Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
On 10 March 2014 17:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: If I ask you to measure the value of alpha to 5 significant places, and I was to measure the same thing, then we can compare notes. Intrasubjective consistency predicts that we should get the same numerical value. Moreover, it would predict that we cannot find somebody who gets a different result, provided they followed the physical measurement protocol correctly. Well, yes. And FAPP we all agree on this. The same can be said if we both agree that there is a particular type of tree outside the window, for example, etc. But surely that doesn't actually prove I didn't dream your agreement (or whatever else could go wrong with intersubjective consistency) ? -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/9/2014 8:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 15:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Decoherence is what I described above. It's tracing over the environment variables, having selected what counts as environment and what as instrument/observer, in order to get the reduced density matrix and then saying Obviously we should measure/observe one of these diagonal values with the proportional probability. So when you get right down to how the math goes it's pretty close to choosing the Heisenberg cut - except you then say and my other selves will measure/observe the other diagonal values which soothes one's angst over randomness. Have I been misinformed? I thought decoherence was supposed to be a physical mechanism which reduced the off-diagonal elements to virtual nonexistence? Sort of. But it only does it in some particular basis and in applying the theory we choose the pointer basis by saying something like We're going to look at the position of the detector which in effect is us choosing our classical selves, pretty much the way Bohr chose the Heisenberg cut. Although there are some suggestive results and most people thing it must work out, I don't think there's any fundamental way been found to define the pointer basis. And then, even after you've got it diagonalized, you need a theory connecting the physics to consciousness to show why you only experience one of them and not all of them. There's a very nice review paper by Schlosshauer on the subject, see arXiv. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
I would imagine the reason we only perceive one reality is because the brain (and body) are classical, which almost begs the question of course, but it means that whatever causes macro-objects to generally behave classically also applies to the brain. (And the senses - if the eyes are classical, we will only see one reality and so on.) Of course I'd happily believe we don't only experience one reality, but I'm a bit that way inclined. Maybe one can only see superpositions when drunk :) There appear to be quite a number of papers co-authored by Schlosshauer, several with titles that suggest they could be the one you mean... you wouldn't be able to glance at the list and tell me which one(s) would best repay me looking at them, perchance? http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+Schlosshauer/0/1/0/all/0/1 -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 07:03:30PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 17:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: If I ask you to measure the value of alpha to 5 significant places, and I was to measure the same thing, then we can compare notes. Intrasubjective consistency predicts that we should get the same numerical value. Moreover, it would predict that we cannot find somebody who gets a different result, provided they followed the physical measurement protocol correctly. Well, yes. And FAPP we all agree on this. The same can be said if we both agree that there is a particular type of tree outside the window, for example, etc. But surely that doesn't actually prove I didn't dream your agreement (or whatever else could go wrong with intersubjective consistency) ? Well my answer to solipsism is generally along the lines of worlds that have evolved from simpler beginnings will have much higher measure than worlds in which we pop out of the air fully formed (Boltzmann brain like). Evolution requires populations, which implies other observers - real observers - so its not all dreamt. Not sure if that will completely satisfy you though :). Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Vehiculus automobilius
On 7 March 2014 15:46, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve into new styles over time. Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. They do not whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their drivers careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a car does not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither does it need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all practical purposes than a horse. Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether? I don't think you understand the essential idea of functionalism, which is multiple realisability. You try to think of analogies to show that it's not obvious, but we know it's not obvious. However, it's true. You don't address the arguments showing it to be true. It's like focussing on how we would fall off the earth if it were round but failing to explain the photos from space. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The way the future was
On 10 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. I lived through it and was even more the same after it. With all due respect, you are saying that something musically significant happened here but I only ever heard racket and rubbish from Johnny Rotten. I mean, he called himself rotten for a reason. He was. He was musically as rotten as festering shit. What was musically significant about the Sex Pistols? I mean, concerning the actual elements of music. Things like pitch, rhythm, harmony, melody - all that core stuff. His music shows no skill whatsoever at those things. But then he didn't even write his own music because he was too off his dial most of the time. None of this precludes the distinct possibility that you, as I myself still do, find vastly entertaining, listening to the Sex Pistols very occasionally. I often do listen to music I really hate if only to realise why in ever more glory that I love the music I really do love... Feel free to hate this post creatively in some way. McClaren would have. Kim -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
On 10 March 2014 22:51, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Well my answer to solipsism is generally along the lines of worlds that have evolved from simpler beginnings will have much higher measure than worlds in which we pop out of the air fully formed (Boltzmann brain like). Evolution requires populations, which implies other observers - real observers - so its not all dreamt. Yeah, that's roughly what I would have said. I'm sure I didn't write all the Beatles' music myself, too. Not sure if that will completely satisfy you though :). FAPP it will, but does it completely satisfy you? -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The way the future was
you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy Cool. Rockin' All Over the World and Yes Sir, I can Boogie. And then: Dragged on a table in factory Illegitimate place to be In a packet in a lavatory Die little baby screaming Body screaming fucking bloody mess Not an animal It's an abortion Body! I'm not animal Mummy! I'm not an abortion It kind of hits you in the face with the reality as experienced by the dispossessed and disenfranchised, but in a very immediate and visceral way. Its far more gut wrenching and confrontational than iggy pop, or the clash or any other punk band I know of. Most people are so offended someone is singing about abortion that they miss the fact that the song is an argument between the unborn child and the mother. For a spotty teenager that's pretty brainy lyrically and very surreal. I don't think it was ever matched until the Pixies really. I stand by the Pistols. True, Rotten is a twat now. He wasn't then though. From: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:03:43 +1100 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 10 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. I lived through it and was even more the same after it. With all due respect, you are saying that something musically significant happened here but I only ever heard racket and rubbish from Johnny Rotten. I mean, he called himself rotten for a reason. He was. He was musically as rotten as festering shit. What was musically significant about the Sex Pistols? I mean, concerning the actual elements of music. Things like pitch, rhythm, harmony, melody - all that core stuff. His music shows no skill whatsoever at those things. But then he didn't even write his own music because he was too off his dial most of the time. None of this precludes the distinct possibility that you, as I myself still do, find vastly entertaining, listening to the Sex Pistols very occasionally. I often do listen to music I really hate if only to realise why in ever more glory that I love the music I really do love... Feel free to hate this post creatively in some way. McClaren would have. Kim -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 09 Mar 2014, at 00:53, meekerdb wrote: On 3/8/2014 3:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 March 2014 08:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in arithmetic (like x+0=x, etc.). I can't hardly imagine something less random than that. But we don't know that it exists. ISTM that rejecting the possibility of randomness in the world is just dogma. Of course we can study and try to understand and minimize randomness is our theories - but I see no reason to simply rule it out because we don't like it; especially by hyposthesizing an unobservable and untestable everythingism. I like your theory, but not because it avoids randomness (as Everett does too), but because it seems to address the mind-body problem. It's hard to imagine a mechanism for randomness, especially one that doesn't involve hidden variables. Any suggestions? To me, a mechanism for intrinsic randomness sounds like a contradiction. OK. A 3p mechanism can't explain a 3p intrinsic randomness. Only pseudo-randomness a priori. Yet, a very simple mechanism exists which explains the 1p appearance of randomness: self-duplication. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
On 09 Mar 2014, at 00:58, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Hi everyone, Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno Marchal's The Amoeba's Secret is now available from Amazon's Kindle store. See http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IRLEKPA The Amoeba's Secret was written when Bruno received the prestigious Prix Le Monde de la Recherche Universitaire for his PhD thesis, only for the prize to be mysteriously revoked, and the book not published. The original French version exists only as a manuscript available from Bruno's website. The Amoeba's Secret remains one of clearest explanations of Bruno's UDA and AUDA arguments, and provides a lot of historical background motivating him to formulate and study these issues in this way. Now, after about 4 years of effort, Kim Jones and I have finally finished the translation of this book into English. For those of you who prefer their books hard, the paperback version will probably be available towards the end of March. I need to see a physical copy of what Amazon produces before approving it for general sale. I have jigged things so that hard copy purchases are entitled to a free Kindle version fo the book, so you can have the best of both worlds. Great job by you guys, congratulations! Didn't get to reply timely, but please... time?! I'll have to not buy it, just to restore correctness for there to be some dissent, which is dumb, because I want it. Sometimes sacrifice is the best next move. Well, thanks for restoring correctness, and dissent. You know how much the Löbian universal machine is itself so easily, and universally, dissident. Lol. Best, Bruno Glad to be of service, gentlemen. PGC Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Fabric of Alternate Reality group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to f...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
I understood, what you were going for, but I hit back on old, Chris, because he changed the conversation to invective-which I am ok with. No big deal, but I hit back. Secondly, the nice guys, the progressives world-wide, tend to become more and more oppressive as time goes by. Use a problem like AGW, and make into a reason for making a dictatorship. This is what Stalin did. Thirdly, the progressives worldwide like to cast the Nazi aspersion at conservatives, so rather than waste energy, I counter-punch with the Stalin thing. I am Hitler, they are Stalin. It pisses them off so that is a good, if only for my limbic system. Also, it has a point, which is the government is a god or godwin, as you like it. I think, many times this is a bad, bad, thing, and I'd like to avoid that, if possible. Being conservative (pragmatic) I look for results. I prefer technology over government and government management (dictatorship). One of the interesting thing we could all reflect on, is the capacity to use molten salt, as an alternative pumped storage, for night and cold winters. Rugged, less expensive, re-usable, and makes solar and wind storable, ahead of batteries, and fuel cells-not that I am against them, being pragmatic. I don't really think you are a Nazi, thank Godwin - but then you should not call disagreers Stalinists, because it is at best a caricature. As were my satirical comments, but I did it intentionally. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 9, 2014 5:17 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 10 March 2014 01:39, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Liz, you are doing the same thing, Chris does, which, when confronted with someone who disagrees with their world view, hurls snarky accusations. Actually I was satirising the paragraph of yours I quoted, which mentioned Stalin at least 3 times. I don't really think you are a Nazi, thank Godwin - but then you should not call disagreers Stalinists, because it is at best a caricature. As were my satirical comments, but I did it intentionally. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 09 Mar 2014, at 19:32, meekerdb wrote: On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote: On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote: On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote: A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI? Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness? If one assumes QM and the MWI are correct then it isn't pretending, True; but I don't assume that. Since your original statement above only makes sense in some context - which you haven't revealed, as far as I can tell - perhaps you could tell us what you are assuming? I'm not assuming anything, I'm just pointing out that one could assume something different than QM and MWI. For instance, start with MWI but then suppose that at each branching only one instance of you continues. Doesn't that accord with all experience? Like Ptolemeaus epicycles. The point is to accord with the simplest theories we have for most if not all experiences, like QM, or computationalism. At each branching only one instance of you continue, you say, but that does not accord well with the simplest explanation of the two slits experience. You will have to explain why the superpositions act in the micro and not the macro, and this needs big changes in QM (= SWE), or even bigger to computationalism. But you have to explain this anyway; Why? Not at all. except the question is transformed into why do I only experience one reality. This is entirely explained by the self-duplication (with comp, in arithmetic), or with self-superposition (with Everett-QM). Presumably the answer is in decoherence and the off-diagonal terms of the density matrix becoming very small (or maybe even zero). That explains nothing without the MWI, or without self-duplication. Decoherence explains just why it is hard to get the interference effects with macro-bodies, as they get entangled quickly with the environment. decoherence might explain also the importance of the position observable, in the story of our brain. But the explanation of indeterminacy, within a deterministic frame is provided by the SWE, or by arithmetic (assuming comp). Once you have this answer then you can look at the density matrix, as Omnes does, and say, QM is a probabilistic theory, so it predicts probabilities. What did you expect? Hmm... Only, as Omnes explained in once of this book, by accepting to be irrational on this. My point is that these sharp questions are asked of QM because it is a mature theory with lots of very accurate predictions, Which QM? Copenhagen QM works very well, but does not make sense (to be short). Everett-QM works as well, makes sense, but uses computationalism, which forces us to derive the SWE 1p plural appearance from pure arithmetic. But that is nice, as it suggests where the wave comes from. but comp as a new speculative theory It is the oldest theory of humanity, I would say. And I think that it is less speculative than the alternate theory, which either use sacred text (a non sequitur in science), or a speculation that Church thesis might be false, etc. kind of gets a free ride on the very same questions, e.g. why do we not experience superpositions? Why isn't there a superposition of the M-guy and the W-guy according to comp. ?? What would that mean? Comp explains, completely, why the M-guy feels to be only in M, and why the W-guy feels to be only in W, despite being in both city, from a external point of view. How can consciousness be instantiated by physical processes? Comp explains this by self-reference and its intensional nuance. Most people on this list just assume it can't and dismiss the very idea as mere physicalism. Not at all. Consciousness needs in all case a physical body, to manifest itself relatively to other universal machine. If not we would get only the dreams, and no sharable interference. But they don't ask how can consciousness be instantiated by infinite threads of computation - that's mysterious and consciousness is mysterious, so it's OK. Comp is not a solution per se. Comp makes just possible to translate the problem into an explanation of where the physical laws come from, in a constructive way, so that we can test comp. If not, you can always consistently assume everything is done by a God to fit your favorite philosophical expectations. You can do that, *logically*, but this is no more truth research, but wishful thinking. But you know that is not what is done. QM predicts probability distributions that are confirmed to many decimal places. Which QM? QFT predicts some
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 09 Mar 2014, at 19:47, Jesse Mazer wrote: And take a look at the temperature at zero years ago, does it look colder or hotter than the average for the last 600 million years? Of course in the long term, life will be able to adapt to whatever rise in temperature is caused by global warming, but sufficiently fast rises may be too much for most species to adapt to (see http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/miomap/RESULTS-MIOMAP/BarnoskyJMamm03.pdf for some paleontological evidence that faster changes cause more extinctions, and that the rate fof change over the next century is likely to exceed anything in mammalian history), causing mass extinctions followed by a gradual expansion of surviving organisms to fill vacant niches. If we are worried about what life will be like for our descendants in the next few centuries or millennia, the fact that life is likely to bounce back in 10 million years wouldn't be much comfort to people living in the immediate aftermath of a mass extinction. And that's not even considering all the specific impacts on human society which aren't specifically connected to mass extinction, like the flooding of huge numbers of coastal cities, the decrease in freshwater supplies, etc. That's the main point. We have to handle the planet with some cautiousness for the sake of our descendants. Eventually we have to abandon the produce-ever-more philosophy of life, as we are more and more numerous on a finite planet for still some number of years. Good, the time has come to contemplate, and move a bit less. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:37:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: A couple other accounts of how things might be that I take seriously are (1) physicalism in the sense that arithmetical propositions might only be true when physically realized, No problem, and indeed this would make comp false. of course, if you really defend that thesis, you have to explain and prove the existence of infinitely many prime numbers by using physics, and this without presupposing addition and multiplication of integers. I am not even sure how you will just defined what is prime number. Given a correspondence theory of truth and this kind of physicalism, mathematical theorems would be true if and only if there's a corresponding physical reality. So, for example, if the universe is finite, then there wouldn't be infinitely many prime numbers. Nor would there be infinitely many integers. But there would still be integers and primes. Numbers, addition, and multiplication would be patterns that our brains recognize in material things, at first due to experience counting objects, grouping them, and counting groups. We abstract those patterns to symbolic form in our heads or our writing for convenience, and we generalize the notation to cover a wide variety of patterns. But our process of abstracting and generalizing may omit important limitations (such as finitude) of the physical reality on which it was originally based. or even (2) relativism in the sense that arithmetical propositions might only be true for humanlike brains, OK, but same remark. Defined human-like brain, and give me a proof that 1+1=2 from that definition. Due to our shared evolutionary history, humans share nearly all their brain architecture in common. Due to our shared cultural history, many of the humans we regularly encounter share much of their set of background assumptions and beliefs in common. It appears that there's no such thing as such a perfectly lucid and detailed description or set of instructions that one person could give another that eliminates the need for the other person to grok the meaning, i.e. to connect the ideas appropriately and fill in the missing information based on their own wiring and their own experience. (Take Edgar as an demonstration of this apparent fact. ;) Consequently, some suppose that communication with an extraterrestrial intelligence may fail due to there being an almost total mismatch in wiring and experience. (When language fails, we humans resort to pointing at objects and pantomiming, but without shared sensory systems and emotional responses, even that may well fail to be grokked by the alien.) It's also possible that the symbolic structure of our mathematics is dependent on our wiring and experience; indeed there is some evidence that the way humans use language is due to an evolutionarily recent genetic mutation. For these two reasons, our mathematical definitions, theorems, proofs, etc may only be suitable for use by other humans, and so by a pragmaticist alethiology, only true for humans. The usual proofs then apply, because we're humans. with an alethiology of the sort preferred by the American pragmatist school of philosophy. keep in mind that you mention people who are Aristotelian, and the point I do is only that IF comp is true, THEN such approach get inconsistent or epistemologically non sensical. Hm. Can you elucidate what you mean by saying they are Aristotelian? What is the key contrast? Four options plus an ignorance prior and little evidence gives me about 25% confidence for each. :) ONLY IF you develop your alternate assumptions. The idea that 1+1 is prime independently of human is far more simple (and used) than the idea that 1+1 is prime is relative to the human brain. The axiomatic of natural numbers is far more simple than anything else. You can always propose a much more complex theory to falsify a simple set of axioms. I don't know that the other cases I've mentioned are more complex. Physicalism just puts some mysterious matter first and makes math derivative of it. That may be wrong, but it's hard to see why it's more complex than comp's reversal of it. The relativism described above isn't an additional supposition added to math; it takes ideas from biology and linguistics to see what consequences there might be when they intersect with math. -Gabe -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[no subject]
Question for you Bruno:. You say (with help from Theaetetus) that 1p experience is given by Bp p. Yet, our experience is often deluded, as in optical illusions, or in various kinds of emotional psychological denial. Can we ever really say that our knowledge, even 1p experience, refers to anything True? Terren -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 7:47 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating I understood, what you were going for, but I hit back on old, Chris, because he changed the conversation to invective-which I am ok with. No big deal, but I hit back. Secondly, the nice guys, the progressives world-wide, tend to become more and more oppressive as time goes by. Use a problem like AGW, and make into a reason for making a dictatorship. This is what Stalin did. Thirdly, the progressives worldwide like to cast the Nazi aspersion at conservatives, so rather than waste energy, I counter-punch with the Stalin thing. I am Hitler, they are Stalin. It pisses them off so that is a good, if only for my limbic system. Also, it has a point, which is the government is a god or godwin, as you like it. I think, many times this is a bad, bad, thing, and I'd like to avoid that, if possible. Being conservative (pragmatic) I look for results. I prefer technology over government and government management (dictatorship). One of the interesting thing we could all reflect on, is the capacity to use molten salt, as an alternative pumped storage, for night and cold winters. Rugged, less expensive, re-usable, and makes solar and wind storable, ahead of batteries, and fuel cells-not that I am against them, being pragmatic. They already use molten salt for large CSP - -example the Luz project in So Cal. It is one of the arguments that CSP (Concentrated Solar thermal Power) has going for it. These plants operate using molten slat as the medium in any case so storing it off in insulated tanks makes sense. In this manner it can produce power even at night. On the other hand the peak power demand curve peaks during the afternoon to early evening time frame - very little power is actually needed during the middle of the night. Still waiting for you to respond factually to my deconstruction of your statements regarding the extinction rate being 10,000 times the background rate. Or regarding the highly optimistic future energy supply scenarios you believe in and proposed as being based in fact. Much easier for you to ignore that and focus on - the alleged invective and hurt I caused your sensitive conservative soul. I take your silence as a tacit agreement or an inability on your part to form a cogent response - other than branding me as a Stalinist, which fits right in with your Tea Party mode of discourse. If you believe it pisses me off - and that this is good, which makes me gather that therefore this is your main objective - it kind of reflects back on you and on your motives. Are you here to piss people off? Or just people who do not buy into your fanatical and fact free agenda? Chris I don't really think you are a Nazi, thank Godwin - but then you should not call disagreers Stalinists, because it is at best a caricature. As were my satirical comments, but I did it intentionally. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 9, 2014 5:17 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 10 March 2014 01:39, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Liz, you are doing the same thing, Chris does, which, when confronted with someone who disagrees with their world view, hurls snarky accusations. Actually I was satirising the paragraph of yours I quoted, which mentioned Stalin at least 3 times. I don't really think you are a Nazi, thank Godwin - but then you should not call disagreers Stalinists, because it is at best a caricature. As were my satirical comments, but I did it intentionally. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 09 Mar 2014, at 20:17, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:34 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: I not only know they're very violent I know why they're violent. If government made chocolate bars illegal the demand for chocolate bars would not end and organizations would come into existence to fill that demand. And the underground Hershey candy company and the underground Nestles candy company couldn't sue each other in the courts and so would have no way to settle disputes except through baseball bats and machine guns. Come on man nobody is going to kill someone else over a bar of chocolate Of course they will! Chocolate is a multibillion dollar industry and there is a very strong demand for it that will not disappear just because some pinhead in government passes a law against it. Legal or illegal whenever there is a demand for product X, prostitution, drugs, pirate DVDs, pornography, chocolate bars or whatever, there will always be people willing to cater to that demand if the price is right. John we are going to have to disagree on that. A heroin junkie will do almost anything to get their next fix... so will an alcoholic for that matter (and if you had said alcohol I would have, of course very much agreed with you), but Chocolate? Hmm... I have to agree with John here. Actually, some results on a free heroin distribution has confirmed than when an heroin user is reassured of the possibility of the fix, it needs it already much less. Then chocolate is both toxic and addictive (which always means with varying degrees in some percentage of the population). Come on man be serious. I know it is a multi-billion dollar industry and that sure a black market for it would spring into existence - and at some level criminality would take control. But at the street level - you will never find chocolate junkies mugging little old ladies or prostituting themselves for a few dollars (like crack whores do) to get the bar of chocolate they crave. Hmm I am not sure. As chocolate is less toxic than crack, that would be a good idea to make chocolate illegal. Chocolate is complex and most often consumed with sugar, which is a rather famous molecule too, with respect to health. Let us send Santa Klaus to jail, if that one is not a dealer, destroying the teeth, sometimes the liver, of our kids! Just imagining this scenario brings me to fits of laughter. Me to. But less than our descendents, and even already most of ourselves, when seeing the propaganda against marijuana. There are no chocolate deals gone bad. Absolutely untrue, there are plenty of chocolate deals that go bad and when they do the parties involved sue each other, that's why the big candy companies have hundreds of lawyers on their payrole. But because Meth dealers are selling a product that somebody in government has deemed illegal they do not have that option and must resort to what Clausewitz euphemistically called diplomacy by other means, that is to say they make the other party an offer they can't refuse. Sure, in principal we agree - but then on the other hand Methamphetamines and Chocolate have very different effects on the people who become addicted to them. The meth head will do almost anything - and they do - they murder, they steal, they prostitute themselves the whole shebang; chocolate addicts are not going to start going out and committing street crime in order to get their fix. And this IS the difference. Substance having a high addiction potential must be sold in pharmacy, with a medical prescription. Addicted people can be cured, which has to be encouraged when the substance is also toxic, or social perturbing (like alcohol addiction usually is). Again if you had used the example of alcohol; I would have agreed that the alcoholic would break into a car to steal a stereo to hawk in order to by their black market possibly adulterated bottle of moonshine. It is indeed different for each products, but prohibition, instead of regulation, aggravates the problem, whatever the substance is (when edible or consumable). I think government has a role to play in enforcing correct labeling and ingredients I pretty much agree with perhaps a few caveats. Think of it as a reporting function. But not enforce monopolies - as it does with medical dental practice, and the drug sector for example. Agreed. A black market degenerates into a cutthroat cartel True, but the blackness of the market has nothing to do with the nature of the commodity being transacted, it's black because somebody in
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:41 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: If only we all thought like you, the world would be fixed, eh? Concerning that I think I'll just quote Gore Vidal: there is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise. Or, if the climate change doesn't fit all the models, that have been proposed by the IPCC, then all we have to do is wait? Exactly. I wouldn't advise stop emitting greenhouse gasses and impoverishing the world right now to fix something that may not even be broken and even if it is won't cause big problems for a century or so. Right now I don't even think it's time to implement Nathan Myhrvold's astronomically cheaper solution to global warming. However in the future if there are not just climate model predictions of lots and lots of warming but we are already experiencing it, and this warming turns out to be a bad thing, then it might be time to try something like Myhrvold's solution because if it doesn't work as planned we can just shut off a valve. What I hate is the hypocrisy of environmentalists, they claim to occupy the moral high ground but they are willing, even gleeful, to let billions of people starve to death for their sinful (environmentally insensitive) lifestyle. And then they say we shouldn't try to stop the carnage with something like Myhrvold's idea because that would be too dangerous and it's blasphemous to even mention it. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
It's this one http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059v4.pdf which I think is his doctoral thesis. He later expanded it into a book. Brent On 3/10/2014 12:14 AM, LizR wrote: I would imagine the reason we only perceive one reality is because the brain (and body) are classical, which almost begs the question of course, but it means that whatever causes macro-objects to generally behave classically also applies to the brain. (And the senses - if the eyes are classical, we will only see one reality and so on.) Of course I'd happily believe we don't only experience one reality, but I'm a bit that way inclined. Maybe one can only see superpositions when drunk :) There appear to be quite a number of papers co-authored by Schlosshauer, several with titles that suggest they could be the one you mean... you wouldn't be able to glance at the list and tell me which one(s) would best repay me looking at them, perchance? http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+Schlosshauer/0/1/0/all/0/1 -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Over a sustained time, 17 years, its no longer a hockey stick, it is climate. Because you observe weather and confuse it with climate Chris -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 9, 2014 11:03 pm Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Yah. Its way too late. You have gotten me reflecting on the old saying by Tip Oneil, who said All politics is local. I would paraphrase this and say all politics is personel. I can observe two things, despite my diminished capacity. One is that the climate is not behaving at all like you been stating. Two, eventually fair amount of people will tire of the ruling classes to the rule of autocrats. Because you observe weather and confuse it with climate Chris -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
According to Chris, Climate is not the weather or the local weather. So if this suggestion is correct, its local anomalies over the years, driven onward, by El Nino' or La Nina' ? According to a report released, last week, by the Royal Climate Group and the US national academy of sciences, a change in energy sources will not help us. I had to read it twice to comprehend what the report indicated. If this is the case and not an exaggeration, what do you want us to do? The likely threat if the model holds is flooding and drought worldwide. Of the two, flooding is the most dangerous. I have an idea or two, but because thing like dams and pumps take energy, it would likely take going to nuclear fission. Something that most would reject. There appear to have been plenty of extreme weather events recently, but it's possible they're more noticeable because more people are likely to be affected than there were, say, a century ago. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 9, 2014 11:32 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 10 March 2014 12:19, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: One is that the climate is not behaving at all like you been stating. Could you be more specific? There appear to have been plenty of extreme weather events recently, but it's possible they're more noticeable because more people are likely to be affected than there were, say, a century ago. Still it seems like you can't watch the TV news without floods, droughts, storms, bush fires and so on... all of which are generally called a once in a lifetime event. Here are some of them... -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Vehiculus automobilius
On Monday, March 10, 2014 5:48:42 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 7 March 2014 15:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve into new styles over time. Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. They do not whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their drivers careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a car does not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither does it need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all practical purposes than a horse. Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether? I don't think you understand the essential idea of functionalism, which is multiple realisability. Multiple realisability is the problem. A digital file can be rendered to our visual sense as a graphic design or to our audio sense as music. It can also be copied, translated, or functionally manipulated in every way without being rendered at all. You try to think of analogies to show that it's not obvious, but we know it's not obvious. However, it's true. It's even less obvious than you think. What you are thinking is not obvious is only halfway there. You don't address the arguments showing it to be true. It's like focussing on how we would fall off the earth if it were round but failing to explain the photos from space. What argument specifically are you saying that I don't address? Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
the real thing Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
On 09 Mar 2014, at 21:46, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Russell, Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain the observable universe. This is true. David Deutsch argues for this view convincingly in The Fabric of Reality. (Russell and Brent are not disputing this view as a practical approach, I think, they are just pointing out that there are metaphysical assumptions built into itunless they correct me on this.) Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories DO reflect actual reality. They are not just made up by humans willy nilly Not willy nilly, certainly. However the assumption that they reflect an actual reality is only an assumption, partly because it's impossible to prove and partly because, in any case, all theories are open to revision. (This is why people keep asking you for some testable predictions of p-time and Bruno for testable predictions of comp, for example.) And that is why I keep answering that there are there. The *observable* is given by Z1*, or qZ1* (a whole sort of quantum mathematics), so it is enough to compare the propositions of Z1* with the quantum logics of the physicist, to test comp+Theatetetus, and to abandon it or improve it. And then what I say, is not a proposition of a theory, but something derived from an hypothesis, already made by many if not most scientists, unfortunately made often in the materialist context, which leads to eliminativism of the person, when correct. Hmm... Ad we are not yet close to Z1*, especially that the main shortcut was in the post that you did not comment. I have also teach this to some students here, and it heps me to understand that this is not so simple ... Yet, I will just reprint it below, to not lost it (!), and called it the real things, an obligatory passage which unfortunately, when done with all details is very long, as we have to explain to a very dumb machine, the not so simple functioning of that very dumb machine. I slightly correct it, I think it will be an evolving post. Don't comment it, as long as it looks chinese. == T H E R E A L T H I N G = And don't worry, at some point I will have to re-explained all this, to what some people might take as a very dumb machine, which indeed believes only few axioms of elementary arithmetic. That will be the real thing. Some modal logics will impose themselves there, including the one corresponding to alternating consistent extensions, whose measure should provide the physical laws. The theory of everything, here, is classical first order logic + the following formula: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x or 0 ≠ (x + 1) ((x + 1) = (y + 1)) - x = y x + 0 = x x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1 x * 0 = 0 x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x The hard task will consist in defining an observer using only the theory above. It will be defined to be a sound extension believer of the axioms above, + some amount of induction axioms, of the type: (F(0) Ax(F(x) - F(s(x))) - AxF(x), with F(x) being a formula in the arithmetical language (with 0, s, +, *). We have to explain to a dumb machine, which understands only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... and can only add and multiply, but yet can reason in classical logic, the very functioning of such a dumb machine. There is no miracle. To define the variables, we can use the letter x, y, ..., it works well for many human people, but the dumb machine understands only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), so we will have to decide to say something like let the variable be defined by 0, s(s(0)), s(s(s(s(0, that is, the even number, so we will defined in arithmetic, the variable by the even numbers. Variable(x) - even(x) - Ey(2*y = x) And about , - t, and even what about (, and ) ? Well, again, there is no magic, you have to chose particular odd numbers (to not confuse them from variable) to represent them. That is both logic and polite. And then, how about finite sequences of symbols like 0≠s(x)? They too must be defined in terms of number relations, and in this case a simple way, if we allow ourselves the use of exponentiation, is given by the uniqueness of prime decomposition. If g(0), g(≠), ... represents the particular odd number symbol for 0, ≠, etc. then you can represent 0≠s(x) by 2^g(0)*3^g(≠)*5^g(s)*7^g(()*11^g(x)*13^g()). Or better: 3^g(0)*5^g(≠)*7^g(s)*11^g(()*13^g(x)*17^g()). To avoid the confusion with the variable, we start from the prime number 3, if not we would get an even number which represents already a variable. Then the theory itself can be defined or represented, as a number, being a finite sequences of the number corresponding to the axioms above. We will have to defined in
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:31 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: According to Chris, Climate is not the weather or the local weather. So if this suggestion is correct, its local anomalies over the years, driven onward, by El Nino' or La Nina' ? According to a report released, last week, by the Royal Climate Group and the US national academy of sciences, a change in energy sources will not help us. I had to read it twice to comprehend what the report indicated. Are you talking about the report at http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf? If so you have totally misunderstood what the report indicated, page B8 shows that climate models predict the Aggressive emissions reduction scenario would result in much lower global temperature in 2100 than the 'Business as usual' emissions scenario. They do say on p. 22 that If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to 'pre-industrial' levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments, but even if temperatures don't drop for a while, as long as they don't rise to levels much above what we have today, the consequences probably wouldn't be too bad (for a discussion of the likely consequences of each 1 degree rise, check out the book Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet by Mark Lynas). Jesse -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 10 Mar 2014, at 01:17, chris peck wrote: Hi Bruno With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different vocabulary. Really? the last time I quoted her: What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see. So, she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-up, and she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-down. But that can only be a 3-1 description. She handles the 1p by a maximization of the interests of the copies, and that is equivalent with the FPI, without naming it. Funnily enough Bruno, if I was opportunistic I would just about accept that. I mean personally, I would argue that the vocabulary used is identical between you and Greaves and she explicitly denies your probability distribution from the first person perspective. I doubt this, as in the iterated self-duplication, her method get equivalent as justifying the probability talk, even the usual boolean one. The notion of first person, and first person sequences are well defined, and it is a combinatorial exercise to show that the vast majority of first person memories will feel white noise. The existence of that white noise is proved in a third person way, and the real question will concern the invariance of that indeterminacy for 3p transformation. But a bigger problem for you raises its head if I put that to one side. if, as you claim, there is no substantive difference between your theory and Greaves' just because she has some other mechanism of deriving the bare quantities you want, then you may as well say that there is only a difference in terminology between your theory and any other interpretation of QM. After all they all deliver 0.5 by some now irrelevant metric too. You've just relugated your theory to the purely metaphysical. You're tacitly admitting that all these theories are just re-skins of the same underlying engine with bugger all to choose between them. In a way that is something that I have felt for a while. Everettian QM does not improve upon QM + collapse in the way say relativity improves on Newtonian physics. There is no concomitant improvement in predictive capability on offer. Its a purely theoretical change intended to smooth out conceptual difficulties but it can only do that by delivering further difficulties of its own. All your theories are scientifically irrelevant. QM+collapse is not a theory, it is a collection of attempts to make theories, with often weird role played by apparatus or humans. Then with Everett, things just get understandable, except that by using computationalism, I show that we have to extract the wave from an uncertainty structure related to relative computational states. The rest seems to me like using vocabulary to avoid a problem, which is sad, as it is an interesting problem. A positive solution, that is a match between Z1* and empirical quantum logic would suggest how the laws of physics emerge in the mind of some stable collection of universal numbers. A negative solution would need either to abandon Theatetetus, or to bet on normal higher level of simulation, like with Böstrom, or abandon comp, that is abandon Church thesis, or yes doctor. Bruno Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:32:08 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3 On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote: On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote: On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote: A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI? Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness? If one assumes QM and the MWI are correct then it isn't pretending, True; but I don't assume that. Since your original statement above only makes sense in some context - which you haven't revealed, as far as I can tell - perhaps you could tell us what you are assuming? I'm not assuming anything, I'm just pointing out that one could assume something different than QM and MWI. For instance, start with MWI but then suppose that at each branching only one instance of you continues. Doesn't that accord with all experience? Like Ptolemeaus epicycles. The point is to accord with the simplest theories we have for most if not all experiences, like QM, or computationalism. At each branching only one instance of you continue, you say, but that does not accord well with the simplest explanation of the two slits experience. You will have to explain why the superpositions act in the micro and not the macro, and this
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: That looks like a pretty crappy match to me. What the hell happened 450 million years ago? And why did the CO2 start to drop 150 million years ago but the temperature start to climb at the same time? I suspect you are asking these questions not because you are genuinely curious, and have an open-minded attitude about the possibility that climate scientists might have reasonable answers, but [...] OK OK, I'm closed minded, stupid, enjoy bad environments and am in general am just a terrible human being; but my questions are still valid and deserve good answers because before you initiate a policy that will impoverish the world for many generations and kill lots and lots and lots of people you should be at least as sure of yourself as President Bush was that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Are you? On the question of what happened 450 million years ago in the Ordovician period, I googled Ordovician temperature and found a discussion of some scientific research at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-levels-during-the-late-Ordovician.htmlwhich suggests there are at least some viable hypotheses about how the temperature drop could be explained in the framework of existing climate models: Hypotheses that answer scientific puzzles are a dime a dozen, hypotheses that correctly answer scientific puzzles are not. Young determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led to CO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation - the growing of ice sheets. So CO2 at 3000 parts per million will lead to worldwide glaciation but CO2 at 380 parts per million will lead to catastrophic warming. Huh? And take a look at the temperature at zero years ago, does it look colder or hotter than the average for the last 600 million years? Of course in the long term, life will be able to adapt to whatever rise in temperature is caused by global warming, but sufficiently fast rises may be too much for most species to adapt to The solutions proposed by environmentalists (close all nuclear reactors immediately, stop using coal, drastically reduce the use of oil and gas) will cause things to change one hell of a lot faster than anything nature could dream up. For example, The sea has risen about 6 inches during the last century, and it has risen about 6 inches a century for the last 6 thousand years. Not very surprising really, the sea has risen 410 feet in the last 20 thousand years and you wouldn't expect a powerful trend like that to stop on a dime. And I think we can handle another 6 inches by 2114. the rate of change over the next century is likely to exceed anything in mammalian history Mammalian history started about 240 million years ago so I have only one word to respond to the above. BULLSHIT. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:31:07 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: Let me try that again: On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 11:08 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: There's no plausible theory by which clouds could nullify the warming caused by increased CO2 If not clouds it's crystal clear that SOMETHING is capable of nullifying the warming caused by increased CO2 because during the late Ordovician era there was a HUGE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, 4400 ppm verses only 380 today, and yet the world was in the grip of a severe ice age. In fact during the last 600 million years the atmosphere has almost always had far more CO2 in it than now, on average about 3000 ppm. Hi John, that was nearly half a billion years ago. Go back a couple or three billion and the Co2 level was 20 times more than today. The Sun has been getting hotter over the same period. More than 20 percent hotter today than when co2 was 20 times denser in the atmosphere. The climate has remained roughly stable over the same period. The climate has remained stable?? Take a look at this graph that shows global temperatures over the last 900 million years: http://www.google.com/imgres?lrsafe=imagessa=Xhl=enas_qdr=alltbm=ischtbnid=dxfUyQfAJcSA2M%3Aimgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdrtimball.com%2F2011%2Fipcc-exclusions-and-inclusions-of-climate-mechanisms-are-both-failures%2Fdocid=7PIkRDk-CJD4GMimgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdrtimball.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Festimated-global-temperature-over-900-million-years.jpgw=600h=393ei=PJAcU7vxC4O42wWK14HoBQzoom=1ved=0CGkQhBwwBwiact=rcdur=8297page=1start=0ndsp=32 Or if that's going back too far for your tastes tale a look at at temperatures over the last 10,000 years: http://www.google.com/imgres?lrsafe=imagessa=Xhl=enas_qdr=alltbm=ischtbnid=SOadANpetBK6qM%3Aimgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjoannenova.com.au%2F2010%2F02%2Fthe-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings%2Fdocid=UrLd2hoOeD7sWMimgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjonova.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fgraphs%2Flappi%2Fgisp-last-1-new.pngw=829h=493ei=PJAcU7vxC4O42wWK14HoBQzoom=1ved=0CF0QhBwwAwiact=rcdur=1444page=1start=0ndsp=32 John K Clark I think on the scale of 4 billion years the sort of margin we're talking about is that necessary to keep water liquid on the surface. You keep throwing out eratic graphsyou do know they are provided by climate science? What steps do you take to understand the position in science, before you make claims like you do? -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: the real thing Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Nice to see you treat it this way. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Mar 2014, at 21:46, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Russell, Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain the observable universe. This is true. David Deutsch argues for this view convincingly in The Fabric of Reality. (Russell and Brent are not disputing this view as a practical approach, I think, they are just pointing out that there are metaphysical assumptions built into itunless they correct me on this.) Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories DO reflect actual reality. They are not just made up by humans willy nilly Not willy nilly, certainly. However the assumption that they reflect an actual reality is only an assumption, partly because it's impossible to prove and partly because, in any case, all theories are open to revision. (This is why people keep asking you for some testable predictions of p-time and Bruno for testable predictions of comp, for example.) And that is why I keep answering that there are there. The *observable* is given by Z1*, or qZ1* (a whole sort of quantum mathematics), so it is enough to compare the propositions of Z1* with the quantum logics of the physicist, to test comp+Theatetetus, and to abandon it or improve it. And then what I say, is not a proposition of a theory, but something derived from an hypothesis, already made by many if not most scientists, unfortunately made often in the materialist context, which leads to eliminativism of the person, when correct. Hmm... Ad we are not yet close to Z1*, especially that the main shortcut was in the post that you did not comment. I have also teach this to some students here, and it heps me to understand that this is not so simple ... Yet, I will just reprint it below, to not lost it (!), and called it the real things, an obligatory passage which unfortunately, when done with all details is very long, as we have to explain to a very dumb machine, the not so simple functioning of that very dumb machine. I slightly correct it, I think it will be an evolving post. Don't comment it, as long as it looks chinese. == T H E R E A L T H I N G = And don't worry, at some point I will have to re-explained all this, to what some people might take as a very dumb machine, which indeed believes only few axioms of elementary arithmetic. That will be the real thing. Some modal logics will impose themselves there, including the one corresponding to alternating consistent extensions, whose measure should provide the physical laws. The theory of everything, here, is classical first order logic + the following formula: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x or 0 ≠ (x + 1) ((x + 1) = (y + 1)) - x = y x + 0 = x x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1 x * 0 = 0 x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x The hard task will consist in defining an observer using only the theory above. It will be defined to be a sound extension believer of the axioms above, + some amount of induction axioms, of the type: (F(0) Ax(F(x) - F(s(x))) - AxF(x), with F(x) being a formula in the arithmetical language (with 0, s, +, *). We have to explain to a dumb machine, which understands only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... and can only add and multiply, but yet can reason in classical logic, the very functioning of such a dumb machine. There is no miracle. To define the variables, we can use the letter x, y, ..., it works well for many human people, but the dumb machine understands only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), so we will have to decide to say something like let the variable be defined by 0, s(s(0)), s(s(s(s(0, that is, the even number, so we will defined in arithmetic, the variable by the even numbers. Variable(x) - even(x) - Ey(2*y = x) And about , - t, and even what about (, and ) ? These parts are difficult to relate to people. To have you distill it here like this, is nice. Well, again, there is no magic, you have to chose particular odd numbers (to not confuse them from variable) to represent them. That is both logic and polite. And then, how about finite sequences of symbols like 0≠s(x)? They too must be defined in terms of number relations, and in this case a simple way, if we allow ourselves the use of exponentiation, is given by the uniqueness of prime decomposition. If g(0), g(≠), ... represents the particular odd number symbol for 0, ≠, etc. then you can represent 0≠s(x) by 2^g(0)*3^g(≠)*5^g(s)*7^g(()*11^g(x)*13^g()). Or better: 3^g(0)*5^g(≠)*7^g(s)*11^g(()*13^g(x)*17^g()). To avoid the confusion with the variable, we start from the prime number 3, if not we would get an even number which represents already a
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 10 Mar 2014, at 02:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/9/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Surely QM + collapse makes the prediction that there is a mechanism
that causes the collapse (e.g. Penrose's idea about it being
gravitational) and therefore predicts that at some point that
mechanism will kick in, so we can only have superpositions up to a
particular size?
Just as there must be some mechanism that causes us to perceive only
one reality, and not a superposition.
The mechanism is: look in your diary.
If you are in the superposed state seeing the cat dead + seeing the
cat alive, there is no mysterious connection between the two brains,
and simple robotics explains why each brains is confronted with unique
but different alternate reality.
In Everett, it is the simple comp first person plural indeterminacy,
or even generalization of it.
There is no reason at all, with comp, that you will feel seeing M,
instead of W, but you know, by comp, that you will feel to be in only
one city.
The same occurs when you look to a cat in the state dead+alive, in the
base {dead, alive}.
Bruno
Brent
While QM on its own (i.e. Everett) predicts that there is no
collapse threshold - that if you can keep a system from decohering,
it will remain in a superposition regardless of how large it is.
So at some point QM+Collapse has to come up with a mechanism for
collapse, and at that point it becomes testable, at least in theory
(depending on our level of technology, I mean).
On 10 March 2014 13:17, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Bruno
With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using
different vocabulary.
Really?
the last time I quoted her:
What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the
following premise: whatever she knows she will see, she should
expect (with certainty!) to see. So, she should (with certainty)
expect to see spin-up, and she should (with certainty) expect to
see spin-down.
But that can only be a 3-1 description. She handles the 1p by a
maximization of the interests of the copies, and that is equivalent
with the FPI, without naming it.
Funnily enough Bruno, if I was opportunistic I would just about
accept that. I mean personally, I would argue that the vocabulary
used is identical between you and Greaves and she explicitly denies
your probability distribution from the first person perspective.
But a bigger problem for you raises its head if I put that to one
side.
if, as you claim, there is no substantive difference between your
theory and Greaves' just because she has some other mechanism of
deriving the bare quantities you want, then you may as well say
that there is only a difference in terminology between your theory
and any other interpretation of QM. After all they all deliver 0.5
by some now irrelevant metric too. You've just relugated your
theory to the purely metaphysical. You're tacitly admitting that
all these theories are just re-skins of the same underlying engine
with bugger all to choose between them.
In a way that is something that I have felt for a while. Everettian
QM does not improve upon QM + collapse in the way say relativity
improves on Newtonian physics. There is no concomitant improvement
in predictive capability on offer. Its a purely theoretical change
intended to smooth out conceptual difficulties but it can only do
that by delivering further difficulties of its own. All your
theories are scientifically irrelevant.
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:32:08 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness
at all? Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't
true
randomness?
If one assumes QM and the MWI are correct then it isn't pretending,
True; but I don't assume that.
Since your original statement above only makes sense in some
context - which you haven't revealed, as far as I can tell -
perhaps you could tell us what you are assuming?
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just pointing out that one could
assume something different than QM and MWI. For instance, start
with MWI but then suppose that at each branching only one
instance of you continues. Doesn't that accord with all experience?
Like Ptolemeaus epicycles. The point is to accord with the simplest
theories we have for most if not all experiences, like QM, or
computationalism.
At each branching only one
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 10 March 2014 17:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: or to bet on normal higher level of simulation, like with Böstrom Could you elaborate? David -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/10/2014 8:16 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: The axiomatic of natural numbers is far more simple than anything else. You can always propose a much more complex theory to falsify a simple set of axioms. I don't know that the other cases I've mentioned are more complex. Physicalism just puts some mysterious matter first and makes math derivative of it. That may be wrong, but it's hard to see why it's more complex than comp's reversal of it. The relativism described above isn't an additional supposition added to math; it takes ideas from biology and linguistics to see what consequences there might be when they intersect with math. -Gabe Simplicity and Ockham's razor are nice heuristics, but they aren't determinative. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The way the future was
I have 4 pistols tracks in my very large and eclectic MP3 music collection, along with many others generally called punk. John Lydon also gave me my all time favourite headline, Sex pistol attacks New Zealand butter. I even managed to turn it into a crossword clue - Enthusiastically attack butter (4) ...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were McLaren's boy band really. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy Cool. Rockin' All Over the World and Yes Sir, I can Boogie. And then: Dragged on a table in factory Illegitimate place to be In a packet in a lavatory Die little baby screaming Body screaming fucking bloody mess Not an animal It's an abortion Body! I'm not animal Mummy! I'm not an abortion It kind of hits you in the face with the reality as experienced by the dispossessed and disenfranchised, but in a very immediate and visceral way. Its far more gut wrenching and confrontational than iggy pop, or the clash or any other punk band I know of. Most people are so offended someone is singing about abortion that they miss the fact that the song is an argument between the unborn child and the mother. For a spotty teenager that's pretty brainy lyrically and very surreal. I don't think it was ever matched until the Pixies really. I stand by the Pistols. True, Rotten is a twat now. He wasn't then though. From: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:03:43 +1100 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 10 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. I lived through it and was even more the same after it. With all due respect, you are saying that something musically significant happened here but I only ever heard racket and rubbish from Johnny Rotten. I mean, he called himself rotten for a reason. He was. He was musically as rotten as festering shit. What was musically significant about the Sex Pistols? I mean, concerning the actual elements of music. Things like pitch, rhythm, harmony, melody - all that core stuff. His music shows no skill whatsoever at those things. But then he didn't even write his own music because he was too off his dial most of the time. None of this precludes the distinct possibility that you, as I myself still do, find vastly entertaining, listening to the Sex Pistols very occasionally. I often do listen to music I really hate if only to realise why in ever more glory that I love the music I really do love... Feel free to hate this post creatively in some way. McClaren would have. Kim -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 10 Mar 2014, at 16:16, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:37:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: A couple other accounts of how things might be that I take seriously are (1) physicalism in the sense that arithmetical propositions might only be true when physically realized, No problem, and indeed this would make comp false. of course, if you really defend that thesis, you have to explain and prove the existence of infinitely many prime numbers by using physics, and this without presupposing addition and multiplication of integers. I am not even sure how you will just defined what is prime number. Given a correspondence theory of truth and this kind of physicalism, mathematical theorems would be true if and only if there's a corresponding physical reality. That is too much vague for me. I can interpret this in too much sense. So, for example, if the universe is finite, then there wouldn't be infinitely many prime numbers. This is non sense. In my humble sincere feeling. Even if physicists get a knock down argument in favor of a finite universe, that would not refute at all Euclid's theorem that there is an infinity of prime. A prime number is just not a physical object. Nor would there be infinitely many integers. That is ultrafinitism. That is why I make arithmetical realism sometime explicit. In that case indeed we are out of the scope of my expertize. But if step 8 is correct, that moves will still prevent you to say yes to the doctor, unless more and more ad ptolemaic redefinition of matter. But there would still be integers and primes. Thanks for reassuring me. I was about to close Platonia for bankruptcy :) Numbers, addition, and multiplication would be patterns that our brains recognize in material things, With Church thesis, we have a notion of universal machine which generalizes this, non trivially. Comp makes obvious the use of those mathematical tools. at first due to experience counting objects, grouping them, and counting groups. We abstract those patterns to symbolic form in our heads or our writing for convenience, and we generalize the notation to cover a wide variety of patterns. But our process of abstracting and generalizing may omit important limitations (such as finitude) of the physical reality on which it was originally based. Assuming a physical reality at the start. For the mind body problem it is better to be, at least methodologically agnostic, about that. You describe well how humans got the numbers, but it is a projection to believe that the notion of humans is more conceptually simple than the notion of numbers. The question is only, do you agree on the axioms I gave. With comp, your numbers are a human cultural construction becomes numbers are universal machine cultural construction. or even (2) relativism in the sense that arithmetical propositions might only be true for humanlike brains, OK, but same remark. Defined human-like brain, and give me a proof that 1+1=2 from that definition. Due to our shared evolutionary history, humans share nearly all their brain architecture in common. Due to our shared cultural history, many of the humans we regularly encounter share much of their set of background assumptions and beliefs in common. It appears that there's no such thing as such a perfectly lucid and detailed description or set of instructions that one person could give another that eliminates the need for the other person to grok the meaning, i.e. to connect the ideas appropriately and fill in the missing information based on their own wiring and their own experience. (Take Edgar as an demonstration of this apparent fact. ;) That's why you publish, or put down thesis. You have to play the academic game. The academic is the worst of all systems, except for all the others (to parody Churchill). Consequently, some suppose that communication with an extraterrestrial intelligence may fail due to there being an almost total mismatch in wiring and experience. (When language fails, we humans resort to pointing at objects and pantomiming, but without shared sensory systems and emotional responses, even that may well fail to be grokked by the alien.) It's also possible that the symbolic structure of our mathematics is dependent on our wiring and experience; indeed there is some evidence that the way humans use language is due to an evolutionarily recent genetic mutation. That's a computationalist type of explanation, no problem. For these two reasons, our mathematical definitions, theorems, proofs, etc may only be suitable for use by other humans, and so by a pragmaticist alethiology, only true for humans. ? If comp is true for human, that's what counts. It means that they can survive through a relative universal numbers, but then, without adding magic, what is true for all
Re:
On 10 Mar 2014, at 16:28, Terren Suydam wrote: Question for you Bruno:. You say (with help from Theaetetus) that 1p experience is given by Bp p. Yet, our experience is often deluded, as in optical illusions, or in various kinds of emotional psychological denial. Can we ever really say that our knowledge, even 1p experience, refers to anything True? In public? No. In private? Yes. I would say. Then in the frame of theories about such 1p things, like consciousness, we can decide to agree on some property of the notion. Then, consciousness-here-and-now might be a candidate for a possible true reference, if you agree consciousness-here-and-now is undoubtable or incorrigible. Then we can approximate many sort of truth, by the very plausible, the probable, the relatively expectable, etc. If someone complains, is the pain real or fake? Eventually it is a question for a judge. The truth is what no machine can really grasp the whole truth, but all machines can know very well some aspect of it, I think, but very few in justifiable modes. Bruno Terren -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Since I have been on the list longer then you I ask are you here to enforce progressive ideology? If you're pissed off, that's not my fault, that is your own. I was just elucidating to Liz on her comments to me. I am aware of technology, but it has to work well and the costs, affordable. No hurt incurred, but I refuse to hang back and take it. I refute your extinction rate of 1, by being aware that this is a figure whipped up by proggies to gain more control over the rest of us. Sometimes the theatre is on fire, but most of the time it isn't. The question is knowing when. Alarmism is an excuse to grab more power. Some people like freedom more. Still waiting for you to respond factually to my deconstruction of your statements regarding the extinction rate being 10,000 times the background rate. Or regarding the highly optimistic future energy supply scenarios you believe in and proposed as being based in fact. Much easier for you to ignore that and focus on – the alleged invective and “hurt” I caused your sensitive conservative soul. I take your silence as a tacit agreement or an inability on your part to form a cogent response – other than branding me as a Stalinist, which fits right in with your Tea Party mode of discourse. If you believe it pisses me off – and that this is good, which makes me gather that therefore this is your main objective – it kind of reflects back on you and on your motives. Are you here to piss people off? Or just people who do not buy into your fanatical and fact free agenda? Chris -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 11:29 am Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 7:47 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating I understood, what you were going for, but I hit back on old, Chris, because he changed the conversation to invective-which I am ok with. No big deal, but I hit back. Secondly, the nice guys, the progressives world-wide, tend to become more and more oppressive as time goes by. Use a problem like AGW, and make into a reason for making a dictatorship. This is what Stalin did. Thirdly, the progressives worldwide like to cast the Nazi aspersion at conservatives, so rather than waste energy, I counter-punch with the Stalin thing. I am Hitler, they are Stalin. It pisses them off so that is a good, if only for my limbic system. Also, it has a point, which is the government is a god or godwin, as you like it. I think, many times this is a bad, bad, thing, and I'd like to avoid that, if possible. Being conservative (pragmatic) I look for results. I prefer technology over government and government management (dictatorship). One of the interesting thing we could all reflect on, is the capacity to use molten salt, as an alternative pumped storage, for night and cold winters. Rugged, less expensive, re-usable, and makes solar and wind storable, ahead of batteries, and fuel cells-not that I am against them, being pragmatic. They already use molten salt for large CSP - -example the Luz project in So Cal. It is one of the arguments that CSP (Concentrated Solar thermal Power) has going for it. These plants operate using molten slat as the medium in any case so storing it off in insulated tanks makes sense. In this manner it can produce power even at night. On the other hand the peak power demand curve peaks during the afternoon to early evening time frame – very little power is actually needed during the middle of the night. Still waiting for you to respond factually to my deconstruction of your statements regarding the extinction rate being 10,000 times the background rate. Or regarding the highly optimistic future energy supply scenarios you believe in and proposed as being based in fact. Much easier for you to ignore that and focus on – the alleged invective and “hurt” I caused your sensitive conservative soul. I take your silence as a tacit agreement or an inability on your part to form a cogent response – other than branding me as a Stalinist, which fits right in with your Tea Party mode of discourse. If you believe it pisses me off – and that this is good, which makes me gather that therefore this is your main objective – it kind of reflects back on you and on your motives. Are you here to piss people off? Or just people who do not buy into your fanatical and fact free agenda? Chris I don't really think you are a Nazi, thank Godwin - but then you should not call disagreers Stalinists, because it is at best a caricature. As were my satirical comments, but I did it intentionally. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To:
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:52 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: That looks like a pretty crappy match to me. What the hell happened 450 million years ago? And why did the CO2 start to drop 150 million years ago but the temperature start to climb at the same time? I suspect you are asking these questions not because you are genuinely curious, and have an open-minded attitude about the possibility that climate scientists might have reasonable answers, but [...] OK OK, I'm closed minded, stupid, enjoy bad environments and am in general am just a terrible human being; I never accused you of being stupid or enjoying bad environments. I do think, as our previous discussion on thermodynamics on the What are wavefunctions? thread showed (see my last refutation of your claims on that thread at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/hJ9bNWqoAzI/QTrL0CopHJ8J ) that you seem to have an overly high opinion of your ability to make informed judgments about scientific ideas in areas that you clearly haven't studied on a technical level, a very common trait among those who attack mainstream science (creationists, people who think vaccines cause autism, people who don't think HIV causes AIDS, etc.). but my questions are still valid and deserve good answers Which I gave you. because before you initiate a policy that will impoverish the world for many generations and kill lots and lots and lots of people What policies are you talking about that would have these supposed effects? The EU has been on track in their goals of emissions reductions, already cutting them by 18% from 1990 levels, and I don't see them becoming impoverished or killing lots of their citizens, see http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2013100901_en.htm you should be at least as sure of yourself as President Bush was that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Are you? When there is widespread expert consensus on how sure we should be about a scientific matter, and I have no expertise in the matter myself, I tend to assume as a default that the scientific experts likely have good grounds for believing what they do. Of course it's possible on occasion that expert consensus can turn out to be badly wrong, but if you look at the history of science in the post-Newtonian era (pre-Newton, it's harder to say what counts as science) this is actually very rare, and I can't think of any cases where the flaw in expert consensus was discovered by someone with no training in the subject themselves. So, given that the overwhelming majority of scientific papers discussing causes of the recent temperature rise agree that human activity is the main cause (97% of peer-reviewed papers according to the study at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange) I take it as an operating assumption that this is very likely to be the objective reality. What policies we should take in response to that reality is another matter, but it's irrational to let the fact that you would rather not enact some proposed policies bias your beliefs about objective scientific matters (wishful thinking). Speaking of Bush and Iraq, given that we in the U.S. could spend over a trillion dollars on the Iraq war without bankrupting the country or leading to mass starvation (I don't think economists would say the crash of 2008 was caused in any direct way by this expenditure either), then it might be worth pointing out that it's been proposed that for about the same price (spread out over many years), the U.S. could convert to generating nearly all its power from solar: http://web.chem.ucsb.edu/~feldwinn/greenworks/Readings/solar_grand_plan.pdf On the question of what happened 450 million years ago in the Ordovician period, I googled Ordovician temperature and found a discussion of some scientific research at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-levels-during-the-late-Ordovician.htmlwhich suggests there are at least some viable hypotheses about how the temperature drop could be explained in the framework of existing climate models: Hypotheses that answer scientific puzzles are a dime a dozen, hypotheses that correctly answer scientific puzzles are not. That's exactly the sort of vague response a creationist would give to being shown there are reasonable hypotheses about their own claimed puzzles. The point is, when you have a theory supported by a lot of evidence but some specific phenomena that fall under the theory aren't completely understood (like the causes of the Cambrian explosion in evolutionary history, or the evolutionary development of some organ whose fossil record is poor), if there are reasonable hypotheses about how the phenomena could be explained within the context of the theory, it's irrational to take a guilty until proven innocent stance where
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Understood. It's not for fixing a bad problem, but for taking more power by saying there's a bad problem. There probably is, but the behavior of world leaders is not a response that I would expect, if they really though Florida was going to disappear in 2 years. There is no cause and effect with the leaders behaviors, spending, et al. It is consistent with a power grab using happy climatologists (who get provided permanent employment and power. I am willing to do whatever is reasonable if we face a on-coming problem, but not when the leaders behaviors raise my suspicion. Exactly. I wouldn't advise stop emitting greenhouse gasses and impoverishing the world right now to fix something that may not even be broken and even if it is won't cause big problems for a century or so. Right now I don't even think it's time to implement Nathan Myhrvold's astronomically cheaper solution to global warming. However in the future if there are not just climate model predictions of lots and lots of warming but we are already experiencing it, and this warming turns out to be a bad thing, then it might be time to try something like Myhrvold's solution because if it doesn't work as planned we can just shut off a valve. What I hate is the hypocrisy of environmentalists, they claim to occupy the moral high ground but they are willing, even gleeful, to let billions of people starve to death for their sinful (environmentally insensitive) lifestyle. And then they say we shouldn't try to stop the carnage with something like Myhrvold's idea because that would be too dangerous and it's blasphemous to even mention it. John K Clark -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 11:48 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:41 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: If only we all thought like you, the world would be fixed, eh? Concerning that I think I'll just quote Gore Vidal: there is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise. Or, if the climate change doesn't fit all the models, that have been proposed by the IPCC, then all we have to do is wait? Exactly. I wouldn't advise stop emitting greenhouse gasses and impoverishing the world right now to fix something that may not even be broken and even if it is won't cause big problems for a century or so. Right now I don't even think it's time to implement Nathan Myhrvold's astronomically cheaper solution to global warming. However in the future if there are not just climate model predictions of lots and lots of warming but we are already experiencing it, and this warming turns out to be a bad thing, then it might be time to try something like Myhrvold's solution because if it doesn't work as planned we can just shut off a valve. What I hate is the hypocrisy of environmentalists, they claim to occupy the moral high ground but they are willing, even gleeful, to let billions of people starve to death for their sinful (environmentally insensitive) lifestyle. And then they say we shouldn't try to stop the carnage with something like Myhrvold's idea because that would be too dangerous and it's blasphemous to even mention it. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On Monday, March 10, 2014 2:08:14 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: That relativism argues against comp, and even implicitly against Church thesis. But my point is not that comp is true, just that with comp, the theory QM + comp is redundant, and we have to justify QM (at the least its logic) from self-reference. And up to now, it looks it works. Bruno A physicalist would presumably point out that the redundancy of QM+comp doesn't tell you which is original and which is derivative. In the terms of the Aristotle vs. Plato distinction you pointed out, I'm unaware of evidence on which to make a decision. So I don't, which is why I mentioned that ignorance prior. -Gabe -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Thanks. Do you know the title of the book, in case I get the chance to read it? On 11 March 2014 05:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's this one http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059v4.pdf which I think is his doctoral thesis. He later expanded it into a book. Brent On 3/10/2014 12:14 AM, LizR wrote: I would imagine the reason we only perceive one reality is because the brain (and body) are classical, which almost begs the question of course, but it means that whatever causes macro-objects to generally behave classically also applies to the brain. (And the senses - if the eyes are classical, we will only see one reality and so on.) Of course I'd happily believe we don't only experience one reality, but I'm a bit that way inclined. Maybe one can only see superpositions when drunk :) There appear to be quite a number of papers co-authored by Schlosshauer, several with titles that suggest they could be the one you mean... you wouldn't be able to glance at the list and tell me which one(s) would best repay me looking at them, perchance? http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+Schlosshauer/0/1/0/all/0/1 -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Actually I assume it's this... http://www.amazon.com/Decoherence-Quantum---Classical-Transition-Collection/dp/3642071422/ref=sr_1_2?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1394489389sr=1-2keywords=Maximilian+Schlosshauer Well I will start with the paper. It maye be beyond my brain (no fluffy kittens). On 11 March 2014 10:35, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks. Do you know the title of the book, in case I get the chance to read it? On 11 March 2014 05:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's this one http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059v4.pdf which I think is his doctoral thesis. He later expanded it into a book. Brent On 3/10/2014 12:14 AM, LizR wrote: I would imagine the reason we only perceive one reality is because the brain (and body) are classical, which almost begs the question of course, but it means that whatever causes macro-objects to generally behave classically also applies to the brain. (And the senses - if the eyes are classical, we will only see one reality and so on.) Of course I'd happily believe we don't only experience one reality, but I'm a bit that way inclined. Maybe one can only see superpositions when drunk :) There appear to be quite a number of papers co-authored by Schlosshauer, several with titles that suggest they could be the one you mean... you wouldn't be able to glance at the list and tell me which one(s) would best repay me looking at them, perchance? http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+Schlosshauer/0/1/0/all/0/1 -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The way the future was
whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) Rick Astley ... post punk rocker... Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:45:50 +1300 Subject: Re: The way the future was From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com I have 4 pistols tracks in my very large and eclectic MP3 music collection, along with many others generally called punk.John Lydon also gave me my all time favourite headline, Sex pistol attacks New Zealand butter. I even managed to turn it into a crossword clue - Enthusiastically attack butter (4) ...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were McLaren's boy band really. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy Cool. Rockin' All Over the World and Yes Sir, I can Boogie. And then: Dragged on a table in factory Illegitimate place to be In a packet in a lavatory Die little baby screaming Body screaming fucking bloody mess Not an animal It's an abortion Body! I'm not animal Mummy! I'm not an abortion It kind of hits you in the face with the reality as experienced by the dispossessed and disenfranchised, but in a very immediate and visceral way. Its far more gut wrenching and confrontational than iggy pop, or the clash or any other punk band I know of. Most people are so offended someone is singing about abortion that they miss the fact that the song is an argument between the unborn child and the mother. For a spotty teenager that's pretty brainy lyrically and very surreal. I don't think it was ever matched until the Pixies really. I stand by the Pistols. True, Rotten is a twat now. He wasn't then though. From: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:03:43 +1100 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 10 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. I lived through it and was even more the same after it. With all due respect, you are saying that something musically significant happened here but I only ever heard racket and rubbish from Johnny Rotten. I mean, he called himself rotten for a reason. He was. He was musically as rotten as festering shit. What was musically significant about the Sex Pistols? I mean, concerning the actual elements of music. Things like pitch, rhythm, harmony, melody - all that core stuff. His music shows no skill whatsoever at those things. But then he didn't even write his own music because he was too off his dial most of the time. None of this precludes the distinct possibility that you, as I myself still do, find vastly entertaining, listening to the Sex Pistols very occasionally. I often do listen to music I really hate if only to realise why in ever more glory that I love the music I really do love... Feel free to hate this post creatively in some way. McClaren would have. Kim -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: The way the future was
Elvis (not Costello)... On 11 March 2014 12:00, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) Rick Astley ... post punk rocker... -- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:45:50 +1300 Subject: Re: The way the future was From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com I have 4 pistols tracks in my very large and eclectic MP3 music collection, along with many others generally called punk. John Lydon also gave me my all time favourite headline, Sex pistol attacks New Zealand butter. I even managed to turn it into a crossword clue - Enthusiastically attack butter (4) ...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were McLaren's boy band really. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy Cool. Rockin' All Over the World and Yes Sir, I can Boogie. And then: Dragged on a table in factory Illegitimate place to be In a packet in a lavatory Die little baby screaming Body screaming fucking bloody mess Not an animal It's an abortion Body! I'm not animal Mummy! I'm not an abortion It kind of hits you in the face with the reality as experienced by the dispossessed and disenfranchised, but in a very immediate and visceral way. Its far more gut wrenching and confrontational than iggy pop, or the clash or any other punk band I know of. Most people are so offended someone is singing about abortion that they miss the fact that the song is an argument between the unborn child and the mother. For a spotty teenager that's pretty brainy lyrically and very surreal. I don't think it was ever matched until the Pixies really. I stand by the Pistols. True, Rotten is a twat now. He wasn't then though. From: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:03:43 +1100 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 10 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. I lived through it and was even more the same after it. With all due respect, you are saying that something musically significant happened here but I only ever heard racket and rubbish from Johnny Rotten. I mean, he called himself rotten for a reason. He was. He was musically as rotten as festering shit. What was musically significant about the Sex Pistols? I mean, concerning the actual elements of music. Things like pitch, rhythm, harmony, melody - all that core stuff. His music shows no skill whatsoever at those things. But then he didn't even write his own music because he was too off his dial most of the time. None of this precludes the distinct possibility that you, as I myself still do, find vastly entertaining, listening to the Sex Pistols very occasionally. I often do listen to music I really hate if only to realise why in ever more glory that I love the music I really do love... Feel free to hate this post creatively in some way. McClaren would have. Kim -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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
Re: The way the future was
Electric instruments just amplified what was already here. Beethoven istm was first in rock, metal, punk etc. all the way to dubstep department;crystallizing sound's relations with explosive power, defiance, melancholy or magnificence. Bach was more goth than punk, I'd guess, especially with the organ. Or you could see the origins of jagged, animalistic, primal fifth-based harmony in medieval music of ars antiqua and ars nova as the seed of power etc. All of heavy metal, rock, punk etc. is slave to what we call the power chord; albeit today's punk rockers are quite dogmatic regarding the harmony be expressed with distorted guitars. Then maybe the old Greeks rocked like nobody had ever rocked before, but we lack patches of history to know what they really sounded like. Or the stoners 60 thousand years ago with flutes, bones, rocks, and sticks might have already been 'rocking', as they certainly had the 'homeless nomadic take no prisoners perpetually alienated in hostile environment' thing of punk going. Yes, even the funky hairstyles and ritual clothing would be plausible ;-) PGC On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I have 4 pistols tracks in my very large and eclectic MP3 music collection, along with many others generally called punk. John Lydon also gave me my all time favourite headline, Sex pistol attacks New Zealand butter. I even managed to turn it into a crossword clue - Enthusiastically attack butter (4) ...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were McLaren's boy band really. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy Cool. Rockin' All Over the World and Yes Sir, I can Boogie. And then: Dragged on a table in factory Illegitimate place to be In a packet in a lavatory Die little baby screaming Body screaming fucking bloody mess Not an animal It's an abortion Body! I'm not animal Mummy! I'm not an abortion It kind of hits you in the face with the reality as experienced by the dispossessed and disenfranchised, but in a very immediate and visceral way. Its far more gut wrenching and confrontational than iggy pop, or the clash or any other punk band I know of. Most people are so offended someone is singing about abortion that they miss the fact that the song is an argument between the unborn child and the mother. For a spotty teenager that's pretty brainy lyrically and very surreal. I don't think it was ever matched until the Pixies really. I stand by the Pistols. True, Rotten is a twat now. He wasn't then though. From: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:03:43 +1100 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 10 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. I lived through it and was even more the same after it. With all due respect, you are saying that something musically significant happened here but I only ever heard racket and rubbish from Johnny Rotten. I mean, he called himself rotten for a reason. He was. He was musically as rotten as festering shit. What was musically significant about the Sex Pistols? I mean, concerning the actual elements of music. Things like pitch, rhythm, harmony, melody - all that core stuff. His music shows no skill whatsoever at those things. But then he didn't even write his own music because he was too off his dial most of the time. None of this precludes the distinct possibility that you, as I myself still do, find vastly entertaining, listening to the Sex Pistols very occasionally. I often do listen to music I really hate if only to realise why in ever more glory that I love the music I really do love... Feel free to hate this post creatively in some way. McClaren would have. Kim -- 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. For more options, visit
Re: The way the future was
All sounds very plausible to me, PGC. Especially the Neolithic rockers. Live fast and die young, indeed... On 11 March 2014 12:26, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.comwrote: Electric instruments just amplified what was already here. Beethoven istm was first in rock, metal, punk etc. all the way to dubstep department;crystallizing sound's relations with explosive power, defiance, melancholy or magnificence. Bach was more goth than punk, I'd guess, especially with the organ. Or you could see the origins of jagged, animalistic, primal fifth-based harmony in medieval music of ars antiqua and ars nova as the seed of power etc. All of heavy metal, rock, punk etc. is slave to what we call the power chord; albeit today's punk rockers are quite dogmatic regarding the harmony be expressed with distorted guitars. Then maybe the old Greeks rocked like nobody had ever rocked before, but we lack patches of history to know what they really sounded like. Or the stoners 60 thousand years ago with flutes, bones, rocks, and sticks might have already been 'rocking', as they certainly had the 'homeless nomadic take no prisoners perpetually alienated in hostile environment' thing of punk going. Yes, even the funky hairstyles and ritual clothing would be plausible ;-) PGC On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I have 4 pistols tracks in my very large and eclectic MP3 music collection, along with many others generally called punk. John Lydon also gave me my all time favourite headline, Sex pistol attacks New Zealand butter. I even managed to turn it into a crossword clue - Enthusiastically attack butter (4) ...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were McLaren's boy band really. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy Cool. Rockin' All Over the World and Yes Sir, I can Boogie. And then: Dragged on a table in factory Illegitimate place to be In a packet in a lavatory Die little baby screaming Body screaming fucking bloody mess Not an animal It's an abortion Body! I'm not animal Mummy! I'm not an abortion It kind of hits you in the face with the reality as experienced by the dispossessed and disenfranchised, but in a very immediate and visceral way. Its far more gut wrenching and confrontational than iggy pop, or the clash or any other punk band I know of. Most people are so offended someone is singing about abortion that they miss the fact that the song is an argument between the unborn child and the mother. For a spotty teenager that's pretty brainy lyrically and very surreal. I don't think it was ever matched until the Pixies really. I stand by the Pistols. True, Rotten is a twat now. He wasn't then though. From: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:03:43 +1100 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 10 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. I lived through it and was even more the same after it. With all due respect, you are saying that something musically significant happened here but I only ever heard racket and rubbish from Johnny Rotten. I mean, he called himself rotten for a reason. He was. He was musically as rotten as festering shit. What was musically significant about the Sex Pistols? I mean, concerning the actual elements of music. Things like pitch, rhythm, harmony, melody - all that core stuff. His music shows no skill whatsoever at those things. But then he didn't even write his own music because he was too off his dial most of the time. None of this precludes the distinct possibility that you, as I myself still do, find vastly entertaining, listening to the Sex Pistols very occasionally. I often do listen to music I really hate if only to realise why in ever more glory that I love the music I really do love... Feel free to hate this post creatively in some way. McClaren would have. Kim -- 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
RE: The way the future was
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:26:56 +0100 Subject: Re: The way the future was From: multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Electric instruments just amplified what was already here. Beethoven istm was first in rock, metal, punk etc. all the way to dubstep department;crystallizing sound's relations with explosive power, defiance, melancholy or magnificence. Bach was more goth than punk, I'd guess, especially with the organ. Or you could see the origins of jagged, animalistic, primal fifth-based harmony in medieval music of ars antiqua and ars nova as the seed of power etc. All of heavy metal, rock, punk etc. is slave to what we call the power chord; albeit today's punk rockers are quite dogmatic regarding the harmony be expressed with distorted guitars. Then maybe the old Greeks rocked like nobody had ever rocked before, but we lack patches of history to know what they really sounded like. Or the stoners 60 thousand years ago with flutes, bones, rocks, and sticks might have already been 'rocking', as they certainly had the 'homeless nomadic take no prisoners perpetually alienated in hostile environment' thing of punk going. Yes, even the funky hairstyles and ritual clothing would be plausible ;-) PGC On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I have 4 pistols tracks in my very large and eclectic MP3 music collection, along with many others generally called punk.John Lydon also gave me my all time favourite headline, Sex pistol attacks New Zealand butter. I even managed to turn it into a crossword clue - Enthusiastically attack butter (4) ...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were McLaren's boy band really. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy Cool. Rockin' All Over the World and Yes Sir, I can Boogie. And then: Dragged on a table in factory Illegitimate place to be In a packet in a lavatory Die little baby screaming Body screaming fucking bloody mess Not an animal It's an abortion Body! I'm not animal Mummy! I'm not an abortion It kind of hits you in the face with the reality as experienced by the dispossessed and disenfranchised, but in a very immediate and visceral way. Its far more gut wrenching and confrontational than iggy pop, or the clash or any other punk band I know of. Most people are so offended someone is singing about abortion that they miss the fact that the song is an argument between the unborn child and the mother. For a spotty teenager that's pretty brainy lyrically and very surreal. I don't think it was ever matched until the Pixies really. I stand by the Pistols. True, Rotten is a twat now. He wasn't then though. From: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:03:43 +1100 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 10 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. I lived through it and was even more the same after it. With all due respect, you are saying that something musically significant happened here but I only ever heard racket and rubbish from Johnny Rotten. I mean, he called himself rotten for a reason. He was. He was musically as rotten as festering shit. What was musically significant about the Sex Pistols? I mean, concerning the actual elements of music. Things like pitch, rhythm, harmony, melody - all that core stuff. His music shows no skill whatsoever at those things. But then he didn't even write his own music because he was too off his dial most of the time. None of this precludes the distinct possibility that you, as I myself still do, find vastly entertaining, listening to the Sex Pistols very occasionally. I often do listen to music I really hate if only to realise why in ever more glory that I love the music I really do love... Feel free to hate this post creatively in some way. McClaren would have. Kim -- 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
RE: The way the future was
Hi PGC yep. All art, like language, has an etymology. The Pistols weren't special because they did anything 'new', but because they did something that challenged the status quo of the time. When it comes to shocking people The Rite of Spring had the audience rioting at its premier, so suck on that Johnny Rotten! All of heavy metal, rock, punk etc. is slave to what we call the power chord; albeit today's punk rockers are quite dogmatic regarding the harmony be expressed with distorted guitars. Yes, thats true, but I don't think punk rock is really about musical innovation is it? These guys make a good argument that all pop of the past 40 years is essentially the same single song, you might like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I Or the stoners 60 thousand years ago with flutes, bones, rocks, and sticks might have already been 'rocking', as they certainly had the 'homeless nomadic take no prisoners perpetually alienated in hostile environment' thing of punk going. Yes, even the funky hairstyles and ritual clothing would be plausible ;-) PGC Im sure you're right. From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:58:50 + Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:26:56 +0100 Subject: Re: The way the future was From: multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Electric instruments just amplified what was already here. Beethoven istm was first in rock, metal, punk etc. all the way to dubstep department;crystallizing sound's relations with explosive power, defiance, melancholy or magnificence. Bach was more goth than punk, I'd guess, especially with the organ. Or you could see the origins of jagged, animalistic, primal fifth-based harmony in medieval music of ars antiqua and ars nova as the seed of power etc. All of heavy metal, rock, punk etc. is slave to what we call the power chord; albeit today's punk rockers are quite dogmatic regarding the harmony be expressed with distorted guitars. Then maybe the old Greeks rocked like nobody had ever rocked before, but we lack patches of history to know what they really sounded like. Or the stoners 60 thousand years ago with flutes, bones, rocks, and sticks might have already been 'rocking', as they certainly had the 'homeless nomadic take no prisoners perpetually alienated in hostile environment' thing of punk going. Yes, even the funky hairstyles and ritual clothing would be plausible ;-) PGC On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I have 4 pistols tracks in my very large and eclectic MP3 music collection, along with many others generally called punk.John Lydon also gave me my all time favourite headline, Sex pistol attacks New Zealand butter. I even managed to turn it into a crossword clue - Enthusiastically attack butter (4) ...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were McLaren's boy band really. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy Cool. Rockin' All Over the World and Yes Sir, I can Boogie. And then: Dragged on a table in factory Illegitimate place to be In a packet in a lavatory Die little baby screaming Body screaming fucking bloody mess Not an animal It's an abortion Body! I'm not animal Mummy! I'm not an abortion It kind of hits you in the face with the reality as experienced by the dispossessed and disenfranchised, but in a very immediate and visceral way. Its far more gut wrenching and confrontational than iggy pop, or the clash or any other punk band I know of. Most people are so offended someone is singing about abortion that they miss the fact that the song is an argument between the unborn child and the mother. For a spotty teenager that's pretty brainy lyrically and very surreal. I don't think it was ever matched until the Pixies really. I stand by the Pistols. True, Rotten is a twat now. He wasn't then though. From: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:03:43 +1100 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 10 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same.
Re: The way the future was
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:48 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: All sounds very plausible to me, PGC. Especially the Neolithic rockers. Live fast and die young, indeed... Lol, yeah leather clothing, bones, fire, snakes, demons, goddesess and breasts, phallic rocks and symbols, body art, makeup... all still sported or on cheap shirts. Live fast, die young, it better be loud, huge, and powerful though. PGC On 11 March 2014 12:26, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.comwrote: Electric instruments just amplified what was already here. Beethoven istm was first in rock, metal, punk etc. all the way to dubstep department;crystallizing sound's relations with explosive power, defiance, melancholy or magnificence. Bach was more goth than punk, I'd guess, especially with the organ. Or you could see the origins of jagged, animalistic, primal fifth-based harmony in medieval music of ars antiqua and ars nova as the seed of power etc. All of heavy metal, rock, punk etc. is slave to what we call the power chord; albeit today's punk rockers are quite dogmatic regarding the harmony be expressed with distorted guitars. Then maybe the old Greeks rocked like nobody had ever rocked before, but we lack patches of history to know what they really sounded like. Or the stoners 60 thousand years ago with flutes, bones, rocks, and sticks might have already been 'rocking', as they certainly had the 'homeless nomadic take no prisoners perpetually alienated in hostile environment' thing of punk going. Yes, even the funky hairstyles and ritual clothing would be plausible ;-) PGC On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I have 4 pistols tracks in my very large and eclectic MP3 music collection, along with many others generally called punk. John Lydon also gave me my all time favourite headline, Sex pistol attacks New Zealand butter. I even managed to turn it into a crossword clue - Enthusiastically attack butter (4) ...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were McLaren's boy band really. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy Cool. Rockin' All Over the World and Yes Sir, I can Boogie. And then: Dragged on a table in factory Illegitimate place to be In a packet in a lavatory Die little baby screaming Body screaming fucking bloody mess Not an animal It's an abortion Body! I'm not animal Mummy! I'm not an abortion It kind of hits you in the face with the reality as experienced by the dispossessed and disenfranchised, but in a very immediate and visceral way. Its far more gut wrenching and confrontational than iggy pop, or the clash or any other punk band I know of. Most people are so offended someone is singing about abortion that they miss the fact that the song is an argument between the unborn child and the mother. For a spotty teenager that's pretty brainy lyrically and very surreal. I don't think it was ever matched until the Pixies really. I stand by the Pistols. True, Rotten is a twat now. He wasn't then though. From: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:03:43 +1100 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 10 Mar 2014, at 4:30 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. I lived through it and was even more the same after it. With all due respect, you are saying that something musically significant happened here but I only ever heard racket and rubbish from Johnny Rotten. I mean, he called himself rotten for a reason. He was. He was musically as rotten as festering shit. What was musically significant about the Sex Pistols? I mean, concerning the actual elements of music. Things like pitch, rhythm, harmony, melody - all that core stuff. His music shows no skill whatsoever at those things. But then he didn't even write his own music because he was too off his dial most of the time. None of this precludes the distinct possibility that you, as I myself still do, find vastly entertaining, listening to the Sex Pistols very occasionally. I often do listen to music I really hate if only to realise why in ever more glory that I love the music I
Re: The way the future was
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:59 AM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote: Hi PGC yep. All art, like language, has an etymology. The Pistols weren't special because they did anything 'new', but because they did something that challenged the status quo of the time. When it comes to shocking people The Rite of Spring had the audience rioting at its premier, so suck on that Johnny Rotten! *All of heavy metal, rock, punk etc. is slave to what we call the power chord; albeit today's punk rockers are quite dogmatic regarding the harmony be expressed with distorted guitars.* Yes, thats true, but I don't think punk rock is really about musical innovation is it? These guys make a good argument that all pop of the past 40 years is essentially the same single song, you might like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I Yes, I can see that and raise it, while shooting it down too: in terms of most parameters (not exclusively that harmonic sequence, funny as the video is), what is often called pop is western romantic era song form, overemphasizing particularities like blue notes, certain African polyrhythms, suspension and blue use of dominant harmonies and progressions, what is perceived as ethnic etc.I think 'buzz' or new styles always exhibit some local bias/overemphasis on a set of particular musical properties that proves ''not us, man. We've reinvented a better wheel' as opposed to the locally more worn kitsch. And, in the vague overlapping spans of generations, they do and they don't. So the swing guys started to bebob, and they then hard bobbed because things weren't fast enough, then some guys felt this too hasty and became cool; in mid 20th century Jazz say. With recording technology and computers this effect explodes to the point that you know nobody who knows all current stylistic phenomena, branches, sub-branches... But, I enjoy when people share their musical tastes and fetishes, however they break it down, and always meet a new musical conception whenever somebody bumps into me. ''Wow, ok that is the thing for them. Amazing, I always thought that's..'' PGC *Or the stoners 60 thousand years ago with flutes, bones, rocks, and sticks might have already been 'rocking', as they certainly had the 'homeless nomadic take no prisoners perpetually alienated in hostile environment' thing of punk going. Yes, even the funky hairstyles and ritual clothing would be plausible ;-) PGC* Im sure you're right. -- From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:58:50 + -- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:26:56 +0100 Subject: Re: The way the future was From: multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Electric instruments just amplified what was already here. Beethoven istm was first in rock, metal, punk etc. all the way to dubstep department;crystallizing sound's relations with explosive power, defiance, melancholy or magnificence. Bach was more goth than punk, I'd guess, especially with the organ. Or you could see the origins of jagged, animalistic, primal fifth-based harmony in medieval music of ars antiqua and ars nova as the seed of power etc. All of heavy metal, rock, punk etc. is slave to what we call the power chord; albeit today's punk rockers are quite dogmatic regarding the harmony be expressed with distorted guitars. Then maybe the old Greeks rocked like nobody had ever rocked before, but we lack patches of history to know what they really sounded like. Or the stoners 60 thousand years ago with flutes, bones, rocks, and sticks might have already been 'rocking', as they certainly had the 'homeless nomadic take no prisoners perpetually alienated in hostile environment' thing of punk going. Yes, even the funky hairstyles and ritual clothing would be plausible ;-) PGC On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I have 4 pistols tracks in my very large and eclectic MP3 music collection, along with many others generally called punk. John Lydon also gave me my all time favourite headline, Sex pistol attacks New Zealand butter. I even managed to turn it into a crossword clue - Enthusiastically attack butter (4) ...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were McLaren's boy band really. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy Cool. Rockin' All Over the World and Yes Sir, I can
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/10/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote: Thanks. Do you know the title of the book, in case I get the chance to read it? Decoherence and The Quantum-to-Classical Transition Springer 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The way the future was
Yeah this is why I try to be as eclectic as possible. Working with lots of young people helps, as I was (far more) in my previous job... -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Ta. On 11 March 2014 14:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/10/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote: Thanks. Do you know the title of the book, in case I get the chance to read it? Decoherence and The Quantum-to-Classical Transition Springer 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Since I have been on the list longer then you I ask are you here to enforce progressive ideology? If you're pissed off, that's not my fault, that is your own. I was just elucidating to Liz on her comments to me. I am aware of technology, but it has to work well and the costs, affordable. No hurt incurred, but I refuse to hang back and take it. I refute your extinction rate of 1, by being aware that this is a figure whipped up by proggies to gain more control over the rest of us. Sometimes the theatre is on fire, but most of the time it isn't. The question is knowing when. Alarmism is an excuse to grab more power. Some people like freedom more. Though you may feel that I am pissed off – or perhaps that is your desire. I am more bored than anything if you want to know the truth. Attempting to converse with a sloganeer is a wearisome pointless affair. I seriously doubt that you are aware of science, engineering, math or technology – in any profound way, beyond a casual Popular Science level and the ideological slop you get from your Tea Party fellow travelers. You have displayed surprising ignorance of basic statistics for example… so forgive me if I have serious doubts that your knowledge of science or technology is more than ankle deep. You “refute your extinction rate of 1”, do you… First off it isn’t mine; I did not make it up… maybe that is your way of doing things. I am curious if your angry sounding refutation is based on anything more than your apparently abundant supply of hot air? Because, if it is, you have done an excellent job of completely hiding it. Chris -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The way the future was
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Platonist Guitar Cowboy Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 6:14 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The way the future was On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:59 AM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi PGC yep. All art, like language, has an etymology. The Pistols weren't special because they did anything 'new', but because they did something that challenged the status quo of the time. When it comes to shocking people The Rite of Spring had the audience rioting at its premier, so suck on that Johnny Rotten! The Pistols were special because they ripped off David Bowie's sound system. Literally that's how they got their sound; at least the amplification component of it. Chris All of heavy metal, rock, punk etc. is slave to what we call the power chord; albeit today's punk rockers are quite dogmatic regarding the harmony be expressed with distorted guitars. Yes, thats true, but I don't think punk rock is really about musical innovation is it? These guys make a good argument that all pop of the past 40 years is essentially the same single song, you might like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I Yes, I can see that and raise it, while shooting it down too: in terms of most parameters (not exclusively that harmonic sequence, funny as the video is), what is often called pop is western romantic era song form, overemphasizing particularities like blue notes, certain African polyrhythms, suspension and blue use of dominant harmonies and progressions, what is perceived as ethnic etc.I think 'buzz' or new styles always exhibit some local bias/overemphasis on a set of particular musical properties that proves ''not us, man. We've reinvented a better wheel' as opposed to the locally more worn kitsch. And, in the vague overlapping spans of generations, they do and they don't. So the swing guys started to bebob, and they then hard bobbed because things weren't fast enough, then some guys felt this too hasty and became cool; in mid 20th century Jazz say. With recording technology and computers this effect explodes to the point that you know nobody who knows all current stylistic phenomena, branches, sub-branches... But, I enjoy when people share their musical tastes and fetishes, however they break it down, and always meet a new musical conception whenever somebody bumps into me. ''Wow, ok that is the thing for them. Amazing, I always thought that's..'' PGC Or the stoners 60 thousand years ago with flutes, bones, rocks, and sticks might have already been 'rocking', as they certainly had the 'homeless nomadic take no prisoners perpetually alienated in hostile environment' thing of punk going. Yes, even the funky hairstyles and ritual clothing would be plausible ;-) PGC Im sure you're right. _ From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: The way the future was Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:58:50 + _ Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:26:56 +0100 Subject: Re: The way the future was From: multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Electric instruments just amplified what was already here. Beethoven istm was first in rock, metal, punk etc. all the way to dubstep department;crystallizing sound's relations with explosive power, defiance, melancholy or magnificence. Bach was more goth than punk, I'd guess, especially with the organ. Or you could see the origins of jagged, animalistic, primal fifth-based harmony in medieval music of ars antiqua and ars nova as the seed of power etc. All of heavy metal, rock, punk etc. is slave to what we call the power chord; albeit today's punk rockers are quite dogmatic regarding the harmony be expressed with distorted guitars. Then maybe the old Greeks rocked like nobody had ever rocked before, but we lack patches of history to know what they really sounded like. Or the stoners 60 thousand years ago with flutes, bones, rocks, and sticks might have already been 'rocking', as they certainly had the 'homeless nomadic take no prisoners perpetually alienated in hostile environment' thing of punk going. Yes, even the funky hairstyles and ritual clothing would be plausible ;-) PGC On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I have 4 pistols tracks in my very large and eclectic MP3 music collection, along with many others generally called punk. John Lydon also gave me my all time favourite headline, Sex pistol attacks New Zealand butter. I even managed to turn it into a crossword clue - Enthusiastically attack butter (4) ...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were McLaren's boy band really. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck
