Re: Fictionalism!
On 11 Jun 2013, at 18:28, meekerdb wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your theory that Ex(= Sherlock Holmes). But E in those two propositions don't have the same meaning. In the first it means that the axioms of arithmetic imply there is an x=17. In the second it means there was person who had all or most of the characteristics described in Conan Doyle's stories. It has the same meaning in different theories. Without giving me your theory of humans, Ex(x = Sherlock has no meaning, except referring to consensual reality, but this is what we want to explain. You beg the question. In consensual reality it is just reasonable to say that Sherlock does exist only as a fictional character. But that is not what we discuss. In the comp TOE Ex (x = sherlock) is as false as Ex (x = Brent), because Brent and Sherlock are (different probably) sort of emerging reality. Only natural numbers exist in the sense of ExP(x). So in the comp TOE, only numbers are NOT fiction, if basic existence is the criteria. Brent and Sherlock are different type of fiction. Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but There is a pink elephant. is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case that everything follows from a falsehood. It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does implies everything. In classical logic. But logic is just supposed to formalize good reasoning. Classical logic formalizes machines or numbers understanding of Platonia. There is a pink elephant. may mean no more than That looks like an elephant painted pink. It's not an axiom of a formal system. I deliberately included flying because it makes the identification as elephant problematic. If we found an animal that looks like an elephant painted pink, we'd certainly call it a pink elephant. But if we found an animal that looked like an elephant with wings that could fly, we'd only call it a flying elephant metaphorically. My problem was just with fictionalism in math. It is fake sort of philosophy. We must avoid words like real or fiction, just agree on which theory we are willing to use. Bruno Brent f - q is a tautology. It is equivalent with ~f V p. that is with t V q. p - everything in all words where p is false, even if there are worlds were p is true. -- 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: Fictionalism!
On 11 Jun 2013, at 18:32, meekerdb wrote: On 6/11/2013 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 22:49, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 1:06 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: So numbers do not exist? They don't exist like elephants do. They may exist like Christmas or Sherlock Homes do. Is Sherlock Holmes a human? Please give us your theory of human, so that we can discuss if he exists or not. In some reasonable theory of humans, humans possess a body decomposable locally in biochemical components. This is not the case for fictional characters. Exactly. But fictional characters can satisfy existential propositions: Ex(x=friend of Dr. Watson), because E is context dependent. But in the comp TOE, there are many notion of emerging existence. None are fiction, they have just different meanings; The question, when working in some TOE, consists in being clear on the basic ontology, with a clear (first order) sense for Ex. Bruno 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. 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: Fictionalism!
On 11 Jun 2013, at 19:04, Jason Resch wrote: From the video: What we do is we use the story of math, which is very good and very complete I think that summarizes the error of fictionalism. To believe math is a human created invention requires believing that everything we can ever know about math comes from the starting assumptions we choose. We now know this to be untrue, our picture (or anyone's picture) of math will always be incomplete, there is always more math out there to discover. We make progress in math the same way we do in all the other sciences, making observations, drawing conclusions, seeing if our theories are consistent, etc. Over time we develop our accepted axioms the same way we develop our fundamental physical theories. We observe and explore other mathematical structures/universes through the tool of simulation (either using our brains or using computers), and that is how information about other universes enters our own. I agree completely. I do take incompleteness, or the consequences of Church thesis as illustrating very well the objectivity of arithmetic. Above arithmetic, I have no problem to classify some construct as being epistemological, but the exact frontier between ontology and epistemology is unimportant, as the inside views will have an objective arithmetical behavior, even when not arithmetical. And this is well justified by the fact that although we can do easily intuitive number theory without ever formalizing the theory (like number theorist), this is no more the case for set theory, whose intuitive part is just inconsistent, and when it is formalized, the communicable part belongs to arithmetic. So I agree with your for arithmetic, and above arithmetic it is a question of convention. Arithmetic is large, and I do not know of any theorem in math which is not a theorem in arithmetic, except in mathematical logic, and universal algebra, which are typically meta-mathematics. Bruno Jason On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: For your entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=TbNymweHW4E #! -- 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. 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: Fictionalism!
On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things that I remember but am not experiencing this very moment? I add explanation. Here you describe two 1p events. They are similar, although I guess you don't have precise memory of having actually seen a Flying Pink Elephant in your life, except in cartoon or dreams. For example, I've been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium. That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No? I do not dispute that fact. Pink elephant are pink. But the pink elephant on this planet happens also to be brown rampant worms. And I'm afraid that is only a classical logician's joke. (x = Flying Pink Elephant) - (x = Brown Rampant Worms) is true on this planet because (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, on this planet (I think), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your theory that Ex(= Sherlock Holmes). But E in those two propositions don't have the same meaning. In the first it means that the axioms of arithmetic imply there is an x=17. In the second it means there was person who had all or most of the characteristics described in Conan Doyle's stories. Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but There is a pink elephant. is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case that everything follows from a falsehood. It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does implies everything. In classical logic. But logic is just supposed to formalize good reasoning.
Re: Fictionalism!
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things that I remember but am not experiencing this very moment? I add explanation. Here you describe two 1p events. They are similar, although I guess you don't have precise memory of having actually seen a Flying Pink Elephant in your life, except in cartoon or dreams. For example, I've been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium. That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No? I do not dispute that fact. Pink elephant are pink. But the pink elephant on this planet happens also to be brown rampant worms. And I'm afraid that is only a classical logician's joke. (x = Flying Pink Elephant) - (x = Brown Rampant Worms) is true on this planet because (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, on this planet (I think), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your theory that Ex(= Sherlock Holmes). But E in those two propositions don't have the same meaning. In the first it means that the axioms of arithmetic imply there is an x=17. In the second it means there was person who had all or most of the characteristics described in Conan Doyle's stories. Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but There is a pink elephant. is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood
How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr.
How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. These days it seems that you need to protect yourself from more than commercial vendors, namely spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. Snowden, the man who recently exposed the NSA activities, says he can from his desktop listen to your telephone and read your email. To do so, at least to a partial extent, start here: 1.) See this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383203092034876.html 2.) Switch your default browser to Mozilla Firefox, as most of the free add-ons only works on it. 3.) Download and install the freeware Firefox add-on from http://www.privacychoice.org/trackerblock/update This so far from a cursory search has not blocked me anywhere. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
Please allow my incipid observation. Rather then invoke non-material monads, let us, for arguments sake, assume that thought is a neurochemical phenomena, and that without this neurochemical phenomena, there is no thought. Similarly, mathematics as a phenomena, doesn't exist without a human primate, writing on the soil with a stick, marking clay or wax tablets, ink on paper, or human fingers executing a computer program. All material, from beginning to end. Is there any evidence, of the existence of non-material things? -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 6:44 am Subject: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) A.EXISTENCE LEIBNIZ-- Mental (Nonphysical) + Physical MATERIALISM-- Physical, only in spacetime B. REALITY LEIBNIZ-- Only mental is real MATERIALISM- Only physical is real C. SPACETIME LEIBNIZ Exists only around physical bodies MATERIALISM The nonphysical is beyond spacetime, the physical is within it. D. IDEAS LEIBNIZ-- Exist mentally MATERIALISM --Do not exist , since not phjysical E. MATHEMATICS LEIBNIZ-- Only logic and numbers mentally exist. MATERIALISM-- Does not exist F. PHYSICS LEIBNIZ--Mentally exists as descriptions of particle behavior according to God's Pre- `existing Harmony MATERIALISM—Ill-defined. Physics seems to be embedded (?) in the particles F. GOD LEIBNIZ--Is the only active agent (doer and perceiver) in the universe-- and so is necessary for existence. MATERIALISM-- Is a fairy tale. G. NOTHING LEIBNIZ--- The space vacuum. The absence of a particle MATERIALISM--Can exist everywhere H. HUMAN AFFAIRS LEIBNIZ-- Incorporates psychology and can be applied to sociology MATERIALISM-- Seems to avoid the subject. I. PERCEPTION LEIBNIZ-- The ultimate perceiver is God. MATERIALISM-- Omits the ultimate perceiver since it cannot explain self. J. SCIENTIFIC ACCEPTANCE LEIBNIZ-- Unexplored by science or explored only to the extent that God, spirit, souil nd mind are seen to be necessary nonphysical entities necessary for existence. Endorsing eibniz is a career-buster. MATERIALISM-- Enthusiastically accepted and utilized. It acts as a cult. K. QUANTUM MECHANICS, NONLOCAL OR OTHERWISE LEIBNIZ-- All corporeal bodies share and partcipate in the space of existence according to their capabilities, which means that more dominant quanta dominate the less dominant and would seem to participagte in a wider range of differences. MATERIALISM-- QM is not possible since only physical entities exist. L. PHYSICAL VS NONPHYSICAL LEIBNIZ-- The physical is within spacetime, the nonphysical (the spiritual or mental orld) is outside of spacetime. MATERIALISM-- Only the physical exists. M. THE PARANORMAL LEIBNIZ-- The paranormal is normal, but based on the nonphysical world outside of spacetime. MATERIALISM-- Up front is always not to be taken seriously. N. COSMOLOGY--ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE LEIBNIZ-- Every monad has an indestructable soul which has been here from the creation of the universe, or else has been created or destroyed by God . My personal view is that this would allow for creation of matter from mind such as in the Big Bang”. MATERIALISM-- The classic position is that the universe has always been, but there are modern scientific theories of the “Big Bang”. O. LIFE LEIBNIZ-- Everything in the universe is alive. MATERIALISM-- There are vaious materialistic accounts of the formation of life. P. DEATH LEIBNIZ-- Everything in the universe is alive. Each living things “unfolds” from its soul or monad as a seed unfolds into a living plant. At death, the rotting body stays attached to its monad, just as in Christianity we sleep after death until resurrected with a new body in the Second Coming MATERIALISM-- The termination of what is believed to be life. Q. DETERMINISM LEIBNIZ-- Every body in the universe moves according to a “Pre-established Harmony (PEH)”. In my personal view this allows for what might be called “effective free choice”, meaning that only choices in accord with the PEH are possible. MATERIALISM-- The termination of what is believed to be life. R. DIVINE INTERVENTION IN THE WORLD LEIBNIZ-- No divine intervention is possible or needed, since during the week of Creation, God drew up his Pre-established Harmony (the PEH) and rested on the 7th day, while the universe plays out according to this script without God's interventions. Since the PEH foresaw and acted according to all events, good or bad, this would allow for prayer to work or not work. Thus the PEH can be thought of as a divine musical composition or all-knowing computer program running on its own. In a sense, the PEH is God asleep. MATERIALISM-- Since there is no God, there can be no divine intervention. S. INTELLIGENCE LEIBNIZ-- The ability to make choices
Re: Fictionalism!
On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? You will not help John! But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by elephant. On that smaller planet elephant might be called bird. Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent of dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing some identity or parental relation. With enough IF you can deduce what you want. If some dictator renamed the bird as elephant, then surely elephant can fly. Bruno Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self- consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things that I remember but am not experiencing this very moment? I add explanation. Here you describe two 1p events. They are similar, although I guess you don't have precise memory of having actually seen a Flying Pink Elephant in your life, except in cartoon or dreams. For example, I've been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium. That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No? I do not dispute that fact. Pink elephant are pink. But the pink elephant on this planet happens also to be brown rampant worms. And I'm afraid that is only a classical logician's joke. (x = Flying Pink Elephant) - (x = Brown Rampant Worms) is true on this planet because (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, on this planet (I think), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your
Re: How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Hi Roger, Unfortunately this kind of system cannot protect you from the recently leaked mass surveillance systems. This guy explains why quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ftfEXxFC4Qfeature=youtu.bet=28m53s On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. These days it seems that you need to protect yourself from more than commercial vendors, namely spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. Snowden, the man who recently exposed the NSA activities, says he can from his desktop listen to your telephone and read your email. To do so, at least to a partial extent, start here: 1.) See this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383203092034876.html 2.) Switch your default browser to Mozilla Firefox, as most of the free add-ons only works on it. 3.) Download and install the freeware Firefox add-on from http://www.privacychoice.org/trackerblock/update This so far from a cursory search has not blocked me anywhere. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: Fictionalism!
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? You will not help John! I know, couldn't resist :) But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by elephant. On that smaller planet elephant might be called bird. Well, maybe something that triggers the classification of elephant on a majority of human brains? Something that looks like this: http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg237/unbelivablybored/Montagebilledecopy.jpg Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent of dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing some identity or parental relation. With enough IF you can deduce what you want. If some dictator renamed the bird as elephant, then surely elephant can fly. Bruno Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things that I remember but am not experiencing this very moment? I add explanation. Here you describe two 1p events. They are similar, although I guess you don't have precise memory of having actually seen a Flying Pink Elephant in your life, except in cartoon or dreams. For example, I've been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium. That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No? I do not dispute that fact. Pink elephant are pink. But the pink elephant on this planet happens also to be brown rampant worms. And I'm afraid that is only a classical logician's joke. (x = Flying Pink Elephant) - (x = Brown Rampant Worms) is true on this planet because (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, on this planet (I think), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and
Re: Fictionalism!
This is the documentary mentioned Flying wales at 1:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLRijkhDqRU my pleasure 2013/6/12 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? You will not help John! I know, couldn't resist :) But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by elephant. On that smaller planet elephant might be called bird. Well, maybe something that triggers the classification of elephant on a majority of human brains? Something that looks like this: http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg237/unbelivablybored/Montagebilledecopy.jpg Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent of dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing some identity or parental relation. With enough IF you can deduce what you want. If some dictator renamed the bird as elephant, then surely elephant can fly. Bruno Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things that I remember but am not experiencing this very moment? I add explanation. Here you describe two 1p events. They are similar, although I guess you don't have precise memory of having actually seen a Flying Pink Elephant in your life, except in cartoon or dreams. For example, I've been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium. That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No? I do not dispute that fact. Pink elephant are pink. But the pink elephant on this planet happens also to be brown rampant worms. And I'm afraid that is only a classical logician's joke. (x = Flying Pink Elephant) - (x = Brown Rampant Worms) is true on this planet because (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, on this planet (I think), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that:
Re: Fictionalism!
This one more informative and without annoying music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p3m32AUwUM 2013/6/12 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com This is the documentary mentioned Flying wales at 1:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLRijkhDqRU my pleasure 2013/6/12 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? You will not help John! I know, couldn't resist :) But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by elephant. On that smaller planet elephant might be called bird. Well, maybe something that triggers the classification of elephant on a majority of human brains? Something that looks like this: http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg237/unbelivablybored/Montagebilledecopy.jpg Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent of dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing some identity or parental relation. With enough IF you can deduce what you want. If some dictator renamed the bird as elephant, then surely elephant can fly. Bruno Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things that I remember but am not experiencing this very moment? I add explanation. Here you describe two 1p events. They are similar, although I guess you don't have precise memory of having actually seen a Flying Pink Elephant in your life, except in cartoon or dreams. For example, I've been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium. That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No? I do not dispute that fact. Pink elephant are pink. But the pink elephant on this planet happens also to be brown rampant worms. And I'm afraid that is only a classical logician's joke. (x = Flying Pink Elephant) - (x = Brown Rampant Worms) is true on this planet because (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, on this planet (I think), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant
Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
On 12 Jun 2013, at 12:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Please allow my incipid observation. Rather then invoke non-material monads, let us, for arguments sake, assume that thought is a neurochemical phenomena, and that without this neurochemical phenomena, there is no thought. Similarly, mathematics as a phenomena, doesn't exist without a human primate, writing on the soil with a stick, marking clay or wax tablets, ink on paper, or human fingers executing a computer program. All material, from beginning to end. Is there any evidence, of the existence of non- material things? Yes, the objectivity of arithmetic or theoretical computer science. Are there evidences that matter has an ontological existence? (Besides the retaively self-moving entity's extrapolation in a local neighborhood) It seems to me there are more evidence that the physical has a mathematical origin. It is indeed a necessity in case we bet the brain/body/local universe is Turing emulable. Matter and energy are interesting, but not necessarily a primitive notion. Physicalism is by itself a strong assumption, incompatible with a simple and elegant theory of mind (computer science/arithmetic). Anyway, this makes comp testable, so we can test it. Bruno -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 6:44 am Subject: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) A.EXISTENCE LEIBNIZ-- Mental (Nonphysical) + Physical MATERIALISM-- Physical, only in spacetime B. REALITY LEIBNIZ-- Only mental is real MATERIALISM- Only physical is real C. SPACETIME LEIBNIZ Exists only around physical bodies MATERIALISM The nonphysical is beyond spacetime, the physical is within it. D. IDEAS LEIBNIZ-- Exist mentally MATERIALISM --Do not exist , since not phjysical E. MATHEMATICS LEIBNIZ-- Only logic and numbers mentally exist. MATERIALISM-- Does not exist F. PHYSICS LEIBNIZ--Mentally exists as descriptions of particle behavior according to God's Pre- `existing Harmony MATERIALISM—Ill-defined. Physics seems to be embedded (?) in the particles F. GOD LEIBNIZ--Is the only active agent (doer and perceiver) in the universe-- and so is necessary for existence. MATERIALISM-- Is a fairy tale. G. NOTHING LEIBNIZ--- The space vacuum. The absence of a particle MATERIALISM--Can exist everywhere H. HUMAN AFFAIRS LEIBNIZ-- Incorporates psychology and can be applied to sociology MATERIALISM-- Seems to avoid the subject. I. PERCEPTION LEIBNIZ-- The ultimate perceiver is God. MATERIALISM-- Omits the ultimate perceiver since it cannot explain self. J. SCIENTIFIC ACCEPTANCE LEIBNIZ-- Unexplored by science or explored only to the extent that God, spirit, souil nd mind are seen to be necessary nonphysical entities necessary for existence. Endorsing eibniz is a career-buster. MATERIALISM-- Enthusiastically accepted and utilized. It acts as a cult. K. QUANTUM MECHANICS, NONLOCAL OR OTHERWISE LEIBNIZ-- All corporeal bodies share and partcipate in the space of existence according to their capabilities, which means that more dominant quanta dominate the less dominant and would seem to participagte in a wider range of differences. MATERIALISM-- QM is not possible since only physical entities exist. L. PHYSICAL VS NONPHYSICAL LEIBNIZ-- The physical is within spacetime, the nonphysical (the spiritual or mental orld) is outside of spacetime. MATERIALISM-- Only the physical exists. M. THE PARANORMAL LEIBNIZ-- The paranormal is normal, but based on the nonphysical world outside of spacetime. MATERIALISM-- Up front is always not to be taken seriously. N. COSMOLOGY--ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE LEIBNIZ-- Every monad has an indestructable soul which has been here from the creation of the universe, or else has been created or destroyed by God . My personal view is that this would allow for creation of matter from mind such as in the Big Bang”. MATERIALISM-- The classic position is that the universe has always been, but there are modern scientific theories of the “Big Bang”. O. LIFE LEIBNIZ-- Everything in the universe is alive. MATERIALISM-- There are vaious materialistic accounts of the formation of life. P. DEATH LEIBNIZ-- Everything in the universe is alive. Each living things “unfolds” from its soul or monad as a seed unfolds into a living plant. At death, the rotting body stays attached to its monad, just as in Christianity we sleep after death until resurrected with a new body in the Second Coming MATERIALISM-- The termination of what is believed to be life. Q. DETERMINISM LEIBNIZ-- Every body in the universe moves according to a “Pre- established Harmony (PEH)”. In my personal view this allows for what might be called “effective free choice”, meaning that only choices in accord with the PEH are possible. MATERIALISM-- The
Re: Fictionalism!
On 12 Jun 2013, at 14:15, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? You will not help John! I know, couldn't resist :) But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by elephant. On that smaller planet elephant might be called bird. Well, maybe something that triggers the classification of elephant on a majority of human brains? Something that looks like this: http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg237/unbelivablybored/Montagebilledecopy.jpg FAKE! :) By the way I would classify this as an eagle (suffering from elephantiasis). Bruno Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent of dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing some identity or parental relation. With enough IF you can deduce what you want. If some dictator renamed the bird as elephant, then surely elephant can fly. Bruno Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism- mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self- consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things that I remember but am not experiencing this very moment? I add explanation. Here you describe two 1p events. They are similar, although I guess you don't have precise memory of having actually seen a Flying Pink Elephant in your life, except in cartoon or dreams. For example, I've been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium. That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No? I do not dispute that fact. Pink elephant are pink. But the pink elephant on this planet happens also to be brown rampant worms. And I'm afraid that is only a classical logician's joke. (x = Flying Pink Elephant) - (x = Brown Rampant Worms) is true on this planet because (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, on this planet (I think), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger
Re: Fictionalism!
On 6/12/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Arithmetic is large, and I do not know of any theorem in math which is not a theorem in arithmetic, except in mathematical logic, and universal algebra, which are typically meta-mathematics. What about theorems in calculus and topology? 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: Fictionalism!
On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. 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: Fictionalism!
On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. Jason 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. -- 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 to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr.
There's still a free version of PGP available as GnuGP. But people generally don't want the inconvenience of dealing with encryption. On 6/12/2013 3:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote: How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. These days it seems that you need to protect yourself from more than commercial vendors, namely spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. Snowden, the man who recently exposed the NSA activities, says he can from his desktop listen to your telephone and read your email. But it would have been illegal for him to do so. People are always able to do illegal things. The question is what preventive measures should be taken. Snowden was an IT tech who was just supposed to keep the system running, so of course he had the ability to tap data flows. But there should have been some administrative oversight to keep him from doing that beyond what was necessary for his work (and maybe there was). The question is should it be legal for the government to collect this data. The Supreme Court has said it's Constitutional and polls say it's favor 62% to 34% by the public, so... Brent To do so, at least to a partial extent, start here: 1.) See this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383203092034876.html 2.) Switch your default browser to Mozilla Firefox, as most of the free add-ons only works on it. 3.) Download and install the freeware Firefox add-on from http://www.privacychoice.org/trackerblock/update This so far from a cursory search has not blocked me anywhere. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6403 - Release Date: 06/11/13 -- 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: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
On 6/12/2013 3:31 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Please allow my incipid observation. Rather then invoke non-material monads, let us, for arguments sake, assume that thought is a neurochemical phenomena, and that without this neurochemical phenomena, there is no thought. Similarly, mathematics as a phenomena, doesn't exist without a human primate, writing on the soil with a stick, marking clay or wax tablets, ink on paper, or human fingers executing a computer program. All material, from beginning to end. Is there any evidence, of the existence of non-material things? That's why there's been a discussion of whether mathematical objects exist. They certainly exist in the sense of there being proofs of existential formula, such as Ex(x=prime and x2 and x4). But I don't think satisfying an existential formula is existence in the physical sense. Physical existence admits of ostensive definition - which mathematicians think of as not very definite. 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.
Dancing in the flames
Christopher Hichens made his name Attacking our dear Savior. By now he's dancing in the flames With Logic, that cute Devil's whore. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: Fictionalism!
On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. Some take reality to be whatever can be described in language. 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: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
Indeed, Dr. Marchal. But what comes to my mind would be (I suppose) to create an equation and see if it can then become, somehow, energy, or matter to thus, prove that the universe has a arithmatic basis. I understand that Max Tegmark is enthusiatic on the cosmos being mathematical, as, is, Seth Lloyd, but can we create protons, or a stone with a number, a do-while, statement? -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 12:35 pm Subject: Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) On 12 Jun 2013, at 12:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Please allow my incipid observation. Rather then invoke non-material monads, let us, for arguments sake, assume that thought is a neurochemical phenomena, and that without this neurochemical phenomena, there is no thought. Similarly, mathematics as a phenomena, doesn't exist without a human primate, writing on the soil with a stick, marking clay or wax tablets, ink on paper, or human fingers executing a computer program. All material, from beginning to end. Is there any evidence, of the existence of non-material things? Yes, the objectivity of arithmetic or theoretical computer science. Are there evidences that matter has an ontological existence? (Besides the retaively self-moving entity's extrapolation in a local neighborhood) It seems to me there are more evidence that the physical has a mathematical origin. It is indeed a necessity in case we bet the brain/body/local universe is Turing emulable. Matter and energy are interesting, but not necessarily a primitive notion. Physicalism is by itself a strong assumption, incompatible with a simple and elegant theory of mind (computer science/arithmetic). Anyway, this makes comp testable, so we can test it. Bruno -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 6:44 am Subject: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) A.EXISTENCE LEIBNIZ-- Mental (Nonphysical) + Physical MATERIALISM-- Physical, only in spacetime B. REALITY LEIBNIZ-- Only mental is real MATERIALISM- Only physical is real C. SPACETIME LEIBNIZ Exists only around physical bodies MATERIALISM The nonphysical is beyond spacetime, the physical is within it. D. IDEAS LEIBNIZ-- Exist mentally MATERIALISM --Do not exist , since not phjysical E. MATHEMATICS LEIBNIZ-- Only logic and numbers mentally exist. MATERIALISM-- Does not exist F. PHYSICS LEIBNIZ--Mentally exists as descriptions of particle behavior according to God's Pre- `existing Harmony MATERIALISM—Ill-defined. Physics seems to be embedded (?) in the particles F. GOD LEIBNIZ--Is the only active agent (doer and perceiver) in the universe-- and so is necessary for existence. MATERIALISM-- Is a fairy tale. G. NOTHING LEIBNIZ--- The space vacuum. The absence of a particle MATERIALISM--Can exist everywhere H. HUMAN AFFAIRS LEIBNIZ-- Incorporates psychology and can be applied to sociology MATERIALISM-- Seems to avoid the subject. I. PERCEPTION LEIBNIZ-- The ultimate perceiver is God. MATERIALISM-- Omits the ultimate perceiver since it cannot explain self. J. SCIENTIFIC ACCEPTANCE LEIBNIZ-- Unexplored by science or explored only to the extent that God, spirit, souil nd mind are seen to be necessary nonphysical entities necessary for existence. Endorsing eibniz is a career-buster. MATERIALISM-- Enthusiastically accepted and utilized. It acts as a cult. K. QUANTUM MECHANICS, NONLOCAL OR OTHERWISE LEIBNIZ-- All corporeal bodies share and partcipate in the space of existence according to their capabilities, which means that more dominant quanta dominate the less dominant and would seem to participagte in a wider range of differences. MATERIALISM-- QM is not possible since only physical entities exist. L. PHYSICAL VS NONPHYSICAL LEIBNIZ-- The physical is within spacetime, the nonphysical (the spiritual or mental orld) is outside of spacetime. MATERIALISM-- Only the physical exists. M. THE PARANORMAL LEIBNIZ-- The paranormal is normal, but based on the nonphysical world outside of spacetime. MATERIALISM-- Up front is always not to be taken seriously. N. COSMOLOGY--ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE LEIBNIZ-- Every monad has an indestructable soul which has been here from the creation of the universe, or else has been created or destroyed by God . My personal view is that this would allow for creation of matter from mind such as in the Big Bang”. MATERIALISM-- The classic position is that the universe has always been, but there are modern scientific theories of the “Big Bang”. O. LIFE LEIBNIZ-- Everything in the universe is alive. MATERIALISM-- There are vaious materialistic accounts of the formation of life. P. DEATH LEIBNIZ-- Everything in the universe
Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
On 6/12/2013 1:34 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Physicalism is by itself a strong assumption, incompatible with a simple and elegant theory of mind (computer science/arithmetic). You say that from time to time, but when pressed it seems to just be that assuming fundamental matter is, assuming comp, otiose - not incompatible. If it were incompatible, then derivative matter would be incompatible too. 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: Dancing in the flames
You're a crackpot and have no business posting on this list and you contribute nothing of value. Please go away. On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:33:28 PM UTC-4, Roger Clough wrote: Christopher Hichens made his name Attacking our dear Savior. By now he's dancing in the flames With Logic, that cute Devil's whore. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: Fictionalism!
On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. Some take reality to be whatever can be described in language. Which language and described by whom? Jason 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. -- 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: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Indeed, Dr. Marchal. But what comes to my mind would be (I suppose) to create an equation and see if it can then become, somehow, energy, or matter to thus, prove that the universe has a arithmatic basis. I understand that Max Tegmark is enthusiatic on the cosmos being mathematical, as, is, Seth Lloyd, but can we create protons, or a stone with a number, a do-while, statement? Computers and simulation enable us to create reality. In truth we are not creating anything, only exploring what was already there. Think of any computer game, they are comparatively simple simulations and lead to new realities we can go to and explore. Likewise, the entire Earth, or Milkyway could be accessed by someone with sufficient computing power. Or you could say they exist already as relations between numbers that exist in math. For illustration, consider the recursive function that goes from binary number to the next in a way that is identical to John Conway's Game of Life. Theis relation implies an infinite series of successive states starting from the initial number. Starting with the right initial number, this GoL simulation could contain a Turing machine running the universal dovetailer. It would execute all possible programs and all conscious observers are contained in that number relation (assuming computationalism), including you and me who believe in protons and electrons. Jason -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 12:35 pm Subject: Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) On 12 Jun 2013, at 12:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Please allow my incipid observation. Rather then invoke non-material monads, let us, for arguments sake, assume that thought is a neurochemical phenomena, and that without this neurochemical phenomena, there is no thought. Similarly, mathematics as a phenomena, doesn't exist without a human primate, writing on the soil with a stick, marking clay or wax tablets, ink on paper, or human fingers executing a computer program. All material, from beginning to end. Is there any evidence, of the existence of non-material things? Yes, the objectivity of arithmetic or theoretical computer science. Are there evidences that matter has an ontological existence? (Besides the retaively self-moving entity's extrapolation in a local neighborhood) It seems to me there are more evidence that the physical has a mathematical origin. It is indeed a necessity in case we bet the brain/body/local universe is Turing emulable. Matter and energy are interesting, but not necessarily a primitive notion. Physicalism is by itself a strong assumption, incompatible with a simple and elegant theory of mind (computer science/arithmetic). Anyway, this makes comp testable, so we can test it. Bruno -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 6:44 am Subject: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) *ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)* *A.EXISTENCE* *LEIBNIZ-- Mental (Nonphysical) + Physical * *MATERIALISM-- Physical, only in spacetime * ** *B. REALITY LEIBNIZ-- Only mental is real* *MATERIALISM- Only physical is real * *C. SPACETIME LEIBNIZ Exists only around physical bodies * *MATERIALISM The nonphysical is beyond spacetime, the physical is within it.* *D. IDEAS * *LEIBNIZ-- Exist mentally* *MATERIALISM --Do not exist , since not phjysical E. MATHEMATICS LEIBNIZ-- Only logic and numbers mentally exist. MATERIALISM-- Does not exist F. PHYSICS * *LEIBNIZ--Mentally exists as descriptions of particle behavior according to God's Pre- `existing Harmony MATERIALISM—Ill-defined. Physics seems to be embedded (?) in the particles * *F. GOD* *LEIBNIZ--Is the only active agent (doer and perceiver) in the universe-- * *and so is necessary for existence. * *MATERIALISM-- Is a fairy tale. G. NOTHING* *LEIBNIZ--- The space vacuum. The absence of a particle MATERIALISM--Can exist everywhere * ** *H. HUMAN AFFAIRS* *LEIBNIZ-- Incorporates psychology and can be applied to sociology MATERIALISM-- Seems to avoid the subject. * ** *I. PERCEPTION* *LEIBNIZ-- The ultimate perceiver is God.* *MATERIALISM-- Omits the ultimate perceiver since it cannot explain self. * ** *J. SCIENTIFIC ACCEPTANCE * *LEIBNIZ-- Unexplored by science or explored only to the extent that God, spirit, souil nd mind are seen to be necessary nonphysical entities necessary for existence. Endorsing eibniz is a career-buster.* *MATERIALISM-- Enthusiastically accepted and utilized. It acts as a cult.* ** ** *K. QUANTUM MECHANICS, NONLOCAL OR OTHERWISE* *LEIBNIZ-- All corporeal bodies share and partcipate in the space of existence
Re: Dancing in the flames
Roger, remind me never to get you angry. Hitchens was a genuine good guy, but sometimes annoying. He did believe in freedom to think and choose, and like a lot of journalists, liked to gain attention. He was cynical, but so are many of us. Furthermore, he did do things that the political progressives don't do, and that's take on mad Mullahs in public arguments, and was, for one, not just picking on the Christians as so many Atheists, because they fear confrontations with Islamists, rather then demure Christians. He did get in a fight in Syria, against the Syrian National Socialist Party, while visiting, there, several years back. That should count for something, unless you believe his statements have any validity? In other words if you wish to punish enemies of Jesus, I would say there are far, worse, people to toast then, poor, Hitchens. if there was a Devil and no God (Gnosticism?) Hitchens would have been first in line to sign up for the fight against him. -Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: 4dworldx 4dwor...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 12:34 pm Subject: Dancing in the flames Christopher Hichens made his name Attacking our dear Savior. By now he's dancing in the flames With Logic, that cute Devil's whore. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: Fictionalism!
On 6/12/2013 2:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. Some take reality to be whatever can be described in language. Which language and described by whom? Mathematics, arithmetic, english... People who belong to Everything lists. 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: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
Dr. Clough, so observation by this Observer, entails creation? This all sort of runs along with Shrodingers (sp) Cats, and, and High Everetts' Many Worlds, and so forth. Lenny Susslind at Stanford postulated huge amounts of observers arising in the universe, which he called Boltzmann Brains. It's an insane concept-but I like it anyway. Jason, yes, many thinkers have seen what you have said in one manner or another. Yet, its not like I can write out a beautiful equation, throw the paper in the air, and as if wafts to ground, a wondrous new world emerges-so to speak. Dr. Clough's special Observer can do this, but not I. If you are suggesting that a simulation, complex enough, with enough computing power, and cycling time, is the same this as a Creation-I will give you no argument. Because from the viewpoint of one of the critters on Conway's screen, it is the world. Your text also suggests the thinking of Stephen Wolfram who once wrote (paraphrasing) Why search the skies for ETI's when we could make a computing system that could, by programing and algorithms' uncover all that they know. This has always puzzled me, on the how, we can do this? It may have just been a very dry joke, by Wolfram-but it does sort of highlight your point about recursion, math, Turing, and so forth. -Mitch -Original Message- From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 3:29 pm Subject: Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Indeed, Dr. Marchal. But what comes to my mind would be (I suppose) to create an equation and see if it can then become, somehow, energy, or matter to thus, prove that the universe has a arithmatic basis. I understand that Max Tegmark is enthusiatic on the cosmos being mathematical, as, is, Seth Lloyd, but can we create protons, or a stone with a number, a do-while, statement? Computers and simulation enable us to create reality. In truth we are not creating anything, only exploring what was already there. Think of any computer game, they are comparatively simple simulations and lead to new realities we can go to and explore. Likewise, the entire Earth, or Milkyway could be accessed by someone with sufficient computing power. Or you could say they exist already as relations between numbers that exist in math. For illustration, consider the recursive function that goes from binary number to the next in a way that is identical to John Conway's Game of Life. Theis relation implies an infinite series of successive states starting from the initial number. Starting with the right initial number, this GoL simulation could contain a Turing machine running the universal dovetailer. It would execute all possible programs and all conscious observers are contained in that number relation (assuming computationalism), including you and me who believe in protons and electrons. Jason -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 12:35 pm Subject: Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) On 12 Jun 2013, at 12:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Please allow my incipid observation. Rather then invoke non-material monads, let us, for arguments sake, assume that thought is a neurochemical phenomena, and that without this neurochemical phenomena, there is no thought. Similarly, mathematics as a phenomena, doesn't exist without a human primate, writing on the soil with a stick, marking clay or wax tablets, ink on paper, or human fingers executing a computer program. All material, from beginning to end. Is there any evidence, of the existence of non-material things? Yes, the objectivity of arithmetic or theoretical computer science. Are there evidences that matter has an ontological existence? (Besides the retaively self-moving entity's extrapolation in a local neighborhood) It seems to me there are more evidence that the physical has a mathematical origin. It is indeed a necessity in case we bet the brain/body/local universe is Turing emulable. Matter and energy are interesting, but not necessarily a primitive notion. Physicalism is by itself a strong assumption, incompatible with a simple and elegant theory of mind (computer science/arithmetic). Anyway, this makes comp testable, so we can test it. Bruno -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 6:44 am Subject: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) A.EXISTENCE LEIBNIZ-- Mental (Nonphysical) + Physical MATERIALISM-- Physical, only in spacetime B. REALITY LEIBNIZ-- Only mental is real MATERIALISM- Only physical is real
Leibniz's metaphysics is a model of the emerging global brain
Leibniz's metaphysics is a model of the emerging global brain The recent angst over government monitoring of private communications may not so much be due to a dastardly 1984-type plot, but a sign that a giant global brain is emerging all by itself, aided by the growth of world communications and the internet. Incredibly, this has all been foreseen in Leibniz's model of perception, wherein the world is characterized solely by a vast collection of monads, which are thought-forms (mental representations of phytsical brains). The monads themselves do not perceive directly, but are constantly updated by the world-perceptions of the most dominant monad (God or the One). Each monad is thus constantly informed of the activities (perceptions) of all of the other monads. This dominant monad is then the thought-form of the Global Brain, and because of this,there can only be one ultimate perceiver (God or the One). Perhapos the materialists can devise an equivalent explanation of a global mind, but, at least at this moment, I am unable to do so. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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 to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr.
I think it is worth nothing the difference between active and passive attacks. Active attacks being those where traffic is modified inflight by the eavesdropper or where there is a specific target. If you are specifically targeted I agree with Telmo there is nothing you can do, as every operating system is filled with remotely exploitable bugs which can be used to implant software on your machine, many governments possess CA private keys which can defeat SSL encryption used when you access secure sites, and even your keyboard and monitor give off RF signals that can be used to see what's on your screen or know what you are typing remotely. So if you are actively targeted and they tamper with the traffic or exploit your operating system there is little you can do. However, I am doubtful that the currently disclosed program involves mass-hacking of individual's machines or mass-tampering of traffic, which would be trivially detectable. If one is seeking protection against passive eavesdropping there are many things one can do. Even unauthenticated encryption provides protection against purely passive eavesdroppers in many cases. For e-mail protection there are some browser extensions which integrate with various webmail services ( http://lifehacker.com/5966787/mailvelope-offers-free-easy+to+use-pgp-encryption-for-gmail-outlook-and-other-webmail-services) for IM there is an OTR (off the record) messaging plugin, there are also browser extensions to enable HTTPS everywhere ( https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere ), and there are also search engines that claim to not record your searches ( https://startpage.com/ ). The big downside with PGP is that if your PGP is ever disclosed or revealed in the future, it is possible to go back and decrypt everything that you ever sent. With live protocols (such as HTTPS and OTR) that use Diffie-Hellman key agreement, there is the property of forward security. This means that in the future if your keys are disclosed, then even with the recorded traffic it is not possible to go back and decrypt what was sent. Jason On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: Hi Roger, Unfortunately this kind of system cannot protect you from the recently leaked mass surveillance systems. This guy explains why quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ftfEXxFC4Qfeature=youtu.bet=28m53s On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: How to protect your computer from spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. These days it seems that you need to protect yourself from more than commercial vendors, namely spying by the IRS and Eric H. Holder, Jr. Snowden, the man who recently exposed the NSA activities, says he can from his desktop listen to your telephone and read your email. To do so, at least to a partial extent, start here: 1.) See this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383203092034876.html 2.) Switch your default browser to Mozilla Firefox, as most of the free add-ons only works on it. 3.) Download and install the freeware Firefox add-on from http://www.privacychoice.org/trackerblock/update This so far from a cursory search has not blocked me anywhere. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: Leibniz's metaphysics is a model of the emerging global brain
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Leibniz's metaphysics is a model of the emerging global brain The recent angst over government monitoring of private communications may not so much be due to a dastardly 1984-type plot, but a sign that a giant global brain is emerging all by itself, aided by the growth of world communications and the internet. Or, a sign of global brain tumor. Incredibly, this has all been foreseen in Leibniz's model of perception, wherein the world is characterized solely by a vast collection of monads, which are thought-forms (mental representations of phytsical brains). The monads themselves do not perceive directly, but are constantly updated by the world-perceptions of the most dominant monad (God or the One). Each monad is thus constantly informed of the activities (perceptions) of all of the other monads. This dominant monad is then the thought-form of the Global Brain, and because of this,there can only be one ultimate perceiver (God or the One). Perhapos the materialists can devise an equivalent explanation of a global mind, but, at least at this moment, I am unable to do so. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/12/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:21 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dr. Clough, so observation by this Observer, entails creation? This all sort of runs along with Shrodingers (sp) Cats, and, and High Everetts' Many Worlds, and so forth. Lenny Susslind at Stanford postulated huge amounts of observers arising in the universe, which he called Boltzmann Brains. It's an insane concept-but I like it anyway. Jason, yes, many thinkers have seen what you have said in one manner or another. Yet, its not like I can write out a beautiful equation, throw the paper in the air, and as if wafts to ground, a wondrous new world emerges-so to speak. Dr. Clough's special Observer can do this, but not I. If you are suggesting that a simulation, complex enough, with enough computing power, and cycling time, is the same this as a Creation-I will give you no argument. Because from the viewpoint of one of the critters on Conway's screen, it is the world. Your text also suggests the thinking of Stephen Wolfram who once wrote (paraphrasing) Why search the skies for ETI's when we could make a computing system that could, by programing and algorithms' uncover all that they know. This has always puzzled me, on the how, we can do this? It may have just been a very dry joke, by Wolfram-but it does sort of highlight your point about recursion, math, Turing, and so forth. I think it is legitimate, and simulation may be the only viable method for exploration. Especially if you consider the computing power of a Matrioshka brain ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain ). It would be able to simulate the 4 billion year history of all life on Earth in less than a few years (likely hours). Compare this to observation by telescope: It would take billions of years of looking at a planet through a telescope with an aperture that would need to be millions of miles across just to get a few megapixels of resolution looking at an Earth-sized planet 1000 light years away. Or instead of building the computer, you could travel there and camp out (hopefully picking an interesting planet. Information would dribble in so slowly into this solar-system sized brain it would go bad from boredom. On the other hand, if it used a fraction of its computing power it could spend all of eternity exploring any part of reality it could imagine, other worlds, physics of other possible universes, new forms of life not possible in our universe, etc. Surely right now looking through telescopes seems like the best way to gather knowledge, but give computing power a few more decades of doubling every year, and by the end of the century there will be AI's that have a billion times the computing power of the human brain. All the hard problems humans struggle with in trying to figure out the laws of physics, etc. will seem like child's play, and new sources of puzzles and realms of exploration will be required. Jason -Mitch -Original Message- From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 3:29 pm Subject: Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Indeed, Dr. Marchal. But what comes to my mind would be (I suppose) to create an equation and see if it can then become, somehow, energy, or matter to thus, prove that the universe has a arithmatic basis. I understand that Max Tegmark is enthusiatic on the cosmos being mathematical, as, is, Seth Lloyd, but can we create protons, or a stone with a number, a do-while, statement? Computers and simulation enable us to create reality. In truth we are not creating anything, only exploring what was already there. Think of any computer game, they are comparatively simple simulations and lead to new realities we can go to and explore. Likewise, the entire Earth, or Milkyway could be accessed by someone with sufficient computing power. Or you could say they exist already as relations between numbers that exist in math. For illustration, consider the recursive function that goes from binary number to the next in a way that is identical to John Conway's Game of Life. Theis relation implies an infinite series of successive states starting from the initial number. Starting with the right initial number, this GoL simulation could contain a Turing machine running the universal dovetailer. It would execute all possible programs and all conscious observers are contained in that number relation (assuming computationalism), including you and me who believe in protons and electrons. Jason -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 12:35 pm Subject: Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM) On 12 Jun 2013, at 12:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Please allow my incipid observation.
