Re: Fwd: Atheist
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. /So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject./ / / This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. 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: Atheist
Why do you need to see God to believe in God? On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject. This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. 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: Atheist
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ? Quentin On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. *So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject.* This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. 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. -- 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: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 14 July 2014 02:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I appreciate your granma level explication. I'm pleased. I sometimes find your prose difficult to parse. I'm not so pleased. Sorry :-( I must admit, parenthetically, that I don't always find it simple to reconcile the relative brevity demanded by these discussions with the parallel demand for clarity and lack of ambiguity. Thanks for persisting. But from the above I'm led to wonder whether you've actually read the MGA, I promise you I wouldn't have the temerity to base an argument on something I hadn't read. However, I haven't re-read it that recently. so I repeat them here for convenient reference: Thanks (re-reads) So contrary to your, Indeed the MGA itself exploits this basic insight by showing how relations originally accepted as computational can be entirely evacuated from a physical system whilst preserving the same net physical action (including, pace Brent, the same relations with a physical environment). in the argument the physical activity is evacuated (all the gates break down, it's only a movie) and the consciousness is (hypothetically) preserved. Well, this is obviously a case where I haven't succeeded in removing all possible ambiguity, so let me try to clarify. Both MGA1 and MGA2 accept logic gates as the physical embodiment of computation at the start. In both versions the original physical action of the gates is disrupted but in some way (fortuitous in MGA1 and pre-determined in MGA2) the overall net physical action of Alice's electronic or optical brain is preserved. Since Alice is awake in MGA1 it should be clear that in this case her physical relation with her environment (i.e. her performance in the exam) is also unaffected. This is slightly more opaque in MGA2 as she is now asleep and dreaming, but as Bruno points out this is merely a detail to simplify the exposition. It would be possible if more tedious to extend the argument of MGA2 to a scenario in which Alice is awake and both the net physical action of her brain and hence its relations with its physical environment are preserved. I hope it's now clearer what I meant. The computation is evacuated (because the logic gates that have been accepted as embodying it at the start have ceased to function as such) but the physical action is preserved (because the physical system embodying Alice's brain is contrived to evolve through the equivalent physical states, extending therefore to the equivalent relation with its physical environment). To put it in grandma terms again, in either MGA1 or a waking-version of MGA2, if you were to observe Alice throughout, you would be unable to notice any difference in her overt behaviour. So now you have to decide whether she has become a zombie. The reason I claim that my pet de-construction of the notion of physical computation is implicit in the MGA is simply that arguments like this (and you could construct alternatives) are designed to make it blindingly obvious that, ex hypothesi physicalism, physical action is always, in the final analysis, what really matters. What cannot then really matter is any supplementary attribution that may or may not be applied to that action after the fact, given that the net physical action is preserved. The question of whether or not we choose to grant or withhold the attribution of computation to the net physical action of Alice's brain is irrelevant as long as it is assumed (as it must be) to act under the sole constraint of physical law. The physical facts (at whatever level of description you choose) are that its net action is unaffected and as a consequence no observer can detect a difference either in Alice's overt behaviour or its putative meaning. Indeed the question we are faced with is: could she? In the end, the point is that, as you argue yourself, computation is a fundamentally mathematical (indeed an arithmetical) notion, not a physical one. This is really crux of your argument, and I find it appealing Yes, that's really the conclusion my de-constructive argument was aiming at. I'm interested in what you find appealing about it. but not absolutely convincing. I'm not sure I fully understand why, but I'll consider the reasons you set out below. As far as we know all computation is physically associated, including our thoughts about it being abstract and immaterial. Yes, but we must tread very carefully here. If we are scrupulous about sticking to an explanatory strategy based on physical reduction we are forced to accept that both computation and our thoughts about it being abstract and immaterial are fully accountable in terms of some sort of physical action. Whether we are then still justified, without tacit supplemental assumptions, in considering such a reduction as having retroactive explanatory relevance with respect to either computation, or our thoughts about it, is what is moot. And clearly computation as a whole is more extensive than
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
You both are so dumby stupids that are horrorizing your own comrades. Not for what you say, but because this hasn´t to be made explicit. 2014-07-13 14:30 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: Le 13 juil. 2014 14:22, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com a écrit : I see Ladies and gentleman: this is the shape of things to come. Nothing new under the sun. To appease your sadness, me and my evil friends will ensure you'll be the first to be our energy savior by doing a good firecamp. 2014-07-13 11:24 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: Le 13 juil. 2014 11:11, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com a écrit : No doubt you have evil inside. And your sense of humorI know some famous political psychopaths that would sign that joke. You're a joke. Don't like being called what you are? But you are not alone. That evil is a product of your ideology, the same ideology professed by all the planet saviors in this list and abroad. Perhaps you are more syncere. Some of your comrades would say that you are less intelligent in controlling your impulses. But really even if you said that, you are better person than your comrades, and maybe more capable to grasp one day the terrible consequences of this evil planetarian cult. 2014-07-13 10:54 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: Le 13 juil. 2014 10:34, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com a écrit : 2014-07-13 10:24 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: Le 13 juil. 2014 10:21, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com a écrit : Comrades: Textile plants demand also a lot of energy. Do will be allowed to dress the Mao suit at least? Just to know better what our Lords though for us, in order to love them even more. Don't be worried, fascists will be killed and burned (for energy efficiency maybe) ... so you should not worry about the kind of clothes you'll be allowed to put on. Enough said. Behind all your pseudointelectual masturbations, the above paragraph shows your real face Yeah I'm an evil communist that eat children and who solved our energy problem by burning humorless fascists like you. 2014-07-13 5:52 GMT+02:00, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 8:27 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? On 7/12/2014 4:37 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:43 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? I don't see people rushing into uranium and thorium power, nor, do I see fusion coming along in two decades. For spaceflight, yes, for commercial power, we just don't seem to be lucky with the physics of the universe. Perhaps new discoveries about stellar formation might finally boost things along, in 100 years. People are way too afraid of fission, and lets face it, its costs a bitch. Wind and sun are the only thing going forward, that seems with the grasp of the species, if only because theres lots of it out there to be harvested, and the price is right. What's killing it are 2 things. One is storage tech, for nights, wintertime, summer storms, smog. We need cheap reliable storage tech, plus we need quick transmission lines to pipe it where needed. The Germans developed some kind of closed cycle wind, sun, and methane (nat gas) for the inclement days. Sounds doable, and likely, affordable. Grid scale storage is one dimension - and this is needed not only for smoothing out intermittency, but also to demand shift away from peak load periods. The truth is that the grid is stressed to the breaking point by peak summer time load conditions and is ill equipped (as currently built) to handle surges etc. so that relatively small events can have massive consequences - such as region wide blackouts. Forward sited - in key distribution nodes at large urban centers of demand -- grid scale flow batteries (using low cost environmentally benign reagents stored in external tanks - they can scale out in capacity by adding more tanks. ) would be my choice. In this manner off peak supply could be forward stored at large
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
Do you like coconuts ? If so, you should really try to climb higher... Quentin 2014-07-14 15:42 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: You both are so dumby stupids that are horrorizing your own comrades. Not for what you say, but because this hasn´t to be made explicit. 2014-07-13 14:30 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: Le 13 juil. 2014 14:22, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com a écrit : I see Ladies and gentleman: this is the shape of things to come. Nothing new under the sun. To appease your sadness, me and my evil friends will ensure you'll be the first to be our energy savior by doing a good firecamp. 2014-07-13 11:24 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: Le 13 juil. 2014 11:11, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com a écrit : No doubt you have evil inside. And your sense of humorI know some famous political psychopaths that would sign that joke. You're a joke. Don't like being called what you are? But you are not alone. That evil is a product of your ideology, the same ideology professed by all the planet saviors in this list and abroad. Perhaps you are more syncere. Some of your comrades would say that you are less intelligent in controlling your impulses. But really even if you said that, you are better person than your comrades, and maybe more capable to grasp one day the terrible consequences of this evil planetarian cult. 2014-07-13 10:54 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: Le 13 juil. 2014 10:34, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com a écrit : 2014-07-13 10:24 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: Le 13 juil. 2014 10:21, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com a écrit : Comrades: Textile plants demand also a lot of energy. Do will be allowed to dress the Mao suit at least? Just to know better what our Lords though for us, in order to love them even more. Don't be worried, fascists will be killed and burned (for energy efficiency maybe) ... so you should not worry about the kind of clothes you'll be allowed to put on. Enough said. Behind all your pseudointelectual masturbations, the above paragraph shows your real face Yeah I'm an evil communist that eat children and who solved our energy problem by burning humorless fascists like you. 2014-07-13 5:52 GMT+02:00, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 8:27 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? On 7/12/2014 4:37 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:43 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? I don't see people rushing into uranium and thorium power, nor, do I see fusion coming along in two decades. For spaceflight, yes, for commercial power, we just don't seem to be lucky with the physics of the universe. Perhaps new discoveries about stellar formation might finally boost things along, in 100 years. People are way too afraid of fission, and lets face it, its costs a bitch. Wind and sun are the only thing going forward, that seems with the grasp of the species, if only because theres lots of it out there to be harvested, and the price is right. What's killing it are 2 things. One is storage tech, for nights, wintertime, summer storms, smog. We need cheap reliable storage tech, plus we need quick transmission lines to pipe it where needed. The Germans developed some kind of closed cycle wind, sun, and methane (nat gas) for the inclement days. Sounds doable, and likely, affordable. Grid scale storage is one dimension - and this is needed not only for smoothing out intermittency, but also to demand shift away from peak load periods. The truth is that the grid is stressed to the breaking point by peak summer time load conditions and is ill equipped (as currently built) to handle surges etc. so that relatively small events can have massive consequences - such as region wide blackouts. Forward sited - in key distribution nodes at large
Re: Atheist
Obviously you never seen Justin Beiber performing live. I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jul 14, 2014 2:14 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Atheist On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject. This would also includepolitical science, arts, gender studies, french literature.Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't buildbridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast?Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. 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: Atheist
On 13 Jul 2014, at 15:09, David Nyman wrote: On 12 July 2014 20:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Of course they wouldn't because 17 is a prime number is a tautology. It's true simply in virtue of it's meaning like x is x. But is it a fact about the world or just a fact about language? I must confess to being somewhat flabbergasted that we're still debating the semantics and metaphysical provenance of numbers as if it were in any way relevant to the fundamental topics under discussion. Agreed. especially that for numbers (or any Turing-complete theory), we know that if we assume less, we don't get them. In fact numbers are assumed in all (scientific) theories, and people nitpicking on them introduce useless metaphysics about them. Of course we can use the the vocabulary of numbers in everyday terms as a proxy for whatever practical grasp of mathematics has been achieved by humans as a product of their evolutionary engagement with their bodies and the wider environment. Many years ago I read a fascinating little book called The Psychology of Learning Mathematics, on that very topic. But I can't see in what way this is relevant to their role in the explanatory ontology of comp. What we call physical theory boils down, I guess, to the view that a particular, restricted class of *special* mathematical relations can ultimately be shown sufficient to derive all subsequent phenomena that require explanation. Comp, on the other hand, postulates that this apparently special class can be shown, more fundamentally, to be a spectrum of epistemological phenomena ultimately derivable from the implications of number relations alone. Of course, in either case, everything depends on the can be shown part and the extent to which this is achievable is the extent, in the end, to which anyone should take the putative ontologies seriously. Can be shown? Perhaps. But UDA shows that it *must* be shown, and if it can't, then comp is refuted. Then the AUDA shows that a quantum quantization obeying Quantum logic (as far as we know for now) appears exactly where UDA says that it must appear (the logic of the measure 1). Perhaps it's a little ironical that, these days, both cosmological and micro-physical theorising (at least in certain circles) seem to be converging. like comp, on a species of observer-selection as a means of justifying their putatively special class (or now classes) of ultimate physical relations. Only comp, AFAICT, has focused specifically on the *mechanics of observation* as central in such selection, or on number relations simpliciter as its ultimately sufficient combinatorial ontology. But my point remains, that in any other respects than those stated above, arguments over the metaphysical provenance of numbers, just like those over that of material stuff, are beside the point. OK. Bruno David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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: Atheist
On 14 Jul 2014, at 08:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject. This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. I have never seen a number, either, nor Arithmetical Truth (Comp's notion of the outer god, or Plotinus' one). Nor did I ever seen a physical universe. I can see objects here and there, but not *a* physical universe. But I might conceive one, perhaps. Besides, for a platonist seeing is not a proof of existence, only a proof of a personal hallucination, which might, or not, have a relation with some possible reality. I can see pink elephant sometimes :) God, for a platonist, is only a nickname for a transcendental concept capable of justifying and unifying everything, a bit like the class of all sets in set theory. You don't need to see that to conceive it might make sense, and that many question in theology are just open problems. Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God hallucination, there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). To hallucinate the outer God is rather rare, but to get the feeling of awakening of the Inner God is quite common through such technics. Again, I insist, such hallucinations are neither proof, nor evidence, but can be a sufficiently overwhelming experience as making an atheist doubting (that is: becoming scientific on that question). You will see many reports relating this on Erowid, for example. 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: Atheist
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:09, Samiya Illias wrote: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? Good point, especially coming from a literalist :) I agree that God, actually like a Universe, is not seeable. To see a universe, you would need to send photons, or some thing, to it, and see how that is reflected. Those type of beings are either inferred in some 3p way, or intuited in some 1p way, and not only we can't prove them to exist or to make sense, but we cannot provide any 3p exhaustive description. It is the same for arithmetical truth, and provably so if we assume that we are Turing emulable. I do think we might be able to awake the God in us, but that leads to a first person experience, which, like consciousness, cannot belong to a publicly available set of genuine scientific sharable evidences. Yet, such experiences can still be personally life changing, like with near death experiences, or with LSD, or salvia, etc. Bruno On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject. This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. 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- l...@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: Atheist
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should
you believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that
you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because
it fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0,
1, 2, ...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes
sense, as it explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to
believe (like the non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of
universal numbers, the real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what
doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a
podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all.
Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature.
I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
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-
l...@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.
--
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.
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: Atheist
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that you
know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because it
fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
*So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.*
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french
literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build
bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the
goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run
a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
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.
--
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.
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.
--
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 will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I saw that webpage, but it didn't quote anything, nor give any form of justification. [...] I'm thinking that the velocity factor needed to compute maximum power ought to perhaps be exhaust gas velocity anyway. It seems likely to me that aircraft engines should be able to increase exhaust velocity and correspondingly reduce thrust as velocity increases, keeping power constant You don't need to consider any of that to see if the figure I used, 140 megawatts of average power, is in the right ballpark needed to keep a 747 in the air. At takeoff a 747 can hold 60,000 gallons of gasoline and stay in the air for about 12 hours, so that's about 5000 gallons a hour. One gallon of gas contains 34,000 watt hours of energy. So 34,000 watt hours /gallon * 5000 gallons/hour = 170 megawatts. So it looks like my estimate that if you want to go with solar then a factory that covered 6 square miles of the Earth’s surface would be needed to keep just one 747 in the air may have been a a bit on the low side. 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: Atheist
On 14-Jul-2014, at 11:25 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that you
know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
because, if there is more than just this terrestrial life, your eternity might
depend upon your belief, motives and consequent actions
Samiya
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because it
fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french
literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build
bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for
the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run
a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
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.
--
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.
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.
--
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.
--
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: Atheist
2014-07-14 17:50 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
On 14-Jul-2014, at 11:25 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that
you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
because, if there is more than just this terrestrial life, your eternity
might depend upon your belief, motives and consequent actions
Why should it depend if I believe or not ??
Samiya
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because it
fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
*So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.*
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't
build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce
for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've
run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
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.
--
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.
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.
--
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.
--
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
Re: Atheist
On 14-Jul-2014, at 11:08 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:09, Samiya Illias wrote: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? Good point, especially coming from a literalist :) :) I agree that God, actually like a Universe, is not seeable. at least not by temporary mortal beings such as the human body we are (in) now To see a universe, you would need to send photons, or some thing, to it, and see how that is reflected. Interesting point. Since God is described as Noor (spiritual light) in the Quran, I suppose we can't really see light by shining light on it, especially if both are colourless, or same colour... Those type of beings are either inferred in some 3p way, or intuited in some 1p way, and not only we can't prove them to exist or to make sense, but we cannot provide any 3p exhaustive description. It is the same for arithmetical truth, and provably so if we assume that we are Turing emulable. I do think we might be able to awake the God in us, but that leads to a first person experience, which, like consciousness, cannot belong to a publicly available set of genuine scientific sharable evidences. Agree, such experiences are deeply personal and they cannot be proved. However, there has to be some way of examining whether such experience is genuinely a God experience or something else. If God, while creating everything, has paid attention to the finest detail such as DNA coding and quarks and strings, then why is it so difficult or impossible that God would also give us a user manual (guide/scripture) along with this trial (life)? Samiya Yet, such experiences can still be personally life changing, like with near death experiences, or with LSD, or salvia, etc. Bruno On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject. This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. 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. 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. -- 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 will air travel work in a green solar economy?
A few small jets for the world elite and their big families would be enough. The few millions TV watchers remaining from the depopulation, indoctrinated and impoverished, will applaud to the passing jets in the ground. 2014-07-14 17:51 GMT+02:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I saw that webpage, but it didn't quote anything, nor give any form of justification. [...] I'm thinking that the velocity factor needed to compute maximum power ought to perhaps be exhaust gas velocity anyway. It seems likely to me that aircraft engines should be able to increase exhaust velocity and correspondingly reduce thrust as velocity increases, keeping power constant You don't need to consider any of that to see if the figure I used, 140 megawatts of average power, is in the right ballpark needed to keep a 747 in the air. At takeoff a 747 can hold 60,000 gallons of gasoline and stay in the air for about 12 hours, so that's about 5000 gallons a hour. One gallon of gas contains 34,000 watt hours of energy. So 34,000 watt hours /gallon * 5000 gallons/hour = 170 megawatts. So it looks like my estimate that if you want to go with solar then a factory that covered 6 square miles of the Earth’s surface would be needed to keep just one 747 in the air may have been a a bit on the low side. 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. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
Among the grateful TV watchers, the comrades chris solar Morsella and Quentin Burner anciaux will enjoy a good life as eco-policemen and will be allowed to earn an motorcycle build on Cuba that will produce healty proletarian smog. 2014-07-14 18:31 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: A few small jets for the world elite and their big families would be enough. The few millions TV watchers remaining from the depopulation, indoctrinated and impoverished, will applaud to the passing jets in the ground. 2014-07-14 17:51 GMT+02:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I saw that webpage, but it didn't quote anything, nor give any form of justification. [...] I'm thinking that the velocity factor needed to compute maximum power ought to perhaps be exhaust gas velocity anyway. It seems likely to me that aircraft engines should be able to increase exhaust velocity and correspondingly reduce thrust as velocity increases, keeping power constant You don't need to consider any of that to see if the figure I used, 140 megawatts of average power, is in the right ballpark needed to keep a 747 in the air. At takeoff a 747 can hold 60,000 gallons of gasoline and stay in the air for about 12 hours, so that's about 5000 gallons a hour. One gallon of gas contains 34,000 watt hours of energy. So 34,000 watt hours /gallon * 5000 gallons/hour = 170 megawatts. So it looks like my estimate that if you want to go with solar then a factory that covered 6 square miles of the Earth’s surface would be needed to keep just one 747 in the air may have been a a bit on the low side. 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. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com You both are so dumby stupids that are horrorizing your own comrades. Not for what you say, but because this hasn´t to be made explicit. You denounce us evil planetarians, with such burning eloquence, Alberto with a caustic wit that gives a clear indication of your formidable intellect. I feel so chastised. Chris (having a little fun with crazy old uncle Alberto) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 14 Jul 2014, at 02:38, David Nyman wrote: On 13 July 2014 22:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Well, if you still hold to your earlier opinion, you should agree that, in terms of an explanatory hierarchy based on an ontology of molecular kinetics, temperature must be considered to have been eliminated *ontologically* (i.e. to have been revealed as *nothing more than* the underlying kinetics). I can, and see what you mean, but I prefer not, because I am realist on the relations and higher 3p description too. Well, I'm still not really convinced that the fundamental assumptions of physical reduction justify your realism on the higher-level descriptions. I see, and perhaps I should not have made that remark here, as it is distracting from the issue that you discuss with Brent. I really don't think it is important (here). But actually I'm not even sure that one need insist on this to stop the notion of physical computation dead in its tracks. But only through the MGA, because at step seven, we might still, from a logical point of view, make a move toward the assumption that the real physical is not robust enough to run a significant part of the UD*. Of course that move is ad hoc, and then MGA attempts to show how much that move is ad hoc. But the existence or not of high level 3p objects is not really relevant to kill the notion of physical computation, or of primitively physical entities. And of course if one can do this then it must also, a fortiori, put a stop to any idea of linking any such notion with consciousness. This reductio was really the point of my argument and if I had to sum it up for grandma I would say that the key idea is just that, ex hypothesi physicalism, action of any sort and at whatever level of description must always be reducible to *physical action simpliciter*. So accepting physics as a TOE is equivalent to accepting both that no possible action can be omitted from its explanatory scope and that no further class of action need be appealed to in accounting for any physical state of affairs. I think from that one can already get the idea that, under such assumptions, supplementary notions such as computation are simply *redundant* in explaining physical action. Indeed the MGA itself exploits this basic insight by showing how relations originally accepted as computational can be entirely evacuated from a physical system whilst preserving the same net physical action (including, pace Brent, the same relations with a physical environment). Even in the case that we accept a notion of physical computation as an a posteriori attribution, that attribution cannot retrospectively be accepted as adding anything to the exhaustive reductive hierarchy of the physical object or system in question. To put it baldly, under physicalism, a PC or a brain is, at whatever level of description, a physical object first last and always. Any action associated with that object must, under the same assumptions, be exhaustively reducible to the explanatory basement of physical entities and relations. Such explanations are bottom up all the way down. Hence there is simply no place in that explanatory hierarchy for any supplementary notion of computation distinguishable from what is already fully embodied in physical action. Hmm... You do the non relevant mistake again (or I misinterpret you badly). I am afraid that what you say here for physics can be applied to arithmetic too. As long as we are interested only in 3p descriptions, with comp, (and with or without physicalism) we do explain completely the observable or describable action. If my goal is to predicted which next move Deep Blue, the chess program, will do, I can contend myself to start from its state description at the boolean gate level, and explain (even predict if I am quick enough, or if Deep Blue is put in pause!) the next move by just applying (a lot of times) the logical rules of the NOR, and its delays, like in principles, I can predict that Jeanne will put her hands quickly out of the fire, by solving the quantum many body problems involved at some low level. This in my opinion already does not eliminate the reality of the 3p high level description, but of course constitutes a threat to eliminate the role of consciousness. Here physicalism fails, almost because it is not interested in consciousness. Here QM (and especially Everett-QM) should open the mind of the physicists that such a reductionism mind = brain state is failing. With comp, in UDA, the mind-body problem is shown to give this new problem: explaining why apparently some sophisticated long quantum histories (the making of special universe numbers) have won the competition between all computations (as simpler concept definable in arithmetic, already assumed at some level by the physicists). At that stage, it is unclear if a solution of that problem (which would explain
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On 7/14/2014 6:42 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: You both are so dumby stupids that are horrorizing your own comrades. Not for what you say, but because this hasn´t to be made explicit. Looks like Alberto is off his meds again - and off topic. 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 will air travel work in a green solar economy?
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Among the grateful TV watchers, the comrades chris solar Morsella and Quentin Burner anciaux will enjoy a good life as eco-policemen and will be allowed to earn an motorcycle build on Cuba that will produce healty proletarian smog. Aren't we lucky! More of these Alberto G. Corona gems, the product of what can only be described as a profound intelligence with a biting wit. Do continue, please, Alberto, help brighten my day with your crushing sarcasm. Instruct me how an intellectual giant -- such as you, doubtless must be -- deals with annoying uppity riff raff, who have the gall to suggest we live in the biosphere of a planet with -- who would have thought -- physical limits. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 7/14/2014 6:42 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: You both are so dumby stupids that are horrorizing your own comrades. Not for what you say, but because this hasn´t to be made explicit. Looks like Alberto is off his meds again - and off topic. Brent He is is in full on fulminous form... for sure. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 8:51 AM Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I saw that webpage, but it didn't quote anything, nor give any form of justification. [...] I'm thinking that the velocity factor needed to compute maximum power ought to perhaps be exhaust gas velocity anyway. It seems likely to me that aircraft engines should be able to increase exhaust velocity and correspondingly reduce thrust as velocity increases, keeping power constant You don't need to consider any of that to see if the figure I used, 140 megawatts of average power, is in the right ballpark needed to keep a 747 in the air. At takeoff a 747 can hold 60,000 gallons of gasoline and stay in the air for about 12 hours, so that's about 5000 gallons a hour. One gallon of gas contains 34,000 watt hours of energy. So 34,000 watt hours /gallon * 5000 gallons/hour = 170 megawatts. So it looks like my estimate that if you want to go with solar then a factory that covered 6 square miles of the Earth’s surface would be needed to keep just one 747 in the air may have been a a bit on the low side. It seems rather more likely that jet fuel will be provided by synthetic (engineered) algae grown in hot desert areas using brackish -- or sea -- water ill suited for agriculture on land that cannot be used for agricultural purposes -- because it is dry desert. The United States actually is fortunate to have some of the world's best areas for producing these types of algae biofuels -- in certain regions of southern Arizona (and in Sonora state in Mexico as well) that have large brackish saline aquifers (or are near the sea) and have some of the worlds best solar profiles and critically stay hot throughout the night -- this is important to produce high yields (40+ metric tons of biofuel per hectare). These biofuels could be burned pretty much as is in current jet engines. Chris John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Brent's circular ontology [was: Is Consciousness Computable?]
On 14 Jul 2014, at 02:07, meekerdb wrote: On 7/13/2014 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then, look at my preceding post to you. I don't know for Tegmark, but computationalism excels in differentiating and relating the different sort of existence: ontological, epistemological, observational, communicable or not, theological, etc. Lists like this that subscribe to everythingism Bruno's comp and Tegmark's MUH completely erase the boundary between math and physics. On the contrary, Comp introduces a clear distinction between the physical, core of all universal being, and the geographical, which are the contingencies of the normal universal numbers living above their substitution level. Physics is done today is just fuzzy about such distinction. That would be a nice result. How does it differentiate different sorts existence? ExP(x)(the arithmetical usual sense. It means that ExP(x) is true if there is number n such that P(n). It is the chosen ontology, although we could have taken any other first order specification of a universal base) Modal nuances: []ExP(x) []Ex[]P(x) []ExP(x) []Ex[]P(x) With either [] () being the box (diamond) of the modal logics G, G*, S4Grz, , Z, Z*, X, X*, G1, G1*, S4Grz1, Z1, Z1*, X1, X1*. Notions of physical existences are given by []Ex[]P(x) in the S4Grz1, Z1*, and X1* logics. Those logics are quantum logics. They are graded, as the logic of []p p, or [][]p p, and any []^n p ^m p gives a quantum logic when n m. In french, the basic ontology is given by the arithmetical existence of numbers, and the physical existence is given by the quantization provided by incompleteness on the consistent RE or sigma_1 extensions, as viewed from some machine points of view. Physics is the science of measurement of possibly alternated results (like W and M, in step 3 and 4, and like other computational states in the step seven generalization where the FPI is on UD*, or any sigma_1 complete reality). All the boxes of G, G*, ... X1*, can be defined either in arithmetic, or in higher level arithmetical term, like the []p p. 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: Atheist
On 7/14/2014 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jul 2014, at 15:09, David Nyman wrote: On 12 July 2014 20:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Of course they wouldn't because 17 is a prime number is a tautology. It's true simply in virtue of it's meaning like x is x. But is it a fact about the world or just a fact about language? I must confess to being somewhat flabbergasted that we're still debating the semantics and metaphysical provenance of numbers as if it were in any way relevant to the fundamental topics under discussion. Agreed. especially that for numbers (or any Turing-complete theory), we know that if we assume less, we don't get them. In fact numbers are assumed in all (scientific) theories, and people nitpicking on them introduce useless metaphysics about them. I don't know of any scientific theory that usese infinitely many integers. 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: Atheist
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? You don't. To believe in God all that is needed in 99 times out of 100 is for your mommy and daddy to tell you that there is a God. Not only that but your mommy and daddy will tell you which particular God franchise is the one true franchise and the chances are overwhelming that is the one you will belong to for your entire life. Why else do you think geography has so much to do with religious belief? 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: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: So it looks like my estimate that if you want to go with solar then a factory that covered 6 square miles of the Earth’s surface would be needed to keep just one 747 in the air may have been a a bit on the low side. It seems rather more likely that jet fuel will be provided by synthetic (engineered) algae grown in hot desert areas using brackish -- or sea -- water The efficiency of photosynthesis at capturing the sun's energy is between 3% and 6% depending on the particular plant, the efficiency of my solar cells was 15%. So to keep just one 747 in the air you will need either 6 square miles of solar cells or about 18 square miles of nasty algae ponds. Do you really thing such a monstrosity would be a lesser insult to the land than one LFTR which would have a footprint that was smaller by a factor of more than a million? 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: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
Until the pay out machine stops. Things will shudder for the gated communities before then. My guess will be that the foreign policy stuff, that's not included in the environmentalist world view, or the community organizers, visions. History will come a-calling, like in 2001, simply because the elites policies have opened up targeting opportunities, from hostiles. Most likely Islamists and or, North Koreans. Time will tell if this prediction comes to naught, or changes our world. A few small jets for the world elite and their big families would be enough. The few millions TV watchers remaining from the depopulation, indoctrinated and impoverished, will applaud to the passing jets in the ground. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jul 14, 2014 12:31 pm Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? A few small jets for the world elite and their big families would be enough. The few millions TV watchers remaining from the depopulation, indoctrinated and impoverished, will applaud to the passing jets in the ground. 2014-07-14 17:51 GMT+02:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I saw that webpage, but it didn't quote anything, nor give any form of justification. [...] I'm thinking that the velocity factor needed to compute maximum power ought to perhaps be exhaust gas velocity anyway. It seems likely to me that aircraft engines should be able to increase exhaust velocity and correspondingly reduce thrust as velocity increases, keeping power constant You don't need to consider any of that to see if the figure I used, 140 megawatts of average power, is in the right ballpark needed to keep a 747 in the air. At takeoff a 747 can hold 60,000 gallons of gasoline and stay in the air for about 12 hours, so that's about 5000 gallons a hour. One gallon of gas contains 34,000 watt hours of energy. So 34,000 watt hours /gallon * 5000 gallons/hour = 170 megawatts. So it looks like my estimate that if you want to go with solar then a factory that covered 6 square miles of the Earth’s surface would be needed to keep just one 747 in the air may have been a a bit on the low side. 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. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 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: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On 7/14/2014 8:51 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I saw that webpage, but it didn't quote anything, nor give any form of justification. [...] I'm thinking that the velocity factor needed to compute maximum power ought to perhaps be exhaust gas velocity anyway. It seems likely to me that aircraft engines should be able to increase exhaust velocity and correspondingly reduce thrust as velocity increases, keeping power constant You don't need to consider any of that to see if the figure I used, 140 megawatts of average power, is in the right ballpark needed to keep a 747 in the air. At takeoff a 747 can hold 60,000 gallons of gasoline and stay in the air for about 12 hours, so that's about 5000 gallons a hour. One gallon of gas contains 34,000 watt hours of energy. So 34,000 watt hours /gallon * 5000 gallons/hour = 170 megawatts. That's the thermal power. Converting it to mechanical power is not very efficient, which is why only 57MW is needed for cruise. Electrical power is lower entropy and much more efficiently converted to mechanical power. David McKay has explicitly addressed air travel in his analysis of what it would take to get off fossil fuel. http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml He does it on a person-year basis and assumes one long international flight per year (to South Africa), which requires 30kWh/d each year or an average solar energy collection of 30/24=1.25KW a square meter receives 0.2KW of solar power, so assuming 10% efficiency each person would need 60m^2 of PV to support their once-a-year air travel. That's about the area of my garage roof. Note that in McKay's estimate, which is for U.K. citizens, that one airline flight, makes up 15% of the total energy budget for their existence including food, heating, manufacturing, and transport of stuff. Brent So it looks like my estimate that if you want to go with solar then a factory that covered 6 square miles of the Earth’s surface would be needed to keep just one 747 in the air may have been a a bit on the low side. 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Brent's circular ontology [was: Is Consciousness Computable?]
On 7/14/2014 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jul 2014, at 02:07, meekerdb wrote: On 7/13/2014 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then, look at my preceding post to you. I don't know for Tegmark, but computationalism excels in differentiating and relating the different sort of existence: ontological, epistemological, observational, communicable or not, theological, etc. Lists like this that subscribe to everythingism Bruno's comp and Tegmark's MUH completely erase the boundary between math and physics. On the contrary, Comp introduces a clear distinction between the physical, core of all universal being, and the geographical, which are the contingencies of the normal universal numbers living above their substitution level. Physics is done today is just fuzzy about such distinction. That would be a nice result. How does it differentiate different sorts existence? ExP(x)(the arithmetical usual sense. It means that ExP(x) is true if there is number n such that P(n). It is the chosen ontology, although we could have taken any other first order specification of a universal base) Modal nuances: []ExP(x) []Ex[]P(x) []ExP(x) []Ex[]P(x) With either [] () being the box (diamond) of the modal logics G, G*, S4Grz, , Z, Z*, X, X*, G1, G1*, S4Grz1, Z1, Z1*, X1, X1*. Notions of physical existences are given by []Ex[]P(x) in the S4Grz1, Z1*, and X1* logics. Those logics are quantum logics. They are graded, as the logic of []p p, or [][]p p, and any []^n p ^m p gives a quantum logic when n m. Hmmm. I think I will have to take your course in modal logic before those become clear to me. Brent In french, the basic ontology is given by the arithmetical existence of numbers, and the physical existence is given by the quantization provided by incompleteness on the consistent RE or sigma_1 extensions, as viewed from some machine points of view. Physics is the science of measurement of possibly alternated results (like W and M, in step 3 and 4, and like other computational states in the step seven generalization where the FPI is on UD*, or any sigma_1 complete reality). All the boxes of G, G*, ... X1*, can be defined either in arithmetic, or in higher level arithmetical term, like the []p p. 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: You don't need to consider any of that to see if the figure I used, 140 megawatts of average power, is in the right ballpark needed to keep a 747 in the air. At takeoff a 747 can hold 60,000 gallons of gasoline and stay in the air for about 12 hours, so that's about 5000 gallons a hour. One gallon of gas contains 34,000 watt hours of energy. So 34,000 watt hours /gallon * 5000 gallons/hour = 170 megawatts. That's the thermal power. Converting it to mechanical power is [blah blah] That doesn't matter! Regardless of how it is produced to keep a 747 in the air for one hour you're going to need to burn 6000 gallons of chemical fuel, and you'd need 6 square miles of solar cells to make 144000 gallons of chemical fuel every 24 hours. Electrical power is lower entropy and much more efficiently converted to mechanical power. Yes but you can't run a 747 with electricity, you need chemical fuel and you need to burn it. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
Liz - again my whining about semantix: what would you call (to) - - - k n o w - - - ??? A fetus 'knows' to circualte blood, carry out growing processes, (I am not so sure about instincts) - what I referred to (and as I underwtand Samiya used a similar understanding) was MENTAL activity as observable in humans - after birth and developmental steps. (Of course: what is 'mental'?) I would restrict now my agnostically unrestricted ignorance to the 'scientific' as the functions of the human brain.) (Samiya's verse reflects to a bit more, I suppose). On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 6:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: A foetus knows various things, called instincts. -- 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: Pluto bounces back!
Thank you, Samiya. I was afraid you wrote me off. John On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Dear John, In our last exchange, you had mentioned that a fetus does not know anything, and I had wondered whether it was so. Just now I came across this verse (Quran 16:79) English-Pickthall translation __ And Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers knowing nothing, and gave you hearing and sight and hearts that haply ye might give thanks. Sent using alQuran. http://iphone.almubin.com/alQuran On 02-Jul-2014, at 6:42 pm, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:46 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Samiya: I don't argue with you (like PGC) I ask a question going back further than this entire discussion: you wrote: *I could say that as I studied and observed the beauty and the patterns in nature, the finest details, I became convinced that there had to be a Creator behind it, but that also only vindicated my belief... I could think that may be since I was born in the faith, perhaps that's why it was natural, but I was asking questions, and I must admit, sometimes even fantasising how it would have been to be born in another faith or culture... I can say that the trials and experiences of life brought me closer to God, made me study the faith earnestly, and helped me discover the endless patience and my loving God through it all. Yet, I think, the latent belief was there all along, it was only my conscious self which took its own sweet time to realise and appreciate it! Whatever may the reason be, I'm glad that I'm a believer, and I lovingly worship my Creator.* A simple question: Do you have any idea why and how you 'formulated' in your conscious self the idea of a god? You mention since I was born in the faith... - nonsense, nobody has been born in any thinking decision, a newborn gradually develops ideas about the world (god, or no god) and a fetus has even less thoughts. You were born without faith, or ideas of god, just as people are born pagan before they get circumcised, or baptised. You must have absorbed the first faith-related ideas from your mother as a little ignorant infant when she prayed. The rest comes from here. Once you started believing in 'GOD' it is but a small step to believe that (s)he wrote the scripts and all the rest religion*S *include. With Inquisition, Jihad, reincarnation etc. I do not know if a fetus does or does not have any thoughts or ideas at birth, maybe its as fearful of entering the world outside the womb as we are of the hereafter. Indeed, parents/family do have a keen impression on a child. Yes, I was born in a conservative, practicing muslim family, hence my earliest impressions must be from my mother. I do think my father's quest for truth had a more lasting and formative impression on my thinking and beliefs. When I was about ten, plus minus a couple of years, my father turned religious. About the same time, someone tried to convert my father to another faith. An elderly person, he started visiting us every weekend. Initially, my father would just listen to him out of courtesy, but eventually he realized that it is important to seek the truth. Hence, he started researching the scriptures, including the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Quran, as well as other books. This opened up a whole new world where the conservatives are fearful of treading, lest they lose their way. Though it was much later that I would read them for myself, I learnt to be open to various faiths and belief systems, while still a child, by observing my father. And now the REAL question I want to ask: We (scientists? mainly) know about zillions of galaxies, zillions of starsystems in all of them, many planets with those z^z^n stars capable of supporting some *bio* of their own circumstances, many-many of them potentially leading to thinking units. Are we the ones selected from all those to be the sole God's Children, or *all* of them are entitled to Her care and particular fitting rules? We are all God's creations, not God's children. No, we are not 'selected from all those to be the sole God's Children ', but, according to the Quran, we have been selected above a greater part of creation. There exist other beings who are 'greater' than humans, such as the 'exalted assembly' mentioned in the Quran (37:8 and 38:69) All creation is, bio or non-bio, willing or unwilling, and in gratitude or not, under God's care and rule. But the question goes on: how about the animals? are they God's children as we are, or are they just fodder? and please, do not stop here: PLANTS have a similar DNA-based *bio* to ours and to most animals' so they may also claim to be God's Children? Some animals are hard to distinguish from humans, in certain characteristics. If we go into that: how about insects,
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 11:27 AM Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: So it looks like my estimate that if you want to go with solar then a factory that covered 6 square miles of the Earth’s surface would be needed to keep just one 747 in the air may have been a a bit on the low side. It seems rather more likely that jet fuel will be provided by synthetic (engineered) algae grown in hot desert areas using brackish -- or sea -- water The efficiency of photosynthesis at capturing the sun's energy is between 3% and 6% depending on the particular plant, the efficiency of my solar cells was 15%. So to keep just one 747 in the air you will need either 6 square miles of solar cells or about 18 square miles of nasty algae ponds. Do you really thing such a monstrosity would be a lesser insult to the land than one LFTR which would have a footprint that was smaller by a factor of more than a million? John K Clark Algae biofuels can be produced on land that is currently producing nothing. Each square kilometer of barren desert land (+ a source of slat or brackish water that cannot be used for growing crops) can yield 4,000+ tons of high grade jet fuel per year... worth at current market prices around $4 million. Though algae biofuels are quite ready for prime time yet -- as I mentioned there are still problems harvesting the green goo and squeezing the valuable oil (and other by-products) out of it... but it surely holds promise as a potential source of high quality liquid hydrocarbon. Have you driven through the deserts of Arizona or Sonora state in Mexico lately -- empty desert land is not exactly in short supply... you know. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 14 July 2014 18:26, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Such explanations are bottom up all the way down. Hence there is simply no place in that explanatory hierarchy for any supplementary notion of computation distinguishable from what is already fully embodied in physical action. Hmm... You do the non relevant mistake again (or I misinterpret you badly). I am afraid that what you say here for physics can be applied to arithmetic too. No doubt I may be mistaken (I'm trying to be clear enough to be wrong). Computation per se may indeed be reducible to just the basic number relations, in something like the sense that matter, under physicalism (phys), is reducible to just the basic physical relations. But ISTM, that comp is redeemed from (or as you say vaccinated against) reduction (and by the same token zombie-hood) by the irreducible emergence of the internal views. It is much more difficult to see how phys can be redeemed in any comparable way without resorting at least tacitly to comp (at which point the difficulties begin anew). This in my opinion already does not eliminate the reality of the 3p high level description, but of course constitutes a threat to eliminate the role of consciousness. But do you think that the 3p high-level description would be equally real if (somehow) it were not ultimately redeemable by the internal views (e.g. if, counter-factually, my own high-level 3p description merely resulted in zombie-hood)? Here physicalism fails, almost because it is not interested in consciousness. Here QM (and especially Everett-QM) should open the mind of the physicists that such a reductionism mind = brain state is failing. Yes, this is the point I have been making for some time now. But the machine itself has a natural knower associated to it. Forgive me for not commenting more extensively on your remarks (which I will study) but this seems to me to be the absolutely capital point. ISTM above all else that a natural knower is the crux of the redemption of the first person from exhaustive physical reduction and effective elimination. It's precisely the radical absence of such a natural knower in the reductive hierarchy of phys - indeed the irrelevance of such a knower to its defining mode of explanation - that I've continually had in mind. Of course, it may still seem open to phys to make a grab for the knower associated to the machine, unless the conjunction of comp and phys can be shown to be incompatible, or at least lead to the explanatory irrelevance of the latter. I can understand your attitude here, and I draw the same conclusion, but I still think it a pity to miss any potential opportunity to de-construct the notion of physical computation in its own terms. All right, just be careful to not de-construct 3p computer science and 3p-number theory in the same élan :) Hmm.. that would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed. However, as I've said, ISTM that comp, unlike phys, has the internal resources to resist any analogous de-construction. David On 14 Jul 2014, at 02:38, David Nyman wrote: On 13 July 2014 22:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Well, if you still hold to your earlier opinion, you should agree that, in terms of an explanatory hierarchy based on an ontology of molecular kinetics, temperature must be considered to have been eliminated *ontologically* (i.e. to have been revealed as *nothing more than* the underlying kinetics). I can, and see what you mean, but I prefer not, because I am realist on the relations and higher 3p description too. Well, I'm still not really convinced that the fundamental assumptions of physical reduction justify your realism on the higher-level descriptions. I see, and perhaps I should not have made that remark here, as it is distracting from the issue that you discuss with Brent. I really don't think it is important (here). But actually I'm not even sure that one need insist on this to stop the notion of physical computation dead in its tracks. But only through the MGA, because at step seven, we might still, from a logical point of view, make a move toward the assumption that the real physical is not robust enough to run a significant part of the UD*. Of course that move is ad hoc, and then MGA attempts to show how much that move is ad hoc. But the existence or not of high level 3p objects is not really relevant to kill the notion of physical computation, or of primitively physical entities. And of course if one can do this then it must also, a fortiori, put a stop to any idea of linking any such notion with consciousness. This reductio was really the point of my argument and if I had to sum it up for grandma I would say that the key idea is just that, ex hypothesi physicalism, action of any sort and at whatever level of description must always be reducible to *physical action simpliciter*. So accepting physics as a TOE is equivalent to accepting both that no
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 11:52 AM Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: You don't need to consider any of that to see if the figure I used, 140 megawatts of average power, is in the right ballpark needed to keep a 747 in the air. At takeoff a 747 can hold 60,000 gallons of gasoline and stay in the air for about 12 hours, so that's about 5000 gallons a hour. One gallon of gas contains 34,000 watt hours of energy. So 34,000 watt hours /gallon * 5000 gallons/hour = 170 megawatts. That's the thermal power. Converting it to mechanical power is [blah blah] That doesn't matter! Regardless of how it is produced to keep a 747 in the air for one hour you're going to need to burn 6000 gallons of chemical fuel, and you'd need 6 square miles of solar cells to make 144000 gallons of chemical fuel every 24 hours. Electrical power is lower entropy and much more efficiently converted to mechanical power. Yes but you can't run a 747 with electricity, you need chemical fuel and you need to burn it. John K Clark If the gravinometric/volumetric density of batteries improves by a factor of eight or so times then all-electric systems become feasible -- because electric motors are so much more efficient at converting potential energy stored in the batteries into mechanical energy. But, this is at least a few decades off and may not be achievable, which is why I think the unique high quality energy needs of air travel will need to be met with increasing quantities of biofuels added to the existing (and diminishing) fossil supplies. Increasingly jet fuel will be blended with added biofuel IMO. Virgin airways is looking at Palm Oil -- yield around 25 Mt/ha per year -- and highly destructive of important habitat and tropical forest. I believe algea biofuels -- grown on barren hot low desert land that has no other practical use, with the exception of being used directly for solar CSP or PV capture -- are superior, both because they do not destroy important habitats and forest systems (as Palm Oil plantations do) and also because they promise per hectare yields two or more times higher than Palm Oil yields. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:15 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Though algae biofuels are quite ready for prime time yet [...] Biofuel is the fuel of the future, and always will be. And Chris, 18 square miles of stinking unpleasant algae ponds for each 747 just isn't going to work. 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: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 12:29 PM Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:15 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.comwrote: Though algae biofuels are quite ready for prime time yet [...] Biofuel is the fuel of the future, and always will be. And Chris, 18 square miles of stinking unpleasant algae ponds for each 747 just isn't going to work. John K Clark Biofuel is definitely not the fuel of the future for ground transportation where energy density is far less critical than it is for air travel. For ground transportation I see no reason why all electric vehicles will not gradually replace fossil fuel burning ones as in fact they already are beginning to do. See more and more all electric Nissan Leafs Teslas where I live. 18 square miles of empty Arizona desert could yield around two hundred thousand tons of high grade jet quality biofuel. Does a 747, during normal operation, burn 200,000 tons of fuel a year? I think your numbers are off. A 747 jet burns approximately 36,000 gallons of jet fuel for a 10 hour flight. If it was flying continuously for twenty hours a day 365 days a year that would burn through around 100,000 metric tons. Jets do not fly continuously -- or even for 20 hours a dayX365 days a year so in actual usage a 747 probably burns through maybe 60,000 metric tons of fuel a year. Just fifteen square kilometers of algae biofuels grown in barren desert land using salt water would be enough to power a 747 jet for a year. This is approximately one third the area you said would be required. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
Even more to the point, Alberto, I just saw this headline. What does this speak to you? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/10965887/People-who-claim-to-worry-about-climate-change-use-more-electricity.html -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jul 14, 2014 12:43 pm Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? Among the grateful TV watchers, the comrades chris solar Morsella and Quentin Burner anciaux will enjoy a good life as eco-policemen and will be allowed to earn an motorcycle build on Cuba that will produce healty proletarian smog. 2014-07-14 18:31 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: A few small jets for the world elite and their big families would be enough. The few millions TV watchers remaining from the depopulation, indoctrinated and impoverished, will applaud to the passing jets in the ground. 2014-07-14 17:51 GMT+02:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I saw that webpage, but it didn't quote anything, nor give any form of justification. [...] I'm thinking that the velocity factor needed to compute maximum power ought to perhaps be exhaust gas velocity anyway. It seems likely to me that aircraft engines should be able to increase exhaust velocity and correspondingly reduce thrust as velocity increases, keeping power constant You don't need to consider any of that to see if the figure I used, 140 megawatts of average power, is in the right ballpark needed to keep a 747 in the air. At takeoff a 747 can hold 60,000 gallons of gasoline and stay in the air for about 12 hours, so that's about 5000 gallons a hour. One gallon of gas contains 34,000 watt hours of energy. So 34,000 watt hours /gallon * 5000 gallons/hour = 170 megawatts. So it looks like my estimate that if you want to go with solar then a factory that covered 6 square miles of the Earth’s surface would be needed to keep just one 747 in the air may have been a a bit on the low side. 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. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 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: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
We can improve efficiencies for all forms of solar production and wind and if we can fund it, OTEC. Also there is technology which looks like it can pump out 2 years of frozen methane on the sea floors. Moreover, wind, solar, and gas can be set in in under 36 months, where as you already point out, regulations slows the time frame for uranium and the development of thorium. We can do better with solar ponds and biomass, pretty, quickly. It will take billions and billions to bring thorium to market. India and China may succeed, but it will take massive monies, and decades of engineering. We are force, by cost and time, to go with the low hanging fruit. The efficiency of photosynthesis at capturing the sun's energy is between 3% and 6% depending on the particular plant, the efficiency of my solar cells was 15%. So to keep just one 747 in the air you will need either 6 square miles of solar cells or about 18 square miles of nasty algae ponds. Do you really thing such a monstrosity would be a lesser insult to the land than one LFTR which would have a footprint that was smaller by a factor of more than a million? John K Clark -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jul 14, 2014 2:27 pm Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: So it looks like my estimate that if you want to go with solar then a factory that covered 6 square miles of the Earth’s surface would be needed to keep just one 747 in the air may have been a a bit on the low side. It seems rather more likely that jet fuel will be provided by synthetic (engineered) algae grown in hot desert areas using brackish -- or sea -- water The efficiency of photosynthesis at capturing the sun's energy is between 3% and 6% depending on the particular plant, the efficiency of my solar cells was 15%. So to keep just one 747 in the air you will need either 6 square miles of solar cells or about 18 square miles of nasty algae ponds. Do you really thing such a monstrosity would be a lesser insult to the land than one LFTR which would have a footprint that was smaller by a factor of more than a million? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:00 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? You don't. To believe in God all that is needed in 99 times out of 100 is for your mommy and daddy to tell you that there is a God. Not only that but your mommy and daddy will tell you which particular God franchise is the one true franchise and the chances are overwhelming that is the one you will belong to for your entire life. Why else do you think geography has so much to do with religious belief? That is because most people choose the religion of their parents, as part of culture and are comfortable confirming to social norms, instead of honest intellectual inquiry and search. Blind following of parental faith is condemned in the Quran. Samiya John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 14-Jul-2014, at 12:00 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-14 17:50 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
On 14-Jul-2014, at 11:25 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that you
know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
because, if there is more than just this terrestrial life, your eternity
might depend upon your belief, motives and consequent actions
Why should it depend if I believe or not ??
That would depend who is making the rules and what the rules are. If it is for
us humans to make rules, given our limited knowledge, desires, hopes and
wishes, we would probably do away with the need to believe. If the rules are
made by a superior intelligence who knows human potential: past, present and
future, then we really do not have a choice in the matter. Since we can flavour
a mixed bag of good and bad, happy and sad, fulfilment and deprivation,
intelligence and ignorance, great wealth and comfort in contrast with abject
poverty and misery, and so on, what makes us so comfortable that this cannot be
repeated, and that also in greater degree, indefinitely, perpetually? Don't you
think it is being very bold and perilous to oneself to be agnostic or atheist
on such a thing?
Samiya
Samiya
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because it
fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like
the non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal
numbers, the real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what
doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a
podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all.
Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature.
I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
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.
--
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.
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.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in
Re: Atheist
Le 14 juil. 2014 22:34, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 14-Jul-2014, at 12:00 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-14 17:50 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
On 14-Jul-2014, at 11:25 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should
you believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail
that you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
because, if there is more than just this terrestrial life, your
eternity might depend upon your belief, motives and consequent actions
Why should it depend if I believe or not ??
That would depend who is making the rules and what the rules are. If it
is for us humans to make rules, given our limited knowledge, desires, hopes
and wishes, we would probably do away with the need to believe. If the
rules are made by a superior intelligence who knows human potential: past,
present and future, then we really do not have a choice in the matter.
Since we can flavour a mixed bag of good and bad, happy and sad, fulfilment
and deprivation, intelligence and ignorance, great wealth and comfort in
contrast with abject poverty and misery, and so on, what makes us so
comfortable that this cannot be repeated, and that also in greater degree,
indefinitely, perpetually? Don't you think it is being very bold and
perilous to oneself to be agnostic or atheist on such a thing?
no. It is quite stupid to blindly believe as you do. Good luck with your
god.
Samiya
Samiya
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because
it fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't
build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce
for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature.
I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
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.
--
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.
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.
--
All those
Re: Pluto bounces back!
Of course not, John. I am just as much a student as any of you, earnestly seeking to understand and evolve. Please keep discussing. Something I realized upon Liz' response was that the word translated as heart by Pickthall, has variously been translated as intelligence, feelings, and also mind I think. Perhaps, instinct could also be one aspect of the meaning. Arabic words carry a whole lot of meanings in one word as compared to English. Samiya On 14-Jul-2014, at 3:15 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you, Samiya. I was afraid you wrote me off. John On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Dear John, In our last exchange, you had mentioned that a fetus does not know anything, and I had wondered whether it was so. Just now I came across this verse (Quran 16:79) English-Pickthall translation __ And Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers knowing nothing, and gave you hearing and sight and hearts that haply ye might give thanks. Sent using alQuran. http://iphone.almubin.com/alQuran On 02-Jul-2014, at 6:42 pm, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:46 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Samiya: I don't argue with you (like PGC) I ask a question going back further than this entire discussion: you wrote: I could say that as I studied and observed the beauty and the patterns in nature, the finest details, I became convinced that there had to be a Creator behind it, but that also only vindicated my belief... I could think that may be since I was born in the faith, perhaps that's why it was natural, but I was asking questions, and I must admit, sometimes even fantasising how it would have been to be born in another faith or culture... I can say that the trials and experiences of life brought me closer to God, made me study the faith earnestly, and helped me discover the endless patience and my loving God through it all. Yet, I think, the latent belief was there all along, it was only my conscious self which took its own sweet time to realise and appreciate it! Whatever may the reason be, I'm glad that I'm a believer, and I lovingly worship my Creator. A simple question: Do you have any idea why and how you 'formulated' in your conscious self the idea of a god? You mention since I was born in the faith... - nonsense, nobody has been born in any thinking decision, a newborn gradually develops ideas about the world (god, or no god) and a fetus has even less thoughts. You were born without faith, or ideas of god, just as people are born pagan before they get circumcised, or baptised. You must have absorbed the first faith-related ideas from your mother as a little ignorant infant when she prayed. The rest comes from here. Once you started believing in 'GOD' it is but a small step to believe that (s)he wrote the scripts and all the rest religionS include. With Inquisition, Jihad, reincarnation etc. I do not know if a fetus does or does not have any thoughts or ideas at birth, maybe its as fearful of entering the world outside the womb as we are of the hereafter. Indeed, parents/family do have a keen impression on a child. Yes, I was born in a conservative, practicing muslim family, hence my earliest impressions must be from my mother. I do think my father's quest for truth had a more lasting and formative impression on my thinking and beliefs. When I was about ten, plus minus a couple of years, my father turned religious. About the same time, someone tried to convert my father to another faith. An elderly person, he started visiting us every weekend. Initially, my father would just listen to him out of courtesy, but eventually he realized that it is important to seek the truth. Hence, he started researching the scriptures, including the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Quran, as well as other books. This opened up a whole new world where the conservatives are fearful of treading, lest they lose their way. Though it was much later that I would read them for myself, I learnt to be open to various faiths and belief systems, while still a child, by observing my father. And now the REAL question I want to ask: We (scientists? mainly) know about zillions of galaxies, zillions of starsystems in all of them, many planets with those z^z^n stars capable of supporting some bio of their own circumstances, many-many of them potentially leading to thinking units. Are we the ones selected from all those to be the sole God's Children, or all of them are entitled to Her care and particular fitting rules? We are all God's creations, not God's children. No, we are not 'selected from all those to be the sole God's Children ', but, according to the Quran, we have been selected above a greater part of creation. There exist other
Re: Atheist
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating. That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ? because, if there is more than just this terrestrial life, your eternity might depend upon your belief, motives and consequent actions Why should it depend if I believe or not ?? That would depend who is making the rules and what the rules are. If it is for us humans to make rules, given our limited knowledge, desires, hopes and wishes, we would probably do away with the need to believe. If the rules are made by a superior intelligence who knows human potential: past, present and future, then we really do not have a choice in the matter. Again, you presume to know the intention of such possible intelligence and expose again the blasphemy problem, without clarifying. Since we can flavour a mixed bag of good and bad, I don't know what you mean with this metaphor. happy and sad, fulfilment and deprivation, intelligence and ignorance, great wealth and comfort in contrast with abject poverty and misery, and so on, what makes us so comfortable that this cannot be repeated, and that also in greater degree, indefinitely, perpetually? This is possible; but only equally as possible that some lying evil god/devil made this world; and that any books, such as the Bible for example, based on a theological interpretation of this world, confuse therefore god with a devil. Following the Bible in this case, would run counter to the real god's will. If your god is the kind that is jealous if you worship other being, he will punish us for following the Quran or Bible in this case. Such god would logically punish us for not doubting the lies of the devil in the book. This is again part of why a punishing god is not very convincing: a god should understand that theology is not this simple. Now, we can turn the question around and ask: What makes you so comfortable the Quran is NOT upside down work of the devil, masquerading as god? Don't you think it is being very bold and perilous to oneself to be agnostic or atheist on such a thing? I don't use atheist nor find the term convincing, but agnostic... because of these kinds of questions/problems, a skeptical agnostic stays silent and discuss/observe/doubt theology rather than preach it or try to convert others. PGC -- 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: Atheist
Dear Samiya, people ask the wrong questions. Why and HOW did you pick the Quran as the SOURCE of your answers, if not because you grew up in a family/society where you heard about it day in and day out? I grew up in a different society and did not even 'think' of checking for 'truth' in the Quran (especially not in old Arabic language of which I really knew nothing) but was advised other 'books' for 'truth(?)'. I went through several ones of those, liked none of them. So I became agnostic. (=I dunno) BTW how did a Native American, or an Inuit in past centuries get to the Prophet's teachings? How the illiterate Aborigines? Chinese-Japanese? Easy for the Arabic talking Mid-Easterners. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:00 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? You don't. To believe in God all that is needed in 99 times out of 100 is for your mommy and daddy to tell you that there is a God. Not only that but your mommy and daddy will tell you which particular God franchise is the one true franchise and the chances are overwhelming that is the one you will belong to for your entire life. Why else do you think geography has so much to do with religious belief? That is because most people choose the religion of their parents, as part of culture and are comfortable confirming to social norms, instead of honest intellectual inquiry and search. Blind following of parental faith is condemned in the Quran. Samiya John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On 7/14/2014 1:24 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: An all electric plane may never arrive, but through materials science, using materials like graphenes, like superconducting materials, that day may arrive soon. On the other hand, it might be easier to make magnetic confinement fusion reactions for aircraft, That's a pipe dream. It's doubtful that fusion reactors will ever be practical. We can't even get one to work in the laboratory after 40yrs of trying. commercially, yet never ever power a city via fusion. in the same sense that 'petrol' is used rarely, for powering the house. Most cars are still internal combustion, rather than electric. It all comes down to affordability, aka money. Cars can be transitioned to electric power pretty easily. I just bought a Chevy Volt and over the first thousand miles we've burned less than 7gal of gas. 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 will air travel work in a green solar economy?
You are too naive. Don´t subestimate human stupidity. Stupidity is infinite, it goes beyond what can produce this list. Once a cheap and abundant source of clean power is discovered, chances are that will be not well received by the eco-elite. It is more, it will be considered as a disaster since it permit prosperity and a setback in the final objective of depopulating the planet. The shale gas and other forms of cheap energy, are opposed for that reason. And cheap and clean electric energy will be oppossed as well as soon as it is avalable for whatever excuses. It is not a question of tecnology. It is not even a question of contamination. It is not a question of global warming folks. You are not progressive enough. It is a question of hating human beings. I´t´s not me, that is in world of some prominent ecologists. some of them collaborators of Obama. Let me check to find the references. 2014-07-14 23:34 GMT+02:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 7/14/2014 1:24 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: An all electric plane may never arrive, but through materials science, using materials like graphenes, like superconducting materials, that day may arrive soon. On the other hand, it might be easier to make magnetic confinement fusion reactions for aircraft, That's a pipe dream. It's doubtful that fusion reactors will ever be practical. We can't even get one to work in the laboratory after 40yrs of trying. commercially, yet never ever power a city via fusion. in the same sense that 'petrol' is used rarely, for powering the house. Most cars are still internal combustion, rather than electric. It all comes down to affordability, aka money. Cars can be transitioned to electric power pretty easily. I just bought a Chevy Volt and over the first thousand miles we've burned less than 7gal of gas. 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. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
It is more, once wind turbines and solar panes started to be installed in mass quantitites, that was heavily opposed by the hard ecologists with excuses so excentric as they endanger the aestetic, they distract the passing birds and so on. Once they saw that the production of electricity and the subsidies to eco-energies reduced the global efficiency of energy production and created more problems than the ones they solved, with the need of backup power plants, they gradually sylenced the critics. You are simply too naive to understand the truth. 2014-07-15 1:05 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: You are too naive. Don´t subestimate human stupidity. Stupidity is infinite, it goes beyond what can produce this list. Once a cheap and abundant source of clean power is discovered, chances are that will be not well received by the eco-elite. It is more, it will be considered as a disaster since it permit prosperity and a setback in the final objective of depopulating the planet. The shale gas and other forms of cheap energy, are opposed for that reason. And cheap and clean electric energy will be oppossed as well as soon as it is avalable for whatever excuses. It is not a question of tecnology. It is not even a question of contamination. It is not a question of global warming folks. You are not progressive enough. It is a question of hating human beings. I´t´s not me, that is in world of some prominent ecologists. some of them collaborators of Obama. Let me check to find the references. 2014-07-14 23:34 GMT+02:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 7/14/2014 1:24 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: An all electric plane may never arrive, but through materials science, using materials like graphenes, like superconducting materials, that day may arrive soon. On the other hand, it might be easier to make magnetic confinement fusion reactions for aircraft, That's a pipe dream. It's doubtful that fusion reactors will ever be practical. We can't even get one to work in the laboratory after 40yrs of trying. commercially, yet never ever power a city via fusion. in the same sense that 'petrol' is used rarely, for powering the house. Most cars are still internal combustion, rather than electric. It all comes down to affordability, aka money. Cars can be transitioned to electric power pretty easily. I just bought a Chevy Volt and over the first thousand miles we've burned less than 7gal of gas. 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. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
But continue your technocratic discussion. How many kilowats are necessary for whatever stupid nothingness. You look like the youngs of the nazi germany dreaming in a future of peace,, running happy trough the green country when the first jew stablishments started to be burned in the cities. You believe that the mass promotion of abortion, the homosexualism, the feminazism, the laws for the breakup of the family, the mass indoctrination in the schools, TV, newspapers, Hollywood will welcome a cheap source of energy that would render the political excuses that maintain the elite in power unnecessary and unfounded?. You are s naive. And I´m being compasionate with that qualification 2014-07-15 1:18 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: It is more, once wind turbines and solar panes started to be installed in mass quantitites, that was heavily opposed by the hard ecologists with excuses so excentric as they endanger the aestetic, they distract the passing birds and so on. Once they saw that the production of electricity and the subsidies to eco-energies reduced the global efficiency of energy production and created more problems than the ones they solved, with the need of backup power plants, they gradually sylenced the critics. You are simply too naive to understand the truth. 2014-07-15 1:05 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: You are too naive. Don´t subestimate human stupidity. Stupidity is infinite, it goes beyond what can produce this list. Once a cheap and abundant source of clean power is discovered, chances are that will be not well received by the eco-elite. It is more, it will be considered as a disaster since it permit prosperity and a setback in the final objective of depopulating the planet. The shale gas and other forms of cheap energy, are opposed for that reason. And cheap and clean electric energy will be oppossed as well as soon as it is avalable for whatever excuses. It is not a question of tecnology. It is not even a question of contamination. It is not a question of global warming folks. You are not progressive enough. It is a question of hating human beings. I´t´s not me, that is in world of some prominent ecologists. some of them collaborators of Obama. Let me check to find the references. 2014-07-14 23:34 GMT+02:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 7/14/2014 1:24 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: An all electric plane may never arrive, but through materials science, using materials like graphenes, like superconducting materials, that day may arrive soon. On the other hand, it might be easier to make magnetic confinement fusion reactions for aircraft, That's a pipe dream. It's doubtful that fusion reactors will ever be practical. We can't even get one to work in the laboratory after 40yrs of trying. commercially, yet never ever power a city via fusion. in the same sense that 'petrol' is used rarely, for powering the house. Most cars are still internal combustion, rather than electric. It all comes down to affordability, aka money. Cars can be transitioned to electric power pretty easily. I just bought a Chevy Volt and over the first thousand miles we've burned less than 7gal of gas. 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. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
Dear John, On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Samiya, people ask the wrong questions. Maybe, or maybe I need to study and reflect much more before I can answer properly Why and HOW did you pick the Quran as the SOURCE of your answers, if not because you grew up in a family/society where you heard about it day in and day out? In our society, Arabic is not a spoken/understood language. Children are taught to read the Arabic script, i.e. pronounce the words, without being taught the language. The Arabic script is similar to the Urdu script (the language spoken in Pakistan), so its easy to learn to read even if you cannot understand. Traditionally, people think its a means of earning blessings to recite, hence many recite without understanding the scripture. I used to think that was a flaw in our Muslim, Pakistani society, but Hindus in Pakistan and India also similarly recite their scriptures in Sanskrit. I suppose its a traditional / cultural thing of the Indo-Pak subcontinent, who started and who followed, I don't know. I started studying the Quran with meaning when I was in my late teens, comparing different translations, as when reading just one translator, some verses' translations just didn't make sense (partly due to my lack of knowledge, and partly due to the translation and partly due to my ideas of how I wanted the scripture to be). My interest in science also helped me in critically reading the scripture, looking for the correct explanation. However, reading various translations gave me the confidence that when we can't understand something, we need to look harder, not just write-off the scripture. I grew up in a different society and did not even 'think' of checking for 'truth' in the Quran (especially not in old Arabic language of which I really knew nothing) but was advised other 'books' for 'truth(?)'. I went through several ones of those, liked none of them. So I became agnostic. (=I dunno) I did my schooling at a Convent school, from age 5 till high school, so I was exposed to Christianity since an early age. Christians and Hindus are also a substantial part of the Pakistani society, so there was this exposure to and interaction with people of other faiths. Furthermore, as I mentioned in an earlier post, since my father was studying interfaith, hence I was exposed to scriptures of various religions. Eventually, I did read scriptures of other faiths. I think all scriptures have gems of wisdom, though all except the Arabic Quran, contain a mixture of divine scripture and human additions. I started trying to learn the Arabic grammar about 15 years ago in an effort to understand the Quran on my own. I also started to attend sermons by various scholars to hears different points of view and understandings of religion and scripture. From one, I came to appreciate the Majesty of the Creator, from another I learnt about Divine Love and Mercy, and from another I learnt humility and submission to Divine Will. My most earnest study of the Quran has been in the past three years when I was faced with a roller-coaster of peculiar moral and ethical dilemmas and I needed to touch root. While holding on to the guidance, I came to appreciate the Divine love and wisdom which protects us from following desires which lead us to ruin, asking for sacrifices which are only in our own best interests. BTW how did a Native American, or an Inuit in past centuries get to the Prophet's teachings? How the illiterate Aborigines? Chinese-Japanese? Easy for the Arabic talking Mid-Easterners. The Arabic Quran is not the only scripture, it is the last of the divinely revealed scriptures. We believe that all communities received guidance in the form of prophets, messengers and scriptures. Isn't it true that people all over the world and all throughout history have had some form of religion, and there are some common threads which are suspiciously similar across religions? Almost all religions, or at least their scriptures, start off with the belief in one God, yet eventually morph into a polytheistic religion. To believe in the unseen God, angels, scriptures, messengers, hereafter, good and evil, etc doesn't require an Arabic Quran or a Mid-Eastern background. There are many Arabs in the Middle East who do not believe / practice Islam, and there are many people all over the world who practice the virtues exhorted in the Quran without ever having read it. As a famous poet Iqbal wrote about a century ago, to paraphrase it: when I was in the West, I saw Islam without Muslims, when I was in the East, I saw Muslims without Islam. The advantage we have in this day and age is that we all have the Quran available at our fingertips on the internet, and we also have a whole range of scriptures, translations, lexicons, etc to do our own research. Samiya On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:00 pm,
Re: Atheist
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating. That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ? because, if there is more than just this terrestrial life, your eternity might depend upon your belief, motives and consequent actions Why should it depend if I believe or not ?? That would depend who is making the rules and what the rules are. If it is for us humans to make rules, given our limited knowledge, desires, hopes and wishes, we would probably do away with the need to believe. If the rules are made by a superior intelligence who knows human potential: past, present and future, then we really do not have a choice in the matter. Again, you presume to know the intention of such possible intelligence and expose again the blasphemy problem, without clarifying. I think discarding all scriptures is also a blasphemy problem. When the entire known creation are bound by the laws of nature, then how can it be that humans are not bound by anything. This free-will, ability to harness power, this so to say dominance over the Earth, how can it all come to humans only, and not some other creation? And if we humans are blessed with some unique privileges, there has to be some responsibility and accountability attached to such freedom of action. What do you think? Since we can flavour a mixed bag of good and bad, I don't know what you mean with this metaphor. We witness and experience so many contrasting things, as some listed below happy and sad, fulfilment and deprivation, intelligence and ignorance, great wealth and comfort in contrast with abject poverty and misery, and so on, what makes us so comfortable that this cannot be repeated, and that also in greater degree, indefinitely, perpetually? This is possible; but only equally as possible that some lying evil god/devil made this world; and that any books, such as the Bible for example, based on a theological interpretation of this world, confuse therefore god with a devil. Possible, but then why would the devil exhort good, order to restrain from evil and ask to believe in the unseen one God, and state clearly that the devil is your avowed enemy, so treat him as the enemy, and do not follow the devil? Also, whoever made this world, why would He need to lie? Following the Bible in this case, would run counter to the real god's will. Therefore, we must study and research, and evaluate for ourselves what resonates as true to our mind and heart If your god is the kind that is jealous if you worship other being, he will punish us for following the Quran or Bible in this case. God is not jealous. God is God and deserves the worship, gratitude and love for being the Creator, Sustainer and Provider of care, comfort, beauty and affections. To not to worship with love and gratitude is to deny God what is rightfully His. God challenges that nobody can create the Quran without God's help, even if all creatures work together to create it. Hence, the challenge is open for all doubters to examine and evaluate and estimate for themselves. Such god would logically punish us for not doubting the lies of the devil in the book. Yes, the Quran clearly states that God does not order evil or lewdness or immorality, and therefore one must reject all such things claimed in the name of God. Further, it also exhorts to think deeply about the visible world and reflect and try to understand the guidance. This is again part of why a punishing god is not very convincing: a god should understand that theology is not this simple. Are we now trying to instruct God? Now, we can turn the question around and ask: What makes you so comfortable the Quran is NOT upside down work of the devil, masquerading as god? Why would the devil exhort good, order to restrain from evil and ask to believe in the unseen one God, and state clearly that the devil is your avowed enemy, so treat him as the enemy, and do not follow the devil? And then, why would the devil relate the stories of past generations who were more advanced than us in many ways, and their worldly advancement in knowledge had led them to arrogance and denial of the one and only Creator and resurrection and judgement , and how they were sent messengers and books, and when they absolutely and resolutely refused to reason and believe, they were destroyed and replaced with another people? The Quran doesn't seem to serve the purpose of the devil. However, its true that a lot of terrible things are done in the name of God and scripture, but that doesn't make the scripture irrelevant or obsolete, it only causes loss to those who abuse the
Re: Atheist
Your statements presuppose that you have solved the problem of evil. Let us suppose for argument's sake, that we indeed can distinguish good from evil. Even so, for every evil act, one can find some higher religious purpose or belief to justify the supposedly evil act. Take murder, for example. Was it evil of Stauffenberg to try to murder Hitler? What if god had personally appeared to him, and told him to act? Could we see this from the outside? How can we judge something as evil, when we never have all the information, perhaps pertaining to a higher cause we do not see/comprehend? And if we believe that we can easily tell the difference, do we not run the risk of seeing what we wish of the world, instead of its truth? How can we know this beyond our inner selves, for others? Søren Kierkegaard, a Christian, was extremely critical of how Christian faith was practiced: just acting the religion and abusing faith for comfort to abandon the search for what evil really means and how to cope with it. He saw it as a deep and confusing problem that religious practice ignores, and questions how we could ever know to do god's work if we are not brave enough to admit our ignorance and attack the problem. I don't want to suggest in any way that you read him, and merely use this example to point out, that what your statements suppose to know, nature of good and evil, is the huge problem of ethics linked with theology, and that its complexity, is orders of magnitude removed, from this is good and this is evil statements in Bible, Quran etc. , and that thousands of mystics, shaman, thinkers, scientists, theologian have wrestled with this problem with no clear answer in sight. How do you reconcile this problem with the absolute certainty invoked in the literal interpretation of sacred scripture that says lying is bad... when somebody can lie to save lives, for example? How can we tell good religious and deeds from the opposite? Does evil even exist, and why would a god create it, if he were not an evil tester? A loving parent would not create or wish such for its children. Why would a possible god do so? You assume I don't read religious text. This is false. I just restrict my reading of text concerning fundamental search to text that can attack the kinds of question and problems I have raised with you. But I don't want to mention them or influence anybody's search. So if you have solved the problem of evil, as your statements suggest, you could elaborate on this if you feel comfortable doing so. Mere prescriptions this is good/god's will, and this is bad don't count beyond our personal horizon. Theology has a problem here, regardless of particular religion. The effect is more general. PGC On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating. That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ? because, if there is more than just this terrestrial life, your eternity might depend upon your belief, motives and consequent actions Why should it depend if I believe or not ?? That would depend who is making the rules and what the rules are. If it is for us humans to make rules, given our limited knowledge, desires, hopes and wishes, we would probably do away with the need to believe. If the rules are made by a superior intelligence who knows human potential: past, present and future, then we really do not have a choice in the matter. Again, you presume to know the intention of such possible intelligence and expose again the blasphemy problem, without clarifying. I think discarding all scriptures is also a blasphemy problem. When the entire known creation are bound by the laws of nature, then how can it be that humans are not bound by anything. This free-will, ability to harness power, this so to say dominance over the Earth, how can it all come to humans only, and not some other creation? And if we humans are blessed with some unique privileges, there has to be some responsibility and accountability attached to such freedom of action. What do you think? Since we can flavour a mixed bag of good and bad, I don't know what you mean with this metaphor. We witness and experience so many contrasting things, as some listed below happy and sad, fulfilment and deprivation, intelligence and ignorance, great wealth and comfort in contrast with abject poverty and misery, and so on, what makes us so comfortable that this cannot be repeated, and that also in greater degree, indefinitely, perpetually? This is possible; but only equally as possible that some lying evil god/devil
