subject:"Hitch"



On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it  
relies on some familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a  
measure on relative computational continuations, and the logic  
explains already the statistical interferences.


QM is deterministic and there is only one 'computational  
continuation';


?
If you measure up+down in the base {up,down}, you get two  
computational continuation, unless you add a non deterministic  
collapse.



No, you only get one in which the measuring device state (including  
you) is entangled with the system measured.



you * (up + down) = (you * up)  +  (you * down),

That is a deterministic bifurcation leading to two (at least)  
computational continuations, one where you see the electron in the up  
state and one in which you see the electron in the down state.


That's what entangle means in QM without collapse.




To get two you have to treat measurement as some non-unitary  
operator.


Not at all, I can also use the FPI. The measurement becomes a machine  
interaction followed by self-reference/personal memory access.





That's the puzzle that Everett addressed by throwing out the  
collapse postulate and assuming only one kind of continuation.   
Since that seemed like an attractive idea the problem has become how  
to explain the experience of one thing happening and another not.


It is solved completely by the FPI.  We experience one thing and not  
the other for the same comp reason why we see only W (or only M) in  
the WM duplication. That is why Everett can use comp and remains in a  
purely deterministic framework.  The only problem is that Everett did  
not discovered explicitly the FPI, which occurs also in arithmetic,  
which would have forced him to understand that the wave itself must be  
phenomenologically derived from a measure on all computations, and not  
one circumscribe to any special universal machine (like the quantum  
one).


Bruno



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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch

2013-07-12 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what an
 external purely deterministic system will do,



 In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning of its
 parts. Yes. We might not know if the machine will stop or not, but whatever
 happens is determined by the initial digital conditions.


Yes, and that means that determinism and predictability are NOT the same
thing.

 That has nothing to do with the First Person Indeterminacy


If we can't predict what a external complex system will do then we can't
predict what another complex system, ourselves, will see or do either.
Because of this some will just say I dunno what city I will see next or
what I will do about it when I do see it while others who wish to be more
pompous will say not knowing what city I will see is an example of First
Person Indeterminacy. The term First Person Indeterminacy may be a new
invention of yours but the idea behind it was well known in the stone age.


  nor the quantum indeterminacy.


Those two things are apparently unrelated (although who knows, I wouldn't
be too surprised if it later turned out there was some sort of
connection),  but the fact that some events have no cause and that in the
real world no complex system is 100% deterministic only makes what I said
above stronger.


  all we can do is watch it and see; and as for the first person
 expectation we've known for much much longer than 80 years that often
 (perhaps usually) we don't know what we are going to do until we do it.



 So when you put water on the gas, your theory to predict what you will
 experience is just wait and see?


Read what I said again, I didn't say you can never know what you can do
next, I said you can't always know what you will do next, and (perhaps)
usually we don't. And there is no foolproof way to separate the times when
we can reliably make predictions from the times when we can not; so even
when we're making good prophecies we can't always be certain that they are
in fact good prophecies.

The end result of all this is that predicting is hard, especially the
future.

  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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch


On 7/12/2013 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some 
familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure on relative 
computational continuations, and the logic explains already the statistical 
interferences.


QM is deterministic and there is only one 'computational continuation';


?
If you measure up+down in the base {up,down}, you get two computational continuation, 
unless you add a non deterministic collapse.



No, you only get one in which the measuring device state (including you) is entangled 
with the system measured.



you * (up + down) = (you * up)  +  (you * down),

That is a deterministic bifurcation leading to two (at least) computational 
continuations, one where you see the electron in the up state and one in which you see 
the electron in the down state.


But it is not a bifurcation because it can be undone by subsequent evolution of the wave 
function; which means there is only one computational continuation.  It is only if you 
assume collapse of the wave function that the evolution cannot be reversed and that is 
what decoherence attempts to explain in terms of diffusing information into the 
environment.  But a fundamental theory of everything has no environment.






That's what entangle means in QM without collapse.





To get two you have to treat measurement as some non-unitary operator.


Not at all, I can also use the FPI. The measurement becomes a machine interaction 
followed by self-reference/personal memory access.


But here you deviate from QM and treat the individual consciousness as something that can 
irreversibly bifurcate.  It is essentially Wigner's initial theory that consciousness 
collapses the wave function.  The only difference is you suppose both branches to exist.







That's the puzzle that Everett addressed by throwing out the collapse postulate and 
assuming only one kind of continuation.  Since that seemed like an attractive idea the 
problem has become how to explain the experience of one thing happening and another not.


It is solved completely by the FPI.  We experience one thing and not the other for the 
same comp reason why we see only W (or only M) in the WM duplication.


What is that reason?  According to QM there are two systems that are entangled with 
environments such that they are statistically unlikely to recohere and hence form 
persistently different memories.


That is why Everett can use comp and remains in a purely deterministic framework.  The 
only problem is that Everett did not discovered explicitly the FPI,


He explicitly postulated it of observers in QM.

which occurs also in arithmetic, which would have forced him to understand that the wave 
itself must be phenomenologically derived from a measure on all computations, and not 
one circumscribe to any special universal machine (like the quantum one).


I don't see how reference to a quantum machine is relevant.  QM is just a theory and in 
fact just a schema for theories; you need the specify the Hilbert space and the 
Hamiltonian before you actually have a theory.


Brent



Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3204/6484 - Release Date: 07/11/13

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Hitch



On 12 Jul 2013, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:


On Thu, Jul 11, 2013  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what  
an external purely deterministic system will do,


 In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning  
of its parts. Yes. We might not know if the machine will stop or  
not, but whatever happens is determined by the initial digital  
conditions.


Yes, and that means that determinism and predictability are NOT the  
same thing.



Exactly.





 That has nothing to do with the First Person Indeterminacy

If we can't predict what a external complex system will do then we  
can't predict what another complex system, ourselves, will see or do  
either. Because of this some will just say I dunno what city I will  
see next or what I will do about it when I do see it


OK.




while others who wish to be more pompous will say not knowing what  
city I will see is an example of First Person Indeterminacy.



Because if you agree with I dunno which city I will see, by deducing  
it through an explicit appeal to a level of mechanical substitution,  
you see that the digital third person determinacy is responsible for  
indeterminate, from the first person points of view, experiences.


If you agree with it, it means you can go to step 4.







The term First Person Indeterminacy may be a new invention of  
yours but the idea behind it was well known in the stone age.



Excellent. Indeed, we know that since we were amoebas.

Sometime saying the obvious can change everything.

That relative indeterminacy is invariant for some digital  
transformation, or substitution, and that has some consequences.


Eventually it shows that both grandmother in the garden, and the  
physicists in the LHC uses what a logician would call a limitation  
principle, which is equivalent with an induction axiom (like in Peano  
Arithmetic).


They bet there is a reality, following patterns, and that predicting  
third person patterns allows them to lift the prediction on the first  
person experience, but with comp we get a substitution level, and we  
lost that connection below it.







 nor the quantum indeterminacy.

Those two things are apparently unrelated (although who knows, I  
wouldn't be too surprised if it later turned out there was some sort  
of connection),


Once you get the UDA you can bet that they are related, and AUDA  
confirms with the math.







but the fact that some events have no cause and that in the real world



What do you mean by real world?





no complex system is 100% deterministic only makes what I said above  
stronger.


 all we can do is watch it and see; and as for the first person  
expectation we've known for much much longer than 80 years that  
often (perhaps usually) we don't know what we are going to do until  
we do it.


 So when you put water on the gas, your theory to predict what you  
will experience is just wait and see?


Read what I said again, I didn't say you can never know what you can  
do next, I said you can't always know what you will do next, and  
(perhaps) usually we don't.



But there are very different kind of indeterminacies, and the math of  
each of them is different.


If comp and QM are correct, the QM indeterminacies is the   
arithmetical FPI, that is why the comp + theories/definition becomes  
testable.


The SWE becomes a theorem in arithmetic, concerning what universal  
numbers can bet about the most probable universal numbers in some of  
its universal neighbors.


But the relation with the Turing halting problem is more subtle, and  
basically made explicit in the math part. You don't need it for  
grasping the UDA. And I try to explain the basic math on this very list.





And there is no foolproof way to separate the times when we can  
reliably make predictions from the times when we can not;



You make general statements without given your card. I still don't  
know what is your theory. You seem to assume a  primitive physical  
universe, meaning that you seem we have to *assume* the physical  
reality?


Keep in mind I don't make that assumption. Normally UDA shows that it  
might be neither necessary, nor possible, when assuming comp.


In some theoretical situation, like in some experimental situation, we  
can reason in the theory and predict facts, including, predicting  
first person unpredictable experiences, in clear setting, and we can  
develop the math.


With computer science/mathematical logic, we can study what indeed  
such relative numbers can predict in the average.


If you find the FPI so easy that it belongs to the stone age, then  
what are you waiting for step 4?





so even when we're making good prophecies we can't always be certain  
that they are in fact good prophecies.




The end result of all this is that predicting is hard, especially  
the future.



It is certainly hard for me to predict the time you will get at step

Re: Hitch

2013-07-12 Thread Johnathan Corgan

On 07/10/2013 11:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 I use atheists in the (Google) sense of B~g.   ~Bg is agnosticism (in
 the mundane common sense).
 
 Some atheists seem to oscillate between the two definitions,
 opportunistically.

The issue is that both of those require some specific 'g' to be claimed,
before either of them may apply.

But first 'g' has to be well-defined, coherent, and logically possible,
before either of the above can even make sense.  My experience is that
few religious claims make it past this hurdle; there is therefore not
really anything to believe or not believe in.

So we're left with the state of our belief system unchanged, and
optimization of our finite resources means we just don't think about
these sorts of things.

I suppose that's neither 'atheism' or 'agnosticism'.

Johnathan Corgan


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Hitch


On 7/11/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The god of the materialist is Matter, and I don't believe in it. I am agnostic. 
I search.


I think you do believe in matter - you often refer to your coffee, for example. You just 
don't believe it is fundamental.  But that's a very different thing.  Money isn't 
fundamental, but I still believe I have some in the bank.  I think you are disingenuous 
when you claim to have disproven matter and that materialists are wrong.  Even if you are 
right, I think it will turn out that matter is necessary for consciousness and so matter, 
while not primitive, will underlie the world as a necessary layer between arithmetic and 
consciousness.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch


On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because if you agree with I dunno which city I will see, by deducing it through an 
explicit appeal to a level of mechanical substitution, you see that the digital third 
person determinacy is responsible for indeterminate, from the first person points of 
view, experiences.


However this depends on there being no fact-of-the-matter as to which man, Washington or 
Moscow, is you.  That either one is you seems to depend on memories shared with you.  
Any other interpretation would simply say you were annihilated and neither man is you.  
This in turn depends on memories being classical things - not subject to quantum 
interference phenomena and not being reversible.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 12 Jul 2013, at 20:33, Johnathan Corgan wrote:


On 07/10/2013 11:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


I use atheists in the (Google) sense of B~g.   ~Bg is agnosticism (in
the mundane common sense).

Some atheists seem to oscillate between the two definitions,
opportunistically.


The issue is that both of those require some specific 'g' to be  
claimed,

before either of them may apply.


That is not correct. 'g' can be very fuzzy for asserting ~Bg. Indeed  
the more 'g' is fuzzy, the more ~Bg is the logical option.


But, on the contrary, B~g needs a precise sense for g.

That is why we ask the atheists which notion of 'g' he has in mind. If  
is Santa Klaus, atheism is normal, and I am atheist too. If 'g' is  
the  Plotinus ONE, then arithmetical truth provides a model for such  
ONE, from the points of view of the machine, which verify the main  
God axiom (it explains where machines come from and why they share  
deep dreams obeying physical laws).








But first 'g' has to be well-defined, coherent, and logically  
possible,

before either of the above can even make sense.  My experience is that
few religious claims make it past this hurdle; there is therefore not
really anything to believe or not believe in.


I cannot define consciousness, but I believe in consciousness.
I cannot define (arithmetical) truth, but I tend to believe in it.
I cannot define what reality is, yet I believe in it.

There are many things that we cannot define, yet we believe in it, or  
tend to find them plausible.







So we're left with the state of our belief system unchanged, and
optimization of our finite resources means we just don't think about
these sorts of things.

I suppose that's neither 'atheism' or 'agnosticism'.


No, that is agnosticism. You just don't believe in god because you  
wait for some definition, or for more information or evidence, or  
refutation, whatever, etc. It is my position.


Have you read UDA? Sometimes I define God by what you can still  
believe in when assuming computationalism. It is not a primary  
physical universe. That's the main point.


In that setting it appears to be something without name, at the origin  
of all experiences and beliefs. It matches well with the negative  
theology of the neoplatonician and the mystics, and the matter we get  
matches well with the Plotinus' theory of matter, and it is testable,  
and tested already on simple physical assertions.


Bruno


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:25, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/11/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The god of the materialist is Matter, and I don't believe in it. I  
am agnostic. I search.


I think you do believe in matter - you often refer to your coffee,  
for example.  You just don't believe it is fundamental.


Yes. I believe in matter, but not in Matter.




But that's a very different thing.  Money isn't fundamental, but I  
still believe I have some in the bank.  I think you are disingenuous  
when you claim to have disproven matter and that materialists are  
wrong.  Even if you are right, I think it will turn out that matter  
is necessary for consciousness and so matter, while not primitive,  
will underlie the world as a necessary layer between arithmetic and  
consciousness.


That's exactly my point, but I put in a precise and testable way.

Bruno


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:31, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because if you agree with I dunno which city I will see, by  
deducing it through an explicit appeal to a level of mechanical  
substitution, you see that the digital third person determinacy is  
responsible for indeterminate, from the first person points of  
view, experiences.


However this depends on there being no fact-of-the-matter as to  
which man, Washington or Moscow, is you.  That either one is you  
seems to depend on memories shared with you.  Any other  
interpretation would simply say you were annihilated and neither man  
is you.  This in turn depends on memories being classical things -  
not subject to quantum interference phenomena


Comp is neutral on the quantum, at the start, then we have to recover  
it or at least that is correct.






and not being reversible.



Irreversibility of first person experience can be recovered from  
reversible computation. Indeed some universal machine are reversible  
(billiard ball, quantum computer, etc.).


Bruno



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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch


On 7/12/2013 3:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:31, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because if you agree with I dunno which city I will see, by deducing it through an 
explicit appeal to a level of mechanical substitution, you see that the digital third 
person determinacy is responsible for indeterminate, from the first person points of 
view, experiences.


However this depends on there being no fact-of-the-matter as to which man, Washington 
or Moscow, is you.  That either one is you seems to depend on memories shared with 
you.  Any other interpretation would simply say you were annihilated and neither man is 
you.  This in turn depends on memories being classical things - not subject to quantum 
interference phenomena


Comp is neutral on the quantum, at the start, then we have to recover it or at least 
that is correct.






and not being reversible.



Irreversibility of first person experience can be recovered from reversible 
computation.


That would be statistical irreversibility, i.e. reversal is improbable but not 
impossible.


Indeed some universal machine are reversible (billiard ball, quantum computer, 
etc.).


But isn't there a distinction between reversible and irreversible computations?  Doesn't 
the UD do both of them?


Brent


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/10/2013 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Now the converse, where atheism is taken to mean rejection of all  
gods, rather than one, is not meaningless.


You keep using the term rejection.  If by rejection you mean  
failure to credence that's OK.  But you seem to imply assertion  
of non-existence.  An atheist may be asserting the non-existence of  
the God of Catholicism, while merely failing to believe in the god  
of deism; and in fact that is explicitly what Vic Stenger and  
Richard Dawkins have said.


Then they are no more atheists in the sense of the atheists I have  
problem with.


I use atheists in the (Google) sense of B~g.   ~Bg is agnosticism (in  
the mundane common sense).


Some atheists seem to oscillate between the two definitions,  
opportunistically.


Anyway, as I said (on FOAR), I define theology of the machine M by the  
truth about the machine M/ The proper theology is defined by the truth  
which is unprovable by the machine, yet conceivable by it.


Bruno







Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 10 Jul 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/10/2013 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


UDA shows why and we have to extract physics from that (making comp  
testable), and how we can do that using the mathematical machine's  
theology.


You're really saying we have to extract physics from comp IN ORDER  
that it be testable.


Notably. But comp has other consequences, but they are more difficult  
to test as clearly as physics.






You've said that comp implies QM, although I don't see how;


I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies  
on some familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure on  
relative computational continuations, and the logic explains already  
the statistical interferences.




but if that's the case perhaps you can infer from comp the answer to  
the interesting question in theoretical physics, is the evolution of  
a  black hole unitary?


This is not on the near horizon. But we have no choice if we bet on  
comp.




So far every theory that assumes unitarity seems to violate the  
equivalence principle of general relativity.


Yes, QM + GR is in trouble. I guess GR has to be changed, as QM is  
very solid. But in comp, there are many open problem in arithmetic to  
solve before we can decide.
Now comp is a theory of consciousness and matter. QM and GR don't  
aboard the mind-body problem.


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch

2013-07-11 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
 On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have
  realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not
  Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and atheism.


 1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea of God, although some don't
 have the courage to also dismiss the word G-O-D.


 Atheists differ on this. Some indeed dismiss the idea of God, and dismiss as
 much Hindhuism and Christianism, Aristotle Gods and Platonic Gods.
 But then they believ in Matter, the thrid God of Aristotle. But they want
 you to believe it is not a God, and seems unable to understand that IF
 everything comes from primitive matter, it does play the role usually
 attributed to God. No one has ever seen primitive matter, nor explain how it
 proceeds, etc.  Primitive matter is an etraoplation of the SENSES to number
 relations inferred from experiences.


 That's just your rhetoric, Bruno.  Neither you nor anyone else thinks that
 primitive matter plays the role usually attributed to the theist God.  No
 one suggests we worship matter or look to matter for ethical rules.  There
 are no churches collecting donations for matter.  There are no dogmas of
 matter written on stone tablets.

Ecologists / Global warming
Vegetarianism / Veganism
Biological foods
Recycling
Work hard / employment is good
Democracy

These are all common dogmatic beliefs amongst a certain class of
people who reject traditional religion. I'm not judging: they might
all be true and reasonable. Traditional religion is most certainly not
true nor reasonable. What I am saying is that, you known and I know
that evidence against any of these things would not change the opinion
of most of their proponents. These are dogma attached to organisations
that collect donations and label people who oppose them as heretics.

They _want_ these things to be true. They derive a moral code from
them. There are purification rituals: eat a certain type of food (stay
pure), look down on those who eat at McDonald's or drive a big truck.
They are worshipping matter.

It's materialistic puritanism.

 Those unnamed physicists that you keep
 accusing of holding the primitivity of matter as dogma conduct research to
 find something more primitive and in fact construct theories in which matter
 is reduced to abstractions like a ray in a Hilbert space.







 2) Christopher Hitchens said What can be asserted without evidence can also
 be dismissed without evidence


 Very good. So we can right at the start dismiss the God Matter.


 There's overwhelming evidence for matter.  There's nothing in physics that
 requires it to be primitive or to be worshiped.

 Brent
 The subsiding of faith might have been foreseeable as soon as the newly
 remapped sky left no plausible site for heaven. But people are good at
 living with contradictions, just so long as their self-importance isn't
 directly insulted.
 --- Fredrick Crews, Saving Us from Darwin

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential
 equations


  I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence.


It seems odd that now you're the one complaining that the word God is too
ambiguous, I thought you were fine with words meaning whatever and whenever
you personally want them to mean whenever.

You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then, in
the above God is anything in which a solution to such a equation
describes the future behavior of that thing. And if experiment showed that
there was actually something that corresponded to such a solution then I
would be a believer in God. Of course in this case the meaning of the
English letters G-O-D would not necessarily be the same, or even be vaguely
similar, to the meaning of that sequence of ASCII characters as used in
common language, but if words can mean whatever you want them to mean that
is no problem.

 you restraint the English language God to the post-523 occidental use
 of the term.


After decrypting the above enigmatic statement as near as I can tell you
are complaining that the common meaning of the English word God, the
meaning of the word that I have been using, has only been in common usage
for 1490 years. Have I got that about right? Is that what you're
complaining about?

 You confirm again and again that atheists defends the uniqueness of the
 God notion:


That is correct. Atheists know that the God notion is indeed unique because
atheists are logical and have deduced that there can be only one greatest
being who created the universe because that's what another English word
greatest means.

 Many Christians have already a larger view.


Many Christians are morons.

 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013  Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.com wrote:

 This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions,


Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII
characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile
REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more than one type of
infinity, that something can be true but have no proof, that complex
animals are developed by random mutation and natural selection, that the
key to the heredity process is DNA and it's entirely digital, and that the
universe is not only expanding but is accelerating. And the people who
write philosopher in the occupation box of their tax returns continue to
argue over the dictionary definition of words. Pitiful.

  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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch


On 7/10/2013 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why does  atheist put so much energy in defending all the time the roman christian God. 


Because they know what they don't believe, yet other people want them to believe in 
*something* called God and those people keep adjusting and expanding and obfuscating the 
meaning of the word in order to claim that atheists are mistaken not to believe in love, 
or the ground-of-all-being, or the-source-of-morality, or...


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch


On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some 
familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure on relative 
computational continuations, and the logic explains already the statistical interferences.


QM is deterministic and there is only one 'computational continuation'; so it's not clear 
to me how comp reproduces (or approximates?) this.  Nor do I see what you mean by 
statistical interferences.  QM is a theory in complex Hilbert space; do you refer to the 
interference of amplitudes in Feynman path integrals?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch


On 7/10/2013 11:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


The same logical that says bad things happen because all things happen also promises all 
good things happen as well.  As life gains greater control over its environment, the 
proportion of good things to bad things will only increase.


I suppose it may improve for the life-form that gains control - maybe not so good for the 
passenger pigeon, the wooly mammoth, homo neanderthalis,...


The ideas that I have pointed out, and which science suggests are possible and perhaps 
even probable, are far more hopeful and inspiring than the world-view you seem to have.


And that's the only reason for believing them.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch

On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have
realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not
Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and atheism.

1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea of God, although some don't
have the courage to also dismiss the word G-O-D.

Atheists differ on this. Some indeed dismiss the idea of God, and dismiss as
much Hindhuism and Christianism, Aristotle Gods and Platonic Gods.
But then they believ in Matter, the thrid God of Aristotle. But they want
you to believe it is not a God, and seems unable to understand that IF
everything comes from primitive matter, it does play the role usually
attributed to God. No one has ever seen primitive matter, nor explain how it
proceeds, etc. Primitive matter is an etraoplation of the SENSES to number
relations inferred from experiences.

That's just your rhetoric, Bruno. Neither you nor anyone else thinks that
primitive matter plays the role usually attributed to the theist God. No
one suggests we worship matter or look to matter for ethical rules. There
are no churches collecting donations for matter. There are no dogmas of
matter written on stone tablets.

Ecologists / Global warming
Vegetarianism / Veganism
Biological foods
Recycling
Work hard / employment is good
Democracy

These are all common dogmatic beliefs amongst a certain class of
people who reject traditional religion.

It ain't dogmatic if you go with the preponderance of the evidence.

I'm not judging: they might
all be true and reasonable.

And the people that hold those views might be quite willing to change them given different
evidence - which is not the case for religious people who make a virtue of faith.

Traditional religion is most certainly not
true nor reasonable. What I am saying is that, you known and I know
that evidence against any of these things would not change the opinion
of most of their proponents.

I don't know that. Go to realclimate.org and see if you think Gavin Schmidt holds his
opinions on faith.

These are dogma attached to organisations
that collect donations and label people who oppose them as heretics.

Sure, there are Libertarians and Wiccans and Racists - but they don't worship
matter.

They _want_ these things to be true. They derive a moral code from
them. There are purification rituals: eat a certain type of food (stay
pure), look down on those who eat at McDonald's or drive a big truck.
They are worshipping matter.

Really? Have you asked them? I'll bet you that they'll say they are spiritual and not
materialists.

It's materialistic puritanism.

That's just pejorative rhetoric.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch

2013-07-11 Thread Jason Resch

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 7/10/2013 11:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


  The same logical that says bad things happen because all things happen
 also promises all good things happen as well.  As life gains greater
 control over its environment, the proportion of good things to bad things
 will only increase.


 I suppose it may improve for the life-form that gains control - maybe not
 so good for the passenger pigeon, the wooly mammoth, homo neanderthalis,...


  The ideas that I have pointed out, and which science suggests are
 possible and perhaps even probable, are far more hopeful and inspiring than
 the world-view you seem to have.


 And that's the only reason for believing them.


Now you are just being dogmatic.

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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:28, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


 If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial  
differential equations


 I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence.

It seems odd that now you're the one complaining that the word God  
is too ambiguous, I thought you were fine with words meaning  
whatever and whenever you personally want them to mean whenever.


You confuse large sense and vague sense. It is not the same.





You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well  
then, in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a  
equation describes the future behavior of that thing.


God would be more like the one knowing the solution of the wave  
equation, or responsible for the equation itself, hardly the one  
driven by the equation. A bit like the set of all sets cannot be a  
set, in most set theories.


Here you assume matter and a material God.
Even Aristotle did not go that far.




And if experiment showed that there was actually something that  
corresponded to such a solution then I would be a believer in God.  
Of course in this case the meaning of the English letters G-O-D  
would not necessarily be the same, or even be vaguely similar, to  
the meaning of that sequence of ASCII characters as used in common  
language, but if words can mean whatever you want them to mean that  
is no problem.


Words does not mean what we want them to mean, and you just demolished  
your own argument.







 you restraint the English language God to the post-523  
occidental use of the term.


After decrypting the above enigmatic statement as near as I can tell  
you are complaining that the common meaning of the English word  
God, the meaning of the word that I have been using, has only been  
in common usage for 1490 years. Have I got that about right? Is that  
what you're complaining about?


Not just that. They are used since 1490 years by people prerending to  
know the truth, and believing in revelation. But the word were used  
before by inquirer interrogating all prejudices. I point that those  
question make sense again when we work in the computationalist theory.







 You confirm again and again that atheists defends the uniqueness  
of the God notion:


That is correct. Atheists know that the God notion is indeed unique  
because atheists are logical and have deduced that there can be only  
one greatest being who created the universe because that's what  
another English word greatest means.


You admit you are christian apparently.





 Many Christians have already a larger view.

Many Christians are morons.


Many anything are morons. Perhaps.

Bruno



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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:50, John Clark wrote:


On Wed, Jul 10, 2013  Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.com wrote:

 This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions,

Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence  
of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these  
days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more  
than one type of infinity,


Cantor was a mathematician.
Yes, he was quite interested in theology, but he published nothing in  
that field.







that something can be true but have no proof,


Only that for all theory there is some (arithmetical) truth  
unprovable. Yes.






that complex animals are developed by random mutation and natural  
selection,


That random mutation and natural selection participate in the  
development, but many things partially already developed participates  
too.





that the key to the heredity process is DNA and it's entirely digital,


Relatively to the laws of chemistry or physics, yes. This by itself  
does not entirely make the process, or DNA itself digital.





and that the universe is not only expanding but is accelerating. And  
the people who write philosopher in the occupation box of their  
tax returns continue to argue over the dictionary definition of  
words. Pitiful.


You just seem physicalist without knowing that it is an assumption.  
You have still not anwser how you predict first person expectation for  
any experience in physics when we assume computationalism. (or more  
easy: physicalism + a universe robust enough to run the UD).


Bruno








  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/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:52, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/10/2013 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why does  atheist put so much energy in defending all the time the  
roman christian God.


Because they know what they don't believe, yet other people want  
them to believe in *something* called God and those people keep  
adjusting and expanding and obfuscating the meaning of the word in  
order to claim that atheists are mistaken not to believe in love, or  
the ground-of-all-being, or the-source-of-morality, or...


Atheism leads to materialism, and materialism + mechanism leads to  
nihilism. It is not a coincidence that many materialists are pushed  
toward person eliminativism.


The god of the materialist is Matter, and I don't believe in it. I am  
agnostic. I search.


By pretending it is not a god, they are wrong, or they should show it  
to us, and provide some arguments, and show it compatible with comp  
when they use comp. We know that's very difficult, so apparently they  
just shrug or defamed or insult, etc.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it  
relies on some familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure  
on relative computational continuations, and the logic explains  
already the statistical interferences.


QM is deterministic and there is only one 'computational  
continuation';


?
If you measure up+down in the base {up,down}, you get two  
computational continuation, unless you add a non deterministic collapse.






so it's not clear to me how comp reproduces (or approximates?) this.


Those two computations exists already in arithmetic.




  Nor do I see what you mean by statistical interferences.  QM is a  
theory in complex Hilbert space; do you refer to the interference of  
amplitudes in Feynman path integrals?


No, I refer to the FPI, which when see by the machine itself in  
arithmetic appears to obey to a quantum logic, which allows  
interference between alternative realities.


Bruno







Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then,
 in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a equation
 describes the future behavior of that thing.



 God would be more like the one knowing the solution of the wave equation,


Fine, probabilities are good enough for me. If solving the partial
differential God equation told me that there was a 40% chance that God
would kill all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, and a 35% chance He
would create a plague of locusts, and a 25% chance He would part the Red
Sea and one of those things actually happened then I would become a theist,
provided of course that future solutions of the God Equation produced a
similar pattern of successful predictions.

 You confirm again and again that atheists defends the uniqueness of the
 God notion:


  That is correct. Atheists know that the God notion is indeed unique
 because atheists are logical and have deduced that there can be only one
 greatest being who created the universe because that's what another English
 word greatest means.



 You admit you are christian apparently.


Yes that's what I thought, you are fine with words meaning whatever you
want them to mean whenever you want them to mean it. And that makes
communication rather difficult.

  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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 11 Jul 2013, at 19:21, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net  
wrote:

On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have
realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but  
not

Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and atheism.


1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea of God, although  
some don't

have the courage to also dismiss the word G-O-D.


Atheists differ on this. Some indeed dismiss the idea of God, and  
dismiss as

much Hindhuism and Christianism, Aristotle Gods and Platonic Gods.
But then they believ in Matter, the thrid God of Aristotle. But  
they want
you to believe it is not a God, and seems unable to understand  
that IF
everything comes from primitive matter, it does play the role  
usually
attributed to God. No one has ever seen primitive matter, nor  
explain how it
proceeds, etc.  Primitive matter is an etraoplation of the SENSES  
to number

relations inferred from experiences.


That's just your rhetoric, Bruno.  Neither you nor anyone else  
thinks that
primitive matter plays the role usually attributed to the theist  
God.  No
one suggests we worship matter or look to matter for ethical  
rules.  There
are no churches collecting donations for matter.  There are no  
dogmas of

matter written on stone tablets.

Ecologists / Global warming
Vegetarianism / Veganism
Biological foods
Recycling
Work hard / employment is good
Democracy

These are all common dogmatic beliefs amongst a certain class of
people who reject traditional religion.


It ain't dogmatic if you go with the preponderance of the evidence.


I'm not judging: they might
all be true and reasonable.


And the people that hold those views might be quite willing to  
change them given different evidence - which is not the case for  
religious people who make a virtue of faith.


There is no problem with faith.
There is problems only with *bad faith*, whose symptoms are the  
insults and the arguments by violence or per authority.


Bruno







Traditional religion is most certainly not
true nor reasonable. What I am saying is that, you known and I know
that evidence against any of these things would not change the  
opinion

of most of their proponents.


I don't know that.  Go to realclimate.org and see if you think Gavin  
Schmidt holds his opinions on faith.



These are dogma attached to organisations
that collect donations and label people who oppose them as heretics.


Sure, there are Libertarians and Wiccans and Racists - but they  
don't worship matter.




They _want_ these things to be true. They derive a moral code from
them. There are purification rituals: eat a certain type of food  
(stay

pure), look down on those who eat at McDonald's or drive a big truck.
They are worshipping matter.


Really?  Have you asked them?  I'll bet you that they'll say they  
are spiritual and not materialists.




It's materialistic puritanism.


That's just pejorative rhetoric.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of
 ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days.
 Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more than one
 type of infinity,


   Cantor was a mathematician.


Yes. Some say that philosophy hasn't found anything new and interesting in
a thousand years but that is untrue, it's just that philosophers haven't
found anything new or interesting in a thousand years.

 Yes, he was quite interested in theology


True, the poor man went completely insane and died in a looney bin.

 You have still not anwser how you predict first person expectation for
 any experience in physics when we assume computationalism.


Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what an
external purely deterministic system will do, all we can do is watch it and
see; and as for the first person expectation we've known for much much
longer than 80 years that often (perhaps usually) we don't know what we are
going to do until we do it.

 (or more easy: physicalism + a universe robust enough to run the UD).


You've forgotten IHA.

  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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch

On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:

On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some
familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure on relative
computational continuations, and the logic explains already the statistical interferences.

QM is deterministic and there is only one 'computational continuation';

?
If you measure up+down in the base {up,down}, you get two computational continuation,
unless you add a non deterministic collapse.

No, you only get one in which the measuring device state (including you) is entangled with
the system measured. To get two you have to treat measurement as some non-unitary
operator. That's the puzzle that Everett addressed by throwing out the collapse
postulate and assuming only one kind of continuation. Since that seemed like an
attractive idea the problem has become how to explain the experience of one thing
happening and another not.

Brent

so it's not clear to me how comp reproduces (or approximates?) this.

Those two computations exists already in arithmetic.

Nor do I see what you mean by statistical interferences. QM is a theory in complex
Hilbert space; do you refer to the interference of amplitudes in Feynman path integrals?

No, I refer to the FPI, which when see by the machine itself in arithmetic appears to
obey to a quantum logic, which allows interference between alternative realities.

Bruno

Brent

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3204/6483 - Release Date: 07/11/13

To post to this group, send email 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: Hitch


On 7/11/2013 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

There is no problem with faith.
There is problems only with *bad faith*, whose symptoms are the insults and the 
arguments by violence or per authority. 


Are you not aware of the couple who has had two children die of easily treated infections 
because they had faith in prayer healing?  Or that George Bush had faith that God wanted 
him to invade Iraq?  Having faith means not wanting to find out.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch


On 7/11/2013 1:07 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence 
of ASCII
characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. 
Meanwhile REAL
philosophers have discovered that there is more than one type of 
infinity,


  Cantor was a mathematician.


Yes. Some say that philosophy hasn't found anything new and interesting in a thousand 
years but that is untrue, it's just that philosophers haven't found anything new or 
interesting in a thousand years.


 Yes, he was quite interested in theology


True, the poor man went completely insane and died in a looney bin.


Newton was also very interested in theology and wrote more on that subject than on the 
behavior of matter.  And if he had only written the former nobody would even know his name 
today.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:07, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


 Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a  
sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for  
philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered  
that there is more than one type of infinity,


  Cantor was a mathematician.

Yes. Some say that philosophy hasn't found anything new and  
interesting in a thousand years but that is untrue, it's just that  
philosophers haven't found anything new or interesting in a thousand  
years.


 Yes, he was quite interested in theology

True, the poor man went completely insane and died in a looney bin.


There is no evidence that this is related to its lifelong interest in  
theology, which has driven his discoveries of the transfinite.







 You have still not anwser how you predict first person expectation  
for any experience in physics when we assume computationalism.


Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what an  
external purely deterministic system will do,


In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning of  
its parts. Yes.


We might not know if the machine will stop or not, but whatever  
happens is determined by the initial digital conditions.


That has nothing to do with the First Person Indeterminacy (FPI), nor  
the quantum indeterminacy.





all we can do is watch it and see; and as for the first person  
expectation we've known for much much longer than 80 years that  
often (perhaps usually) we don't know what we are going to do until  
we do it.


So when you put water on the gas, your theory to predict what you will  
experience is just wait and see?







 (or more easy: physicalism + a universe robust enough to run the  
UD).


You've forgotten IHA.


UD is for Universal Dovetailer. So please try to answer question.

Bruno



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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 11 Jul 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


 You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well  
then, in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a  
equation describes the future behavior of that thing.


 God would be more like the one knowing the solution of the wave  
equation,


Fine, probabilities are good enough for me. If solving the partial  
differential God equation told me that there was a 40% chance that  
God would kill all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, and a 35%  
chance He would create a plague of locusts, and a 25% chance He  
would part the Red Sea and one of those things actually happened  
then I would become a theist, provided of course that future  
solutions of the God Equation produced a similar pattern of  
successful predictions.


 You confirm again and again that atheists defends the uniqueness  
of the God notion:


 That is correct. Atheists know that the God notion is indeed  
unique because atheists are logical and have deduced that there can  
be only one greatest being who created the universe because that's  
what another English word greatest means.


 You admit you are christian apparently.

Yes that's what I thought, you are fine with words meaning whatever  
you want them to mean whenever you want them to mean it. And that  
makes communication rather difficult.



You are the one saying that God means in english the christian god,  
when god is also an english term used for what can be common in many  
different spiritual approaches, like fundamental truth that we can  
search, for example.


You don't need such concept to do physics, but you need it to be able  
to doubt the physicalist doctrine, when working on difficult problem  
like the mind-body problem.


Bruno





  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/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:

 there are many words like that which we use without any fuss.

 The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a myriad
 of properties which are shared by some and not others. In fact there
 doesn't seem to be a set of properties sufficient to capture the nature of
 all games. Nevertheless, we use the word without any fuss.


Words with broad meanings are fine.  Where they lead to trouble is when one
asserts the non-existence of all things that belong to very wide classes.
For example I don't believe there exists any game that I would enjoy. As
you point out, this statement applies to an immense set of possible objects
because so many possible games exist.  Without knowing or experiencing
every possible game, how can such a belief be justified?  Likewise, when
Dawkins says he believes in no Gods, how can he make rightfully make such a
statement without knowing all possible religions and conceptions of God in
those religions?

Isn't it possible, (even suggested by some of our scientific theories),
that something that is infinite, uncreated, eternal, and responsible for
your existence exists?
Isn't it possible that the simulation hypothesis could be true and that a
hyper-intelligent mind could explore (create?) reality through simulation?
Such hyper intelligent beings could even save other simpler beings by
copying and pasting them into a reality under its control.
Isn't it possible that universalism is the correct theory of personal
identity, and there is in truth only one experiencer, the one soul behind
all the eyes of all creatures?

Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even
realizing it has done so.  Various existing religions across the world have
described God in terms essentially identical to the three examples above.
What motivation does atheism have to reject these notions of god?  It seems
the only reason is the dogma: there is no god, and so it was proven
anything that even has the appearance of a god is obviously false at the
start.

Isn't it better to have an unbiased, agnostic, and open mind on ontological
questions which are no where close to being settled?




 And in a way the fact 'God' means different things to different people
 isn't a problem. If I say someone is an atheist, you can say that this
 person has some conception of God, whatever it is, and doesn't believe that
 thing exists. You can say that much at the very least.


In that case everyone is an atheist, as you could cook up any definition of
some God that person will not believe in.  The word atheist is either
meaningless (if it applies to specific or certain God/gods), or it is
inconsistent/unsupported if you apply it to more general definitions of
god.  It's a word that seems to carry less than 1 bit of information.

I think a far better term (one that perhaps many people really mean when
they say they are agnostic or atheist) is that they are a free thinker as
in:
The philosophical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy viewpoint
that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of
logichttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic,
reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason, and
empiricismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism,
rather than authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority,
traditionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition,
or other dogmas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma.

Free thought is also more in line with the a genuine scientific attitude,
whereas many sects of atheism are prone to authority and dogmas.


Jason



 In the unlikely event that you are really confused about what he means by
 God you can ask for clarification.

 What I think has happened here is that a bunch of folk like Harris,
 unfamiliar with the philosophical territory, have stumbled over the fact
 that words don't quite get defined in as strict a manner as they thought.
 They think they have stumbled upon something of import but in reality the
 'problem', such that there is one, generalizes easily to much of language
 and yet language remains as useful as it always was.

 --
 From: jasonre...@gmail.com

 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: Hitch
 Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:33:43 -0500




 On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:

 If some one says look, cat I don't know what kind of cat they are
 refering to. I nevertheless can be confident that they have seen something
 feline.


 True, but cats are things people can see, and this the variety of possible
 meanings for the word cat is greatly constrained.

 When someone says god do they mean something that is (check any or all of
 the following):
 - immanent
 - transcendant
 - uncreated
 - eternal
 - intelligent
 - benevolent
 - creator
 - infinite
 - answerer of prayers
 - judge
 - designer
 - truth
 - love
 - universal mind
 - everything

 ?

 Because there are many types of possible

Re: Hitch

On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:

there are many words like that which we use without any fuss.

The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a myriad
of
properties which are shared by some and not others. In fact there doesn't
seem to be
a set of properties sufficient to capture the nature of all games.
Nevertheless, we
use the word without any fuss.

Words with broad meanings are fine. Where they lead to trouble is when one asserts the
non-existence of all things that belong to very wide classes. For example I don't
believe there exists any game that I would enjoy. As you point out, this statement
applies to an immense set of possible objects because so many possible games exist.
Without knowing or experiencing every possible game, how can such a belief be justified?

It's justified by introspection as to what one believes. Note that it is NOT the same as
the assertion, There is no game that I would enjoy. So does an agameist simply fail
to believe there is a game he would enjoy or does an agameist assert, as a fact, there
is no game he would enjoy.

Likewise, when Dawkins says he believes in no Gods, how can he make rightfully make such
a statement without knowing all possible religions and conceptions of God in those
religions?

The same way he can say believes in no teapots orbiting Jupiter.

Isn't it possible, (even suggested by some of our scientific theories), that something
that is infinite, uncreated, eternal, and responsible for your existence exists?

Logically possible. Nomologically?

Isn't it possible that the simulation hypothesis could be true and that a
hyper-intelligent mind could explore (create?) reality through simulation? Such hyper
intelligent beings could even save other simpler beings by copying and pasting them
into a reality under its control.
Isn't it possible that universalism is the correct theory of personal identity, and
there is in truth only one experiencer, the one soul behind all the eyes of all creatures?

And it's possible we are the puppets of supernatural demons bent on creating the worst of
all possible worlds.

Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even realizing it has
done so.

Rejects as in fails to believe - as any rational person would.

Various existing religions across the world have described God in terms essentially
identical to the three examples above.

No religion with more than a handful of adherents posits an impersonal God. Of course the
apologists for religions have used such terms, because they realize much the evidence is
against a personal God and so they have sought to invent something on which they can hang
the word God.

What motivation does atheism have to reject these notions of god? It seems the only
reason is the dogma: there is no god, and so it was proven anything that even has the
appearance of a god is obviously false at the start.

The atheists I know (including Dawkins and Stenger) are careful to define God as the god
of Abraham as described in the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, the god of theism. They
directly admit that the god of deism is possible - though there is no reason to be;o

Isn't it better to have an unbiased, agnostic, and open mind on ontological questions
which are no where close to being settled?

But if you believe things just because they are possible then you're so open minded you're
in danger of having your brains fall out.

And in a way the fact 'God' means different things to different people
isn't a
problem. If I say someone is an atheist, you can say that this person has
some
conception of God, whatever it is, and doesn't believe that thing exists.
You can
say that much at the very least.

In that case everyone is an atheist, as you could cook up any definition of some God
that person will not believe in.

Which is just the converse of dreaming up possible gods in order that you can claim
everyone MUST believe in one of them and so everyone is religious.

The word atheist is either meaningless (if it applies to specific or certain God/gods),
or it is inconsistent/unsupported if you apply it to more general definitions of god.
It's a word that seems to carry less than 1 bit of information.

I think a far better term (one that perhaps many people really mean when they say they
are agnostic or atheist) is that they are a free thinker as in:
The philosophical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy viewpoint that holds
opinions should be formed on the basis of logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic,
reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason, and empiricism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism, rather than authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority, tradition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition, or other

Re: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:

  there are many words like that which we use without any fuss.

 The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a
 myriad of properties which are shared by some and not others. In fact there
 doesn't seem to be a set of properties sufficient to capture the nature of
 all games. Nevertheless, we use the word without any fuss.


  Words with broad meanings are fine.  Where they lead to trouble is when
 one asserts the non-existence of all things that belong to very wide
 classes.  For example I don't believe there exists any game that I would
 enjoy. As you point out, this statement applies to an immense set of
 possible objects because so many possible games exist.  Without knowing or
 experiencing every possible game, how can such a belief be justified?


 It's justified by introspection as to what one believes.


One may believe that, but the belief has no justification.  Just because
someone dislikes 800 out of the 800 games they have tried is not proof that
they dislike all games.  This reminds me of the joke where the physicists
try to prove all odd numbers are prime:
Physicist: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 - that's
strange, must be experimental error..., 11 is prime, 13 is prime.  It is
proven!

Note that it is NOT the same as the assertion, There is no game that I
 would enjoy.


I can see see some difference between I don't believe there exists any
game that I would enjoy and There is no game that I would enjoy., but
there are many atheists who will confidently say God does not exist.  But
even if an atheist said I don't believe in God, it still suffers from
being a horribly ambiguous statement.



 So does an agameist simply fail to believe there is a game he would
 enjoy  or does an agameist assert, as a fact, there is no game he would
 enjoy.


Either one potentially.  I like Bruno's use of not and believe to
clearly distinguish between these two characterizations.



   Likewise, when Dawkins says he believes in no Gods, how can he make
 rightfully make such a statement without knowing all possible religions and
 conceptions of God in those religions?


 The same way he can say believes in no teapots orbiting Jupiter.


That analogy does not work.  There are logical reasons suggesting the low
probability of a teapot orbiting Jupiter.  What are the logical reasons
that no God-like entity exists anywhere in reality?




  Isn't it possible, (even suggested by some of our scientific theories),
 that something that is infinite, uncreated, eternal, and responsible for
 your existence exists?


 Logically possible.  Nomologically?


It is probable.  If you put any stock in any of the various scientific
theories that suggest an infinite reality.  UDA, mathematical realism,
string theory, cosmic inflation, many worlds.  I think you dislike these
ideas in part because they shake the foundation of atheism: it becomes much
harder to deny the existence of objects on the mere basis that we can't
see, if one accepts that reality is as big as these theories suggest.
Similarly, you once argued against fine-tuning on the basis that it would
provide ammunition for intelligent designers.  This isn't the ideal way to
find correct theories.



   Isn't it possible that the simulation hypothesis could be true and that
 a hyper-intelligent mind could explore (create?) reality through
 simulation?  Such hyper intelligent beings could even save other simpler
 beings by copying and pasting them into a reality under its control.
  Isn't it possible that universalism is the correct theory of personal
 identity, and there is in truth only one experiencer, the one soul behind
 all the eyes of all creatures?


 And it's possible we are the puppets of supernatural demons bent on
 creating the worst of all possible worlds.


But there is no evidence, argument, or justification for this.






  Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even
 realizing it has done so.


 Rejects as in fails to believe - as any rational person would.



Rationality does not justify their rejection of these theories.  Your
statement above is a perfect example of the atheist assumption that
rationality is always on the side of their dogma.  Tell me, what is
irrational about universalism?  It is an idea that Erwin Schrodinger, Kurt
Godel, Fred Hoyle, Freeman Dyson, Arnold Zuboff, etc. all independently
arrived upon, and is supported up by many thought experiments on the
subject of personhood and personal identity.

Sorry I forgot the existence of a single mind sounds too much like God, and
therefore must be false and no rational person could ever come to such a
conclusion!




   Various existing religions across the world have described God in terms
 essentially identical to the three

Re: Hitch



On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au  
wrote:


I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more  
an anticlerical than an atheist to me ...


 Everybody called him an atheist.  He called himself an atheist.   
I think you just don't like the term.


 Forgivable though, don't you think?

No I do not, I think it's unforgivable to value a word more than the  
concept it represents.



But this is exactly what you are doing John. God represent a concept,  
even, at the start, the mother of all concept.
You just want that the word God applies only to the theistic notion of  
some institutionalized religion, where some want to use it in  very  
large sense akin to its original meaning.







 IF you can handle the comp definition of atheism as a sibling  
public religion of the Jesus cult [...]


Then the meanings of words change according to your whim and logical  
contradictions do not bother you.


Not at all. It is a coming back to its original sense, in a context  
where we have rational reason to do so, notably the study of the mind- 
body problem in the mechanist sciences.







 I mean - either you believe in Big Daddy, JC and Spooky or you do  
not.


I do not. Believing in God is stupid, believing in Big Daddy JC and  
Spooky is the Power Set of stupid, 2 raised to the power of stupid.


God is the fundamental reality in which you believe in. Accepting this  
definition simplifies a lot the comparison between different religion  
and the role played by science there.







 Let me clarify: there is organised ('public' or 3-p) religion

And now religion enters the pee pee realm! Well maybe you have a  
point, it is all a bunch of shit.


 the only authentic definition of 'personal religion' is what you  
believe.


As I said it's unforgivable to value a word more than the concept it  
represents.



So, if you don't value a word, you should not be mad if we extend its  
sense so that it can encompasses a vaster number of approaches.


Bruno





  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/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have  
realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not  
Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and atheism.


1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea of God, although some  
don't have the courage to also dismiss the word G-O-D.


Atheists differ on this. Some indeed dismiss the idea of God, and  
dismiss as much Hindhuism and Christianism, Aristotle Gods and  
Platonic Gods.
But then they believ in Matter, the thrid God of Aristotle. But they  
want you to believe it is not a God, and seems unable to understand  
that IF everything comes from primitive matter, it does play the role  
usually attributed to God. No one has ever seen primitive matter, nor  
explain how it proceeds, etc.  Primitive matter is an etraoplation of  
the SENSES to number relations inferred from experiences.







2) Christopher Hitchens said What can be asserted without evidence  
can also be dismissed without evidence


Very good. So we can right at the start dismiss the God Matter.





3) There is no evidence the idea of God is true.


There is no evidence that there is white giant sitting on the clouds.





4) Christopher Hitchens dismissed the idea of God (and he had the  
courage to do the same with the word G-O-D).


Really? I think he dismissed only the institutions, and the  
superstitions, not the theological concepts of the greeks and indians.






Therefore Christopher Hitchens was a atheist.


In a local and non interesting sense; once we aboard the fundamental  
questions.


Bruno





  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/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:57, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism=that whether  
or not God exists is unknown with agnosticism=that whether or not  
God exists is impossible to know.


If God created the universe


But is there a universe? I see only a physical reality.





that would be a fact about physics that would be very interesting to  
know, and I see no reason in principle we couldn't detect it;


If there was a God creating a Universe, he might be unable to belong  
to its creation, a bit like the set of all set is not a set.
But I am a super-atheist with respect to such idea. I have no evidence  
for *such* a god, nor such a creation.





and if He was constantly tinkering with His creation as many think  
then He would be even easier to detect. But we see nothing.


I keep stuck with one (very special) notion of god.

Bruno






  I agree with Sam Harris that atheist is not a very useful  
appellation because it only describes someone in contrast to theist.


That makes no sense. The word nonfiction is useful but it only  
describes something in contrast to fiction.


  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/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 09 Jul 2013, at 22:58, John Mikes wrote:

(See below): I do not fall for Brent's quip that you want to impose  
your extended (non-religious?) religion on us, so I continue.


Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia-long  
habits, hard to break. The Hindus have different ones - yet it IS  
religion.
Atheists? Atheism? comes within the package. I am agnostic, BUT not  
in the God-related sense - agnostic of anything all we can state as  
'knowable'. Including proof, evidence, and - yes -
appearance, (of course testability included) what you use FOR the  
mind-body fantasy. It appears to our human 'mind' (in our latest  
human logic). What I am agnostic about.



But logic and proofs are for communicating theories, that is beliefs.  
Not knowledge. Logic is the most agnostic things we can met.






*
Now about my 'Steckenpferd': natural numbers. I asked you so many  
times to no avail.


?




You hide behind it is SSOOO simple that you cannot explain it by  
even simpler cuts or something similar.


I explained why it has to be like that. But we can agree on some  
axioms that I have given.






In my 'narrative' I figured that pre-caveman looking at his HANDS,  
FEET, EYES, and found that PAIR makes sense. (2, not 1). Then (s)he  
detected that PAIR consists of - well, - a PAIR, meaning 2 similars  
of ONE. And (s)he counted: ONE, ONE, PAIR (=TWO.)


Quite possible.


The rest may not exceed the mental capabilities of conventional  
anthropologists. Here we go into the NATURAL numbers. Some other  
animals got similarly into 3, 5, maybe the elephant into even more.


Some birds can count up to 36. They begin to make aggressive sonf when  
they heard 36 songs of their species in the neighborhood. I read this  
a long time ago, ---I have not verified this.





Then came the originators of the subsequent Roman (what I know of)  
numbering - looking at a HAND counting fingers. The group on a palm  
looks like a V, so it represented 5. With 2 drawn together at their  
pointed end for 10 (No decimal idea at this point). Four was too  
much, to count, so they took 1 off from the V: IV, (repeated later  
as IX etc.) and when it came to 4 X-s they got bored and drew only 2  
lines recangulary together for 50, -- 40 similarly marked as XL (49  
as IL).


Remember: subtracting was different in ancient Rome, you also  
included the start-up figure and subtracted it like 9-3 = (9,8,7) =  
7 as the original old Julian calendar counted the dates, e.g. today:  
July 9: ante diem septimum (7) Idus Julii (the 7th day before the  
Idus of July) because July is a MILMO month when the Idus is not on  
the 13th as usual, but on the 15th). And NO ZERO, please.

So I doubt that the 'natural numbers' created the world.


That expression is misleading. All theories assumes the natural  
nulmbers, and what I show, is that if we are machine, it is  
undecidable if there is anything more. If we are machine, arithmetic  
(number + their addition and multiplication laws) is enough to explain  
the origin of a web of dreams and how the physical realities becomes  
apparent for the relative number points of view. And my point is not  
that this is true, but that this is empirically refutable.





Humans created the natural numbers. Just like they created the not- 
so-naturals (irrationals, infinites, you name them).


Is that not anthropocentrism? And where the humans come from?

Bruno





John M




On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:

John,


On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:03, John Mikes wrote:

After some million years of 'mental' development this animal  
arrived at the 'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating  
superpowers to target it with assigned intent to help, or destroy.  
The details were subject to the 'founders' benefit of enslaving the  
rest of the people into their rule.
Such unquestionable tyranny lasted over the past millennia and it  
takes a long, hard, dangerous work to get out of it. The USA  
Constitution (18th c.) stepped ahead in SOME little political and  
economical ways, yet only a tiny little in liberating the people  
from the religious slavery: a so called 'separation' of state and  
church (not clearly identified to this day).


The problem is that once we separate religion from state, people  
still continue to be religious (authoritative) on something else.  
But it was a progress. Now we know that we have to separate also  
health from the state.




Th French revolution similarly targetted the religion, yet today -  
after numerous vocal enlightened minds - the country is still  
divided between Christian and Islamic fundamentalist trends.


Yes (even more clearly when including atheists in the christians).



In my view an 'atheist requires a god to disbelieve (deny?).


Indeed. Many atheists seems to take more seriously the Christian  
Gods than most christians theologians, who can seriously debate on  
the Aristotle/Plato difference.

RE: Hitch

2013-07-10 Thread chris peck

To Jason:

Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even 
realizing it has done so. 

How can you possibly speak for atheists generally in this regard? Particularly 
after the arguments you have been making! What do you know of all the 
possibilities they have entertained or whether and how they have rejected them? 

The word atheist is either meaningless (if it applies to specific or certain 
God/gods), or it is inconsistent/unsupported if you apply it to more general 
definitions of god.  It's a word that seems to carry less than 1 bit of 
information. 

How does the word become meaningless if it is applied to a specific God? Up 
until now you have been arguing that it is the vast variety of meanings the 
word God can convey that has been the problem, now it is a problem when the 
meaning is narrowed down? I beginning to think for you 'atheist' is just a 
useless word because that is how you want things to be.

I also don't get how the word 'atheist' is inconsistent if the definition of 
God is broader. The word atheist depends on two things to be correctly applied. 
Firstly, that I have something in mind when I use the word God, and that I 
don't believe it exists. I would be inconsistent if I said i didn't believe in 
this thing, when actually I did. 

n that case everyone is an atheist, as you could cook up any definition of 
some God that person will not believe in. 

Its a point many atheists make. Jews don't believe Christ was the son of God. 
Christians don't believe in endless cycles of reincarnation. Relative to both, 
atheists just lack one further belief. they are all atheists relative to one 
another.

But you're not really getting me. The point was that the word 'atheist' conveys 
some information regardless of how God is defined and therefore clearly has 
utility. That if I call someone an atheist you know something about him even 
before you know his definition of God. ie. that he has one, and that he doesn't 
believe in it. In other words 'atheist' has use and meaning before we even 
begin to get into your muddle about the meaning of 'God'.

 Free thought is also more in line with the a genuine scientific attitude, 
 whereas many sects of atheism are prone to authority and dogmas.

Well I would disagree with you there. That sounds like scientism to me. Also, I 
don't like the blind assumption that thoughts come freely rather than that they 
are determined.

Moreover, I don't think there is a single kind of attitude that is 'genuinely 
scientific'. I suspect Galileo and Einstein were probably extremely pig headed 
and dogmatic, whereas Feynman and Darwin liked to play with ideas. All of them 
made progress in science. I get anxious when I hear people define what 
scientists should be like. Whatever gets the job done, I say. But thats another 
argument.

From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:59:16 +0200


On 09 Jul 2013, at 22:58, John Mikes wrote:(See below): I do not fall for 
Brent's quip that you want to impose your extended (non-religious?) religion on 
us, so I continue.
Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia-long habits, hard to 
break. The Hindus have different ones - yet it IS religion. Atheists? Atheism? 
comes within the package. I am agnostic, BUT not in the God-related sense - 
agnostic of anything all we can state as 'knowable'. Including proof, evidence, 
and - yes - appearance, (of course testability included) what you use FOR the 
mind-body fantasy. It appears to our human 'mind' (in our latest human logic). 
What I am agnostic about.

But logic and proofs are for communicating theories, that is beliefs. Not 
knowledge. Logic is the most agnostic things we can met. 



 *Now about my 'Steckenpferd': natural numbers. I asked you so many times to no 
avail. 
?



You hide behind it is SSOOO simple that you cannot explain it by even simpler 
cuts or something similar. 
I explained why it has to be like that. But we can agree on some axioms that I 
have given.




 In my 'narrative' I figured that pre-caveman looking at his HANDS, FEET, EYES, 
and found that PAIR makes sense. (2, not 1). Then (s)he detected that PAIR 
consists of - well, - a PAIR, meaning 2 similars of ONE. And (s)he counted: 
ONE, ONE, PAIR (=TWO.) 
Quite possible.

 The rest may not exceed the mental capabilities of conventional 
anthropologists. Here we go into the NATURAL numbers. Some other animals got 
similarly into 3, 5, maybe the elephant into even more. 
Some birds can count up to 36. They begin to make aggressive sonf when they 
heard 36 songs of their species in the neighborhood. I read this a long time 
ago, ---I have not verified this.



Then came the originators of the subsequent Roman (what I know of) numbering - 
looking at a HAND counting fingers. The group on a palm looks like a V, so it 
represented 5. With 2 drawn together at their pointed end for 10 (No decimal 
idea

Re: Hitch

 him what that one god was that he rejected he refused.  I think  
because he realized that it is something he does believe in.


(I had previously said to him mathematical truth has many properties  
of god, transcendant, infinite, eternal, uncreated, immutable, outside  
time, responsible for existance of you and the reality you experience.  
John had also said he was a Platonist.)





But you're not really getting me. The point was that the word  
'atheist' conveys some information regardless of how God is defined  
and therefore clearly has utility.


It conveys some, I agree.

That if I call someone an atheist you know something about him even  
before you know his definition of God. ie. that he has one, and that  
he doesn't believe in it. In other words 'atheist' has use and  
meaning before we even begin to get into your muddle about the  
meaning of 'God'.


Right.




 Free thought is also more in line with the a genuine scientific  
attitude, whereas many sects of atheism are prone to authority and  
dogmas.


Well I would disagree with you there. That sounds like scientism to  
me.


What is wrong with applying the scientific attitude as the took to  
develop beliefs about the world?  Do you have a better way?


Also, I don't like the blind assumption that thoughts come freely  
rather than that they are determined.


I don't think free in free thought has the same meaning as free in  
free will.  I took it to mean unconstrained from the outside  
influences of institutions, traditions, dogmas, etc.





Moreover, I don't think there is a single kind of attitude that is  
'genuinely scientific'.


Bruno says the attitude is encompassd by curiousity, humbleness, and  
clarity.


I suspect Galileo and Einstein were probably extremely pig headed  
and dogmatic, whereas Feynman and Darwin liked to play with ideas.  
All of them made progress in science. I get anxious when I hear  
people define what scientists should be like.


Maybe we can agree on what does not make for good science:  
incuriosity, arrogance, obfuscation.


Jason


Whatever gets the job done, I say. But thats another argument.

From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:59:16 +0200


On 09 Jul 2013, at 22:58, John Mikes wrote:

(See below): I do not fall for Brent's quip that you want to impose  
your extended (non-religious?) religion on us, so I continue.


Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia-long  
habits, hard to break. The Hindus have different ones - yet it IS  
religion.
Atheists? Atheism? comes within the package. I am agnostic, BUT not  
in the God-related sense - agnostic of anything all we can state as  
'knowable'. Including proof, evidence, and - yes -
appearance, (of course testability included) what you use FOR the  
mind-body fantasy. It appears to our human 'mind' (in our latest  
human logic). What I am agnostic about.



But logic and proofs are for communicating theories, that is  
beliefs. Not knowledge. Logic is the most agnostic things we can met.





*
Now about my 'Steckenpferd': natural numbers. I asked you so many  
times to no avail.


?




You hide behind it is SSOOO simple that you cannot explain it by  
even simpler cuts or something similar.


I explained why it has to be like that. But we can agree on some  
axioms that I have given.






In my 'narrative' I figured that pre-caveman looking at his HANDS,  
FEET, EYES, and found that PAIR makes sense. (2, not 1). Then (s)he  
detected that PAIR consists of - well, - a PAIR, meaning 2 similars  
of ONE. And (s)he counted: ONE, ONE, PAIR (=TWO.)


Quite possible.


The rest may not exceed the mental capabilities of conventional  
anthropologists. Here we go into the NATURAL numbers. Some other  
animals got similarly into 3, 5, maybe the elephant into even more.


Some birds can count up to 36. They begin to make aggressive sonf  
when they heard 36 songs of their species in the neighborhood. I  
read this a long time ago, ---I have not verified this.





Then came the originators of the subsequent Roman (what I know of)  
numbering - looking at a HAND counting fingers. The group on a palm  
looks like a V, so it represented 5. With 2 drawn together at their  
pointed end for 10 (No decimal idea at this point). Four was too  
much, to count, so they took 1 off from the V: IV, (repeated later  
as IX etc.) and when it came to 4 X-s they got bored and drew only 2  
lines recangulary together for 50, -- 40 similarly marked as XL (49  
as IL).


Remember: subtracting was different in ancient Rome, you also  
included the start-up figure and subtracted it like 9-3 = (9,8,7) =  
7 as the original old Julian calendar counted the dates, e.g. today:  
July 9: ante diem septimum (7) Idus Julii (the 7th day before the  
Idus of July) because July is a MILMO month when the Idus is not on  
the 13th as usual, but on the 15th). And NO ZERO, please.

So I doubt that the 'natural

Re: Hitch

2013-07-10 Thread Richard Ruquist

 they reject one more conception of God than those who are
 monotheist imply that they believe in zero Gods.

 John Clark told me he believes in one god less than I do, but when I asked
 him what that one god was that he rejected he refused.  I think because he
 realized that it is something he does believe in.

 (I had previously said to him mathematical truth has many properties of
 god, transcendant, infinite, eternal, uncreated, immutable, outside time,
 responsible for existance of you and the reality you experience. John had
 also said he was a Platonist.)



 But you're not really getting me. The point was that the word 'atheist'
 conveys some information regardless of how God is defined and therefore
 clearly has utility.


 It conveys some, I agree.

 That if I call someone an atheist you know something about him even before
 you know his definition of God. ie. that he has one, and that he doesn't
 believe in it. In other words 'atheist' has use and meaning before we even
 begin to get into your muddle about the meaning of 'God'.


 Right.



  Free thought is also more in line with the a genuine scientific
 attitude, whereas many sects of atheism are prone to authority and dogmas.

 Well I would disagree with you there. That sounds like scientism to me.


 What is wrong with applying the scientific attitude as the took to develop
 beliefs about the world?  Do you have a better way?

 Also, I don't like the blind assumption that thoughts come freely rather
 than that they are determined.


 I don't think free in free thought has the same meaning as free in free
 will.  I took it to mean unconstrained from the outside influences of
 institutions, traditions, dogmas, etc.



 Moreover, I don't think there is a single kind of attitude that is
 'genuinely scientific'.


 Bruno says the attitude is encompassd by curiousity, humbleness, and
 clarity.

 I suspect Galileo and Einstein were probably extremely pig headed and
 dogmatic, whereas Feynman and Darwin liked to play with ideas. All of them
 made progress in science. I get anxious when I hear people define what
 scientists should be like.


 Maybe we can agree on what does not make for good science: incuriosity,
 arrogance, obfuscation.

 Jason

 Whatever gets the job done, I say. But thats another argument.

 --
 From: marc...@ulb.ac.bemarc...@ulb.ac.be
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: Hitch
 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:59:16 +0200


 On 09 Jul 2013, at 22:58, John Mikes wrote:

 (See below): I do not fall for Brent's quip that you want to impose your
 extended (non-religious?) religion on us, so I continue.

 Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia-long habits,
 hard to break. The Hindus have different ones - yet it IS religion.
 Atheists? Atheism? comes within the package. I am agnostic, BUT not in the
 God-related sense - agnostic of anything all we can state as 'knowable'.
 Including proof, evidence, and - yes -
 appearance, (of course testability included) what you use FOR the
 mind-body fantasy. It appears to our human 'mind' (in our latest human
 logic). What I am agnostic about.



 But logic and proofs are for communicating theories, that is beliefs. Not
 knowledge. Logic is the most agnostic things we can met.




 *
 Now about my 'Steckenpferd': *natural numbers*. I asked you so many times
 to no avail.


 ?




 You hide behind it is *SSOOO* simple that you cannot explain it by even
 simpler cuts or something similar.


 I explained why it has to be like that. But we can agree on some axioms
 that I have given.





 In my 'narrative' I figured that pre-caveman looking at his HANDS, FEET,
 EYES, and found that PAIR makes sense. (2, not 1). Then (s)he detected that
 PAIR consists of - well, - a PAIR, meaning 2 similars of ONE. And (s)he
 counted: ONE, ONE, PAIR (=TWO.)


 Quite possible.


 The rest may not exceed the mental capabilities of conventional
 anthropologists. Here we go into the NATURAL numbers. Some other animals
 got similarly into 3, 5, maybe the elephant into even more.


 Some birds can count up to 36. They begin to make aggressive sonf when
 they heard 36 songs of their species in the neighborhood. I read this a
 long time ago, ---I have not verified this.




 Then came the originators of the subsequent Roman (what I know of)
 numbering - looking at a HAND counting *fingers*. The group on a palm
 looks like a V, so it represented 5. With 2 drawn together at their pointed
 end for 10 (No decimal idea at this point). Four was too much, to count, so
 they took 1 off from the V:* IV, *(repeated later as IX etc.) and when it
 came to 4 X-s they got bored and drew only 2 lines recangulary together for
 50, -- 40 similarly marked as XL (49 as IL).

 Remember: subtracting was different in ancient Rome, you also included the
 start-up figure and subtracted it like 9-3 = (9,8,7) = 7 as the original
 old Julian calendar counted the dates

Re: Hitch

2013-07-10 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 God is the fundamental reality in which you believe in.


Since you are not a native speaker I must say it's a bit presumptions of
you to insist that the English Language reinvent itself, you're a HUGE fan
of acronyms so why not use FRIWYB for the Fundamental Reality In Which You
Believe In? But if you insist on hijacking the ASCII characters G-O-D for
that concept what new word do you suggest English speaking people use for
the traditional meaning of that word, a conscious omnipotent omniscient
being who created the universe? Please don't say coobwctu.

  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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch

2013-07-10 Thread Johnathan Corgan

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:


 My point is that if one takes atheism to be the rejection of all
 conceptions of god, then because those ideas are conceptions of god from
 various religions, then someone who remains atheist after exposure to those
 ideas (rather than agnostic) has rejected them, and worse, has done so
 without any justification.  This is anti-scientific because there is some
 evidence for these propositions.  Even if that evidence does not convince
 you, there is no reason to reject them until evidence comes out against the
 theories on which they are based.


This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions, but I'll bite
anyway.

Anyone can posit theories or claims; it is up to those persons to present
credible evidence supporting those claims.

If the claims themselves are incoherent or not logically possible, no
evidence can be presented.

If the evidence presented in support of those claims is not actually
supportive, or is not possible to evaluate, then no further action need be
taken.

If the evidence presented is simply that a proposition is possible, well,
many things that are possible are still not true; this is not evidence.

If the evidence presented is I would like/feel happier/be less scared in a
world where this is true, this is of course not evidence.

If the evidence presented is If this were true, it would be consistent
with these other things that I believe are true, it is not evidence.

If the evidence presented is I can't make sense of the world unless this
is true, it is not evidence.

If the evidence presented is Everyone believes this, you should too, it
is not evidence.

If the evidence presented is Believe this or we will kill you, it is not
evidence.

In all these cases, there is no burden on anyone else to reject these
assertions, as no evidence has been presented in support of them.

In the realm of theistic beliefs, we were all born lacking any; we were all
born atheists.  Some people have come to believe various religious claims
as true, and thus have become theists of different varieties.

For some of us, these claims have never risen beyond any of the categories
above, and hence we remain atheists, without the need to reject anything,
having not taken any action whatsoever.  We simply remain in our state of
lacking any theistic beliefs.  We do not need to encounter specific
evidence against these sorts of claims.

So if you have a specific claim to make, and actual evidence to support it,
we'll listen.  But we don't start out as rejecting all conceptions of
God; we're just happily living our lives and not spending much time
worrying about these matters, except perhaps recently on this mailing list.

Johnathan Corgan

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Hitch


On 7/10/2013 1:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:

there are many words like that which we use without any fuss.

The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a 
myriad of
properties which are shared by some and not others. In fact there 
doesn't seem
to be a set of properties sufficient to capture the nature of all games.
Nevertheless, we use the word without any fuss.


Words with broad meanings are fine. Where they lead to trouble is when one 
asserts
the non-existence of all things that belong to very wide classes.  For example 
I
don't believe there exists any game that I would enjoy. As you point out, 
this
statement applies to an immense set of possible objects because so many 
possible
games exist.  Without knowing or experiencing every possible game, how can 
such a
belief be justified?


It's justified by introspection as to what one believes.


One may believe that, but the belief has no justification.  Just because someone 
dislikes 800 out of the 800 games they have tried is not proof that they dislike all 
games.  This reminds me of the joke where the physicists try to prove all odd numbers 
are prime:
Physicist: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 - that's strange, must be 
experimental error..., 11 is prime, 13 is prime.  It is proven!


At least it's evidence.  Do you only believe things that are proven?  I'd consider 
disliking 800 out of 800 games pretty good evidence.




Note that it is NOT the same as the assertion, There is no game that I would 
enjoy.


I can see see some difference between I don't believe there exists any game that I 
would enjoy and There is no game that I would enjoy., but there are many atheists who 
will confidently say God does not exist.  But even if an atheist said I don't believe 
in God, it still suffers from being a horribly ambiguous statement.


Many statements are pretty ambiguous without context.



So does an agameist simply fail to believe there is a game he would enjoy 
 or does
an agameist assert, as a fact, there is no game he would enjoy.


Either one potentially.  I like Bruno's use of not and believe to clearly 
distinguish between these two characterizations.




Likewise, when Dawkins says he believes in no Gods, how can he make 
rightfully make
such a statement without knowing all possible religions and conceptions of 
God in
those religions?


The same way he can say believes in no teapots orbiting Jupiter.


That analogy does not work.  There are logical reasons suggesting the low probability of 
a teapot orbiting Jupiter.  What are the logical reasons that no God-like entity exists 
anywhere in reality?


Depends on what God means.  If you allow theologians to define it, it could mean almost 
anything.  If you take common usage to define it - like all other words - there are both 
logical and nomological reasons not to believe God exists.






Isn't it possible, (even suggested by some of our scientific theories), that
something that is infinite, uncreated, eternal, and responsible for your 
existence
exists?


Logically possible.  Nomologically?


It is probable.  If you put any stock in any of the various scientific theories that 
suggest an infinite reality.


Infinite space or time don't imply a superhuman being whose approval we should 
seek.

UDA, mathematical realism, string theory, cosmic inflation, many worlds.  I think you 
dislike these ideas in part because they shake the foundation of atheism: it becomes 
much harder to deny the existence of objects on the mere basis that we can't see, if one 
accepts that reality is as big as these theories suggest.  Similarly, you once argued 
against fine-tuning on the basis that it would provide ammunition for intelligent 
designers.  This isn't the ideal way to find correct theories.


I argued that fine-tuning counted *against* a supernatural creator. I don't recall ever 
arguing against it simply because it supports intelligent design.





Isn't it possible that the simulation hypothesis could be true and that a
hyper-intelligent mind could explore (create?) reality through simulation?  
Such
hyper intelligent beings could even save other simpler beings by copying 
and
pasting them into a reality under its control.
Isn't it possible that universalism is the correct theory of personal 
identity, and
there is in truth only one experiencer, the one soul behind all the eyes of 
all
creatures?


And it's possible we are the puppets of supernatural demons bent on 
creating the
worst of all possible worlds.


But there is no evidence, argument, or

Re: Hitch

On 7/10/2013 2:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:

I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is
more an
anticlerical than an atheist to me ...

Everybody called him an atheist. He called himself an atheist. I
think you
just don't like the term.

Forgivable though, don't you think?

No I do not, I think it's unforgivable to value a word more than the concept it
represents.

But this is exactly what you are doing John. God represent a concept, even, at the
start, the mother of all concept.
You just want that the word God applies only to the theistic notion of some
institutionalized religion, where some want to use it in very large sense akin to its
original meaning.

It's ancient meaning referred to superhumanly powerful, immortal people that lived in
inaccessible places (above the firmament, beneath the Earth,...) and occasionally punished
or rewarded humans.

I'm sure you believe in these gods; since they are logically possible.

Brent

Re: Hitch


On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized 
now
that some atheists in America might be similar, but not Hitchens. Many 
people
confuse agnosticism and atheism.


1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea of God, although some don't have the 
courage to also dismiss the word G-O-D.


Atheists differ on this. Some indeed dismiss the idea of God, and dismiss as much 
Hindhuism and Christianism, Aristotle Gods and Platonic Gods.
But then they believ in Matter, the thrid God of Aristotle. But they want you to 
believe it is not a God, and seems unable to understand that IF everything comes from 
primitive matter, it does play the role usually attributed to God. No one has ever seen 
primitive matter, nor explain how it proceeds, etc.  Primitive matter is an etraoplation 
of the SENSES to number relations inferred from experiences.


That's just your rhetoric, Bruno.  Neither you nor anyone else thinks that primitive 
matter plays the role usually attributed to the theist God.  No one suggests we worship 
matter or look to matter for ethical rules.  There are no churches collecting donations 
for matter.  There are no dogmas of matter written on stone tablets. Those unnamed 
physicists that you keep accusing of holding the primitivity of matter as dogma conduct 
research to find something more primitive and in fact construct theories in which matter 
is reduced to abstractions like a ray in a Hilbert space.









2) Christopher Hitchens said What can be asserted without evidence can also be 
dismissed without evidence


Very good. So we can right at the start dismiss the God Matter.


There's overwhelming evidence for matter.  There's nothing in physics that requires it to 
be primitive or to be worshiped.


Brent
The subsiding of faith might have been foreseeable as soon as the newly remapped sky left 
no plausible site for heaven. But people are good at living with contradictions, just so 
long as their self-importance isn't directly insulted.

--- Fredrick Crews, Saving Us from Darwin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Hitch


On 7/10/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:57, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism=that whether or not 
God
exists is unknown with agnosticism=that whether or not God exists is 
impossible
to know. 



If God created the universe


But is there a universe? I see only a physical reality.





that would be a fact about physics that would be very interesting to know, and I see no 
reason in principle we couldn't detect it;


If there was a God creating a Universe, he might be unable to belong to its creation, a 
bit like the set of all set is not a set.
But I am a super-atheist with respect to such idea. I have no evidence for *such* a god, 
nor such a creation.


Then you are not open minded enough for Jason.  You should believe in such a God until you 
disprove Him.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch

2013-07-10 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 they [atheists] believ in Matter, the thrid God of Aristotle. But they
 want you to believe it is not a God,


If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential
equations, and if I could build a bridge overpass by using prestressed God,
and if I could make a bronze God by bringing a copper God and a tin God
together, and if I could fertilize my lawn by using the God the comes out
of the backside of a horse then I would have no problem with the concept
behind the word God; but I'm a native speaker and I know that's not how
the English language works.

 Christopher Hitchens dismissed the idea of God (and he had the courage
 to do the same with the word G-O-D).


  Really?


Yes really.

  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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 10 Jul 2013, at 20:00, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


 God is the fundamental reality in which you believe in.

Since you are not a native speaker I must say it's a bit  
presumptions of you to insist that the English Language reinvent  
itself, you're a HUGE fan of acronyms so why not use FRIWYB for the  
Fundamental Reality In Which You Believe In? But if you insist on  
hijacking the ASCII characters G-O-D for that concept what new word  
do you suggest English speaking people use for the traditional  
meaning of that word, a conscious omnipotent omniscient being who  
created the universe? Please don't say coobwctu.


As a rationalist I disbelieve in omnipotent omniscient being, so I  
update the definition. Not all religion conceive truth in a so  
anthropomorphic way.


To say I don't believe in God might just be impolite, as truly you  
never know who you are speaking with.


:)

Bruno








  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/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch


On 7/10/2013 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Now the converse, where atheism is taken to mean rejection of all gods, rather than one, 
is not meaningless. 


You keep using the term rejection.  If by rejection you mean failure to credence 
that's OK.  But you seem to imply assertion of non-existence. An atheist may be 
asserting the non-existence of the God of Catholicism, while merely failing to believe in 
the god of deism; and in fact that is explicitly what Vic Stenger and Richard Dawkins have 
said.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 10 Jul 2013, at 20:51, Johnathan Corgan wrote:

In the realm of theistic beliefs, we were all born lacking any; we  
were all born atheists.


No, we are born agnostic. We lack the belief in God, but we lack also  
the belief in the non-existence of God.


Then I am not even sure that babies lack the belief in God. They might  
just be infinitely wiser, even if only de facto,  and not give It a  
Name. That comes later with the unavoidable catastrophic consequences.


Anyway, I define the (proper) theology of a machine M by what is true  
about the machine (in the sense of Tarski) minus what is provable (in  
Gödel sense) by the machine.


UDA shows why and we have to extract physics from that (making comp  
testable), and how we can do that using the mathematical machine's  
theology. This one is offered by the sufficiently rich (Löbian)  
universal machine when describing herself.


Bruno






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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:12, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/10/2013 2:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones  
kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:


I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is  
more an anticlerical than an atheist to me ...


 Everybody called him an atheist.  He called himself an  
atheist.  I think you just don't like the term.


 Forgivable though, don't you think?

No I do not, I think it's unforgivable to value a word more than  
the concept it represents.



But this is exactly what you are doing John. God represent a  
concept, even, at the start, the mother of all concept.
You just want that the word God applies only to the theistic notion  
of some institutionalized religion, where some want to use it in   
very large sense akin to its original meaning.


It's ancient meaning referred to superhumanly powerful, immortal  
people that lived in inaccessible places (above the firmament,  
beneath the Earth,...) and occasionally punished or rewarded humans.


I'm sure you believe in these gods; since they are logically possible.


I met them all the time, sure.

I believe in thunders, I belief in the earth, I believe in the fire.  
The fire can reward me, by warming me up when it is cold, and can  
punish me too, when I go to much closer.


Of course I have updated many technical details, about firmaments and  
things like that. I bet that they are appearances emerging from  
infinities of (number's) dreams.


Bruno

Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch


On 7/10/2013 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


UDA shows why and we have to extract physics from that (making comp testable), and how 
we can do that using the mathematical machine's theology.


You're really saying we have to extract physics from comp IN ORDER that it be testable. 
You've said that comp implies QM, although I don't see how; but if that's the case perhaps 
you can infer from comp the answer to the interesting question in theoretical physics, is 
the evolution of a black hole unitary?  So far every theory that assumes unitarity seems 
to violate the equivalence principle of general relativity.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch



On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:26, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/10/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:57, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism=that whether  
or not God exists is unknown with agnosticism=that whether or  
not God exists is impossible to know.


If God created the universe


But is there a universe? I see only a physical reality.





that would be a fact about physics that would be very interesting  
to know, and I see no reason in principle we couldn't detect it;


If there was a God creating a Universe, he might be unable to  
belong to its creation, a bit like the set of all set is not a set.
But I am a super-atheist with respect to such idea. I have no  
evidence for *such* a god, nor such a creation.


Then you are not open minded enough for Jason.  You should believe  
in such a God until you disprove Him.


On the contrary, by an excess of honesty I always mention that with NF  
there is a sense of having a universe in a universe, or a god capable  
of creating itself.


But as a worker in comp, I have stop to believe in sets altogether. It  
is a just a powerful tool in the mind of the Löbian machine, but it  
extrapolate too much for me.


But I am open to the idea that comp is wrong, and so I have no  
certainty at all about the possibility in any type of possible God(s).  
I am a scientist. I propose a clear theory and reason within it. I do  
not pretend any truth in the matter.


Bruno







Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Hitch


On 7/10/2013 1:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:12, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/10/2013 2:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:06, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au 
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:


I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is 
more an
anticlerical than an atheist to me ...


 Everybody called him an atheist.  He called himself an atheist.  I 
think
you just don't like the term.

 Forgivable though, don't you think?


No I do not, I think it's unforgivable to value a word more than the concept it 
represents.



But this is exactly what you are doing John. God represent a concept, even, at the 
start, the mother of all concept.
You just want that the word God applies only to the theistic notion of some 
institutionalized religion, where some want to use it in  very large sense akin to its 
original meaning.


It's ancient meaning referred to superhumanly powerful, immortal people that lived in 
inaccessible places (above the firmament, beneath the Earth,...) and occasionally 
punished or rewarded humans.


I'm sure you believe in these gods; since they are logically possible.


I met them all the time, sure.

I believe in thunders, I belief in the earth, I believe in the fire. The fire can reward 
me, by warming me up when it is cold, and can punish me too, when I go to much closer.


Of course I have updated many technical details, about firmaments and things like that. 
I bet that they are appearances emerging from infinities of (number's) dreams.


Did you update the part about them being people whose approval you should seek?

Brent
People are more unwilling to give up the word 'God' than to give up the idea for which 
the word has hitherto stood

--- Bertrand Russell

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Hitch

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.comwrote:

 On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:


 My point is that if one takes atheism to be the rejection of all
 conceptions of god, then because those ideas are conceptions of god from
 various religions, then someone who remains atheist after exposure to those
 ideas (rather than agnostic) has rejected them, and worse, has done so
 without any justification.  This is anti-scientific because there is some
 evidence for these propositions.  Even if that evidence does not convince
 you, there is no reason to reject them until evidence comes out against the
 theories on which they are based.


 This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions, but I'll bite
 anyway.

 Anyone can posit theories or claims; it is up to those persons to present
 credible evidence supporting those claims.

 If the claims themselves are incoherent or not logically possible, no
 evidence can be presented.

 If the evidence presented in support of those claims is not actually
 supportive, or is not possible to evaluate, then no further action need be
 taken.

 If the evidence presented is simply that a proposition is possible, well,
 many things that are possible are still not true; this is not evidence.

 If the evidence presented is I would like/feel happier/be less scared in
 a world where this is true, this is of course not evidence.

 If the evidence presented is If this were true, it would be consistent
 with these other things that I believe are true, it is not evidence.

 If the evidence presented is I can't make sense of the world unless this
 is true, it is not evidence.

 If the evidence presented is Everyone believes this, you should too, it
 is not evidence.

 If the evidence presented is Believe this or we will kill you, it is not
 evidence.

 In all these cases, there is no burden on anyone else to reject these
 assertions, as no evidence has been presented in support of them.

 In the realm of theistic beliefs, we were all born lacking any; we were
 all born atheists.  Some people have come to believe various religious
 claims as true, and thus have become theists of different varieties.

 For some of us, these claims have never risen beyond any of the categories
 above, and hence we remain atheists, without the need to reject anything,
 having not taken any action whatsoever.  We simply remain in our state of
 lacking any theistic beliefs.


I would say such a stance is more properly called agnosticism than atheism,
but as you said, this just devolves into an argument over definitions.


 We do not need to encounter specific evidence against these sorts of
 claims.

 So if you have a specific claim to make, and actual evidence to support
 it, we'll listen.


I'm not making any specific claims at this time.


 But we don't start out as rejecting all conceptions of God; we're just
 happily living our lives and not spending much time worrying about these
 matters, except perhaps recently on this mailing list.


That position (following the semicolon) is perfectly reasonable to me, and
I have no issues with it.

Jason



 Johnathan Corgan

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email 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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email 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: Hitch