Re: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)
*Subject:* Re: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?) Chris, Hi. It sounds like you might be in computing since you mentioned some terms like reposited (I've never heard of that in bio!)? If so, you are very well educated in biology. Nice job! Your knowledge of the complexity of a cell and of things moving around via motor proteins and the cytoskeleton as opposed to diffusion only, etc. are real impressive. Many of the computer and engineering guys I know seem to be allergic to biology knowledge. Although, I admit I know almost nothing about computing either, except for stuff from a few simple classes in Pascal, Fortran, etc. a long, long time ago. I'd never heard of that model where they ran it backwards to find the genesis of life, but it sounds pretty neat. I think it's certainly possible that life started in a far away stellar nursery and then came to Earth on a comet or something. Although, I kind of liked that Star Trek (The Next Gen.) episode where some ancient race of bald people seeded lots of different oceans with their DNA and put a code in their that, once we decipher it, will play a video of the bald people talking to us. I thought that was one of their best episodes. But, the final question is still there. How did the life originate where ever it came from? I can't rule out anything, but I bet they'll be able to someday figure out a chemical mechanism for things to start replicating themselves. One big advantage that computing and engineering have over drug discovery is that the scientist can design a system he or she wants to make when it's code or a chip or something. But, because everything is so wet, bouncing around, cross-reacting and squishy in bio, it's hard to design things to work just the way you want them. Cells are always mutating, proteins are always moving around and chemicals are always cross-reacting. I think we'll eventually need to combine small mol. drugs and biological drugs with nanotechnological devices and tiny molecular computers to cure diseases. I checked out that article on microbes being passed from generation to generation. It was very interesting; although, it kind of sounded like it was passed via an environmental route because the next generation of animals lived in the same environment as the previous generation, and the microbes are probably all over the environment in the form of feces, shed fur, surfaces, animals touching each other, etc. I'd have to read more about it, but it sounded like not quite a direct mechanism of transmission. One more pontification, and I promise I'll stop, but I think some of the physics guys could learn from biochemists because biochemists are always looking for mechanisms of action for how things work. But, it seems like the physicists are more content to say something works and we have the math to describe it. For instance, I don't think they really know even why positive and negative charges attract or two positive charges repel, do they? I know there are fields of force, and exchange of photons (or other force particles for other forces), but how exactly does this lead to attraction or repulsion? I admit I know very little about it, but this kind of thing frustrates me when reading popular physics articles. In their defense, though, force particles are much smaller than proteins! At least, Monday is over! Have a good week. Roger -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)
Chris, Hi. It is kind of an interesting job in that I can keep up with the latest stuff and I do find the idea of organizing scientific information very interesting. But, it can be a little boring sometimes, too. But, I guess most people would say that about their jobs, though. Epigenetics is pretty neat. When the histones are methylated/demethylated and acetylated/deacetylated by various enzymes, this can cause the DNA wrapped around them to become less or more compact, which affects how the genes in that area are expressed. You're sure right about their finding more levels of operation than ever before. Since they developed what they call next generation sequencing about 2005 or so, they've been able to find out a lot more levels in all areas. One thing that's kind of neat is that the supposedly junk DNA between genes can encode small RNAs that regulate the expression of the genes. These microRNAs are really a hot area of research now. Another big breakthrough was the combination of various techniques to make very large scale analysis of proteins (proteomics) possible. So, they're combining gene expression, protein studies, epigenetics, etc. to see how it all fits together in the body. They call that systems biology, and it's bringing more progress. But, there are so many interacting molecules inside a single cel, they've got a long way to go. I'll check out the link you provided on bacterial heredity right after this post. These microbiome (microbes in intestinal tract, mouth, skin, etc.) studies are pretty neat, too. One neat thing the next-gen. sequencing has allowed is that they can now get a big glob of all different kinds of microbes from a site (intestine, environment), sequence it all and map the resulting reads to known genomes to find out what microbes are present at that site. Sorry to write so much. Biochemistry is one area I know a little about (real little!) as opposed to metaphysics. I wish tomorrow weren't Monday. Have a good week! Roger On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 1:11:14 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] Chris, Roger – what an interesting job, if you like reading this kind of stuff that is J I knew about DNA being wound around a supporting matrix – e.g. the histones – but I never knew that this non-DNA structural protein had any interactions with the DNA Wrapped around it) that could control expressing sections of encoding DNA. Of course this implies that the histone does more than just provide a structural matrix for the DNA to become tightly packed in, and that was news to me. I have been following epigenetic stuff for a while, especially well documented for the methylation pathway, but this appears to be yet a separate pathway for genomic expression and hereditary transmission of information. The story of heredity is getting more and more interesting. For example, check out the link to the story below; life (and living systems) seem like they have more levels of operation than previously believed. *Mothers can pass traits to offspring through bacteria's DNA, mouse study shows http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216125425.htm * http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216125425.htm Cheers, Chris Hi. It's good that they have new studies confirming this stuff, but the looping of DNA into 3D structures inside the nucleus has been known for awhile. I think they're even starting to map these interactions just like the human genome project. One of the methods they use is to crosslink the DNA in the nucleus so that the shape it's currently in is saved, and then sequence the crosslinked areas to identify the crosslinked segments of DNA. But, I admit calling this a wormhole is kind of just good marketing. I guess the everything list is kind of like a wormhole that brings together distant people so they can talk about everything! :-) Also, on the epigenetic inheritance thing via histones, it's also good that new studies are proving this stuff, but epigenetic changes (changes in gene expression caused by things other than changes to the DNA sequence) that can be inherited have also been known for 10 years or so. So far, what they know are that these changes are caused by adding or removing methyl groups to the DNA bases or methyl and acetyl groups to the histones. That affects how the genes are expressed. These changes can be affected by the environment and your own activities (like exercise). So, your descendants may thank you for exercising and eating right! The only reason I know some stuff about this is that I have kind of a weird job where I read biochem. articles all day and put the new stuff into a database. See you
Re: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)
Chris, Hi. It's good that they have new studies confirming this stuff, but the looping of DNA into 3D structures inside the nucleus has been known for awhile. I think they're even starting to map these interactions just like the human genome project. One of the methods they use is to crosslink the DNA in the nucleus so that the shape it's currently in is saved, and then sequence the crosslinked areas to identify the crosslinked segments of DNA. But, I admit calling this a wormhole is kind of just good marketing. I guess the everything list is kind of like a wormhole that brings together distant people so they can talk about everything! :-) Also, on the epigenetic inheritance thing via histones, it's also good that new studies are proving this stuff, but epigenetic changes (changes in gene expression caused by things other than changes to the DNA sequence) that can be inherited have also been known for 10 years or so. So far, what they know are that these changes are caused by adding or removing methyl groups to the DNA bases or methyl and acetyl groups to the histones. That affects how the genes are expressed. These changes can be affected by the environment and your own activities (like exercise). So, your descendants may thank you for exercising and eating right! The only reason I know some stuff about this is that I have kind of a weird job where I read biochem. articles all day and put the new stuff into a database. See you! Roger On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 3:08:19 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: -Original Message- From: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 1:44 PM To: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List Subject: Re: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?) Of course, this is what Australia's John Mattick has been saying for decades (I heard him talk on this nearly 15 years ago, for instance, and he'd been railing at the establishment sometime before that). But wormholes? Really? Someone in marketing has been given far too liberal a rein. They're always on the hunt for that catchy title aren't they; I find them amusing :) Still, in seriousness, it's an interesting idea: that previously overlooked, non-local effects, naturally operating within an organisms DNA may be playing a more fundamental role in life than previously believed (or even considered to be occurring at all) Chris Cheers On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:26:16PM +, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: [Have been very busy on a new software project and have not had time to follow and participate on this list... such an active list :). ] Came across this article and found it interesting also from an information science point of view -- taking the perspective of DNA being a fairly dynamic information repository. It seems like the butterfly effect is operating in DNA... a small difference one place can result in effects being triggered in very distant DNA locations... or as the researchers said... kind of like a wormhole.-Chris Cancer risk linked to DNA ‘wormholes’ February 25, 2015 Single-letter genetic variations within parts of the genome once dismissed as “junk DNA” can increase cancer risk through remote effects on far-off genes, new research by scientists at The Institute of Cancer Research, London shows.The researchers found that DNA sequences within “gene deserts” — so called because they are completely devoid of genes — can regulate gene activity elsewhere by forming DNA loops across relatively large distances.The study helps solve a mystery about how genetic variations in parts of the genome that don’t appear to be doing very much can increase cancer risk.Their study, published in Nature Communications, also has implications for the study of other complex genetic diseases.The researchers developed a technique called Capture Hi-C to investigate long-range physical interactions between stretches of DNA – allowing them to look at how specific areas of chromosomes interact physically in more detail.The researchers assessed 14 regions of DNA that contain single-letter variations previously linked to bowel cancer risk. They detected significant long-range interactions for all 14 regions, confirming their role in gene regulation.“Our new technique shows that genetic variations are able to increase cancer risk through long-range looping interactions with cancer-causing genes elsewhere in the genome,” study leader Professor Richard Houlston, Professor of Molecular and Population Genetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London said.“It is sometimes described as analogous to a wormhole, where distortions in space and time could in theory bring together distant parts
Re: Something from nothing -- my attempt of derivation of a UTM.
Mindey, Hi. I basically agree with you especially about the ball/sphere part and have posted similar ideas here and elsewhere in the past. The whole something/nothing/empty-set thing has been discussed here extensively for probably at least 15 years and was last discussed about 3-4 months ago. I won't repeat the whole thing, but my view is that: 1. A thing exists if it's a grouping defining what is contained within. 2. If we consider what we've always called the absolute lack-of-all or nothingness (no energy/matter, space/volume, time, laws of math/physics, and no minds to consider this lack-of-all), that situation would be the entirety of all there is; that's it; there's nothing else; it would be the all. 3. Entirety, all, etc. are groupings defining what is contained within. Therefore, what we've always considered to be the absolute lack-of-all isn't really the lack of all existent entities because it itself is an existent entity. In terms of empty sets, this lack-of-all could be thought of as both the contents of an empty set if looked at from the traditional nothingness point of view and the brackets around nothingness (e.g., the set containing nothingness) if looked at from the grouping defining what is contained within point of view. They're both the same lack-of-all, just thought about in two different ways. 4. As an existent entity, and in fact the most fundamental of existent entities, it must have at least 3 dimensions. I can't picture any actually existing entity having one of it's dimensions be zero. If so, it would be gone; it would be not there. 4. This existent entity contains no information specifying specific shapes, corners. Therefore, it would be the same diameter in all directions; that is, it would be a sphere. Most people on this list seem to disagree with my rationale because, if I remember correctly, they think that abstract arithmetical propositions exist and are the basis of the universe. I don't personally agree, but everyone here is mostly very nice and everyone's got their own methods of working on the problem. For me, I'm trying to use the above reasoning about non-existence and spheres to build a primitive model of the universe to try and eventually make testable predictions. It's a long way off, needless to say. In this area of thought, evidence always speaks louder than ideas. If you're interested, I've got more on the nothingness and spheres stuff at my websites at: https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist/ (4 page summary, but no spheres stuff) https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing (more detail, philosophical background and stuff on spheres in section called Use of the proposed solution to build a model of the universe. Anyways, I think you're on the right track. Thanks! Roger On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 5:22:50 AM UTC-4, Mindey wrote: Hi Everyone, so, my background: http://mindey.com/42 -- I always wanted to know its origin precisely. The understanding of the origin of Universe(=Everything, Multiverse, and our Life experience included) was likely never fully successful. Fundamental obstacle for succeeding in it has been the logical inconsistency of the concepts Origin and Universe, because an attempt to explain Everything by Something, makes the Something part of Everything, which leaves us with Nothingness, as the only viable candidate for Origin. Universe to us subjectively appears as a complex and diverse experience. In fact, except for some regularity (which we call laws of physics), the patterns we see every day appear so complex, that only something like a universal computer with large memory could possibly generate it. We had recently even done so by creating 3D computer games and worlds running on Universal Turing Machines (UTMs) -- our computers. From here, we can conclude: (1) It follows that, _if_ we could come up with a UTM from Nothingness, we could explain pretty much everything that is computable. Our experiences rely on finite numbers of receptors with limited granularity (selectivity), and limited lifespan, which seem to imply finite number of possible experiences (as their Cartesian product) by a being. (2) It follows that, our life experience is likely computable. To come up with a UTM from Nothingness, let's: 1. assume Nothingness 2. conclude Equidistance (because Nothingness means equal absence of information regarding any aspect whatsoever) 3. see the definition of a ball 4. see the computation of Pi number with varying precision, i.e.: Remember balls from degenerate ones in low-dimensional spaces with special coordinate systems and weird distance metrics, to quite standard Euclidean ones, to hypersphere, to the most near-perfect conceivable ball regading any
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
What you're describing sounds a little bit like cellular automata, which start with a single cell (maybe the existent entity called nothing?) and a rule and out of that comes emergent stuff possibly like our universe. But, anyways I once again agree with what you're saying that the emergent properties of nothing can be pretty amazing, IMHO. On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 2:57:29 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *Sent:* Saturday, January 24, 2015 9:52 PM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? Roger: It's possible that what we see as existing is a simulation in some other computer. But, even if we are a simulation, the simulation that is us exists as does the computer and the code we're a simulation in. My thinking is aimed at trying to figure out there are existent entities, whether we call them simulations, singular arithmetic computations/propositions, or whatever, instead of there not being existent entities. Existence and non-existence can be viewed as different perspectives on nothing…. existence and non-existence are emergent and understood in dialectic opposition to each other… they arise out of each other, and are defined in terms of each other. -Chris Chris, I totally agree and that's what I've been trying to get at in my thinking and at the website. Well put! Well… it does seem we agree about nothing J Have been pondering something I read a while ago when I began reading Russell’s book (online first and now in the much better form of a real book) It is this bit of information about information. A very simple mathematical operation that can be described – defined by a simple recursive program produces an unending stream of numbers defining it to an ever more precise numeric precision… to infinity. Some such numbers say 10/3 are highly ordered and repetitive though never ending. The example Russell gave is an unending numeric stream that is however different from – say 10/3 -- in that the resulting stream of numbers that it outputs is highly chaotic and unordered very much resembling the number streams generated by the best random algorithms. The very simple operation of defining the square root of two generates an -- (as far as we know infinitely extending) – number stream that is characterized by a high degree of randomness. Now say you are an observer from a parallel universe who somehow gets a kind of sample set through some absurd imaginary portal that deluges the poor fellow with reams upon reams of seemingly random data – each one of them, let’s give it a data dimension say a KB, MB, GB doesn’t matter, but constrained to a given chunk or window size. These inter-dimensional data packets unfortunately arrive to our observer in a scrambled order…. The data deluge arrives for eternity… but will the recipient ever be able to derive the function from the data. I doubt a highly random data stream – generated by a very simple operation – could be re-ordered. What could those observers deduce from this endless series of out of order packets containing numeric data of a given range of degrees of precision in the infinite stream resulting from the eternal recursive refinement of this operation? Would they ever be able to work back to the function from this out of order quantized series of numeric data packets picked from random slots in the infinite series? It seems highly improbable to me, maybe there is some subtle ordering in the output stream that could eventually become apparent after enough data chunks were cross compared. Who knows, I am no expert on the randomness of the output of the square root of two, but in general sense there are functions f() that can be defined by a simple set of recursive or looping actions… e.g. a simple program... that can generate an infinite and – for the sake of argument – perfectly random numeric output stream (doesn’t matter if it is in base ten or base two, or any other base) – e.g. a simple program like the one that recursively continues to define ever increasing degrees of precision for the square root of two, but that is abstract and ideal in that its output is taken to be perfectly random – one terabyte of data in the stream looking pretty much like any other similar sized chunk from the stream. I pity those observers, and feel that no matter how many resources they brought to bear in trying to discover the meaning of this mysterious numeric communication coming through their inter-dimensional portal… that they would never be able to figure the actual simple formula / program that produced the petabytes ^ petabytes ^ petabytes ^ petabytes (ad infinitum) of data
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Roger: It's possible that what we see as existing is a simulation in some other computer. And thus in arithmetic, which can be proved to emulate all computers, on all programs, on all input. This is standard knowledge for logicians, but not always well known by non-logicians. It is crucial when we assume computationalism. In particular the mere idea that 2+2=4 (and the like) entails the existence of all computations going through you actual state (say), even as part of infinitely many computations, all existing in the same sense that prime numbers exists. In fact the result is that IF computationalism is correct THEN physics is reduced to the calculus of the First Person Indeterminacy on all computations (going through my actual state in case I want to make an actual prediction). The interesting question is: does this leads to unitary evolution like it is suggested by the empirical experience? This has been partially solved: the logic of the probability one (on yes-no experiments) gives a quantum logic, and a quantization of classical histories similar to the one suggested by the experience. Roger: It's also possible that what we see as existing is not a simulation in some other computer. I'm not arguing that if there is an arithmetical reality or that we're a simulation then your ideas are right. All I'm saying is that if there's not an arithmetical reality or that we're not in a simulation, then another model is needed. That's the path I'm working on. - My thinking is aimed at trying to figure out there are existent entities, whether we call them simulations, singular arithmetic computations/propositions, or whatever, instead of there not being existent entities. Of course. That is the most interesting question. Hmm... You might be disappointed. It is logically impossible to explain or justify (prove) the existence of something without assuming some things and some relation on those things. Roger: Logical arguments are based on initial assumptions. Many things might seem impossible based on a certain set of assumptions. - I will take a look. A participant of this list Peter Sas has made a facebook page on that question why is there something rather than nothing. Roger: Thanks for checking it out. Yep, I've checked out Peter's stuff. Unfortunately, the website provider I use, google, doesn't allow page names beyond a certain length, and why is there something rather than nothing is beyond that limit. I looked at one of your publications you mentioned earlier but will look at it in more detail based on our discussion. - While we are working on different models, it's been a great discussion. Thanks. Not sure we have different models... My point is that we can work on such problem with the scientific attitude. The difficulty is that it uses mathematical logic and theoretical computer science, which are not so well known... Roger: Your point about working on such problems with a scientific attitude is something I can totally agree with. At my site, I mention that one because metaphysics is supposed to be about the nature of being and reality, and because our universe (whether it's an arithmetic-based dream or physical entities or whatever) bes and exists, and because physics is the study of the universe, the laws of physics should be ultimately derivable from the principals of metaphysics. We can take metaphysical ideas and use them to build models of the universe and eventually make testable predictions, and if the evidence doesn't hold up then make some other hypotheses and test them. This is basically what science is, and I agree that it's the right attitude to take in all of our thinking in trying to figure out the universe. I'm a biochemist so will have to wait more until I retire to work on the physics predictions. But, until then, I can always think! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
The starting question is this: are you OK with the idea that we would not see any difference from our first person point of view with an artificial digital brain (copying the brain at some level of description). Putting him roughly: do you accept the idea that the brain is a sort of (natural) machine/computer (like the heart is accepted to be a natural pump)? While many on this list seem to believe in it, not even everyone here seems to buy into it. It's one idea among many. As I've said many times, let's all work our models and see what progress we can make. All what I say is derived from the assumption that the brain or the body is Turing emulable at a level such that if we turing-emulate it, you would not see the difference subjectively. It is my working assumption. Roger: It's possible that what we see as existing is a simulation in some other computer. But, even if we are a simulation, the simulation that is us exists as does the computer and the code we're a simulation in. My thinking is aimed at trying to figure out there are existent entities, whether we call them simulations, singular arithmetic computations/propositions, or whatever, instead of there not being existent entities. -- Roger: I can accept any idea including arithmetical reality as long as there's more logic and evidence for it than for other ideas. That's what I call being an agnostic. I haven't seen or read anything here or elsewhere that has convinced me of arithmetical reality as opposed to other ideas. You add metaphysics where there is none. Did you go out of the classroom at school when they mentioned the existence of the even numbers, or of the prime numbers? Roger :It's unclear to me how wanting logic and evidence (mostly just evidence) for an idea is adding metaphysics. -- My assumption is that there is no magic operating in the brain. Roger: I'd agree that there's no magic operating in the brain or anywhere else. -- My goal in my thinking is to try and figure out why there are existent entities instead of no existent entities (e.g. the something versus nothing question) and to use that thinking to build a model of what the universe seems to look like and to hopefully make testable predictions. Of course, I'm a long way from that but am working on it. I've summarized my thinking at my website and at this list. Overall, you don't believe in a primary physical universe. That's great, and I'm happy for you. I do. I have never say that I don't believe in a primary physical universe. I am agnostic. All what I say is that IF computationalism is correct, THEN there is no primary physical universe (playing any role related to my consciousness, to be more precise (we still needs some amount of Occam to get rid of it)). So, if you assume a primitive physical universe (related to our consciousness), then you derive from my argument that computationalism is false. There is some actual infinities, and non computable one, and non FPI recovrable one, playing in the brain. But this seems using a string ontological commitment to avoid an explanation. It is a bit like a creationist saying I am OK that natural selection explains a lot, but let us be clear, it completely fails to explain how God made this in six days. As always, we'll all take our thinking, work our models and see what progress can be made.And, good luck to everyone! Good luck to you too. Can you recall me you website? Roger: I'm also agnostic on all of this. I lean towards the idea that our universe is at its most fundamental level, composed of physically existent entities and am building a model based on it, but if someone can provide me with enough evidence that the computationalism or any other idea is better, I'm willing to switch. I just haven't seen that evidence here or elsewhere. For me, I'd need evidence of why arithmetical propositions exist rather than not exist in order to change my model. As many of us do, I feel like I have a solution that makes sense to me for why there are existent entities rather than there not being existent entities. I base my thinking on this. A summary is at: https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist/ and a more detailed explanation along with more philosophical stuff and a beginning model is at: https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/ (click on 3rd link down) While we are working on different models, it's been a great discussion. Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Roger: It's possible that what we see as existing is a simulation in some other computer. But, even if we are a simulation, the simulation that is us exists as does the computer and the code we're a simulation in. My thinking is aimed at trying to figure out there are existent entities, whether we call them simulations, singular arithmetic computations/propositions, or whatever, instead of there not being existent entities. Existence and non-existence can be viewed as different perspectives on nothing…. existence and non-existence are emergent and understood in dialectic opposition to each other… they arise out of each other, and are defined in terms of each other. -Chris Chris, I totally agree and that's what I've been trying to get at in my thinking and at the website. Well put! Roger https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist/ https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist/ and a more detailed explanation along with more philosophical stuff and a beginning model is at: https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/ (click on 3rd link down) While we are working on different models, it's been a great discussion. Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
But, what is outside the head is a circle, with a circumference and a diameter. This is ambiguous.Are you talkng about the platonic perfect circle? Or about a circle physically realized, like with a pen and a compass? Roger: A physically realized circle. I doubt this exist. And with computationalism, I doubt this makes sense. Roger: Draw a circle on a chalkboard, and it exists outside the head. The concept of a perfect circle exists inside the mind/head. --- I don't know any one not believing in the arithmetical reality, even philosophers (which sometimes claims that they does not admit them, but eventually betray themselves. Not everybody agrees that it is enough for explaining consciousness and the physical reality, but most everyday concept (like forever, while, again, anniversary, death, everyday, ...) assumes the intuition needed for agreeing on the elementary arithmetical axioms. Roger: To think that almost everyone believes in an arithmetical reality is to ignore parts of philosophy like physicalism, nominalism, etc. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Platonism in Metaphysics (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/) ...Of course, platonism about any of these kinds of objects is controversial. Many philosophers do not believe in abstract objects at all... While many on this list seem to believe in it, not even everyone here seems to buy into it. It's one idea among many. As I've said many times, let's all work our models and see what progress we can make. --- Roger: As above, a physically realized circle. I really doubt you could realize a circle in nature. Only an approximation, and then I am not sure if nature is not in the head of the Turing machines and relative numbers. So you take as axioms that there is a primary physical universe. I do not. To better tackle the mind-body problem, it is better to be agnostic on this, and open to the idea that such a primary physical universe might not exist. Roger: I can accept any idea including arithmetical reality as long as there's more logic and evidence for it than for other ideas. That's what I call being an agnostic. I haven't seen or read anything here or elsewhere that has convinced me of arithmetical reality as opposed to other ideas. Mostly, I see unfounded assertions, claims and assumptions. Many might say that about my arguments, too, I admit. Overall, what I take is that whatever exists, whether it's called mental, abstract, physical, inside the mind, outside the mind, etc., it still exists. Mental, arithmetical reality, abstract, physical, etc. are all just labels for existent entities. I live in a universe made of existent entities, whatever they're called. My goal in my thinking is to try and figure out why there are existent entities instead of no existent entities (e.g. the something versus nothing question) and to use that thinking to build a model of what the universe seems to look like and to hopefully make testable predictions. Of course, I'm a long way from that but am working on it. I've summarized my thinking at my website and at this list. Overall, you don't believe in a primary physical universe. That's great, and I'm happy for you. I do. As always, we'll all take our thinking, work our models and see what progress can be made.And, good luck to everyone! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't mean that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If the pi proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence for the existence of the pi proposition or the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi existing outside the mind/head, I'd be happy to accept it. I can see that a circle can exist outside the head, but I don't see anywhere outside the mind/head, the proposition that if you divide the circle's circumference by its diameter you get pi. But that proposition is not in the head of anybody. A body can get a representation of that proposition in some language (be it LISP or neural nets, or numbers): that is usually called a sentence, and *that* is in the head of the machine or the number. The proposition itself is what is intended by the sentence and the universal machine in presence. That pi is what you find by dividing the circle's circumference by the diameter is (true by definition), and that the sum of the inverse of all squared natural number is true, by a proposition proved by Euler. That is true. period. It was true before Euler proved it, and after, although this is only a metaphor. The number are just not concept to which time or space attribute can apply. There is no number, nor proposition, in a brain. You might find representations of number, and of propositions in the brain, but it makes no sense to say that a number is in a brain, or on the planet mars. Then a brain itself can be described as the representation of a universal numbers with respect to some other universal numbers. If you accept Church-Turing thesis, all computations exists in the elementary arithmetical reality, and in a very special redundant way, and we are there, and we must explain why the white rabbits are so rare and why the rabbit hole is so deep. The quantum almost solves that problem, but to solve the mind-body problem, we must justify why only the quantum works. Bruno Roger: I understand that the sentence, the words and the thought divide a circle's circumference by its diameter to get pi are in the mind/head. Yes. even in the mind/head of all universal machine, in the sense of Turing-Church, which can be defined in arithmetic. But, what is outside the head is a circle, with a circumference and a diameter. This is ambiguous.Are you talkng about the platonic perfect circle? Or about a circle physically realized, like with a pen and a compass? Roger: A physically realized circle. There is no process outside the mind/head saying that if you divide the circumference by the diameter, the number 3.14... results. Yes there is. For each choice of a universal numbers in N, you will have an infinity of numbers which describes that process, like all programs simulating Archimedes algorithm to compute Pi. Those programs and their executions are entirely well defined in arithmetic. Some quite indirectly, like the programs simulating the milky way, in string theory, just before Archimedes discovered his algorithm. That process and the idea of even doing it are inside the mind/head. But with computationalism everything is inside the mind/ead of the universal numbers, even the idea that there is something outside the mind/head of the universal machine. Roger: If you believe in computationalism and arithmetical reality. It will give 3.14 for all physical circles and their circumferences and diameters outside the head, but the only thing outside the head is the circle. The platonic circle? Perhaps. Roger: As above, a physically realized circle. The process and the idea are inside the mind/head. There are also in arithmetic, and in the mind/head of all universal numbers, although they can focus on something else. The what you find by dividing... in your sentence also kind of implies that an action needs to be taken by the observer. OK, but the observer is defined by a relative number, or a couple of universal numbers. We never go outside a tiny fragment of arithmetic, except for the reasoning on the measure on the computational histories, where analytical tools are not forbidden at the metalevel. Keep in mind that I do not assume a physical universe, if only because I want a non circular explanation of matter and of the physical. Everett use computationalism to justify the absence of collapse, but this works only if we can derive the SWE from the measure on *all* computational dreams in arithmetic. Bruno Roger: It just seems like we're starting out with different assumptions (arithmetical reality/computationalism versus physically existent entities), and I don't think we can resolve that one. But, that's okay. As I mentioned before, we'll all keep working our models and try and make some
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 2:49:12 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2015, at 23:48, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote: Roger: Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi, the pi proposition and therefore the process of calculating its 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point and being confident that if you do the process that that number is either 0-9 are all located inside the mind/head. My view is that whenever we talk about something existing, we have to specify where and when it exists, that is, in what context or domain it exists. A thing can exist in one place and not another. A ball can exist outside the head, and a mental construct labeled the concept of a ball can exist inside the head. If a ball can exist outside the mind/head, why can't the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi exist outside the mind/head? What property must a thing have to have an independent existence outside of any mind? (according to your theory?) Jason So, if the pi process were carried out inside the mind/head long enough to figure out the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point, that mental construct for that number (which would be 0-9) would exist inside the mind/head but not outside the mind/head. So, the mind is able to reify things (like the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi) so that they exist but so that they only exist inside the mind/head and not outside the mind/head. Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't mean that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If the pi proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence for the existence of the pi proposition or the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi existing outside the mind/head, I'd be happy to accept it. I can see that a circle can exist outside the head, but I don't see anywhere outside the mind/head, the proposition that if you divide the circle's circumference by its diameter you get pi. But that proposition is not in the head of anybody. A body can get a representation of that proposition in some language (be it LISP or neural nets, or numbers): that is usually called a sentence, and *that* is in the head of the machine or the number. The proposition itself is what is intended by the sentence and the universal machine in presence. That pi is what you find by dividing the circle's circumference by the diameter is (true by definition), and that the sum of the inverse of all squared natural number is true, by a proposition proved by Euler. That is true. period. It was true before Euler proved it, and after, although this is only a metaphor. The number are just not concept to which time or space attribute can apply. There is no number, nor proposition, in a brain. You might find representations of number, and of propositions in the brain, but it makes no sense to say that a number is in a brain, or on the planet mars. Then a brain itself can be described as the representation of a universal numbers with respect to some other universal numbers. If you accept Church-Turing thesis, all computations exists in the elementary arithmetical reality, and in a very special redundant way, and we are there, and we must explain why the white rabbits are so rare and why the rabbit hole is so deep. The quantum almost solves that problem, but to solve the mind-body problem, we must justify why only the quantum works. Bruno Roger: I understand that the sentence, the words and the thought divide a circle's circumference by its diameter to get pi are in the mind/head. But, what is outside the head is a circle, with a circumference and a diameter. There is no process outside the mind/head saying that if you divide the circumference by the diameter, the number 3.14... results. That process and the idea of even doing it are inside the mind/head. It will give 3.14 for all physical circles and their circumferences and diameters outside the head, but the only thing outside the head is the circle. The process and the idea are inside the mind/head. The what you find by dividing... in your sentence also kind of implies that an action needs to be taken by the observer. That pi is what you find by dividing the circle's circumference by the diameter is (true by definition), and that the sum of the inverse of all squared natural number is true, by a proposition proved by Euler. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Roger: Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi, the pi proposition and therefore the process of calculating its 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point and being confident that if you do the process that that number is either 0-9 are all located inside the mind/head. My view is that whenever we talk about something existing, we have to specify where and when it exists, that is, in what context or domain it exists. A thing can exist in one place and not another. A ball can exist outside the head, and a mental construct labeled the concept of a ball can exist inside the head. If a ball can exist outside the mind/head, why can't the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi exist outside the mind/head? What property must a thing have to have an independent existence outside of any mind? (according to your theory?) Jason So, if the pi process were carried out inside the mind/head long enough to figure out the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point, that mental construct for that number (which would be 0-9) would exist inside the mind/head but not outside the mind/head. So, the mind is able to reify things (like the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi) so that they exist but so that they only exist inside the mind/head and not outside the mind/head. Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't mean that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If the pi proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence for the existence of the pi proposition or the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi existing outside the mind/head, I'd be happy to accept it. I can see that a circle can exist outside the head, but I don't see anywhere outside the mind/head, the proposition that if you divide the circle's circumference by its diameter you get pi. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Jason et al., Overall, I can never disprove that mathematical constructs don't exist outside the head somewhere just like I can't prove my view that what we've previously considered to be the absolute lack-of-all is itself an existent entity just because no one can never or directly experiment on either these mathematical constructs or the absolute lack-of-all. But, what we can do is to provide logical evidence for our ideas as we've each been trying to do on this list, and to take our ideas and try to build a model of reality out of them that can eventually make testable predictions. This is what many on this list are working on, and I applaud them for it even if I don't agree with the underlying idea. Eventually, all of us will need to make some testable predictions, which if they get experimental evidence backing them up,will convince others to other follow up on our ideas and models. This is what I think many of us are working on either in our spare time or full-time. Good luck to all of us! Roger P.S. One thing that I know exists is that I have to go to work tomorrow (had today off), and I don't like it! :-) On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 5:48:27 PM UTC-5, Roger wrote: Roger: Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi, the pi proposition and therefore the process of calculating its 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point and being confident that if you do the process that that number is either 0-9 are all located inside the mind/head. My view is that whenever we talk about something existing, we have to specify where and when it exists, that is, in what context or domain it exists. A thing can exist in one place and not another. A ball can exist outside the head, and a mental construct labeled the concept of a ball can exist inside the head. If a ball can exist outside the mind/head, why can't the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi exist outside the mind/head? What property must a thing have to have an independent existence outside of any mind? (according to your theory?) Jason So, if the pi process were carried out inside the mind/head long enough to figure out the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point, that mental construct for that number (which would be 0-9) would exist inside the mind/head but not outside the mind/head. So, the mind is able to reify things (like the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi) so that they exist but so that they only exist inside the mind/head and not outside the mind/head. Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't mean that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If the pi proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence for the existence of the pi proposition or the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi existing outside the mind/head, I'd be happy to accept it. I can see that a circle can exist outside the head, but I don't see anywhere outside the mind/head, the proposition that if you divide the circle's circumference by its diameter you get pi. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Jason, I'm glad you quoted The Who. I think they're maybe the best band ever, IMHO. I know many will disagree, but I really like them and have luckily seen them twice. They're having a 50th anniversary tour this year, but I can't imagine too many tours. But, if they're 90 and still touring, that'd be great! Some younger people, though, have never even heard of them or other bands from the 60s-80s. Roger On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:01:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:02 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: Jason et al., Overall, I can never disprove that mathematical constructs don't exist outside the head somewhere just like I can't prove my view that what we've previously considered to be the absolute lack-of-all is itself an existent entity just because no one can never or directly experiment on either these mathematical constructs or the absolute lack-of-all. But, what we can do is to provide logical evidence for our ideas as we've each been trying to do on this list, and to take our ideas and try to build a model of reality out of them that can eventually make testable predictions. This is what many on this list are working on, and I applaud them for it even if I don't agree with the underlying idea. Eventually, all of us will need to make some testable predictions, which if they get experimental evidence backing them up,will convince others to other follow up on our ideas and models. This is what I think many of us are working on either in our spare time or full-time. Good luck to all of us! Roger P.S. One thing that I know exists is that I have to go to work tomorrow (had today off), and I don't like it! :-) Excellent message Roger. It is definitely one I can get behind. For some of our theories I feel a lyric from The Who may be relevant: They call me the seeker I been searchin low and high I wont get to get what I'm after Till the day I die At least when we consider final theories which relate to existence of things beyond this universe, the soul, and afterlife ,etc. It may be we won't get observational proof of such things while we are constrained to this reality. (Not unlike using quantum suicide to find the many-worlds). Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
That's exactly what I said in my posting: ...If the pi proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence for the existence of the pi proposition or the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi existing outside the mind/head, I'd be happy to accept it... So, seeing, experiencing, or direct experimental evidence is probably best, but indirect experimental evidence is also pretty good. So far, I think we've got direct experience/observation of past points in time and pretty good indirect evidence for galaxies beyond the cosmological horizon and the interiors of black holes but so far only theory about multiple universes. Anyways, let's keep working at it! Roger On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 6:56:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:48 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: Roger: Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi, the pi proposition and therefore the process of calculating its 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point and being confident that if you do the process that that number is either 0-9 are all located inside the mind/head. My view is that whenever we talk about something existing, we have to specify where and when it exists, that is, in what context or domain it exists. A thing can exist in one place and not another. A ball can exist outside the head, and a mental construct labeled the concept of a ball can exist inside the head. If a ball can exist outside the mind/head, why can't the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi exist outside the mind/head? What property must a thing have to have an independent existence outside of any mind? (according to your theory?) Jason So, if the pi process were carried out inside the mind/head long enough to figure out the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point, that mental construct for that number (which would be 0-9) would exist inside the mind/head but not outside the mind/head. So, the mind is able to reify things (like the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi) so that they exist but so that they only exist inside the mind/head and not outside the mind/head. Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't mean that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If the pi proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence for the existence of the pi proposition or the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi existing outside the mind/head, I'd be happy to accept it. I can see that a circle can exist outside the head, but I don't see anywhere outside the mind/head, the proposition that if you divide the circle's circumference by its diameter you get pi. This definition of exists seems limited to things you can see with your eyes. But then we would have to discount other universe, past points in time, galaxies beyond the cosmological horizon, the interiors of black holes, and many other things which our theories lead us to believe exists. If we accumulate evidence for a theory, which tells us certain things exist even though we can't see them (and even better if it also accounts for why we can't/shouldn't see them) then I think we should take the implications of those theories seriously. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Chris, Mostly I agree with everything you said. Specifically: By corollary and by symmetry this same optic of doubt can shine upon the notion of a real physical entity underlying the stuff we call real. What is real about a proton, electron, photon…etc.? Roger: I agree. Proton, electron, etc. are just names for existent entities with certain properties. Even if these entities are abstract arithmetical propositions, the existent entities previously called the absolute lack of all (me), two of these entities looking at each other would seem as real to each other as two rock-solid particles. Reality is relative in this way, I think. In regard to the auto-emergence and that's just the way it is stuff, I also totally agree. It could be true, but is just not very satisfying to me to say that's just the way it is. I was trying to do the autoemergent thing by saying that even what we previously thought of as the absolute lack-of-all is an existent entity idea and showing how it could self-replicate to provide an expanding space like our universe. I think one of the issues is in our perhaps incorrect distinction between something and nothing, which is what I was trying to get at. This distinction keeps us wondering well why is it all here. But, I'll keep working on it as we all should on our ideas. As above, good luck to all of us! And, listen to The Who! On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:35:43 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] Jason et al., Overall, I can never disprove that mathematical constructs don't exist outside the head somewhere just like I can't prove my view that what we've previously considered to be the absolute lack-of-all is itself an existent entity just because no one can never or directly experiment on either these mathematical constructs or the absolute lack-of-all. But, what we can do is to provide logical evidence for our ideas as we've each been trying to do on this list, and to take our ideas and try to build a model of reality out of them that can eventually make testable predictions. This is what many on this list are working on, and I applaud them for it even if I don't agree with the underlying idea. Eventually, all of us will need to make some testable predictions, which if they get experimental evidence backing them up,will convince others to other follow up on our ideas and models. This is what I think many of us are working on either in our spare time or full-time. Good luck to all of us! Nice statement with a good sentiment behind it. This list (and its long rich trail of past threads, which contain some real gems) is a lively place to be; hard to keep up sometimes. I share your view that it cannot be proved (yet at least) that mathematical entities – and all other pure abstract system entities (as in say the laws of the universe) – have an existence independent from and external to our human cultural history. It can be equally hypothesized that our laws of physics, our logic, our math are all our models (our historical evolution of thought through recorded history)… models that the cultures emergent from our species have evolved to explain experienced reality…. We have our current best fit models – both in science and in math. By corollary and by symmetry this same optic of doubt can shine upon the notion of a real physical entity underlying the stuff we call real. What is real about a proton, electron, photon…etc.? Other than their properties and their current state. There is an undeniable (I take that back, you will always find somebody, somewhere, who will disagree)… a mostly undeniable realness to the macro experience of being in reality. It is a realness that has repeating patterns in it (wave interaction for example) that we have noticed as a species and ridden like clues to the pretty good models we now have. Personally prefer to be neither Aristotelian; nor however a Platonic idealist. But not a TOE, yet! And certainly not one with an auto-emergent story… yet. A TOE, with an auto-emergent origin story for me is the holy grail. When I say origin story it should not be confused with having the one way vector of time perspective that gives us the illusion of past, present, and future states. I find it quite possible that time itself is emergent; that our experience of time is merely some particular stack ordering of observer moments in 4-D spacetime. This idea also naturally extends (and lends) itself to a MWI hyper-stack of other universes, in the tree of all quantum outcomes. I find any TOE that side steps the question of emergence, by just saying that’s how it always was to be unsatisfying. For example the cyclic universe hypothesis, certainly an elegant idea that attempts to tie it all up
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 2:52:34 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:48 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 12:27:06 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:11 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: Roger, I have a question for you. Do you believe the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of Pi has a certain definite value, which is either 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9? If so, would you still believe this if you knew that this number is too difficult to ever compute by anyone in this universe? Does this not point to a discontinuity between mathematical truth and conceivably of that truth by us limited creatures with limited minds in a limited universe? Perhaps it does take faith to believe that digit takes a certain value between 0 and 9, but it's easier for me to accept that on faith than the converse (that it is not any one of those digits). Jason Jason, What I believe is that there is no proposition outside a mind/head that relates a circle's circumference and its diameter to get a number called pi. But that wasn't my question. Do you think that that the digit has a certain definite value (despite not being known by any human) or perhaps any being in this physical universe? Let's work by steps, do you think the 10^1th digit has a definite value? Do you think the 10^6th digit has a certain definite value? Do you think the 10^Nth digit has a definite value (for any given N)) ? What I think does exist is: o A circle could exist either outside the mind or inside the mind/head as the mental construct labeled a circle. o It takes a mind to come up with a proposition that says that if you divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter, you get pi, and that the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of this pi is one of the numbers from 0-9. Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following statements is true? the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 1 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 2 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 3 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 4 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 5 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 6 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 7 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 8 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 9 Either you answer yes, or no to that question. If you answer yes, I don't see how you can escape mathematical realism. Jason Jason, I believe the following: o I do believe that the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi is either 0-9. Yet no mind has conceived what it is. It exists and yet it exists outside the mind of any person, which seems counter to your clams below. o That 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi and its value of 0-9 exists only in the mind of the person where the proposition defining pi exists. So does defining what Pi is lead to the existence of all of its infinite digits, even if those digits are never considered by a conscious mind? If a conscious mind can reify other things it doesn't concevie why does any mind need to reify the first concept (of pi) at all? Roger: Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi, the pi proposition and therefore the process of calculating its 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point and being confident that if you do the process that that number is either 0-9 are all located inside the mind/head. My view is that whenever we talk about something existing, we have to specify where and when it exists, that is, in what context or domain it exists. A thing can exist in one place and not another. A ball can exist outside the head, and a mental construct labeled the concept of a ball can exist inside the head. So, if the pi process were carried out inside the mind/head long enough to figure out the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point, that mental construct for that number (which would be 0-9) would exist inside the mind/head but not outside the mind/head. So, the mind is able to reify things (like the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi) so that they exist but so that they only exist inside the mind/head and not outside the mind/head. o That 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi does not exist outside the mind of the person where the proposition defining pi is. I also believe that the above was easily deducible from my first reply Do you see how the above sentence can be construed as condescending? and that there's no need to be condescending (Your Let's work by steps). I did not intend to be condescendin, I only sought greater clarification because your original post did not directly address my question. Breaking
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Roger, I have a question for you. Do you believe the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of Pi has a certain definite value, which is either 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9? If so, would you still believe this if you knew that this number is too difficult to ever compute by anyone in this universe? Does this not point to a discontinuity between mathematical truth and conceivably of that truth by us limited creatures with limited minds in a limited universe? Perhaps it does take faith to believe that digit takes a certain value between 0 and 9, but it's easier for me to accept that on faith than the converse (that it is not any one of those digits). Jason Jason, What I believe is that there is no proposition outside a mind/head that relates a circle's circumference and its diameter to get a number called pi. What I think does exist is: o A circle could exist either outside the mind or inside the mind/head as the mental construct labeled a circle. o It takes a mind to come up with a proposition that says that if you divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter, you get pi, and that the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of this pi is one of the numbers from 0-9. So, this proposition and its value as true or false only exists inside a mind/head even if it describes a circle that's outside the mind. Roger -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 12:27:06 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:11 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: Roger, I have a question for you. Do you believe the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of Pi has a certain definite value, which is either 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9? If so, would you still believe this if you knew that this number is too difficult to ever compute by anyone in this universe? Does this not point to a discontinuity between mathematical truth and conceivably of that truth by us limited creatures with limited minds in a limited universe? Perhaps it does take faith to believe that digit takes a certain value between 0 and 9, but it's easier for me to accept that on faith than the converse (that it is not any one of those digits). Jason Jason, What I believe is that there is no proposition outside a mind/head that relates a circle's circumference and its diameter to get a number called pi. But that wasn't my question. Do you think that that the digit has a certain definite value (despite not being known by any human) or perhaps any being in this physical universe? Let's work by steps, do you think the 10^1th digit has a definite value? Do you think the 10^6th digit has a certain definite value? Do you think the 10^Nth digit has a definite value (for any given N)) ? What I think does exist is: o A circle could exist either outside the mind or inside the mind/head as the mental construct labeled a circle. o It takes a mind to come up with a proposition that says that if you divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter, you get pi, and that the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of this pi is one of the numbers from 0-9. Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following statements is true? the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 1 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 2 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 3 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 4 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 5 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 6 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 7 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 8 the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 9 Either you answer yes, or no to that question. If you answer yes, I don't see how you can escape mathematical realism. Jason Jason, I believe the following: o I do believe that the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi is either 0-9. o That 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi and its value of 0-9 exists only in the mind of the person where the proposition defining pi exists. o That 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi does not exist outside the mind of the person where the proposition defining pi is. I also believe that the above was easily deducible from my first reply and that there's no need to be condescending (Your Let's work by steps). Roger So, this proposition and its value as true or false only exists inside a mind/head even if it describes a circle that's outside the mind. Roger -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:12:20 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: The only thing about Larry Krauss that I like is his sketching out a conjecture for faster than light travel. Agreed. Krauss kind of irritates me, too. His book title A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing is basically false advertising, IMHO. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?
Liz, Hi. I totally agree that if we're talking about the S vs. N question (I like your shortening of it), we can't assume that pre-quantum fields, the laws of mathematics, etc. are there. That's what Lawrence Krauss did in his latest book and was criticized for by philosophers. But, I also think that we can't assume that all possible information, arithmetical propositions, etc. are there without explanation. It has to start with what we consider to be the absolute lack-of-all. My view, though, is that even if we have what we think is the absolute lack-of-all, that absolute lack-of-all is itself an existent entity. I say this because I think an existent entity is a grouping defining what is contained within. Then, if there is the supposed absolute lack-of-all, that would be the entirety of all that is present; there are no existent entities hidden somewhere else; that's it. Entirety and all are groupings defining what is contained within, and so it seems like the supposed absolute lack-of-all is itself, then, an existent entity. Of course, because we wouldn't be there in the case of the supposed absolute lack-of-all, I can't prove this, but I can try to use the idea to build a model from it and see it it fits with what we know about the universe and then try to make some testable predictions. I'm nowhere near that stage, but by doing this, it seems like metaphysics can kind of be like science (observe or think about the S vs. N question, make a hypothesis, and test it to try and get evidence). On a different note, I have a hard time navigating through all these different threads and posts. I wish it were somehow a little easier to follow. But, it could just be me. Thanks! Roger On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 5:13:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 12 January 2015 at 17:23, 'Roger' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: Everyone, I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc., and stop talking about religion so much. It'd be nice if we could all also provide constructive criticism if we disagree, instead of insults. If this turns into a religion, hatred, insults type forum, for me at least, it will have lost the value it had. To start, I'd like to propose the following: We all have different views on the question Why there is something rather than nothing?, if that question even has value, how the universe works, etc. I think it's safe to say that, unless you're an academic, our ideas are also routinely ignored, criticized and made fun of by academics. The only way for amateurs to ever get more traction is if we can take our ideas on the universe, build them up, and make models and testable predictions. That's pretty much the scientific method. Also, if we're discussing metaphysics, metaphysics is the study of being and existence. Because the universe bes and exists, and physics is the study of how the universe works, the laws of physics and the universe should be derivable from the principles of metaphysics. I think many of us are trying to work out the principles of metaphysics that apply to how the universe works. I call this a metaphysics-to-physics or philosophical engineering approach. I'd like to challenge all of us to build models and make predictions based on our ideas. That's what I'm trying to do in my own thinking. I've got a very basic beginning model based on my thinking at my website at: https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing in the section called Use of the proposed solution to build a model of the universe. I look forward to reading about others' models on this list in the future. Anyways, even if no one is interested, I'd still vote to get away from religion. Live and let live, let everyone have their say, and move on. That's my two cents. Thanks. OK. I have many times dismissed the God hypothesis (on this forum) as having no explanatory value, as have others. But it keeps coming back. But anyway... I don't think there is necessarily something rather than nothing. There may only appear to be - the something of a material universe may be somehow derived from the nothing of all possible information, as suggested by Russell and others. I think any serious attempt to explain the S vs N (on this list, given what's already been said) should start from the basis that nothing has to mean nothing physical - no pre-quantum fields or whatever are good enough, they're still something. Otherwise you're just going from something to somethnig else, which is fine in itself but it shouldnt be advertised as something from nothing. My 2c -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe
Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?
John, Thanks for the posting. I still have trouble conceiving of point particles with physical dimensions of zero. Wouldn't they be not there? But, all these ideas of getting something from nothing are on the right track, I think. And, at least you've made some testable predictions. That's the key for all of us, IMHO. Roger On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 3:52:38 PM UTC-5, John Ross wrote: Roger and Everyone, I absolutely agree. And I have been working on a model which explains how our Universe works including how our Universe of 100 to 400 billion galaxies could have been created from empty space. My model is explained in detail in my new book, *Tronnies – The Source of the Coulomb Force*, but as far as I know not one member of this group has bothered to read my book. My book at *Chapter XXIX* includes 101 predictions of my “Theory of Everything”. No one who has read my book has shown me any evidence, based on fact, that any of my predictions are not correct. My theory is definitely inconsistent with much of the Standard Model and Einstein relativity. Tronnies (discovered by me about 13 years ago) are point particles with a charge of plus e or minus e. So tronnies are the *source* of the Coulomb force. Tronnies, in order to exist, must travel in circles at π/2 times the speed of light, with one or two other tronnies (twosomes and threesomes). (Doing so, each tronnie is always at the focus of its own Coulomb force; so tronnies are also the *product* of the Coulomb force.) The twosome is an entron (also discovered by me about 11 years ago) which provides all of the mass of our Universe except for the mass of electrons and positrons. The threesomes are electrons and positrons. ( *My* *model is completely symmetrical with no symmetry breaking.)* There are an equal number of electrons and positrons in our Universe. Everything else in our Universe is made from entrons, electrons and positrons. For example, each proton is made from two positrons and a very high energy electron (which is a combination of an electron and a very high energy entron). An anti-proton is the opposite of a proton. In our Universe protons dominate over anti-protons merely because there are more free electrons as compared to positrons, so protons are easier to make. Any anti-protons made are quickly annihilated by combination with protons. However, there are probably universes within our Cosmos in which anti-protons are dominate over protons. An alpha particle is comprised of four protons, two electrons and several gamma ray entrons. There are no neutrons in the nuclei of stable atoms. (Neutrons have an average life of about 15 minutes.) The nuclei of all stable (and very long-lived unstable atoms) heaver than helium are comprised of from 1 to 60 alpha particles, 0, 1, 2, or 3 protons, and a number (between 0 and 28) of electrons and between about 13 and 322 MeV of gamma ray entrons. For example the carbon-12 nuclei is comprised of three alpha particles and about 13.04 MeV of gamma ray entrons. The oxygen-16 nuclei is comprised of four alpha particles and about 13.04 MeV of gamma ray entrons. The silver, Ag-107 nuclei is comprised of 26 alpha particles, 3 protons and 8 electrons and about 25 MeV of gamma ray entrons. The Ag-109 nuclei is comprised of 27 alpha particles, 1 proton, 8 electrons and about 29 MeV of gamma ray entrons. My book is available for about $25 at Amazon.com. Just search for “tronnies”. You can see a summary of my model at the Amazon.com web site. Roger, I read your article from your web site. It is very interesting, although it takes a different approach from my model in dealing with the “something vs nothing” issue. On page 18 you said you can’t conceive of anything [not] having “*either*” height, depth or length. My tronnies have “*neither*” height, depth nor length. They also have no mass. They are point particles. They have no properties other than charge of “e” (about 1.602 X 10-19 coulombs) which means they are a source of the Coulomb force. Actually my tronnies are the only source of the Coulomb force. All other charged particles get their charge from the tronnies that they are comprised of. You might ask, “Where do the tronnies get their charge.” The answer is they get most of their charge from themselves, because traveling in a circle at a speed of π/2 times the speed of light, each of them are always at the focus of their own Coulomb force. Some of the tronnie’s charge may come from Coulomb grids that fill our Universe and is sum of all of the speed-of-light Coulomb waves that fill our Universe. However, entrons, electrons and positrons (made from tronnies) do have size and mass. Entrons are two-dimensional; electrons and positrons are three-dimensional
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 5:28:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2015, at 08:05, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote: I have to admit I have a hard time going with the idea of Platonism or mathematical constructs existing somewhere that no one can see or test. I sure can't rule it out, but I'd like to be able to know where it is. Where? You seem to assume a sort of geometry at the start, but with computationalism, geometry is among the emergent phenomena. Where does not apply to numbers, except in the large sense of being between two numbers, with the usual ordering (defined by x y if Ez(x+z = y)). All you need to believe in is that proposition like (786899543211 is prime or is not prime) is true independently of you and me. Of course by 786899543211, I mean the number denoted by this base ten description of a natural number. Are you OK with this? that type of assumption is weaker than the assumption most scientist are doing when using mathematics in their domain. The arithmetical platonism (realism) used in computationalism is the same amount than the one used in computer science, physics, etc. Roger: My view is that propositions like 786899543211 is prime or is not prime, 1+1=2, etc. are mental constructs/entities that exist in our minds (e.g., in our heads from my materialist point of view) in order to describe existent entities that exist outside the mind such as 786899543211 existent entities, an entity and another one next to it, respectively. What might be in your head are the sentences descriptions and the numbers description, not what is referred by those description. There is a difference between the number five, and a representation of the number five in some hardware (if that exists)... ...Propositions does not exist. A proposition is true or false. They might exist in a metatheory, which might be a part of the theory, but then propositions will be realized by sentences, and they will exist, in the mind of some universal numbers, again in a sense similar to prime number exists, which I think is clear enough for not adding metaphysical obscurity. Roger: There is, of course, a difference between the conception in our minds of something and the thing it is we're conceiving. I've made this exact point in a recent posting here. But, because of your Platonism you're suggesting that if the thing we're conceiving is a number or mathematical proposition, it would exist or be true even in the case of the complete lack of all physically existent entities. What I'm suggesting is that there would be no proposition about 786899543211 is prime or is not prime in the first place unless there are first existent entities and the mental constructs called numbers and mathematics for describing these entities. That is, to have a proposition *be* true or false, a proposition first has to *be* or exist. Basically, I think our disagreement comes down to the idea that you believe that some propositions exist or are true in a Platonic realm that is not part of space, time and the physical world. I can't disprove this. But, no one can ever disprove or prove things they can neither see evidence for or test. That's more a matter of faith. Mathematics and arithmetic are mental constructs we've created to manipulate these outside the mind entities. How do you know that outside of the mind is not also a mental construct? You assume a primary physical reality, but then the UD Argument shows that you need to put some non computable stuff in the brain and in matter. Do you believe that the prime twin conjecture depends on the human mind? Do you believe that the prime twin conjecture would not be true, or false, in case life did not appear on Earth? Roger: Even if what is outside the mind is also a mental construct, and even if the entirety of existence is some mental construct, you're suggesting that mathematics or mathematical propositions would exist outside that existence in a Platonic realm that doesn't exist like everything else. Again, I can't disprove it, but it can't be proved either because this realm can't be seen or experimented on. For a prime twin conjecture to *be *true or false, there first has to *be* a prime twin conjecture as well as primes. That is these things have to *be* or exist somewhere. If you can point out to me where they exist separately from being a mental construct, that'd be great. When I say Please point out this Platonic realm, what I'm getting at is that I don't think propositions or anything else can exist somewhere that's not in the mind/head or in the physical universe outside the mind. Where else would such propositions exist? I'll need something more than just a statement affirming that where does not apply to numbers. This doesn't seem to be evidence. This is because you seem to have decided that what exist
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
I have to admit I have a hard time going with the idea of Platonism or mathematical constructs existing somewhere that no one can see or test. I sure can't rule it out, but I'd like to be able to know where it is. Where? You seem to assume a sort of geometry at the start, but with computationalism, geometry is among the emergent phenomena. Where does not apply to numbers, except in the large sense of being between two numbers, with the usual ordering (defined by x y if Ez(x+z = y)). All you need to believe in is that proposition like (786899543211 is prime or is not prime) is true independently of you and me. Of course by 786899543211, I mean the number denoted by this base ten description of a natural number. Are you OK with this? that type of assumption is weaker than the assumption most scientist are doing when using mathematics in their domain. The arithmetical platonism (realism) used in computationalism is the same amount than the one used in computer science, physics, etc. Roger: My view is that propositions like 786899543211 is prime or is not prime, 1+1=2, etc. are mental constructs/entities that exist in our minds (e.g., in our heads from my materialist point of view) in order to describe existent entities that exist outside the mind such as 786899543211 existent entities, an entity and another one next to it, respectively. Mathematics and arithmetic are mental constructs we've created to manipulate these outside the mind entities. When I say Please point out this Platonic realm, what I'm getting at is that I don't think propositions or anything else can exist somewhere that's not in the mind/head or in the physical universe outside the mind. Where else would such propositions exist? I'll need something more than just a statement affirming that where does not apply to numbers. This doesn't seem to be evidence. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Bruno, Hi. I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc., And if there is one. Normally, we already have debated that if there is no magic operating in the brain (another way to assume computationalism, once we assume Church-Turing thesis), then the physical universe is a first person plural sort of hallucination, and we must derived the laws of physics from the laws of thought (Boole and Boolos, say). Roger: Even if the universe is a hallucination, purely based on thought, or a computer simulation, where does the hallucination, thought, or computer come from in the first place. I have to admit I have a hard time going with the idea of Platonism or mathematical constructs existing somewhere that no one can see or test. I sure can't rule it out, but I'd like to be able to know where it is. To start, I'd like to propose the following: We all have different views on the question Why there is something rather than nothing?, if that question even has value, how the universe works, etc. I think it's safe to say that, unless you're an academic, our ideas are also routinely ignored, criticized and made fun of by academics. Not really. I defended a thesis in mathematics, on the neceesary mininal common (to all machines) amount of theology, and got no problem in academies, except for some rare one, known for defending religious conviction (usually of the atheists type). Those just ignore facts, proofs, and argument, and I have been unable to ever met them. But most academicians don't take them seriously, despite some bad local influence they have on the media. Roger: Well, I admit not all academics make fun of amateurs, but a lot do. I'm happy that you've had better luck than me. I've had a few very nice academics give constructive feedback and comments, but they are few and far between. - I suggest you read my paper sane04 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Roger: I'll look this up tonight. Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Chris and Brent, On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 1:42:43 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: Roger: It seems to me, too, that there are problems with zero dimensions, or point particles. I've never understood why physicists don't question the idea of a zero-dimensional point particle. Oh well. Of course they've questioned. That's how they came up with string theory. Which is an elegant aspect of String Theory, I think. The infinitely small zero-dimensional point is an assumption IMO (nothing in reality indicates any actual necessary for its existence), and it is an abstraction that causes all kinds of problems for physicists. Even at the abstract level of meta-information: the finer the definition of a point (or any measured property in general) the bigger the definition must become, in order to hold the extra information required with each scale down into finer and finer grain sizes. Roger: I stand corrected. That is a good point for string theory and, I'm guessing, other similar theories, like loop quantum gravity, etc. Thanks Brent and Chris. In a related point and building on what Chris is saying, it seems like a lot of physicists are still grappling with infinities. This seems to me to be sort of related to the idea of zero size points. If I understood what Chris was saying, as you get closer and closer to infinitely small or infinitely large amounts, you need more information to describe that thing. It seems like it might be easier if we could have step functions where in our universe, there's only finite sized things (can't get to infinitely small or infinitely big. There's a smallest size; such as the Planck scale), and you have to take a step up or down in POV to see infinitely small or big things. What I'm thinking is that if you could consider our universe as an infinite set of Planck size chunks, and then view this set from the POV (good acronym from Chris!) of an infinite observer outside the set, this observer would not be able to see the boundaries/surfaces of these chunks (they'd be infinitesimally small from his POV), so it would look like a smooth, continuous space. That is, the way you perceive a thing as either being infinitesimally small or a finite size or infinitely big depends on your point of view, your perspective, of that thing. I wonder if they could use this type of thing in working on combining quantum mechanics and relativity? I've put some of this infinite set stuff at my website and over at fqxi.org in their essay contests, and it actually seemed to get a modest amount of positive feedback. But, a lot of ignoring it as well! :-) By the way, I live in Columbus, OH, and OSU just won the national football championship. Plus, the Big Ten did well in their bowl games this year! I couldn't help it. I just had to say congrats to OSU and the rest of the Big Ten! I know this is unrelated. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Chris, Hey Roger ~ sorry for the belatedness of my reply Roger: No problem. I know there were a lot of other passionate discussions going on here lately! - I really like your idea of imagining your mind growing to infinite size, but I agree it sounds pretty hard. I'm going to give it a try. Your head doesn't blow up, does it? :-) As you said, maybe people visualizing the infinitely small and infinitely big will eventually meet. Yes, in the sense of our universe being the perspective, of being, from inside a black hole. The universe shares some compelling properties with black holes; both are defined by their event horizons and both have histories bounded by moments of origin. Roger: Agreed. In a way, if the initial existent entity that made the universe is the one previously called the absolute lack-of-all, it's kind of like a black hole, or singularity. Actually, thinking about it, I see problems with an infinitely fine zero-dimensional entity, as well, even as a pure abstraction, when taken to an infinite degree of fineness of scale of its address in space-time. In a physical sense, as a smallest address of space time, how small can small be? And as a point of origin our laws of physics break down at some scale… how point-like was the Big Bang – at a scale of less than 10^(-35), do we really know? Even as a pure mathematical entity – with no corresponding point particle entity -- one can make an argument against an infinitely small point, existing even in a purely mathematical abstract realm, by noting that there exists a reverse symmetrical property between the scale of the points grain size (e.g. radius for example) and the information required to address it. The smaller the addressed scale becomes, the bigger the information set that is required in order to hold its address also becomes. If the rate at which the required address size increases, matches the rate at which increasingly fine scaled points can be defined then an infinitely small point would require an infinitely large address space in order to be defined. On the other hand, if the rate of growth in address space is less than the rate of increasingly fine grained scale point definition then perhaps it doesn’t matter. Roger: It seems to me, too, that there are problems with zero dimensions, or point particles. I've never understood why physicists don't question the idea of a zero-dimensional point particle. Oh well. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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.
Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?
Everyone, I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc., and stop talking about religion so much. It'd be nice if we could all also provide constructive criticism if we disagree, instead of insults. If this turns into a religion, hatred, insults type forum, for me at least, it will have lost the value it had. To start, I'd like to propose the following: We all have different views on the question Why there is something rather than nothing?, if that question even has value, how the universe works, etc. I think it's safe to say that, unless you're an academic, our ideas are also routinely ignored, criticized and made fun of by academics. The only way for amateurs to ever get more traction is if we can take our ideas on the universe, build them up, and make models and testable predictions. That's pretty much the scientific method. Also, if we're discussing metaphysics, metaphysics is the study of being and existence. Because the universe bes and exists, and physics is the study of how the universe works, the laws of physics and the universe should be derivable from the principles of metaphysics. I think many of us are trying to work out the principles of metaphysics that apply to how the universe works. I call this a metaphysics-to-physics or philosophical engineering approach. I'd like to challenge all of us to build models and make predictions based on our ideas. That's what I'm trying to do in my own thinking. I've got a very basic beginning model based on my thinking at my website at: https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing in the section called Use of the proposed solution to build a model of the universe. I look forward to reading about others' models on this list in the future. Anyways, even if no one is interested, I'd still vote to get away from religion. Live and let live, let everyone have their say, and move on. That's my two cents. Thanks. Roger -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Everyone, I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc., and stop talking about religion so much. It'd be nice if we could all also provide constructive criticism if we disagree, instead of insults. If this turns into a religion, hatred, insults type forum, for me at least, it will have lost the value it had. To start, I'd like to propose the following: We all have different views on the question Why there is something rather than nothing?, if that question even has value, how the universe works, etc. I think it's safe to say that, unless you're an academic, our ideas are also routinely ignored, criticized and made fun of by academics. The only way for amateurs to ever get more traction is if we can take our ideas on the universe, build them up, and make models and testable predictions. That's pretty much the scientific method. Also, if we're discussing metaphysics, metaphysics is the study of being and existence. Because the universe bes and exists, and physics is the study of how the universe works, the laws of physics and the universe should be derivable from the principles of metaphysics. I think many of us are trying to work out the principles of metaphysics that apply to how the universe works. I call this a metaphysics-to-physics or philosophical engineering approach. I'd like to challenge all of us to build models and make predictions based on our ideas. That's what I'm trying to do in my own thinking. I've got a very basic beginning model based on my thinking at my website at: https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing in the section called Use of the proposed solution to build a model of the universe. I look forward to reading about others' models on this list in the future. Anyways, even if no one is interested, I'd still vote to get away from religion. Live and let live, let everyone have their say, and move on. That's my two cents. Thanks. Roger -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Chris, 1.It sure is hard to visualize the absolute lack-of-all, I agree. What I try to do is to shut my eyes and try to imagine the universe and all its volume collapsing down to just my body and then just my mindscape. Then, I push that darkness of the mindscape off to the side into a little point and try to imagine getting rid of that point. I've never pushed it all the way away out of fear that it may not be so good for your health, but it helps me think that only once it's all gone, including our mind, do we jump to the outside and see the absolute lack-of-all as the entirety of all there is and thus an existent entity. But, it's possible it's just my imagination Nice meditative visualization. The last bit you mention about the sudden quantum jump – at the very instant when everything including the last vestige of self is gone and the state of all-nothing is first reached – in that sub-femtosecond or less instant – the observer perspective quite suddenly (in some quantum salsa) on the outside looking in… gaining this crucial outside perspective on the all-ness of nothing. I used to do visualization the other way… how vast can we imagine our minds? Perhaps, one could say, both roads lead to the same place. When I have tried this exercise I would expand my inner sense of the volume of space my mind extended to and enveloped from the room I would be meditating in… to the neighborhood above the trees… to the perspective of the clouds and the much vaster territory seen from that POV… and more… zooming out, holding the focus. Each time, at some point it I would lose it, on occasion from the vertigo in the mind; on others due to mundane interruptions – like some sound from my immediate environment that kicked the more primitive survival pathways of the brain, up into override mode. Have not done that in some time, but it was an interesting exercise of holding a focus on this particular mental perspective. I kind of suspect there may some ultimate symmetry in the limit of both the very big and the very small. Roger: I really like your idea of imagining your mind growing to infinite size, but I agree it sounds pretty hard. I'm going to give it a try. Your head doesn't blow up, does it? :-) As you said, maybe people visualizing the infinitely small and infinitely big will eventually meet. -- 2.When I was talking about removing all things thought to exist in order to get to the absolute lack-of-all, I don't think there's still a container left. Instead, I think that that that absolute lack-of-all itself is the container. That nothingness would be the entirety of all there is and thus the grouping, or container, defining what is contained within. That nothingness is both what is contained within and the container. Nice Daoist ring to this: “nothingness is both what is contained within and the container” okay, I see your POV. Then the container of this all-nothing, is a dual aspect or POV, of nothing. Roger: Yep, I think the entiretyness of the all-nothing means that it's a grouping, or surface, defining what is contained within. So, it is kind of a dual aspect of it. --- 4. In regard to the auto-catalytic nature of the existent entity/empty set, I totally agree. But, my vote for what the multiplication operation would be is that: o If the absolute lack-of-all is a grouping defining what is contained within and thus an existent entity, a grouping is the similar to a surface or edge defining what is contained within and giving substance and existence to the thing. Do you then view – e.g. maintain a perspective on – nothing as being a zero dimensional bubble with nothing inside (or outside for that matter), but one which is imbued nevertheless with this duality of having an edge or surface? One could make the point that this boils down to a duality of perspective: the within perspectives; and the containment of all (of nothing) perspective. The surface/edge is the global containing one (the bird’s eye view); whilst every other infinitely possible perspectives are within. Perspective of course implies an observer. Which poses some interesting problems for something out of nothing. Roger: Yep, I do think of the all-nothing as being a bubble with nothing inside and nothing outside but with the property of being a surface because of the fact that it's the entirety, or all, of all that is present. But, I don't think of it as zero dimensional. I can't envision anything that actually physically exists as having any of its dimensions actually be zero. If so, it seems like it wouldn't be there. So, I think of it as a physical entity of a finite, non-zero, size of 1 where 1 is the smallest possible size. The only perspective present is that of you and me and others, and that's only
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
If only through the we which think about that nothing. Is anything possible at all without an observer? -Chris Roger: If we're talking about the situation where there's only the absolute lack-of-all or the empty set, I think the only place the perspective/observer is coming from is from our thinking about this situation after the fact. In the case of the absolute lack-of-all, or empty set, there is no observer. There's a difference between our mind's conception of the absolute lack-of-all or empty set and the absolute lack-of-all or empty set itself, IMHO. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Chris, Hi. I admit that something and nothing may be more of a comedy gold mine than I first wrote. It's nothing to sneeze at! :-) Although, I wonder if people who aren't interested in this stuff (e.g. almost everyone) would find it funny? It sounds like we're pretty much in agreement on a lot of things. A couple of comments on your comments are: 1. It sure is hard to visualize the absolute lack-of-all, I agree. What I try to do is to shut my eyes and try to imagine the universe and all its volume collapsing down to just my body and then just my mindscape. Then, I push that darkness of the mindscape off to the side into a little point and try to imagine getting rid of that point. I've never pushed it all the way away out of fear that it may not be so good for your health, but it helps me think that only once it's all gone, including our mind, do we jump to the outside and see the absolute lack-of-all as the entirety of all there is and thus an existent entity. But, it's possible it's just my imagination 2. You mentioned ...the set is a pure conceptual entity, it never the less is also imbued with a rich set of operations and properties. Even the empty set is a non-trivial conceptual entity. I don't think of the existent entity that I used to call the absolute lack-of-all, which is similar to the empty set, as a conceptual entity because in the absolute lack-of-all or the nullness inside the empty set, there would be no mind for it to be conceived in. It's a real existent entity, IMHO, just like an electron is a real existent entity. Who knows what's inside an electron. All we really know is that it's an existent entity. Electron and empty set are just names for existent entities. 3. When I was talking about removing all things thought to exist in order to get to the absolute lack-of-all, I don't think there's still a container left. Instead, I think that that that absolute lack-of-all itself is the container. That nothingness would be the entirety of all there is and thus the grouping, or container, defining what is contained within. That nothingness is both what is contained within and the container. 4. In regard to the auto-catalytic nature of the existent entity/empty set, I totally agree. But, my vote for what the multiplication operation would be is that: o If the absolute lack-of-all is a grouping defining what is contained within and thus an existent entity, a grouping is the similar to a surface or edge defining what is contained within and giving substance and existence to the thing. o If you have this initial surface, what's next to the surface? The absolute lack-of-all. This new instance of the absolute lack-of-all is itself an existent entity next to the surface of the original entity. In fact, I think new identical absolute lack-of-all existent entities would cover the entire surface of the original entity. o Each of the new absolute lack-of-all existent entities would repeat the process and you'd have an expanding space composed of these absolute lack-of-all existent entities. This would be my vote on the autocatalytic mechanism for how this initial entity/empty set could replicate itself. See you. Roger -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Chris,
I have nothing important to say! :-) Nothing and something are kind
of good areas for puns, double entendres and jokes. After all, Jerry
Seinfeld had a whole show about nothing!
Roger – you have much to say about nothing [just joking]
You mentioned:
I agree with the distinction you make between nothing arrived at through
the negative process of removing everything that exists until nothing is
left versus the nothing **that is** everything.
Further down, if I follow you, you are making the point that if we are
speaking about the **nothing that is the set of everything there is** then
even if this is an empty set, by virtue of a set being something – a
conceptual entity – then even the absolutely empty universal set {} exists
as a conceptual entity at least.
Is that a fair recap of your intent; or am I off the mark?
I think that's a good recap of my intent. If we can visualize the
absolute lack-of-all where all things traditionally thought to exist,
including our minds doing the imagining, that nothingness would be
everything there is. And, then as you say, I think everything there is is
a grouping defining what is contained within and therefore an existent
entity. A set is also a grouping defining what is contained within, so
this situation would be similar to the empty set. I think this fundamental
existent entity similar to the empty set is the fundamental unit of our
physical universe.
Also, you mentioned in a later post:
Something is the “inside view” of Nothing”I agree with the premise
that perspective is paramount in coming to terms with and to understand
the spooky weird nature of quantum reality; perspective also provides a
powerful tool to explain the “something from nothing paradox”. Something
does seem like it could be how Nothing looks from the perspective of being
within itself – as opposed to the bird’s eye view from outside
I totally agree that perspective is paramount in deciding whether the
absolute lack-of-all is something or nothing. But, I always like to
think that when we're inside nothingness, that means we're also like
nothingness, so this nothingness just looks like nothing. But, if we
could step outside that nothingness, we'd see that it is the entirety of
all there is and thus an existent entity.
In regard to Russell's stuff on nothingness, I can't remember the
details now, but I think I read about it at one time and don't remember its
really answering any questions.
Have a good week!
Roger
This is exactly what I'm suggesting. It would not remain nothing. We
usually think of the situation when you get rid of all matter, energy,
space/volume, time, abstract concepts, minds, etc. as nothing. But, what
I'm saying is that this supposed nothing really isn't the lack of all
existent entities. That nothing would be the entirety of all that is
present; that's it; there's nothing else. It would be the all. An
entirety is a grouping defining what is contained within and therefore an
existent entity, based on my definition of an existent entity. So, even
what we think of as nothing is an existent entity or something. This
means that something is non-contingent. It's necessary. There is no
such thing as the lack of all existent entities.
Roger – you have much to say about nothing [just joking]
I agree with the distinction you make between nothing arrived at through
the negative process of removing everything that exists until nothing is
left versus the nothing **that is** everything.
Further down, if I follow you, you are making the point that if we are
speaking about the **nothing that is the set of everything there is**
then even if this is an empty set, by virtue of a set being something – a
conceptual entity – then even the absolutely empty universal set {} exists
as a conceptual entity at least.
Is that a fair recap of your intent; or am I off the mark?
-Chris
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *meekerdb
*Sent:* Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
theory to dialectics?
On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word exists has no use because everything exists, it seems
important to know why everything exists. How is it that a thing can
exist? What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is contained within
is an existent entity. Then, you can use this to try and answer the other
question of Why is there something rather than nothing?.
If everything exists, what doesn't exist? Nothing.
If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?
-Chris
Brent
--
You received this message because you
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
In regard to: If nothing existed; would it remain nothing? This is exactly what I'm suggesting. It would not remain nothing. We usually think of the situation when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, minds, etc. as nothing. But, what I'm saying is that this supposed nothing really isn't the lack of all existent entities. That nothing would be the entirety of all that is present; that's it; there's nothing else. It would be the all. An entirety is a grouping defining what is contained within and therefore an existent entity, based on my definition of an existent entity. So, even what we think of as nothing is an existent entity or something. This means that something is non-contingent. It's necessary. There is no such thing as the lack of all existent entities. On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb *Sent:* Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote: Even if the word exists has no use because everything exists, it seems important to know why everything exists. How is it that a thing can exist? What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is contained within is an existent entity. Then, you can use this to try and answer the other question of Why is there something rather than nothing?. If everything exists, what doesn't exist? Nothing. If nothing existed; would it remain nothing? -Chris 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Even if the word exists has no use because everything exists, it seems important to know why everything exists. How is it that a thing can exist? What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is contained within is an existent entity. Then, you can use this to try and answer the other question of Why is there something rather than nothing?. On Thursday, January 1, 2015 12:17:37 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:36 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping or relationship present defining what is contained within. If nothing is contained within then that is very well defined, therefore nothing exists. Something obviously also exists, but if both something and nothing exist then there is no contrast and the word exists is drained of all usefulness. What I was trying to get at is that the most fundamental unit of existence and the most fundamental instantiation of the word exists is the existent entity that is, I think, incorrectly called the absolute lack-of-all. Existent entity? But something that has the existent property is something that exists, and round and round we go. Once again the word exists is drained of all usefulness. 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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
John, Hi. What I was trying to get at is that the most fundamental unit of existence and the most fundamental instantiation of the word exists is the existent entity that is, I think, incorrectly called the absolute lack-of-all. That is when you say therefore nothing exists, what I mean is that this absolute lack-of-all is identical to something. I'm not sure how trying to explain why a thing exists and why nothing is actually not the lack of all existent entities but is instead a something drains exists of any usefulness? Thanks. Roger On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:54:42 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:56 AM, 'Roger' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping or relationship present defining what is contained within. If nothing is contained within then that is very well defined, therefore nothing exists. Something obviously also exists, but if both something and nothing exist then there is no contrast and the word exists is drained of all usefulness. 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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Peter, Hi. I used to post here a long time ago, but thought I'd try it again. I agree with your post that to answer the question Why is there something rather than nothing?, we have to start with the supposed absolute lack-of-all and can't presuppose the laws of math, etc. I also agree that absolute nothing can't exist, but my reasoning is a little different. My view is that: o The question Why is there something rather than nothing? is kind of built on a misunderstanding. That is, that the situation we've always considered to be nothing (e.g. no space/volume, time, matter, energy, abstract concepts, laws of math/physics, no information, and no minds to think about this lack of all) isn't really the lack of all existent entities. I think and try to show that this situation meets a definition of what it means to be an existent entity. That's also why I put nothing and the absolute lack-of-all in quotes to try and highlight this. o Before going into why I think it's an existent entity, I just wanted to say that I think it's okay to talk about and name the supposed absolute lack-of-all because we have to do that just to consider the question. And, our talking about it and naming it won't determine whether or not the absolute lack-of-all itself (and not our mind's conception of the absolute lack-of-all) is or isn't an existent entity because neither we nor our talk would be there in the case of the absolute lack-of-all. Also, it's real important to distinguish between our mind's conception of the absolute lack-of-all and the absolute lack-of-all itself. o For why I think what we've traditionally considered to be the absolute lack-of-all is actually itself an existent entity, my reasoning is as follows: First, I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping or relationship present defining what is contained within. This grouping/relationship is equivalent to a surface, edge or boundary defining what is contained within and giving substance and existence to the thing. Then, what we've traditionally thought of as “the absolute lack-of-all” (no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think about this “absolute lack-of-all”), and not our mind's conception of “the absolute lack-of-all”, is one and the same as the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. That's it; that's everything; there's nothing else; it is everything that is present. It is the all. An entirety or whole amount is a grouping defining what is contained within and is therefore a surface, an edge and an existent entity. In other words, because the absolute lack-of-all is the entirety of all that is present, it functions as both what is contained within and the grouping defining what is contained within. It defines itself and is, therefore, the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. The grouping/edge of the absolute lack-of-all is not some separate thing; it is just the entirety, the all relationship, inherent in this absolute lack-of-all, that defines what is contained within. If anyone is interested, there's more detail at my websites at: sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist (summary) sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite (click on 3rd link, more detail) Roger On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:33:50 AM UTC-4, Peter Sas wrote: Hi guys, Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of being: http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
Peter, Hi. I've read parts of a few of your blog posts and found them very interesting and highly recommend them to others. To build on this thread of Why is there something rather than nothing?, I'd like to throw out some related ideas. I used to post here more often with this, but my view is that the situation we've always considered to be nothing (e.g. no space/volume, time, matter, energy, abstract concepts, laws of math/physics, no information, and no minds to think about this lack of all) isn't really the lack of all existent entities. I try to show that that situation meets a definition of what it means to be an existent entity. Briefly, I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping or relationship present defining what is contained within. This grouping/relationship is equivalent to a surface, edge or boundary defining what is contained within and giving substance and existence to the thing. Then, what we've traditionally thought of as “the absolute lack-of-all” (no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think about this “absolute lack-of-all”), and not our mind's conception of “the absolute lack-of-all”, is one and the same as the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. That's it; that's everything; there's nothing else; it is everything that is present. It is the all. An entirety or whole amount is a grouping defining what is contained within and is therefore a surface, an edge and an existent entity. In other words, because the absolute lack-of-all is the entirety of all that is present, it functions as both what is contained within and the grouping defining what is contained within. It defines itself and is, therefore, the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. The grouping/edge of the absolute lack-of-all is not some separate thing; it is just the entirety, the all relationship, inherent in this absolute lack-of-all, that defines what is contained within. Anyways, if you're interested, there's more detail at my websites at: sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite (click on 3rd link) Thank you! On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:33:50 AM UTC-4, Peter Sas wrote: Hi guys, Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of being: http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:33:50 AM UTC-4, Peter Sas wrote: Hi guys, Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of being: http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Leibniz's theory of perception and consciousness.
Leibniz's theory of perception and consciousness. The secret of perception. Particular minds and how they relate to the overall or Cosmic Mind The problem of perception in materialistic thinking is that it forces us to think that there is a fleshly homunculus inside our brains. Leibniz has a more complicated understanding of particular minds and how they relate to Cosmic Mind. In Leibniz's metaphysics, there is only one mind (the Perceiver or Cosmic Mind or God or the One) that perceives and acts, doing this through the Supreme (most dominant) monad. It perceives the whole universe with perfect clarity. Only it can perceive and act, because its monads (which includes our minds) have no windows. The monads (our minds) perceive only indirectly, as the Supreme Monad is the only --what we would call-- conscious mind. We only think and perceive indirectly, as the Supreme Monad continually and instantly updates its universe of monads. Thus there is no problem communing with God (the Cosmic Mind , the One) as we do so continually and necessarily, although only according to our own abilities and perspectives . That we ourselves, not God (or Cosmic Mind, the One), appear to be the perceiver is thus only apparent. Also, because Cosmic Mind sees the entire universe as viewed by a kaleidoscope of individual monads, the perceptions it returns to us contains not only what we see (the universe from our own individual perspectives) but the perceptions of all of the other monads. Thus each monad knows everything in the universe, but only from its own perspective, and monads being monads, not perfectly clear but distorted. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
How the banks are stealing our wealth
How the banks are stealing our wealth. This seems to be factual, and is non-politcal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0Hi - Roger Clough You'll need to watch it at least twice to understand it, it's very complicated. And scarey. Pass it on. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Beware of the bitcoin
The bitcoin is an international speculative cyber-currency (based on nothing) that has been inflating rapidly in price. I would be wary of investing in it because it can drop in value just as fast as it is rising. It's probably a bubble. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHVu626uOGE Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
You can order Augason Farms 30 day supply of food from Walmart online at
Hi You can order Augason Farms 30 day emergency supply of food from Walmart online at http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=Augason%20Farmadid=224211189655wmlspartner=wmtlabswl0=3536268310wl1=ewl2=walmart%20augason%20farmswl3=15081448341veh=sem Free shipping, they will deliver to your door. Will keep for 25 years. Usually 99$ but now on sale at $89 each. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Order now, as prices are rising on emergency food supply. Fw: You can order Augason Farms 30 day supply of food from Walmart onlineat
Order now, as prices are rising on this emergency food supply. Subject: You can order Augason Farms 30 day supply of food from Walmart onlineat Hi You can order Augason Farms 30 day emergency supply of food from Walmart online at http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=Augason%20Farmadid=224211189655wmlspartner=wmtlabswl0=3536268310wl1=ewl2=walmart%20augason%20farmswl3=15081448341veh=sem Free shipping, they will deliver to your door. Will keep for 25 years. Usually 99$ but now on sale at $89 each. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Order now, as prices are rising on this emergency food supply.
Order now, as prices are rising on this emergency food supply. Subject: You can order Augason Farms 30 day supply of food from Walmart onlineat Hi You can order Augason Farms 30 day emergency supply of food from Walmart online at http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=Augason%20Farmadid=224211189655wmlspartner=wmtlabswl0=3536268310wl1=ewl2=walmart%20augason%20farmswl3=15081448341veh=sem Free shipping, they will deliver to your door. Will keep for 25 years. Usually 99$ but now on sale at $89 each. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Walmart 30 Day Emergency Food Storage Pail Augason Farms Review
Walmart 30 Day Emergency Food Storage Pail Augason Farms Review Video at- Roger Clough http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRtg5YKddQo $89.00 on sale from $90.00 at walmart. free shipping, order online at http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=Augason%20Farmadid=224211189655wmlspartner=wmtlabswl0=3536268310wl1=ewl2=walmart%20augason%20farmswl3=15081448341veh=sem Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Global warming ?
Hi Chris, According to the Vostok data, we're in for another ice age, in say 10,000 years or so. jcs-online,theoretical_physics_board,- mindbr...@yahoogroups.com,everything-list,4dworldx Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out. attachment: vostok_IceCores1.gif
A great place for hackers to start to be an identity imposter
Hi Hans Dieter Franke A great place for hackers to start to be an identity imposter is www.healthcare.gov (if that's the right address). No or little security. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Auguson Farms emergency food supplies at walmart
Hi In preparation for the coming weimar-type economy collapse, where a loaf of bread will cost you $100 or more, I'm going up to Germantown to buy Auguson Farms emergency food pails at walmart. The 30 day pails of emergency food will keep for 25 years, run from $80 to $160 for 30 days. Maybe 6 months to begin with. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Arctic sea ice increased by 51 % last year.
Hi - Global warming ? Liberals live in a universe of lies. Arctic sea ice increased by 51 % last year. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/51-growth-in-thick-arctic-ice-over-last-year/ Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
MERRY CHRISTMAS !
MERRY CHRISTMAS ! USAF FLASH MOB at the National Air and Space Museum, Washington DC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIoSga7tZPglist=UUKX86dJGhTOn8NtRUqnATFQ Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
That hateful subject, metaphysics
That hateful subject, metaphysics To deal with consciousness and experiences, which are mental, not physical, you have to go to that hateful subject, metaphysics, and only Leibniz has a good account of the perceiver, which is the experiencer not available to materialism. If you still believe there is a perceiver in materialism, could you tell us where it is ? It has to be at one place, as your experience and mine says that there is only one perceiver. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Leibniz on sensory experience (my account)
Leibniz on sensory experience Leibniz maintained that all causation is mental. This appears to contradict sensory experiences such as being pricked by a pin, for the cause of the experience would seem to originate in the body with the prick. There are a number of resolutions to this apparent dilemma, my own being that the cause of the pain is not the sensory nerve signal itself, but the mental perception of the nerve signal, for the pain is felt mentally by the perceiver, although it may appear to come from the site of the pin prick. So the perceiver is the causal agent, not the body. This is not dissimilar to other bodily events such as the feeling of fear or other emotions. The actual feeling I believe is caused by the mental perception of the fear, which may originate in diffuse regions of the brain or other organs and be perceived from nerve signals from the brain or other bodily sites. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
The myth of computer consciousnesss and intelligence
The myth of computer consciousnesss and intelligence People have been trying to create perpetual motion machines for centuries, but nobody has succeeded, I believe because of energy losses. The problem with making computers truly intelligent I believe is also impossible, because the final stage of perception must be subjective (free of symbols), not objective (described in symbols). In particular, Computers can only deal with descriptive knowledge (symbols), which is third person singular, hence, not personal and private, not conscious. The results and the process itself are publicly avalable (as code) and communicable. Only living creatures-- even a gnat--can think without symbols (not coded), since thinking is a conscious experience, hence first person singular (not coded). Since it is personal, it can to some extent be communicated, but there is always a loss converting experience to symbols, expressing in words my expeience, what I thought and concluded, which need not be in symbols. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Leibniz vs Jerry Fodor - Is there a language of thought ?
Leibniz and Piccinini versus Jerry Fodor - Is there a language of thought ? 1. Jerry Fodor argues that thoughts have representations, namely that there is a language of thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_thought In which, as I understand it, computations are made by the brain presumably semantically using this language in some analogy to a Turing machine. 2. There is an alternate theory of thinking by Gualteiro Piccinini: http://philpapers.org/rec/PICCWR as well as Leibniz, which seems to me to be essentially pragmatic or or perhaps mechanical, not semantic, so not disimilar to Leibniz's theory of perceptions and the following of the pre-established order. Leibniz's theory as well as this theory can seemingly'be used by any biological entity, and in Leibniz's case at least, by non-biological (in the conventional sense) entities. Both of these seem to follow these steps: a) the brain perceives a sensory and b) by some mechanism knows what it perceives (forming a representation, a word that Piccinini rejects) c) which causes it pragmatically to act in an instinctual. learned or otherwise prescribed fashion. Here semantics are replaced by functional (pragmatic) mechanisms. In Leibniz these steps are carried out by the One which in a) converts a sensory into signal into a perception and in b) and c) carries out a prescribed action which biologists might call an instinct and which Leibniz calls a pre-established harmony. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
[no subject]
Leibniz and Piccinini versus Jerry Fodor - Is there a language of thought ? 1. Jerry Fodor argues that thoughts have representations, namely that there is a language of thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_thought In which, as I understand it, computations are made by the brain presumably semantically using this language in some analogy to a Turing machine. 2. There is an alternate theory of thinking by Gualteiro Piccinini: http://philpapers.org/rec/PICCWR as well as Leibniz, which seems to me to be essentially pragmatic or or perhaps mechanical, not semantic, so not disimilar to Leibniz's theory of perceptions and the following of the pre-established order. Leibniz's theory as well as this theory can seemingly'be used by any biological entity, and in Leibniz's case at least, by non-biological (in the conventional sense) entities. Both of these seem to follow these steps: a) the brain perceives a sensory and b) by some mechanism knows what it perceives (forming a representation, a word that Piccinini rejects) c) which causes it pragmatically to act in an instinctual. learned or otherwise prescribed fashion. Here semantics are replaced by functional (pragmatic) mechanisms. In Leibniz these steps are carried out by the One which in a) converts a sensory into signal into a perception and in b) and c) carries out a prescribed action which biologists might call an instinct and which Leibniz calls a pre-established harmony. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Leibniz and Piccinini versus Jerry Fodor - Is there a language of thought ?
Leibniz and Piccinini versus Jerry Fodor - Is there a language of thought ? 1. Jerry Fodor argues that thoughts have representations, namely that there is a language of thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_thought In which, as I understand it, computations aremade by the brain presumably semantically using this language in some analogy to a Turing machine. 2. There is an alternate theory of thinking by Gualteiro Piccinini: http://philpapers.org/rec/PICCWR as well as Leibniz, which seems to me to be essentially pragmatic or or perhaps mechanical, not semantic, so not disimilar to Leibniz's theory of perceptions and the following of the pre-established order. Leibniz's theory http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ as well as this theory can seemingly'be used by any biological entity, and in Leibniz's case at least, bynon-biological (in the conventional sense) entities. Both of these seem to follow these steps: a) the brain perceives a sensory signal and b) by some mechanism knowswhat it perceives (forming a representation, a word that Piccinini rejects) c) which causes it pragmatically to act in an instinctual, learned orotherwiseprescribed fashion. Here semantics are replaced by functional (pragmatic) mechanisms. In Leibniz these stepsare carried out by the One which in a) converts a sensory into signal into a perception and in b) and c) carries out a prescribed action which biologists might call an instinct and which Leibniz calls a pre-established harmony. Dr.Roger B CloughNIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Once again. Why science can never understand consciousness.
Once again. Why science can never understand consciousness. Science deals only with public (communicable) knowledge. Descriptive knowledge by the third person. Mind and consciousness are personal (private) knowledge. Personal experience by the first person singular. This is the province only of philosophy. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
In case you didn't get it. Consciousness is not a scientific topic
In case you didn't get it. Consciousness is not a scientific topic Science deals only with public (communicable) knowledge. Descriptive knowledge by the third person. This is the province of science. Mind and consciousness are personal (private) knowledge. Personal experience by the first person singular. This is the province only of philosophy. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Is the universe driven by mathematics or is it driven by aesthetics
Is the universe driven by mathematics or is it driven by aesthetics ? One cannot fail to look upward at the beauty of the night sky without a feeling of wonder. Physicists look for ultimate explanations for the behavior of the universe in mathematics, and indeed one cannot avoid mathematics in describing the physical universe. Many have remarked at the fact that the universe is so intellegible. Indeed, Plato at his academy admonished, Let no-one ignorant of geometry enter here”, for his cosmology of the structure of the universe was based on a series of geometrical forms. Forms. This perhaps suggests, because of the entrance of beautiful forms into Plato's metaphysics, an aesthetic aspect to his cosmology. Similarly, advancing this a step further, while Leibniz was well grounded in mathematics (being a co-discover of the calculus), and was constantly amazed at the geometrical structures in nature, his metaphysics also shaped his thinking due to his a) Principle of Sufficient Reason, in which there is a reason why every aspect of the universe is as it is, and b) the pre-established harmony, the word harmony indicating an aesthetic beyond logic of relations of parts of the universe into his metaphysics. Thus Leibniz viewed the history of the universe as following the metaphysics of a pre-established harmony, ever striving toward a more perfect harmony or beauty. Now beauty appears as a unity in diversity, which I have suggested as moving toward the One from the Many. But others have suggested that the One is just one, not unity in diversity. Leibniz, through his metaphysics, in which the parts are related to the whole, suggests that metaphysics, even aesthetics, rules the universe, not mathematics. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
A modern monadology
For those wishing to delve deeper into Leibniz, see A modern monadology http://www.ucl.ac.uk/jonathan-edwards/monadology Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
For those interested in the theory of conscious experience, see
For those interested in the theory of conscious experience, see the excellent site, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/jonathan-edwards Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
A definition of human consciousness
A definition of human consciousness Human consciousness is experience by the first person singular. Materialistic theories of consciousness can only describe experience, not deal with experience itself. Actual experience is only available in philosophical Idealism (Kant, Plato, Leibniz). Because only Idealism contains Mind. Materialism and science do not and can not. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Some basic principles of mind - a wakeup call for materialists.
Some basic principles of mind - a wakeup call for materialists. 1. There are two forms of knowledge: a) knowledge by acquaintance, such as you have met Obama, and b) knowledge by description, such as you have been told that Obama is president of the USA. 2. Knowledge by acquaintance is personal knowledge (Michael Polanyi) and is only available to platonists. It is also called knowledge by the first person singular. Knowledge by description is third person knowledge and is available to both platonists and materialists. 3. Analytic philosophy deals only in knowledge by description, so while useful to materialists, is not too useful to deal directly with mind, which uses knowledge by acquaintance. 4. Actual mind is only accessible to platonists, not materialists, because mind deals only with personal knowledge. 5. Consciousness is experience by the first person singular. Since computers can only deal with third person information, they cannot be conscious (or alive). 6. Perception of the world outside is the conversion of incoming incoming sensory nerve signals into mental events. 7. Intelligence is the ability to autonomously make choices. This means that computers, since they can only do what is given to them from outside by a programmer, can have no true intelligence. Actual artificial intelligence is thus impossible. 8. Thinking is any intentional act by the mind. 9. The mind has no necessary connections to the brain. 10. The mind plays the brain like a violin. 11. Life is Mind. The list goes on. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
From Leibniz: gravity is the universal striving toward a more perfect beauty
From Leibniz: gravity is the universal striving toward a more perfect beauty James Collins, in chapter III, section 3 of The Continental Rationalists, [Bruce publishing, 1967] discusses the metaphysics of Leibniz, in particular Leibniz's belief that the universe is striving toward a more perfect harmony, which is unity. In other words, the universe is heading toward the convergence of Plato's Many to Plato's One. You may recall that beauty is the presence of unity in diversity, so this would be a striving toward a more perfect beauty (unity). We so not know that Leibniz actually developed a theory of gravity based on this concept, but it would seem to be a natural observation. This universal convergence also corresponds to Leibniz's theory of universal perception, in which the mental universe is an infinite collection of monads (which range from people to rocks) perceiving each other from their various standpoints, with their perceptions constantly converging via the One toward a face-to-face positioning. Note that all physical interactions in Idealism are actually caused mentally, so that a change in perceptions of monads constitutes a change in positions or other perceived attributes such as shape or temperature as well as mood. The changes are not actually caused by interactions between monads (since being independent, there can be no relations between monads) but are caused by the One in its search for a more perfect harmony or unity. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Dialogue between two believing scientists on how the universe is run
Dialogue between two believing scientists on how the universe is run JOHN-- Funny thought [universal government, which is Plato's universe] coming from a staunch Republican conservative govt minimizer. Perhaps an atheist is just someone who thinks something the size of the whole universe can operate on its own laws without a lot of direct interference? ROGER- According to my understanding of Leibniz and the Bible, after God had created the universe in six days, he wrote a computer program called the pre-established harmony on the seventh to run the universe forever onward and rested. He's still resting. In this program God allowed for free will and knew what we would do but did not cause us to do so. Luther believed that our free will only applied to everyday affairs, but in matters of salvation (good or bad) he chose for us. Note that God is in what Leibniz called the world of necessary logic, which is timeless (eternal), so that knowing before-hand is simply part of God's nature. JOHN ---Also interesting. The universe does indeed seem to operate on some pretty iron-clad laws, and there are some who suspect that perhaps that's because the only way to have a universe that will support/create life is to have almost exactly the laws (and special constants) that govern our universe. ROGER-- That would be the pre-established harmony. Nonliving entities move by deterministic or efficient causation, but life does not operate by such iron-clad laws, it operates by what Aristotle called final causation, which means it is goal-oriented and purposeful. It therefore has to have innate intelligence. JOHN- Personally, although I think the idea of a personal God is important, I do have concerns as to why an omnipotent, universal overseer who has already so cleverly tuned the universe to such perfection would need to continually need to tweak things locally. Seems very much like we need God far more than HE needs us. ROGER - The tweaking is indeed local, but it has already been programmed into the pre-established harmony. JOHN - So, in order to consider a personal God, it seems to me that the real reason for locality is more about how HE wants me to become more like HIS ideal, and is offering opportunities. ROGER- No, we have free will, at least to some extent. JOHN-- Given that HE is out of time and space, that is a pretty neat trick, and I find it highly unlikely that any of HIS creations are at all cognizant of how or why or what HIS purposes are. But, I think the Universe itself is understandable, and probably exists as one of the simplest sets of laws that can work. ROGER-- Out of time and space means in eternity. The world isn't all law-governed (deterministic), for both man and nature have some degree of unpredictability, but this has been pre-programmed into Leibniz's pre-established harmony. JOHN- There is really already a lot of evidence to support that idea. And some evidence to support the idea that our whole universe is a tiny part of everything. Already, it is pretty clear that most people really still have no concept of the scale of our little visible part of our universe, either in time or space. Most never even look up to see that there are actually more stars (and star systems) than there are grains of sand on every beach in our entire world - and that our entire world is less than a dust mote, even within our solar system, much less in the real immensity of space and time. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Bertrand Russell's complete misunderstanding of Plato's theory of knowledge and perception
Bertrand Russell's gross misunderstanding of Plato's theory of knowledge and perception In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1EiQEwn1lc Plato believed that truth is a conceptual form of knowledge, which is a priori and so not obtained through the senses. Truth obtained through the senses, Plato believed, was changeable. But, presumably because he was an empiricist, Russell essentially treats Plato as an empiricist gone wrong. Russell thus grossly misunderstands Plato, apparently not undestrstanding that, as Leibniz and Kant have stated, there is a difference between necessary or a priori knowledge (which does not change) and the changeable, contingent truths of perception. Because of Russell's apparent confusion between these two forms of knowledge, and denial of a priori knowledge, Russell wastes many words apparently trying to show that the changeable knowledge obtained through the senses can somehow be necessarily true, giving snow is white as an example. Anyone who grew up as I did, in what was then sooty smokey Pittsburgh, knows that snow can sometimes be dark gray. Similarly, Russell incorrectly bases his repudiation of a priori knowledge by using the changeable nature of contingent knowledge as an example. I have not checked Russell's treatment of Kant, but because of this ignorance, Russell also apparently treats Kant as an empiricist gpone bad. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad
Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad Materialists spend much effort on trying to show that reality is simply physics. But the philosophy of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and now Heidegger shows that materialism and analytic philosophy is incomplete, since it omits mind from reality. Leibniz modeled reality as material bodies in the dualism of a monad, which is the corresponding mental being of matter. The matter is in spacetime, the monad is outside of spacetime. Heidegger's dasein is a combination of the german words da, meaning there, and sein meaning being or mental. The da is in spacetime and the sein is outside of spacetime, so a dasein is a monad. Thus Heidegger's universe is essentially the same as Leibniz's, an infinite collection of monads or daseins. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Advaita Vedanta and Leibnizian Metaphysics
Advaita Vedanta and Leibnizian Metaphysics This is a huge, daunting subject which I can only scratch the surface of. A book or PhD thesis could easily be written on it and do a much better job than I can here. Keep in mind also that I am not an expert on Advaita. A brief summary of the Advaita Vedanta is given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Philosophy ' Advaita (Sanskrit: not-two) refers to the identity of the true Self, Atman, which is pure consciousness and the highest Reality, Brahman, which is also pure consciousness. Followers seek liberation/release by acquiring vidya (knowledge) of the identity of Atman and Brahman. Attaining this liberation takes a long preparation and training under the guidance of a guru. ' Here we will only roughly compare the metaphysics of Leibniz with that of the Advaita, not the religious aspects of Advaita. Both are essentially Idealist. In general, Brahman, being the highest Reality, corresponds to Plato's One, the Creator, but Brahman has many more aspects than Plato's One, which I leave to other scholars to elucidate. Atman corresponds roughly to Leibniz's monad for a person. The relation of a person's monad (which I will call Self, which is what Leibniz calls a person's spirit,l meaning the conventional soul) ) to Plato's One (Leibniz's rough correspondence to Brahman) is similar to Advaita's goal of unity or Advaita between Atman and Brahman, but this is not a fixed goal in Leibniz, it happens at a rapid pace in rapid sequential steps in Leibniz in everyday perception and action, in which the Self is a passive slave to the One, its master. So in Leibniz there is never a complete fusion of Self and the One as desired in Advaita, The One is the active agent in periodic communion with the One much like a shepherd with his sheep. In Leibniz there is imperfect communion of the Self with other selves, which Christianity calls the 'communion of the saints'. By imperfect is meant that as in all human perception, there is some distortion to various degrees, depending on the person, which limits the range of inter-communion with other saints and the environment. Salvation is not clearly defined in Leibniz, as far asI have been able to find out, but certainly communion of the Self and the One is found pleasurable and enlightening. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Some basic principles of Leibniz's Idealism
Some basic principles of Leibniz's Idealism 1. Everything that exists has two aspects, essence (mind or monad) and existent (object). This is a localized version of Berkeley's overall Idealism. Essence, being mental, is outside of spacetime while the existent (a corporeal body) is inside of spacetime. 2. Essence is the subjective or mental aspect of existence, which in turn is objective and physical (in spacetime). For example. consciousness or experience is the mental aspect of physical sensory nerve signals. 3. Essence creates, perceives and controls existence. For example, essence is what causes a struck ball to follow Newton's law of motion. For example, tje mind controls the brain. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
A conjecture- Quantum physics, Relativity and Leibniz's Idealism
A conjecture: Quantum physics, Relativity and Leibniz's Idealism According to Leibniz's Idealism, everything that exists has two aspects, 1, essence (mind or monad or what we here conjecture is a quantum wave), which is outside of spacetime, and 2. existent (physical particle or object), which is inside of spacetime. This is a localized version of Berkeley's overall Idealism and amounts to the Principle of Complementariy, that everything is a wavicle. Essence, being mental, is outside of spacetime and might be thought of as the quantum wave. while the existent (a corporeal body) is inside of spacetime and follows particle physics and relativity. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
How can a grown man be an atheist ?
How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
How can a grown man be an atheist ?
How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Online opinions of Dennett and Chalmers-- the clueless two
Online opinions of Dennett and Chalmers-- the clueless two Dennett never tells us what conscilousness is, because conciouness rwequires a perceiver, and he hasn't a clue as to what that is, because that concept is foreign to his materialism. He's clueless. And famous as well maybe because with that beard he looks like a philosopher ought to look. Chalmers is in the same hole as Dennett is he is also a materialist wuithout a perceiver. With his long wild hair he may seem to some to know what he's talking about. But he's also clueless, which is why we have the hard problem of consciousnwess Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough gh --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Berkeley and Leibniz- where the monads came from
Berkeley and Leibniz- where the monads came from In Berkeley's philosophy of idealism, a subject is needed to perceive objects, otherwise they could not exist. Leibniz got around the problem of what happens if nobody's there (a tree falls in a wood...) by dividing up the world into physical objects and assigning a subject (a monad) to each object. This everything is conscious to some extent. Otherwise it could not follow the pre-established harmony. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Why consciousness is not possible in materialism
Why consciousness is not possible in materialism Two related definitions of consciousness are: 1. Consciousness is experience by the first person singular. 2. Consciousness is self-referential awareness. So consciousness requires that there be a self, or first person singular, to be aware. There is however no provision in materialism or analytic philoophy for such a self. Therefore materialism cannot explain consciousness. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Russell's abandonment of Leibniz's platonism after his conversion to the cult of materialism
Russell's abandonment of Leibniz's platonism after his conversion to the cult of materialism. Three related definitions of consciousness not possible in materialism or analytic philosophy: 1. Consciousness is experience by the first person singular. 2. Consciousness is self-referential awareness. 3. Consciousness is the acquisition of knowledge by acquaintance. Ironically, the third definition is similar to one of the two forms of knowledge originally proposed by Bertrand Russell, one of the founders of analytic philosophy, which he called knowledge by acquaintance the other being knowledge by description. Knowledge by description is that you know from common knowledge that Obama is president of the United States, while knowledge by acquaintance means that you have met Obama, presumably in the White House. Analytic philosophy deals only with knowledge by description, omitting knowledge by acquaintance, despite Russell's awareness of this type knowledge, so that Russell's omission of knowledge by acquaintance in the philosophy of materialism-- a necessity-- was a deliberate omission from analytic philosophy, no doubt due to Russell's conversion to the semi-religious cult of materialism. This seems to have occurred during the young Russell's writing of The Philosophy of Leibniz, which expertly treats Leibniz's logic, but begins to pull back as he approaches Leibniz's Platonism. which Russell does not seem to have understood very much, much less accepted. Russell then publicly promoted materialism and analytic philosophy, together with the third member of their dark trinity, atheism. The rest is history, as they say, in which this trinity became de rigeour in the halls of official western academe. Meanwhile because of this dark trinity, western philosophy has struggled but failed to explain consciousness. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
Perception and cionsciousness according to Leibniz
Perception and consciousness according to Leibniz- The secret of perception. Particular minds and how they relate to the overall or Cosmic Mind The problem of perception in materialistic thinking is that it forces us to think that there is a fleshly homunculus Leibniz has a more complicated understanding of particular minds and how they relate to Cosmic Mind. In Leibniz's metaphysics, there is only one mind (the Perceiver or Cosmic Mind or God) that perceives and acts, doing this through the Surpreme (most dominant) monad. It perceives the whole universe with perfect clarity. Only it can perceive and act, because its monads (which includes our minds) have no windows. The monads (our minds) perceive only indirectly, as the Supreme Monad is the only --what we would call-- conscious mind. We only think and perceive indirectly, as the Supreme Monad continually and instantly updates its universe of monads. Thus there is no problem communing with God (the Cosmic Mind) as we do so continually and necessarily, although only aqccording to our own abilities and perspective. That we ourselves, not God, appear to be the perceiver is thus only apparent. Also, because Cosmic Mind sees the entire universe as viewed by a kaleidoscope of individual monads, the perceptions it returns to us contains not only what we see (the universe from our own individual perspectives) but what the perceptions of all of the other monads. Thus each monad knows everything in the universe, but only from its own perspective, and monads being monads, not perfectly clear but distorted. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
An account of the historical suppression of Leibniz's forbidden knowledge
An account of the historical (and continuing) suppression of Leibniz's forbidden ideas Leibniz was an anti-materialist so that his inclusion of Mind and deity into his philosophy were forbidden ideas, and stillo are, to our detriment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTiztUNrhhM Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
The death of analytic philosophy and the birth of consciousness
The death of analytic philosophy and the birth of consciousness Consciousness, which is experience by the first person singular, is by definition outside of the scope of analytic philosophy, which is limited to be able to only deal in descriptions of experience. Definition of ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY a philosophical movement that seeks the solution of philosophical problems in the analysis of propositions or sentences ?alled also philosophical analysis compare ordinary-language philosophy. Analytic (British) philosophy (Bertrand Russell, Anthony Flew. etc.) limits philosophy to word and logic puzzles and thus legitimizes atheism and materialism. This has given rise to a semi-religious cult or atheism and materialism that cannot tell us about experiential human issues such as consciousness, religion, and true ai. Or meaningful issues such as ethics or aesthetics. However, continental philosophy and Indian philosophy can. (Leibniz, Kant, Indian philosophers). Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
The passing on of a paradigm--analytic philosophy
The passing on of a paradigm--analytic philosophy Max Planck once said that Science advances one funeral at a time. Thomas Kuhn made a similar conclusion in his magnum opus. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Not to speak ill of the dead, but the champions of analytic philosophy-- the basis of materialism and atheism-- which are cults that have have degenerated Western thought - have passed on or are at an advanced age. Bertram Russell - Died 1970 Donald Davidson - Died 2003 Hilary Putname -- alive but at age 87 - Roger Clough Willard V.O. Quine -- died 2000 Richard Rorty -- Died 2007 J L Austin -- Died 1960 A J Ayer - died 1989 GEM Anscomb - Died 2001 D M Armstrong -- Alive but at age 87 C D Broad Died --1971 What will replace it ? Some suggest pragmatism, which disclaims the ability to arrive at objective truth. There is also marxism, which offers materialism and economics in place of objective truth. I am suggesting that one avenue has been ignored since its origin in the 17th century, owing to the near-religion of materialism. That is the Idealism of Leibniz. Idealism is superkior to materialism in the sense that while materialism and analytic philsophy believe that all that exists is material hence objective. But Leibniz' metaphysics opens the door to the subjective universe, which includes mind and which anyone who can see an object is aware of. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
The whole enchilada: Leibniz, the first person, third person, and the brain
The whole enchilada: Leibniz, the first person, third person, and the brain. A new mind-brain model for the post-analytic post-materialist world. [Please feel free to use whatever I have written on the topic of Leibniz to advance your own theory of the mind and brain. All copyrights are released and may be freely used. I am 72 years old and do not need any more publications. -RBC.] We are now in a position of assembling the various parts of a new, comprehensive mind/brain model, incorporating in it what we believe to be the philosophy of the 21st century, that of Leibniz's platonism. As discussed previously, B Russell observed that there are two forms of knowledge, which we can assign to the semi-cerebral model of the brain: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/knowledge/right_left_brain.html a) The left brain metaphor-- This deals with what Russell called knowledge by description. This is the rational doman of analytic philosophy, so it deals in linear sequences. It can also be called the Third Person singular. b) The right brain metaphor-- this is what is left out of the materialist and analytic models of the mind and brain. It is Russell's knoeledge by acquaintance, namely, the world of experience, that of the First Person singular. So it is nonlinear and wholistic. This is hopefuly the new paradigm of the mind and brain which needs further developing by others. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
A slight revision- The whole enchilada: Leibniz, the first person, third person, and the brain.
The whole enchilada: Leibniz, the first person, third person, and the brain. A new mind-brain model for the post-analytic post-materialist world. [Please feel free to use whatever I have written on the topic of Leibniz to advance your own theory of the mind and brain. All copyrights are released and may be freely used. I am 72 years old and do not need any more publications. -RBC.] We are now in a position of assembling the various parts of a new, comprehensive mind/brain model, incorporating in it what we believe to be the philosophy of the 21st century, that of Leibniz's platonism. As discussed previously, B Russell observed that there are two forms of knowledge, which we can assign to the hemi-cerebral model of the brain: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/knowledge/right_left_brain.html a) The left brain metaphor-- This deals with what Russell called knowledge by description. This is the rational doman of analytic philosophy, so it deals in linear sequences. It can also be called the Third Person singular. b) The right brain metaphor-- this is what is left out of the materialist and analytic models of the mind and brain. It is Russell's knoeledge by acquaintance, namely, the world of experience, that of perception, comnsciousness, ? that of the First Person singular. It nonlinear and wholistic. This is submitted to all as the new paradigm of the mind and brain which needs further developing by others. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Why computer consciousness and artificial intelligence areimpossible.
Hi Gabriel Bodeen Absolutely. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: Gabriel Bodeen Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-11-26, 15:17:20 Subject: Re: Why computer consciousness and artificial intelligence areimpossible. So in the event that somebody actually does make AI, please recall this and consider your philosophical system to have been falsified. -Gabe On Monday, November 25, 2013 6:17:15 AM UTC-6, Roger Clough wrote: Why computer consciousness and artificial intelligence are impossible. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Why computer consciousness and artificial intelligence are impossible.
Why computer consciousness and artificial intelligence are impossible. Acccording to Bertrand Russell, there are two types of knowledge: a) Knowledge by description. It is common knowledge that Obama is president. Example: Computer code. Artificial intelligence. Third person singular. b) Knowledge by experience. You have met Obama. Example: Human perception. Human intelligence. First person singular. Computers cannot simulate human activities or experiences or consciousness because they have to deal in code, which consists of instructions or descriptions. Computers cannot deal in knowledge by experience, so they cannot experience, produce experiences, or understand experiences. Thus computer intelligence and artificial intelligence are impossible. Computers deal in code (third person singular). Only people and other living entities can deal in experiences or be conscious (first person singular.) So only humans and other living entities can be conscious or be truly intelligent. Thus artificial intelligence is impossible Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
The difference between computer and human perception
The difference between computer and human perception Computer consciousness and perception is by description only, such as 42. Underwater perfection as given below. Human perception is an experience such as shown in the photograph. 42. UNDERWATER PERFECTION Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The difference between computer and human perception
Note that only Idealism such as in Leibniz or Plato or Kant can deal with human perception, because only such Idealism can deal with knowledge by acquaintance (experience) directly, not by description.. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: - Roger Clough Time: 2013-11-25, 08:00:56 Subject: The difference between computer and human perception The difference between computer and human perception Computer consciousness and perception is by description only, such as 42. Underwater perfection as given below. Human perception is an experience such as shown in the photograph. 42. UNDERWATER PERFECTION Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
ai and atheism
What I find curious is that so much time and vitriol is spent on the web attacking theism, while so much money is spent on ai and computers to simulate humans, when nobody has ever shown or proven that computers can be conscious. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Atheism is wish fuklfillment.
Atheism is wish fulfillment. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Athism is wish fuklfillment.
Athism is wish fulfillment. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Atheism is wish fulfillment
Atheism is wish fulfillment. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Why analytic (British) philosophy (Bertrand Russell) has led humanity and ai astray
Analytic (British) philosophy (Bertrand Russell, Anthony Flew. etc.) has led humanity and ai astray, because it limits philosophy to word and logic puzzles. Thus it cannot tell us about experiential human affairs such as consciousness and true ai. However, continental philsophy can. (Leibniz, Kant). Definition of ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY : a philosophical movement that seeks the solution of philosophical problems in the analysis of propositions or sentences ?alled also philosophical analysis compare ordinary-language philosophy Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Why analytic philosophers are atheists and materialists
Analytic (British) philosophy (Bertrand Russell, Anthony Flew. etc.) has led humanity and ai astray, because it limits philosophy to word and logic puzzles and thus legitimizes atheism and materialism. Humanity has been sold short because British analytical philosophy cannot tell us about experiential human issues such as consciousness, religiion, and true ai. However, continental philosophy and Indian philosophy can. (Leibniz, Kant, Indian philosophers). Definition of ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY : a philosophical movement that seeks the solution of philosophical problems in the analysis of propositions or sentences ?alled also philosophical analysis compare ordinary-language philosophy Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough DreamMail - New experience in email software www.dreammail.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Pre-established harmony ? Computers programs exhibit pre-established harmony.
Pre-established harmony ? Computers programs exhibit pre-established harmony. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
revised corrected version of Leibniz's imploied dictum, I think, therefore there is an I.
Corrected version of Leibniz's implied dictum- I think, therefore there is an I Although previously I refered to propositional subject:predicate logic in reference to an implied dictum of Leibniz's ? ? think, therefore there is an I?, that is incorrect. The true meaning of Descartes' famous dictum, I think, therefore I am can be better clarified instead by analyzing Leibniz' model of the mental I (essence ) with the physical brain as its existent correlate. The proposition ? think, therefore I am? is a simple intentional act by the mind, a monad, which is the mental essence of subject, not the brain, which is the corresponding physical existent form of the mind. The actual agent of the intention is the mind, not the brain, as the brain cannot perform intentional acts. Here I is the essence or monad of the existent brain, being its agent, so that the I plays the brain in thought much like a violin is played by a violinist. This also answers Heidegger's life-long search for an answer to the question what is being? Being is I am or essence+existence. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Corrected version of Leibniz's implied dictum- I think, therefore
Corrected version of Leibniz's implied dictum- I think, therefore there is an I Although previously I refered to propositional subject:predicate logic in reference to an implied dictum of Leibniz's – “I think, therefore I am”, that is incorrect. The true meaning of Descartes' famous dictum, I think, therefore I am can be better clarified instead by analyzing Leibniz' model of the mental I (essence ) with the physical brain as its existent correlate. The proposition “I think, therefore I am” is a simple intentional act by the mind, a monad, which is the mental essence of subject, not the brain, which is the corresponding physical existent form of the mind. The actual agent of the intention is the mind, not the brain, as the brain cannot perform intentional acts. Here I is the essence or monad of the existent brain, being its agent, so that the I plays the brain in thought much like a violin is played by a violinist. This also answers Heidegger's life-long search for an answer to the question what is being? Being is I am or essence+existence. Dr.Roger B CloughNIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Leibniz: I think, therefore there is an I
Leibniz: I think, therefore there is an I The true meaning of Descartes' famous dictum, I think, therefore I am can be clarified further by restating it using Leibniz' model of being (essence+existent) if the proposition is restated as I think, therefore there is an I, or equivalently as I perceive, therefore there is an I, or in fact any proposition containing a the subject I and a verb. Such propositions are simple intentional acts by the mind, not the brain, where I is the essence or monad of the existent brain, which then thinks much as a violin is played by a violinist. This also answers Heidigger's life-long search for an answer to the question what is being? Being is I am or essence+existence. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Spinoza, Leibniz and Descartes on the mind-body problem
Spinoza, Leibniz and Descartes are completely different on the relationship between mind and matter See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/#DesSpiLei Spinoza was a monist, who believed that mind and matter were one. Descartes believed that mind and matter are totally different Leibniz beleived that mind was a monad or mental aspect of matter. Bertrand Ruseell said that there are two forms of knowing: a) Knowing scientifically or objectively (knowing by description) Example: you know who Obama is from the newspapers. b) Knowing by acquaintance or experience (knowing subjectively) Example: you know who Obama is because you have met him. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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/groups/opt_out.
The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality
The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality. Although I cannot find a direct reference in Leibniz's writings, they have not all been translated. Nevertheless Leibniz's model of perception is seemingly based on the high technology of the 17th century, Huygen's microscope. The indirect reference to the perceiver as based on the lens of a microscope, which can represent a field of view at a single point, as a unity,, as a perceiver or self must do Leibniz's conceptioon of reality was similar to this : Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670) This single point in the perceiver and in reality itself is reflected in Leibniz's monad (which represents the many in the one), Plato's model of the One, the concepts of white and black holes and the twistor in Penrose's physics.. Leibniz's monadology itself can be used to derive the self as lens, since a person can be focused down to be represented by a monad, which cAn be understood as a point homunculus (the perceiver). It is also well known that Leibniz referred to the myriad of microscopic organisms seen in a microscope as vderying his view of the world as the many in the one (the monad). Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
We need to bring Leibniz out of the closet
Hi - Roger Clough All current theories of mind are objective (materialist) since they do not include the first person singular. Consciousness or Mind is nonobjective or subjective, since it is the perceptions by the first person singular. Only Leibniz has a philosophy of mind (subjectivity). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ So we (all welcome) need to bring Leibniz out of the closet. This would revolutionize neurophiolsophy. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Why we need to bring Leibniz out of the closet if progress is to be made
Why we need to bring Leibniz out of the closet if progress is to be made Materialism, the philosophy that the universe is made only of matter, and nothing else, is the basic philosophy of science. So Idealism, the philosophy that only ideas, not matter, are real, seems to be a fantasy world. But materialism as a total philosophy, and not idealism, is quite limited. It cannot explain perception consciousness, the overall governance of the universe or of the brain. In order to understand these, hence consciousness, we must follow the pioneering lead of Leibniz, the only relatively modern, logical, and comprehensive Idealist philosopher: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism Thus Bertrand Russell, having written a book on the logic of Leibniz, abandoned Leibniz on his horrfying discovery of the implications of Idealism -- that yet even logically, there can only be a single perceiver and a single governor of the universe. You can't have two kings in a kingdom, nor two perceptions at the same time. So Russell became a materialist, a philosophy that has no provision for experience or the perceptions of the first person singular (which is consciousness). Thus to understand the governance of the universe or consciousness or perception, we must accept Idealism as a valid philosophy overall, while we can still accept materialism as valid within the range of science (the range of matter). But we must let go of any possibility of overall governance. See Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
