagree with you, possibly because no one arithmetic statement is the whole truth. And comp needs a whole set of equations, no one of which is the whole truth. But I think that EVERYTHING comes from the One, even untruth. Necessary truth is just a subset I think. So is contingent truth. Dear Roger, I see the ONE as a superposition of Nothing and Everything... The Many is the classical case. /evil grin Necessary truths are the only kind that can be known, So weird. Bruno they are conditional to context. Absence the specifiably of context even properties vanish and truths with them. -- Onward! Stephen Dear Bruno, Necessary truths are the only kind that can be known, they are conditional to context. How is this weird? I think that the process philosophy seems very strange and distorted to you. -- 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
On 17 Dec 2012, at 12:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying intentionality on the part of the entity. omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing. and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/ person who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist. If comp is correct, we already know how to create such a simulation. We just have to run the universal dovetailer for a long enough time. We might soon have the computational resources to do it, with quantum computers. That wouldn't make us gods: - No omnipotence: He have absolutely no control, we are simulating *everything* - No omniscience: We wouldn't even be able to understand the macro levels of such universes. Decoding the output of the machine is a problem many orders of magnitude greater than building the machine - possibly requiring inimaginable computational power - No omnipresence: we would not be part of the computation in any meaningful way We have already the technology to run a UD, and I have actually run one, in LISP, for a week, in 1991. No improvement in technology can genuinely accelerate it, even quantum computation. A quantum UD is of no use, but this does not mean that the quantum dovetailing, which is already emulated by the additive and multiplicative structure of the natural numbers, might not be the winner for the battle measure. All this is testable. Bruno -- 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.
How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett right after all ?
Hi Telmo, I accidentally sent the previous email before I was done, sorry. Please consider this more complete version of the intended whole: Hi Telmo, Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, probably were constructed simply by monitoring sensory MRI signals just as one might from a video camera, and displaying them as a raster pattern, artificially converting the time voltage signal into a timespace signal. Perception of the moving image from a given perspective by the brain might take place in the following way : 1) FIRSTNESS (The eye). The initial operation in processing the raw optical signal is reception of the sensory signal. This is necessarily done by a monad (you or me), because only monads see the world from a given perspective. This is not a visual display, only a complex sensory signal. 2) SECONDNESS (the hippocampus ? the cerebellum? ). The next stage is intelligent processing of the optical signal and into a useable expreswion of the visual image. (From the monadology, we find that each monad (you or me) does not perceive the world directly, but is given such a perception by the supreme monad (the One, or God). This supreme monad contains the ability to intelligently construct the visual image from the optical nerve signal) 3) THIRDNESS (cerebrum ?) Knowing this visual expresson by the individual monad according to its individual perspective. This perspective is somehow coordinated with motor muscles (left/right, etc.), but I question that this is an actual 2D or 3D display, such as in the videoclips. (The videoclips are another matter as they are artificialy constructed.) If there is an actual or simulated display then we are faced with Dennett's problem: the infinite regress of spectators, spectators of spectator, etc. But if there is no display, we do not need an observer self, and are possibly ending up with Michael Dennett's materialist concept of the self. This might be called epi-phenominalism. The self is simply an expression of the brain. I do not at present know the answer. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: Roger Clough Time: 2012-12-19, 07:45:31 Subject: On those remarkable videoclips of visual perception Hi Telmo, Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, might have beer constructed simply by monitoring, just as one might from a video camera, the MRI signals in the optical nerve as a function of time, and displaying them as a raster pattern, which turns the time voltage signal artificially into a timespace signal. Obviously the brain achieves the same result, but I find it hard to believe that it convergts the time signal into a timespace signal using a raster pattern display. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 10:53:11 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. Hi Telmo Menezes Thank you so much ! What an achievement ! Hard to believe. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 03:34:31 Subject: Re: Re: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. Hi Roger, Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=nsjDnYxJ0bo On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes ? It would be good if they showed a video clip. ? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen ? - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 11:12:16 Subject: Re: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. Hi again Roger, It's a bit better than that. A machine learning algorithm is trained to decode neural activation signals. The training is performed by showing the subject known images, and letting the algorithm learn how their neural activity maps to these images. The real magic happens when you show them new stuff, that the algorithm wasn't trained for. To me, the most impressive stuff here is when it fails. If you pay attention to the videos, you will see the algorithm decoding different (but similar images) from what the one being shown to the subject. For example, when faces are shown, different faces are decoded and then start correcting. My speculation is that we are actually seing visual memories conjured by the brain in its pattern matching attempts. My favorite is the ink blot exploding, where you can see the brain anticipating the explosion, so you get to
Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
Hi Roger, On 17 Dec 2012, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to proof or theory . As a scientist, all I have to do is to weigh myself and report that to you. Data, in my book at least, always rules over theory and assumptions. But data are already in part the result of theoretical constructions, with millions years old prewired theories in our Darwinian brain. Data are very important, but theories too. We are ourselves sort of natural hypotheses. We are data and theories ourselves, I would say, and the frontier between what is data and what is not is fuzzy, and quasi relative. This has to be so from pure theoretical computer science. I can explain more if you want, but this will be apparent in some explanations I intend to send (asap, but not so soon) on the FOAR list. Keep also in mind the dream argument which explains that we cannot be sure if any data is a genuine data. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 09:59:56 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I probably agree, but what is the primitive physical universe ? Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity). A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose existence, or appearance, is explained in a theory which does not assume it. My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical universe cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers dreams (computation seen from the 1p view). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist as if they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- 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
Re: Re: Re: promoting REASON
Hi Craig Weinberg The difference between corporations and the govt is that corps have to make a profit or they fail. Govt never fails. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 11:54:11 Subject: Re: Re: promoting REASON On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:34:14 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Party politics will soon end. The two parties of the future (next year if even that) will be (a) those who want to cut the debt and (b) those who don't. That's what's happened to much of europe. Eh, even that will be a lie. I would assume that party politics will continue in a less overt way is all. Oligarchy re-branded. As far as the pipe dream of increasing individual liberty by reducing the power of government, can't you see that unconstitutional Corporate Feudalism will fill the vacuum before you can say Habeus Corpus? You think that Monsanto is going to give you a constitution? Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahah. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 19:08:17 Subject: Re: promoting REASON On Monday, December 17, 2012 5:57:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 3:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Now that I know that Conservatism is based on preserving the value of fear, it makes sense that the arguments tend to jump unexplainably from hey, why is that one guy hogging all of the money? to The only alternative is 'everyone will die'. If we weren't afraid of dying in mass graves, what would be a more sensible way of governing a prosperous state? Dear Craig, At some point I hope that you will understand that I am not promoting a brand of politics. I am promoting REASON, that with makes us Sapient, not that which makes us D. or R. or L. or G. or whatever other brand of politic one might happen to like. I don't doubt that, and in theory I welcome Conservative views, except that in reality I'm not able to see the reasonable part of them. Preserving the value of fear. Well, umm, yes. Being able to track what is truly scary (will kill you if given a chance) and being able to ignore the not-so-scary (might kill you if you bother it), seems to give a evolutionary advantage. Consider an evolutionary toy ecosystem. If we introduce a mutation that makes all stimuli scary or makes stimuli scary by some random amount, what happens to average survival? Predictability of actions would be degraded, this implies a detrimental effect on survival. How will you find food in a randomly or super scary world? But the position the US is in now, of being the only global superpower with a larger military than at least the next ten put together puts fear at the bottom of the list of important considerations. We should be looking at how making the US quality of life the envy of the world, not making into a prison. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/_wNgkrj-t90J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iWsEvCRHQyoJ. 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: promoting REASON
Hi Craig Weinberg Conservatives don't want NO govt. They want minimal govt. It's the far left (the occupy movement, who are anarchists) that want no govt. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 14:43:58 Subject: Re: promoting REASON On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:30:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/18/2012 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/18/2012 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:34:14 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Party politics will soon end. The two parties of the future (next year if even that) will be (a) those who want to cut the debt and (b) those who don't. That's what's happened to much of europe. Eh, even that will be a lie. I would assume that party politics will continue in a less overt way is all. Oligarchy re-branded. And what changed? Haves v. have nots will fight forever until max entropy is reached. Meanwhile I need to house, clothe and feed myself and my children. As far as the pipe dream of increasing individual liberty by reducing the power of government, can't you see that unconstitutional Corporate Feudalism will fill the vacuum before you can say Habeus Corpus? You think that Monsanto is going to give you a constitution? Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahah. Craig Monsanto, et al do not have a monopoly on the legal use of force so their ability to affect your rights is not beyond appeal. You have to realize though that the only reason that there is a such thing as an illegal use of force is because of the government. The only appeal that we have to corporate abuse is to a higher authority: government (in theory). When the government tells you to do something, you are forced to comply, ultimately at the point of a gun and you cannot shoot back legally. The government has no particular reason to tell me to do something unless lobbied by a corporation. I don't feat the government monitoring my Facebook or this list - I fear my employers or potential future employers. What does the federal government care what I say? Can we be done with this? Sure, I'm easy. I'll talk about any topic you want. Craig Dear Craig, Yas' just notta gonna let go, ar ya?! s Government, in its actions, always good? Yes or No. If yes, please demonstrate. No. Who thinks that the government in its actions is always good? Although Conservatives seem to feel that what police and military parts of the government is good. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/Uuz_VOkS9tYJ. 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Craig Weinberg What is wrong with making profits ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:40:35 Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:02:12 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies worldwide, etc. Hi Craig, Could explain how it is that it is possible to proportionally benefit from public resources? Are you saying that resources are the natural property of the State and not of those willing to do the investment of time and labor to exploit them? In a democracy, they are the natural property of the taxpayers who pay for their construction and maintenance. The Port of Los Angeles is not the property of Onassis Shipping or whatever. If they are making hand over fist and bring in a dozen more tankers a week - who pays for the extra staffing of that? Who pays for the construction on the port to be upgraded. This is how corporations remain so profitable - privatize profit and socialize cost. By my logic, if the taxes of the public where taken from individual people, then the public resources belong proportionately to those individuals that paid the taxes. This means that if Fred paid more taxes than Albert then the public resources belong that much more to Fred than Albert. Simple math... How do you calculate benefit? It's easy to calculate benefit - you look at the books. You see how much more money a corporation is making and how much more costs are incurred by the government to underwrite that volume of gains. I don't understand the collectivization of people into equivalence classes. Numbers are equivalence classes, not people! I am trying to understand your thesis, not saying your wrong. ;-) I'm open to being wrong, I just need to be pointed in the direction of a reason why that might be the case. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/fGZL2V5pd3EJ. 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: What is truth ? Take your pick.
On 17 Dec 2012, at 19:18, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Dear Roger and Stephen, Cowboy epistemology on truth are underestimated. Much simpler than all this heavy stuff. From a fellow guitar cowboy that many will know: When the sun came up this morning I took the time to watch it rise. As its beauty struck the darkness from the skies. I thought how small and unimportant all my troubles seem to be, and how lucky another day belongs to me. And as the sleepy world around me woke up to greet the day, and all its silent beauty seemed to say: So what, my friend, if all your dreams you haven't realized. Look around, you got a whole new day to try. Today is mine, today is mine, to do with what I will. Today is mine. My own special cup to fill. To die a little that I might learn to live. And take from life that I might learn to give. With all men I curse the present that seems void of peace of mind, and race my thoughts beyond tomorrow and vision there more peace of mind. But when I view the day around me I can see the fool I've been. For today is the only garden we can tend. Nice! Bruno --- I don't need superpositions of Nothing and Everything, there is no salami in the wild, no bounded context either, I may be indeterminate, but just give me another day to try :) Cowboy On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I may have to disagree with you, possibly because no one arithmetic statement is the whole truth. And comp needs a whole set of equations, no one of which is the whole truth. But I think that EVERYTHING comes from the One, even untruth. Necessary truth is just a subset I think. So is contingent truth. Dear Roger, I see the ONE as a superposition of Nothing and Everything... The Many is the classical case. /evil grin Necessary truths are the only kind that can be known, they are conditional to context. Absence the specifiably of context even properties vanish and truths with 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 . 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.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 17 Dec 2012, at 19:28, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I thought it was the product of two quaternions that is non- commutative Yes, multiplication is non-commutative for quaternions and that its primary feature is handling rotations in 3d space. I don't know what you mean by primary feature but quaternions can be used for handling rotations in 3d space. That's correct. They are more efficient and natural to use than the usual linear rotations matrices. The applications in video-games has been improved a lot, strikingly for the amateur once the quaternions have been used. And that is true for the virtual, video-game- rotations, but also for the rotations of real satellites in space. The octonions get eventually applications around quantum gravity. Bruno 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.
Re: Re: On Income Fairness in the USA and the world
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:33:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Hal Ruhl So whbat ? Those gini coefficnets are in percentages, so USA has a gini about 27 %, which is outstanding. If you don't that, see from the wikimedia map (below) that the USA gini coeff. is about about average in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filt/Sandbox Sorry, you have to go to that page to find what the colors mean. The pink color indicates that USA is smack dab in the middle of the gini coefficients. No, smack dab in the middle of the 9 colors would be light orange - places like Iran and Turkey. Yellow countries like India and Khazakstan are doing better than that. We are down below average, in the D- range with China, Mexico, and Peru. Can you imagine how many dirt poor peasants there are in China or Mexico or Peru and how many abandoned ex-Middle Class suckers it takes to make the US that shade of pink? It's grotesque. Think of how many hundreds of millions of dollars in spare change that those at the top have to convince people like you that giving them more and more of your money is the only political solution. It's not helping your case any btw Roger that you keep trying to pull dead rabbits out of this hat. Turn it right side up and face the music. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Hal Ruhl Receiver: Everything List Time: 2012-12-18, 16:15:31 Subject: Re: On Income Fairness in the USA and the world Hi Roger: Try this and sort by wealth Gini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth Hal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@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/-/D4b3SJi4i1kJ. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
Hi Craig, As to promoting life, the slogan of the Progressives could be stated thusly: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow ye die ! [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 13:25:13 Subject: Re: Progressives and social darwinism On 12/18/2012 12:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: The difference is that the Conservatives knowingly promote fear and intolerance while the Progressives at least believe in a life-affirming agenda. Craig, Please look at this statement again. It is false on so many levels it hurts me to read it. Can we please stop the bickering? This entire exchange is just a good example of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH1PPIUsVsU -- 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: Re: promoting REASON
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:54:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg The difference between corporations and the govt is that corps have to make a profit or they fail. Govt never fails. Governments fail all of the time. The idea of American democracy was to factor that in and create a system which is fault tolerant, highly available, and distributively redundant (to borrow the jargon of my field). You have to understand that corporations exist because governments do all of the heavy lifting for them free of charge. It educates workers, maintains law, enforces contracts, maintains roads, ports, electric grid, etc... Without that immense organization underwriting business, corporations are nothing but cartels vying for absolute monopoly for various commodities. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-18, 11:54:11 *Subject:* Re: Re: promoting REASON On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:34:14 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Party politics will soon end. The two parties of the future (next year if even that) will be (a) those who want to cut the debt and (b) those who don't. That's what's happened to much of europe. Eh, even that will be a lie. I would assume that party politics will continue in a less overt way is all. Oligarchy re-branded. As far as the pipe dream of increasing individual liberty by reducing the power of government, can't you see that unconstitutional Corporate Feudalism will fill the vacuum before you can say Habeus Corpus? You think that Monsanto is going to give you a constitution? Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahah. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 19:08:17 Subject: Re: promoting REASON On Monday, December 17, 2012 5:57:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 3:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Now that I know that Conservatism is based on preserving the value of fear, it makes sense that the arguments tend to jump unexplainably from hey, why is that one guy hogging all of the money? to The only alternative is 'everyone will die'. If we weren't afraid of dying in mass graves, what would be a more sensible way of governing a prosperous state? Dear Craig, At some point I hope that you will understand that I am not promoting a brand of politics. I am promoting REASON, that with makes us Sapient, not that which makes us D. or R. or L. or G. or whatever other brand of politic one might happen to like. I don't doubt that, and in theory I welcome Conservative views, except that in reality I'm not able to see the reasonable part of them. Preserving the value of fear. Well, umm, yes. Being able to track what is truly scary (will kill you if given a chance) and being able to ignore the not-so-scary (might kill you if you bother it), seems to give a evolutionary advantage. Consider an evolutionary toy ecosystem. If we introduce a mutation that makes all stimuli scary or makes stimuli scary by some random amount, what happens to average survival? Predictability of actions would be degraded, this implies a detrimental effect on survival. How will you find food in a randomly or super scary world? But the position the US is in now, of being the only global superpower with a larger military than at least the next ten put together puts fear at the bottom of the list of important considerations. We should be looking at how making the US quality of life the envy of the world, not making into a prison. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/_wNgkrj-t90J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iWsEvCRHQyoJ. 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
Re: Men don't get no respect these days
Hi Roger, On 17 Dec 2012, at 19:34, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes By killing the father, I meant belittling the male, but come to think of it, I don't recall seeing anything direct except in the ads and how men were treated on the screen. But it's been achieved. And indeed, there have been many atrocities committed in God's name. But they really din't fear God-- because murder is forbidden in any religion I can think of. Religion doesn't make the USA better because most of our religion is just church-going-- social Christianity. I would prefer, if possible, that another does not harm me, not because he fear god, but because he is a good guy. Or perhaps he suspects himself to be me and naturally avoids the unnecessary harm. It is enough to fear the Devil, for God sake. For the Neoplatonist, God is good, by definition. You can't really fear the good. No? Or perhaps you are or feel guilty? Even in that case I would think that it is better to fear the Devil than God. But to be honest, I am sure of nothing, on this plane, and I am perhaps extending a bit wildly the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus on the Enneads not yet treated arithmetically. (= in layman term, I have not interviewed the LUM on this). Yet, to fear God seems to me almost like a contradiction. God is truth, and I can imagine a reasonable amount of reasonable fears, but for the neoplatonist God is good, also, and it is more the departure from truth which are to be feared, in the limit. It is the departure from truth which might make truth looking frightening, after sometimes, but that's what the Devil will exploited. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:12:39 Subject: Re: Men don't get no respect these days Hi Roger, Lakoff is correct about conservatism and the father. It is not a pathology, however, to爎espect your 爌arents, Agreed. � and respect is a mixture of love and fear. For me respect is a mixture of love and admiration, which are things that have to be earned. I loved and admired my father. I never feared him. To fear him I would have to believe that he was willing to harm me, and that would probably interfere with the love/ admiration part. My mother is a catholic and my father was agnostic. He agreed to put me through religious school and remain neutral on the entire thing. Up to one day when I was a little kid and couldn't sleep because I was afraid of going to hell. He told me: don't worry, that god they are telling you about doesn't exist. It was the biggest relief in my life. Religion tried to instill fear into me, when I was a little kid and psychologically vulnerable. My father taught me how to be a decent human being, no strings attached. Guess who I still love these days? � That's one of the ten commandments. � And if people feared God more, incidents like the mass murders in CT would be much fewer. God should be returned to the classroom. It doesn't have to be the Christian God. Let's not even discuss the mountain of atrocities that were committed in God's name. A recent one: 9/11. The USA (a country I greatly admire for its many achievements, including its constitution) is currently the least secular country in the western world. Yet it's the only place where this stuff is happening. How come? Here in godless Europe we have the lowest levels of church attendance ever, legalised prostitution, gay marriage, decriminalised drugs and it's ok to show female breasts on TV. Yet none of that stuff is happening here. The only similar event we had was爌erpetrated燽y a god fearing hard-core conservative. � � The Women's Movement has unfortunately killed the father in their understable desire for wage equality etc. I had a great father. Many of my childhood friends did too, and then became fathers themselves, and they seem to be doing well. What do you mean exactly? � I challenge you to find one ad on TV or radio that does not feature a man as other than a fool. � � And the death of the father has turned progressives into anarchists. The death of the father is the deathy of morality. It's the main problem with society today. By objective metrics measuring violence, society nowadays is the best it ever was. The likelihood of you being the victim of a violent crime is the lowest ever. Mainstream media blows things out of proportion, that's all. Best, Telmo. � � � [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen � - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 01:02:40 Subject: Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:15:28 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012
Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi meekerdb But while the gini index increases linearly with time, the individual wealth of each american (at least before Obama) increases exponentially with time. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 14:23:12 Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg More liberal misrepresentation of the truth. The gini for the USA is about average for the world. But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND it's been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected. 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: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). 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: Men don't get no respect these days
On 17 Dec 2012, at 19:36, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I had been talking about fear of God, but fear of the law (meaning fear of diobeying the law) helps keep our streets safer. Only the laws coherent with a (reasonable) constitution. Again, no reason to fear them, as they protect you and your freedom. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 11:59:08 Subject: Re: Men don't get no respect these days On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:41:13 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Wrong! Fear of those things that will kill you is healthy. This is why pain exists. Then we should promote a crippling fear of fast food and a stressful, sedentary lifestyle. It is important to be able to pay attention to what is dangerous and to be able to act responsibly toward it, but there's no reason to ornament it with any sentiment or patriotism. I have no problem avoiding things that can kill me without nurturing fears about them. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/BkUwC4NnjGgJ . 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, 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: Question: Robotic truth
Hi Alberto, Don't forget that mirror neurons in our brains tends to make us copy cats. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 18:07:11 Subject: Re: Question: Robotic truth I don't know what you're replying - it doesn't seem to have any connection to what I wrote. Where did I would devote myself to eveluating what's true. Where did I say anything about solipism. You asked how to program a robot to evaluate what's true in interaction with other self-interested robots, and I gave an outline of it. Are you now changing the problem, saying that I cannot program my robot to learn from its interactions - that it must have a fixed evaluation critereon from the very beginning? On 12/18/2012 2:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: But you can not devote yourself to evaluate truth A solipsist robot is a dead robot. an exceptic robot is a almost dead robot. The other robots will not collaborate with a robot that spend so much time and is unreliable for collaboration. other robots will break the robot apart while it is evaluating the certainty of the first truth.. Your truths must be operational from the first moment in order to create plans for coordination with other robots. You as programmer know that your robot will be involved in circles, some of them very intimate What does 'intimate' mean in this context? others not so intimate. The game to play is survival, not accuracy. You wrote, If true it is hold in the list of true statements. If not, it is rejected. The true statements will be used for the elaboration of social behaviours intended to obtain pieces and to maintain the group of collaborators, the fabrication, ownership, and maybe robbery of new pieces for the future. I assumed that you meant If it is assessed as true it is held... Surely you didn't mean the the true was known with certainty - by magic? Then your implication is that these true statements with be used to enhance survival. But of course knowing true things is not the same as saying true things to enhance your survival. Knowing what's true can help you lie effectively too. But it is still advantageous in general to know what is true in order to predict the outcome of contemplated actions. Brent 2012/12/18 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/18/2012 8:05 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Suppose that you are in charge of the software of a social robot. I mean a robot that live with other robots that collaborate to solve problems. These robots must repair themselves, with pieces that are located in the field. these pieces are scarce or they are not for free, and some groups of robots want your own pieces for them, so finally the robots arrange themselves in groups of collaborators that try to fabricate pieces and protect them from the attacks of other groups. Things become more complicated, since, for better defense and/or fabrication and/or attack the groups become bigger, and some subgroups are formed iinside, in order to have privileged access to valuable pieces in detriment of the other members of the big group. At a point in the programing, you have to deal with comunication of each robot with the fellow robots. As a result of this comunication, you must evaluate if what is communicated to you is true of false. If true it is hold in the list of true statements. If not, it is rejected. The true statements will be used for the elaboration of social behaviours intended to obtain pieces and to maintain the group of collaborators, the fabrication, ownership, and maybe robbery of new pieces for the future. Or else, the group will die, the robot will die and its lists of truths too. Since you know that finally the social robots will end in arrangements of collaborators in the way I described above, T How would you design the evaluator iof true and false statements.? An interesting and complex problem. You wouldn't just evaluate some as 'true' and discard the others. You'd keep all (or at least many) of them and assign them degrees of credence according to criterea like: Who said it? Has he been truthful before? Who would belief in the statement help or hurt? How does it comport with other statements? Can I check any part of it independently?... 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. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Re: The pro-life paradox
Hi Alberto G. Corona And as the Bible says, the wages of sin is death. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 07:04:11 Subject: Re: The pro-life paradox Dear Bruno, Excuse if i don? address your question. I define good as that which enhances life and evil as that which diminishes it That is also my definition. Going a step further, good is tautological and absolute, in the same way that is evil: ?hat is good lives, What is evil, perishes, The evil may recover itself from past defeats by ever recreating itself in new forms. The good stay and get transmitted from generation to generation by our genes and our memes. So it is in our nous, accessible to everyone. 2012/12/19 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 17 Dec 2012, at 17:49, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King ? I define good as that which enhances life and evil as that which diminishes it. Is pro-life activism enhancing life or diminishing life? Some pro-life doctor are against euthanasia, even passive euthanasia, with the result that they transform dying patient into machines. But most of them are naive believer, and as such, they disbelieve comp, and so their pro-life activity begins to be contradictory. The question is: ?oes an artificial, or even virtual body, enhance life or suppress life? Bruno ? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen ? - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 14:31:22 Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows On 12/16/2012 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do bad things and then say that they are good. Hi Craig, ?? To me it boils down to a willingness to be objective. If one defines a standard of measure of good and bad, then one must apply it consistently. Otherwise there is no such thing as good' or 'bad. Tribalism comes with a shiftable measure of good and bad (stealing from non-members of the tribe is OK, stealing from tribe members is bad, for example), this makes tribalism bad, IMHO, not matter what kind of tribalism it is! -- 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Roger, Show me the exponential data. Richard On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb But while the gini index increases linearly with time, the individual wealth of each american (at least before Obama) increases exponentially with time. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 14:23:12 Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg More liberal misrepresentation of the truth. The gini for the USA is about average for the world. But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND it's been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected. 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. -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
The holographic information capacity of the universe is 10^120, known as the Lloyd limit. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). 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. -- 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 pro-life paradox
Hi Bruno Marchal Anything pro life saves life so is good. Euthanasia destroys life so is bad. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 05:43:16 Subject: The pro-life paradox On 17 Dec 2012, at 17:49, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I define good as that which enhances life and evil as that which diminishes it. Is pro-life activism enhancing life or diminishing life? Some pro-life doctor are against euthanasia, even passive euthanasia, with the result that they transform dying patient into machines. But most of them are naive believer, and as such, they disbelieve comp, and so their pro-life activity begins to be contradictory. The question is: does an artificial, or even virtual body, enhance life or suppress life? Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 14:31:22 Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows On 12/16/2012 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do bad things and then say that they are good. Hi Craig, To me it boils down to a willingness to be objective. If one defines a standard of measure of good and bad, then one must apply it consistently. Otherwise there is no such thing as good' or 'bad. Tribalism comes with a shiftable measure of good and bad (stealing from non-members of the tribe is OK, stealing from tribe members is bad, for example), this makes tribalism bad, IMHO, not matter what kind of tribalism it is! -- 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.
Re: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
Hi Bruno Marchal You can write a chemical equation (theoretically) that will not work in the real world.. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 09:49:53 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe Hi Roger, On 17 Dec 2012, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to proof or theory . As a scientist, all I have to do is to weigh myself and report that to you. Data, in my book at least, always rules over theory and assumptions. But data are already in part the result of theoretical constructions, with millions years old prewired theories in our Darwinian brain. Data are very important, but theories too. We are ourselves sort of natural hypotheses. We are data and theories ourselves, I would say, and the frontier between what is data and what is not is fuzzy, and quasi relative. This has to be so from pure theoretical computer science. I can explain more if you want, but this will be apparent in some explanations I intend to send (asap, but not so soon) on the FOAR list. Keep also in mind the dream argument which explains that we cannot be sure if any data is a genuine data. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 09:59:56 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I probably agree, but what is the primitive physical universe ? Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity). A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose existence, or appearance, is explained in a theory which does not assume it. My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical universe cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers dreams (computation seen from the 1p view). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist as if they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- Onward! Stephen
Re: Are monads tokens ?
On 17 Dec 2012, at 19:46, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg No, the monads are (inextended) tokens of corporeal (extended) bodies of one part. But in comp, tokens are simple (nonreductive), ie contain no parts, while types such as are used in Functionalism, has parts on both ends. So comp. which uses tokens, is not functionalist. It is. that is why you can replace the number by the combinators or by the game-of-life patterns, or by quantum topology, etc. A monad contains a many-parts (functionalistic) description of a corporeal body of one part, which is therefore nonreductive. Not sure of this globally, despite locally plausible. So it is like a type on one end and a token on the other. I sum up one comp by no token, only type. The only token we need are a mechanically enumerable set of expressions together with some rules or laws making them Turing universal. Examples, the numbers with the * and + laws, the game of life patterns with the game-of-life law, the combinators with the K and S reduction law, etc. With this you have the phi_i and the W_i, and the 'block mindscape', or spirit scape if you prefer. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 10:38:14 Subject: Re: Are monads tokens ? On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:36:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Are monads tokens ? I'm going to say yes, because each monad refers to a corporeal body as a whole (so it is nonreductive at the physical end) even though each monad, being specific about what it refers to, identifies the type of object it refers to. Monads are self-tokenizing tokenizers but not actually tokens (tokens of what? other Monads?). Tokens don't 'exist', they are figures of computation, which is semiosis, a sensory-motive experience within the cognitive symbolic ranges of awareness. Craig Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 08:17:27 Subject: Davidson on truth Donald Davidson on truth I don't think you can do any better on understanding truth than studying Donald Davidson. As I understand him, in 1) he justifies comp (the use of tokens, because they are nonreductive) as long as we allow for (a) mental causation of physical events; (b) that there is a strict exceptionless relation (iff) between the events; (c) that we use tokens and not types to relate mental to physical events 2) He narrows down what form of language can be used. Not sure but this seems to allow only finite, learnable context-free expressions only 3) He clarifies the meaning and use of 1p vs 3p. Observed that Hume accepted only 1p knowledege, the logical positivists accepted only 3p knowledge, where 1p is knowledge by acquaintance and 3p is knowledge by description. I might add that IMHO 1p is Kierkegaard's view that truth is subjective, so K is close to Hume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Davidson_%28philosopher%29#Mental_events 1. Token Mental events ( A justification of token physicalism: these being comp and purely token functionalism) In Mental Events (1970) Davidson advanced a form of token identity theory about the mind: token mental events are identical to token physical events. One previous difficulty with such a view was that it did not seem feasible to provide laws relating mental states―for example, believing that the sky is blue, or wanting a hamburger―to physical states, such as patterns of neural activity in the brain. Davidson argued that such a reduction would not be necessary to a token identity thesis: it is possible that each individual mental event just is the corresponding physical event, without there being laws relating types (as opposed to tokens) of mental events to types of physical events. But, Davidson argued, the fact that we could not have such a reduction does not entail that the mind is anything more than the brain. Hence, Davidson called his position anomalous monism: monism, because it claims that only one thing is at issue in questions of mental and physical events; anomalous (from a-, not, and omalos, regular) because mental and physical event types could not be connected by strict laws (laws without exceptions). Davidson argued that anomalous monism follows from three plausible theses. First, he assumes the denial of epiphenomenalism―that is, the denial of the view that mental events do not cause physical events. Second, he assumes a nomological view of causation, according to which one event causes another if (and only if) there is a strict, exceptionless law governing the relation between the events. Third, he assumes the
Re: Re: Men don't get no respect these days
Hi Bruno Marchal That's right. One can refrain from sinning because of love of God rather than fear of Hell. I sometimes try to do that when I don't feel that guilty personally. It's just like you would be moral because that's what your parents want you to be. It's the right thing to do. not be moral because you fear they'll punish you. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 11:25:07 Subject: Re: Men don't get no respect these days Hi Roger, On 17 Dec 2012, at 19:34, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes By killing the father, I meant belittling the male, but come to think of it, I don't recall seeing anything direct except in the ads and how men were treated on the screen. But it's been achieved. And indeed, there have been many atrocities committed in God's name. But they really din't fear God-- because murder is forbidden in any religion I can think of. Religion doesn't make the USA better because most of our religion is just church-going-- social Christianity. I would prefer, if possible, that another does not harm me, not because he fear god, but because he is a good guy. Or perhaps he suspects himself to be me and naturally avoids the unnecessary harm. It is enough to fear the Devil, for God sake. For the Neoplatonist, God is good, by definition. You can't really fear the good. No? Or perhaps you are or feel guilty? Even in that case I would think that it is better to fear the Devil than God. But to be honest, I am sure of nothing, on this plane, and I am perhaps extending a bit wildly the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus on the Enneads not yet treated arithmetically. (= in layman term, I have not interviewed the LUM on this). Yet, to fear God seems to me almost like a contradiction. God is truth, and I can imagine a reasonable amount of reasonable fears, but for the neoplatonist God is good, also, and it is more the departure from truth which are to be feared, in the limit. It is the departure from truth which might make truth looking frightening, after sometimes, but that's what the Devil will exploited. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:12:39 Subject: Re: Men don't get no respect these days Hi Roger, Lakoff is correct about conservatism and the father. It is not a pathology, however, to?espect your ?arents, Agreed. and respect is a mixture of love and fear. For me respect is a mixture of love and admiration, which are things that have to be earned. I loved and admired my father. I never feared him. To fear him I would have to believe that he was willing to harm me, and that would probably interfere with the love/admiration part. My mother is a catholic and my father was agnostic. He agreed to put me through religious school and remain neutral on the entire thing. Up to one day when I was a little kid and couldn't sleep because I was afraid of going to hell. He told me: don't worry, that god they are telling you about doesn't exist. It was the biggest relief in my life. Religion tried to instill fear into me, when I was a little kid and psychologically vulnerable. My father taught me how to be a decent human being, no strings attached. Guess who I still love these days? That's one of the ten commandments. And if people feared God more, incidents like the mass murders in CT would be much fewer. God should be returned to the classroom. It doesn't have to be the Christian God. Let's not even discuss the mountain of atrocities that were committed in God's name. A recent one: 9/11. The USA (a country I greatly admire for its many achievements, including its constitution) is currently the least secular country in the western world. Yet it's the only place where this stuff is happening. How come? Here in godless Europe we have the lowest levels of church attendance ever, legalised prostitution, gay marriage, decriminalised drugs and it's ok to show female breasts on TV. Yet none of that stuff is happening here. The only similar event we had was?erpetrated?y a god fearing hard-core conservative. The Women's Movement has unfortunately killed the father in their understable desire for wage equality etc. I had a great father. Many of my childhood friends did too, and then became fathers themselves, and they seem to be doing well. What do you mean exactly? I challenge you to find one ad on TV or radio that does not feature a man as other than a fool. And the death of the father has turned progressives into anarchists. The death of the father is the deathy of morality. It's the main problem with society today. By objective metrics
Re: Austerity
On 17 Dec 2012, at 19:53, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb If simply raising taxes could kill a national debt, why does Europe still have debt problems ? In old democracies, raised money can be used to hide the problems instead of solving it. Not just in Europe. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 13:08:33 Subject: Re: Austerity On 12/17/2012 6:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Bankruptcy is the condition of owing more than you own. I think that in the position the US is in, Not even close. The reason other nations keep buying U.S. bonds at rates so low they are essentially below inflation is that they see that the U.S. has plenty of assets and by OECD measures is under taxed. They're not worried about the U.S. not paying off on those bonds because they see that the U.S. could easily raise taxes to pay for them. The 'debt crisis' is just an consequence of Reagonomics and 'trickle down'. When the very rich, and particularly those in the financial industry, are much happier when the government borrows money from them instead of taking it as taxes. So by lowering top tax rates and those on capital gains and estates and exempting carryovers, and at the same time ramping up government spending on Medicare and wars, revenue was shifted from taxes to borrowing. 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 . 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.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:04:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/18/2012 4:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:02:12 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies worldwide, etc. Hi Craig, Could explain how it is that it is possible to proportionally benefit from public resources? Are you saying that resources are the natural property of the State and not of those willing to do the investment of time and labor to exploit them? In a democracy, they are the natural property of the taxpayers who pay for their construction and maintenance. The Port of Los Angeles is not the property of Onassis Shipping or whatever. If they are making hand over fist and bring in a dozen more tankers a week - who pays for the extra staffing of that? Who pays for the construction on the port to be upgraded. This is how corporations remain so profitable - privatize profit and socialize cost. Hi Craig, We are getting somewhere, but we need to stop and define some terms so we don't just confuse things. What exactly is the definition of privatize profit and socialize cost that we can agree upon? Let's use a real life example instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat The 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état (18–27 June 1954) was the *CIA covert operation that deposed President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán (1950–54)*, with Operation PBSUCCESS — paramilitary invasion by an anti-Communist “army of liberation”. In the early 1950s, the politically liberal, elected Árbenz Government had effected the socio-economics of Decree 900 (27 June 1952), the national agrarian-reform expropriation, for peasant use and ownership, of unused prime-farmlands that Guatemalan and multinational corporations had set aside as reserved business assets. The Decree 900 land reform especially threatened the agricultural monopoly of the *United Fruit Company (UFC), the American multinational corporation that owned 42 per cent of the arable land of Guatemala*; which landholdings either had been *bought by, or been ceded to, the UFC by the military dictatorships who preceded the Árbenz Government of Guatemala.* Privatizing profits seems to mean, in the context of your frame, the funneling of profits into the pockets of a few persons, perhaps undeservedly. Socializing costs seems to imply the spreading of costs to arbitrary many people, perhaps undeservedly. It's not a concept which needs to be abstracted or generalized very much. In the above case, a corporate monopoly, benefits by profits based on the virtual slave labor of Guatemalan peasants under a military dictatorship. The giant corporation (renamed Chiquita) has friends in the CIA who use the power and wealth of the US to overthrow the democracy of Guatemala and restore the Banana Republic to its previous status as a corporate asset. The costs of this are obvious in terms of the resources of the US used to depose a foreign government, but then there are innumerable less obvious costs to the people of the US and around the world. Labor is held at artificially low costs to UFC, and the costs in financial and real terms of quality of life of real people are billed to the societies of Central America, the West, and the world at large. So the key idea, if my interpretation is correct, hinges on the definition of deservedly and its opposite, undeservedly. This seems to point to an idea of fairness that remains undefined. DO you care to define a canonical measure of fairness? You're trying to frame it into a 'social justice' talking point. A better frame is the obvious abuse of power. The reason you don't overthrow enslave people to make money on the bananas that grow in their country isn't because you don't deserve it, but because it is, how you say, the most evil thing that human beings can possibly do. It's like rounding up people who escaped Saddam's rape rooms and putting them back in there so you can keep raping them. When possible, atrocities should not be allowed to continue without trying to stop them. Is that unreasonable? Of course, this is not some isolated example. This is the template for much of US Foreign Policy, from Iran to Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. The corps are driving the bus, the gov is just the passenger with the credit card for the gas. By my logic, if the taxes of the public where taken from individual people, then the public resources belong proportionately to those individuals that paid the taxes. This means
Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind
On 17 Dec 2012, at 20:27, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Why just 8? I would have expected every possible person points pf view consistent with MWI. Richard There is 8 main types of points of view given by: Dear Bruno, p 1 Bp 2 Bp p 3 Bp Dt 4 Bp Dt p 5 I count 5. Where are 6, 7 and 8? Still sleeping near the heat system in the classrom :) 1 is divine 2 splits into G and G*. Thay split into a terrestrial person and a divine person. 3 is both terrestrial and divine (the soul does not split) 4 splits, 5 splits (there are really four material hypostases, but the quantum appears apparently only on the divine part of the person, which is normal with the infinite origin of matter, by the 1p-indeterminacy). Bruno, This sounds much more like a mind/body or a natural/supernatural or a terrestrial/divine two-world characterization than MWI. You recommended reading SD (salvia divinorum) case studies. I have not read all 1575 case studies available or all of Andrews book, but so far they all also seem to reinforce a two-world reality. Could you relate these 8 incarnations to a MWI multiverse for us/me? The multi-reality, with CTM, is the many computations. The computations are realized in arithmetic through the Sigma_1 sentences (Exdecidable-property (x, y)), together with their proofs (but this does not play a role at the propositional logical level). The 8 hypostases gives a computationalist general theory of a person or any machine in front of truth, and I model comp in the language of that machine by restricting p to the sigma_1 sentences. The 8 hypostases are just the logic of self-references and intensional variants: they are a theology, or a psychology concerning a person (in the simple case). The primary one: God, Intellect, Soul, and the secondary one, matter one and matter two. This gives 8, as the Intellect and the two matters splits into terrestrial and divine (where here terrestrial means provable by the machine and divine means true, in the structure (N,+, *)). The MW things is more in the arithmetic richness, around the computable and the non-computable. Comp leads to a many dreams interpretations of arithmetic. The sigma_1 sentences have the property that p - Bp, so their truth entails their provability, and it corresponds to the proof of the existence of machine relative states, always relatively to some other universal numbers, or relatively to the initial system (arithmetic). The sigma_1 complete arithmetical reality is a universal dovetailing. I think that if we are machine, it is absolutely undecidable to decide if ontologically there is anything more than that, as the inside view of this necessarily appears much more complex. Bruno 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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: promoting REASON
Hi Craig Weinberg OK, govts can finally fail, when the people find that they can legislate their own welfare. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 10:56:37 Subject: Re: Re: Re: promoting REASON On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:54:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg The difference between corporations and the govt is that corps have to make a profit or they fail. Govt never fails. Governments fail all of the time. The idea of American democracy was to factor that in and create a system which is fault tolerant, highly available, and distributively redundant (to borrow the jargon of my field). You have to understand that corporations exist because governments do all of the heavy lifting for them free of charge. It educates workers, maintains law, enforces contracts, maintains roads, ports, electric grid, etc... Without that immense organization underwriting business, corporations are nothing but cartels vying for absolute monopoly for various commodities. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 11:54:11 Subject: Re: Re: promoting REASON On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:34:14 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Party politics will soon end. The two parties of the future (next year if even that) will be (a) those who want to cut the debt and (b) those who don't. That's what's happened to much of europe. Eh, even that will be a lie. I would assume that party politics will continue in a less overt way is all. Oligarchy re-branded. As far as the pipe dream of increasing individual liberty by reducing the power of government, can't you see that unconstitutional Corporate Feudalism will fill the vacuum before you can say Habeus Corpus? You think that Monsanto is going to give you a constitution? Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahah. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 19:08:17 Subject: Re: promoting REASON On Monday, December 17, 2012 5:57:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 3:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Now that I know that Conservatism is based on preserving the value of fear, it makes sense that the arguments tend to jump unexplainably from hey, why is that one guy hogging all of the money? to The only alternative is 'everyone will die'. If we weren't afraid of dying in mass graves, what would be a more sensible way of governing a prosperous state? Dear Craig, At some point I hope that you will understand that I am not promoting a brand of politics. I am promoting REASON, that with makes us Sapient, not that which makes us D. or R. or L. or G. or whatever other brand of politic one might happen to like. I don't doubt that, and in theory I welcome Conservative views, except that in reality I'm not able to see the reasonable part of them. Preserving the value of fear. Well, umm, yes. Being able to track what is truly scary (will kill you if given a chance) and being able to ignore the not-so-scary (might kill you if you bother it), seems to give a evolutionary advantage. Consider an evolutionary toy ecosystem. If we introduce a mutation that makes all stimuli scary or makes stimuli scary by some random amount, what happens to average survival? Predictability of actions would be degraded, this implies a detrimental effect on survival. How will you find food in a randomly or super scary world? But the position the US is in now, of being the only global superpower with a larger military than at least the next ten put together puts fear at the bottom of the list of important considerations. We should be looking at how making the US quality of life the envy of the world, not making into a prison. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/_wNgkrj-t90J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit
Re: The quantity of information of the physical universe
On 12/19/2012 11:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. Dear Roger, You ask an interesting question, but there is no good theory to answer it exactly, AFAIK. I used a function of the particle number as a generic estimate of the quantity of bits involved, but we would have to look at the available states with a field theory of a correct quantum gravity theory, which we don't have yet. Since it appears from the latest observational evidence from ultra-high energy gamma ray arrival times that space-time is not granular, the number of possible information in our physical universe is freaking huge. Penrose estimates it to be 10^124. -- 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: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Richard Ruquist I already sent that out a few days ago, maybe even yesterday. curve follows log (inflation-adjusted personal income) vs time I think back perhaps a century or more. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 11:43:55 Subject: Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index Hi Roger, Show me the exponential data. Richard On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb But while the gini index increases linearly with time, the individual wealth of each american (at least before Obama) increases exponentially with time. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 14:23:12 Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg More liberal misrepresentation of the truth. The gini for the USA is about average for the world. But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND it's been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected. 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. -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
Hi Richard Ruquist That's the usual response, but why does information have to be associated with extended objects ? One could store such information mentally. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 11:47:55 Subject: Re: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object The holographic information capacity of the universe is 10^120, known as the Lloyd limit. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). 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. -- 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/19/2012 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:04:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/18/2012 4:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:02:12 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies worldwide, etc. Hi Craig, Could explain how it is that it is possible to proportionally benefit from public resources? Are you saying that resources are the natural property of the State and not of those willing to do the investment of time and labor to exploit them? In a democracy, they are the natural property of the taxpayers who pay for their construction and maintenance. The Port of Los Angeles is not the property of Onassis Shipping or whatever. If they are making hand over fist and bring in a dozen more tankers a week - who pays for the extra staffing of that? Who pays for the construction on the port to be upgraded. This is how corporations remain so profitable - privatize profit and socialize cost. Hi Craig, We are getting somewhere, but we need to stop and define some terms so we don't just confuse things. What exactly is the definition of privatize profit and socialize cost that we can agree upon? Let's use a real life example instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat The 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état (18–27 June 1954) was the *CIA covert operation that deposed President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán (1950–54)*, with Operation PBSUCCESS — paramilitary invasion by an anti-Communist “army of liberation”. In the early 1950s, the politically liberal, elected Árbenz Government had effected the socio-economics of Decree 900 (27 June 1952), the national agrarian-reform expropriation, for peasant use and ownership, of unused prime-farmlands that Guatemalan and multinational corporations had set aside as reserved business assets. The Decree 900 land reform especially threatened the agricultural monopoly of the *United Fruit Company (UFC), the American multinational corporation that owned 42 per cent of the arable land of Guatemala*; which landholdings either had been *bought by, or been ceded to, the UFC by the military dictatorships who preceded the Árbenz Government of Guatemala.* Privatizing profits seems to mean, in the context of your frame, the funneling of profits into the pockets of a few persons, perhaps undeservedly. Socializing costs seems to imply the spreading of costs to arbitrary many people, perhaps undeservedly. It's not a concept which needs to be abstracted or generalized very much. In the above case, a corporate monopoly, benefits by profits based on the virtual slave labor of Guatemalan peasants under a military dictatorship. The giant corporation (renamed Chiquita) has friends in the CIA who use the power and wealth of the US to overthrow the democracy of Guatemala and restore the Banana Republic to its previous status as a corporate asset. The costs of this are obvious in terms of the resources of the US used to depose a foreign government, but then there are innumerable less obvious costs to the people of the US and around the world. Labor is held at artificially low costs to UFC, and the costs in financial and real terms of quality of life of real people are billed to the societies of Central America, the West, and the world at large. Dear Craig, Would you agree that none of this activity would be possible without the intervention of and implicit involvement of government? The key point here is that only government has the legal right to use force. Corporations do not have that right unless allowed so by a government. My thesis is that governments are inherently dangerous because of their default monopoly on the *legal* use of force. Any use of force by an individual person, bussiness agent or corporate activity is illegitimate unless condoned by government. This, IMHO, obviates all a priori claims of of criminality against corporations and thus the argument by Progressives is shown to based on a false premise. So the key idea, if my interpretation is correct, hinges on the definition of deservedly and its opposite, undeservedly. This seems to point to an idea of fairness that remains undefined. DO you care to define a canonical measure of fairness? You're trying to frame it into a
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. But that can have some uses in natural language studies, but be misleading in the ideal case needed fro physics. In particular it is important to understand that PA + PA is inconsistent is a consistent theory. Indeed if from PA + PA is inconsistent you can get a contradiction in PA, then you have prove correctly, by absurdum, the consistency of PA in PA, violating the second incompleteness theorem. Dt - ~BDt is equivalent with Dt - DBf. Bruno Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. 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 . 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.
Re: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 6:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg The difference between corporations and the govt is that corps have to make a profit or they fail. Or they get the government to give them breaks because they're too big to fail. 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 6:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Conservatives don't want NO govt. They want minimal govt. I think you're confused; that's Libertarians. Conservatives always vote for more government control over individual behavior and more money for the military (that protects their world wide business interests). It's the far left (the occupy movement, who are anarchists) that want no govt. That's why I think there should be a left/libertarian alliance for personal liberty and limited government. 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: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:55, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/17/2012 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Is it possible to define a relative probability in the case where it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the members of the ensemble? Yes. relative probability is not necessarily a constructive notion. Dear Bruno, Is this not a confession that there is something fundamentally non-computable in the notion of a relative measure? I have always insisted on that non computability of the relative measure. Anyway, I start from comp and I deduce only (with some definitions). It is not like if we had any choice in the matter. I know about this from my study of the problem of the axiom of choice, but I would like to see your opinion on this. I don't do set theory. the axiom of choice is not needed. Not that I know of! If you know how, please explain this to me! Normally if you follow the UDA you might understand intuitively why the relative probability are a priori not constructive. So you can't use them in practice, but you still can use them to derive physics, notably because the case P = 1 can be handled at the proposition level through the logic of self-references (Bp Dt, p sigma_1). Was it not Penrose that was roundly criticized to claiming that there had to be something non-computable in physics? It seems that you might have proven his case! Indeed. Maudlin already, in psyche, shows that comp entails some conclusion by Penrose. Too bad Penrose derived then from non-comp. I go much further (faster!) and claim that this non-constructable aspect is the main reason why there cannot exist a pre-established harmony in the Laplacean sense of the universe. At first sight this is wrong for me, but you can try an argument. Comp assume arithmetic which can be seen as a pre-established harmony, but of course that term can get many other interpretations. 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.
Re: WHOOPS! e: Re: On Income Fairness (income equality) in the USA and the world
On 18 Dec 2012, at 00:01, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Whoops ! Big mistake. I had the gini index backwards. 1 means total inequality, not equality of income. So things are getting worse in america instead of better. And there's more equality of income in europe than here. Good to see people admitting when they make a mistake. The next step would be admitting that one has been out-argued, but I can't recall this ever happening in an online forum. It seems to me Roger did that some month ago, but perhaps in a sort of valse of hesitation. I have seen that elsewhere, but it is very rare indeed. A pity imo, as it is an honor to be defeated properly. Bruno 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.
Re: WHOOPS! e: Re: On Income Fairness (income equality) in the USA and the world
On 18 Dec 2012, at 00:02, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Whoops ! Big mistake. I had the gini index backwards. 1 means total inequality, not equality of income. So things are getting worse in america instead of better. And there's more equality of income in europe than here. Good to see people admitting when they make a mistake. The next step would be admitting that one has been out-argued, but I can't recall this ever happening in an online forum. As a further point, I'm not sure the recent political discussion is in keeping with the purpose of this list. I agree. Hope it is just a christmas, or end-of-the world (chose your religion), kind of temporary fantasy. Bruno 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.
Re: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 6:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg The difference between corporations and the govt is that corps have to make a profit or they fail. Or they get the government to give them breaks because they're too big to fail. Brent Hi Brent, What if the corps where allowed to fail on their own as market forces require? ISTM that corporations use government as a means to overcome normal market forces and thus are such a problem. Fundamentally, it is corruption within government is the main source of our problems. -- 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: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Then you can easily provide a link to that data On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I already sent that out a few days ago, maybe even yesterday. curve follows log (inflation-adjusted personal income) vs time I think back perhaps a century or more. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 11:43:55 Subject: Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index Hi Roger, Show me the exponential data. Richard On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb But while the gini index increases linearly with time, the individual wealth of each american (at least before Obama) increases exponentially with time. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 14:23:12 Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg More liberal misrepresentation of the truth. The gini for the USA is about average for the world. But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND it's been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected. 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. -- 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 1:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 6:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Conservatives don't want NO govt. They want minimal govt. I think you're confused; that's Libertarians. Conservatives always vote for more government control over individual behavior and more money for the military (that protects their world wide business interests). It's the far left (the occupy movement, who are anarchists) that want no govt. That's why I think there should be a left/libertarian alliance for personal liberty and limited government. Brent -- Hi Brent, I wish you where correct, but the facts tell us that the left is incapable of not seeing the State and thus government as its Deity and almighty benefactor. -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 18 Dec 2012, at 01:50, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/17/2012 4:31 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. Brent Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that incompleteness continue to all effective transfinite tower, on the constructive ordinals. 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.
Re: promoting REASON
2012/12/19 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 12/19/2012 1:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 6:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Conservatives don't want NO govt. They want minimal govt. I think you're confused; that's Libertarians. Conservatives always vote for more government control over individual behavior and more money for the military (that protects their world wide business interests). It's the far left (the occupy movement, who are anarchists) that want no govt. That's why I think there should be a left/libertarian alliance for personal liberty and limited government. Brent -- Hi Brent, I wish you where correct, but the facts tell us that the left is incapable of not seeing the State and thus government as its Deity and almighty benefactor. Yes and anarchism is not a left movement in your universe maybe... Also for Roger, please don't confuse anarchism with anomie. Quentin -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/19/2012 2:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... This is studied in recursion theory. Turing shows that incompleteness continue to all effective transfinite tower, on the constructive ordinals. Dear Bruno, Yes, but we can see relative completeness between neighboring levels of the tower, no? Statement in Theory A that cannot be proven in A can be proven to be true in theory B that includes and extends beyond theory A, no? -- 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 2:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/12/19 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 12/19/2012 1:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 6:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Conservatives don't want NO govt. They want minimal govt. I think you're confused; that's Libertarians. Conservatives always vote for more government control over individual behavior and more money for the military (that protects their world wide business interests). It's the far left (the occupy movement, who are anarchists) that want no govt. That's why I think there should be a left/libertarian alliance for personal liberty and limited government. Brent -- Hi Brent, I wish you where correct, but the facts tell us that the left is incapable of not seeing the State and thus government as its Deity and almighty benefactor. Yes and anarchism is not a left movement in your universe maybe... Also for Roger, please don't confuse anarchism with anomie. Quentin Dear Quentin, Could you propose a rough and ready definition of left and right so that we can align our ideas better? -- 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: Theory of Nothing
On 18 Dec 2012, at 07:28, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 5:54 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: - Forwarded message from Russell Standish hpco...@hpcoders.com.au - Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:18:59 +1000 From: Russell Standish hpco...@hpcoders.com.au To: Ricardo Aler a...@inf.uc3m.es Subject: Re: Theory of Nothing In-Reply-To: 43ed4f2b0705220253h7ee40345s14b375f5c5608...@mail.gmail.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:53:53AM +0200, Ricardo Aler wrote: Hi Russell, Yes. However, you are trying to derive QM from first principles, so it's a little unfair to use experimental results as well :). Also, No - first principles would say complex measure is more likely than a real measure. All the experimental results say is that there is no need to go looking for an extra principle to impose a real measure. when counting the number of observers, it seems more natural to use a real measure. Not much of a reason... But it would be wonderful if it could be shown that the existence of life requires complex measures (which is very likely true). Its the other way around - the existence of life does not require a real measure. Hope no one minds me reviving an old thread. Doesn't interference play a crucial role in preventing electrons from falling into the nucleus? I believe I have heard that somewhere but I don't remember where and I am not sure of its veracity. If it is true, it seems to me that would provide an anthropic reason for ruling out real measure. It is true in the sense of the wave verifying E = hv. It quantized energy and create the orbitals, which are are the stationarry wave corresponding to the level of energy. But this is trivial from the anthropic pov, as that is whay we introduce wave at the start. But yes, the data prevents a real mesure, we need a complex wave and a real probability. Bruno Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 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.
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
I tried to identify the meaning of axiom and found a funny solution: as it looks, AXIOM is an unprovable idea underlining a theory otherwise non-provable. In most cases: an unjustified statement, that, however, DOES work in the contest of the particular theory it is serving. Better definitions?? John M On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/17/2012 11:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. If you include the proposition as an axiom, then it is trivially true, but you don't work anymore in the same theory as the one without that proposition as axiom. Quentin It seems like just defining a new predicate accessible which means provable or disprovable which you attach to propositions. Then it doesn't need be an axiom and it still allows an excluded middle. 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. -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes - no information. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. Brent Brent, Perhaps you or somebody can help me out. I always believed that the Hubble radius was much larger than the age of the universe times the speed of light. To my surprise the Wiki-Hubble Volume says that the age is 13,7 Byrs as expected , but that the Hubble radius divided by the speed of light is 13.9 Byrs, which is rather close. Does that mean that in 200 Myrs (minus 380,000 years) the Cosmic Microwave Background will disappear outside the Hubble bubble and that 400 Myrs later the now detected light from the first stars will also disappear, even though the universe right now is many times larger than 13.7 billion light-years? And if information can be instantaneous as has been suggested here, shouldn't we use the present size of the universe holographically. I think that's where the Penrose limit of 10^124 comes from whereas the Lloyd limit of 10^120 is based on the age of the universe. Richard [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:44:29 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/18/2012 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: We have many entities that are available to agree that 2+2=4 (for all sizes of 2 and 4 that we can find), 2^90 entities at least! Every particle that exist in our universe that can hold a bit of data and all possible combinations of them that agree on some laws of physics. I've only been able to communicate with a few of what I call 'human beings'. All those particle are inferences that I and the other 'human beings' have put in our model of the world to explain the 'facts' on which we have intersubjectively agreed. In our model, the particles don't have opinions. In fact the whole idea of particle is something which has very few properties and hence is completely understandable (wouldn't be much point in making a theory out of pieces you don't understand). Brent No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5969 - Release Date: 12/18/12 -- 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
I do not intend to 'clear up' on a nonexisting fairness Index. Democracy is an oxymoron: NO CHANCE the entire populace (demos) could exercise governance-power (cratos). There is a COMPROMISE in voting: what do I prefer to vote for from other goals I put temporarily to sleep - and who is the 'candidate' lying (=campaigning?) exactly towards THOSE chosen goals? What makes a REPRESENTATIONAL RESPUBLIC in which the representants keep their promises as it seems fit. To recall them? very rare. It is still better than an autocratic dictature, religious, financial, or political. Now what is fair? an existing system produces values in different proportions to different role-players. It is definitely NOT FAIR what the ultra-wealthy pocket (- a question drawn here in a discussion group: who are the ultra-wealthy? with an instant reply: whoever has more them himself). Approaching fairness: the values are used differently by diffeent segments of society, so should be the burden of contribution (tax etc.) factored upon the 'pocketed' (earned???) values to SUPPORT said beneficial values. Low income local workers draw less from foreign relations,transportation,finance, banking, intricate law (legislation - enforcement) perspective research projects, and a host of other topics rich segments live on. So the latter should pick up a larger burden of the expenses than the former, in all fairness. I don't even 'touch' the (moral) aspect of social conscientiousness. John M On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg More liberal misrepresentation of the truth. The gini for the USA is about average for the world. But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND it's been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected. 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. -- 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 9:53 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg OK, govts can finally fail, when the people find that they can legislate their own welfare. Or when the people realize that their government has just become a tool of the rich and powerful to increase their wealth and power; in which case the people revolt and overthrow the government (c.f. Thomas Paine). 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 11:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/19/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 6:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg The difference between corporations and the govt is that corps have to make a profit or they fail. Or they get the government to give them breaks because they're too big to fail. Brent Hi Brent, What if the corps where allowed to fail on their own as market forces require? It would be very bad for the economy and a lot of working level people - so many that the corporation are, with justification, considered 'too big to fail'. ISTM that corporations use government as a means to overcome normal market forces and thus are such a problem. Fundamentally, it is corruption within government is the main source of our problems. But it isn't just money-under-the-table and campaign funding that corrupts; it is also a huge think-tank industry and media empire that supports politicians who vote to allow mergers and tax breaks and special regulations that, down the road, result in corporations that really are too-big-to-fail. 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 11:12 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/19/2012 1:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 6:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Conservatives don't want NO govt. They want minimal govt. I think you're confused; that's Libertarians. Conservatives always vote for more government control over individual behavior and more money for the military (that protects their world wide business interests). It's the far left (the occupy movement, who are anarchists) that want no govt. That's why I think there should be a left/libertarian alliance for personal liberty and limited government. Brent -- Hi Brent, I wish you where correct, but the facts tell us that the left is incapable of not seeing the State and thus government as its Deity and almighty benefactor. That's because the federal government was the instrument of freeing the slaves, over turning Jim Crow, giving women the vote and equal rights. No corporation ever supported personal or civil rights - the only rights they ever support are the right to pollute, to hire and fire, to discriminate, and not to pay taxes. The only libertarians I respect are those that oppose corporatism as well as statism. Brent Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. -- 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: promoting REASON
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 4:30:17 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/19/2012 2:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: All markets become first-come first-serve pyramid schemes by definition. And this means? What is the implication? That policies based on the assumption that markets will police themselves is a catastrophic failure. The invisible hand is really the ignored boot stomping on a human face forever. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/6z830eU_3R0J. 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 3:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 9:53 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg OK, govts can finally fail, when the people find that they can legislate their own welfare. Or when the people realize that their government has just become a tool of the rich and powerful to increase their wealth and power; in which case the people revolt and overthrow the government (c.f. Thomas Paine). Brent -- Unless the population is disarmed and brainwashed into blindly accepting all that is told them by said (tool of the elites) government. :_( -- 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 3:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 11:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/19/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 6:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg The difference between corporations and the govt is that corps have to make a profit or they fail. Or they get the government to give them breaks because they're too big to fail. Brent Hi Brent, What if the corps where allowed to fail on their own as market forces require? It would be very bad for the economy and a lot of working level people - so many that the corporation are, with justification, considered 'too big to fail'. ISTM that corporations use government as a means to overcome normal market forces and thus are such a problem. Fundamentally, it is corruption within government is the main source of our problems. But it isn't just money-under-the-table and campaign funding that corrupts; it is also a huge think-tank industry and media empire that supports politicians who vote to allow mergers and tax breaks and special regulations that, down the road, result in corporations that really are too-big-to-fail. Brent So, basically, we are just screwed. OK! ;-) -- 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: promoting REASON
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 4:56:43 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/19/2012 3:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 11:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/19/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 6:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg The difference between corporations and the govt is that corps have to make a profit or they fail. Or they get the government to give them breaks because they're too big to fail. Brent Hi Brent, What if the corps where allowed to fail on their own as market forces require? It would be very bad for the economy and a lot of working level people - so many that the corporation are, with justification, considered 'too big to fail'. ISTM that corporations use government as a means to overcome normal market forces and thus are such a problem. Fundamentally, it is corruption within government is the main source of our problems. But it isn't just money-under-the-table and campaign funding that corrupts; it is also a huge think-tank industry and media empire that supports politicians who vote to allow mergers and tax breaks and special regulations that, down the road, result in corporations that really are too-big-to-fail. Brent So, basically, we are just screwed. OK! ;-) At least the super-rich will have higher numbers in their bank accounts. That will make the loss of civilization for the other 6. billion people all worthwhile ;) -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/iu_mvN7oKhQJ. 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 3:55 PM, meekerdb wrote: That's because the federal government was the instrument of freeing the slaves, over turning Jim Crow, giving women the vote and equal rights. No corporation ever supported personal or civil rights - the only rights they ever support are the right to pollute, to hire and fire, to discriminate, and not to pay taxes. The only libertarians I respect are those that oppose corporatism as well as statism. Brent Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. Good point! -- 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/19/2012 11:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes - no information. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. Brent Brent, Perhaps you or somebody can help me out. I always believed that the Hubble radius was much larger than the age of the universe times the speed of light. To my surprise the Wiki-Hubble Volume says that the age is 13,7 Byrs as expected , but that the Hubble radius divided by the speed of light is 13.9 Byrs, which is rather close. They would be the same except that the expansion rate has not been constant (it has been slightly increasing). Does that mean that in 200 Myrs (minus 380,000 years) the Cosmic Microwave Background will disappear outside the Hubble bubble and that 400 Myrs later the now detected light from the first stars will also disappear, even though the universe right now is many times larger than 13.7 billion light-years? I don't understand the significance of 200Myrs? The CMB isn't going to disappear, ever. It's just going to be more and more redshifted by the expansion of the universe. There's an excellent tutorial on these questions by Ned Wright at UCLA http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm And if information can be instantaneous as has been suggested here, shouldn't we use the present size of the universe holographically. I think that's where the Penrose limit of 10^124 comes from whereas the Lloyd limit of 10^120 is based on the age of the universe. I don't know where 10^124 comes from, but 10^120 is what I get for the holographic limit. 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/19/2012 4:08 PM, meekerdb wrote: Is there any indication of how much of that GDP number is actually built on sovereign and private debt? How would you define 'built-on'? If I borrow money to start a business and the money comes from a pool that Japanese and Germans invested in does that mean my business is built-on private debt? GDP is the value of what is produced. Hi Brent, I am interested in how economic models evolve to adapt to new economic processes. Consider how much money is made and lost in the investement in speculative instruments, stocks, bonds, credit systems, derivatives, etc. My question is considering such... -- 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 4:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 4:30:17 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/19/2012 2:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: All markets become first-come first-serve pyramid schemes by definition. And this means? What is the implication? That policies based on the assumption that markets will police themselves is a catastrophic failure. The invisible hand is really the ignored boot stomping on a human face forever. Such a pessimistic view! -- 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 2:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: But it isn't just money-under-the-table and campaign funding that corrupts; it is also a huge think-tank industry and media empire that supports politicians who vote to allow mergers and tax breaks and special regulations that, down the road, result in corporations that really are too-big-to-fail. Brent So, basically, we are just screwed. OK! ;-) At least the super-rich will have higher numbers in their bank accounts. That will make the loss of civilization for the other 6. billion people all worthwhile ;) No need for despair. Democracy has worked in the past. Anti-trust laws were passed. The Saving Loan scams were outlawed. The USSR was overthrown. Even China has become less ideological. 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: promoting REASON
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:13:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/19/2012 2:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: But it isn't just money-under-the-table and campaign funding that corrupts; it is also a huge think-tank industry and media empire that supports politicians who vote to allow mergers and tax breaks and special regulations that, down the road, result in corporations that really are too-big-to-fail. Brent So, basically, we are just screwed. OK! ;-) At least the super-rich will have higher numbers in their bank accounts. That will make the loss of civilization for the other 6. billion people all worthwhile ;) No need for despair. Democracy has worked in the past. Anti-trust laws were passed. The Saving Loan scams were outlawed. The USSR was overthrown. Even China has become less ideological. True. There is always hope for a surprise. They seem to come around sooner or later... Brent -- 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/-/R9kowQ9nOKkJ. 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 1:38 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/19/2012 3:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 9:53 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg OK, govts can finally fail, when the people find that they can legislate their own welfare. Or when the people realize that their government has just become a tool of the rich and powerful to increase their wealth and power; in which case the people revolt and overthrow the government (c.f. Thomas Paine). Brent -- Unless the population is disarmed The people don't have to be armed to overthrow their government. It depends on the culture; but revolutions were successful in the USSR, Poland, India, and South Africa even though the people were not armed. Violent revolutions very often lead to autocratic, militaristic rule (the U.S. is almost an exception). Non-violent revolutions, if possible, have better outcomes. Brent and brainwashed into blindly accepting all that is told them by said (tool of the elites) government. :_( -- Onward! Stephen No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5969 - Release Date: 12/18/12 -- 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 5:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So, basically, we are just screwed. OK! ;-) At least the super-rich will have higher numbers in their bank accounts. That will make the loss of civilization for the other 6. billion people all worthwhile ;) So, who is handing out pitchforks and torches? -- 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: promoting REASON
On 12/19/2012 6:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: The people don't have to be armed to overthrow their government. It depends on the culture; but revolutions were successful in the USSR, Poland, India, and South Africa even though the people were not armed. Violent revolutions very often lead to autocratic, militaristic rule (the U.S. is almost an exception). Non-violent revolutions, if possible, have better outcomes. Brent Words are powerful weapons! All that is required is the proper weaponization process. -- 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: Why economic inequality and environmental degradation are likely to improve
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:47:26 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg http://it.stlawu.edu/~pomo/mike/kuznet.html The Kuznet's theory goes like this: when a country begins developing economically, its income inequality worsens. But after a few decades when the rich begin investing more in the economy and wealth begins to trickle down, income equalizes and people are more wealthy then they would have otherwise been. The multilateral financial institutions which have adhered to this theory, namely the IMFhttp://www.foe.org/global/imfund/imf.html, enforce structural adjustment progams (SAP's) on heavily indebted third world countries which drastically worsen socioeconomic inequalities. So I think the gini coefficient is largely a historical number, where presumably avg pp income increases with time. So you have to look at avg income as well. The Kuznet inverted U curve below shows that g is low for rural or under- developed situations such as Iran and Greenland, where the avg income is low. It reaches a peak when under industrializatyion, and finally, in serice economies. wher income is the highest, it automatically decreases again. http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/special/s2/s2.htm Did you notice this chart on that link? http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/special/s2/hs12003a.gif There is no shade of black that is white, sir. I know you mean well, but I have lived in the US for 44 years and I can tell you that it has gotten worse every decade - in California, in Colorado, and in North Carolina. People who were middle class are now economically abandoned while worthless monopolies capitalize on enormous economies of scale to own more and more and more. Can't you see that? Can't you tell? Craig Interestingly, environmental degradation may follow a similar Kuznet curve https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvFv8mIfjPdpJ4ggRnsWsfkUAPs86kW4tcHgQ9IOPueEaxICU6 [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-19, 10:48:02 *Subject:* Re: Re: On Income Fairness in the USA and the world On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:33:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Hal Ruhl So whbat ? Those gini coefficnets are in percentages, so USA has a gini about 27 %, which is outstanding. If you don't that, see from the wikimedia map (below) that the USA gini coeff. is about about average in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filt/Sandbox Sorry, you have to go to that page to find what the colors mean. The pink color indicates that USA is smack dab in the middle of the gini coefficients. No, smack dab in the middle of the 9 colors would be light orange - places like Iran and Turkey. Yellow countries like India and Khazakstan are doing better than that. We are down below average, in the D- range with China, Mexico, and Peru. Can you imagine how many dirt poor peasants there are in China or Mexico or Peru and how many abandoned ex-Middle Class suckers it takes to make the US that shade of pink? It's grotesque. Think of how many hundreds of millions of dollars in spare change that those at the top have to convince people like you that giving them more and more of your money is the only political solution. It's not helping your case any btw Roger that you keep trying to pull dead rabbits out of this hat. Turn it right side up and face the music. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Hal Ruhl Receiver: Everything List Time: 2012-12-18, 16:15:31 Subject: Re: On Income Fairness in the USA and the world Hi Roger: Try this and sort by wealth Gini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth Hal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/D4b3SJi4i1kJ. 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
Re: Why economic inequality and environmental degradation are likely to improve
On 12/19/2012 10:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Did you notice this chart on that link? http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/special/s2/hs12003a.gif There is no shade of black that is white, sir. I know you mean well, but I have lived in the US for 44 years and I can tell you that it has gotten worse every decade - in California, in Colorado, and in North Carolina. People who were middle class are now economically abandoned while worthless monopolies capitalize on enormous economies of scale to own more and more and more. Can't you see that? Can't you tell? OK, stop complaining! Start doing something about it! Eat the Rich! I just wonder what your gonna do when they are all gone... -- 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: Why economic inequality and environmental degradation are likely to improve
On 12/19/2012 7:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:47:26 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg http://it.stlawu.edu/~pomo/mike/kuznet.html http://it.stlawu.edu/%7Epomo/mike/kuznet.html The Kuznet's theory goes like this: when a country begins developing economically, its income inequality worsens. But after a few decades when the rich begin investing more in the economy and wealth begins to trickle down, income equalizes and people are more wealthy then they would have otherwise been. The multilateral financial institutions which have adhered to this theory, namely the IMF http://www.foe.org/global/imfund/imf.html, enforce structural adjustment progams (SAP's) on heavily indebted third world countries which drastically worsen socioeconomic inequalities. So I think the gini coefficient is largely a historical number, where presumably avg pp income increases with time. So you have to look at avg income as well. The Kuznet inverted U curve below shows that g is low for rural or under- developed situations such as Iran and Greenland, where the avg income is low. It reaches a peak when under industrializatyion, and finally, in serice economies. wher income is the highest, it automatically decreases again. http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/special/s2/s2.htm http://www.unc.edu/%7Enielsen/special/s2/s2.htm Did you notice this chart on that link? http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/special/s2/hs12003a.gif There is no shade of black that is white, sir. I know you mean well, but I have lived in the US for 44 years and I can tell you that it has gotten worse every decade - in California, in Colorado, and in North Carolina. People who were middle class are now economically abandoned while worthless monopolies capitalize on enormous economies of scale to own more and more and more. Can't you see that? Can't you tell? I don't think it's economies of scale. Inequality in the U.S. has been driven by two things. One is the opening up and industrialization of India and China with huge low wage labor pools. This has made it more economical to build factories there to sell products here. The second is the financialization of the U.S. economy. Most of the really rich make their money by moving money around. There aren't millions of jobs moving money, it can be done by a few people with computers and the right education and family connections to get the jobs. 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: Why economic inequality and environmental degradation are likely to improve
On 12/19/2012 11:13 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 7:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:47:26 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg http://it.stlawu.edu/~pomo/mike/kuznet.html http://it.stlawu.edu/%7Epomo/mike/kuznet.html The Kuznet's theory goes like this: when a country begins developing economically, its income inequality worsens. But after a few decades when the rich begin investing more in the economy and wealth begins to trickle down, income equalizes and people are more wealthy then they would have otherwise been. The multilateral financial institutions which have adhered to this theory, namely the IMF http://www.foe.org/global/imfund/imf.html, enforce structural adjustment progams (SAP's) on heavily indebted third world countries which drastically worsen socioeconomic inequalities. So I think the gini coefficient is largely a historical number, where presumably avg pp income increases with time. So you have to look at avg income as well. The Kuznet inverted U curve below shows that g is low for rural or under- developed situations such as Iran and Greenland, where the avg income is low. It reaches a peak when under industrializatyion, and finally, in serice economies. wher income is the highest, it automatically decreases again. http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/special/s2/s2.htm http://www.unc.edu/%7Enielsen/special/s2/s2.htm Did you notice this chart on that link? http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/special/s2/hs12003a.gif There is no shade of black that is white, sir. I know you mean well, but I have lived in the US for 44 years and I can tell you that it has gotten worse every decade - in California, in Colorado, and in North Carolina. People who were middle class are now economically abandoned while worthless monopolies capitalize on enormous economies of scale to own more and more and more. Can't you see that? Can't you tell? I don't think it's economies of scale. Inequality in the U.S. has been driven by two things. One is the opening up and industrialization of India and China with huge low wage labor pools. This has made it more economical to build factories there to sell products here. The second is the financialization of the U.S. economy. Most of the really rich make their money by moving money around. There aren't millions of jobs moving money, it can be done by a few people with computers and the right education and family connections to get the jobs. Brent I agree! Also the connections to get immunity from prosecution helps. ;-) Look at all of the people that made billions selling subprime loans. When was the last time you saw a prosecution of that level of fraud and larceny? Seriously! http://www.publicintegrity.org/accountability/finance/corporate-accountability/whos-behind-financial-meltdown -- 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: Why economic inequality and environmental degradation are likely to improve
Also: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm -- 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: Why economic inequality and environmental degradation are likely to improve
On 12/19/2012 8:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/19/2012 11:13 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 7:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:47:26 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg http://it.stlawu.edu/~pomo/mike/kuznet.html http://it.stlawu.edu/%7Epomo/mike/kuznet.html The Kuznet's theory goes like this: when a country begins developing economically, its income inequality worsens. But after a few decades when the rich begin investing more in the economy and wealth begins to trickle down, income equalizes and people are more wealthy then they would have otherwise been. The multilateral financial institutions which have adhered to this theory, namely the IMF http://www.foe.org/global/imfund/imf.html, enforce structural adjustment progams (SAP's) on heavily indebted third world countries which drastically worsen socioeconomic inequalities. So I think the gini coefficient is largely a historical number, where presumably avg pp income increases with time. So you have to look at avg income as well. The Kuznet inverted U curve below shows that g is low for rural or under- developed situations such as Iran and Greenland, where the avg income is low. It reaches a peak when under industrializatyion, and finally, in serice economies. wher income is the highest, it automatically decreases again. http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/special/s2/s2.htm http://www.unc.edu/%7Enielsen/special/s2/s2.htm Did you notice this chart on that link? http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/special/s2/hs12003a.gif There is no shade of black that is white, sir. I know you mean well, but I have lived in the US for 44 years and I can tell you that it has gotten worse every decade - in California, in Colorado, and in North Carolina. People who were middle class are now economically abandoned while worthless monopolies capitalize on enormous economies of scale to own more and more and more. Can't you see that? Can't you tell? I don't think it's economies of scale. Inequality in the U.S. has been driven by two things. One is the opening up and industrialization of India and China with huge low wage labor pools. This has made it more economical to build factories there to sell products here. The second is the financialization of the U.S. economy. Most of the really rich make their money by moving money around. There aren't millions of jobs moving money, it can be done by a few people with computers and the right education and family connections to get the jobs. Brent I agree! Also the connections to get immunity from prosecution helps. ;-) Look at all of the people that made billions selling subprime loans. When was the last time you saw a prosecution of that level of fraud and larceny? Seriously! http://www.publicintegrity.org/accountability/finance/corporate-accountability/whos-behind-financial-meltdown In 1983 747 savings and loans failed, costing 90B$. The FBI opened 5490 criminal investigations and by 1992 839 people were convicted. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why economic inequality and environmental degradation are likely to improve
On 12/20/2012 12:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: In 1983 747 savings and loans failed, costing 90B$. The FBI opened 5490 criminal investigations and by 1992 839 people were convicted. What about this time around? For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Franklin_Financial_Corp. and see the list http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/manu.html -- 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: Why economic inequality and environmental degradation are likely to improve
On 12/19/2012 8:44 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Also: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm That's a very biases analysis that implies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought subprime loans, which they did not. It was the banks and private mortgage companies that created the adjustable rate loans with teaser rates. FM's only bought fixed rate loans with substantial down payments. The did however buy 'liar loans'. And their very existence made private lenders assume (correctly) that they would be bailed out. Here's a much more balanced view of the events: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/07/did_fannie_and.html 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: Why economic inequality and environmental degradation are likely to improve
On 12/20/2012 12:26 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:44 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Also: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm That's a very biases analysis that implies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought subprime loans, which they did not. It was the banks and private mortgage companies that created the adjustable rate loans with teaser rates. FM's only bought fixed rate loans with substantial down payments. The did however buy 'liar loans'. And their very existence made private lenders assume (correctly) that they would be bailed out. Here's a much more balanced view of the events: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/07/did_fannie_and.html Brent - Causing and allowing to occur are not the same thing... Exactly how was it that banks where capable of making a profit from the loans that they could easily predict would have a very high default rate? How did the securitization process occur that least to the bundling? from the article you linked: Fannie and Freddie had _purchased $4.9 trillion of the mortgages outstanding as of the end of 2007, 70% of which the GSEs had packaged and sold to investors with a guarantee of payment_, and the remainder of which Fannie and Freddie kept for their own portfolios. The fraction of outstanding home mortgage debt that was either held or guaranteed by the GSEs (known as their total book of business) rose from 6% in 1971 to 51% in 2003. So did Fannie and Freddie buy packaged subprime loans? yes indeed they did! 70%! I invite you to dive deep into this and see the facts for yourself. Don't take any one's summary as a fact, see the full picture for your self. -- 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: Why economic inequality and environmental degradation are likely to improve
On 12/19/2012 9:38 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/20/2012 12:26 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:44 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Also: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm That's a very biases analysis that implies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought subprime loans, which they did not. It was the banks and private mortgage companies that created the adjustable rate loans with teaser rates. FM's only bought fixed rate loans with substantial down payments. The did however buy 'liar loans'. And their very existence made private lenders assume (correctly) that they would be bailed out. Here's a much more balanced view of the events: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/07/did_fannie_and.html Brent - Causing and allowing to occur are not the same thing... Exactly how was it that banks where capable of making a profit from the loans that they could easily predict would have a very high default rate? How did the securitization process occur that least to the bundling? from the article you linked: Fannie and Freddie had _purchased $4.9 trillion of the mortgages outstanding as of the end of 2007, 70% of which the GSEs had packaged and sold to investors with a guarantee of payment_, and the remainder of which Fannie and Freddie kept for their own portfolios. The fraction of outstanding home mortgage debt that was either held or guaranteed by the GSEs (known as their total book of business) rose from 6% in 1971 to 51% in 2003. So did Fannie and Freddie buy packaged subprime loans? yes indeed they did! 70%! It doesn't say that 70% were subprime and neither does the paper you cited; it just implies it. But Fannie and Freddie didn't like losing their market share, and they pushed the envelope on credit quality as far as they could inside the constraints of their charter: they got into near prime programs (Fannie's Expanded Approval, Freddie's A Minus) that, at the bottom tier, were hard to distinguish from regular old subprime except-- again-- that they were overwhelmingly fixed-rate non-toxic loan structures. And As originators and investors with more energy than brains expanded their (subprime) lending to those borrowers and neighborhoods, it was difficult for Fannie and Freddie to increase their shares. They didn't want to buy or guarantee subprime loans, correctly perceiving them to be insanely risky. Instead they purchased securities created by subprime lenders, taking only the supposedly-safe tranches. I invite you to dive deep into this and see the facts for yourself. Don't take any one's summary as a fact, see the full picture for your self. Same to you, fella. 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.
