Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 17 Jan 2013, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote: 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. I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. Note that such 1p/3p distinction is made precise informally by the inside/outside the teleportation/duplication boxes in UDA, the terms/ wave in Everett (implicitly), and formally by the Bp and Bp p in AUDA. But this makes just more precise, for the reasoning, the usual subjective/objective distinction, or even the first and third person usual grammatical distinction. One apparent exception is that the physical reality is no more that much objective, as it is (with comp) a first person plural construct. Physical objectivity appears to be a first person plural construction (by *all* Löbian machines, not just the humans). Of course this is due to the reversal: objective is just taken in the usual 3p sense, but physics is no more 3p. The use of the traditional sense for 1p/3p is even more well suited for the Neoplatonist (Plotinian) trinity, as we get more or less precisely the same type of trinity with the intensional variant of self-reference (p, Bp, and Bp p, playing respectively the role of the outer God, the Noùs, and the inner God-universal-soul). This might or not be compared with Pierce, I don't know. Best, Bruno 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 li...@hpcoders.com.au 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- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders
Re: Algorithmic Thermodynamics
On 18 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:25:20PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 4:21 PM, Russell Standish wrote: From just the abstract alone, I can't see how this differs from the Solomonff universal prior? Hi Russell, OK, is that a good thing? It seems to me that it is. Are you saying that the content of the paper is trivial? No - because the paper seems to be saying a whole bunch of other things, which may or may not be interesting. I have downloaded a copy to peruse later when I have time. My comment was more in response to yours - if the measure you get is Solomonoff's, then it is not going to shed light on the measure issue of the UD. (Except, perhaps, to get Bruno to take Solomonoff's measure more seriously...). I take it very seriously, and I think it can play a role in explaining the thermodynamical feature of physics, and thus energy, and now (here) even pressure. But this is still physics in disguise. To get both quanta and qualia, unless I am dead wrong, we have to keep the redundancy of the computation. But algorithmic information unfortunately does eliminate that redundancy (by information compression, Chaitin's Omega is shallow, Posts number is deep, in Bennett sense), and so is of no use in the direct (self-referential) derivation of physics: meaning that its use must be justified too from the material hypostases. Baez paper seems quite interesting though. But the methodology use a form of Occam which makes it still a form of treachery, to derive physics from comp, and this can eventually result in putting consciousness still under the rug, despite the partial use of comp. Best, 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: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On 18 Jan 2013, at 10:19, 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. 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. Glad you agree with me (and St Thomas) that God is obedient to some amount of logic and arithmetic. Even God cannot make 17 into a prime. Note that in Plotinus, and apparently (accepting some definitions) in computationalism, matter is eventually (in logical time) the product of God's lack of control on our 1-indeterminacy on the border of the divine intellect (Noùs). That's is coherent with the general platonist idea that, basically, matter is evil, but I am not sure I go as far as the traditional Platonists on this. Bruno - 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 . 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 18 Jan 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough 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. This can make sense. We can relate this with the common notion of subjectivity. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Hmm... Why not, but I don't see this as fundamental. It can be distracting. 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. OK. Then with comp thirdness is arithmetic (and physics is, counter- intuitively, still 1p, hopefully plural). The physical is a mode of being which is *not* such as it is. Bruno 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- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting
Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On 18 Jan 2013, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote: 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. Which Christianity? Apparently here too there might be an important difference between European Christianism and American one. In Europa most christians are not literalist. They don't believe in Fairy tales, but they can divide on the opportunity to tell this to the weak people, which some believe to not been spiritually mature enough to search for the possible real thing. Bruno 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 . 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 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote: 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? Yes. But there are as many nothing notion than thing notion. It makes sense only when we define the things we are talking about. 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? Sure no problem. It is not always enough clearcut, as Russell did acknowledge, as to see if it is coherent with comp and its reversal, but that can evolve. 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? Yes. Number --- universal machine --- universal machine mind (--- physical realities). 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. I will let Russell agree or not with this. I have just no clue what you mean by the neutral ontological primitive, as you oppose it to numbers, it cannot even make sense once we accept that our brain works like a machine. Once you oppose a philosophical idea to a scientific discovery, you put yourself in a non defensible position, and you do bad press for your ideas, and for philosophy. You do the same mistake as Goethe and Bergson, somehow. 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: The unpredictability of solar energy
On 18 Jan 2013, at 23:37, meekerdb wrote: 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. Either? It did work well with hemp: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54vD_cPCQM8 And there would have been no drastic reduction of industrialization, as being pro-hemp does not entail being oil prohibitionist. It is not a matter of going to one dogma to another, but of using common sense and practicing harm reduction. 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. What was unscrupulous was the lies on Hemp to make it impossible to let it compete with coal and oil, and forest. 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. We can hope, but as I said once, I don't really believe we get sanity back in politics without making clear and loud that everything said publicly about hemp since more than seventy years was purposeful lies and brainwashing. Not just on industrial use, but mainly on its use in medication and as a much more safe than alcohol recreative product. The domain of health product should never be nationalized, like the american did. It was a mystery of me, unexplained by the fairy tale attraction, how and why human, especially Americans who we leading the world toward more liberty, can get so much irrational, on a so important matter. After beginning to accept that Jack Herer was right on the discovery that cannabis can cure cancer on muse, purposefully hidden by Bush-father, I get the point. They have put a lot of money and energy in the lies. Bruno 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 . 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: Is there an aether ?
Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a Universe from Nothing falsifiable? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? What are we assuming about energy? Craig On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: Empty Space is not Empty! http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=y4D6qY2c0Z8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether. No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field. Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. You need to remember that it's mass-energy. Photons gravitate even though they don't have rest mass. Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect. Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism? Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect. 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/-/eJaLG4dqJsIJ. 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.
Does energy obey the laws of materialism ?
Does energy obey the laws of materialism ? Energy presents us with an argument against materialism, (or at least materialism as I understand it) since is conserved, regardess of form or physical location. Thus the electrical energy created in a generating station at one location can be transported down a copper wire to a house miles away. It will seem to lose some value due to the heating by resistance in the wire, but that is merely a conversion of electrical to heat energy and the total is maintained. But all of this occurs over a range of locations, not in a single body of material. Similarly in a pendulum clock, there is a continual conversion of energy from potential energy to kinetic energy and back again, but some nonphysical marker outside of spacetime keeps the total constant. Etc. I would say that the nonphysical marker outside of the physical world is mental energy, or the idea of energy, and it is this (a nonphysical idea rather than a physical quantity) that is actually maintained. Leibniz in his Idealism gives a similar account to the transfer of momentum between colliding bodies, maintaining, quite reasonably, that momentum is an idea rather than a thing. - Receiving the following content - From: Cass Silva Receiver: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com Time: 2013-01-19, 17:58:57 Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] News: Physicists Find Evidence ThatTheUniverseIsA 'Giant Brain' non-material Cass From: Dan Ghiocel d...@ghiocel.com To: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] News: Physicists Find Evidence That TheUniverseIsA 'Giant Brain' Are you saying that energy is non physical? Dan G On 1/18/2013 5:06 PM, Cass Silva wrote: Either way it is still non physical - it is energy and remains energy. Cass snip __._,_.___Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (14) Recent Activity: New Members 1 Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ -- 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.
Does energy obey the laws of materialism ?
Does energy obey the laws of materialism ? Energy presents us with an argument against materialism, (or at least materialism as I understand it) since is conserved, regardess of form or physical location. Thus the electrical energy created in a generating station at one location can be transported down a copper wire to a house miles away. It will seem to lose some value due to the heating by resistance in the wire, but that is merely a conversion of electrical to heat energy and the total is maintained. But all of this occurs over a range of locations, not in a single body of material. Similarly in a pendulum clock, there is a continual conversion of energy from potential energy to kinetic energy and back again, but some nonphysical marker outside of spacetime keeps the total constant. Etc. I would say that the nonphysical marker outside of the physical world is mental energy, or the idea of energy, and it is this (a nonphysical idea rather than a physical quantity) that is actually maintained. Leibniz in his Idealism gives a similar account to the transfer of momentum between colliding bodies, maintaining, quite reasonably, that momentum is an idea rather than a thing. In other words, there is no such physical thing as momentum, only the idea of momentum. - Receiving the following content - From: Cass Silva Receiver: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com Time: 2013-01-19, 17:58:57 Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] News: Physicists Find Evidence ThatTheUniverseIsA 'Giant Brain' non-material Cass From: Dan Ghiocel d...@ghiocel.com To: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] News: Physicists Find Evidence That TheUniverseIsA 'Giant Brain' Are you saying that energy is non physical? Dan G On 1/18/2013 5:06 PM, Cass Silva wrote: Either way it is still non physical - it is energy and remains energy. Cass snip __._,_.___Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (14) Recent Activity: New Members 1 Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ -- 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: Does energy obey the laws of materialism ?
Hi Roger, I would say the opposite - energy not being conserved would pose a harder challenge to materialism, because then you'd have to ask where it comes from and where it goes. On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Does energy obey the laws of materialism ? Energy presents us with an argument against materialism, (or at least materialism as I understand it) since is conserved, regardess of form or physical location. Thus the electrical energy created in a generating station at one location can be transported down a copper wire to a house miles away. It will seem to lose some value due to the heating by resistance in the wire, but that is merely a conversion of electrical to heat energy and the total is maintained. But all of this occurs over a range of locations, not in a single body of material. Similarly in a pendulum clock, there is a continual conversion of energy from potential energy to kinetic energy and back again, but some nonphysical marker outside of spacetime keeps the total constant. Etc. I would say that the nonphysical marker outside of the physical world is mental energy, or the idea of energy, and it is this (a nonphysical idea rather than a physical quantity) that is actually maintained. Leibniz in his Idealism gives a similar account to the transfer of momentum between colliding bodies, maintaining, quite reasonably, that momentum is an idea rather than a thing. In other words, there is no such physical thing as momentum, only the idea of momentum. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Cass Silva silva_c...@yahoo.com *Receiver:* mindbr...@yahoogroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-19, 17:58:57 *Subject:* Re: [Mind and Brain] News: Physicists Find Evidence ThatTheUniverseIsA 'Giant Brain' ** non-material Cass -- *From:* Dan Ghiocel d...@ghiocel.com *To:* mindbr...@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Saturday, 19 January 2013 12:23 PM *Subject:* Re: [Mind and Brain] News: Physicists Find Evidence That TheUniverseIsA 'Giant Brain' Are you saying that energy is non physical? Dan G On 1/18/2013 5:06 PM, Cass Silva wrote: Either way it is still non physical - it is energy and remains energy. Cass snip __._,_.___ Reply via web posthttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdTZxMW84BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBG1zZ0lkAzQ1NDgxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1ODY1MTY0Mg--?act=replymessageNum=45481 Reply to sender silva_c...@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BMind%20and%20Brain%5D%20News%3A%20Physicists%20Find%20Evidence%20That%20TheUniverseIsA%20%27Giant%20Brain%27 Reply to group mindbr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BMind%20and%20Brain%5D%20News%3A%20Physicists%20Find%20Evidence%20That%20TheUniverseIsA%20%27Giant%20Brain%27 Start a New Topichttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJldWFpMTRuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1ODY1MTY0Mg-- Messages in this topichttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/message/45410;_ylc=X3oDMTM2MnZ2bTRpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBG1zZ0lkAzQ1NDgxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1ODY1MTY0MgR0cGNJZAM0NTQxMA--(14) Recent Activity: - New Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYjg0ZW9nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTg2NTE2NDI-?o=6 1 Visit Your Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain;_ylc=X3oDMTJlODR2b3JjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1ODY1MTY0Mg-- [image: Yahoo! Groups]http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkb2JuZ2I3BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU4NjUxNjQy Switch to: Text-Onlymindbrain-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional, Daily Digestmindbrain-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest• Unsubscribe mindbrain-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe • Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ • Send us Feedback ygroupsnotificati...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback+on+the+redesigned+individual+mail+v1 . __,_._,___ -- 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,
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: There is no field of theology, removing the fairy tale aspect of it would be like removing the skin of a toy balloon. To say that there is no field of theology is equivalent to say I know the answer to the fundamental questions, It is equivalent to saying that the field of theology has never once in its entire history explained anything about anything. And it is equivalent to saying that many things about the universe are so mysterious that I don't even have a theory to explain them because unlike theologians I believe that no theory is far superior to a theory that is obviously very very very stupid. I define a stupid theory not as a theory that is necessarily wrong (the Steady State Theory was wrong but not stupid) but as a theory that explains nothing, such as the God theory. I'll tell you what I am aware of, that many people, such as yourself, are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word God I gave you my definition, That is true you did, you said by definition, God is the ultimate reality. which is close to the original one used by those where the first to practice the scientific attitude in a systematic way, in *all* field. That is also true, everybody believes in that. And so I want to thank you for buying my course and congratulate you for finishing the first 2 steps in my patented home study course BECOMING A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 EASY STEPS, namely: STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't matter what it is. STEP 2) Define the word God as meaning that thing whatever it may be. Now you just need to complete the remaining 2 steps to become a official liberal theologian: STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. All that is very nice, but name something of interest theology has discovered in the last century, and if that's too hard try the last millennium. interest is subjective. OK, then tell me something that you think is of interest that theology has discovered in the last century, and if that's too hard try the last millennium. I have asked this question several times and on each occasion you have used legalese and weasel words to avoid giving a clear answer; but if I had asked the same question about mathematics or physics or astronomy or chemistry or biology or art or literature or even politics you would not have needed to hire a lawyer but would have simply supplied a long list of wonderful achievements. Wow, calling a guy know for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. You repeat yourself. I know. So do you. If you are not conscious of the dogma you support, Wow, calling a guy know for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. 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: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
Question. What is DNA ? DNA consist on atoms and electromagnetic fields. In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em field without Electron It means the source of this em field must be an Electron Then we need to write : DNA is atoms, electron (s) and electromagnetic fields. The simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas and many theories. In the other words, we don’t know what electron is. In my opinion, if we understand electron we will better understand DNA. ==. On Jan 20, 12:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Jan 2013, at 09:32, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Does DNA have consciousness to create the double helix from zygote to child ? Probably not. But the complex DNA+cytoplasm might have some consciousness on vaster scale. very hard to decide this today. Then DNA +cytoplasm might have the universal Turing machine consciousness, which might be trivial tough, and quite disconnected from our computational history. This might be trivial consciousness. I am not sure. Bruno ==. 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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- 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: Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter
On 1/20/2013 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote: 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? Yes. But there are as many nothing notion than thing notion. It makes sense only when we define the things we are talking about. Dear Bruno, There is one overarching concept in Russell Standish 's book that is denoted by the word Nothing: There is a mathematical equivalence between the Everything, as represented by this collection of all possible descriptions and Nothing, a state of no information. This state of no information is equivalent to my concept of the ontologically primitive: that which has no particular properties at all. Thus is not not a number nor matter nor any particular at all; it is the neutral ground. But this discussion is taking the assumption of a well founded or reductive ontology which I argue against except as a special case. Additionally, you consider a static and changeless ontology whereas I consider a process ontology, like that of Heraclitus, Bergson and A.N. whitehead. 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? Sure no problem. It is not always enough clearcut, as Russell did acknowledge, as to see if it is coherent with comp and its reversal, but that can evolve. I see the evolution as multileveled, flattening everything into a single level is causes only confusions. 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? Yes. Number --- universal machine --- universal machine mind (--- physical realities). Dear Bruno, I see these as aspects of a cyclical relation of a process that generates physical realities. The relation is non-monotonic as well except of special cases such as what you consider. Universal Machine Mind == Instances of physical realities | ^ | \ | \ | \ V\ Number --- Universal Machine All of these aspects co-exist with each other and none is more ontologically primitive than the rest. 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
Re: Two Schrodinger cats
On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 13:32, 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? Let a = alive, d = dead, and the subscript 1 and 2 distinguishes the two cats, which are independent. Both cats are in a superposed state dead + alive: (a1 + d1) and (a2 + d2), so the two cats configuration is given by (a1 + d1) * (a2 + d2), with * the tensor product. This products is linear and so this give a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2. Mary and Joe don't interact with any cats, so the global state is also a direct tensor product M * J * (a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2), which gives: M * J *a1*a2 + M * J *a1*d2 + M * J *d1*a2 + M * J *d2*a2 You can add the normalization constant, which are 1/sqrt(2) times 1/sqrt(2) = 1/2= 1/2 M * J *a1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *a1*d2 + 1/2 M * J *d1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *d2*a2 So the answer to your question is yes. Nice. Thanks Bruno! Welcome! To be sure, the normalizing factor does not mean there are four universes, but most plausibly an infinity of universes, only partitioned in four parts with identical quantum relative measure. Sure, I get that. Am I a set of universes? You can put it in that way. You can be identified by the set of the universes/computations going through your actual states. But that is really a logician, or category theoretician manner of speaking: the identification is some natural morphism. Well I think Bohr made the trick for the atoms. I think he defines once an atom by the set of macroscopic apparatus capable of measuring some set of observable. That can be useful for some reasoning, but also misleading if taken literally, without making clear the assumed ontology. Ok. That mode of reasoning is weirdly appealing to me. Even Bohr's take. It is common in algebra, logic and exploited in category theory. As long as we identify identity and morphism it is OK, in the applied fields. Don't confuse the price of a glass of beer with the set of all glass of beers with the same price :) Logicians often identify a world with a set of proposition (the proposition true in that world). But they identify also a proposition with the a set of worlds (the worlds in which that proposition is true). Doing both identification, you can see a world as a set of set of worlds. That is useful for some semantics of modal logics. What textbook would you recommend on modal logic? (I'm relatively confortable with first-order logic from studying classical AI and also from Prolog). The two books by George Boolos (1979, 1993), on the self-referential logics (G, G*, S4Grz) contains a quite good introduction to modal logic. The best textbook on modal logic is in my opinion is the book by Brian Chellas: Modal logic an introduction. http://www.amazon.com/Modal-Logic-Introduction-Brian-Chellas/dp/0521295157 A recreative introduction to modal logic and self-reference (the logic G) is Forever Undecided by Raymond Smullyan. (A good book on first order logic, with the main theorems (deduction, completeness and soundness, Löwenheim-Skolem, incompleteness) is Elliott Mendelson.) Those are examples of dualities, which abounds in logic, and which can be very useful when used which much care, and very misleading when forgetting that a morphism is not an identity relation. To get the exact number of universes, we should first solve the marriage of gravity with the quantum. And with comp, we should also derive the Quantum from arithmetic (but that's not true, actually: with comp we have directly the infinities of universes). Ok, sounds good but I have to dig deeper. (moving my own understanding of what you're saying beyond the mushiness that it currently is) I can recommend the reading of the book by David Albert Quantum Mechanics and experience(*). It is short and readable. Nice. I bought it and I'm enjoying it so far. Nice. Best, Bruno To get all the quantum weirdness, and quantum
Third person NDE
Hi, Here is a crash investigation video. They are always about death or near death experiences, in the third person way, and this one reminds me the video on people having done a Tabernanthe iboga experience, or a so called Near Death Experience (an expression commonly interpreted as a first person experience). It is very interesting, imo, and what is cute is that you get freely the relation between Death and the Arithmetical Contradiction in the second part (the investigation). We learn better from extreme situations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ribT9NfkAsg (about 50 minutes video. No worry, in this video things go well). 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: the curse of materialism
On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 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. I am only unclear in why you would think that I am unclear. My understanding is that arithmetic truth is one facet of pattern recognition, which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material realism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of other private representations, it has no public existence which is independent of sense, nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to any form of sense were they hypothetically able to exist independently of sense. Please don't hesitate to let me know what seems unclear about that. Craig 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 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/-/uBjdNYA6tGsJ. 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 Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 13:32, 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? Let a = alive, d = dead, and the subscript 1 and 2 distinguishes the two cats, which are independent. Both cats are in a superposed state dead + alive: (a1 + d1) and (a2 + d2), so the two cats configuration is given by (a1 + d1) * (a2 + d2), with * the tensor product. This products is linear and so this give a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2. Mary and Joe don't interact with any cats, so the global state is also a direct tensor product M * J * (a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2), which gives: M * J *a1*a2 + M * J *a1*d2 + M * J *d1*a2 + M * J *d2*a2 You can add the normalization constant, which are 1/sqrt(2) times 1/sqrt(2) = 1/2= 1/2 M * J *a1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *a1*d2 + 1/2 M * J *d1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *d2*a2 So the answer to your question is yes. Nice. Thanks Bruno! Welcome! To be sure, the normalizing factor does not mean there are four universes, but most plausibly an infinity of universes, only partitioned in four parts with identical quantum relative measure. Sure, I get that. Am I a set of universes? You can put it in that way. You can be identified by the set of the universes/computations going through your actual states. But that is really a logician, or category theoretician manner of speaking: the identification is some natural morphism. Well I think Bohr made the trick for the atoms. I think he defines once an atom by the set of macroscopic apparatus capable of measuring some set of observable. That can be useful for some reasoning, but also misleading if taken literally, without making clear the assumed ontology. Ok. That mode of reasoning is weirdly appealing to me. Even Bohr's take. It is common in algebra, logic and exploited in category theory. As long as we identify identity and morphism it is OK, in the applied fields. Don't confuse the price of a glass of beer with the set of all glass of beers with the same price :) Logicians often identify a world with a set of proposition (the proposition true in that world). But they identify also a proposition with the a set of worlds (the worlds in which that proposition is true). Doing both identification, you can see a world as a set of set of worlds. That is useful for some semantics of modal logics. What textbook would you recommend on modal logic? (I'm relatively confortable with first-order logic from studying classical AI and also from Prolog). The two books by George Boolos (1979, 1993), on the self-referential logics (G, G*, S4Grz) contains a quite good introduction to modal logic. The best textbook on modal logic is in my opinion is the book by Brian Chellas: Modal logic an introduction. http://www.amazon.com/Modal-Logic-Introduction-Brian-Chellas/dp/0521295157 A recreative introduction to modal logic and self-reference (the logic G) is Forever Undecided by Raymond Smullyan. (A good book on first order logic, with the main theorems (deduction, completeness and soundness, Löwenheim-Skolem, incompleteness) is Elliott Mendelson.) Here is a link to what seems to be a very complete set of tutorials on logic: https://sites.google.com/site/theoremeorg/ Richard Those are examples of dualities, which abounds in logic, and which can be very useful when used which much care, and very misleading when forgetting that a morphism is not an identity relation. To get the exact number of universes, we should first solve the marriage of gravity with the quantum. And with comp, we should also derive the Quantum from arithmetic (but that's not true, actually: with comp we have directly the infinities of universes). Ok, sounds good but I have to dig deeper. (moving my own understanding of what you're saying beyond the mushiness that it currently is) I can recommend the reading of the book by David Albert Quantum
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:50:19 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: There are those who believe that the very atoms are necessary in order to preserve a consciousness: making an arbitrarily close copy won't do. From what you have said before, this is what you think, but it goes against any widely accepted biological or physical scientific theory. Since there is no widely accepted biological or physical scientific theory of what consciousness is, that doesn't bother me very much. The assumption by scientists is that consciousness is caused by the brain, We could also assume that ground beef is caused by the grocery store, but that doesn't tell us about ground beef. and if brain function doesn't change, consciousness doesn't change either. So swapping out atoms in the brain for different atoms of the same kind leaves brain function unchanged and therefore leaves consciousness unchanged also. An idea can change the function of the brain as much as a chemical change - maybe more so, especially if we are talking about a life altering idea. To me, the fact that physics seems more generic to us than chemistry which seems more generic than biology is a function of the ontology of matter rather than a mechanism for consciousness. The whole idea of brain function or consciousness being 'unchanged' is broken concept to begin with. It assumes a normative baseline at an arbitrary level of description. In reality, of course brain function and consciousness are constantly changing, sometimes because of chemistry, sometimes in spite of it. Also, swapping out atoms in the brain for different atoms of a different but related type, such as a different isotope, leaves brain function unchanged and leaves consciousness unchanged. This is because the brain works using chemical rather than nuclear reactions. That's because on the level of nuclear reactions there is no brain. That doesn't mean that changing atoms has no effect on some non-human level of experience, only that our native experience is distant enough that we don't notice a difference. Some people might notice a difference, who knows? I wouldn't think that people could tell the difference between different kinds of light of the same spectrum, but they can, even down to a geographic specificity in some cases. It is an assumption but it is consistent with every observation ever made. The consistency doesn't surprise me, it's the interpretation which I see as an unscientific assumption. Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/-/Iq1-7vNHSRIJ. 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: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Hi Craig Weinberg Then you believe that God exists. That's a good start. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-19, 09:55:18 Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by a all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: 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 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/-/sTqccu4P5KoJ. 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: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Then you believe that God exists. That's a good start. Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of having it? - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-19, 09:55:18 *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by a all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: 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 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/-/sTqccu4P5KoJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gdJXht6KYKUJ. 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 icecapstoalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto
Hi meekerdb Lead me to the proof. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-19, 15:22:30 Subject: Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar icecapstoalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto On 1/19/2013 3:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO the default position is that somebody has yet to prove that man's activities are warming the earth. A 'default position' is one taken in a state of ignorance. If you're still ignorant of the evidence and the consensus of 99% of the world's climate scientists that's your own fault. Or even that the earth is warming beyond statistical possibility. Consider this data : Yes, I see that vertical red line at 0, which is really out of date since at 'now' it would be off this graph at 394ppm 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: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract computations. 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: Does energy obey the laws of materialism ?
Hi Telmo Menezes Good point. The answer is the same source that the universe came from. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 10:37:56 Subject: Re: Does energy obey the laws of materialism ? Hi Roger, I would say the opposite - energy not being conserved would pose a harder challenge to materialism, because then you'd have to ask where it comes from and where it goes. On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Does energy obey the laws of materialism ? ? Energy?resents us with an argument against materialism, (or at least materialism as I understand it) since?s conserved, regardess of form or ?hysical location. Thus the electrical energy created in a generating station at one location can be transported down a copper wire to a house miles away. It will seem to lose some value due to the heating by resistance in the wire, but that is merely a conversion of electrical to heat energy and the total is maintained. But all of this occurs over a range of locations, not in a single body of material. ? Similarly in a pendulum clock, there is a continual conversion of energy from potential energy to kinetic energy and back again, but some nonphysical marker outside of spacetime keeps the total constant. ? Etc. ? I would say that the nonphysical marker outside of the physical world is mental energy,?r the idea of energy,?nd it is this (a nonphysical idea rather than a physical quantity)?hat is actually maintained. Leibniz in his Idealism gives a similar?ccount?o the transfer of momentum between colliding bodies, maintaining, quite reasonably,?hat momentum is an idea rather than a thing.? In other words, there is no such physical thing as momentum, only the idea of momentum. ? ? - Receiving the following content - From: Cass Silva Receiver: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com Time: 2013-01-19, 17:58:57 Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] News: Physicists Find Evidence ThatTheUniverseIsA 'Giant Brain' ? non-material Cass From: Dan Ghiocel d...@ghiocel.com To: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2013 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] News: Physicists Find Evidence That TheUniverseIsA 'Giant Brain' ? Are you saying that energy is non physical? Dan G On 1/18/2013 5:06 PM, Cass Silva wrote: ? Either way it is still non physical - it is energy and remains energy. Cass snip __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (14) Recent Activity: New Members 1 Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ? Unsubscribe ? Terms of Use ? Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ -- 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: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi meekerdb All computations are abstract. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 14:44:33 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract computations. 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
On 1/20/2013 3:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even God cannot make 17 into a prime. And He cannot make it not prime either. So I guess he doesn't exist. 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: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:43:42 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So you belong to the liberal thought police then. Haha of course. How could it be possible for anyone to see the contradiction of the concept of God without 'belonging to the liberal thought police'? Not only can one not have freedom of speech, one cannot have freedom of beliefs. Liberalism is fascism, it seems. You are welcome to your beliefs, I am just explaining to you why they don't seem to make sense. I could decide that you just belong to the conservative apologists for irrationality but I don't see how that adds to my case. Conservatism may well be fascism, but I don't see what that could possibly have to do one way or the other with the logical inconsistency of a God who is functionally indistinguishable from Satan or randomness. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-20, 14:18:16 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Then you believe that God exists. That's a good start. Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of having it? - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-19, 09:55:18 *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by a all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: 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 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/-/sTqccu4P5KoJ. To post to this group, send
Robot reading vs human reading
Hi Bruno Marchal The triads are based on epistemology. Without Secondness everything is impersonal. Without Secondness you cannot understand how the final expression was obtained (what it means to YOU, and how it was affected by the interprent. It's just wham bam ! that's a cat I see ! Van Quine made this criticism of conventional epistemology and gave it up to examine instead how we know something that is perceived through physiological explanations. And all epistemoblogy would be robot reading, with no account to the personality, memory, training, or linguistic knowledge of the reader. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 07:01:56 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 18 Jan 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough 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. This can make sense. We can relate this with the common notion of subjectivity. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Hmm... Why not, but I don't see this as fundamental. It can be distracting. 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. OK. Then with comp thirdness is arithmetic (and physics is, counter- intuitively, still 1p, hopefully plural). The physical is a mode of being which is *not* such as it is. Bruno 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
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Hi Craig Weinberg They don't make sense to you but they do make make sense to me. Could it be that you are a low information, low understanding person ? - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 15:00:34 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:43:42 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So you belong to the liberal thought police then. Haha of course. How could it be possible for anyone to see the contradiction of the concept of God without 'belonging to the liberal thought police'? Not only can one not have freedom of speech, one cannot have freedom of beliefs. Liberalism is fascism, it seems. You are welcome to your beliefs, I am just explaining to you why they don't seem to make sense. I could decide that you just belong to the conservative apologists for irrationality but I don't see how that adds to my case. Conservatism may well be fascism, but I don't see what that could possibly have to do one way or the other with the logical inconsistency of a God who is functionally indistinguishable from Satan or randomness. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 14:18:16 Subject: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Then you believe that God exists. That's a good start. Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of having it? - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-19, 09:55:18 Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by a all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: 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 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
Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
On 1/20/2013 5:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Jan 2013, at 23:37, meekerdb wrote: 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. Either? It did work well with hemp: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54vD_cPCQM8 No it didn't, it's the same car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_Car And there would have been no drastic reduction of industrialization, as being pro-hemp does not entail being oil prohibitionist. It is not a matter of going to one dogma to another, but of using common sense and practicing harm reduction. 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. What was unscrupulous was the lies on Hemp to make it impossible to let it compete with coal and oil, and forest. There was nothing unique about hemp. Soybeans, corn, wheat, flax, and other crops could provide the fibers and alcohol to make plastics and fuel. So it was not lies about hemp that killed these projects. In any case growing hemp was even subsidized by the U.S. government up through World War II. But the retun-on-energy-investment for fermenting crops into alcohol is not comparable to oil. Alcohol as a fuel from corn is barely above break-even. Brent 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. We can hope, but as I said once, I don't really believe we get sanity back in politics without making clear and loud that everything said publicly about hemp since more than seventy years was purposeful lies and brainwashing. Not just on industrial use, but mainly on its use in medication and as a much more safe than alcohol recreative product. The domain of health product should never be nationalized, like the american did. It was a mystery of me, unexplained by the fairy tale attraction, how and why human, especially Americans who we leading the world toward more liberty, can get so much irrational, on a so important matter. After beginning to accept that Jack Herer was right on the discovery that cannabis can cure cancer on muse, purposefully hidden by Bush-father, I get the point. They have put a lot of money and energy in the lies. Bruno 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. 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
Re: Does energy obey the laws of materialism ?
Energy is conserved because we want our theories to be time translation invariant (c.f. Noether's theorem). Brent On 1/20/2013 7:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, I would say the opposite - energy not being conserved would pose a harder challenge to materialism, because then you'd have to ask where it comes from and where it goes. On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Does energy obey the laws of materialism ? Energy presents us with an argument against materialism, (or at least materialism as I understand it) since is conserved, regardess of form or physical location. Thus the electrical energy created in a generating station at one location can be transported down a copper wire to a house miles away. It will seem to lose some value due to the heating by resistance in the wire, but that is merely a conversion of electrical to heat energy and the total is maintained. But all of this occurs over a range of locations, not in a single body of material. Similarly in a pendulum clock, there is a continual conversion of energy from potential energy to kinetic energy and back again, but some nonphysical marker outside of spacetime keeps the total constant. Etc. I would say that the nonphysical marker outside of the physical world is mental energy, or the idea of energy, and it is this (a nonphysical idea rather than a physical quantity) that is actually maintained. Leibniz in his Idealism gives a similar account to the transfer of momentum between colliding bodies, maintaining, quite reasonably, that momentum is an idea rather than a thing. In other words, there is no such physical thing as momentum, only the idea of momentum. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Cass Silva mailto:silva_c...@yahoo.com *Receiver:* mindbr...@yahoogroups.com mailto:mindbr...@yahoogroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-19, 17:58:57 *Subject:* Re: [Mind and Brain] News: Physicists Find Evidence ThatTheUniverseIsA 'Giant Brain' non-material Cass -- *From:* Dan Ghiocel d...@ghiocel.com mailto:d...@ghiocel.com *To:* mindbr...@yahoogroups.com mailto:mindbr...@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Saturday, 19 January 2013 12:23 PM *Subject:* Re: [Mind and Brain] News: Physicists Find Evidence That TheUniverseIsA 'Giant Brain' Are you saying that energy is non physical? Dan G On 1/18/2013 5:06 PM, Cass Silva wrote: Either way it is still non physical - it is energy and remains energy. Cass snip __._,_.___ Reply via web post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdTZxMW84BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBG1zZ0lkAzQ1NDgxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1ODY1MTY0Mg--?act=replymessageNum=45481 Reply to sender mailto:silva_c...@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BMind%20and%20Brain%5D%20News%3A%20Physicists%20Find%20Evidence%20That%20TheUniverseIsA%20%27Giant%20Brain%27 Reply to group mailto:mindbr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BMind%20and%20Brain%5D%20News%3A%20Physicists%20Find%20Evidence%20That%20TheUniverseIsA%20%27Giant%20Brain%27 Start a New Topic http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJldWFpMTRuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1ODY1MTY0Mg-- Messages in this topic http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/message/45410;_ylc=X3oDMTM2MnZ2bTRpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBG1zZ0lkAzQ1NDgxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1ODY1MTY0MgR0cGNJZAM0NTQxMA-- (14) Recent Activity: * New Members http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYjg0ZW9nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTg2NTE2NDI-?o=6 1 Visit Your Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain;_ylc=X3oDMTJlODR2b3JjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1ODY1MTY0Mg-- Yahoo! Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkb2JuZ2I3BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzY4MTcyMDUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA5MTk1OTExBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU4NjUxNjQy Switch to: Text-Only mailto:mindbrain-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional, Daily Digest mailto:mindbrain-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest • Unsubscribe mailto:mindbrain-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar icecapstoalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto
You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think. Brent On 1/20/2013 11:36 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Lead me to the proof. - Receiving the following content - *From:* meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-19, 15:22:30 *Subject:* Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar icecapstoalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto On 1/19/2013 3:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO the default position is that somebody has yet to prove that man's activities are warming the earth. A 'default position' is one taken in a state of ignorance. If you're still ignorant of the evidence and the consensus of 99% of the world's climate scientists that's your own fault. Or even that the earth is warming beyond statistical possibility. Consider this data : Yes, I see that vertical red line at 0, which is really out of date since at 'now' it would be off this graph at 394ppm Brent 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 3:06:07 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg They don't make sense to you but they do make make sense to me. Could it be that you are a low information, low understanding person ? You can say that it makes sense to you, but I think that you just want it to make sense. I don't know that it makes you any kind of person or not, but I try not to draw conclusions about people based on the collection of ideas which they happen to have inherited. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:00:34 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:43:42 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So you belong to the liberal thought police then. Haha of course. How could it be possible for anyone to see the contradiction of the concept of God without 'belonging to the liberal thought police'? Not only can one not have freedom of speech, one cannot have freedom of beliefs. Liberalism is fascism, it seems. You are welcome to your beliefs, I am just explaining to you why they don't seem to make sense. I could decide that you just belong to the conservative apologists for irrationality but I don't see how that adds to my case. Conservatism may well be fascism, but I don't see what that could possibly have to do one way or the other with the logical inconsistency of a God who is functionally indistinguishable from Satan or randomness. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 14:18:16 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Then you believe that God exists. That's a good start. Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of having it? - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-19, 09:55:18 *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by a all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: 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
Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a Universe from Nothing falsifiable? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself. Craig We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? What are we assuming about energy? Craig On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: Empty Space is not Empty! http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=y4D6qY2c0Z8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether. No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field. Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. You need to remember that it's mass-energy. Photons gravitate even though they don't have rest mass. Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect. Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism? Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect. 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/-/eJaLG4dqJsIJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email
Science is a religion by itself.
I believe . . . . .you believe your opinion . . . my opinion . ... . . your meaning . . . my meaning . .. . . . The opinion of opinion . . . . . The meaning of meaning . . . . . And so is endless. ===. I Believe in Order to Understand. St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, said, “I believe in order to understand” (credo ut intelligam) and centuries later, St. Anselm of Canterbury, echoed his statement in similar fashion: “I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.” These great Christian thinkers understood the proper use of reason must be preceded by faith in the proper object. Not faith in ourselves or science, but faith in God, specifically in His revelation of Himself in His Son Jesus Christ. Their statements echo the words of the writer of Hebrews when he said “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” (Hebrews 11:3 – NIV) http://carpediemcoramdeo.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/i-believe-in-order-to-understand/ I cannot believe in such method , in such way. I need to understand in order to believe. To believe in God, Souls . . .metaphysics . . .. etc I need proof, scientific proof with physical laws and formulas. =. Einstein said: “ One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have.” Why our science ‘is primitive and childlike’ ? Because we don’t know the basic things: what the vacuum is, what the quantum particle is ( they say it is math point), what an electron is (electron has six formulas and many theories) what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' ? . . . . etc . . . etc. =. After 30 years of thinking about that we call ‘philosophy of physics ‘ I wrote my ideas briefly: God is a Scientist and Atheist. Science is a religion by itself. Why? Because the God can create and govern the Universe only using physical laws, formulas, equations. Here is the scheme of His plan. =. God : Ten Scientific Commandments. 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= , p= 0, t= . 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1. 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb. ... 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* . 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- HeI -- H -- . . . 6. Proton: (p). 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton: a) electromagnetic, b) nuclear, c) biological. 8. The Physical Laws: a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy / Mass, b) Pauli Exclusion Law, c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law. 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness. 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation. ===. I am not physicist and not philosopher. I call myself a ‘peasant’. And if a peasant can understand the Scheme (!) of Universe , then everybody, using usual human logic, can understand too. ==. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus. =. -- 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 Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 01:53:49PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote: 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? Sure no problem. It is not always enough clearcut, as Russell did acknowledge, as to see if it is coherent with comp and its reversal, but that can evolve. In some sense, my work is not ontology, as I do not ask the question what is fundamental like you two are doing. Indeed, I believe the question to be largely meaningless (I had a long debate with Colin Hales on this topic). More on this later today, if I get time. I had some thoughts during the night crystallising my understanding of the UDA. I do acknowledge Bruno's point that set theory is already too rich. Yet none of my work is based on controversial aspects of set theory, such as the axiom of choice, so I don't see a big problem here. As for compatibility with COMP, UD* is already the Nothing I refer to. I do use the uniform measure over the reals as a means for motivating the use of Solomonoff-Levin's universal prior measure, and Bruno has criticised this, however the S-L measure over the semantic space is rather insensitive to the assumed measure over the underlying syntactic space. It is, of course, an open problem whether the measure induced by the universal dovetailer over UD* makes any difference, as that measure has not been calculated. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't make any difference, however. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt. The more stupid the man the heavier his load of faith. --- H. L. Mencken On 1/20/2013 1:31 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: I believe . . . . .you believe your opinion . . . my opinion . ... . . your meaning . . . my meaning . .. . . . The opinion of opinion . . . . . The meaning of meaning . . . . . And so is endless. ===. I Believe in Order to Understand. St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, said, “I believe in order to understand” (credo ut intelligam) and centuries later, St. Anselm of Canterbury, echoed his statement in similar fashion: “I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.” These great Christian thinkers understood the proper use of reason must be preceded by faith in the proper object. Not faith in ourselves or science, but faith in God, specifically in His revelation of Himself in His Son Jesus Christ. Their statements echo the words of the writer of Hebrews when he said “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” (Hebrews 11:3 – NIV) http://carpediemcoramdeo.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/i-believe-in-order-to-understand/ I cannot believe in such method , in such way. I need to understand in order to believe. To believe in God, Souls . . .metaphysics . . .. etc I need proof, scientific proof with physical laws and formulas. =. Einstein said: “ One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have.” Why our science ‘is primitive and childlike’ ? Because we don’t know the basic things: what the vacuum is, what the quantum particle is ( they say it is math point), what an electron is (electron has six formulas and many theories) what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' ? . . . . etc . . . etc. =. After 30 years of thinking about that we call ‘philosophy of physics ‘ I wrote my ideas briefly: God is a Scientist and Atheist. Science is a religion by itself. Why? Because the God can create and govern the Universe only using physical laws, formulas, equations. Here is the scheme of His plan. =. God : Ten Scientific Commandments. 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= , p= 0, t= . 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1. 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb. ... 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* . 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- HeI -- H -- . . . 6. Proton: (p). 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton: a) electromagnetic, b) nuclear, c) biological. 8. The Physical Laws: a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy / Mass, b) Pauli Exclusion Law, c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law. 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness. 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation. ===. I am not physicist and not philosopher. I call myself a ‘peasant’. And if a peasant can understand the Scheme (!) of Universe , then everybody, using usual human logic, can understand too. ==. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus. =. -- 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: Third person NDE
This may be totally irrelavent, but NDE studlier, Raymond Moody, has a book published about 3 years ago, called Glimpses of Eternity, in which NDE's and passings-on are a shared experience, including a life review, seen by family and friends.Supposedly, such family and friends, are not under the influence of psychotropic medications at the time, and what it has to do with Arithmatical Contradiction, I am sadly, ignorant. But I'd thought I would pass it this way to see if there was any connection,at all? -Mitch -- 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: Does energy obey the laws of materialism ?
Is it fair, to call energy, matter in motion? Is it matter with momentum? Since Photons are massless and so are neutrinos, are they just types of energy, or primal energy, or proto-matter (wanna-be?). -- 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
Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster here I come? -- 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
What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster here I come? -- 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/-/wiperHBOCuMJ. 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.
