date:20130125

On 24 Jan 2013, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/24/2013 12:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

Bruno,

What is meant by the informational interpretations? Is that
something like the one Ron Garrett presented?

It's the view most advocated by Asher and Fuchs, that the WF is just
an encoding of what the experimenter knows about the physical system
based on its preparation.

Yes. It is close to Pauli and Heisenberg's idea that the quantum state
does not describe a real physical state, but only a relative
knowledge state.

The computationalist shift worlds == dreams should please to both
them, and to the MWI defenders, but of course, it can also makes them
both nervous.

Many points of view overlap much more than what their defenders
believe. The problem is that they don't try to define terms like
information, observers, physical, etc. I would say that more
than 50% of the apparent disagreement are really due to vocabulary
problem. It is unavoidable in inter and trans-disciplinary studies.

Bruno

Brent

The informational and MW together got 42% of the vote, equal to
Copenhagen.

Jason

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 24 Jan 2013, at 04:03, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf See question 12.

Interesting. Thanks.

A bit sad, also.

If it takes time to understand the MWI of the SWE (which writes it
almost explicitly), I guess it will take time to understand the
universal machine's many worlds interpretation of arithmetic.

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-
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
.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6054 - Release Date:
01/24/13

--
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
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: mega-consciousness,created by bio-electrical circuitry?

It's a fascinating idea.
Groups selection seems to be a controversial issue with biologists, but it
makes sense to me that evolution could work at the colony level, the same
way it does for social insects. Even more easily, because bacteria
reproduce asexually.


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Oops sorry, it was an old post! But I really love those bacteria.

 Bruno



 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
 **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

Hi John Clark,

Other than Luther's ancient views on astronomy, and only with regard to
salvation or damnation, as a modern Lutheran I agree with everything Luther 
said,
although I might temper down his invective, which was intended for the Pope.
In that spirit, everything Luther said was correct and still is.

Outside of science, true stupidity is to rely only on reason. 
Faith opens the inner eye, which science wants to blind.
So it is said that with faith, you have everything, without faith
you have nothing. 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-24, 10:48:16
Subject: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality


I though that, this was not a site for enhancing the self?steem?f 
self-proclaimed rationalists neither an insult-you-an-infidel theraphy group.?



2013/1/24 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com

I sincerely hope that nobody believes I'm picking on Catholics because 
Protestant thinking is every bit as brain dead dumb as the Pope's. Martin 
Luther knew perfectly well that religious ideas cannot survive the slightest 
amount of rational analysis without completely falling apart, but his solution 
to that problem was not to get better ideas but to simply insist that people 
check their brain at the door before they start to think about God; here are 
some of the noises that particular bipedal hominid made with his mouth, 
although I think the noises made from the other end of Luther's 
gastrointestinal tract may have contain more wisdom, at least they might have 
disclosed some evidence on how the human digestive system works:? 

??? 
?eason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of 
spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine 
Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God?

Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of reason.

Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. 

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot 
all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of 
sight and know nothing but the word of God.

Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a 
noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by 
scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her 
wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be 
drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the 
filthiest place in the house, to the closets.

We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the 
world did not exist.

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that 
the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.? 
This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred 
scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, 
and not the earth.


After this contemptible performance, after flat out praising the virtues of 
stupidity and unapologetically trying to turn everybody into imbeciles I don't 
see how anyone could call themselves a Lutheran or a Protestant or even a 
Christian without intense embarrassment.

?ohn 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.






-- 
Alberto. 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Luther wasn't a rationalist, and so contributed nothing to modern science.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-24, 13:26:59
Subject: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

On 1/24/2013 9:41 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

In fact it is just the opposite: ?he position of Luther, like the one of Ocham 
or Duns Scoto, which were strongly anti-reason, created the modern science and 
?ere precursors of the most radical forms of Positivism.

They were anti-rationlism, the idea that knowledge of the world could be 
arrived at by arm chair cogitation. ? 'precursor' to radical positivism would 
be moderate postivism whose precursor would simply be empiricism

that is ahistoric. Rationalism did not exist at that time. You have to know the 
mentality of that time and what where their main philosophical preocupations. 
That is something that you have not the least intention to know.?

Why? It is simple to understand: The three of them were against the use of 
reason in MORAL matters, in the knowledge of what is Good and what is Evil and 
in the knowledge of God, and in the meaning of life. They were against the use 
of Greek philosophy to interpret and complement the knowledge of the biblical 
revelation (the naturalist knowledge about these matters was called natural 
revelation). But they were not agains the use of science in any non religious 
matters. So they stablished the modern radical separation between faith and 
science, between is and ough . (which I strongly think is at the root of 
the contemporary social diseases )

Islam took a more radical path, While the protestants proclaimed the 
independence of God from any natural ?imitation of moral reasoning stablished 
by greek philosophy, but admitted natural causations, so science in the modern 
sense was not only possible but promoted, ?he main schools of Islam proclaimed 
no natural causation. For Islam, life was a continuous miracle,

Exactly as argued by Aquinas who formulated the Church doctrine that God is the 
ground of all being and continuously sustains the world.

That is not true. ?ith almost as contempt for the details as you, I would say 
that the God of Aquinas was limited by reason. That is exactly what Duns 
Scotus, Ocham and Luther rejected.

and what appeared to be laws were nothing but the customs of All? that would 
change at any moment. So there was no motive to study what may change at any 
moment.

Dr.Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam 
University in
Islamabad, said, according to The New York Times (10/30/2001), that ?t was not
Islamic to say that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water. ?ou were
supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together then by the 
will of
Allah water was created.?

Brent
The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an
atheist deserving of punishment.
? ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of
? ? ?audi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim,
? ? ? The New York Times, 12 February 1993
? ? ? Yes, that's 1993 CE, not BCE.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
Alberto. 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?

On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal and all--

Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world,
yhe point is to escape from the world of science
into the world of Mind.

Those worlds are not necessarily separated.

Bruno

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?

On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:

Richard: 
and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me? 
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. 
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like 
we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more 
accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent 
wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. 
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed 
exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. 

So: happy illusions! 

Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might 
help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow.

But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity 
is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often 
when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their 
own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't 
evaluate intelligence.

Bruno

John Mikes

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I
  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible
  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,
  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or
 consciousness or experience.

 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard

 That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
 Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
 motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
 necessary?
 Richard

 --
 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, 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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit

Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

Hi John Clark 

If you want to learn about science, study Darwin, etc.
If you want to learn about God, read the Bible.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-24, 11:17:30
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

?
 Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as I 
 know. 

It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being was 
complex it certainly should have. And Darwin provided a real explanation, he 
didn't just say that complex life evolved from much simpler life, he provided 
the engine, he explained how the mechanism works. 

But exactly how did God create the heavens and the earth? Genesis doesn't say, 
and that's why Genesis explains absolutely nothing; it might as well have just 
said stuff happens for all the enlightenment it brought.
?
It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all,

I know. That's the problem.


 so how complex could it be?


Infinitely, and that's a 10 letter word.? 


 Isn't God just supposed to be I am that I am.?


I believe so. I'm not sure of the exact verse but it's somewhere in the Bible, 
I think it's in The Book Of Popeye ? I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam 
that I yam.
?
 Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, printing 
 probably would not have caught on with the public.


Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species Gutenberg would have been slowly 
burned alive by the church. Do you have any reason for defending the barbaric 
actions of this institution other than the fact that I don't like it? 


 I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology.


You can study mythology or you can study the appalling behavior of primitive 
bronze age tribes but there is nothing in theology to study. There is no field, 
there is no there there. 

? 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.

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

2013-01-25 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Hi Roger:
Luther contributed indirectly to modern science by adopting the Duns Scoto
and the Occam rejection of universals. The Lutheran mindset was more
concentrated in the study of particular phisical things and rejected
speculation This gave the modern meaning of the world science.

(I will not extend this, to avoid to mention the G-world and induce
another rant by Pavlovian conditioning).

2013/1/25 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

Hi Alberto G. Corona

Luther wasn't a rationalist, and so contributed nothing to modern science.

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-24, 13:26:59
*Subject:* Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

On 1/24/2013 9:41 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

In fact it is just the opposite: 爐he position of Luther, like the one of
Ocham or Duns Scoto, which were strongly anti-reason, created the modern
science and 爓ere precursors of the most radical forms of Positivism.

They were anti-rationlism, the idea that knowledge of the world could be
arrived at by arm chair cogitation. 燗 'precursor' to radical positivism
would be moderate postivism whose precursor would simply be empiricism

that is ahistoric. Rationalism did not exist at that time. You have to
know the mentality of that time and what where their main philosophical
preocupations. That is something that you have not the least intention to
know.�

Why? It is simple to understand: The three of them were against the use
of reason in MORAL matters, in the knowledge of what is Good and what is
Evil and in the knowledge of God, and in the meaning of life. They were
against the use of Greek philosophy to interpret and complement the
knowledge of the biblical revelation (the naturalist knowledge about these
matters was called natural revelation). But they were not agains the use
of science in any non religious matters. So they stablished the modern
radical separation between faith and science, between is and ough .
(which I strongly think is at the root of the contemporary social diseases )

Islam took a more radical path, While the protestants proclaimed the
independence of God from any natural 爈imitation of moral reasoning
stablished by greek philosophy, but admitted natural causations, so science
in the modern sense was not only possible but promoted, 爐he main schools of
Islam proclaimed no natural causation. For Islam, life was a continuous
miracle,

Exactly as argued by Aquinas who formulated the Church doctrine that God
is the ground of all being and continuously sustains the world.

That is not true. 燱ith almost as contempt for the details as you, I would
say that the God of Aquinas was limited by reason. That is exactly what
Duns Scotus, Ocham and Luther rejected.

and what appeared to be laws were nothing but the customs of All� that
would change at any moment. So there was no motive to study what may change
at any moment.

Dr.Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam
University in
Islamabad, said, according to The New York Times (10/30/2001), that 搃t
was not
Islamic to say that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water. 慪ou were

supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together then by
the will of
Allah water was created.挃

Brent
The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an
atheist deserving of punishment.
� ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of
� � 燬audi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim,

� � � The New York Times, 12 February 1993
� � � Yes, that's 1993 CE, not BCE.

--
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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

--
Alberto.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

*DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your
leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org
%--DreamMail_AD_END--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to

Re: mega-consciousness,created by bio-electrical circuitry?

2013-01-25 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Hi Telmo.
Group selection It is no longer controversial. Naive group selection do not
work, but selection between groups where internal deletereous behaviours
are repressed to a certan level (but never eliminated) does work. The
theory is called multilevel selection. where selection operates at all
levels at the same time.

https://www.google.es/search?q=multilevel+selectionoq=multilevel+selectionaqs=chrome.0.57j60j0l3.3350sourceid=chromeie=UTF-8

I is certain that we are colonies of bacteria. There is no need to look for
them. we are the most sophisticated example.

2013/1/25 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

It's a fascinating idea.
Groups selection seems to be a controversial issue with biologists, but it
makes sense to me that evolution could work at the colony level, the same
way it does for social insects. Even more easily, because bacteria
reproduce asexually.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Oops sorry, it was an old post! But I really love those bacteria.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Alberto.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God

Hi Stathis Papaioannou 

I think right-to-lifers are those with some moral or religious foundation

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30771408/ns/us_news-life/t/majority-americans-now-pro-life-poll-says/#.UQKkI2cUBlM




- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-24, 20:14:48
Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God


On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 It's probably a lot simpler than that. In the U.S. if you're an atheist it
 may be hard to find a sympathetic ear. Depending a lot on where you live,
 you may be isolated and reviled.

Is that really true? I was in the US recently for the first time,
Scottsdale Arizona and NYC, and other than Christmas decorations I
can't recall seeing much evidence of religion at all. This is perhaps
a superficial impression but I was a bit surprised nevertheless.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


attachment: abortionPoll-bcol.grid-6x2.jpg

meditation

I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the 
links of consciousness to the noise of the brain,
suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain,
rather the reverse. It lets us experience Cs 
as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain.

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

What I learned from meditation

I did transcendental meditation for years. I learned two things:

1. That pure Cs is sweet, one gets to a sweet spot after a few minutes.

2. That the deeper you go, the faster time seems to fly by. 
When you get very deep, there is no time, the meditation occurs in an instant.

- Have received the following content - 
Sender: Roger Clough 
Receiver: everything-list,- mindbr...@yahoogroups.com 
Time: 2013-01-25, 10:41:41
Subject: meditation


I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the 
links of consciousness to the noise of the brain,
suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain,
rather the reverse. It lets us experience Cs 
as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain.

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013  Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 how do you define the word religion?


re·li·gion  [ri-lij-uhn]

1* n.* A theological fungus that thrives best in the dark and when fed by
bullshit.

2 Believing what you know ain't so.

3 The boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate.

4 Religion is to rationality as horseshit is to horsepower.

  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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: mega-consciousness,created by bio-electrical circuitry?

Hi Alberto,

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:

Hi Telmo.
Group selection It is no longer controversial. Naive group selection do
not work, but selection between groups where internal deletereous
behaviours are repressed to a certan level (but never eliminated) does
work. The theory is called multilevel selection. where selection operates
at all levels at the same time.

https://www.google.es/search?q=multilevel+selectionoq=multilevel+selectionaqs=chrome.0.57j60j0l3.3350sourceid=chromeie=UTF-8

Thanks, I have heard about multilevel selection but never delved deeper.

I is certain that we are colonies of bacteria. There is no need to look
for them. we are the most sophisticated example.

Fair enough.

2013/1/25 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

It's a fascinating idea.
Groups selection seems to be a controversial issue with biologists, but
it makes sense to me that evolution could work at the colony level, the
same way it does for social insects. Even more easily, because bacteria
reproduce asexually.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Oops sorry, it was an old post! But I really love those bacteria.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Alberto.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What I learned from meditation

Hi Roger,

Where did you learn to do TM?


On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  I did transcendental meditation for years. I learned two things:

 1. That pure Cs is sweet, one gets to a sweet spot after a few minutes.

 2. That the deeper you go, the faster time seems to fly by.
 When you get very deep, there is no time, the meditation occurs in an
 instant.

 - Have received the following content -
 *Sender:* Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
 *Receiver:* everything-list,- 
 mindbr...@yahoogroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com,mindbr...@yahoogroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-25, 10:41:41
 *Subject:* meditation

  I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the
 links of consciousness to the noise of the brain,
 suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain,
 rather the reverse. It lets us experience Cs
 as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain.


 --
 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.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: meditation

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Hi Telmo,

On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi all,

I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of
oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's
complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments.
Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the
successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the
multi-verse?

Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.

It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates with
dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they
disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its
complexity reduced, and that might give a view of the multiverse (as in
many salvia reports).

The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory
rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming
trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities, some
probabilistic interference has to play a role in the elimination of some
infinities.

The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in
logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection.

For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica
sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for
example. It's the notion that past event did not actually happen in the
common sense of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of
equations that is restricted by current experience. So if we start doing
an archaeological exploration we are going to find objects that are
consistent with previous civilisations, but this is just a solution to the
system of equations that is consistent with present reality.

I'm not defending (not denying) this model of reality, but think it's an
interesting thought experiment. It puts the big bang in a new light: you're
just looking so far back in time that the simplest of solutions works --
everything is concentrated on a single spot of zero complexity.

Well, meditations might be enough, perhaps. Sleep leads also to dissociate
state, simpler version of oneself, and the resulting strange realities.

Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not convince
me. We could be conscious but without read/write access to our memories, so
how would we know afterwords? But maybe we are experiencing the same level
of consciousness as a bacteria.

It is related with the idea that brains acts like filter of consciousness
(as opposed to producer of consciousness).

Aldus Huxley talks about that in Doors of Perception, but I'm sure you
know that!

Bruno

Telmo.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
**googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Other than Luther's ancient views on astronomy,


How about Luther's views on geology? How about his view that the Earth was
less than six thousand years old, do you agree with that?

  as a modern Lutheran


Which apparently is nearly identical to a medieval Lutheran.

 I agree with everything Luther said


I do too, Luther gave a good explanation of why it is that if you want to
be a good Christian you've got to be stupid.


  Faith opens the inner eye, which science wants to blind.


And you know this because that's what mommy and daddy told you.

 So it is said that with faith, you have everything, without faith you
 have nothing.


And you know this because that's what mommy and daddy told you.

 true stupidity is to rely only on reason.


I rest my case.

  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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Generalized Löb's Theorem

2013-01-25 Thread Stephen P. King


Dear Bruno,

Have you seen this? What implications does it have?

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.5340.pdf


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

Hi John Clark 

No,  I let science be science and religion be religion.
Different languages, different meanings. You're confusing the two.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-25, 11:29:01
Subject: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013? Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Other than Luther's ancient views on astronomy,

?
How about Luther's views on geology? How about his view that the Earth was less 
than six thousand years old, do you agree with that?

? as a modern Lutheran 

Which apparently is nearly identical to a medieval Lutheran. 

 I agree with everything Luther said

I do too, Luther gave a good explanation of why it is that if you want to be a 
good Christian you've got to be stupid.
?

 Faith opens the inner eye, which science wants to blind.

And you know this because that's what mommy and daddy told you. 

 So it is said that with faith, you have everything, without faith you have 
 nothing. 

And you know this because that's what mommy and daddy told you. 

 true stupidity is to rely only on reason. 

I rest my case.

? 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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: What I learned from meditation

Hi Telmo Menezes 

From a local TM group.  It really works,
but now that I've gone back to Christianity 
I no longer use it.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-25, 11:12:18
Subject: Re: What I learned from meditation


Hi Roger,


Where did you learn to do TM?



On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

I did transcendental meditation for years. I learned two things:
?
1. That pure Cs is sweet, one gets to a sweet spot after a few minutes.
?
2. That the deeper you go, the faster time seems to fly by.?
When you get very deep, there is no time, the meditation occurs in an instant.
?
- Have received the following content - 
Sender: Roger Clough 
Receiver: everything-list,- mindbr...@yahoogroups.com 
Time: 2013-01-25, 10:41:41
Subject: meditation


I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the 
links of consciousness to the noise of the brain,
suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain,
rather the reverse. It lets us experience?s 
as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain.
?
-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
?
?



-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

centering prayer

Hi Telmo Menezes 

There is also something called centering prayer, which
Christians such as I can do and have done at least once.
It was helpful to do it in the prayer chamber of the National
Cathedral. 

There are various techniques of doing it.
But the general idea is to focus on God or Jesus and as
in TM say some short repetitive prayer, maybe just Jesu...
JesuJesu A mantra, essentially, except that you
are focusing or intendeing on Jesus -- or even better, 
the cross, from which all things come from and go to.

Eventually you will begin to feel that in a way you and Jesus
are doing it together, rather than just you. A unity, or
if not that, a feeling that you are actually not doing the prayer,
it is doing you.  As long as you are doing it, you are not quite there
(in Jesus). But success is relative. You should at least feel peace and
love.  



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-25, 11:22:51
Subject: Re: meditation







On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Hi Telmo,


On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi all,

I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of oneness 
with the universe, non separation, etc.

Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's 
complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments. Could 
it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the successful 
meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the multi-verse?

Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.



It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates with 
dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they disconnect 
parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its complexity reduced, and 
that might give a view of the multiverse (as in many salvia reports).

The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory rich 
enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming trivial. Then 
the point is that to get plural-realities, ?ome probabilistic interference has 
to play a role in the elimination of some infinities.

The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in logic 
(more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection.



For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica 
sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for example. 
It's the notion that past event did not actually happen in the common sense 
of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of equations that is 
restricted by current experience. So if we start doing an?rchaeological 
exploration we are going to find objects that are consistent with previous 
civilisations, but this is just a solution to the system of equations that is 
consistent with present reality.


I'm not defending (not denying) this model of reality, but think it's an 
interesting thought experiment. It puts the big bang in a new light: you're 
just looking so far back in time that the simplest of solutions works -- 
everything is concentrated on a single spot of zero complexity. ?
?

Well, meditations might be enough, perhaps. Sleep leads also to dissociate 
state, simpler version of oneself, and the resulting strange realities.



Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not convince me. 
We could be conscious but without read/write access to our memories, so how 
would we know afterwords? But maybe we are experiencing the same level of 
consciousness as a bacteria.
?

It is related with the idea that brains acts like filter of consciousness (as 
opposed to producer of consciousness).



Aldus Huxley talks about that in Doors of Perception, but I'm sure you know 
that!
?

Bruno







Telmo.

-- 
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.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at

Re: Re: What I learned from meditation

Thanks Roger. I've been intrigued for a while, partly because David Lynch
promotes it.


On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes

 From a local TM group.  It really works,
 but now that I've gone back to Christianity
 I no longer use it.



 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-25, 11:12:18
 *Subject:* Re: What I learned from meditation

   Hi Roger,

 Where did you learn to do TM?


 On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  I did transcendental meditation for years. I learned two things:
 �
 1. That pure Cs is sweet, one gets to a sweet spot after a few minutes.
 �
 2. That the deeper you go, the faster time seems to fly by.�
 When you get very deep, there is no time, the meditation occurs in an
 instant.
 �
 - Have received the following content -
 *Sender:* Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
 *Receiver:* everything-list,- 
 mindbr...@yahoogroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com,mindbr...@yahoogroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-25, 10:41:41
 *Subject:* meditation

  I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the
 links of consciousness to the noise of the brain,
 suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain,
 rather the reverse. It lets us experience燙s
 as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain.
 �

 --
 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.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 �
 �


 --
 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.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



 
 *DreamMail* - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org

 --
 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.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [foar] 18% of (certain) scientists (still) support MWI as of 2011



On Friday, January 25, 2013 6:44:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 24 Jan 2013, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote:

  On 1/24/2013 12:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: 

 Bruno,

 What is meant by the informational interpretations?  Is that something 
 like the one Ron Garrett presented?


 It's the view most advocated by Asher and Fuchs, that the WF is just an 
 encoding of what the experimenter knows about the physical system based on 
 its preparation.


 Yes. It is close to Pauli and Heisenberg's idea that the quantum state 
 does not describe a real physical state, but only a relative knowledge 
 state.

 The computationalist shift worlds == dreams should please to both them, 
 and to the MWI defenders, but of course, it can also makes them both 
 nervous. 

 Many points of view overlap much more than what their defenders believe. 
 The problem is that they don't try to define terms like information, 
 observers, physical, etc. I would say that more than 50% of the 
 apparent disagreement are really due to vocabulary problem. It is 
 unavoidable in inter and trans-disciplinary studies.

 Bruno


The more people try to define information the more that they will find 
that there is nothing there but the presence of sensory-motor experience in 
one set of qualitative modalities, re-presented through another set of the 
same.

Craig





 Brent



 The informational and MW together got 42% of the vote, equal to Copenhagen.

 Jason

 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
  wrote:


  On 24 Jan 2013, at 04:03, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:

  http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf  See question 12.
  

  
  Interesting. Thanks.

  A bit sad, also.

  If it takes time to understand the MWI of the SWE (which writes it 
 almost explicitly), I guess it will take time to understand the universal 
 machine's many worlds interpretation of arithmetic.

  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 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 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.

 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6054 - Release Date: 01/24/13



 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


 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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: centering prayer

Hi Roger,

It's not going to work, but it's very nice of you to try to save me since
you believe in it. My in-laws do the same :)

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes

There is also something called centering prayer, which
Christians such as I can do and have done at least once.
It was helpful to do it in the prayer chamber of the National
Cathedral.

There are various techniques of doing it.
But the general idea is to focus on God or Jesus and as
in TM say some short repetitive prayer, maybe just Jesu...
JesuJesu A mantra, essentially, except that you
are focusing or intendeing on Jesus -- or even better,
the cross, from which all things come from and go to.

Eventually you will begin to feel that in a way you and Jesus
are doing it together, rather than just you. A unity, or
if not that, a feeling that you are actually not doing the prayer,
it is doing you. As long as you are doing it, you are not quite there
(in Jesus). But success is relative. You should at least feel peace and
love.

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-25, 11:22:51
*Subject:* Re: meditation

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Hi Telmo,

On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi all,

I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of
oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing
it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer
moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the
successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the
multi-verse?

Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.

It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates
with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they
disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its
complexity reduced, and that might give a view of the multiverse (as in
many salvia reports).

The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory
rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming
trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities, 爏ome probabilistic
interference has to play a role in the elimination of some infinities.

The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in
logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection.

For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica
sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for
example. It's the notion that past event did not actually happen in the
common sense of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of
equations that is restricted by current experience. So if we start doing
an燼rchaeological exploration we are going to find objects that are
consistent with previous civilisations, but this is just a solution to the
system of equations that is consistent with present reality.

Well, meditations might be enough, perhaps. Sleep leads also to
dissociate state, simpler version of oneself, and the resulting strange
realities.

It is related with the idea that brains acts like filter of consciousness
(as opposed to producer of consciousness).

Aldus Huxley talks about that in Doors of Perception, but I'm sure you
know that!
�

Bruno

Telmo.

--
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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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

Re: Sensing the presence of God



On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:46:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/24/2013 8:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 

 I don't know that not being able to talk to others about your (non) 
 religious beliefs would be cause for suicide though.


 Not a cause, just the absence of a little prevention.


Theoretically, ok, but in practice, most people who have access to the 
internet or telephone should be able to plug that absence without too much 
trauma.

Craig 


 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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 the Bible provided western man with a completely new, revolutionary view
 of existence


New?! The Bible is just a rehash of other Bronze age myths that it
plagiarized from older religions.

The Persian God Mithra, popular in 600 BC, was the son of the Sun God and
was born on December 25. Mithra performed miracles, died, and was
resurrected on the third day. Mithra was also called the good shepherd
and had twelve companions that went with him when he traveled and taught.

In 1000BC people thought the God Krishna was a carpenter born of a virgin
and was baptized in a river.

In 1200BC according to the Egyptian Book of the Dead the God Horus was the
son of the God Osiris and was born to a virgin mother (even back then
contradictions never bothered religion). Horus was baptized and the
baptizer was later beheaded. Horus was tempted in the desert. Horus healed
the sick and the blind. Horus cast out daemons. Horus raised a fellow named
Asar from the dead. Horus walked on water.  Horus had 12 disciples. Horus
was affixed to a cross and killed but after 3 days 2 women announced that
Horus our savior has been resurrected.


  The Bible, as far as I know, is the only sacred scripture that is
 choronological, time-based, as well as historical.


Even forgetting the silly miracles much of the stuff in the Bible that
could be true apparently isn't. For example, there is not one scrap of
archeological evidence that any part of the exodus story is true, no
evidence that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt or wondered in the desert
for 40 years. Nor is there any evidence, as there certainly would have been
if it was true, that there was a tax census that compelled Joseph and Mary
to go to Bethlehem at the time of Jesus birth, nor would issuing such a
decree even make sense for the Romans.

 There are whole books discussing this


And there are whole books discussing Gilligan's Island which deserve equal
respect.

  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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality



On Friday, January 25, 2013 1:59:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi John Clark 
  
 That's all made-up stuff put on the web by people such as you.


Not by the worldwide liberal conspiracy?
 

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:03, Jason Resch wrote:

John,

I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in
several religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity ).

The book by O'Meara on Plotinus makes clear the idea that Plotinus
want the ONE to be simple.
The ONE is seen as the simplest thing from which the MANY can emanate,
and the SOUL contemplate (or fall).

The concept is also not dissimilar to the Neti Neti (Not this, not
that) explanation of Brahman in Hindusim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti
) or the Nirguna Brahman, which is Brahman without qualities.

Nice. That's also a common point with neoplatonist theologies. It is
negation theologies, where the big thing is only refuted to be this or
that. With comp this applies to both truth and the inner god, that
is you-at-the-first-person (you-1 have no definite name or
description), you-yourself are not this or that.

Of course, the whole question of what is simple and what is complex
requires a definition of complexity. The universal dovetailer is a
simple program, yet it generates all programs. The Mandlebrot set
has a simple definition, but is infinitely detailed. Pi has a
simple definition, but an infinite expansion of digits.

So apparent complexity, of a universe, a world, etc. need not be
dependent on complex underlying principles or systems. Bruno often
says, arithmetic is much bigger when seen from the inside.

Little numbers can develop crazy complex behaviors, and with comp they
can support (locally) rich inner experiences.
The difficulty relies in the first person statistical fitness with the
probable universal neighbors. (As you can guess).

Bruno

Jason

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

A two year old can understand what God is supposed to be.

A two year old can't understand how something simple can know
everything and neither can I; and there is a reason the word
simple is often used as a synonym for stupid. And the Bible just
says that God made animals but it doesn't say how, but Darwin didn't
just say Evolution made animals he explained how it did it. Saying
animals exist because of God is no more helpful than saying
animals exist because of flobkneegrab.

The position that I am arguing is knock down that unsupported
balloon that you tried to float about science being better than
religion because science always means that complex things are
explained by simple things.

That is not what science means that is what a explanation means; a
theory (like the God theory) that explains the existence of
something unlikely (like us) by postulating the existence of
something even more unlikely (like God) is worse than useless.

Your straw man of me arguing that God is not important didn't work.

Good, now I don't have to find a verse in the Bible proving that it
teaches that God is grand.

This is something that science and religion have in common, not
which sets them apart.

But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you
most scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so
your readers might be wise to take your views on the value of
science with a grain of salt.

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:19, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in
several religions

And in those religions how did a simpleton God make life? Darwin
provided the mechanism by which Evolution did it, so those
religions need to explain exactly how the invisible man in the sky
did it.

Of course, the whole question of what is simple and what is
complex requires a definition of complexity. The universal
dovetailer is a simple program, yet it generates all programs. The
Mandlebrot set has a simple definition, but is infinitely detailed.
Pi has a simple definition, but an infinite expansion of digits. So
apparent complexity, of a universe, a world, etc. need not be
dependent on complex underlying principles or systems.

If you don't like the simple-complex dimension use the humble-grand
dimension. The Bible says something grand made something humble and
it doesn't say how so it explains nothing; Darwin says something
humble made something grand and the best part is he said how it did
in, and that is a explanation worthy of the name.

You confuse theology before 523 and after. If you appreciate reason,
look at the development from Pythagorus to Plotinus, for example.

You would see that they depict a different conception of reality, than
the current Aristotelian one, and which by many token is somehow more
rational as committing less ontological commitments. And it would be
just a lie to say that science has decided on this.

Study computer science and take a look how coherent Plotinus appear,
from a complete arithmetical point of view (see the pdf at my
frontpage url).

If you prevent the rationalists to study theology, it will remain in
the hand of the irrationalists, you know.

Bruno

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Is there an aether ?

On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:41, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno:

WHAT 'evidences'???

I don't see what you are talking about. The word evidences does not
appear in the quote.

we have no way to judge them.

We can bet on relations between them.

We either accept the (belief-based) figment as REAL - i.e. TRUE,
or not.

No, we only build hypothesis, and study the interpretations of them,
and their local adequacy with facts.
We don't have to pronounce on the truth, except at the pause coffee
(or other psychoactive substances).

The first case we call 'evidence'. Or: justification. Then base our
belief (even system) on such.

Looks fine for me. Justification are always based on hypothesis, that
we can assume plausible with different degree of local applications.

For the big picture all theories are wrong, but some might be less
wrong than others.

Bruno

John (M)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:

Richard:
and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even
if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic
(stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer
enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such
changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth.
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does
indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats.

So: happy illusions!

Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that
this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow.

But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real
stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences.
This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and
stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can
evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence.

Bruno

John Mikes

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist
yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com

wrote:
That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my
position. I

have
never once said that existence is contingent upon human
consciousness. I
state again and again that it is experience itself - the
capacity for
sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all
possible

forms of
'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an
experience,

otherwise
there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for
time or

consciousness or experience.

Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard

That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
necessary?
Richard

--
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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.

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.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.



On Friday, January 25, 2013 2:16:02 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:03, Jason Resch wrote:

 John,

 I agree with Craig.  The concept of divine simplicity exists in several 
 religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity ). 


 Little numbers can develop crazy complex behaviors, and with comp they can 
 support (locally) rich inner experiences. 
 The difficulty relies in the first person statistical fitness with the 
 probable universal neighbors. (As you can guess).


Makes me think of superfluid helium...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI

As simplicity approaches the absolute (and -271K He is an interesting range 
of simplicity in matter) it seems to expose the hidden complexity of our 
expectations for what is minimal. Of course, I point to this to show again 
that arithmetic truth and information float on the surface of an ocean of 
permanent and expanding sensory depth.

Craig


 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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

On 24 Jan 2013, at 17:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:

This is exactly what happened to Islam in the 1300s.
After the fundamentalists took over, rationality was dispensed with,
and centuries of scientific progress were deemed sufficient for Islam
for all time. And so it seems that Islam went from world leadership in
science to where it is today.

Fortunately the same did not happen to the Christians. But based on
John's comments, I wonder why not.

I would say it did, but much earlier, in 523 after JC.

I wrote in another forum:

Theology is born as a science, but in 523 after JC, we have
separated the spiritual from the rational, and we are still paying the
big price.

In the human science we act irrationally, as human history illustrates
sadly.

Yet, the rational is the genuine path of the spiritual, and the
religions which deny this can only be based on bad faith, or special
interests.

I agree with Brent, science has plausibly regressed when the
authoritative argument in theology has installed itself, and the
Enlightenment is half enlightenment as non conventional theology did
not yet go through.

But with the development of technologies we can't afford the luxury to
be sleepy on the deep questions.

The choice is between lying a short period of time and evolving from
little catastrophes, or lying for a long period of time and evolving
from big catastrophes. Somehow.

Bruno

Richard

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
I sincerely hope that nobody believes I'm picking on Catholics
because
Protestant thinking is every bit as brain dead dumb as the
Pope's. Martin
Luther knew perfectly well that religious ideas cannot survive the
slightest

amount of rational analysis without completely falling apart, but his
solution to that problem was not to get better ideas but to simply
insist
that people check their brain at the door before they start to
think about
God; here are some of the noises that particular bipedal hominid
made with
his mouth, although I think the noises made from the other end of
Luther's
gastrointestinal tract may have contain more wisdom, at least they
might

have disclosed some evidence on how the human digestive system works:

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the
aid of
spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles
against the

divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God”

Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of reason.

Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample
underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it
sees must be

put out of sight and know nothing but the word of God.

Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of
being she is
a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore;
whore
eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and
destroyed,
she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She
is and
she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the
wretch, to be

banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.

We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand
years the

world did not exist.

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove
to show
that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun
and the
moon. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy;
but
sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the
sun to

stand still, and not the earth.

After this contemptible performance, after flat out praising the
virtues of
stupidity and unapologetically trying to turn everybody into
imbeciles I
don't see how anyone could call themselves a Lutheran or a
Protestant or

even a Christian without intense embarrassment.

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-
l...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: meditation

On 24 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote:

I once had the experience of oneness with the universe.
As an almost teenager one winter I was sliding in an apple orchard
1/2 mile from home. It was so much fun that even after nightfall and
everybody else going home, I continued sliding down and trunging up
the hill.

Finally I just laid back on my sled and starred at the stars. It was
then that I experienced 'oneness with the universe'. It scared the
shit out of me and I ran all the way home.

Hmm... May be you were to young.

Similar story happens for me, except it did not scare me at all. On
the contrary, leaning on the grass for hours in the dark, it was a
sort of infinite relief and joy, and I stayed for a long time in
contemplation, until I hear my parents shouting my name, that I
eventually recognize. I got to prepare myself for some
(understandable) row back on earth!

Bruno

Richard

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

Hi all,

I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of
oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say
reducing it's
complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer
moments.

Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the
successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states
in the

multi-verse?

Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.

Telmo.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups

Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Robot reading vs human reading



On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 23 Jan 2013, at 16:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:31:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:
You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only  
materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the  
doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the  
existence of primary matter.


We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely  
arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside.


My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp,  
and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can  
test it.


Bruno,
Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream  
of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time?

Richard

Quantum Deism. Cool.

It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation  
of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of  
purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities  
and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except  
purely arithmetical matrices?


You have the stable illusions, whose working is described by the  
self-reference logics.


Describing that some arithmetic systems function as if they were  
stable illusions does not account for the experienced presence of  
sensory-motor participation.


The arithmetic systems are not the stable illusions. They only  
support the person who has such stable illusions.



Why would a person have 'illusions'? What are they made of?


They are the internal view of person when supported by infinities of  
computations, which exists arithmetically. They are not made of  
something, they are computer semantical fixed points, to be short.









I can explain how torturing someone on the rack would function to  
dislocate their limbs, and the fact *that* this bodily change could  
be interpreted by the victim as an outcome with a high priority  
avoidance value, but it cannot be explained how or why there is an  
experienced 'feeling'.


The explanation is provided by the difference of logic between Bp  
and Bp  p. It works very well, including the non communicability of  
the qualia, the feeling that our soul is related to our body and  
bodies in general, etc.



I'm not talking about the 'feeling *that* (anything)' - I am talking  
about feeling period, and its primordial influence independent of  
all B, Bp, or p.


They are independent of the theories of course, like both matter and  
energy does not depend on the string E = mc^2. But it is not because  
we theorize something that it disappears.
The relation between p, Bp, Bp  p, Bp  Dt  p (feeling) are just  
unavoidable arithmetical truth.










The indisputable reality is that it is the deeply unpleasant  
quality of the feeling of this torture is the motivation behind it.  
In fact, there are techniques now where hideous pain is inflicted  
by subcutaneous microwave stimulation which does not substantially  
damage tissue. The torture is achieved through manipulation of the  
'stable illusion' of experienced pain alone.


*that* should be illegal.

I agree, although that will probably make it only more exciting for  
them to use it.


The frontier of freedom is when you harm the freedom of the others.





My point though is that this pain is not logical. There's nothing  
Doxastic about it. It just hurts so much that you'll do anything to  
make it stop. There is no programmatic equivalent.


There is. Do anything to survive.




Nothing that I do to a robot will make it jump out of a window in  
order to avoid, unless I specifically instruct it to jump out of the  
window for no logical reason.


Because it is not (yet) in our interest to have a robot doing anything  
for surviving, but Mars Rover is a good respectable logical ancestors.










While the function of torture to elicit information can be mapped  
out logically, the logic is built upon an unexamined assumption  
that pain and feeling simply arise as some kind of useless  
decoration.


Why? Torturers know very well how the effect is unpleasant for the  
victim.


That's what I'm saying - you assume that there is a such thing as  
'unpleasant'.


Yes. In the theory, losing self-referential correctness is a good  
candidate for being unpleasant for a machine programmed to survive by  
all means. At least in the short term. Pain is body's protection.





There is no such thing as unpleasant for a computer, there is only  
off and on, and off, off, on, and off, on, off...


Arithmetical relation are full of chaos and critical states. You can't  
reduce it to some level, from inside.








It only

Re: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 the ancient jews in the BC era knew nothing


Not far from the truth.

 of the ancient myths,


If they knew anything at all it was useless crap like that.

 “There is little notice of the Persian god [Mithra] in the Roman world
 until the beginning of the 2nd century,


But Mithra was certainly known in the non-Roman world long before then and
the Jews weren't conquered by Rome until 63 BC.

 but, from the year AD 136 onward, there are hundreds of dedicatory
 inscriptions to Mithra.


And the oldest written gospels come from the fourth century.

 Osiris was born of the Egyptian sky-goddess Nut-Meri and the god Seb
 (Geb). Nut-Meri was not a virgin


Who cares, I was talking about the God Horus not His dad; the God Osiris
was the father of the God Horus.

 His birth was attended by three wise men.


I did not write that!

   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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Martin Luther on Rationality

2013-01-25 Thread meekerdb


On 1/25/2013 4:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi John Clark,
Other than Luther's ancient views on astronomy, and only with regard to
salvation or damnation, as a modern Lutheran I agree with everything Luther 
said,
although I might temper down his invective, which was intended for the Pope.
In that spirit, everything Luther said was correct and still is.
Outside of science, true stupidity is to rely only on reason.
Faith opens the inner eye, which science wants to blind.


That must be the eye with which Luther saw the extermination of the Jews.  It certainly 
wasn't the eye science.



So it is said that with faith, you have everything, without faith
you have nothing.


With faith you have any belief you want.

Brent
³We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore 
undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few 
theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.²

---Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: meditation

2013-01-25 Thread meekerdb


On 1/25/2013 8:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not convince me. We could 
be conscious but without read/write access to our memories, so how would we know 
afterwords? But maybe we are experiencing the same level of consciousness as a bacteria.


People are not unconscious when asleep.  People sleep through the chiming of clocks but 
will wake instantly if you whisper their name.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

on abortion


Abortion should eventually be self-limiting,
because it improves the gene pool. 

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Robot reading vs human reading



On Friday, January 25, 2013 3:45:35 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 23 Jan 2013, at 16:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:31:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:


 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bewrote:

 You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only 
 materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine 
 asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary 
 matter. 

 We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely 
 arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside.

 My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and 
 that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it.


 Bruno, 
 Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the 
 Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time?
 Richard


 Quantum Deism. Cool. 

 It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of 
 anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely 
 arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and 
 relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely 
 arithmetical matrices?


 You have the stable illusions, whose working is described by the 
 self-reference logics.


 Describing that some arithmetic systems function as if they were stable 
 illusions does not account for the experienced presence of sensory-motor 
 participation. 


 The arithmetic systems are not the stable illusions. They only support 
 the person who has such stable illusions.



 Why would a person have 'illusions'? What are they made of? 


 They are the internal view of person when supported by infinities of 
 computations, which exists arithmetically. They are not made of something, 
 they are computer semantical fixed points, to be short.


Why would semantical fixed points have an 'experience' associated with 
them, and why would that experience have a 'personal' quality?








 I can explain how torturing someone on the rack would function to 
 dislocate their limbs, and the fact *that* this bodily change could be 
 interpreted by the victim as an outcome with a high priority avoidance 
 value, but it cannot be explained how or why there is an experienced 
 'feeling'. 


 The explanation is provided by the difference of logic between Bp and Bp 
  p. It works very well, including the non communicability of the qualia, 
 the feeling that our soul is related to our body and bodies in general, etc.


 I'm not talking about the 'feeling *that* (anything)' - I am talking 
 about feeling period, and its primordial influence independent of all B, 
 Bp, or p. 


 They are independent of the theories of course, like both matter and 
 energy does not depend on the string E = mc^2. But it is not because we 
 theorize something that it disappears.
 The relation between p, Bp, Bp  p, Bp  Dt  p (feeling) are just 
 unavoidable arithmetical truth. 


But these relations don't refer to feelings, they refer only to information 
states associated with one facet of the tip of the iceberg of feeling. B, 
D, t,  p are a doxastic extraction not of feeling or experience on their 
actual terms but a grammatical schema of a depersonalized behaviorism. It 
is the formalized absence of feeling inferred logically as engine of 
potential programmatic outcomes. Calling it feeling is the very embodiment 
of the pathetic fallacy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy





  



 The indisputable reality is that it is the deeply unpleasant quality of 
 the feeling of this torture is the motivation behind it. In fact, there are 
 techniques now where hideous pain is inflicted by subcutaneous microwave 
 stimulation which does not substantially damage tissue. The torture is 
 achieved through manipulation of the 'stable illusion' of experienced pain 
 alone.


 *that* should be illegal.


 I agree, although that will probably make it only more exciting for them 
 to use it. 


 The frontier of freedom is when you harm the freedom of the others.


Mathematically interesting actually.
 





 My point though is that this pain is not logical. There's nothing Doxastic 
 about it. It just hurts so much that you'll do anything to make it stop. 
 There is no programmatic equivalent. 


 There is. Do anything to survive.


But that can be generated in many ways other than pain, or no way at all. 
Simply script it. 'Do anything to digest'. 'Do anything to grow'.
 





 Nothing that I do to a robot will make it jump out of a window in order to 
 avoid, unless I specifically instruct it to jump out of the window for no 
 logical reason.


 Because it is not (yet) in our interest

Re: on abortion


On Friday, January 25, 2013 7:09:12 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

   
 Abortion should eventually be self-limiting,
 because it improves the gene pool. 
  


Only if you assume that the events of people's lives are hereditary. Only 
bad people have sex or get raped I guess. Only people who deserve to be 
poor are poor.

`Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make 
merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I 
help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and 
those who are badly off must go there.

``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'' 
``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and 
decrease the surplus population.  - Ebenezer Scrooge
 

  
  

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Hyperloop

2013-01-25 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Search on this list turned up no results and I don't usually pick up this
sort of thing so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop

If anybody could offer juicier links without the media speculation, I'd be
interested in the tech.

PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hyperloop

2013-01-25 Thread Jason Resch

Very interesting.  It sounds almost too good to be true.  I can't  
imagine what it might be based on.


For me, the most surpurising thing he says is that it could be solar  
powered but does not use a vacuum.


Jason

On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:54 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com 
 wrote:


Search on this list turned up no results and I don't usually pick up  
this sort of thing so:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop

If anybody could offer juicier links without the media speculation,  
I'd be interested in the tech.


PGC


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hyperloop

2013-01-25 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/25/2013 9:54 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Search on this list turned up no results and I don't usually pick up 
this sort of thing so:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop

If anybody could offer juicier links without the media speculation, 
I'd be interested in the tech.


PGC

Try: 
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/the-real-ipod-elon-musks-wild-idea-for-a-jetson-tunnel-from-sf-to-la/259825/


A tunnel between LA and San Fran. How will the earthquake problem be 
obviated?


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Martin Luther on Rationality