Re: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
Does DNA have consciousness to create the double helix from zygote to child ? ==. On Jan 18, 1:25 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:04 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Descartes : “ I think, therefore I am “ Zen / Tibetan Buddhist monks : I think not, therefore I am Why they say: ' Mind for others , no mind for me' ? Are they fool men or maybe they know that there are two methods of cognitions. ===.. Where does the information come from? Information can be transfered only by electromagnetic fields. In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron In our earthly world there is only one fundamental particle - electron who can transfer information. Can an electron be quant of information? What is an electron ? Now nobody knows. .. Big bang About “ big bang” is written many thick books. But nobody knows the reason of the “Big Bang”. I know. The action, when the God compresses all Universe into his palm, we named ‘ a singular point’. And action, when the God opens his palm, we named the ‘big bang. Actually the name should be Meta-Bang for Metaverse creation and reserve the word Big-Bang for Universe creation. I agree that the Metaverse comes from a primordial 26d singularity. Richard # And the Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing. And Pope Pius XII declared this in 1951. http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/ =. Question: Does DNA Know Geometry ? I suspect that DNA came from the geometry of general relativity with torsion. Can you think of any other geometry the double helix could be based on by analogy? ===... ‘ Scientific knowledge is fundamentally paradoxical.’ / someone / ‘. ., and many feel that physics is just the real deal about metaphysics. ‘ 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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.
A God-limited God - My Theodicy
A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger Clough -- 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: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
DNA probably forms algorithmically On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:32 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Does DNA have consciousness to create the double helix from zygote to child ? ==. On Jan 18, 1:25 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:04 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Descartes : “ I think, therefore I am “ Zen / Tibetan Buddhist monks : I think not, therefore I am Why they say: ' Mind for others , no mind for me' ? Are they fool men or maybe they know that there are two methods of cognitions. ===.. Where does the information come from? Information can be transfered only by electromagnetic fields. In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron In our earthly world there is only one fundamental particle - electron who can transfer information. Can an electron be quant of information? What is an electron ? Now nobody knows. .. Big bang About “ big bang” is written many thick books. But nobody knows the reason of the “Big Bang”. I know. The action, when the God compresses all Universe into his palm, we named ‘ a singular point’. And action, when the God opens his palm, we named the ‘big bang. Actually the name should be Meta-Bang for Metaverse creation and reserve the word Big-Bang for Universe creation. I agree that the Metaverse comes from a primordial 26d singularity. Richard # And the Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing. And Pope Pius XII declared this in 1951. http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/ =. Question: Does DNA Know Geometry ? I suspect that DNA came from the geometry of general relativity with torsion. Can you think of any other geometry the double helix could be based on by analogy? ===... ‘ Scientific knowledge is fundamentally paradoxical.’ / someone / ‘. ., and many feel that physics is just the real deal about metaphysics. ‘ 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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 unpredictability of solar energy
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy It's not that complicated. The Revelation of John foretells the coming apocalypse. St Augustine and anybody else has to stick with that book, like it or not, unless, of course, liberalism has already destroyed you. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 15:39:54 Subject: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Alberto, On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This is in fact the return to primitive cults to the mother earth, the feeder, that give us resources from his pregnant belly. It is exactly that. only that instead of vegetabless and game, it is minerals and energy and biodiversity. I have to say that the utopism/apocalipticism is a perversion of christianity that had its justification in the spectations of primitive cristianity, but Saint Agustine reinterpreted it well to avoid its revolutionary and disturbing character. Joaquin de Fiore, broke with the agustinian interpretation and proposed a new age of?pirituality?n earth. This reinterpretation is widely?dmitted?y most historians as the foundation of modernity. The evangelical movements, the French revolution, the?ommunism?nd the current environmentalism are the derivations of this expectancy in ever increasing degrees of radicalism and inmanentism. ? Once the distorted?hristian?ects, first,?nd then the grand ideologies passed by, the only remain in the resulting nihilism are the primitive atavic cults that return naturally back, permeated by the distorted?hristian?spirations and all other rests of the shipwreck. Eric Voegelin is the great philosopher that more deeply studied the spirit of modernity as a consequence of the helenic and christian roots. I recommend The new science of Politics.? It seems like the mix of fear and desire for the extraordinary grows with the repression of magic in ordinary life. Magic is dangerous because it promotes?yranny?nd manipulation, and the repression of magic allows an scientific study of reality, and for this matter the christian spirit gave science and, for the first time in history, applied science. But the desire for the extraordinary persist.? The apocalypse myth has been with every generation. Attacking it has nothing to do with finding flaws in the work of Hansen and co. Not my area of expertise, but from what I read, as far as we know, it's as solid as we can get. If everybody that tries to frame facts critically with available data is alarmist, then how can do you save criticism? PGC -- -- 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: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi Russell Standish Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself) and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] Peirce Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened at each stage,1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
Re: Re: Can there be multiple numbers ?
Hi Stephen P. King You can google this stuff up. preestablished harmony noun (in the philosophy of Leibnitz) synchronous operation of all monads, since their simultaneous creation, in accordance with the preexisting plan of God. I suspect that even God has to follow Godel's restrictions . [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 13:21:59 Subject: Re: Can there be multiple numbers ? On 1/17/2013 11:46 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King 1) Sorry, I incorrectly abbreviated, as usual, by referring to the Supreme Monad as God. The correct version is that God observes and handles the world of monads from behind or beyond the Supreme Monad. Somehow this may have led you astray. I do believe that all monads are distinct. They exist because they are non-identical. 2) Distinct because each snapshot, or slide, pictures the universe from our particular point of view. 3) We are all distinct from our histories (past perceptions), and from our appetities. 4) We must all be distinct for the PEH to operate properly. 5) The PEH can only happen if there is only one, absolutely powerful God. 6) I hope I haven't missed anything. Hi Roger, It seems that most of what I am explaining is lost to you. Could we try to restrict our discussion of Monadology to the PEH concept for now? Could you explain what the PEH is and how it works, as you understand it now? -- 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: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar ice caps toalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto
Hi meekerdb http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/ Mars is Melting The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts and curious dark spots. NASA Link to story audioListen to this story via streaming audio, a downloadable file, or get help. see captionAugust 7, 2003: It's not every day you get to watch a planetary ice cap vanish, but this month you can. All you need are clear skies, a backyard telescope, and a sky map leading to Mars. Actually, you won't need the sky map because Mars is so bright and easy to find. Just look south between midnight and dawn on any clear night this month. Mars is that eye-catching red star, outshining everything around it. It's getting brighter every night as Earth and Mars converge for a close encounter on August 27th. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 15:29:38 Subject: Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar ice caps toalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto On 1/17/2013 6:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar ice caps to also melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm What the site actually says is, At this time, there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming. Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations, and we know the sun is not heating up all the planets in our solar system because we can accurately measure the sun? output here on Earth. Brent NASA says the Martian South Polar Ice cap has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter's caught the same cold, because it's warming up too, like Pluto. (Fred Thompson). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/17/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To 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 unpredictability of solar energy
Stephen, On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 1/18/2013 12:48 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/17/2013 7:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 7:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: You have to prove that the CO2 is the main ingredient of global warming. Not me. Ok. So Greenhouse effect is alarmist fantasy to you. This makes things clearer. But it is not. It is water vapor by orders of magnitude. And the water vapor concentration, and the clouds depends on cosmic rays, and cosmic rays depend on solar activity and the variation on the earth orbit. The hockey stick (false) is of temperatures. And temperatures are falling now, like were falling in the 70s. The most likely evolution is towards a new ice age, as you can see clearly in the graphic. CO2 do no predict increase of temperatures, it is just the contrary You can verify that in the graphic. increase of temperature precedes CO2 increase. This is caused by the increased erosion or carbonate rocks in the litosphere and the liberation of CO2 by oceans when temperature raises. The causes of the cycles that you see in the graphic are due to the orbit of earth around the sun, there is no CO2 causation but the opposite. the correlation exist, but the causation is just the reverse to the promoted by the alarmists. Natural sources of CO2 exceed the antropogenic production by orders of magnitude. a single eruption can produce more CO2 than the entire human population in a year. You're right in that it's naturally messy enough. But so what? 313 ppm in 1960 to 390 ppm in 2010, with current measured amount of CO2 exceeding geological maximum values; I just don't see the logic of adding to this mindlessly by burning more black stuff. I do see the plausibility of shooting for long term energy solutions that add, burn, or otherwise muck around with the fragile global ecology, our only home at the moment, less. And I'm open to all of it, hemp prominently included, provided that we burn/waste less in the long run. No final solutions. These problems will not leave, regardless of our capacity to deny infinitely. PGC -- PGC, Your making a straw man argument, mate! Even if we stipulate as a fact that ...current measured amount of CO2 exceeding geological maximum values, this does nothing to force decisions such as how not to muck around with the fragile global ecology. It is the home of all of us, not jush some elite few that wish the rest us us to stop breathing. I have read the papers of the alarmist with eyes wide open, there is lots of discussion of how to reduce populations and so forth. There is even chatter about crimes against nature tribunals for those that deny the consensus science. How about some actual quotes and citations - lest we suspect you of creating a straw man. Brent Try http://www.worldwatch.org/node/563 So we should stop population growth before tackling energy? If the survivors of this very likely scenario are as flexible in their thinking as you are here, then it wouldn't make a difference: you guys would still sully your own garden, regardless of any numbers. Alarmism itself towards any criticism of how we tackle energy problems is already ad hominem. Then the move to distract by conjuring up population growth problem. Yes they are related, but one doesn't negate the other: the world faces a lot of problems and bringing one up to play denial on another is what it is. Red Herring. All of them have to be tackled and framed more precisely. and http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Against-Nature-Corporate-Plundering/dp/B008SLYJ8CI really don't have time to do what you should be doing for yourself. Ad hominem 2. Same as above. And no, I don't need to cite 100 sources to verify claims to you. My standards are more modest than that: Everything I've said here can be verified by gardening or taking care of a couple of plants, animals, human beings for extended periods of time. If you want the ultimate test on the subject, a personal empirical approach will bring my point across with more authority than anybody's paper or arguments: try growing or caring for your any lifeforms you deem appropriate, like I said plants, animals, children for extended periods of time, split whichever life you choose to care for, into two sets, and subject one set to random mutagens (e.g. research industrial waste, hydraulic fracturing and make a selection), carbon, and extreme temperature shifts, spikes and stresses, while keeping the other set safe from the same. Then after a few years, tell us which population thrived. I don't need Ivy League authority and citations for common sense. Sure, I read papers but I can make up my own mind, thank you very much. PGC -- -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
Roger, On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy It's not that complicated. The Revelation of John foretells the coming apocalypse. St Augustine and anybody else has to stick with that book, like it or not, unless, of course, liberalism has already destroyed you. 1) I don't buy the conservative v. liberal narratives from US perspective. 2) You're not serious with the Christian or monad values you hype: - Jesus implies sharing, Roger posts greed is good. - Jesus and Leibniz tend towards immaterialism, Roger prays to acquisition of wealth for its own sake - Jesus and Leibniz are clear on solidarity and compassion to groups, Roger is not liberal/socialist. Nobody is perfect, but this is definitely pushing it in the Kierkegaard sense of (I paraphrase) 90% of those that go to Church or call themselves Christian do not really have faith- they use faith politically. Preaching one thing and doing opposite. They are not really concerned with working on themselves or for the arrival of the Kingdom of the lord. If they were, they'd pose less for vanity's sake, speak less, and do more. For instance, it doesn't concern most Christians that we haven't tackled the problem of good and evil sufficiently, and although the bible gives us pointers, there are many deep open problems such as this, that most Christians are in denial of, and that our holy book only begins to address. I think that that is a profound, open Christian attitude, granted with flaws here and there, but still open enough for serious inquiry. So please refrain from pulling the personal faith card on us, because I for one just can't decide which Roger I am reading: the Christian, the conservative, or to return to topic, the guy who is untroubled by making a mess on his Lord's earth if it's for greed's sake, which is good etc. This undermines discussion of the issue. PGC -- [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 15:39:54 Subject: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Alberto, On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This is in fact the return to primitive cults to the mother earth, the feeder, that give us resources from his pregnant belly. It is exactly that. only that instead of vegetabless and game, it is minerals and energy and biodiversity. I have to say that the utopism/apocalipticism is a perversion of christianity that had its justification in the spectations of primitive cristianity, but Saint Agustine reinterpreted it well to avoid its revolutionary and disturbing character. Joaquin de Fiore, broke with the agustinian interpretation and proposed a new age of?pirituality?n earth. This reinterpretation is widely?dmitted?y most historians as the foundation of modernity. The evangelical movements, the French revolution, the?ommunism?nd the current environmentalism are the derivations of this expectancy in ever increasing degrees of radicalism and inmanentism. ? Once the distorted?hristian?ects, first,?nd then the grand ideologies passed by, the only remain in the resulting nihilism are the primitive atavic cults that return naturally back, permeated by the distorted?hristian?spirations and all other rests of the shipwreck. Eric Voegelin is the great philosopher that more deeply studied the spirit of modernity as a consequence of the helenic and christian roots. I recommend The new science of Politics.? It seems like the mix of fear and desire for the extraordinary grows with the repression of magic in ordinary life. Magic is dangerous because it promotes?yranny?nd manipulation, and the repression of magic allows an scientific study of reality, and for this matter the christian spirit gave science and, for the first time in history, applied science. But the desire for the extraordinary persist.? The apocalypse myth has been with every generation. Attacking it has nothing to do with finding flaws in the work of Hansen and co. Not my area of expertise, but from what I read, as far as we know, it's as solid as we can get. If everybody that tries to frame facts critically with available data is alarmist, then how can do you save criticism? PGC -- -- 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
Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Roger, you may be correct, yet the world is still a place red in truth and claw. Don't be surprised, if your theodicy, which works well for you, doesn't work so good for all. It's like a medicine that only is 30% effective. You still want to keep it around, but you must, as a physician, be aware of the limitation. On Free Will, we have the free will to like something or hate something. But that something still pushes on anyway. The tsunami still flows despite your prayers. So free will, is really just free opinion. -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: - mindbr...@yahoogroups.com mindbr...@yahoogroups.com; everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Jan 18, 2013 4:19 am Subject: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. his is my theodicy, based on the Bible and eason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, uch as a loving God lashing out at sinners, ractically committing genocide, or a loving God llowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing vil and suffering in this world, can be attributed o a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has illingly limited his possible actions in this world o accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as he pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the ins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified y God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey is own justice. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. hysical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. od lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. And God has given man free will, so that men can o evil as well as good. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, n this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his owers of action. Roger Clough -- ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. o post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. o unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. or 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: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
Did these 'algorithmically forms' by the chance created child from zygote? = On Jan 18, 12:27 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: DNA probably forms algorithmically On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:32 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Does DNA have consciousness to create the double helix from zygote to child ? ==. On Jan 18, 1:25 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:04 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Descartes : “ I think, therefore I am “ Zen / Tibetan Buddhist monks : I think not, therefore I am Why they say: ' Mind for others , no mind for me' ? Are they fool men or maybe they know that there are two methods of cognitions. ===.. Where does the information come from? Information can be transfered only by electromagnetic fields. In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron In our earthly world there is only one fundamental particle - electron who can transfer information. Can an electron be quant of information? What is an electron ? Now nobody knows. .. Big bang About “ big bang” is written many thick books. But nobody knows the reason of the “Big Bang”. I know. The action, when the God compresses all Universe into his palm, we named ‘ a singular point’. And action, when the God opens his palm, we named the ‘big bang. Actually the name should be Meta-Bang for Metaverse creation and reserve the word Big-Bang for Universe creation. I agree that the Metaverse comes from a primordial 26d singularity. Richard # And the Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing. And Pope Pius XII declared this in 1951. http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/ =. Question: Does DNA Know Geometry ? I suspect that DNA came from the geometry of general relativity with torsion. Can you think of any other geometry the double helix could be based on by analogy? ===... ‘ Scientific knowledge is fundamentally paradoxical.’ / someone / ‘. ., and many feel that physics is just the real deal about metaphysics. ‘ 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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: Aquinas' analogy of being
On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:14, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Here's Dr. Johnson's way of refuting Bishop Berkeley's idealism: I refute him THUS!! dr_johnson.jpg Nice picture. But that kind of argument have been already refuted in Plato, Chouang-tseu, ... That's the dream argument, and it is valid in comp. Do you remember your dream? 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: Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter
On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 7:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jan 2013, at 23:45, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/16/2013 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:13, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Specific properties, at least down here, are needed if you accept Leibniz' dictum that identical entities cannot exist in this contingent world, for they would have the same identity. I'm inclined to say that that is also true in Platonia, which would be a disaster, for you could not say 1 = 1. A saving grace might be that one of those 1's is before, and the other, after the equal sign. That is, the numbers are distinguished by context. I agree with all what you say here. Tell this to Stephen. Note that we are distinguished by context too. Bruno Hi, There is no context or figure-ground relation at the primitive level as such would be a distinction that makes no difference. To who or what would such matter? Even consciousness cannot be primitive, as it is distinct from non-consciousness.. Property neutrality is a necessary condition for ontological primitivity. The principle of Identity of Indiscernibles (of Leibniz) is exactly what I base my claim upon. In the absence of an agent to affect distinctions or to have a bias of a point of view, all properties vanish. That is solipsism, and you have to assume a basic consciousness, which is what I search an explanation for. Also, it contradicts comp. Also, without assumeing something Turing universal, you will not been able to have computers in your reality, so a theory which assumes not elementary properties to its basic object will be mud unable to explain where the consciousness of the distinction come from. Dear Bruno, I am discussing ontology, there is no such a process as Turing or 'realities' or objects yet at such a level. All is abstracted away by the consideration of cancellation of properties. Let me just ask you: Did the basic idea of the book, The Theory of Nothing by Russell Standish, make sense to you? He is arguing for the same basic idea, IMHO. An expression like cancellation of properties needs already many things to make sense. You refer to paper which use the axiomatic method all the times, but you don't want to use it in philosophy, which, I think, doesn't help. Contingency is, at best, all that can be claimed, thus my proposal that existence is necessary possiblity. Existence of what. Anything. That's the object of inquiry. Necessary and possible cannot be primitive term either. Which modal logics? When use alone without further ado, it means the modal logic is S5 (the system implicit in Leibniz). But S5 is the only one standard modal logic having no arithmetical interpretation. Wrong level. How is S5 implicit in Leibniz? Could you explain this? With Kripke: p, that is possibly p, is true in the world alpha if p is true in at least one world accessible from alpha. []p, that is necessary p, is true in the world alpha if p is true in all the worlds accessible from alpha. The alethic usual sense of metaphysically possible and metaphysically necessary can be be given by making all worlds accessible to each other, or more simply, by dropping the accessibility relation: p, that is possibly p, is true in the world alpha if p is true in at least one world. []p, that is necessary p, is true in the world alpha if p is true in all the worlds. In that case you can verify that, independently of the truth value of p, the following propositions are true in all worlds: [](p-q) - ([]p - []q) []p - p []p - [][]p p - []p (p - []p can be derived). You get the system S5, and reciprocally S5 (that is the formula above + the necessitation rule (p/ []p), and classical propositional calculus) is complete for all formula true (whatever values taken by the propositional variable) in all worlds. To sump up, in Leibniz or Aristotle all worlds are presumed to accessible from each others (which makes sense from a highly abstract metaphysical view). In Kripke, or in other semantics, worlds (states, whatever) get special relations with other worlds (accessibility, proximity, etc.). Bruno When we consider the nature of ontological primitives and understand that we are considering what must occur in the situation where there is no special or preternatural agent to distinguish a 1 from a 2, for example, then it follows that even the property of being a number becomes degenerate. Then what you say make sense in a primitively physical universe, but you need to say no to the doctor to be coherent. Wrong level. -- 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
Re: the curse of materialism
On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in the mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some kind of underlying conputation) Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why 3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic arithmetic takes some work). Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum of distance. In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bit exhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth. You are unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problem for comp, or even for arithmetical realism. I am not sure mathematics exists make any sense to me. Bruno Mathematics is two distinctly different (opposite) things: 1) A private experience of imagined sensory symbol-figures which accompany a motive of quantitative reasoning. 2) A collection of public objects interact in a logical way, without any private representations, as a consequence of the physics of multiple rigid bodies. The problem is that comp seduces us into a shell game whereby when we look at math 'out there' (2), we smuggle in the meaning from in here (1), and when we look at meaning in here (1) we misattribute it to the blind enactment of a-signifying motions among neurophysical objects. The only difference between the colors and feelings of private experience and the structures and functions which we study in science is that the colors are experienced first hand and are therefore described with the full complement of human sense (misleading and conflicting though it may be). We assume that the world outside of our minds runs on math not because it actually does, but because our awareness of it is a grossly reduced, indirect logical construction. Simply speaking 3D geometry in which we see our body and the rest of the colored reality is a product of the mind. Not a product exactly, more like an induct. Same with every measurement ever made though. It's all an induction of our experience (plus the experiences of all of the objects and substances, times and conditions involved). The quantum and relativistic mathematics lacks a corresponding qualia of the mind that make them intuitive and real. They are efective and predictive, but we can not make it apparent and intuitive in our reality. Right. That's because QM assumes Math (1) is present in Math (2). It isn't. You need sensory-motor participation, i.e. afferent perception and efferent participation as a fundamental base before quantum to make any kind of realism with it. Craig I agree! -- 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/-/3eq5Nzab1ikJ . 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 unpredictability of solar energy
On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:14, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Coming back to hemp should be the good idea. Oil and wood have replaced Hemp (for textile, fuel, paper and medication) just from lies and greed. The possible global warming might just be another consequences on the lies on cannabis, drugs etc. Hemp was the oil, before oil. It is the plant that the human have the most cultivated, with maize and wheat, since a very long time. The idea that it is something dangerous is a total complete recent construct, and has only been a Trojan horse for bandits (probably the one losing the job after the end of alcohol prohibition) to get power. Hi, Any idea how much land would be required to grow sufficient hemp to supply the millions of barrels that our civilization requires? How much fertilizer? How much labor? Have you seem the quantity of energy that is required to turn corn into fuel. for example? The problem is that hemp and other biomass fuel idea are simply too expensive in terms of energy and man hours to replace petrofuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_content_of_biofuel Oh! If wiki says so ... Note that I did not say that only hemp is needed, nor did I condemn entirely oil and coke. I am a realist. But Ford did the calculus, and for a very long time, if hemp would have just be continued to be used, their would have been a drastic harm reduction, possibly ecological. Between possibly bad and certainly worst, we have to choose the possibly bad, but we know that unscrupulous special interest made the decisions, and that is the problem. Well the real problem is that we tolerate that and that most people buy the media talk without thinking, the real problem is the boss is right routine implemented in many mammals. Our brain evolves less quickly that our ideas and technology. 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: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: we cannot do without 1p and 2p Especially 2p, most posts on this topic contain a extraordinary large amount of pee pee. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Two Schrodinger cats
On 17 Jan 2013, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 1/17/2013 4:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi all, Naive question... Not being a physicists, I only have a pop-science level of understanding of the MWI. I imagine the multi-verse as a tree, where each time there is more than one possible quantum state we get a branch. I imagine my consciousness moving down the tree. Suppose Mary performs the Schrodinger's cat experiment in her house and Joe does the same in his house. They both keep the animals in the boxes and don't take a peak. Don't tell PETA. They meet for a coffe in a nearby coffeeshop. So now we have four possible universes where Mary and Joe can meet. But from the double slit experiment we know that the cats are both still dead+alive in the current universe. Right? So are Mary and Joe meeting in the fours universes at the same time? Cheers Telmo. The short answer is yes. But it's not four universes, it's one universe that is a superposition of four states. The idealization is that the cats are isolated so that it is only when a live/dead measurement is made the universe splits. But a problem with MWI is that this depends on the basis. Choosing a live/dead basis is possible (in the idealization) but mathematically any other basis is equally valid and in those other bases there are still superpositions. So really the problem of the live/dead cat is pushed off onto the problem of selecting the basis: why is the live/ dead basis priveleged? In this case because we are interested in the live or dead observable property of the cat. In all bases, all relative states exists, and with the correct proportion. Of course, as long as Mary and Joe does not look at the cat, they could say, we are in the universe where the cat as the definite d+a state, as they can test with a (d+a, d-a) analyser. In that case Mary and Joe are in the fungible state, that you can interpret bot as being in the d+a unique world or in both a- world and d-world. I don't really believe in that base problem. Imo, Everett solved it at the start. Obviously we have a long past history, explaining why *we* prefer some bases among others. Bruno 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: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
Yes, the biological laws of nature are algorithms in computation space. On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:25 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Did these 'algorithmically forms' by the chance created child from zygote? = On Jan 18, 12:27 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: DNA probably forms algorithmically On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:32 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Does DNA have consciousness to create the double helix from zygote to child ? ==. On Jan 18, 1:25 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:04 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Descartes : “ I think, therefore I am “ Zen / Tibetan Buddhist monks : I think not, therefore I am Why they say: ' Mind for others , no mind for me' ? Are they fool men or maybe they know that there are two methods of cognitions. ===.. Where does the information come from? Information can be transfered only by electromagnetic fields. In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron In our earthly world there is only one fundamental particle - electron who can transfer information. Can an electron be quant of information? What is an electron ? Now nobody knows. .. Big bang About “ big bang” is written many thick books. But nobody knows the reason of the “Big Bang”. I know. The action, when the God compresses all Universe into his palm, we named ‘ a singular point’. And action, when the God opens his palm, we named the ‘big bang. Actually the name should be Meta-Bang for Metaverse creation and reserve the word Big-Bang for Universe creation. I agree that the Metaverse comes from a primordial 26d singularity. Richard # And the Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing. And Pope Pius XII declared this in 1951. http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/ =. Question: Does DNA Know Geometry ? I suspect that DNA came from the geometry of general relativity with torsion. Can you think of any other geometry the double helix could be based on by analogy? ===... ‘ Scientific knowledge is fundamentally paradoxical.’ / someone / ‘. ., and many feel that physics is just the real deal about metaphysics. ‘ 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 17 Jan 2013, at 22:16, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: This shows that you have not studied the field, which seems indeed pretty obvious. 13 years of studying this useless bullshit is not enough? I'll bet I know more about the Bible than most Christians. It was not scientific studies. Well of course it was not scientific studies, it was glob talk about God, and that is about as far from science as you can get. You can study history or literature or myths but there is no field of learning called theology that one can claim expertise in. Because it has been stolen by some authoritative power. But you can read many text and see the idea behind. If you concentrate on the fairy tales aspect, you do not help the coming back to seriousness in the field. If you declare the whole field as intrinsic bs, then it means that you have a theology, and that you are not aware of it, making you unconsciously dogmatic on your conception of reality. You are unaware that the scientist still don't know. In particular they didn't decide between Arstotle and Plato. Current science is, if taken as fundamental, Aristotelian theology. But with comp, and perhaps with just QM, it stops to work. And if you doubt this then name something of interest theology has discovered in the last century, and if that's too hard try the last millennium. Theology was part of science, and most of aristotelian science is born from the naive aristotelianism. So I would not separate the progress in science from a slow refutation of a part of the greek theology, done up to now, mainly of Aristotle's physics, biology. But why should we stop. Comp refutes Aristotle's theology and bring a simple (arithmetical) intepretation of Plotinus. It's just bizarre how so many people feel it is their obligation to defend something that has caused so much human misery and made so many people so very stupid. You totally confuse a science, and a misuse, even a perversion, made by humans, of that science. The result: you give the place for the abusers, and you prevent the use of seriousness in the field. You confirm that atheists are de facto an ally of the Aristotelian theologian. I did provide a general axiomatic of God, and you do seem quite religious in that sense. As I said before many people, such as yourself, are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word God. I care on the concept. It is not a big deal, by definition, God is the ultimate reality, if it exists, responsible for us talking here and now. And my point is that with comp, we already can deduce that it is not the physical reality, (but the arithmetical reality). 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: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
I First person singular We First person plural You Second person singular / second person plural He Third person masculine singular She Third person feminine singular It Third person neutral singular They Third person plural / third person gender-neutral singular On Friday, January 18, 2013 7:29:43 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself) and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others) All of these are 1p. To get to 3p you would have to talk about things like the volume or composition of the cat's body. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] Peirce Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened at each stage,1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au javascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are
Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
On 1/17/2013 11:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/18/2013 12:48 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/17/2013 7:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 7:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com mailto:agocor...@gmail.com wrote: You have to prove that the CO2 is the main ingredient of global warming. Not me. Ok. So Greenhouse effect is alarmist fantasy to you. This makes things clearer. But it is not. It is water vapor by orders of magnitude. And the water vapor concentration, and the clouds depends on cosmic rays, and cosmic rays depend on solar activity and the variation on the earth orbit. The hockey stick (false) is of temperatures. And temperatures are falling now, like were falling in the 70s. The most likely evolution is towards a new ice age, as you can see clearly in the graphic. CO2 do no predict increase of temperatures, it is just the contrary You can verify that in the graphic. increase of temperature precedes CO2 increase. This is caused by the increased erosion or carbonate rocks in the litosphere and the liberation of CO2 by oceans when temperature raises. The causes of the cycles that you see in the graphic are due to the orbit of earth around the sun, there is no CO2 causation but the opposite. the correlation exist, but the causation is just the reverse to the promoted by the alarmists. Natural sources of CO2 exceed the antropogenic production by orders of magnitude. a single eruption can produce more CO2 than the entire human population in a year. You're right in that it's naturally messy enough. But so what? 313 ppm in 1960 to 390 ppm in 2010, with current measured amount of CO2 exceeding geological maximum values; I just don't see the logic of adding to this mindlessly by burning more black stuff. I do see the plausibility of shooting for long term energy solutions that add, burn, or otherwise muck around with the fragile global ecology, our only home at the moment, less. And I'm open to all of it, hemp prominently included, provided that we burn/waste less in the long run. No final solutions. These problems will not leave, regardless of our capacity to deny infinitely. PGC -- PGC, Your making a straw man argument, mate! Even if we stipulate as a fact that ...current measured amount of CO2 exceeding geological maximum values, this does nothing to force decisions such as how not to muck around with the fragile global ecology. It is the home of all of us, not jush some elite few that wish the rest us us to stop breathing. I have read the papers of the alarmist with eyes wide open, there is lots of discussion of how to reduce populations I see no references to how, except to note that exponential growth can't continue indefinitely and projected populations of 9 billion are probably impossible and absent some other restraint will result in a lot of people starving. The recommendation seems to be for providing birth-control and persuading people to use it. and so forth. There is even chatter about crimes against nature It's the title of a book by Robert Kennedy Jr, Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy tribunals for those that deny the consensus science. I searched both the websites you cite below for tribunals, crimes, and consensus and got nothing except where crimes appears in the title. The Bush administration and the GOP have certainly been engaged denying the consensus of science on evolution and climate change. Brent How about some actual quotes and citations - lest we suspect you of creating a straw man. Brent Try http://www.worldwatch.org/node/563 and http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Against-Nature-Corporate-Plundering/dp/B008SLYJ8C I really don't have time to do what you should be doing for yourself. -- Onward! Stephen No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13 -- 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: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On 1/18/2013 1:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. That's just silly. He is still described as punishing sins, and in particular the sin of not believing in him and not worshiping him. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. That's the god of deism, not Christianity. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Men didn't create small pox, cholera, or childhood leukemia. Brent Christianity : The belief that a walking dead Jewish deity who was his own father although he always existed, commits suicide by cop, although he didn't really die, in order to give himself permission not to send you to an eternal place of torture that he created for you, but instead to make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically promise him you accept him as your master, so he can cleanse you of an evil force that is present in mankind because a rib-woman and a mud-man were convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger Clough -- 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: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar ice caps toalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto
On 1/18/2013 5:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/ Mars is Melting The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts and curious dark spots. NASA Link to story audioListen to this story via streaming audio, a downloadable file, or get help. see captionAugust 7, 2003: It's not every day you get to watch a planetary ice cap vanish, but this month you can. All you need are clear skies, a backyard telescope, and a sky map leading to Mars. Actually, you won't need the sky map because Mars is so bright and easy to find. Just look south between midnight and dawn on any clear night this month. Mars is that eye-catching red star, outshining everything around it. It's getting brighter every night as Earth and Mars converge for a close encounter on August 27th. Yes, it says,Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. It's late spring at the south pole of Mars, says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it. So what's your point, that summer coming to the south pole of Mars is evidence that fossil fuel burning is not warming the Earth?? 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: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to those we could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator of the universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and tyrannize man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it is, full of contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound wisdom and lurid violence. But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and re-written over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of people will live their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives will be no worse for the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no blessing. Craig On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger Clough -- 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/-/2oOpYw773iUJ. 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 unpredictability of solar energy
On 1/18/2013 8:35 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Everything I've said here can be verified by gardening or taking care of a couple of plants, animals, human beings for extended periods of time. Hi, I am not OK with the premise of this sentence or the direction. I want to know, in your thinking, what determines who will be the Gardner, Curator or Guardian. -- 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 unpredictability of solar energy
On 1/18/2013 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:14, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Coming back to hemp should be the good idea. Oil and wood have replaced Hemp (for textile, fuel, paper and medication) just from lies and greed. The possible global warming might just be another consequences on the lies on cannabis, drugs etc. Hemp was the oil, before oil. It is the plant that the human have the most cultivated, with maize and wheat, since a very long time. The idea that it is something dangerous is a total complete recent construct, and has only been a Trojan horse for bandits (probably the one losing the job after the end of alcohol prohibition) to get power. Hi, Any idea how much land would be required to grow sufficient hemp to supply the millions of barrels that our civilization requires? How much fertilizer? How much labor? Have you seem the quantity of energy that is required to turn corn into fuel. for example? The problem is that hemp and other biomass fuel idea are simply too expensive in terms of energy and man hours to replace petrofuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_content_of_biofuel Oh! If wiki says so ... Note that I did not say that only hemp is needed, nor did I condemn entirely oil and coke. I am a realist. But Ford did the calculus, and for a very long time, if hemp would have just be continued to be used, their would have been a drastic harm reduction, possibly ecological. There certainly would have been a drastic reduction in industrialization. Ford also considered making car bodies out of soybeans, but that didn't work out either. Between possibly bad and certainly worst, we have to choose the possibly bad, but we know that unscrupulous special interest made the decisions, and that is the problem. I don't see anything 'unscrupulous' about deciding to exploit the energy embodied in coal and oil. It has been a major factor in creating the modern world. It has created some problems as side effects, but ones that can be solved. Brent Well the real problem is that we tolerate that and that most people buy the media talk without thinking, the real problem is the boss is right routine implemented in many mammals. Our brain evolves less quickly that our ideas and technology. 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: Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter
On 1/18/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, I am discussing ontology, there is no such a process as Turing or 'realities' or objects yet at such a level. All is abstracted away by the consideration of cancellation of properties. Let me just ask you: Did the basic idea of the book, The Theory of Nothing by Russell Standish, make sense to you? He is arguing for the same basic idea, IMHO. An expression like cancellation of properties needs already many things to make sense. Dear Bruno, Baby steps. The concept that Russell Standish discusses in his book, that is denoted by the word Nothing: Do you accept that this word points to a concept? You refer to paper which use the axiomatic method all the times, but you don't want to use it in philosophy, which, I think, doesn't help. You seem to not understand a simple idea that is axiomatic for me. I am trying to understand why this is. Do you understand the thesis of Russell Standish's book and the concept of Nothing he describes? Contingency is, at best, all that can be claimed, thus my proposal that existence is necessary possiblity. Existence of what. Anything. That's the object of inquiry. OK, so go to the next step. Is the existence of a mind precede the existence of what it might have as thoughts? Necessary and possible cannot be primitive term either. Which modal logics? When use alone without further ado, it means the modal logic is S5 (the system implicit in Leibniz). But S5 is the only one standard modal logic having no arithmetical interpretation. Wrong level. How is S5 implicit in Leibniz? Could you explain this? With Kripke: p, that is possibly p, is true in the world alpha if p is true in at least one world accessible from alpha. []p, that is necessary p, is true in the world alpha if p is true in all the worlds accessible from alpha. The alethic usual sense of metaphysically possible and metaphysically necessary can be be given by making all worlds accessible to each other, or more simply, by dropping the accessibility relation: p, that is possibly p, is true in the world alpha if p is true in at least one world. []p, that is necessary p, is true in the world alpha if p is true in all the worlds. In that case you can verify that, independently of the truth value of p, the following propositions are true in all worlds: [](p-q) - ([]p - []q) []p - p []p - [][]p p - []p (p - []p can be derived). You get the system S5, and reciprocally S5 (that is the formula above + the necessitation rule (p/ []p), and classical propositional calculus) is complete for all formula true (whatever values taken by the propositional variable) in all worlds. To sump up, in Leibniz or Aristotle all worlds are presumed to accessible from each others (which makes sense from a highly abstract metaphysical view). In Kripke, or in other semantics, worlds (states, whatever) get special relations with other worlds (accessibility, proximity, etc.). Good, we agree on those concepts, but we need to get back to the impasse we have over the concept of Nothing (which I am equating to the neutral ontological primitive) and my argument against your claim that numbers can be ontological primitives. -- 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 unpredictability of solar energy
On 1/18/2013 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:14, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Coming back to hemp should be the good idea. Oil and wood have replaced Hemp (for textile, fuel, paper and medication) just from lies and greed. The possible global warming might just be another consequences on the lies on cannabis, drugs etc. Hemp was the oil, before oil. It is the plant that the human have the most cultivated, with maize and wheat, since a very long time. The idea that it is something dangerous is a total complete recent construct, and has only been a Trojan horse for bandits (probably the one losing the job after the end of alcohol prohibition) to get power. Hi, Any idea how much land would be required to grow sufficient hemp to supply the millions of barrels that our civilization requires? How much fertilizer? How much labor? Have you seem the quantity of energy that is required to turn corn into fuel. for example? The problem is that hemp and other biomass fuel idea are simply too expensive in terms of energy and man hours to replace petrofuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_content_of_biofuel Oh! If wiki says so ... Note that I did not say that only hemp is needed, nor did I condemn entirely oil and coke. I am a realist. But Ford did the calculus, and for a very long time, if hemp would have just be continued to be used, their would have been a drastic harm reduction, possibly ecological. Between possibly bad and certainly worst, we have to choose the possibly bad, but we know that unscrupulous special interest made the decisions, and that is the problem. Well the real problem is that we tolerate that and that most people buy the media talk without thinking, the real problem is the boss is right routine implemented in many mammals. Our brain evolves less quickly that our ideas and technology. Bruno A realist... 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: The unpredictability of solar energy
On 1/18/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote: I see no references to how, except to note that exponential growth can't continue indefinitely and projected populations of 9 billion are probably impossible and absent some other restraint will result in a lot of people starving. The recommendation seems to be for providing birth-control and persuading people to use it. Dear Brent, I have read my fill of Mathus and his commentators and their reincarnations in the present, there is nothing new in this stuff. -- 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 unpredictability of solar energy
On 1/18/2013 3:32 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/18/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote: I see no references to how, except to note that exponential growth can't continue indefinitely and projected populations of 9 billion are probably impossible and absent some other restraint will result in a lot of people starving. The recommendation seems to be for providing birth-control and persuading people to use it. Dear Brent, I have read my fill of Mathus and his commentators and their reincarnations in the present, there is nothing new in this stuff. OK, so you don't like it...Doesn't mean it's wrong. 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.
