Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 3 Jul 2014, at 9:09 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: Yes, primary belief, though necessarily incorrigible in the first instance, is nonetheless vulnerable in the second instance to correction or reinterpretation. Just as well, really. But is it? If primary belief (your belief in where the buck stops) were vulnerable to correction then why has Christianity for example, persevered so long without revision or updating of beliefs when say, knowledge of the universe progressed. First impressions seem to count for a lot in forming the patterns of recognition the brain uses. A powerful primary belief in matter seems to be a very difficult thing to have some people admit to. 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
I also like Baker, who stared in a couple of fantasy flicks like Sinbad, and whatever, Pertwee was always a serious guy, and it was great, as a yank, to watch UNIFIL (Uk soldiers) fight with FN_FAL rifles, Sterling sten guns, and such. I remember reading that the writers were going for a sort of James Bond action. Bakers stuff was more, hey, there's really weird people out there. Pertwee was always fighting The Master. John Delgado, who was a great character actor, Prepare for time-ram. They're definitely trying to go for a Pertwee vibe, which is fine by me (Pert is my 4th favourite Doctor from classic Who) -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 2, 2014 8:37 pm Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture They're definitely trying to go for a Pertwee vibe, which is fine by me (Pert is my 4th favourite Doctor from classic Who) On 2 July 2014 11:17, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: What about the newest guy? Reminds me of Jon Pertwee, minus the fluff heads. But anyone married to an actor from Doctor Who is good in my book (well, apart from David Tennant...) -- 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: American Intelligence
It's always a judgement call, and there have been a fair amount of pundits,basically, saying, Let them kill each other. This is ok by me as its something they have done for over 13 centuries. Having said this, we all have a dog in this race (except Chris) who needs to be concerned about actions beyond a tidy Sunni caliphate. The seem to have other plans, beyond a local nation state, and they have gathered some new goodies, that are, possibly, still functional, (maybe not?). It's still a judgment call, however, this is like in the US, where a released criminal felon is walking down the street and seen looking in cars and then saying, Oh that fool will never do any more stealing, because he's already been in the penn for 3 years! He'll never do that kind of thing again. Well, maybe, but then Islamists have a thing called recidivism. If we can dodge a anthrax 9-11, this is great. And the cash this eats up; if we were just half as diligent with our education, leveling economic playing fields, environment etc. as we are with our arms...PGC = Peace Give Chance, stupid cliche monster: Get out! Get the fuck out, I say! The hippie shit makes sense if it isn't dumb, ok? -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 2, 2014 10:12 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:27 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 6:01 PM Subject: Re: American Intelligence Oh, I think it is totally doable. Of course you do -- you are a couch potato, on a holy mission, pining for a bloody clash of civilizations total war. Go fight your crusade by yourself -- coward -- stop trying to drag my country into this quagmire -- any more than neocon chickenhawks -- cut from the same cowardly cloth as you -- have already done. All you need are the right ingredients. Notice that even as a nationalist, I do not disinclude the likely success of a well financed and executed attack. 9-11 was the primo example, where the political will wasn't there to prevent a successful attack with limited goals. There is no universal agreement on 911, but even assuming the story you believe in is the truth -- 911 was NO knockout punch. Not even remotely close. So now that ISIS has now allegedly, goodies in their hands like sarin and vx nerve agents, as well as weaponized anthrax, why not go for the choke points that Allah, in his benificence has rewarded you with? Depending on the condition of the bug juice, it may not even be leather anymore, the may try for Saudi, Israel, or Jordan, or Europe, and then watch the Kufar run for cover. It may be that hitting the US is the most emotionally rewarding target, or it may wind in in the sunni-shia war. The lib notion is that the US is so big, powerful, immense of wealth,that it is unassailable. This is ego, emotion, propaganda, un-reason. Our ancient ancestors we able to drive much larger and stronger mammoths over cliffs. Let's not be those mammoths. You keep pulling your most scary rabbits out of your hat -- in your attempt to conjure up some imminent threat. But there is no imminent threat.. by any stretch of reasonable evaluation posed by a few thousand lightly armed fighters in some far away desert. Who are you trying to convince with your wild eyed fact challenged prognostications? You grant prognostication here, where I wouldn't even bother. If you have, in face of our histories, inflexible social contract plus distribution of powers, there will be opposition with violent subset. So naturally the evil subset keep trying, and every time they do it's just plain chickenhawk 101 to yell see, I told you!. Doesn't change the fact that every effective bomb or bullet multiplies the gap between people and their histories. It's not a prediction, merely propaganda to keep military interest legitimized, because some possible threat by those evil guys is just always the case. And the cash this eats up; if we were just half as diligent with our education, leveling economic playing fields, environment etc. as we are with our arms...PGC = Peace Give Chance, stupid cliche monster: Get out! Get the fuck out, I say! The hippie shit makes sense if it isn't dumb, ok? -- 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
Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 01 Jul 2014, at 14:00, David Nyman wrote: Whatever its independent merits or demerits, and its inherent complexity, ISTM that comp gets closer to a way of posing questions that might in the end yield more satisfying and complete answers. As it happens, in so doing it rehabilitates earlier attempts in the tradition stemming from the Greeks and Indians, and from later exemplars such as Berkeley and Kant. And perhaps most interestingly, its central motivation originates in, and simultaneously strikes at the heart of, the tacit assumption of its rivals that perception and cognition are (somehow) second-order relational phenomena attached to some putative virtual level of an exhaustively material reduction. The problem of the exhaustively material reduction is that it does use comp, more or less explicitly, without being aware that it does not work when put together with with materialism. Comp *is* a problem for the materialist. Aristotle solved it by introducing the metaphysical notion of primary matter, which might perhaps (that's not yet proved either) make sense with some strong special non-comp hypothesis, but up to now the materialist fail to provide the theory. And that is so true that rational materialist ends up eliminating consciousness and/or first person. Does comp by itself solves the problem? I think it is technically promising, if we agree with the ancient epistemology. It provides directly the needed quantization to get a stable measure on the relative computational histories, and it separates well the quanta from the qualia, or more generally the 3p communicable, the 3p non communicable, the 1p, etc. Physics predicts very well eclipses, but still fail completely to predict the first person experience of the subject verifying the predicted eclipse. To do this, they need to use some brain-mind identity thesis, which is violated with comp, and arguably also with Everett QM. We could argue that comp is the only rational theory not (yet) contradicted by the fact, including our consciousness or first person experiences. Materialism is put in difficulty with the usual evidences (coming from biology, or from simplicity principle, + consciousness) for comp. I agree comp rehabilitates old thinking, but sometimes the mechanist assumption (unaware of Church thesis and digitalness) was already there. Well, a form of digitalism (still without Church thesis) was arguably present in Pythagorus and reappear with the neoplatonists (unfortunately not all neoplatonist will be as serious on this as Plotinus). For this thread I want to insist on the little book by Gerson Ancient Epistemology. http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Epistemology-Key-Themes-Philosophy/dp/0521871395 Using the Plotinus/arithmetic lexicon, you can clarify many points (and refute some of Gerson's conclusion). The books by O'Meara on Plotinus, and Myles Burnyeat on the Theaetetus are quite interesting too. 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: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 01 Jul 2014, at 20:24, meekerdb wrote: On 7/1/2014 5:00 AM, David Nyman wrote: Some recent discussions have centred on the (putative) features of hierarchical-reductionist ontologies, and whether comp (whatever its intrinsic merits or deficiencies) should be considered as just another candidate theory in that category, This prompts me to consider what fundamental question a particular theory is designed to answer. Making this explicit may help us to see what other questions are, by the same token (and perhaps only implicitly), treated as subsidiary or, as it were, merely awaiting resolution in due course in terms of the central explanatory thrust. I think it's fair to say that theories centred on an exhaustively-reducible physical or material ontology seek to answer the question of What are the fundamental entities and relations that underlie and constitute everything that exists and how did things get to be this way?. Even if this is a rather crude formulation, if questions such as these are deemed central and definitive, the issue of How and why does it *appear* to us that things are this way? becomes subsidiary and presumably awaits ultimate elucidation in the same terms. IOW, both we and what appears to us will in the end be explained, exhaustively, as composite phenomena in a physical hierarchy that can be reduced without loss to the basic entities and relations. ISTM however that comp asks different questions from the outset: How and why does it APPEAR that certain entities and relations constitute everything that exists, and what the hell is appearance anyway? To be sure, in order to deal with such questions comp has to begin with How does everything get to be this way?, but the crucial distinction is that basic physical entities and relations are, in this mode of question-and-answer, a complex by-product of the logic of appearance, and the subjects of said appearance. A further consequence is that it is no longer obvious that subjects, or what appears to them, are reducible in any straightforward way, either to physical entities and relations, or to the original first-order combinatorial ontology. I think you have created a strawman exhaustively-reducible physical or material ontology. Sure, physicists take forces and matter as working assumptions - but they don't say what they are. They are never anything other than elements of a mathematical model which works well. And what does it mean to work well? It means to explain appearances - exactly the same thing you put forward as a uniquely different goal of comp. Although I think comp is an interesting theory and worthy of study, Comp is not opposed to physics, and like all theory, must be confirmed or refuted by observation and reasoning. Comp is opposed only to physicalism, or metaphysical naturalism. I think I look at it differently than Bruno. I look at it as just another mathematical model, one whose ontology happens to be computations. You might perhaps confuse comp and the TOE extracted from it. Comp is not a mathematical model/theory. It is the (theological) belief that you can survive a kind of technological digital resurrection. Then, a reasoning shows that it leads to a mathematicalism (even arithmeticalism) and that it has testable consequences (accepting the standard treatment of knowledge). Bruno I think Bruno assumes the ontology first, notes that it can 'explain everything' - and then sets out to see if 'everything' can be pared down to what appears. It is true that we can pose questions in the first way and still say that we are non-eliminative about consciousness. The problem though is that because we have already committed ourselves to an exhaustively reductive mode of explanation, we can't help consigning such first-person phenomena to a subsidiary status, as an impenetrable mystery, an essentially irrelevant epiphenomenon, or some sort of weirdly-anomalous side-effect of basic physical activity. ISTM that this mode of question-and-answer, from the outset, essentially can't escape trivialising, ignoring, or rendering unanswerable in principle, the role of the first person. Consequently, I can't avoid the suspicion that, despite its phenomenal success (pun intended) it can't, in the end, be the most helpful way of asking the most fundamental questions. As I noted in another post, any explanation is going to be exhaustively reductive or it's going to be reduction with loss. You can't have it both ways. Bruno's theory explicitly defines the loss, i.e. unprovable truths of arithmetic. That may be a feature, or it may be a bug. Brent Whatever its independent merits or demerits, and its inherent complexity, ISTM that comp gets closer to a way of posing questions that might in the end yield more satisfying and complete answers. As it happens, in so doing it rehabilitates earlier attempts in the tradition stemming from the
Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 02 Jul 2014, at 23:35, meekerdb wrote: On 7/2/2014 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The classical theory of knowledge, already present in ancien epistemology is the modal KT theory, or KT4. K is [](A - B) - ([]A - []B). It is equivalent with ([]A [](A - B)) - []B. It is a belief in the modus ponens rule. T is the important thing: the incorrigibility: you know only truth. []A - A. The knowers knows. He might realize latter that he was wrong, but this disqualify his ancien knowledge as knowledge: admitting being wrong provides the admitting it was a belief, which can be wrong. 4 is the formula []A - [][]A. It is used for more stable knowledge than an immediate sort of knowledge. You know implies that you know that you know. That makes no sense to me. You define knowing and X as Believing X and X. I define knowing X as (believing X) and X. OK. But then you say the knower might be wrong!? Yes. But it means that he was not a knower. This is well reflected by the fact that we will say: Jules believed that sqrt(2) was a ration of natural numbers, but now he know better. And nobody will say: Jules knew that sqrt(2) was a ratio of natural numbers, but now he believed better. Usually, when we believe something, that means that we take it as true, and so, when very self-confident, we can say I know that But we can be wrong, about the ..., making both ... and I know that ... false. You thought you knew, but realizing the error you know it was a belief. You've already assumed he's right as part of defining knower. So really you meant believer when you wrote knower? It just means that I, or any machine, can use know wrongly. With comp, only God knows when you really know, and are not believing wrongly. This is a weak notion of knowledge, which makes its job when we limit our machine's interview on the self-referentially correct machine, which are the only one needed to derive the comp correct physics. It is not knowing for sure, which with comp can be limited to only the primary raw consciousness. Above that, we seem to know nothing for sure. Comp is immune to *all* 3p certainty, and seems to get only one class of 1p-certainty (basically I exist, I feel bad, I feel good) which are not 3p communicable/rationally-justifiable. We have (Know p) - p, but machines can confuse belief and knowledge, and be wrong in their belief that they know this or that. A correct Löbian machine will never say I know that 1+1=2, she just can't. She might justify correctly both I believe that 1+1=2, and 1+1=2, and this will entitle *us* to say that she knows that 1+1=2. Humans have a non monotonic supplementary layer (itself justifiable arithmetically, and useful with respect to tractability issue). This makes the weak notion of knowledge a bit academic with respect of real world epistemological situation, but the monotonic case is still what we need to get the ideal comp-correct theology which include the testable comp-correct physics. 'Non monotonic' means that we abandon the rule that we can deduce (A B) - C from (A - C). We accept that the new information B might prevent C to be true. For example, in classical logic you can derive If it snows tomorrow and I broke my leg today then I will do skying tomorrow from if it snows tomorrow I will do skying tomorrow. (Note than the quantum logic have such relevant aspect, and its most typical implication does not verify the a posteriori axiom (or the non relevance axiom): A - (B - A). Monotonic means that the set of theorems grows monotonically with the addition of axioms, like in math. A new theorem does not jeopardize an older theorem. 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: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 3 July 2014 10:02, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Yes, primary belief, though necessarily incorrigible in the first instance, is nonetheless vulnerable in the second instance to correction or reinterpretation. Just as well, really. But is it? Only in the primary sense of immediate cognition. If primary belief (your belief in where the buck stops) were vulnerable to correction then why has Christianity for example, persevered so long without revision or updating of beliefs when say, knowledge of the universe progressed. I think you're using primary belief in a different sense here. What you're describing is what psychologists like to call cognitive dissonance. Rather disturbingly for our cherished assumptions of rationality, an ability to keep contradictory beliefs apart within a single mind seems actually to be indispensable to what is often thought of as mental health. First impressions seem to count for a lot in forming the patterns of recognition the brain uses. Well, I would say that the patterns of recognition the brain uses are part of the visual belief system and hence constitute embodied primary beliefs in the sense I intended. A powerful primary belief in matter seems to be a very difficult thing to have some people admit to. Yes, though I'm not sure how much this owes to primary patterns of recognition and how much to more abstracted habits of mind. In the first instance, a belief in the materiality and causal relevance of matter is clearly crucial to survival and hence would be expected to have a long and deep history in the evolution of brain function. Secondarily, it might be the case that such deeply embedded survival prejudices may be difficult to overcome even in the context of more abstract reasoning. That said, there is a very long history of belief not in one, but two, primary realities: i.e. body and soul. This seems to be the default human assumption, and you can even detect it in secular form in the apparent narrative plausibility of movie plots involving body swapping. I think the problem comes in moving from the default dualist assumption to some form of monism. Then it starts to look as if the only viable options are the elimination or trivialising of soul, on the one hand, or the relegation of body to a secondary manifestation of a generalised theory of cognition, on the other. Neither of these options is particularly easy to swallow. David On 3 Jul 2014, at 9:09 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: Yes, primary belief, though necessarily incorrigible in the first instance, is nonetheless vulnerable in the second instance to correction or reinterpretation. Just as well, really. But is it? If primary belief (your belief in where the buck stops) were vulnerable to correction then why has Christianity for example, persevered so long without revision or updating of beliefs when say, knowledge of the universe progressed. First impressions seem to count for a lot in forming the patterns of recognition the brain uses. A powerful primary belief in matter seems to be a very difficult thing to have some people admit to. 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: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 03 Jul 2014, at 01:09, David Nyman wrote: On 2 July 2014 22:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Since the primary truth of what I see is simply what I see (i.e. it is incorrigible) it can't be subject to Gettier's paradox. I can't be right about what I see for the wrong reasons because what I see is constitutively true. But is it incorrigble? An optical illusion can cause you to see A is bigger than B even though A is smaller than B. Of course you can say, Well, it's still incorrigbly true that A *appeared* bigger than B. but that's different. Well, it isn't different to my point, which is precisely that what I see (i.e. the 1p part) corresponds in the first instance to the truth content of my visual belief system (i.e. the 3p part). Note that there is nothing I can do about it. Hence in this case belief and truth are necessarily, constitutively, or analytically, equivalent. Yes, even when the content is wrong. I think this might be the case when 1) []p ~p yet: 2) []([]p) []p. You know []p. Without knowing if [] is correct or not. Only in the second instance are they vulnerable to correction. OK. Which correspond to the 1) above. One might say that belief and truth in this first sense are incorrigibly bound together in a common vulnerability to secondary, or empirical, error. Or error in the wiring of [], which we can't know either. That's the possibility/consistency of self-inconsistency, especially when adding new axioms. What you literally *saw* was that A was bigger than B, i.e. that is the immediate perception and it only later that you are persuaded that it was mere appearance. So the perception that your brain forms is really creating a model based on sensory input Yes, that's the first instance to which I refer above.. and it can be wrong Yes, primary belief, though necessarily incorrigible in the first instance, is nonetheless vulnerable in the second instance to correction or reinterpretation. Just as well, really. In other words there is no seeing at all without interpretation; There is no simply what I see. I think you have been conflating two different senses of interpretation that I specifically intended to distinguish. The first corresponds to the immediate perception associated with the visual belief system and the second with subsequent correction or reinterpretation. Only the first sense is incorrigible. And non definable, except in some non constructive manner, by us, looking from outside, and limiting our interview of machine saying []p to the one living in realities where the p are satisfied. The set of such realities is highly non computable, which is the kind of set expected for theology. But that's not the point of Gettier's paradox. Gettier's paradox is that you may believe something that is true by accident, e.g. with no causal connection to the facts that make it true. Under Theaetetus's definition this counts as knowledge, but not under a common sense understanding. I think you may now see that this doesn't contradict my point. If the visual belief system and its associated truth content are constitutively equivalent, there is no question of truth by accident in the first instance. Of course any second-order reinterpretation of such first-order beliefs may be empirically true by accident, or wholly untrue for that matter, but that is a different question. Right, I think. Gettier's paradox does not apply, or apply only on inconsistent machine which believes that when they believes something it has to be true. Machine are almost bound up to do that confusion. We can understand the difference between belief and knowledge only by being wrong, acknowledge it and remembering it. A priori believing is knowledge. To take distance is the result of a learning process, although the ideally correct machine can get it by pure introspection (like when PA proves its own second incompleteness theorem, or Löb's theorem). Specifically, if a theory lacks an explicit epistemological strategy then, in despite of any success in elucidating the structure of appearance, it may in the end tend to obfuscate, rather than illuminate, fundamental questions pertaining to the knowledge of such appearances. May tend is fairly weak criticism in face to enormous success. The success is because science closes the loop by testing its theories. The epistemological strategy is to pass those tests. But science and comp are not in opposition. To the contrary, if comp as an explanatory strategy is to have any hope of being successful it must *become* science and hence pass all empirical tests that are thrown at it. OK. And in any case I'm not criticising the success of the current paradigm, I'm merely speculating, on grounds that I've argued, as to whether that same success can ultimately extend to questions which were, in a certain sense, deliberately sidelined
Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 03 Jul 2014, at 11:02, Kim Jones wrote: On 3 Jul 2014, at 9:09 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: Yes, primary belief, though necessarily incorrigible in the first instance, is nonetheless vulnerable in the second instance to correction or reinterpretation. Just as well, really. But is it? If primary belief (your belief in where the buck stops) were vulnerable to correction then why has Christianity for example, persevered so long without revision or updating of beliefs when say, knowledge of the universe progressed. First impressions seem to count for a lot in forming the patterns of recognition the brain uses. A powerful primary belief in matter seems to be a very difficult thing to have some people admit to. But that Jesus was literally the son of God is highly non primary. So I think only the literalist can be wrong, and a non literalist christian can just have no reason to update its faith, as it takes the text for a witnessing that others have experience something in which he believes for personal reason. Catholicism, through its last Popes (since vatican II) did condemn the literal reading of the bible. Only a pseudo-scientist would say that the science progresses have put any threat on the non literal reading of any sacred texts. Science has not yet decided between Plato and Aristotle. And both are consistent with non literal reading of those texts, even if with comp there are many signs that the Plato interpretation is closer to the possible comp-truth. Literalism is, in my opinion, a result of political manipulation and stealing of a religion: where the mystic motto: know yourself is replaced by the (very old) clerical rule: the boss is right (which can accelerate the political short term decision procedures but will usually mess badly with the long term search of truth). Bruno 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. 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: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:42 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: American Intelligence It's always a judgement call, and there have been a fair amount of pundits,basically, saying, Let them kill each other. This is ok by me as its something they have done for over 13 centuries. Having said this, we all have a dog in this race (except Chris) who needs to be concerned about actions beyond a tidy Sunni caliphate. The seem to have other plans, beyond a local nation state, and they have gathered some new goodies, that are, possibly, still functional, (maybe not?). It's still a judgment call, however, this is like in the US, where a released criminal felon is walking down the street and seen looking in cars and then saying, Oh that fool will never do any more stealing, because he's already been in the penn for 3 years! He'll never do that kind of thing again. Well, maybe, but then Islamists have a thing called recidivism. If we can dodge a anthrax 9-11, this is great. Fight your own damn crusade coward. You demand others go off to do the dying; when it is you who deserves to win the Darwin award. And the cash this eats up; if we were just half as diligent with our education, leveling economic playing fields, environment etc. as we are with our arms...PGC = Peace Give Chance, stupid cliche monster: Get out! Get the fuck out, I say! The hippie shit makes sense if it isn't dumb, ok? -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jul 2, 2014 10:12 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:27 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: _ From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 6:01 PM Subject: Re: American Intelligence Oh, I think it is totally doable. Of course you do -- you are a couch potato, on a holy mission, pining for a bloody clash of civilizations total war. Go fight your crusade by yourself -- coward -- stop trying to drag my country into this quagmire -- any more than neocon chickenhawks -- cut from the same cowardly cloth as you -- have already done. All you need are the right ingredients. Notice that even as a nationalist, I do not disinclude the likely success of a well financed and executed attack. 9-11 was the primo example, where the political will wasn't there to prevent a successful attack with limited goals. There is no universal agreement on 911, but even assuming the story you believe in is the truth -- 911 was NO knockout punch. Not even remotely close. So now that ISIS has now allegedly, goodies in their hands like sarin and vx nerve agents, as well as weaponized anthrax, why not go for the choke points that Allah, in his benificence has rewarded you with? Depending on the condition of the bug juice, it may not even be leather anymore, the may try for Saudi, Israel, or Jordan, or Europe, and then watch the Kufar run for cover. It may be that hitting the US is the most emotionally rewarding target, or it may wind in in the sunni-shia war. The lib notion is that the US is so big, powerful, immense of wealth,that it is unassailable. This is ego, emotion, propaganda, un-reason. Our ancient ancestors we able to drive much larger and stronger mammoths over cliffs. Let's not be those mammoths. You keep pulling your most scary rabbits out of your hat -- in your attempt to conjure up some imminent threat. But there is no imminent threat.. by any stretch of reasonable evaluation posed by a few thousand lightly armed fighters in some far away desert. Who are you trying to convince with your wild eyed fact challenged prognostications? You grant prognostication here, where I wouldn't even bother. If you have, in face of our histories, inflexible social contract plus distribution of powers, there will be opposition with violent subset. So naturally the evil subset keep trying, and every time they do it's just plain chickenhawk 101 to yell see, I told you!. Doesn't change the fact that every effective bomb or bullet multiplies the gap between people and their histories. It's not a prediction, merely propaganda to keep military interest legitimized, because some possible threat by those evil guys is just always the case. And the cash this eats up; if we were just half as diligent with our education, leveling economic playing fields, environment etc. as we are with our arms...PGC = Peace Give Chance, stupid cliche monster: Get out! Get the fuck out, I say! The hippie shit makes sense if it isn't dumb, ok? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 3 July 2014 14:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And perhaps most interestingly, its central motivation originates in, and simultaneously strikes at the heart of, the tacit assumption of its rivals that perception and cognition are (somehow) second-order relational phenomena attached to some putative virtual level of an exhaustively material reduction. The problem of the exhaustively material reduction is that it does use comp, more or less explicitly, without being aware that it does not work when put together with with materialism. Yes, and I was roused from my customary torpor specifically to have another stab at a thoroughgoing reductio of this position (or else, of course, learn where I am in error). But, frustratingly, it does seem to be extraordinarily hard to get across for the first time, because of the tacit question-begging almost unavoidably consequent on the difficulty of vacating the very perceptual position whose all too manifest entities are undergoing ontological deconstruction. Once seen, however, the error may then strike one as having been obvious. The commonest response, in my experience, after describing the mind-body problem to someone for the first time, is I don't see the problem. On further probing, the default assumptions usually turn out to be either straightforward mind-brain identity, or mind = simulation, brain = computer. If the former, I point, in the first place, to the completely non-standard and unjustified use of the identity relation that this entails. If the latter, simple reductive analogies like house-bricks, or society-people, can sometimes help to convey the idea that any exhaustively reductive material schema necessarily *eliminates* its ontological composites (difficult to see precisely because *epistemological* composition manifestly remains and the distinction is thereby elusive). Anyway, if the point is grasped it becomes possible to see the disturbing consequences that such a reduction has for the standard conjunction of material computation and consciousness. Does comp by itself solves the problem? I think it is technically promising, if we agree with the ancient epistemology. It provides directly the needed quantization to get a stable measure on the relative computational histories, and it separates well the quanta from the qualia, or more generally the 3p communicable, the 3p non communicable, the 1p, etc. Physics predicts very well eclipses, but still fail completely to predict the first person experience of the subject verifying the predicted eclipse. To do this, they need to use some brain-mind identity thesis, which is violated with comp, and arguably also with Everett QM. I don't think that most physicists (there are exceptions) have taken the problem of consciousness seriously (i.e. as a problem in physics) up to this point, hence my speculation that certain kinds of answer are ruled out (or rendered either absurd or trivial) by posing the defining questions of a field in one way rather than another. As you say, comp is a theory of consciousness, so its question is that of explaining material appearances from the point of view of a generalised (arithmetical) theory of knowledge. By contrast, physics is explicitly NOT a theory of consciousness and, should it consider the question at all, must expect material appearances to be explained in the same terms as any other physical phenomenon (e.g. Tegmark's recent idea that consciousness is a state of matter). For me at least, the ways in which the mind-body problem has been approached against the background of physical-primitivism have the feel of being not even wrong or, at least, of being attempts to answer a badly-posed question. Brent's alternative speculation that the problem itself will fade away in the face of superior engineering, whilst (unfortunately) all too sociologically plausible, consequently strikes me as a willingness to capitulate to outright mysterianism, or else tacit eliminativism. Such intractable mysteries or equally, the tacit elimination of troublesome problems, are perhaps defining hallmarks of an explanatory strategy operating outside its limits of applicability. Unfortunately this insight seems to strike some as a form of heresy against physics, rather than an observation about explanation in general. I agree comp rehabilitates old thinking, but sometimes the mechanist assumption (unaware of Church thesis and digitalness) was already there. Well, a form of digitalism (still without Church thesis) was arguably present in Pythagorus and reappear with the neoplatonists (unfortunately not all neoplatonist will be as serious on this as Plotinus). For this thread I want to insist on the little book by Gerson Ancient Epistemology. I'll take a look :-) David On 01 Jul 2014, at 14:00, David Nyman wrote: Whatever its independent merits or demerits, and its inherent complexity, ISTM that comp gets closer to a way of posing questions
Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 7/3/2014 2:02 AM, Kim Jones wrote: On 3 Jul 2014, at 9:09 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: Yes, primary belief, though necessarily incorrigible in the first instance, is nonetheless vulnerable in the second instance to correction or reinterpretation. Just as well, really. But is it? If primary belief (your belief in where the buck stops) were vulnerable to correction then why has Christianity for example, persevered so long without revision or updating of beliefs when say, knowledge of the universe progressed. First impressions seem to count for a lot in forming the patterns of recognition the brain uses. A powerful primary belief in matter seems to be a very difficult thing to have some people admit to. You write that as though it's a fault - which reflects the degree to which it is dogman on this is piece of the internet. A little reflection might tell you they have very good reasons for supposing matter is primary and the contrary view is mainly held by adherents of bronze age superstitions. 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote: Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq. yielding a different probability for each quantum state and a different measure for each different scenario unlike the invariant measure of the reals. Do you disagree? Richard The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like square normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space (like in both QM and functional analysis). The measure on the reals is a measure on real numbers. With comp, the measure is on the relative states. It is really a measure on the transition a I b. In quantum mechanics it is given by [a I b]^2, but with comp this must be explained by a measure on all the computations going from a mind state corresponding to observing 'a to a mind state of observing 'b, taking into account the fact that an infinity of universal numbers justifies those transitions (= makes them belonging to a computation). The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular case. The first person histories with computable sequence like WW..., or WMWMWMWMWM... , becomes the white rabbits event, and the norm is high incompressibility (a very strong form of randomness). The ultimate protocol is the logical structure of the sigma_1 arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random oracle with the halting oracle so that we can expect a non-machine for the first person truth. But it is already a non machine, from the machine view, by simple incompleteness. The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure calculus (Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus lexicon), but it provides the logic of the measure one, from which the measure calculus + the arithmetical constraints) should be derivable (and the measure one admits a quantization confirming things go well there). Bruno On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Russell, Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that come from? The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable default assumption for most purposes. The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is close to the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact. In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the measure of the reals is invariant. Richard What do you mean? What is this quantum measure? -- 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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. 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: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 7/3/2014 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Only a pseudo-scientist would say that the science progresses have put any threat on the non literal reading of any sacred texts. Wouldn't that depend on what the non-literal reading is? I think what you mean is that there is always some non-literal reading that is not threatened by science...or by logic, or by empathy, or by anything else you care to name, because non-literal is just not what it says. Mein Kampf is also consistent with good race relations, on a non-literal reading. 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I think that the presence of such teapot is highly implausible. But I can't be sure. I don't believe that for one second, I think you are sure there is not a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus; although please note that being sure is not the same thing as having a proof, nor is being sure the same thing as being correct. omnipotence is self-contradictory. I know, but a little thing like being self-contradictory would never stop a good theologian Lol. Good humor. I wish it were a joke, just last month in a HBO documentary Pastor Peter LaRuffa educated the world with these words of wisdom: If somewhere within the Bible, I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I'm reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysecinv367w You really talk like a priest, unable to doubt its religious belief Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To 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: RE: American Intelligence
What? I don't understand. Were my questions not clear? -- 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: RE: American Intelligence
Is there any war you think the US ever should fight? Chris it was like the old war resisters back in the day, when the US was out of Indochina, for the so called anti-war folks, the genocide by the Khmer rouge was a non issue. They were merely against the US military, and nobody else's. Are you one of them, besides a 911 truther? -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote: Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq. yielding a different probability for each quantum state and a different measure for each different scenario unlike the invariant measure of the reals. Do you disagree? Richard The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like square normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space (like in both QM and functional analysis). The measure on the reals is a measure on real numbers. With comp, the measure is on the relative states. It is really a measure on the transition a I b. In quantum mechanics it is given by [a I b]^2, but with comp this must be explained by a measure on all the computations going from a mind state corresponding to observing 'a to a mind state of observing 'b, taking into account the fact that an infinity of universal numbers justifies those transitions (= makes them belonging to a computation). It seems that the measure of the reals and the quantum measure and the comp measure are three different things. Richard The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular case. The first person histories with computable sequence like WW..., or WMWMWMWMWM... , becomes the white rabbits event, and the norm is high incompressibility (a very strong form of randomness). The ultimate protocol is the logical structure of the sigma_1 arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random oracle with the halting oracle so that we can expect a non-machine for the first person truth. But it is already a non machine, from the machine view, by simple incompleteness. The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure calculus (Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus lexicon), but it provides the logic of the measure one, from which the measure calculus + the arithmetical constraints) should be derivable (and the measure one admits a quantization confirming things go well there). Bruno On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Russell, Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that come from? The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable default assumption for most purposes. The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is close to the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact. In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the measure of the reals is invariant. Richard What do you mean? What is this quantum measure? -- 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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. 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
Re: RE: American Intelligence
Spudboy is mixed up. The Khmer were Cambodians and never attacked us/US even though we bombed them. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Is there any war you think the US ever should fight? Chris it was like the old war resisters back in the day, when the US was out of Indochina, for the so called anti-war folks, the genocide by the Khmer rouge was a non issue. They were merely against the US military, and nobody else's. Are you one of them, besides a 911 truther? -- 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 7/3/2014 11:05 AM, John Clark wrote: I know, but a little thing like being self-contradictory would never stop a good theologian Lol. Good humor. I wish it were a joke, just last month in a HBO documentary Pastor Peter LaRuffa educated the world with these words of wisdom: If somewhere within the Bible, I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I'm reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it. You're just stuck on that literal reading, John. On a non-literal reading I'm sure it's true, e.g. for very large values of 2. 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: RE: American Intelligence
From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 11:23 AM Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence Is there any war you think the US ever should fight? Chris it was like the old war resisters back in the day, when the US was out of Indochina, for the so called anti-war folks, the genocide by the Khmer rouge was a non issue. They were merely against the US military, and nobody else's. Are you one of them, besides a 911 truther? Get a brain first; then we will talk. -- 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
I am waiting to read in the bible that the sum of positive integers from one to infinity is a negative fraction of the first integer. In other words, the bible is more believable than mathematics. Richard On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/3/2014 11:05 AM, John Clark wrote: I know, but a little thing like being self-contradictory would never stop a good theologian Lol. Good humor. I wish it were a joke, just last month in a HBO documentary Pastor Peter LaRuffa educated the world with these words of wisdom: If somewhere within the Bible, I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I'm reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it. You're just stuck on that literal reading, John. On a non-literal reading I'm sure it's true, e.g. for very large values of 2. 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: RE: American Intelligence
From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 11:32 AM Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence Spudboy is mixed up. The Khmer were Cambodians and never attacked us/US even though we bombed them. In fact more tons of high explosives where dropped on Cambodia during Nixon's secret war than in the entire Pacific theater of WWII... I flew over the Mekong delta -- it was like swiss cheese... of bomb craters. Chris On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Is there any war you think the US ever should fight? Chris it was like the old war resisters back in the day, when the US was out of Indochina, for the so called anti-war folks, the genocide by the Khmer rouge was a non issue. They were merely against the US military, and nobody else's. Are you one of them, besides a 911 truther? -- 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: Selecting your future branch
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I predict that the H-guy will see Helsinki, unless you destroy him immediately after duplication That is indeed the case in the step 3 protocol. Fine, then currently nobody is seeing Helsinki. in which case the H-guy will see absolutely nothing. Then the H-person dies already at step 1 and 0. It's just a matter of arbitrary definitions. Is the H-person the guy currently seeing Helsinki or is he not? If he is and nobody is currently seeing Helsinki then the Helsinki Man no longer exists and the correct prediction of what the Helsinki man would see would be oblivion. However if the Helsinki man is anybody who remembers being the Helsinki Man (a more useful definition in my opinion) then BOTH the Moscow Man and the Washington Man are the Helsinki Man and therefore the correct prediction about what the Helsinki Man would see would have been Moscow AND Washington. Incidentally, this contradicts the fact that you have already agreed that both the W-person and the M-person are genuinely the H-person. As I say it all depends on what definition H-person has. You assume comp I don't assume it, I can't assume what I don't understand and your little homemade term comp is nonstandard and is used on this list and nowhere else. I know what computationalism means but comp remains as big a mystery as all those vague personal pronouns, shifting definitions and peepee floating around. 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: Selecting your future branch
2014-07-03 21:51 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I predict that the H-guy will see Helsinki, unless you destroy him immediately after duplication That is indeed the case in the step 3 protocol. Fine, then currently nobody is seeing Helsinki. in which case the H-guy will see absolutely nothing. Then the H-person dies already at step 1 and 0. It's just a matter of arbitrary definitions. Is the H-person the guy currently seeing Helsinki or is he not? If he is and nobody is currently seeing Helsinki then the Helsinki Man no longer exists and the correct prediction of what the Helsinki man would see would be oblivion. However if the Helsinki man is anybody who remembers being the Helsinki Man (a more useful definition in my opinion) then BOTH the Moscow Man and the Washington Man are the Helsinki Man and therefore the correct prediction about what the Helsinki Man would see would have been Moscow AND Washington. Incidentally, this contradicts the fact that you have already agreed that both the W-person and the M-person are genuinely the H-person. As I say it all depends on what definition H-person has. I predict liar Clark will see spin up AND spin down... because under MWI MR. LIAR CLARK HAS BEEN DUPLICATED (yes I know it's a nightmare). What does Liar Clark predict ? That he is a monkey arse ? (sorry for the monkeys) You assume comp I don't assume it, I can't assume what I don't understand and your little homemade term comp is nonstandard and is used on this list and nowhere else. I know what computationalism means but comp remains as big a mystery as all those vague personal pronouns, shifting definitions and peepee floating around. 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 02:30:22PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: It seems that the measure of the reals and the quantum measure and the comp measure are three different things. Richard They are three different measures, but all satisfy the measure axioms. What I was trying to get at was why you think the quantum measure is scenario dependent - is it because it depends on the chosen observable and the previous quantum state (ie is a relative measure)? But these (the observable, and previous state) just provide the constraints defining the set being measured. 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi Bruno, Is the measure idempotent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence? On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote: Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq. yielding a different probability for each quantum state and a different measure for each different scenario unlike the invariant measure of the reals. Do you disagree? Richard The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like square normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space (like in both QM and functional analysis). The measure on the reals is a measure on real numbers. With comp, the measure is on the relative states. It is really a measure on the transition a I b. In quantum mechanics it is given by [a I b]^2, but with comp this must be explained by a measure on all the computations going from a mind state corresponding to observing 'a to a mind state of observing 'b, taking into account the fact that an infinity of universal numbers justifies those transitions (= makes them belonging to a computation). The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular case. The first person histories with computable sequence like WW..., or WMWMWMWMWM... , becomes the white rabbits event, and the norm is high incompressibility (a very strong form of randomness). The ultimate protocol is the logical structure of the sigma_1 arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random oracle with the halting oracle so that we can expect a non-machine for the first person truth. But it is already a non machine, from the machine view, by simple incompleteness. The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure calculus (Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus lexicon), but it provides the logic of the measure one, from which the measure calculus + the arithmetical constraints) should be derivable (and the measure one admits a quantization confirming things go well there). Bruno On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Russell, Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that come from? The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable default assumption for most purposes. The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is close to the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact. In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the measure of the reals is invariant. Richard What do you mean? What is this quantum measure? -- 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: RE: American Intelligence
From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sound good, I will go look for a brain, and you can begin your search for a heart, Mr. Tin man. Oh I have a heart, brainless one... it is you who are heartless and are demanding we all get on board with your crusader program. -- 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: QM and oil droplets
This is very interesting! If it's true it means that any worlds where the Nazis won WW2 are googolplexes of lightyears away and moving away from us at far greater than lightspeed, rather than merely separated from us by a lack of quantum entanglement - which has to be a good thing, IMHO. Many of the fluid dynamicists involved in or familiar with the new research have become convinced that there is a classical, fluid explanation of quantum mechanics. This seems to me a rather big ask, and is one of the objections I (and maybe others) have raised to Tronnies. If you are going to extract quantised behaviour from something classical (i.e. from something that is continuous and infinitely divisible) you need your states to emerge exactly - to infinite precision - to get them identical in different parts of the universe (e.g. in the spectral lines from trillions of stars). Otherwise, it seems reasonable to suppose that you will only get similar solutions, like a classical particle orbitting in a potential well they should be subject to small perturbations. Using a fluid medium filling space (aside from any considerations of Lorentz invariance etc) seems to me a way to allow all sorts of influences to get at, say, an electron inside a hydrogen atom. So each H atom should have a slightly different spectral signature. There is also a local mechanism for EPR suggested, which I would imagine is equivalent to hidden variables. I was under the impression that Bell's inequality ruled these out (except in the case of time symmetry). Has this been rescinded? I would hope that the pilot wave approach makes different predictions to others, which will allow it to be tested experimentally. A 500 qubit quantum computer which worked would apparently rule out most theories apart from the MWI, for example - does the PWI have anything similar? Otherwise as David Deutsch said, isn't it just Everett with one world singled out by a (so far undetectable) bolt-on extra ? -- 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: QM and oil droplets
Oops I think I should have read Telmo's post before making mine. Apparently there is a potential smoking gun to show that de Brglie/Bohm dunnit. -- 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: Selecting your future branch
On 4 July 2014 07:10, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:13 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The yes doctor thing says that if H-guy is destroyed in the process of being scanned prior to transmission, then he will see Then who will see? Two copies of H-man will see... M or W (or both, depending on how you want to look at it. I don't want to get into pronouns at this point). There is no choice, you just used a personal pronoun at a crucial point so we HAVE to go into it. For the moment forget what your third grade English teacher may have said and answer the following question: in the above thought experiment is the pronoun he singular or plural? Bruno can never give a straight answer to that and that is why I flat out refuse to use the silly little provincial homemade term comp; it's claimed to just mean yes doctor but then Bruno's next utterance is according to comp *he* will see this but *he* will never see that and Bruno never even give a hint about who the hell is he is supposed to be. Obviously if duplication is possible then singular pronouns become plural ones in the process. What I meant was that H man will be duplicated, so after the duplication there will be two copies of him. Obviously our language isn't designed to cope with this possibility, which doesn't happen in real life (yet), hence the pronoun confusion. Dr McCoy worries that every time someone goes through the transporter, he's being murdered and a clone created which only thinks it's the same person. Thinking that I'm alive and am John Clark is plenty good enough for me! And I would be absolutely delighted to find out that I had been murdered yesterday because then that would mean that death is not nearly as big a deal as I had thought it was. I can't imagine hearing better news! Well, perhaps. I'm no so sure I'd be happy that there is a duplicate of me who's OK if I'm facing death. How about a duplicate who split off from you a week ago? Would you be happy to be murdered knowing that he was alive and well, and thinks he's 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: Brain and Mind (Interesting video clip)
Thanks, I will watch it when I get 17 minutes to spare, have access to a PC, and won't disturb anyone else in the process (or give away that I'm not working to my colleagues... :-). -- 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: RE: American Intelligence
I have a diploma, which many people think is as good as a brain... -- 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: QM and oil droplets
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: This is very interesting! If it's true it means that any worlds where the Nazis won WW2 are googolplexes of lightyears away and moving away from us at far greater than lightspeed, rather than merely separated from us by a lack of quantum entanglement - which has to be a good thing, IMHO. Many of the fluid dynamicists involved in or familiar with the new research have become convinced that there is a classical, fluid explanation of quantum mechanics. A fkuid explanation of QM is consistent with string theory where a nonlinear hyper-EM Flux or fluid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-form_electrodynamics) (the low energy equivalent of the hyper-Flux is electromagnetism.) is responsible for the compactification of 6 space dimensions as 3 space dimensions inflate and seemingly one space dimension turns into a time dimension, just the opposite of what happens at the event horizon of a black hole where the time dimension turns into the radial space dimension, at least in one solution to the equations of GR. I also believe as a graduate mechanical engineer that the hyper-Flux may be amenable to a higher level Navier-Stokes treatment of an totally entangled (BEC) Flux medium while maintaining consistency with quantum mechanics. But I wonder if the Flux is compressible and if the Flux could be simulated experimentally using the techniques of condensed matter physics (http://f3.tiera.ru/other/DVD-005/Bruus_H .,_Flensberg_K._Many-body_Quantum_Theory_In_Condensed_Matter_Physics%5Bc%5D_An_Introduction_(2002)(en)(336s).pdf) In the beginnings of odd centuries, experiments rule. Richard This seems to me a rather big ask, and is one of the objections I (and maybe others) have raised to Tronnies. If you are going to extract quantised behaviour from something classical (i.e. from something that is continuous and infinitely divisible) you need your states to emerge exactly - to infinite precision - to get them identical in different parts of the universe (e.g. in the spectral lines from trillions of stars). Otherwise, it seems reasonable to suppose that you will only get similar solutions, like a classical particle orbitting in a potential well they should be subject to small perturbations. Using a fluid medium filling space (aside from any considerations of Lorentz invariance etc) seems to me a way to allow all sorts of influences to get at, say, an electron inside a hydrogen atom. So each H atom should have a slightly different spectral signature. There is also a local mechanism for EPR suggested, which I would imagine is equivalent to hidden variables. I was under the impression that Bell's inequality ruled these out (except in the case of time symmetry). Has this been rescinded? I would hope that the pilot wave approach makes different predictions to others, which will allow it to be tested experimentally. A 500 qubit quantum computer which worked would apparently rule out most theories apart from the MWI, for example - does the PWI have anything similar? Otherwise as David Deutsch said, isn't it just Everett with one world singled out by a (so far undetectable) bolt-on extra ? -- 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: RE: American Intelligence
The Russians were also silent about the US illegal military excursions. The two nations cooperated at the highest levels and all scientific levels. I was a participant. Regarding the Khmer Rouge, they actively fought the Vietnamese and lost, ie.: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/cambodia.khmer.rouge.timeline/ *Late 1977*: Fighting breaks out between Vietnam and Cambodia *May 25, 1978*: Khmer Rouge purges East Zone. *January 7, 1979*: The Vietnamese take Phnom Penh, beginning 11 years of Vietnamese occupation. The Khmer Rouge move west. Some Cambodians celebrate January 7 as a liberation day from the Khmer Rouge, while others mark it as the start of Vietnamese occupation On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:49 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Richard, you best rev up your memory. The Khmer Rogue joined in with NVA, in their sweeps into Kapuchea. The khmers first order of the day way Sihanouk, or course. This goes to my point that the only anti-war aspect your side is against, is against US participation. Its not like antiwar schmucks are pacifist, its simply that they are progressives against US military use of force. Just as the Left was silent when the CCCP went into Poland and Afghanistan. Its silent on all other nation states military actions-because they really simply want the US and a few other lands gone from the world scene. -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 2:32 pm Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence Spudboy is mixed up. The Khmer were Cambodians and never attacked us/US even though we bombed them. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List lt;everything-list@googlegroups.comgt; wrote: Is there any war you think the US ever should fight? Chris it was like the old war resisters back in the day, when the US was out of Indochina, for the so called anti-war folks, the genocide by the Khmer rouge was a non issue. They were merely against the US military, and nobody else's. Are you one of them, besides a 911 truther? -- 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. -- 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: RE: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR I have a diploma, which many people think is as good as a brain... Or even better than a brain… brains can become such troublesome things you know. Brains can cause people to think! One can never tell where a brain may go off to; best (for power) to imprint them brains young with The Dogma -- whatever it may be, each seemingly separate factional form, defined differently, by way of the particular superficial adornments it adopts, draping them over a core common nature, it doesn’t really matter… for all top down imposed hierarchies all fundamentally stand upon Dogma of one kind or another. -- 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 3 July 2014 05:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote: On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably fail to believe that it does. I don't have proof that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter, but that doesn't make me epitemologically irresponsible to assert I don't believe there is one. Careful as I don't believe there is a teapot is different from I believe there is no teapot. Personally, I don't believe that there is teapot orbiting Jupiter, but why would I believe that there is no teapot? I have no real evidences for that too. I have only a speculation extrapolated from my limited knowledge of teapot and Jupiter. I might *bet* that there is no teapot, but then I can easily conceive losing the bet, by the usual bad luck. How you would bet and at what odds is the real measure of belief. I think you believe there is no teapot. I think that the presence of such teapot is highly implausible. But I can't be sure. I think the presence of my own teapot at home is highly plausible, but I can't be completely sure about that either. For all we know the solar system may be littered with teapots left by visiting aliens. I wouldn't give the idea house room if designing the shielding on a space craft, and if pressed I would work out the chances of it being true using the Drake equation (with the Arthur Dent modification) and no doubt end up with the probability being exceedingly low. But I don't believe there is no teapot. I do believe it is highly unlikely that there is one (or more). -- 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 3 July 2014 23:32, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I also like Baker, Tom I assume rather than Colin (who played Dr Who number 6 - and is a very nice guy, by the way). who starred in a couple of fantasy flicks like Sinbad, and whatever, Pertwee was always a serious guy, Actually Pert was in The Navy Lark - a radio comedy - for years, and also played the lead role in the children's comedy show Worzel Gummidge (in New Zealand some of the time, by the way) ... However it happens you are correct (in a real- life example of The Gettier Problem !) because a friend of mine who knew both Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker says Jon had no sense of humour whatsoever, despite starring in comedies, while Tom Baker was (and hopefully still is) a natural comedian. and it was great, as a yank, to watch UNIFIL (Uk soldiers) fight with FN_FAL rifles, Sterling sten guns, and such. I remember reading that the writers were going for a sort of James Bond action. Yes, Pertwee's era was rather more dominated by action stuff. He spent quite a bit of time zooming around in hovercraft and that antique car. Apparently that's how he liked to play the character. Bakers stuff was more, hey, there's really weird people out there. Yes indeed, especially once Douglas Adams beame script editor. Unfortunately Tom was in the part for about 7 years and ended up sleep-walking through most stories. Also a heavy vein of self-parody crept in (as it did with Bond around the same time) which is IMHO ridiculous, because the whole thing is so silly anyway that everyone else and his tin dog will be parodying it, so there is really no point. Dr Who always worked best when it was taken seriously by the actors, writers etc (they managed to have plenty of humour without self-parody, in any case). Pertwee was always fighting The Master. John Delgado, who was a great character actor, Prepare for time-ram. Delgado is easily my favourite actor to play the Master. (Derek Jacobi might have come first if he'd been allowed to play the part for more than 5 minutes, and hadn't been succeeded by scary as a marshmallow John Simm.) PS At last, a serious topic for disussion! :-D -- 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 7/3/2014 7:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 July 2014 05:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote: On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably fail to believe that it does. I don't have proof that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter, but that doesn't make me epitemologically irresponsible to assert I don't believe there is one. Careful as I don't believe there is a teapot is different from I believe there is no teapot. Personally, I don't believe that there is teapot orbiting Jupiter, but why would I believe that there is no teapot? I have no real evidences for that too. I have only a speculation extrapolated from my limited knowledge of teapot and Jupiter. I might *bet* that there is no teapot, but then I can easily conceive losing the bet, by the usual bad luck. How you would bet and at what odds is the real measure of belief. I think you believe there is no teapot. I think that the presence of such teapot is highly implausible. But I can't be sure. I think the presence of my own teapot at home is highly plausible, but I can't be completely sure about that either. For all we know the solar system may be littered with teapots left by visiting aliens. I wouldn't give the idea house room if designing the shielding on a space craft, and if pressed I would work out the chances of it being true using the Drake equation (with the Arthur Dent modification) and no doubt end up with the probability being exceedingly low. But I don't believe there is no teapot. I do believe it is highly unlikely that there is one (or more). I was careful. I wrote, I don't believe there is one. In exactly the same sense, I don't believe there is a theist god and hence am an a-theist. 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: RE: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 7:04 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence The Russians were also silent about the US illegal military excursions. The two nations cooperated at the highest levels and all scientific levels. I was a participant. You are so correct… it is amazing to me how an operation of the scale of the secret war in Cambodia was able to have been kept off the radar for so long. It certainly required a tacit Soviet wink and nod in order for that to happen. It also helped that they were able to conceal the logistical tail of this secret war within the logistical tail of the public war in Vietnam. Regarding the Khmer Rouge, they actively fought the Vietnamese and lost, ie.: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/cambodia.khmer.rouge.timeline/ Late 1977: Fighting breaks out between Vietnam and Cambodia May 25, 1978: Khmer Rouge purges East Zone. January 7, 1979: The Vietnamese take Phnom Penh, beginning 11 years of Vietnamese occupation. The Khmer Rouge move west. Some Cambodians celebrate January 7 as a liberation day from the Khmer Rouge, while others mark it as the start of Vietnamese occupation After having been evacuated on the last non-military plane to leave the crumbling carcass of what had been South Vietnam, living through a most memorable dramatic day – a twenty minute 360 degree firestorm of twenty minutes duration with every big gun going off at once. I was a kid, I saw with my own eyes someone tied to a post get executed… I knew what it was like to stare down the wrong end of an M16 barrel hot from live fire (and those things are loud). For anyone who cares it was the day that a South Vietnamese air force pilot defected and flew a screaming rooftop low bombing run at “president” Nguyễn Văn Thiệu’s palace; it was immediately following that that the entire city of Saigon exploded in a mind numbingly loud firing of the anti-aircraft and other heavy caliber weapons that dotted every major intersection in sandbagged military posts – we really believed that this was it; that a coordinated internal insurrection had begun within the city and we were going to become stranded behind in the turmoil of regime collapse… and still be there after the North Vietnamese Army rolled in. The fear and panic that hung in the air at that moment was dense and heavy, and was historic; in fact Saigon fell 13 days after that day. I was living in Thailand after Vietnam (going to high school) and heard the truly chilling stories about the Khmer Rouge long before most even knew who these monsters were… some really bone chilling accounts of those Khmer killing fields. A software engineer, I work with is a survivor of those killing fields; he was almost killed himself (for stealing a few handfuls of corn) and witnessed close family members including his father killed in front of him. Living through war, inspires an appreciation of the value of maintaining peace. Cheers, Chris On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:49 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Richard, you best rev up your memory. The Khmer Rogue joined in with NVA, in their sweeps into Kapuchea. The khmers first order of the day way Sihanouk, or course. This goes to my point that the only anti-war aspect your side is against, is against US participation. Its not like antiwar schmucks are pacifist, its simply that they are progressives against US military use of force. Just as the Left was silent when the CCCP went into Poland and Afghanistan. Its silent on all other nation states military actions-because they really simply want the US and a few other lands gone from the world scene. -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 2:32 pm Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence Spudboy is mixed up. The Khmer were Cambodians and never attacked us/US even though we bombed them. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:lt%3beverything-l...@googlegroups.com wrote: Is there any war you think the US ever should fight? Chris it was like the old war resisters back in the day, when the US was out of Indochina, for the so called anti-war folks, the genocide by the Khmer rouge was a non issue. They were merely against the US military, and nobody else's. Are you one of them, besides a 911 truther? -- 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to
Re: Selecting your future branch
On 4 Jul 2014, at 11:31 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Another bloviating blustering belligerent bellicose bunch of bollocks from Mr Clark follows: For the moment forget what your third grade English teacher may have said and answer the following question: For the moment maybe switch off your ego. That little lever down near your intelligence. Flip it. in the above thought experiment is the pronoun he singular or plural? Once they are emailed they are duplicated so he means they. However no person can experience more than one iteration of themselves. Even after 5 shots of Jäger Meister. That's the First Person Thing you hate, John. We have to use some bloody pronoun now don't we. hG : I propose that following duplication we now write 2he following the pushing of the teleporter button. Just so Mr Clark gets it. So, the problem is the fact that, once again, language is the greatest barrier to human communication. An even bigger problem than that may well be that others exist like Mr Clark who see this but think, as he does, that by denying it they can prolong some battle that they are determined to win because,hey, winning an argument is as good as contributing to a discussion, right? hB: Wrong. Contributing to a discussion is not about proving someone wrong however many thrills it gives you. Bruno can never give a straight answer to that and that is why I flat out refuse to use the silly little provincial homemade term comp; Then propose a better term. But you have to understand it first. it's claimed to just mean yes doctor but then Bruno's next utterance is according to comp *he* will see this but *he* will never see that and Bruno never even give a hint about who the hell is he is supposed to be. The FPI is plural. You have parallel selves. An enormous, unfathomably large number. Which one you are from moment to moment you cannot know. Language, which is the creation of lousy religious clerics doing bad theology, cannot express this. It is you who should forget what your 1st Grade English teacher told you. Liz: Obviously if duplication is possible then singular pronouns become plural ones in the process. What I meant was that H man will be duplicated, so after the duplication there will be two copies of him. Obviously our language isn't designed to cope with this possibility, which doesn't happen in real life (yet), hence the pronoun confusion. This is pretty much how I recently interpreted it for Grade 8 at a girls' private school where I work. They grokked it straight away. But then I guess girls in Grade 8 elite private schools daydream about having parallel lives these days. 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
OK, that isn't the definition of atheist I have come across but if you are only using it in the weak sense of I don't positively believe in any god or gods then that's fine. Here for comparison purposes are the definitions from Wiktionary. I generally assume that definitions 1 or 3 are the most usual ones, for example I would assume Richard Dawkins generally subscribes to definition 1. (I'm not sure I even understand definition 2.) I guess you are adding a 5th definition, Someone who doesn't have a definite belief that deities do exist - which can include what I would generally think of as agnostic, in fact it's half the definition of an agnostic, which is someone who doesn't have a strong belief either way. 1. (narrowly) A person who believes that no deities http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deity exist (especially, one who has no other religious belief). [quotations ▼] 2. (broadly) A person who rejects belief that any deities exist (whether or not that person believes that deities do not exist). [quotations ▼] 3. (loosely http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/loosely#Adverb) A person who has no belief in any deities, such as a person who has no concept of deities. [quotations ▼] 4. (loosely http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/loosely#Adverb, uncommon) A person who does not believe in a particular deity (or any deity in a particular pantheon http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pantheon), notwithstanding that they may believe in another deity. I guess there is a sort of truth table involved here. Believe In God(s) existing = Theist Believe that no God(s) exist = (Strong) Atheist Don't believe or disbelieve In God(s) existing = Agnostic Don't believe in God(s) existing, and don't want to say whether or not they believe that God(s) don't exist = (Brent) Atheist I will try to bear that in mind in any future discussions. -- 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.
