On 02 Sep 2012, at 16:38, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
It depends what standards for and quality of information you have on
something.
People shouldn't judge what they do not understand. Bruno you
understand what Krokodil entails, with solid information, so trying
it is nonsense. But
On 02 Sep 2012, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/2/2012 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's all I mean morals; having values about your own actions so
that you can recognize that sometimes you do stupid or bad things
- by your own standards - but which are not unethical because they
have
On 02 Sep 2012, at 19:32, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:59:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona
wrote:
Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and
Hi meekerdb
I don't hold to Popper's criterion.
There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable.
For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down.
You can't turn off the gravity to falsify it, at least in that situation.
And any one-time event isn't falsifiable. Death, for
Hi Craig Weinberg
It's OK as far as the left goes to hate the rich.
To them, nothing the left does is ever wrong.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content
Roger,
On the contrare, science is a product of the left, more or less, whereas
anti-evolution is a product of the right, more or less. Science is
selfcorrecting and so the left is constantly re-examining its conclusions
whether in science or sociology.
Whereas the right is unable to correct
Hi Craig Weinberg
According to the Monadology, all monads are alive.
Even rocks, which are nearly dead.
Leibniz is indeed frustratingly difficult,
but contrary to (some of ) your comments on the Monadology
on the link below, I can't recall a single error.
Just to take your criticism of
Hi Craig Weinberg
Personally I call the Platonic realm anything inextended.
Time necessarily drops out if space drops out.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following
The monads of string theory each have many parts.
To begin with they have 6 dimensions
constrained by higher-order EM flux
winding through 500 topological holes.
They are definitely extended
being 1000 Planck lengths in diameter
and in an array throughout the universe
at a density of about
Hi John Clark
God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence or life itself.
As to what he can do, there are some limitations
in the world he created, for that world is contingent
and so contains some missing pieces, misfits, defects, all of that stuff.
Crap happens.
Roger Clough,
Hi John Clark
Indeed the world contains much misery and injustice
simply because it isn't Heaven. Leibniz said that
without God, it could have been a lot worse.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could
Bruno,
In comp, what is the function of god.
My hope is that the function of a god
might be to reduce 3p tp 1p.
Everything else seems to be capable
of running according to algorithms.
Is there anything in comp
that is non-algorithmic?
Richard
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Roger Clough
Hi Richard Ruquist
There is no god in comp.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you disagree, please tell me why.
I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
something in cells and brains that is not Turing emulable, and this is
speculative, as
Hi meekerdb
The world is contingent and therefore not perfect.
I don't see the problem.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
On Monday, September 3, 2012 4:37:54 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Sep 2012, at 19:32, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:59:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto
Hi Bruno Marchal
Natural numbers are monads because
1) the are inextended substances, which is redundant to say.
2) they have no parts.
That's a definition of a monad. Except to add that monads are alive,
except that numbers are not very alive. I imagine one could write
an entire scholarly
Hi Craig Weinberg
Sorry. I guess I should call them monadic numbers. Not numbers as monads,
but monads as numbers.
The numbers I am thinking of as monads are those flying by in a particular
computation. Monads are under constant change. As to history, perceptions,
appetites, those would be
Hi John Clark
IMHO Since it is inextended, intelligence (needed for design or
change or life, etc.) is omnipresent in the universe to various degrees
It always has been, is now, and ever shall be.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to
Roger,
Every natural number is distinct from all others.
So your characterization of them as simple
with no internal parts has to be incorrect.
Leibniz himself says that every monad is distinct:
In a confused way they all strive after [vont a] the infinite, the whole;
but they are limited and
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
IMHO Chalmer's biggest error has been not to recognize
that the self does not appear in all of neurophilosophy.
This IMHO is the glaring shortcoming of materialism.
The lights are on, but nobody's home.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012
Leibniz would say,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context
and
ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does
not mean
Hi Stephen P. King
1) The pre-established harmony is beyond the laws of physics.
For nothing is perfect in this contingent world. The preestablished
harmony was designed before the beginning of gthe world,
and since God is good, presumably gthe pre-established
harmony is the best possible one in
Hi benjayk
Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires
ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires
an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence.
A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer,
even the
I agree with those statements. I just found the discussion a bit biased
towards the dangers of Cannabis and lacking in perspective.
For instance, it was claimed, and still is often claimed Cannabis reduces
motivation. The notorious British pot writer Howard Marks replies to this
in his book Mr.
Hi Richard Ruquist
My claim was a bit over simplified.
Although numbers do not have parts,
my thinking was of monads as numbers not
numbers as monads. So they have history, context,
desires, etc. Monads have
all kinds of accessories. Power steering
anti-skid brakes, you name it.
Roger
On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
I don't hold to Popper's criterion.
There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable.
For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down.
?
Falsifiable means can be falsified. here the gravity can be
falsfied: you
Hi Roger,
I think of number as the conceptual continuity between the behaviors of
physical things - whether it is the interior view of things as experiences
through time or the exterior view of experiences as things. Numbers don't
fly by in a computation, that's a cartoon. All that happens is
On 03 Sep 2012, at 14:50, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
In comp, what is the function of god.
It is responsible for the existence of numbers and their relations,
notably in distinguishing what is true and false.
My hope is that the function of a god
might be to reduce 3p tp 1p.
It
My experience is that canabis
increases my motivation and creativity.
Am I an exception?
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with those statements. I just found the discussion a bit biased
towards the dangers of Cannabis and lacking
How can monads store information without any internal parts?
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
My claim was a bit over simplified.
Although numbers do not have parts,
my thinking was of monads as numbers not
numbers as monads. So
Bruno wrote:
*... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
1) what is responsible for our existence
2) so big as to be beyond nameability
Then there is a God in comp...*
Is it fair to say that you substitute (= use) the *G O D* word in a sense
paraphrasable (by me) into an imaginary
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi benjayk
Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires
ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires
an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have
On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you disagree, please tell me why.
I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
something in cells and brains that is not Turing
Roger,
again I have to violate my decision NOT to participate in your diatribes...
This is a very nice 'politically correct' sounding variant of an untrue
maxim.
People do not 'H A T E ' the rich: they may admire, envy, detest, fight
against, disagree with, obey, lick-ass, etc., but not 'hate' -
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things
that are not falsifiable.
Popper didn't say everything is falsifiable, he said if it's not
falsifiable then it's pointless to subject your valuable
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote
I would call that reacting.
Call it whatever you like, just don't call me late for dinner.
But you're welcome to call it causal
I think I'll do just that, and thank you for giving me permission.
I believe that you
On 9/3/2012 8:26 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
On the contrare, science is a product of the left, more or less,
whereas anti-evolution is a product of the right, more or less.
Science is selfcorrecting and so the left is constantly re-examining
its conclusions whether in science or
On 9/3/2012 8:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi R AM
Many economists find that an incredible number of things fit
the Pareto distriution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
such that, to make up an example, 20% of the people
own 80% of the wealth.
In some cases, the effect might be
On 9/3/2012 9:36 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Natural numbers are monads because
1) the are inextended substances, which is redundant to say.
2) they have no parts.
That's a definition of a monad. Except to add that monads are alive,
except that numbers are not very alive. I imagine
On 9/3/2012 10:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
IMHO Chalmer's biggest error has been not to recognize
that the self does not appear in all of neurophilosophy.
This IMHO is the glaring shortcoming of materialism.
The lights are on, but nobody's home.
Hi Roger,
You might
On 9/3/2012 10:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
1) The pre-established harmony is beyond the laws of physics.
For nothing is perfect in this contingent world. The preestablished
harmony was designed before the beginning of gthe world,
and since God is good, presumably gthe
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you disagree, please tell me why.
I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
something in cells and
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work,
it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle
down doesn't work.
I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many
reasons. But
Stephan,
You seem to agree with me but missed my point.
Scientists are willing to adjust their thinking when new information
is available.
Fundamentalists are not because all the important information is ancient.
You may argue correctly that not all scientists are left wing
and not all
I couldn't agree more, Stephen. Great post.
The most common forms of left and right really are different forms of the
same phenomenon. Statism, authority (whether of the state or of God or of
science or of the market), thinking in terms of enemies and supporters. The
difference is merely in
FYI
Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer - Says JPL Scientist
3 September, 2012
Share this story:
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More
Sharing Services
5
Follow us:
MessageToEagle.com - Are we just a computer simulation? Who or what is
the creator? More
Marxism is more a criticism of capitalism than an economic system. I guess
the system should be called centralized planning.
The system and the policy can make a big difference in distributio of
wealth. The nordic countries are very egalitarian (and rich) countries. So
it was Japan. Germany is
On 9/3/2012 1:51 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of
pixels. Space is quantitized, matter is quantitized, energy is
quantitized, everything is made of individual pixels
That's way overstated. The evidence is against space being
I did not write that. I know about the Fermi telescope results
as they falsify Loop Quantum Gravity.
Richard
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/3/2012 1:51 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of
On 9/3/2012 5:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/3/2012 1:51 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of
pixels. Space is quantitized, matter is quantitized, energy is
quantitized, everything is made of individual pixels
That's way overstated. The
On Monday, September 3, 2012 8:11:54 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
It's OK as far as the left goes to hate the rich.
To them, nothing the left does is ever wrong.
Is there any ideology in which the members think that what they do is
wrong? You can criticize the left
On Monday, September 3, 2012 12:22:48 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
Hi benjayk
Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires
ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs,
I should add a number 5...Cognitive Bias.
How is it not obvious that computer scientists would want to believe very
badly in the unlimited potential of developing computers? Why is this not
considered a factor? We have study after study showing how the human mind
is so effective at fooling
On Monday, September 3, 2012 8:33:34 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Personally I call the Platonic realm anything inextended.
Time necessarily drops out if space drops out.
I see the opposite. If space drops out, all you have is time. I can count
to 10 in my mind without
On Monday, September 3, 2012 1:38:03 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough
rcl...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things
that are not falsifiable.
Popper didn't say everything is
On 9/3/2012 9:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Even if there were evidence of quantized space, it could not be distinguished from
evidence of quantized synchronization of detection.
All theories of discrete space proposed so far predict that there will be a slight
dependence of the speed of
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Monday, September 3, 2012 12:22:48 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi benjayk
Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence
58 matches
Mail list logo
