Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Dec 2012, at 12:51, Telmo Menezes wrote:




I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X  Z) logically derived
string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws  
of

physics),

When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally  
implying intentionality on the part of the entity.


omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe),

Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing.

and
omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe),

Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing.

but not
necessarily omnibenevolent,
that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all
possible universes. What label do I deserve?

Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities.


If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/ 
person who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great  
programmer') and doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist.


If comp is correct, we already know how to create such a simulation.  
We just have to run the universal dovetailer for a long enough time.  
We might soon have the computational resources to do it, with  
quantum computers. That wouldn't make us gods:


- No omnipotence: He have absolutely no control, we are simulating  
*everything*
- No omniscience: We wouldn't even be able to understand the macro  
levels of such universes. Decoding the output of the machine is a  
problem many orders of magnitude greater than building the machine -  
possibly requiring inimaginable computational power
- No omnipresence: we would not be part of the computation in any  
meaningful way


We have already the technology to run a UD, and I have actually run  
one, in LISP, for a week, in 1991.
No improvement in technology can genuinely accelerate it, even quantum  
computation. A quantum UD is of no use, but this does not mean that  
the quantum dovetailing, which is already emulated by the additive  
and multiplicative structure of the natural numbers,  might not be the  
winner for the battle measure. All this is testable.


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Roger,


On 17 Dec 2012, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

 There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to
proof or theory . As a scientist, all I have to do is to
weigh myself and report that to you.

Data, in my book at least, always rules over
theory and assumptions.


But data are already in part the result of theoretical constructions,  
with millions years old prewired theories in our Darwinian brain.
Data are very important, but theories too. We are ourselves sort of  
natural hypotheses. We are data and theories ourselves, I would say,  
and the frontier between what is data and what is not is fuzzy, and  
quasi relative. This has to be so from pure theoretical computer  
science. I can explain more if you want, but this will be apparent in  
some explanations I intend to send (asap, but not so soon) on the FOAR  
list.
Keep also in mind the dream argument which explains that we cannot be  
sure if any data is a genuine data.


Bruno







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/17/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-16, 09:59:56
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe


On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

I probably agree, but what is the primitive
physical universe ?


Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its  
existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity).


A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose  
existence, or appearance, is explained in a theory which does not  
assume it.


My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical  
universe cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers  
dreams (computation seen from the 1p view).


Bruno






[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/16/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe


On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King

OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.

1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.

2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view
in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can
consider mental states to exist as if they are real.
L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
world (the physical world you see and that of science),
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
not real, only its monadic representation is real.

I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


Atheism is a variant of christinanism.

The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical  
universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive  
conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it.


I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in  
primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is  
incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato  
(Truth).


Bruno






[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/6/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28
Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas

On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

L's monads have perception.
They sense the entire universe.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough  
rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King


 God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics,
 it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads)
 afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to  
Plato's

 metaphysics.





Hi Richard,

Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception.  
What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view'  
of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a  
monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad  
must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received

Re: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 


You can write a chemical equation (theoretically) that will not work in the 
real world..


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/19/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-19, 09:49:53
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe


Hi Roger,




On 17 Dec 2012, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

 There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to
proof or theory . As a scientist, all I have to do is to 
weigh myself and report that to you.

Data, in my book at least, always rules over
theory and assumptions.


But data are already in part the result of theoretical constructions, with 
millions years old prewired theories in our Darwinian brain. 
Data are very important, but theories too. We are ourselves sort of natural 
hypotheses. We are data and theories ourselves, I would say, and the frontier 
between what is data and what is not is fuzzy, and quasi relative. This has to 
be so from pure theoretical computer science. I can explain more if you want, 
but this will be apparent in some explanations I intend to send (asap, but not 
so soon) on the FOAR list.
Keep also in mind the dream argument which explains that we cannot be sure if 
any data is a genuine data.


Bruno










[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/17/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-16, 09:59:56
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe




On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

I probably agree, but what is the primitive
physical universe ?


Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its existence in the 
TOE (explicitly or implicity).


A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose existence, or 
appearance, is explained in a theory which does not assume it.


My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical universe 
cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers dreams 
(computation seen from the 1p view).


Bruno








[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/16/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe




On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King 

OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking 
about L's metaphysics.

1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.

2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual 
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you 
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe 
acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view
in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can 
consider mental states to exist as if they are real. 
L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
world (the physical world you see and that of science), 
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is 
not real, only its monadic representation is real. 

I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


Atheism is a variant of christinanism.


The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems 
to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if 
it is to deny it.


I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. 
I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I 
do believe in the God of Plato (Truth).


Bruno








[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/6/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28
Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas


On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

L's monads have perception.
They sense the entire universe.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King


 God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics,
 it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads)
 afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's
 metaphysics.




Hi Richard,

Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What 
distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. 
One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the 
content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic 
Boolean algebra.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

Re: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

 There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to
proof or theory . As a scientist, all I have to do is to 
weigh myself and report that to you.

Data, in my book at least, always rules over
theory and assumptions.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/17/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-16, 09:59:56
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe




On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

I probably agree, but what is the primitive
physical universe ?


Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its existence in the 
TOE (explicitly or implicity).


A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose existence, or 
appearance, is explained in a theory which does not assume it.


My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical universe 
cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers dreams 
(computation seen from the 1p view).


Bruno








[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/16/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe




On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King 

OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking 
about L's metaphysics.

1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.

2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual 
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you 
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe 
acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view
in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can 
consider mental states to exist as if they are real. 
L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
world (the physical world you see and that of science), 
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is 
not real, only its monadic representation is real. 

I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


Atheism is a variant of christinanism.


The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems 
to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if 
it is to deny it.


I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. 
I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I 
do believe in the God of Plato (Truth).


Bruno








[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/6/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28
Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas


On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

L's monads have perception.
They sense the entire universe.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King


 God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics,
 it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads)
 afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's
 metaphysics.




Hi Richard,

Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What 
distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. 
One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the 
content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic 
Boolean algebra.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
 On 12/16/2012 9:59 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net  wrote:

 On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 Hi Richard,

 I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X  Z) logically derived
 string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of
 physics),


 When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally
 implying
 intentionality on the part of the entity.

 omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe),


 Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing.

 and
 omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe),


 Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing.

 but not
 necessarily omnibenevolent,
 that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all
 possible universes. What label do I deserve?


 Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities.


 If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful,
 creator/person
 who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and
 doesn't
 care what humans do, then he's a deist.

 Brent

 Interesting. Therefore deists do not believe in deities.


 Sure they.  They believe in some person/intelligence is responsible for
 ordering the world.  I'm not sure whether you think of 'the one god of CTM'
 as being a person or not.  If not, I guess you're just a computationalist.

 Brent

By person I guess that you mean something like a human being. I
certainly do not believe in that although the one god certainly has
consciousness along with a wide variety of natural and supernatural
beings that have consciousness and they may all share the same
consciousness.

I think that being a computationalist is the best label for me that
anyone has come up with. I have a stronger believe in the existence of
a supernatural world that will some day support my afterlife than I do
in an intervening god that judges and punishes, although I do believe
that the one god intervenes to manifest one physical world, rather
than many, something that Bruno admits that CTM can predict along with
an infinity of other possibilities inherent in the universal wave
function.

Therefore if we do live in a single physical world, it can be
understood as being anthropic. CTM suffers from a much bigger
landscape than the string landscape (characterized by 10^500
possibilities). Bruno has suggested a CTM landscape on the order of
1024^1600 possibilities. That seems about right. Richard


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King

OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.

1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.

2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view
in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can
consider mental states to exist as if they are real.
L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
world (the physical world you see and that of science),
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
not real, only its monadic representation is real.

I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


Atheism is a variant of christinanism.

The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical  
universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive  
conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it.


I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in  
primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is  
incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato  
(Truth).


But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent,  
ominibenevolent, omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and  
rewards.  So I'd say your an atheist - if I were so bold as to say  
what other people mean when they designate their beliefs.


I am truly agnostic on many things, but some things makes more sense  
than others. I am certainly a sort of atheist as I have lost my faith  
in Matter, but to be franc I have never really believe in it.


And I do think, that the abramanic religions have borrowed the greek  
ONE, but get the problems due to given it a name, as it has no name.  
The main problem is not in God but in imposing a notion of God to  
others. The comp God is a private matter between God, you and your  
shaman (priest, doctor, etc.).


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Bruno Marchal]

On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King

OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.

1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.

2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view
in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can
consider mental states to exist as if they are real.
L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
world (the physical world you see and that of science),
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
not real, only its monadic representation is real.

I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


Atheism is a variant of christinanism.

The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe),  
and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the  
Christian God, even if it is to deny it.


I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in  
primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is  
incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth).


Bruno






[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/6/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28
Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas

On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

L's monads have perception.
They sense the entire universe.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net  
wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King


 God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics,
 it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads)
 afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's
 metaphysics.





Hi Richard,

Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What  
distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a  
universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my  
conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be  
representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

I probably agree, but what is the primitive
physical universe ?


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/16/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe




On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King 

OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking 
about L's metaphysics.

1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.

2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual 
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you 
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe 
acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view
in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can 
consider mental states to exist as if they are real. 
L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
world (the physical world you see and that of science), 
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is 
not real, only its monadic representation is real. 

I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


Atheism is a variant of christinanism.


The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems 
to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if 
it is to deny it.


I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. 
I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I 
do believe in the God of Plato (Truth).


Bruno








[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/6/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28
Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas


On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

L's monads have perception.
They sense the entire universe.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King


 God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics,
 it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads)
 afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's
 metaphysics.




Hi Richard,

Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What 
distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. 
One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the 
content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic 
Boolean algebra.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

I probably agree, but what is the primitive
physical universe ?


Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its  
existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity).


A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose  
existence, or appearance, is explained in a theory which does not  
assume it.


My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical  
universe cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers  
dreams (computation seen from the 1p view).


Bruno






[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/16/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe


On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King

OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.

1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.

2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view
in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can
consider mental states to exist as if they are real.
L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
world (the physical world you see and that of science),
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
not real, only its monadic representation is real.

I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


Atheism is a variant of christinanism.

The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical  
universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception  
of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it.


I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in  
primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is  
incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato  
(Truth).


Bruno






[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/6/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28
Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas

On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

L's monads have perception.
They sense the entire universe.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough  
rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King


 God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics,
 it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads)
 afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to  
Plato's

 metaphysics.





Hi Richard,

Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What  
distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a  
universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my  
conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be  
representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[meekerdb]

On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King
OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.
1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view
in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can
consider mental states to exist as if they are real.
L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
world (the physical world you see and that of science),
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
not real, only its monadic representation is real.
I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


Atheism is a variant of christinanism.

The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make 
sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it.


I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am 
agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in 
the God of Plato (Truth).


But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent, ominibenevolent, 
omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and rewards.  So I'd say your an atheist - if 
I were so bold as to say what other people mean when they designate their beliefs.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


  On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:

  Hi Stephen P. King

 OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
 about L's metaphysics.

 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.

 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
 atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
 realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
 acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view
 in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can
 consider mental states to exist as if they are real.
 L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
 world (the physical world you see and that of science),
 but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
 not real, only its monadic representation is real.

 I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
 a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


  Atheism is a variant of christinanism.

  The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe),
 and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian
 God, even if it is to deny it.

  I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive
 matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with
 that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth).


 But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent,
 ominibenevolent, omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and rewards.
 So I'd say your an atheist - if I were so bold as to say what other people
 mean when they designate their beliefs.


...also, a god that shows a surprising level of interest in what we, puny
humans, do with our genitals.

I was going to make a very similar comment, but then decided against it.
Bruno is a brilliant philosopher, so I guess it doesn't matter how he
labels himself. I can understand the reluctance to be associated with a
type of close-mindness present in (some) atheists.



 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Richard Ruquist]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:



 On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King

 OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
 about L's metaphysics.

 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.

 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
 atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
 realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
 acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view
 in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can
 consider mental states to exist as if they are real.
 L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
 world (the physical world you see and that of science),
 but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
 not real, only its monadic representation is real.

 I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
 a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


 Atheism is a variant of christinanism.

 The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and
 seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God,
 even if it is to deny it.

 I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive
 matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with
 that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth).


 But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent,
 ominibenevolent, omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and rewards.
 So I'd say your an atheist - if I were so bold as to say what other people
 mean when they designate their beliefs.


 ...also, a god that shows a surprising level of interest in what we, puny
 humans, do with our genitals.

 I was going to make a very similar comment, but then decided against it.
 Bruno is a brilliant philosopher, so I guess it doesn't matter how he labels
 himself. I can understand the reluctance to be associated with a type of
 close-mindness present in (some) atheists.


Telmo,

I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X  Z) logically derived
string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of
physics), omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), and
omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), but not
necessarily omnibenevolent,
that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all
possible universes. What label do I deserve?
Richard


 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Richard,


 I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X  Z) logically derived
 string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of
 physics),


When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying
intentionality on the part of the entity.


 omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe),


Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing.


 and
 omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe),


Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing.


 but not
 necessarily omnibenevolent,
 that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all
 possible universes. What label do I deserve?


Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities.


 Richard

 
  Brent
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups
  Everything List group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at
  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  Everything List group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at
  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[meekerdb]

On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi Richard,


I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X  Z) logically derived
string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of
physics), 



When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying 
intentionality on the part of the entity.


omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), 



Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing.

and
omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), 



Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing.

but not
necessarily omnibenevolent,
that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all
possible universes. What label do I deserve?


Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities.


If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person who doesn't 
meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't care what humans do, then 
he's a deist.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
 On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 Hi Richard,


 I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X  Z) logically derived
 string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of
 physics),


 When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying
 intentionality on the part of the entity.


 omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe),


 Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing.


 and
 omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe),


 Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing.


 but not
 necessarily omnibenevolent,
 that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all
 possible universes. What label do I deserve?


 Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities.


 If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person
 who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't
 care what humans do, then he's a deist.

 Brent

Interesting. Therefore deists do not believe in deities.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[meekerdb]

On 12/16/2012 9:59 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net  wrote:

On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi Richard,


I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X  Z) logically derived
string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of
physics),


When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying
intentionality on the part of the entity.


omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe),


Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing.


and
omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe),


Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing.


but not
necessarily omnibenevolent,
that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all
possible universes. What label do I deserve?


Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities.


If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person
who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't
care what humans do, then he's a deist.

Brent

Interesting. Therefore deists do not believe in deities.


Sure they.  They believe in some person/intelligence is responsible for ordering the 
world.  I'm not sure whether you think of 'the one god of CTM' as being a person or not.  
If not, I guess you're just a computationalist.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Dec 2012, at 00:30, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 12/8/2012 2:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Stephen,
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly,  
except for yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic  
explanation (=a joke).

Dear John,

;-) I try hard to stay in a superposed state, somewhere between  
serious and 'just kidding. We understand each other here. :-)




I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I  
do not detect the concept for such.


Exactly! This is partly why I make such a big deal about how  
people use the concept of 'existence'. It is impossible to deny the  
existence without first assuming the possibility that it could  
indeed exist! To avoid this trap, why not pull existence completely  
away from any dependence on anything else and take it as an  
ontological primitive. We then say (with Ayn Rand) existence  
exists. Full Stop.



Also: when you wrote

 I am claiming that local determination/causation' and 'apparent  
causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global  
or total cause or 'orchestration'.


it resonates with my denial of classic causation in which it is  
presumed to know about ALL initiative entailment - what my  
agnosticism denies from our present knowable.


'What is Knowledge' is almost as difficult a question as 'what  
is truth'! I really like Bruno's proposed solution, but he seems to  
have a hard time with my attempt to parametrize truth using  
agreements or mutual consistency in a game theoretical sense. What I  
propose is no different from the solution to the problem of perfect  
knowledge in game theory! Thinking of knowledge and truth via  
semantic games has the nice bonus of allowing for a nice extension  
into statistics and probability. I really like when one mathematical  
idea connects to another.


I am struggling with the 'changes' that occur: the best I can think  
of is the least obstructed possibility in 'relations' to go for,  
considering more than we may know within our presently knowable  
model of the world.


OK. What I do to think of this is to ask: what situation is  
necessary for the appearance of a type of change to vanish, in some  
class of related circumstances? I first noticed that this implies  
that for a change to be non-vanishing there has to be a non- 
vanishing means to measure the change or otherwise keep track of its  
effects. Take away the means to measure change, and what is left?


I am also struggling with the driving force behind all  
'that' (meaning the infinite complexity) IMO the origination of  
anything. A have no identification for the 'relations' either. Nor  
for any 'interchange' - a possible and inevitably occurring 'cause'  
for violating the (presumed?) infinite symmetry (call it  
equilibrium?) -  generating undefinable universes (in my  
narrative).


The way I see it, perfect infinite symmetry is changeless. Why?  
What would act as the measure of change of the P.I.S.? Nothing! If  
we some how break the symmetry, we get an immediate potential  
difference and, check it out, the difference between the perfectly  
symmetric case and the not so symmetric case is the same kind of  
difference that we see between the states of a system in a maximum  
entropy state and a state some distance away from maximum entropy.  
Voila! We have at least an intuitive way to think of change and a  
measure of such.




Orchestration is a good word, thank you. All I can think of is the  
'least obstructed way' of change substituting even for 'evolution'- 
like processes.


Yeah, this is, IMHO, the main reason why people have such a  
problem understanding the nature of time! The fact that the sequence  
of events can be mapped to the Real numbers gets all the attention  
and leads to thoughts that time is a dimension and the question as  
to How did the events get sequenced like that in the first place?  
gets ignored.


The 'Overall Conductor' (God?) is a requirement of human thinking  
within those limitations we observed over the past millennia.


I agree, it is a comforting idea.

The 'local governor' is within the model-limitations of yesterday.  
By no means an 'absolute' denomination (not a 'real entity').


Take me to your leader, explained the invader. Whatr is a  
leader?, asked the native. None of you rules over the rest? asked  
the invader in surprise. Why should there be such?, We are all  
different and have our own unique thoughts, why should some 'one'  
rule over the rest?. Oh my!, exclaimed the invader, I had better  
rethink my tactics!.


I want to press that I do not feel above such limitations myself,  
but at least I try to find wider boundaries.


Boundaries are merely horizons to expand.



I would not say:

...to imagining that a physical computer can run without a power  
source.


rather push such driving force (see above) into my agnostic  
ignorance,


Right, does my line of 

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Stephen P. King]

On 12/9/2012 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hmm

With CTM it is simple, if our knowledge augment linearly, our 
ignorance augments non computably. The more we know, the more we can 
intuit how much we don't know, making us wiser (with some luck). We 
can jump from big picture to big picture, but we cannot ever be sure, 
and there is an infinity of surprises awaiting for us.


The enemy is not ignorance, it the fake knowledge, the hiding of 
ignorance, I would say.



Dear Bruno,

Sure! I don't see a necessary disagreement in our view here.

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King 

You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a
an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.

You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly,
in that you believe in local dermination/causation while
I believe that such causation is (and has to be, because ideas 
aren't causal) only apparent. To go back to my orchestra analogy,
you believe that everything is fine as long as each correctly plays
his score, while I believe that an overall conductor (the supreme
monad) is needed for maintaining coordination and for
composing the score in the first place.

Your local governor appears to be a set of relations.  L's
would also neccesarily include a higher-order governor
(the Conductor) to insure that a pre-established harmony
exists between sets, as well as insuring that each set ansd
its laws are carried out properly. Are synchhronized.

In short, you seem to have no  means of overall synchronizing 
the actions of sets.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-06, 14:02:33
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe


On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Stephen P. King
 OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
 about L's metaphysics.
 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
 atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
 realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
 acts as if there's no God.

Dear Roger,

 It is not atheist/materialist at all, my way. It is anti-special, 
in the sense that the potential of the One must be immanent in all of 
the Omniverse, not to be confined to special occasions/locations.


 I have trouble with this view
 in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can
 consider mental states to exist as if they are real.

 Your thoughts are easily seen to be a mental space when one 
understand that a 'space' is just a set plus some structure of relations.

 L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenal
 world (the physical world you see and that of science),
 but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
 not real, only its monadic representation is real.

 yes, but Monads offer a very different ontological vision. It is 
not the atoms in a void vision at all, and yet allows for the 
appearance of 'atoms in a void' as a mode of perception.

 I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
 a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).

 Actually, Bruno's view is Idealist!

-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Stephen P. King]

On 12/8/2012 7:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a
an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.


Dear Roger,

It is OK, we all have our 'bad days'. :-)


You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly,
in that you believe in local dermination/causation while
I believe that such causation is (and has to be, because ideas
aren't causal) only apparent.


I am claiming that local determination/causation' and 'apparent 
causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or 
total cause or 'orchestration'.



To go back to my orchestra analogy,
you believe that everything is fine as long as each correctly plays
his score, while I believe that an overall conductor (the supreme
monad) is needed for maintaining coordination and for
composing the score in the first place.


Could you consider that this overall conductor' is an imaginary 
entity and not a real entity?



Your local governor appears to be a set of relations.


Yes.


L's would also neccesarily include a higher-order governor
(the Conductor) to insure that a pre-established harmony
exists between sets, as well as insuring that each set ansd
its laws are carried out properly. Are synchhronized.


Yes, but I am pointing out that this assumption that a 
pre-established harmony exists between sets is an a priori global 
partitioning on the percepts and this is explicitly disallowed for 
mathematical reasons. Do you understand the discussion about NP-Hard 
problems that I have previously mentioned?



In short, you seem to have no  means of overall synchronizing
the actions of sets.


Exactly. In order to have an overall synchronization of the actions 
there must be a computation of such and this is an infinite NP-hard 
problem that simply cannot occur prior to the availability of the 
resources for the computation. To think otherwise is equivalent to 
imagining that a physical computer can run without a power source.



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] mailto:rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-12-06, 14:02:33
*Subject:* Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Stephen P. King
 OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
 about L's metaphysics.
 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
 atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
 realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
 acts as if there's no God.

Dear Roger,

 It is not atheist/materialist at all, my way. It is
anti-special,
in the sense that the potential of the One must be immanent in all of
the Omniverse, not to be confined to special occasions/locations.


 I have trouble with this view
 in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can
 consider mental states to exist as if they are real.

 Your thoughts are easily seen to be a mental space when one
understand that a 'space' is just a set plus some structure of
relations.

 L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenal
 world (the physical world you see and that of science),
 but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
 not real, only its monadic representation is real.

 yes, but Monads offer a very different ontological vision. It is
not the atoms in a void vision at all, and yet allows for the
appearance of 'atoms in a void' as a mode of perception.

 I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
 a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).

 Actually, Bruno's view is Idealist!

-- 





--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[John Mikes]

Dear Stephen,
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except for
yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic explanation (=a joke).
I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I do not
detect the concept for such. Also: when you wrote

* I am claiming that local determination/causation' and 'apparent
causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or
total cause or 'orchestration'.*
*
*
it resonates with my denial of classic causation in which it is presumed
to know about ALL initiative entailment - what my agnosticism denies from
our present knowable.
I am struggling with the 'changes' that occur: the best I can think of is
the least obstructed possibility in 'relations' to go for, considering more
than we may know within our presently knowable model of the world. I am
also struggling with the driving force behind all 'that' (meaning the
infinite complexity) IMO the origination of anything. A have no
identification for the 'relations' either. Nor for any 'interchange' - a
possible and inevitably occurring 'cause' for violating the (presumed?)
infinite symmetry (call it equilibrium?) -  generating undefinable
universes (in my narrative).

*Orchestration *is a good word, thank you. All I can think of is the 'least
obstructed way' of *change* substituting even for 'evolution'-like
processes.
The 'Overall Conductor' (God?) is a requirement of human thinking within
those limitations we observed over the past millennia.
The 'local governor' is within the model-limitations of yesterday. By no
means an 'absolute' denomination (not a *'real entity'*).
I want to press that I do not feel above such limitations myself, but at
least I try to find wider boundaries.

I would not say:

*...to imagining that a physical computer can run without a power source.*
*
*
rather push such driving force (see above) into my agnostic ignorance,
Bundle it up with 'energy', 'electricity' and the other zillion marvels our
conventional sciences USE, CALCULATE, DIFFERENTIATE, without the foggiest
idea WHAT they are and HOW they work. I accept our overall ignorance.

Best regards
John Mikes



On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:

  On 12/8/2012 7:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King

 You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
 an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a
 an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.


 Dear Roger,

 It is OK, we all have our 'bad days'. :-)


 You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly,
 in that you believe in local dermination/causation while
 I believe that such causation is (and has to be, because ideas
 aren't causal) only apparent.


 I am claiming that local determination/causation' and 'apparent
 causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or
 total cause or 'orchestration'.


  To go back to my orchestra analogy,
 you believe that everything is fine as long as each correctly plays
 his score, while I believe that an overall conductor (the supreme
 monad) is needed for maintaining coordination and for
 composing the score in the first place.


 Could you consider that this overall conductor' is an imaginary
 entity and not a real entity?



 Your local governor appears to be a set of relations.


 Yes.


  L's would also neccesarily include a higher-order governor
 (the Conductor) to insure that a pre-established harmony
 exists between sets, as well as insuring that each set ansd
 its laws are carried out properly. Are synchhronized.


 Yes, but I am pointing out that this assumption that a
 pre-established harmony exists between sets is an a priori global
 partitioning on the percepts and this is explicitly disallowed for
 mathematical reasons. Do you understand the discussion about NP-Hard
 problems that I have previously mentioned?



 In short, you seem to have no  means of overall synchronizing
 the actions of sets.


 Exactly. In order to have an overall synchronization of the actions
 there must be a computation of such and this is an infinite NP-hard problem
 that simply cannot occur prior to the availability of the resources for the
 computation. To think otherwise is equivalent to imagining that a physical
 computer can run without a power source.




 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net]
 12/8/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-12-06, 14:02:33
 *Subject:* Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

  On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
  Hi Stephen P. King
  OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
  about L's metaphysics.
  1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
  2

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Dec 2012, at 13:16, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King

You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
an Idealist like me.


Hmm... First I am silent on my beliefs. I am just a logician who say  
if you believe this (that you can survive with an artificial digital  
brain, Comp or CTM) then you have to believe this (that arithmetic is  
the realm of everything, then rest are definition and theorems). Then  
I show that CTM, and the first definition (borrowed to Plato,  
Theaetetus mainly, and Plotinus, for matter) illustrates a rationalist  
non Aristotelian conception of reality (the physical reality emerge  
from something else).


I prefer to say that CTM leads to neutral monism, instead of idealism.  
Numbers cannot be taken as idea because idea are more complex than  
numbers, and eventually ideas are defined by the kind of things  
accessible to universal numbers.


Bruno






And my apologies for calling you a
an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.

You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly,
in that you believe in local dermination/causation while
I believe that such causation is (and has to be, because ideas
aren't causal) only apparent. To go back to my orchestra analogy,
you believe that everything is fine as long as each correctly plays
his score, while I believe that an overall conductor (the supreme
monad) is needed for maintaining coordination and for
composing the score in the first place.

Your local governor appears to be a set of relations.  L's
would also neccesarily include a higher-order governor
(the Conductor) to insure that a pre-established harmony
exists between sets, as well as insuring that each set ansd
its laws are carried out properly. Are synchhronized.

In short, you seem to have no  means of overall synchronizing
the actions of sets.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-06, 14:02:33
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Stephen P. King
 OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
 about L's metaphysics.
 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
 atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
 realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
 acts as if there's no God.

Dear Roger,

 It is not atheist/materialist at all, my way. It is anti- 
special,

in the sense that the potential of the One must be immanent in all of
the Omniverse, not to be confined to special occasions/locations.


 I have trouble with this view
 in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can
 consider mental states to exist as if they are real.

 Your thoughts are easily seen to be a mental space when one
understand that a 'space' is just a set plus some structure of  
relations.


 L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenal
 world (the physical world you see and that of science),
 but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
 not real, only its monadic representation is real.

 yes, but Monads offer a very different ontological vision. It is
not the atoms in a void vision at all, and yet allows for the
appearance of 'atoms in a void' as a mode of perception.

 I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
 a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).

 Actually, Bruno's view is Idealist!

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Stephen P. King]

On 12/8/2012 2:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Stephen,
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except 
for yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic explanation (=a joke).

Dear John,

;-) I try hard to stay in a superposed state, somewhere between 
serious and 'just kidding. We understand each other here. :-)




I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I do 
not detect the concept for such.


Exactly! This is partly why I make such a big deal about how people 
use the concept of 'existence'. It is impossible to deny the existence 
without first assuming the possibility that it could indeed exist! To 
avoid this trap, why not pull existence completely away from any 
dependence on anything else and take it as an ontological primitive. We 
then say (with Ayn Rand) existence exists. Full Stop.



Also: when you wrote

*/ I am claiming that local determination/causation' and 'apparent 
causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or 
total cause or 'orchestration'./*

*/
/*
it resonates with my denial of classic causation in which it is 
presumed to know about ALL initiative entailment - what my agnosticism 
denies from our present knowable.


'What is Knowledge' is almost as difficult a question as 'what is 
truth'! I really like Bruno's proposed solution, but he seems to have a 
hard time with my attempt to parametrize truth using agreements or 
mutual consistency in a game theoretical sense. What I propose is no 
different from the solution to the problem of perfect knowledge in 
game theory! Thinking of knowledge and truth via semantic games has the 
nice bonus of allowing for a nice extension into statistics and 
probability. I really like when one mathematical idea connects to another.


I am struggling with the 'changes' that occur: the best I can think of 
is the least obstructed possibility in 'relations' to go for, 
considering more than we may know within our presently knowable model 
of the world.


OK. What I do to think of this is to ask: what situation is 
necessary for the appearance of a type of change to vanish, in some 
class of related circumstances? I first noticed that this implies that 
for a change to be non-vanishing there has to be a non-vanishing means 
to measure the change or otherwise keep track of its effects. Take away 
the means to measure change, and what is left?


I am also struggling with the driving force behind all 'that' (meaning 
the infinite complexity) IMO the origination of anything. A have no 
identification for the 'relations' either. Nor for any 'interchange' - 
a possible and inevitably occurring 'cause' for violating the 
(presumed?) infinite symmetry (call it equilibrium?) -  generating 
undefinable universes (in my narrative).


The way I see it, perfect infinite symmetry is changeless. Why? 
What would act as the measure of change of the P.I.S.? Nothing! If we 
some how break the symmetry, we get an immediate potential difference 
and, check it out, the difference between the perfectly symmetric case 
and the not so symmetric case is the same kind of difference that we see 
between the states of a system in a maximum entropy state and a state 
some distance away from maximum entropy. Voila! We have at least an 
intuitive way to think of change and a measure of such.




*Orchestration *is a good word, thank you. All I can think of is the 
'least obstructed way' of *change* substituting even for 
'evolution'-like processes.


Yeah, this is, IMHO, the main reason why people have such a problem 
understanding the nature of time! The fact that the sequence of events 
can be mapped to the Real numbers gets all the attention and leads to 
thoughts that time is a dimension and the question as to How did the 
events get sequenced like that in the first place? gets ignored.


The 'Overall Conductor' (God?) is a requirement of human thinking 
within those limitations we observed over the past millennia.


I agree, it is a comforting idea.

The 'local governor' is within the model-limitations of yesterday. By 
no means an 'absolute' denomination (not a */'real entity'/*).


Take me to your leader, explained the invader. Whatr is a 
leader?, asked the native. None of you rules over the rest? asked the 
invader in surprise. Why should there be such?, We are all different 
and have our own unique thoughts, why should some 'one' rule over the 
rest?. Oh my!, exclaimed the invader, I had better rethink my tactics!.


I want to press that I do not feel above such limitations myself, 
but at least I try to find wider boundaries.


Boundaries are merely horizons to expand.



I would not say:

*/...to imagining that a physical computer can run without a power 
source./*

*/
/*
rather push such driving force (see above) into my agnostic ignorance,


Right, does my line of reasoning make sense?

Bundle it up with 'energy', 'electricity' and the other zillion 

A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King 

OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking 
about L's metaphysics.

1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.

2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual 
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you 
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe 
acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view
in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can 
consider mental states to exist as if they are real. 
L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
world (the physical world you see and that of science), 
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is 
not real, only its monadic representation is real. 

I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/6/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28
Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas


On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

L's monads have perception.
They sense the entire universe.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King


 God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics,
 it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads)
 afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's
 metaphysics.




Hi Richard,

Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What 
distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. 
One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the 
content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic 
Boolean algebra.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

[Stephen P. King]

On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.
1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
acts as if there's no God.


Dear Roger,

It is not atheist/materialist at all, my way. It is anti-special, 
in the sense that the potential of the One must be immanent in all of 
the Omniverse, not to be confined to special occasions/locations.




I have trouble with this view
in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can
consider mental states to exist as if they are real.


Your thoughts are easily seen to be a mental space when one 
understand that a 'space' is just a set plus some structure of relations.



L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenal
world (the physical world you see and that of science),
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
not real, only its monadic representation is real.


yes, but Monads offer a very different ontological vision. It is 
not the atoms in a void vision at all, and yet allows for the 
appearance of 'atoms in a void' as a mode of perception.



I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).


Actually, Bruno's view is Idealist!

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.