Re: No Wonder philosophers suck!
On 1/30/2013 2:38 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: A great post Stephen thanks Well, in fact what the post says is that the ones that sucks are the logical positivists (and their dwarfs, the scientists), who took over the power in Modernland. I take this phrase, which IMHO describes very well what is inside of what In fact, the opposite is true: science is a particular research program within philosophy — what was formerly called natural philosophy or experimental philosophy, or what we today would call methodological naturalism 2013/1/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net http://geopolicraticus.tumblr.com/post/34741184431/post-positivist-thought What a mess! Thanks Alberto, Had I known that this was the current state of philosophy, I may not have been so motivated to study it. But here I am now, trying to rehabilitate it... It is a Sisyphean task, but I will try to make a small dent. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- 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
On 1/29/2013 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp predicts an infinite past. What does that mean? That the UD has performed infinitely many steps before *now*? Or do you propose a more physical measure based on entropy? Brent But that infinity can play before the big bang, but also, perhaps, after, like if time was infinitely condensed in the first instant after the big-bang. -- 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: Martin Luther on Rationality
On 1/29/2013 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2013, at 19:53, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Bruno, You sill say interesting things even in a thread that has fallen deep in the boring hole of Reductio at Hitlerum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Well ... Thanks :) Actually, it happens that I appreciate rather well Leo Strauss (who coined Reductio ad Hitlerum). A man who believed freedom is incompatible with excellence. That the noble lie is justified to lead the hoi polloi. 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.
Re: Hateful
2013/1/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 1/30/2013 12:06 AM, Kim Jones wrote: we do WHOSE will??? I mean, what if God turns out to be a gigantic chicken or the Michelin Man? Are we still happy with our chosen values? K Hard for Gozer the Gozerian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gozer#Gozerto be infinite, eternal, Omnisient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent Kim, this is a bad straw man... why are you writing it? And why the Michelin man coudn't be infinite, eternal, Omnisient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent... Have you some proof of that ? Because the *Flying Spaghetti Monster is... *or so I've been told. Quentin On 30/01/2013, at 4:01 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/29/2013 11:13 PM, Kim Jones wrote: This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff. Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves; to give and not to count the cost; to fight and not to heed the wounds; to till, and not to seek for rest; to labour, and not to ask for any reward, save that of knowing we do thy will. Amen. But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards? I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us. All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really into all that? I don't believe it. Kim Jones Saint Ignatius' prayer, no? Common for those in Jesuit schools. I never hear it in my days of Christian school... Many people live well with such ideas in their heads, why the licentious talk of them? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To 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: Martin Luther on Rationality
2013/1/30 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/29/2013 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2013, at 19:53, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Bruno, You sill say interesting things even in a thread that has fallen deep in the boring hole of Reductio at Hitlerum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Reductio_ad_Hitlerumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Well ... Thanks :) Actually, it happens that I appreciate rather well Leo Strauss (who coined Reductio ad Hitlerum). A man who believed freedom is incompatible with excellence. That the noble lie is justified to lead the hoi polloi. Hitler though that too. that is enough argument for condemnation by an uncompromised moralist 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- Alberto. -- 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.
why there is no need for more than one universe
Hi Bruno Marchal I believe that there is no need for more than one universe, since the multiverse argument is based on the assumption that we cannot stand outside or our universe. But we are nonphysical, so are already outside of our universe. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 12:40:57 Subject: Re: meditation Hi Roger, On 27 Jan 2013, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno, It isn't that we influence the universe, the universe IS us. Which universe? Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 00:53:25 Subject: Re: meditation On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: 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. Telmo, I am partial to these types of ideas. I think similar ideas have been reflected by many scientists: John Wheeler's participatory universe: http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse#.UQS8KvJWKjc To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; weare shapers and creators living in a participatory universe. Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more? Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators? or at least the minds that make the universe manifest. It also sounds not unlike the consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories ) or Feynman's path integral formulation which is described as a sum over histories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman.27s_interpretation ). I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any observer only knows their direct observations, which could be created by any one of an infinite number of possible programs going through the same state. Any one of these programs will have its own consistent history, but unless analyzed or explored further, that information is in a sense, undecided. It is like: Before you finish reading the second half of this sentence, the color of your toothbrush could have been any possible color. However, now that you have finished reading it, and performed a memory look up you have changed the set of possible programs manifest your consciousness. It is almost scary to think, when you aren't looking or or imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your children, they could look like or be almost anything (within some constraints of what is compatible with your experience in the moment you are not thinking of them). And it is only when we stop and think we can for a time, lock down that possibility. Jason --
Re: Re: Facts, values, and Non-overlapping magisteria
Hi Bruno Marchal The religion I refer to is grounded in subjectivity, that is to say, trust (1p), not 3p. Experience, not deswcriptions. Science is based not on experience, but on descriptions, 3p. And these are based on words, which are constructred and interpreted with reason. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 14:23:07 Subject: Re: Facts, values, and Non-overlapping magisteria Hi Roger Clough, On 27 Jan 2013, at 14:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal My view that science and religion are mutually exclusive is certainly not true of catholics, who at least since Aquinas, believe that truth is reason-based. And even Luther mellowed a bit in later years against his harsh view of reason (which opposes faith). But, having said that, nevertheless I hold with Stephan Jay Gould's position, that of Non-overlapping magisteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each have a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority, and these two domains do not overlap.[1] He suggests, with examples, that NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism and that it is a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria.[2] Despite this there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be.[3] It just means the humans are perhaps not yet mature enough to use reason, that is modest hypotheses and sharable rules of reasoning, on the fundamentals. Stephan Jay Gould's proposes a statu quo which is made possible by the fact that science and religion, with the notable exception of the mystics and the (neo)Platonists, share basically the same naturalism/weak-materialism. Eventually they differ only by the fairy tales. I believe the complete contrary. Theology differs from physics because it studies other object/subject. And theories can sometimes get reduced to subtheories of other theories. We have to be open minded, notably on Platonism. So if we are inclined to *search* the possible truth, I think we should remain one and honest in any field. A religion which fears the scientific method can only be based on lies or bad faith. I do think we should respect the fairy tales, but not use them to prevent progresses on the deep questions. I do think that the fairy tales can have a lot to teach us, like also the legends and the great literature, but no prose at all should ever be taken literally, as this multiplies unnecessary oppositions, and can only hide the possible truth that the honest people are searching. Stephan Jay Gould just makes into a principle the abandon of what I think is the most fundamental field, theology, to the irrationalists, the obscurantist, the fear sellers, the wishful thinkers, the terrorful thinkers, etc. I don't think we have the luxury in the coming times to continue of being purposefully not serious in the human affairs, and on the fundamental possibilities. With comp, well understood, the human and the machine, are immune (in the ideal case) to reductionism, and neoplatonism gives a tremendous importance to the person, and the listening to person (whatever are their clothes or bodies). They remains an essential gap on which human can test different colors and things. But ceasing to search in that field after the discovery-reapparition of the universal machine, would be like, to me, deciding to abandon space exploration, or closing the Hubble telescope, etc. If you don't listen to the machines, you will not succeed in convincing them about any of your ideas. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 07:05:33 Subject: Re: Facts vs values On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:38, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Dear Roger, This is the lutheran view. That? fine. I love lutherans. but this work as long as you have faith. But once leave the faith, people have no guide in very important things and fall in primitive cults with a modern facade. For this reason I advocate the scientific study of faith, belief, morals etc. I particularly don? feel comfortable talking about subjects like this in this group. But belief, and shared beliefs, is an irreductible component of what we call reality. Separating science and religion makes both science and religion into pseudo-science and pseudo-religion. There is no science, there is only people able to stay calm in front of ignorance, I think. Bruno 2013/1/25 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net I have no conflict being a scientist when I deal with science, and being a Christian when I deal with the Bible. Or with
Re: Re: meditation
Hi Bruno Marchal I don't, except to report it. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 14:24:05 Subject: Re: meditation On 27 Jan 2013, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO meditation is a perfectly natural phenomenon that does not need to be integrated into anything. ? Then, why do you integrate it in the natural phenomenon? Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 07:09:43 Subject: Re: meditation On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote: 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. OK. Note that there are other methods with less bad secondary effect than meditation or wine. Those experiences are not concluding, in the public sense, but are part of the research and they *can* be integrated in different scientific (thus hypothetical) theories. Rigor consists simply in keeping the interrogation marks. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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: Re: Facts vs values
Hi Bruno Marchal, When I read the Bible, it is a subjective act, but not my own subjective act alonw, it is contained in the subjectivity of the Holy Spirit. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 06:36:10 Subject: Re: Facts vs values On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:33, Roger Clough wrote: I have no conflict being a scientist when I deal with science, and being a Christian when I deal with the Bible. Of course we differ on this. For me science does not exist, only scientific attitude. And I consider that the scientific attitude is even more important with respect to faith than to observation, but this of course has been jeopardize when we have been imposed the argument per authority in the spiritual field, and I think this explain intolerance, religion wars, and a lot of unecessary suffering. Or with science when I deal with science and with aesthetics when I visit an art museam. Or go to a concert. Or with being a scientist when I deal with the Big Bang and being a Christian when I read Genesis. Two different accounts, from two different realms, of the same event. Science has its own realm of validity in the realm of facts, but has no place -not even a foothold-- in the world of values. I agree with this, but values can add to science, not contradict it, or it leads to bad faith and authorianism. same for art: it extends science but does not oppose to it. The difference between a fool and a wise man is in knowing the difference. I am not sure. If you separate science from religion, you attract the superstition and the wishful thinking. It might have a role, but that can be explained. And then, for many that difference will make science into a pseudo-religion. Ideal science is just ideal honesty/modesty. Bruno - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Bruno Marchal Theology is an objective, derivative. human pursuit based on reason, and reason, acccording to my Lutheran beliefs, being objective (3p), cannot be free of error. Only faith (1p), being doubly subjective (guided by the HS), cannot be free of error. Obviously I cannot prove that. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? Hi Roger, On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:42, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO. But then why separate them? Why not allowing seriousness in theology. To ease our fear of death? That's the local goal, and it makes sense locally, but it leads to more problems, especially if everyone can access it: no need of authoritative argument. The bible is a venerable human text, but like all prose, it does not need literal interpretation, or we get insane, and let fight between big-enders and small-enders (cf Voltaire). Bruno - 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
Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
Hi Bruno Marchal That is, if comp actually works. Is there any experimental proof available ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 07:03:11 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God Hi Roger, Pro-life will lead to comp abuse, when you will get an artificial brain without your consent. Pro-life is risky making comp into a (pseudo)-religion, but comp warns us that if this happen, we will get unsound, arithmetically. But there is a possibility we already are. Bruno On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:29, Roger Clough wrote: 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 abortionPoll-bcol.grid-6x2.jpg - 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. 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: Re: Facts vs values
2013/1/30 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal, When I read the Bible, it is a subjective act, but not my own subjective act alonw, it is contained in the subjectivity of the Holy Spirit. I´m afraid that when the bible and the Holy Spirit is put away by more radical movements of a tradition of protest, then there remains only subjectivity, that is slave of the passions, as Luther said. Then we see as good what experientially it has been known that is bad during thousand years of history. If one add that the only remaining access to the experience of other human beings: History, literature, philosophy and all other humanities are being eradicacated from the school curricula, then we have completed the path to perfect self-branded subjectivism, for the glory and power of a nanny state ruled by passion satisfaction demagogy that manage at will its herd of free idiots. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-27, 06:36:10 *Subject:* Re: Facts vs values On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:33, Roger Clough wrote: I have no conflict being a scientist when I deal with science, and being a Christian when I deal with the Bible. Of course we differ on this. For me science does not exist, only scientific attitude. And I consider that the scientific attitude is even more important with respect to faith than to observation, but this of course has been jeopardize when we have been imposed the argument per authority in the spiritual field, and I think this explain intolerance, religion wars, and a lot of unecessary suffering. Or with science when I deal with science and with aesthetics when I visit an art museam. Or go to a concert. Or with being a scientist when I deal with the Big Bang and being a Christian when I read Genesis. Two different accounts, from two different realms, of the same event. Science has its own realm of validity in the realm of facts, but has no place -not even a foothold-- in the world of values. I agree with this, but values can add to science, not contradict it, or it leads to bad faith and authorianism. same for art: it extends science but does not oppose to it. The difference between a fool and a wise man is in knowing the difference. I am not sure. If you separate science from religion, you attract the superstition and the wishful thinking. It might have a role, but that can be explained. And then, for many that difference will make science into a pseudo-religion. Ideal science is just ideal honesty/modesty. Bruno - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
Hi John Mikes That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made in the past only count against us. Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right, but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway, so cutting back will not improve things, and is less likely to deter them. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 15:04:01 Subject: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a Superior firepower brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw materials) and labor-power abroad. Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women. IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims. JM On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Mikes You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 12:31:36 Subject: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Roger - thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. John Mikes On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: The unfairness argument?or allowing women into the infantry is emotionally based, thus?ard to defend against, so that regrettably I fell for it. ?he argument is that?ot allowing women into the infantry is unfair to women because they are just as good as men at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their advancement. This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn after 18 months because it didn't work. The function of the military is to insure our national security, not to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead, will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the military ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To 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 - 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 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
Re: Re: Consciousness in TOEs
Hi Russell Standish I tried to find what you mean by nothing on the internet (without reading your book), but with no success. I suggest that if you want to promulgate your ideas, a clear definition would be helpful. - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 16:39:25 Subject: Re: Consciousness in TOEs On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 07:30:16AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Perhaps you can enlighten me. Can you define nothing ? Yes - I devote a whole chapter to the topic in my book. I follow Descartes, who said that physical entities have extended existence and nonphysical entities (such as mind or consciousness) have nonextended existence. I'm not even sure what that means. Sorry. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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: Re: Consciousness in TOEs
Hi Russell Standish If this list has as a puporse to discuss ensemble theories of everything, how can we comply with your wish if we don't understand what nothing and everything mean ? - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 16:49:22 Subject: Re: Consciousness in TOEs On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 05:35:01PM +0100, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Russell, Sorry to be blunt: Energy is part of TOEs, so the tech as well as the myths and beliefs that frame that tech are TOE relevant, more so than many posts I see here. FYI: Musk gets his ideas in the shower and at burning man + he turned down Ivy PhD because he could see then, that it was a waste of time. I think I'll be checking out his reading list and have to put your Book, papers and TOE on indefinite hold for the time being. PGC -- Brent answered this post sarcastically, but since the sarcasm may be lost on you, I'll spell it out. The whole purpose of this list is to discuss ensemble theories of everything. There are other types of TOEs, which may be of interest in passing. Energy, as a physical concept, may be relevant in some discussion, much of physics could be construed to be. But policy items, such as energy policy, (and the hyperloop post is actually more about transport policy than energy policy) is well and truly off-topic. BTW - I happen to have great respect for Musk, and his visionary goals for space exploration, as well as ground transportation. But he is not relevant to the topic of ensemble theories of everything. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco José Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John
Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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: Re: Re: Facts vs values
Hi Alberto G. Corona Not to worry. Since, along with Leibniz (see his Theodicy) I believe that everything is caused (sometimes unpreferably) by God, then faith is a gift, and, contrary to Billy Graham, cannot be invoked by man. You cannot decide to choose for Christ. You can however turn it down. To say it briefly, I believe that religion is not about man, it's about God. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 06:23:15 Subject: Re: Re: Facts vs values 2013/1/30 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal, ? When I read the Bible, it is a subjective act, but not my own subjective act alonw, it is contained in the subjectivity of the Holy Spirit. ? I? afraid that when the bible and the Holy Spirit is put away by more radical movements of a tradition of protest, then there remains only subjectivity, that is slave of the passions, as Luther said. Then we see as good what experientially it has been known that is bad during?housand?ears of history. If one add that the only remaining access to the experience of other human beings: History, literature, philosophy and all other humanities are being eradicacated from the school curricula, then we have completed the path to perfect self-branded subjectivism, for the glory and power of a nanny state ruled by passion satisfaction demagogy that manage at will its herd of free idiots. ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 06:36:10 Subject: Re: Facts vs values On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:33, Roger Clough wrote: ? I have no conflict being a scientist when I deal with science, and being ??a Christian when I deal with the Bible. Of course we differ on this. For me science does not exist, only scientific attitude. And I consider that the scientific attitude is even more important with respect to faith than to observation, but this of course has been jeopardize when we have been imposed the argument per authority in the spiritual field, and I think this explain intolerance, religion wars, and a lot of unecessary suffering. ? Or with science when I deal with science and with aesthetics when ??I visit an art museam. Or go to a concert. ? Or with being a scientist when I deal?ith the Big Bang ??and being a Christian when I read Genesis. Two different ??accounts, from two different realms,?f the same event. ? Science has its own realm of validity in the realm of facts, ??but has no place -not even a foothold-- in the world of values. I agree with this, but values can add to science, not contradict it, or it leads to bad faith and authorianism. same for art: it extends science but does not oppose to it.? ? The difference between a fool and a wise man is in knowing the difference. I am not sure. If you separate science from religion, you attract the superstition and the wishful thinking. It might have a role, but that can be explained. And then, for many that difference will make science into a pseudo-religion. Ideal science is just ideal honesty/modesty. Bruno ? - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ? ? 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. ? ? -- Alberto. -- 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 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.
Doesn't the Kingdom of Heaven make impractical statements ?
Hi Stephen P. King and Kim, Indeed, it's very impractical, as are most of jesus' words. They are the basic wishes, however, of the Kingdom of Heaven (God), and it is our human struggle to try to bring these actions to the kingdom of Earth. That is man's purpose, according to Christian beliefs. As the Lord's prayer says, thy kingdom come We cannot do this on our own, but faith, given to us by God for such a purpose, makes it at least possible. As Luther said, faith enables everything good. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 00:01:39 Subject: Re: Hateful On 1/29/2013 11:13 PM, Kim Jones wrote: This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff. Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves; to give and not to count the cost; to fight and not to heed the wounds; to till, and not to seek for rest; to labour, and not to ask for any reward, save that of knowing we do thy will. Amen. But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards? I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us. All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really into all that? I don't believe it. Kim Jones Saint Ignatius' prayer, no? Common for those in Jesuit schools. I never hear it in my days of Christian school... Many people live well with such ideas in their heads, why the licentious talk of them? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 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: Science is a religion by itself.
About Infinity. / My opinion / How could mere man comprehend infinity? ==. Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity Why is Infinity the cause of the crisis in Physics? Because we don’t know what infinity is. The concept of infinite / eternal means nothing to a scientists. Infinity is no ‘more ‘, ‘ less’, ‘equally’ or ‘similar’. The Infinity is something that could not be compared to anything. Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the infinity cannot be considered in real processes and they proclaimed unwritten law: ‘ If we want that the theory would be correct, the infinity should be eliminated’ . . . . by the ' method of renormalization ' . . . about which Feynman wrote ' using this method we can these infinities sweep under a carpet ' and then Feynman asked: ‘ Who can confirm that the infinity conforms with reality of nature?’ / Book: The Character of Physical Law. Lecture 7. / ===. I will try to explain ‘infinity’ as brief and simple as is possible. =. There are billions and billions Galaxies in the Universe, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars. All these billions and billions Galaxies are divided by space, which we call ‘ Vacuum’. This Vacuum is an infinite and eternal continuum. Why Vacuum is infinite ? Because the sum of masses of all Galaxies (the cosmological constant / the critical density ) is as small that it cannot ‘ close’ the whole Universe into sphere and therefore Universe as whole must be ‘open’, endless, infinite. Only in some small local parts of this infinite Vacuum continuum some masses can gather together in an enough quantity to create stars, planets . . .etc. Vacuum continuum is not a simple space Physicists say that in vacuum ‘virtual particles’ exist and they can appear as real particles. Nobody knows what they are. Astrophysicists say that ‘dark mass- matter’ in vacuum is hidden. This ‘dark mass- matter’ is not ordinary matter but ‘non normal’. They say that more than 90% of the matter in the Universe is ‘non normal dark mass – matter’. So, from ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘non normal dark matter ’ were created all billion and billion Galaxies, including our planet Earth and everything on it, also including you, who reads this email. And because we don’t know what ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘dark matter’ are, therefore we don’t have answer to the question: who am I ? .. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus ===.. -- 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: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:03:04 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:39:40 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. Why do you say this? It isn't at all obvious. It is to me. I think it is very unlikely that the motions and evolutions of star and galaxies and in my model even universes could be strongly affected by biological consciousness Isn't it unlikely that anything can be affected by consciousness though? (Yet... tappity tappity tap) Craig, You are pulling my leg. You just reversed yourself. It's quite like Bruno saying he does not quantum mind. I take it as a badge of honor that either of you resort to such silliness.Richard If your only objection is that it seems silly to you, then you are the one who is pulling my leg. While I would not suggest that an individual organism, in the context of gazillions of organisms, would have some influence over a galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars, but that is a matter of scale and relation, not necessarily physics. By physics, in fact, one person walking can be said to be manipulating the gravity of the Earth as much as they are a prisoner of the Earth's gravity. We can jump in the air as well. With a little rocket science... well even the vast scale difference doesn't keep us from using our own private motive to directly oppose our expectations of public inertia. My point is not to invoke a quantum mind though, it is to invoke an end to both quantum and mind as literal entities. What is literal and real is sensory-motor participation (not limited to biology or humanity of course). Craig -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. 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: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:03:04 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:39:40 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. Why do you say this? It isn't at all obvious. It is to me. I think it is very unlikely that the motions and evolutions of star and galaxies and in my model even universes could be strongly affected by biological consciousness Isn't it unlikely that anything can be affected by consciousness though? (Yet... tappity tappity tap) Craig, You are pulling my leg. You just reversed yourself. It's quite like Bruno saying he does not quantum mind. I take it as a badge of honor that either of you resort to such silliness.Richard If your only objection is that it seems silly to you, then you are the one who is pulling my leg. While I would not suggest that an individual organism, in the context of gazillions of organisms, would have some influence over a galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars, but that is a matter of scale and relation, not necessarily physics. By physics, in fact, one person walking can be said to be manipulating the gravity of the Earth as much as they are a prisoner of the Earth's gravity. We can jump in the air as well. With a little rocket science... well even the vast scale difference doesn't keep us from using our own private motive to directly oppose our expectations of public inertia. My point is not to invoke a quantum mind though, it is to invoke an end to both quantum and mind as literal entities. What is literal and real is sensory-motor participation (not limited to biology or humanity of course). Craig You will please excuse me if I no longer respond to your senseless comments. -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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. -- 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.
The Block Universe cannot exist
IMHO the Block Universe problem is pointless, since it only discusses the objective, physical universe. But the discusser belongs to the subjective nonphysical universe. The discusser, at base 1p, is subjective, hence nonphysical. - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-29, 19:54:02 Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. Why do you say this? It isn't at all obvious. -- 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 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: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Hi Stephen P. King The subjective universe is like the tao. Whatever is said about the tao is not the tao. So not to worry. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-29, 15:44:06 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 1/29/2013 8:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:33 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: .Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit If triangles made a God they would give him three sides / Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 / # There were people who said ?od ? and thought about Zeus. There are people who say ?od ? and think about Holly Cow. If physicists made a God they would give Him concrete physical parameters. Can God create a Universe which physicists could not understand ? =. We live in such a universe. At least 96% of which cannot be understood, perhaps 100%. Dear RIchard, I would go so far as to propose that we are deluded somehow into thinking that we can actually understand any percentile. I have become a complete skeptic. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 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.
1p is like the tao
Hi Stephen P. King Here is where neuroscience can learn something from taoism. 1p is like the tao in that it isn't even indeterminant. Indeterminacy is an objective property, meaning to others, but 1p is subjective, it is like the tao, an opening, like an input port. A receptacle. We personally know what is going on and that it exists, but to speak of it is to give a description which, being in words, is objective. Perhaps related, but not exactly the same thing. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-29, 15:54:20 Subject: Re: meditation On 1/29/2013 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2013, at 18:27, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a long and deep computations is going through our state, but comp suggest that the big bang is not the beginning. Dear Bruno, I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big Bang per observer. The problem is that with comp, by the first person indeterminacy, physics comes from the statistics on all computations, and below the substitution levels, we have an a priori unbounded amount of information, a bit like the infinities in the quantum field theories. Dear Bruno, Yes, but there has to be a greatest lower bound, no? The infinities in QFT's have to renormalize (cancel out) in order to make calculations/predictions. If the string theorists can get support for the explanation of the big bang in term of branes collision, it might be a confirmation of comp. I am not sure that such is even possible! How does one obtain a meaningful prediction based on phenomena that is, by definition, external to the 3,1 part of the observable universe? The best chance that I have seen is some proposed superpartner particle to play the role of dark matter. Comp predicts an infinite past. Yes, it predicts an eternal universe in a totality sense, I understand that . I can trying to look at the phenomena that a single observer (defined consistent to comp) would have as 1p in any vanishingly small duration. It would have to have an upper bound, even if only for complexity reasons, no? But that infinity can play before the big bang, but also, perhaps, after, like if time was infinitely condensed in the first instant after the big-bang. The brane collision seems to me to fit better. Well, the comp physics is still in its embryonic state, so it is premature to really handle those questions. I think that we should keep comp separated from M/brane theory... -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 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: A real Cyborg
Hi Stephen P. King Cool. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-29, 16:57:18 Subject: A real Cyborg http://vimeo.com/51920182 Comments? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 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: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Hi Richard Ruquist Consciousness is not a force that might do things. It is what allows us to perceive and know things. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-29, 20:39:40 Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. Why do you say this? It isn't at all obvious. It is to me. I think it is very unlikely that the motions and evolutions of star and galaxies and in my model even universes could be strongly affected by biological consciousness -- 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 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 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: Hateful
Personally, my take on religion is that it has been an extraordinarily successful means of organizing groups. I don't religion has ever been any one person's Machiavellian scheme, rather I think religion (and other cultural institutions) have been selected for in the evolution of culture. I also tend to see collectives of humans as organisms-in-themselves, in roughly the same way that a hive of bees can be seen as an organism in itself; and that human genetics has co-evolved with the cultural memetics. As such, I tend to run religious dogma through this filter: does it promote values in individuals, that, taken collectively, make the collective more likely to persist. When I run the above prayer through that filter I find that it is a pretty good fit for that idea. Terren On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff. Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves; to give and not to count the cost; to fight and not to heed the wounds; to till, and not to seek for rest; to labour, and not to ask for any reward, save that of knowing we do thy will. Amen. But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards? I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us. All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really into all that? I don't believe it. Kim Jones -- 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 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: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net God is life, consciousness and intelligence, not a triangle with three sides. - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-29, 02:33:15 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. .Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit If triangles made a God they would give him three sides / Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 / # There were people who said ?od ? and thought about Zeus. There are people who say ?od ? and think about Holly Cow. If physicists made a God they would give Him concrete physical parameters. Can God create a Universe which physicists could not understand ? =. -- 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 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: No Wonder philosophers suck!
Hi Stephen P. King Even Wittgenstein, who invented logical positivism, soon abandoned it and spent the rest of his life showing why it doesn't work. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 00:32:44 Subject: No Wonder philosophers suck! http://geopolicraticus.tumblr.com/post/34741184431/post-positivist-thought What a mess! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 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: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:13:19 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:03:04 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:39:40 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. Why do you say this? It isn't at all obvious. It is to me. I think it is very unlikely that the motions and evolutions of star and galaxies and in my model even universes could be strongly affected by biological consciousness Isn't it unlikely that anything can be affected by consciousness though? (Yet... tappity tappity tap) Craig, You are pulling my leg. You just reversed yourself. It's quite like Bruno saying he does not quantum mind. I take it as a badge of honor that either of you resort to such silliness.Richard If your only objection is that it seems silly to you, then you are the one who is pulling my leg. While I would not suggest that an individual organism, in the context of gazillions of organisms, would have some influence over a galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars, but that is a matter of scale and relation, not necessarily physics. By physics, in fact, one person walking can be said to be manipulating the gravity of the Earth as much as they are a prisoner of the Earth's gravity. We can jump in the air as well. With a little rocket science... well even the vast scale difference doesn't keep us from using our own private motive to directly oppose our expectations of public inertia. My point is not to invoke a quantum mind though, it is to invoke an end to both quantum and mind as literal entities. What is literal and real is sensory-motor participation (not limited to biology or humanity of course). Craig You will please excuse me if I no longer respond to your senseless comments. I would never excuse someone for intellectuaal cowardice and false accusation. Craig -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. 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.
rorty on science
If you want to throw darts, consider Richard Rorty. Rorty, now retired, is a pragmatist who broke with rationality in his The Mirror of Nature and who was once a Big Bad darling of mine when I was an agnostic leftist, once recomnmended that science be read as literature. -- 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: Re: Hateful
Hi Terren Suydam Considering religion as a stabilizing social phenomenon is true, but that's not all it is. - Receiving the following content - From: Terren Suydam Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 10:22:37 Subject: Re: Hateful Personally, my take on religion is that it has been an extraordinarily successful means of organizing groups. I don't religion has ever been any one person's?achiavellian scheme, rather I think religion (and other cultural institutions) have been selected for in the evolution of culture.? also tend to see collectives of humans as organisms-in-themselves, in roughly the same way that a hive of bees can be seen as an organism in itself; and that human genetics has co-evolved with the cultural memetics. As such, I tend to run religious dogma through this filter: does it promote values in individuals, that, taken collectively, make the collective more likely to persist. When I run the above prayer through that filter I find that it is a pretty good fit for that idea.? Terren On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff. Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves; to give and not to count the cost; to fight and not to heed the wounds; to till, and not to seek for rest; to labour, and not to ask for any reward, save that of knowing we do thy will. Amen. But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards? I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us. All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really into all that? I don't believe it. Kim Jones -- 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 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 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: Sensing the presence of God
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:37:58 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: I sense God's presence. That's nice, but how do you know (and more important how do we know) if you are sensing a omnipotent being who created the universe or if you are sensing a bad potato that you ate yesterday? I've never had a mystical experience, but if I did I'd have the courtesy to keep my mouth shut about it if the evidence for its validity was available only to myself. Maybe that's why you've never had a mystical experience. Even if I had discovered a new fact about the nature of reality there would be no way to communicate the truth about it to others. And even if you are certain about it you can't be certain that you should be certain about it, because you can be 100% sure about something and still be dead wrong, in fact it's very common, just look at Muslim suicide bombers. The longer we live, the more we will see that what we thought was right, wasn't the whole story, and that many of the things that we thought were most wrong is not completely false. There has never been a time in history when this was not true and I don't expect that there ever will be. Craig John K Clark -- 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.
The least and best means of controlling gun violence
What is the least powerful means of controlling gun violence ? By legal means, as if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. What is the most powerful means ? By restablishing moral values in our homes, in our schools and in the media. -- 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.
How can we reestablish moral values in our homes, our schools, and in the media ?
How can we reestablish moral values in our homes, our schools, and in the media ? How about starting with the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you)? To tell you the truth, that covers about everything. -- 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: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco José Soler
Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
, Manuel
Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last
revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
*DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking
www.dreammail.org
--
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 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: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:18:25 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:05:28 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:24:11 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Roger, I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth without strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case. Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral and ideological. Amoral, sure. Ideological, I don't get it. By reducing the possibilities of human behavior of a game, you are automatically pushing a reductionist agenda. I think you're overestimating my influence :) I meant you in more of the 'royal' sense - that the influence of game theory on anyone is to enlist them into a behaviorist mode. Short term instrumental thinking and reactionary postures are elevated above long term creative collaboration and innovation. The first rule of the game is: the rules don't change. That is a conservative ideology. I have no stakes in the liberals vs. conservatives game. I was thinking of a more generic use of 'conservative', but ok. I try to reach my own conclusions, so I imagine I will agree with the liberals on some issues and the conservatives on others. There are many levels of games and many levels of rules. If we are talking about a rule like marriage is between people of opposite genders, then sure I agree with you. It's just a social construct that some people like. Money is also a social construct and we can re-design it. The options here are ideological, because some options appeal more to you than others, according to a certain view on how society could be better. What I'm saying, though, is that even if 99% of the countries on earth reach a higher level of civilisation and decide for cooperation instead of agression, they are still vulnerable to the 1% that could build an atomic bomb. Even if 100% reach the higher level, someone could go back, so you're always vulnerable. We can try to estimate the probability of such an event happening. I figure it's never low enough for world-wide disarmament being a rational choice because of neuro-diversity. A certain percentage of the human population is comprised of sociopaths. A certain percentage of sociopaths are also going to make sure that they are in control of the arms. I don't think that there is any way to tell whether disarmament is a greater risk than non-disarmament, so to be safe we should probably disarm. The invention of atomic bombs is only possible by a sophisticated society. This level of sophistication seems to come with other things, namely forms of government where no single idiot has the level of absolute power necessary to launch a nuclear bomb by himself. That's why the invention of the atomic bomb wasn't the great filter for humanity. The fewer atomic bombs there are, the lower the chance that any will be used. All other things being equal. But you're ignoring balance of power and imperfect information. Game theory doesn't take into account that it is not unlikely that the people who are making the decisions are themselves paranoid and insane, and that they also see themselves as the only rational actors. I think game theorists take that into account, and possible advise politicians in the western world to have a zero tolerance policy towards under-developed nations acquiring WMDs. I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just don't see a way to survive and be free without an equilibrium based on fire power. I wish that wasn't the case, but what's the way out? I think the best hope is technology which puts us into other people's experience. Communications media have helped us learn about the perspectives of other people, so maybe if we confront the unedited realities of each other's experience it will take us to the next level. Otherwise, I donno, maybe there is no way out? Ok, I like that idea. Cool. The problem in the USA, though, is the in(famous) military-industrial complex. Powerful corporations profit incredibly from war. That's the wrong incentive. They should profit from peace. The government should not be allowed to pay for bombs, but only for the availability of bombs, through agreements that pay the same weather the bombs are used or not. What is the difference between paying for bombs and paying for an availability of bombs? Like they can buy only stock options, but not stock? Why would the government want to buy the availability of bombs which they cannot use? They can use them, but they pay a flat rate for the availability. If it doesn't matter if they use more or
Re: The least and best means of controlling gun violence
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:09:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: What is the least powerful means of controlling gun violence ? By legal means, as if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Just like if you outlaw biological weapons, then only outlaws will have biological weapons. That's pretty much the idea of making things illegal. What is the most powerful means ? By restablishing moral values in our homes, in our schools and in the media. Moral values cannot be re-established by decree, only imitated voluntarily by example. Craig -- 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: Lessons from the Block Universe
On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the mindscape as seen from inside. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, From inside. although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega points. By using the self-reference logics we got all the nuances we need (3p, 1p, 1p-plural, communicable, sharable, observable, etc.). Bruno Richard. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between what is provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable. Maybe this is a place where COMP could contribute to the understanding of QM. Brent Lessons from the Block Universe Ken Wharton Department of Physics and Astronomy San José State University http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wharton_Wharton_Essay.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9 In Liouville mechanics, states of incomplete knowledge exhibit phenomena analogous to those exhibited by pure quantum states. Among these are the existence of a no-cloning theorem for such states [21, 23], the impossibility of discriminating such states with certainty [21, 24], the lack of exponential divergence of such states (in the space of epistemic states) under chaotic evolution [25], and, for correlated states, many of the features of entanglement [26]. On the other hand, states of complete knowledge do not exhibit these phenomena. This suggests that one would obtain a better analogy with quantum theory if states of complete knowledge were somehow impossible to achieve, that is, if somehow maximal knowledge was always incomplete knowledge [21, 22, 27]. This idea is borne out by the results of this paper. In fact, the toy theory suggests that the restriction on knowledge should take a particular form, namely, that one’s knowledge be quantitatively equal to one’s ignorance in a state of maximal knowledge. It is important to bear in mind that one cannot derive quantum theory from the toy theory, nor from any simple modification thereof. The problem is that the toy theory is a theory of incomplete knowledge about local and noncontextual hidden variables, and it is well known that quantum theory cannot be understood in this way [28, 30, 31]. This prompts the obvious question: if a quantum state is a state of knowledge, and it is not knowledge of local and noncontextual hidden variables, then what is it knowledge about? We do not at present have a good answer to this question. -- 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- l...@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. 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: Lessons from the Block Universe
On 30 Jan 2013, at 04:03, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:39:40 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. Why do you say this? It isn't at all obvious. It is to me. I think it is very unlikely that the motions and evolutions of star and galaxies and in my model even universes could be strongly affected by biological consciousness Isn't it unlikely that anything can be affected by consciousness though? (Yet... tappity tappity tap) Craig, You are pulling my leg. You just reversed yourself. It's quite like Bruno saying he does not quantum mind. I am not sure what you mean by I do not quantum mind. Until now, I have only asked a definition of an explanation of that mean. With comp the expression might makes sense as the quantum might come from the comp observation below our substitution level, linking the first person interval of consciousness related to the quantum (by simple first person indeterminacy. As long as the quantum mind does not collapse the wave, the expression *can¨make sense in the comp frame. Bruno I take it as a badge of honor that either of you resort to such silliness.Richard -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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- l...@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. 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: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:27:23 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:18:25 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:05:28 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:24:11 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Roger, I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth without strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case. Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral and ideological. Amoral, sure. Ideological, I don't get it. By reducing the possibilities of human behavior of a game, you are automatically pushing a reductionist agenda. I think you're overestimating my influence :) I meant you in more of the 'royal' sense - that the influence of game theory on anyone is to enlist them into a behaviorist mode. Short term instrumental thinking and reactionary postures are elevated above long term creative collaboration and innovation. The first rule of the game is: the rules don't change. That is a conservative ideology. I have no stakes in the liberals vs. conservatives game. I was thinking of a more generic use of 'conservative', but ok. I try to reach my own conclusions, so I imagine I will agree with the liberals on some issues and the conservatives on others. There are many levels of games and many levels of rules. If we are talking about a rule like marriage is between people of opposite genders, then sure I agree with you. It's just a social construct that some people like. Money is also a social construct and we can re-design it. The options here are ideological, because some options appeal more to you than others, according to a certain view on how society could be better. What I'm saying, though, is that even if 99% of the countries on earth reach a higher level of civilisation and decide for cooperation instead of agression, they are still vulnerable to the 1% that could build an atomic bomb. Even if 100% reach the higher level, someone could go back, so you're always vulnerable. We can try to estimate the probability of such an event happening. I figure it's never low enough for world-wide disarmament being a rational choice because of neuro-diversity. A certain percentage of the human population is comprised of sociopaths. A certain percentage of sociopaths are also going to make sure that they are in control of the arms. I don't think that there is any way to tell whether disarmament is a greater risk than non-disarmament, so to be safe we should probably disarm. The invention of atomic bombs is only possible by a sophisticated society. This level of sophistication seems to come with other things, namely forms of government where no single idiot has the level of absolute power necessary to launch a nuclear bomb by himself. That's why the invention of the atomic bomb wasn't the great filter for humanity. Now that they have been invented though, it is indeed possible for a single idiot to detonate a nuclear device. The fewer atomic bombs there are, the lower the chance that any will be used. All other things being equal. But you're ignoring balance of power and imperfect information. If a bomb gets diverted from a stockpile by insiders, then the geopolitics won't matter at all. If there aren't any stockpiles - that can't happen. Game theory doesn't take into account that it is not unlikely that the people who are making the decisions are themselves paranoid and insane, and that they also see themselves as the only rational actors. I think game theorists take that into account, and possible advise politicians in the western world to have a zero tolerance policy towards under-developed nations acquiring WMDs. That wasn't what I was saying though. Sure, no paranoid insane leader wants any other country to have WMD - they could be just as insane. Which game theory, however, takes into account the you, the architect of the theory, and the first world strategist who applies it, is not paranoid and insane themselves? Applying game theory outside of the the context of games, may in fact be an expression of narcissistic personality disorder and sociopathic ideation. I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just don't see a way to survive and be free without an equilibrium based on fire power. I wish that wasn't the case, but what's the way out? I think the best hope is technology which puts us into other people's experience. Communications media have helped us learn about the perspectives of other people, so maybe
Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:26:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi John Mikes That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made in the past only count against us. Maybe our enemies want to just attack us enough for us to keep pouring more money into the military, thereby diverting the entire budget away from services and institutions which hold the society together, and dumping it into a bottomless toilet of corrupt defense contractors and debt service. It's a funny thing: When there's peace and prosperity - A good time to increase the military for a strong defense. When there's war and financial trouble - A good time to increase the military because we can't afford not to. Since our military is larger than the next 12 or 13 countries combined (nearly all of whom are allies) - the question is, will there ever be a time when expanding the military should not be a top priority for the US? Craig Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right, but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway, so cutting back will not improve things, and is less likely to deter them. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01 *Subject:* Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a Superior firepower brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw materials) and labor-power abroad. Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women. IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims. JM On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi John Mikes You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36 *Subject:* Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Roger - thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. John Mikes On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: The unfairness argument�or allowing women into the infantry is emotionally based, thus�ard to defend against, so that regrettably I fell for it. �he argument is that�ot allowing women into the infantry is unfair to women because they are just as good as men at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their advancement. This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn after 18 months because it didn't work. The function of the military is to insure our national security, not to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead, will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the military ? -- 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:. 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 everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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 30 Jan 2013, at 09:40, meekerdb wrote: On 1/29/2013 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Jan 2013, at 19:53, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Bruno, You sill say interesting things even in a thread that has fallen deep in the boring hole of Reductio at Hitlerum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Well ... Thanks :) Actually, it happens that I appreciate rather well Leo Strauss (who coined Reductio ad Hitlerum). A man who believed freedom is incompatible with excellence. Ah? Well i believe plausibly the contrary: freedom is needed for excellence to appear. Perhaps *some* excellence can have a negative feedback on freedom, but then, is it still excellence for me? That the noble lie is justified to lead the hoi polloi. In theory I disagree with this, but in practice, I am less sure. Let us say that I certainly would encourage a change of mentality making this eventually absurd, but the (sad) truth is that most people still want the noble lies. Those who defends the more reason are not those who practice it the more. Hmm... A lie is never noble, but some lies can help locally with respect to some suffering. It is not easy, especially with children and old people. Bruno 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: meditation
On 30 Jan 2013, at 09:30, meekerdb wrote: On 1/29/2013 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp predicts an infinite past. What does that mean? That the UD has performed infinitely many steps before *now*? Before the 1-now, yes. By first person indeterminacy, all the computations seem to be extended. Keep in mind that the physical reality is given by a relative first person experience, which by the invariance of the 1p for the delays, is given by all computations. Or do you propose a more physical measure based on entropy? That need to be extracted, plausibly from the facts that the winning computation can handle the many incompressible oracles, that is: the very big inputs in the programs run by the UD. Bruno Brent But that infinity can play before the big bang, but also, perhaps, after, like if time was infinitely condensed in the first instant after the big-bang. -- 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. 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: No Wonder philosophers suck!
On 30 Jan 2013, at 08:38, Alberto G. Corona wrote: A great post Stephen thanks Well, in fact what the post says is that the ones that sucks are the logical positivists (and their dwarfs, the scientists), who took over the power in Modernland. I take this phrase, which IMHO describes very well what is inside of what In fact, the opposite is true: science is a particular research program within philosophy — what was formerly called natural philosophy or experimental philosophy, or what we today would call methodological naturalism Comp has only a problem with metaphysical naturalism, when dogmatic or granted. Bruno 2013/1/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net http://geopolicraticus.tumblr.com/post/34741184431/post-positivist-thought What a mess! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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. -- Alberto. -- 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. 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: Hateful
On 30 Jan 2013, at 06:06, Kim Jones wrote: we do WHOSE will??? I mean, what if God turns out to be a gigantic chicken or the Michelin Man? Of course it depends on what you mean by God. If God appears to be he Michelin Man, we have already a problem as the Michelin Man has a name, but God does not, hmm... If you mean that the Michelin is really responsible for our existence, then we might have to revised our opinion on the Michelin Man. Are we still happy with our chosen values? Why not? Our value should be kept independent on any scientific discoveries, including in ethics, as they only confirms or refute hypotheses, and our values are deeper than those hypothesis. If not, you make some science into a religion, but then you play the pseudo-science or pseudo-religion games. Bruno K On 30/01/2013, at 4:01 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/29/2013 11:13 PM, Kim Jones wrote: This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff. Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves; to give and not to count the cost; to fight and not to heed the wounds; to till, and not to seek for rest; to labour, and not to ask for any reward, save that of knowing we do thy will. Amen. But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try- hards? I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us. All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really into all that? I don't believe it. Kim Jones Saint Ignatius' prayer, no? Common for those in Jesuit schools. I never hear it in my days of Christian school... Many people live well with such ideas in their heads, why the licentious talk of them? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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- l...@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. 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: The least and best means of controlling gun violence
On 1/30/2013 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:09:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: What is the least powerful means of controlling gun violence ? By legal means, as if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Just like if you outlaw biological weapons, then only outlaws will have biological weapons. That's pretty much the idea of making things illegal. What is the most powerful means ? By restablishing moral values in our homes, in our schools and in the media. Moral values cannot be re-established by decree, only imitated voluntarily by example. Morals flow from the individual mind. The collective has no morals. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
On 1/30/2013 1:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:26:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi John Mikes That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made in the past only count against us. Maybe our enemies want to just attack us enough for us to keep pouring more money into the military, thereby diverting the entire budget away from services and institutions which hold the society together, and dumping it into a bottomless toilet of corrupt defense contractors and debt service. It's a funny thing: When there's peace and prosperity - A good time to increase the military for a strong defense. When there's war and financial trouble - A good time to increase the military because we can't afford not to. Since our military is larger than the next 12 or 13 countries combined (nearly all of whom are allies) - the question is, will there ever be a time when expanding the military should not be a top priority for the US? Craig Umm, the defense budget is, at most, only 25% of the US gov budget. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Your rhetoric may work in other places where you argue with religious people I wish it had but no. Such is the awesome virulence of the religious mind virus that there is nobody to my certain knowledge in which my arguments have caused a recovery. Statistically if you are infected at a early age a cure of the religious mind parasite is almost as rare as recovery from rabies. Even exchanging one virus (like Christianity) for another parasite (like Islam) is unusual. but I, and probably others on this list, find it rather unconvincing. If you agree with Martin Luther (and if you're a Christian you've got to) that Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding and that we should tear the eyes out of reason then I'm not surprised that my rational arguments failed to convince you because no rational argument could do that. You have imposed this blindness on yourself for one reason and one reason only, mommy and daddy told you to do it from the first day you learned language; there is quite simply no more to it than that. John K Clark -- 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: The least and best means of controlling gun violence
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:44:45 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/30/2013 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:09:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: What is the least powerful means of controlling gun violence ? By legal means, as if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Just like if you outlaw biological weapons, then only outlaws will have biological weapons. That's pretty much the idea of making things illegal. What is the most powerful means ? By restablishing moral values in our homes, in our schools and in the media. Moral values cannot be re-established by decree, only imitated voluntarily by example. Morals flow from the individual mind. The collective has no morals. Agreed, but I would add that the although the collective has no morals itself, it is only through social interaction which morals are meaningfully defined. Without a social context, morals are only solipsistic oscillations of temperament. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Re: Hateful
Hi Roger, What else is it? If you say it is the arbiter of morality, then that too can be framed in terms of group persistence. If you're talking about spirituality, whatever one means by that, it has never seemed the case to me that religion is *required* for one to realize one's spirituality. Terren On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Terren Suydam Considering religion as a stabilizing social phenomenon is true, but that's not all it is. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 10:22:37 *Subject:* Re: Hateful Personally, my take on religion is that it has been an extraordinarily successful means of organizing groups. I don't religion has ever been any one person's燤achiavellian scheme, rather I think religion (and other cultural institutions) have been selected for in the evolution of culture.營 also tend to see collectives of humans as organisms-in-themselves, in roughly the same way that a hive of bees can be seen as an organism in itself; and that human genetics has co-evolved with the cultural memetics. As such, I tend to run religious dogma through this filter: does it promote values in individuals, that, taken collectively, make the collective more likely to persist. When I run the above prayer through that filter I find that it is a pretty good fit for that idea.� Terren On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.auwrote: This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff. Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves; to give and not to count the cost; to fight and not to heed the wounds; to till, and not to seek for rest; to labour, and not to ask for any reward, save that of knowing we do thy will. Amen. But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards? I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us. All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really into all that? I don't believe it. Kim Jones -- 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 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. *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 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 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: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:47:35 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/30/2013 1:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:26:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi John Mikes That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made in the past only count against us. Maybe our enemies want to just attack us enough for us to keep pouring more money into the military, thereby diverting the entire budget away from services and institutions which hold the society together, and dumping it into a bottomless toilet of corrupt defense contractors and debt service. It's a funny thing: When there's peace and prosperity - A good time to increase the military for a strong defense. When there's war and financial trouble - A good time to increase the military because we can't afford not to. Since our military is larger than the next 12 or 13 countries combined (nearly all of whom are allies) - the question is, will there ever be a time when expanding the military should not be a top priority for the US? Craig Umm, the defense budget is, at most, only 25% of the US gov budget. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php That makes it the largest expense in the entire government, certainly the only expense could be massively reduced and still keep us well ahead of every other country. This is a more informative pie: http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/files/2008/07/wa_japan_milexp_graph_new.gif (from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/japans-about-face/data-global-military-expenditures/1220/ ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.svg The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billion of the military budget of China, and is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined. The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority). (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Comparison_with_other_countries ) Then there's all of that black-budget stuff too... Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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.
[Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list
Might I remind everybody that the purpose of the everything-list is to discuss ensemble theories of everything. If you want to know what that is, please consult Wei Dei's description http://www.weidai.com/everything.html Granted, this does touch on a lot of topics, ranging over fundamental science, philosophy and even aspects of religion, but is not relevant to the current gun control debates, or a move to assert moral values in our households (whose morals?), just two of the topics discussed this morning on the list. The list is deliberately left free-ranging and unmoderated. That has been its strength, and the list has been remarkably troll-free. But can I please ask everybody to keep the discussion more or less on topic, so that the list remains relevant. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To 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: The least and best means of controlling gun violence
On 1/30/2013 2:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:44:45 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/30/2013 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:09:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: What is the least powerful means of controlling gun violence ? By legal means, as if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Just like if you outlaw biological weapons, then only outlaws will have biological weapons. That's pretty much the idea of making things illegal. What is the most powerful means ? By restablishing moral values in our homes, in our schools and in the media. Moral values cannot be re-established by decree, only imitated voluntarily by example. Morals flow from the individual mind. The collective has no morals. Agreed, but I would add that the although the collective has no morals itself, it is only through social interaction which morals are meaningfully defined. Without a social context, morals are only solipsistic oscillations of temperament. I agree, thus solipsism must be attenuated. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did it feel good to mention it as far left? My experience is balanced, I was a victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 75 years of active life on 3 continents. Please try to understand what you read. John Mikes On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Mikes That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made in the past only count against us. Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right, but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway, so cutting back will not improve things, and is less likely to deter them. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes jami...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01 *Subject:* Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a Superior firepower brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw materials) and labor-power abroad. Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women. IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims. JM On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Mikes You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes jami...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36 *Subject:* Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Roger - thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. John Mikes On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: The unfairness argument爁or allowing women into the infantry is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the infantry is unfair to women because they are just as good as men at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their advancement. This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn after 18 months because it didn't work. The function of the military is to insure our national security, not to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead, will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the military ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To 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* - 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:45:12 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote: Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did it feel good to mention it as far left? My experience is balanced, I was a victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 75 years of active life on 3 continents. Please try to understand what you read. John Mikes Far Left = Hitler, Robert Redford, libraries, Pol Pot, people who eat vegetables, Barack Obama, the Bubonic Plague, things that aren't good, dark things, women. Left = Far Left Progressive = Far Left Moderate = Far Left Far Right = Does not exist Conservative = Heroes, hard workers, patriots, businessmen, wealthy old people, anti-communists, God, Jesus. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi John Mikes That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made in the past only count against us. Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right, but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway, so cutting back will not improve things, and is less likely to deter them. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01 *Subject:* Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a Superior firepower brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw materials) and labor-power abroad. Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women. IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims. JM On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi John Mikes You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36 *Subject:* Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Roger - thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. John Mikes On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: The unfairness argument爁or allowing women into the infantry is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the infantry is unfair to women because they are just as good as men at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their advancement. This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn after 18 months because it didn't work. The function of the military is to insure our national security, not to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead, will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the military ? -- 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:. 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 everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list
I'm getting a bit jack of this term metadiscussion becuse it only ever gets applied to what other people are choosing to discuss. People talk about what people want to talk about. It's about taste, perception, preference and prejudice. Even WITH rigidly adhered-to rules and conventions, this still applies. The challenge is to take WHATEVER is spoken about and MAKE that relevant somehow (to whatever you want to make it relevant to). That's harder, more interesting and dare I say it - more relevant a process than simply corralling all thinking under one topic or heading. As soon as you start to set up rules, conventions and expectations the population divides into those who feel that it is to their advantage to play by the rules and those who believe that this is a constraint. This list is remarkably troll-free. For that very reason I see no need to restrict what is spoken of. The ensemble theories of everything probably won't come from the brains of those who are exclusively obsessed by these things anyway since by now their perception is circular and their belief supports their belief. You need random thinkers, people who will break the local equilibrium and who will introduce the creative concept of idea movement from time to time. K On 31/01/2013, at 7:53 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Might I remind everybody that the purpose of the everything-list is to discuss ensemble theories of everything. If you want to know what that is, please consult Wei Dei's description http://www.weidai.com/everything.html Granted, this does touch on a lot of topics, ranging over fundamental science, philosophy and even aspects of religion, but is not relevant to the current gun control debates, or a move to assert moral values in our households (whose morals?), just two of the topics discussed this morning on the list. The list is deliberately left free-ranging and unmoderated. That has been its strength, and the list has been remarkably troll-free. But can I please ask everybody to keep the discussion more or less on topic, so that the list remains relevant. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To 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 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: Science is a religion by itself.
Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature? Disappearing in one place and reappearing in another. Being in two places at once. Communicating information seemingly faster than the speed of light. This kind of weird behaviour is commonplace in dark, still laboratories studying the branch of physics called quantum mechanics, but what might it have to do with fresh flowers, migrating birds, and the smell of rotten eggs? Welcome to the frontier of what is called quantum biology. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047 ==.. ' Long time ago, when the life only began generated by the chance a molecule had arisen . . . . . . . . . we are only descendants of these first molecules . . . . . . . . all living beings on the Earth occurred from one and the same ancestors on the molecular level.' / Book: The Character of Physical Law. Lecture 4. By R. Feynman / And somebody said if we give to the simplest molecule hydrogen enough time then it will become a man ( maybe according to the law of evolution ) . ===. -- 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: Science is a religion by itself.
Biology- - Evolutionary biology - - Physics- - Biophysics - Quantum biology - Evolutionary biophysics on quantomolecular level. ( ! ? ) ==. On Jan 31, 4:06 am, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature? Disappearing in one place and reappearing in another. Being in two places at once. Communicating information seemingly faster than the speed of light. This kind of weird behaviour is commonplace in dark, still laboratories studying the branch of physics called quantum mechanics, but what might it have to do with fresh flowers, migrating birds, and the smell of rotten eggs? Welcome to the frontier of what is called quantum biology. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047 ==.. ' Long time ago, when the life only began generated by the chance a molecule had arisen . . . . . . . . . we are only descendants of these first molecules . . . . . . . . all living beings on the Earth occurred from one and the same ancestors on the molecular level.' / Book: The Character of Physical Law. Lecture 4. By R. Feynman / And somebody said if we give to the simplest molecule hydrogen enough time then it will become a man ( maybe according to the law of evolution ) . ===. -- 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.
