Are numbers substances ? Are quanta substances ?
Hi Bruno Marchal Good question. It's a difficult question to answer, but here's my best answer at present. Monads or substances are the fundamental entites of Leibniz's universe. They are all substances of one part. --- Here's Bertrand Russell's view of Leibniz's definition of substance http://www.ditext.com/russell/leib1.html#3 Every proposition has a subject and a predicate. A subject may have predicates which are qualities existing at various times. (Such a subject is called a substance.) - The phrase predicates which are qualities existing at various times gets me off the hook with regard to wavicles and numbers. Both quanta and numbers are substances of one part and so are monads. And all monads, whatever they be, must have a fixed identity. Subjectpredicate(s) (of fixed identity) ordinary matteralways both 1. physcal matter 2. mental matter wavicle either 1. physical matteror 2. mental (quantum) matter numbers always 2. mental matter. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 11:57:48 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily related to lines and circles), and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its neighborhood. Summing waves gives arbitrary functions (in some functional spaces), so simple wave can be see as the base in the space of arbitrary functions (for reasonable functional spaces, there are any natural restrictions here). The whole problem with QM, is that the wave's physical interpretation is an amplitude of probability, and that we can make them interfere as if they were physical. But in MWI, the quantum waves are just the map of the relative accessible physical realities. An electronic orbital is a map of where you can find an electron, for an example. I would say it is something physical (even if it emerges from the non physical relations between numbers). Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) extended in space, 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
Re: A Safely Underground Nuclear Reactor that runs on Nuclear waste
Hi Roger, I think there's a lot to worry about, because it's not enough to have an alternative. This alternative has to be online and have a sufficiently high energy output before we get to too far away from peak oil. A sufficiently strong decrease in energy production could create a catastrophic event, because we now have an immense population that dependes on complex systems that nobody fully understands and that require a constant supply of energy. This is pure speculation, but I worry that this is what is really behind the current economic crisis. Even more worrying is the fact that we never made contact with alien civilisations, which could suggest that there is a likely extinction event ahead of us. On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Not to worry about running out of fuelat least for a few centureis.. Bill Gates explains Terrapower And The Traveling Wave Reactor A Safely Underground Nuclear Reactor that runs on Nuclear waste https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRYtiSbbVg [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) extended in space, 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being
Re: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy A more powwerful way to steal from the future is to continue govt spending as it is. But to get back to the issue, I'll let the market decide. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:50:52 Subject: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Hi Roger On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I always let the market decide. Please. It's peoples' behavior that determines market. And it has decided: you can steal from the coming generations by allowing energy industry to continue stealing from you or you can work to lower long term costs for your friends and family, the people you live with, local interests and community, energy independence and profit in long term. But sure, go ahead, think that gas and utilities prices will keep falling as dramatically as they have. ? You can't go wrong that way. I doubt Leibniz would agree. Harnessing energy all around us instead of burning, drilling etc. is the least materialistic prospect for now, concerning energy. Additionally, both Jesus and numbers of straight market economics over the long run, and if you're smart even in short to mid term (I know people who are making profit TODAY by mixing their energy needs with contributing energy themselves; the moment you can afford to do this, it makes sense from any economic point of view), do not cohere with your infallibility derived from market + short-term perspective. Also, you could consider dealing the most harmful, addictive drugs and/or get into organized crime: the market has decided these to be very lucrative. But drop the Jesus and God talk for now on, because your usage and relationship to personal theology seems pretty clear now. Thanks for sharing. PGC -- ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 11:06:43 Subject: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Hi Roger, On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Roger Clough ?rote: The unpredictability of solar energy ? I've lost the page ref for the graph below, but it's typical of numerous other graphs of the daily variation in solar energy on the internet. (For a comparison see solar variations on http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/2010/01/yearly-water-temps-precip-and-solar-energy.html?) ? The hourly variation would be much worse, since the sun does not shine at night. ? The variation from day to day is unpredicatable and enormous, going from?ear 0 Ly to almost 100 Ly. This is probably due to variable cloud cover, not auto exhaust emissions. ? I'll stay with conventional electric power, thank you very much. ? ? ? ? Ly. Langley, a measurement of solar energy. One langley is equal to one gram-calorie per square centimeter. A gram-calorie is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius. ? ? Good for you but perhaps bad for your wallet in long term. In Germany, many are starting to see that independence from fossil fuel monopolies is not just ideological... it turns citizens into energy traders instead of big oil slaves. See: In Germany, where sensible federal rules have fast-tracked and streamlined the permit process, the costs are considerably lower. It can take as little as eight days to license and install a solar system on a house in Germany. In the United States, depending on your state, the average ranges from 120 to 180 days. More than one million Germans have installed solar panels on their roofs. Australia also has a streamlined permitting process and has solar panels on 10 percent of its homes. Solar photovoltaic power would give America the potential to challenge the utility monopolies, democratize energy generation and transform millions of homes and small businesses into energy generators. Rational, market-based rules could turn every American into an energy entrepreneur. That transition to renewable power could create millions of domestic jobs and power in this country with American resourcefulness, initiative and entrepreneurial energy while taking a substantial bite out of the nation? emissions of greenhouse gases and other dangerous pollutants. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/opinion/solar-panels-for-every-home.html?_r=0 It's really not an ideological green vs. conservative matter. People just don't like being stolen from. The energy monopolies thank YOUR wallet very much, as for solar panel users, we don't care if people have ideological axes to grind for which they want to pay,
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Stephen P. King I agree with meeker on the nonduplicates of soul, which are as individual as DNA or fingerprints. And the identity of indescernibles. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 13:58:34 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 1/13/2013 3:13 AM, meekerdb wrote: Nearly all scientists would agree that the material identity is not important to continuity of consciousness. Therefore any time the appropriate instantiation arises, consciousness can continue. In an infinitely large and varied reality (Platonism, QM, infinite hubble volume, or eternal inflation), our patterns continually reappear. That would imply that copies of one's soul exist. But John defined souls as being impossible to copy. Hi, I disagree, if we bet on comp there is only one soul, just infinitely many 'versions' or 'projections' of it. Consciousness is the 1p associated with the local version, IMHO, unless we allow for 1p that contain experiences that are mutually contradictory. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Stephen P. King You can either be untroubled by the fact that innocent people die or suffer, or you can try to find meaning for why this can be so. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 14:00:59 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 1/13/2013 3:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have never met a theologian genuinely believing in both omnipotence and omniscience. Since Thomas, christian theologians knows that it is inconsistent. Dear Bruno, I have yet to find a modern Christian apologists that is troubled by this. Most of them reject symbolic logic as applicable to 'God'. Frankly, IMHO discussing the beliefs of those that reject reason is a fools errand. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: cognitive therapy
Hi Telmo Menezes Burns' therapy is called cognitive therapy. I use it all of the time. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 12:59:38 Subject: Re: cognitive therapy The attachments of the original message is as following: (1). CBT-distortions.pdf On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Personally I have found that reading the Bible a little and knowing some scripture verse, helps. Why not? But Chuang-tseu, Lie-tseu, Lao-Tseu, Alan Watts, and even the Baghavad Gita (a rather crazy text from the conventional spiritual pov), and many texts can help. I have a friend who keeps recommending the Bhagavad Gita. Alan Watts is great, always makes me feel better. An interesting book written by a cognitive therapist is Feeling Good: the New Mood Therapy by David D. Burns, M.D. There is one study where reading this book had the same effectiveness as conventional anti-depressants (both above placebo). I'm attaching a pdf based on this work that I refer to from time to time. ? But such text should never been taken literally. Only for inspiration. Unless they contain reasoning, like in the question to king Milinda (one of my favorite spiritual text). I believe (as did Luther) that the actual words are semi-physical and paste themselves in our memories or subconsciousness and work on us like cognitive therapy: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Luther suffered from time with depression, and found words and cognitive therapy very helpful. It can be. A lot of plants can help too. Yup :) ? Unfortunately, by tolerating prohibition, we assist to an unfair competition between nature and artifice, and we have made the state into a drug dealer. In the human science we are below being nowhere. We do money from diseases, crisis, catastrophes. There is something wrong, and I think it has been facilitated by a tradition of artificial lack of rigor in the human sciences Why do you think that the lack of rigor in human sciences is artificial? ? , and in the fundamental sciences. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 07:05:18 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 12 Jan 2013, at 11:56, Roger Clough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Yes. That is even why we should never try to convince some others about God. We can only trust that God will do that, at the best moment. We can teach by example, but not with words, still less with normative moral, I think. Hell is really paved with good intentions. God might be the good, but the Devil is the good. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 15:47:58 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 1/11/2013 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What are its tenets that you believe on faith? That there is something different from me. But you have evidence for that - if you can figure out what is meant by me. I think you need faith to make data into evidence. That would vitiate the concept of evidence. I'd say you only need a theory to make data into evidence which can count for or against the theory. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: Re: cognitive therapy
Hi Roger, Me too - well maybe not as often as I should. I hope it's helping you! On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Burns' therapy is called cognitive therapy. I use it all of the time. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 12:59:38 Subject: Re: cognitive therapy The attachments of the original message is as following: (1). CBT-distortions.pdf On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Personally I have found that reading the Bible a little and knowing some scripture verse, helps. Why not? But Chuang-tseu, Lie-tseu, Lao-Tseu, Alan Watts, and even the Baghavad Gita (a rather crazy text from the conventional spiritual pov), and many texts can help. I have a friend who keeps recommending the Bhagavad Gita. Alan Watts is great, always makes me feel better. An interesting book written by a cognitive therapist is Feeling Good: the New Mood Therapy by David D. Burns, M.D. There is one study where reading this book had the same effectiveness as conventional anti-depressants (both above placebo). I'm attaching a pdf based on this work that I refer to from time to time. ? But such text should never been taken literally. Only for inspiration. Unless they contain reasoning, like in the question to king Milinda (one of my favorite spiritual text). I believe (as did Luther) that the actual words are semi-physical and paste themselves in our memories or subconsciousness and work on us like cognitive therapy: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Luther suffered from time with depression, and found words and cognitive therapy very helpful. It can be. A lot of plants can help too. Yup :) ? Unfortunately, by tolerating prohibition, we assist to an unfair competition between nature and artifice, and we have made the state into a drug dealer. In the human science we are below being nowhere. We do money from diseases, crisis, catastrophes. There is something wrong, and I think it has been facilitated by a tradition of artificial lack of rigor in the human sciences Why do you think that the lack of rigor in human sciences is artificial? ? , and in the fundamental sciences. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 07:05:18 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 12 Jan 2013, at 11:56, Roger Clough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Yes. That is even why we should never try to convince some others about God. We can only trust that God will do that, at the best moment. We can teach by example, but not with words, still less with normative moral, I think. Hell is really paved with good intentions. God might be the good, but the Devil is the good. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 15:47:58 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 1/11/2013 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What are its tenets that you believe on faith? That there is something different from me. But you have evidence for that - if you can figure out what is meant by me. I think you need faith to make data into evidence. That would vitiate the concept of evidence. I'd say you only need a theory to make data into evidence which can count for or against the theory. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post
Re: Re: Re: cognitive therapy
Hi Telmo Menezes Same here. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 07:42:02 Subject: Re: Re: cognitive therapy Hi Roger, Me too - well maybe not as often as I should. I hope it's helping you! On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Burns' therapy is called cognitive therapy. ? use it all of the time. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 12:59:38 Subject: Re: cognitive therapy The attachments of the original message is as following: ? (1). CBT-distortions.pdf On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Bruno Marchal ?rote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Personally I have found that reading the Bible a little and knowing some scripture verse, helps. Why not? But Chuang-tseu, Lie-tseu, Lao-Tseu, Alan Watts, and even the Baghavad Gita (a rather crazy text from the conventional spiritual pov), and many texts can help. I have a friend who keeps recommending the Bhagavad Gita. Alan Watts is great, always makes me feel better. An interesting book written by a cognitive therapist is Feeling Good: the New Mood Therapy by David D. Burns, M.D. There is one study where reading this book had the same effectiveness as conventional anti-depressants (both above placebo). I'm attaching a pdf based on this work that I refer to from time to time. ? But such text should never been taken literally. Only for inspiration. Unless they contain reasoning, like in the question to king Milinda (one of my favorite spiritual text). I believe (as did Luther) that the actual words are semi-physical and paste themselves in our memories or subconsciousness and work on us like cognitive therapy: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Luther suffered from time with depression, and found words and cognitive therapy very helpful. It can be. A lot of plants can help too. Yup :) ? Unfortunately, by tolerating prohibition, we assist to an unfair competition between nature and artifice, and we have made the state into a drug dealer. In the human science we are below being nowhere. We do money from diseases, crisis, catastrophes. There is something wrong, and I think it has been facilitated by a tradition of artificial lack of rigor in the human sciences Why do you think that the lack of rigor in human sciences is artificial? ? , and in the fundamental sciences. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 07:05:18 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 12 Jan 2013, at 11:56, Roger Clough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Yes. That is even why we should never try to convince some others about God. We can only trust that God will do that, at the best moment. We can teach by example, but not with words, still less with normative moral, I think. Hell is really paved with good intentions. God might be the good, but the Devil is the good. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 15:47:58 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 1/11/2013 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What are its tenets that you believe on faith? That there is something different from me. But you have evidence for that - if you can figure out what is meant by me. I think you need faith to make data into evidence. That would vitiate the concept of evidence. I'd say you only need a theory to make data into evidence which can count for or against the theory. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
Idealism, theology, and the world of science
Hi (socratus) Idealism is the belief that reality can be more accurately understood philosophically than scientifically. Theology is a similar belief, namely that reality can be more accurately understood philosophically than scientifically. If you accept the philosophical-theological view, you need read no further. Although philosophy and theology do not deny the physicality, the laws and formulas, of the physical world, their explanations for how things really' happen differs between philsopher-theologians and scientsts. Idealists were turned off by materialism's denial that there is no real difference between the mental and the physical world. So while they took science seriously, they took the philosophy of mind more seriously, in order to more correctly (though not necessarily more simply) to describe reality. that they adopted the idea that everything is mental in reality, and went on from there. For a more detailed answer, see below. -- I can't speak for all idealisms, but Leibniz considers the whole (or at least the essential components of) the physical world to have a corresponding mental representation of monads, Kant only how we perceive and think. With L, each of us can only perceive the phenomenal world ( what we see from our perspective). Both are anthropomorphic. Both separate the phenomenal world (what we can perceive) from the actual or thing in itself world. Both do not deny the existence of the thing in itself world, both accept science as it appears to be. The formulas, laws, etc. I say appears to be because L believes , like all idealisms, that only the mental world is the real one, although these two, unlike Berkiely, do not treat our phenomenal world as an illusion. You can still stub your toe, but the explanation for what happens is for these two entirely mental, while not sure what K says. But they both deal with those weevents from the viewpoint of philsophy of mind, only through descriptions of physical events using the languyage of mental events. But they deal with different turfs. K takes the phenomenol world and his philosophy of mind is essentially a very good and generally accepted teory of perception, [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-13, 09:16:48 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. Thanks. Is it possible to explain ' monads' of Leibniz or Kant's ' thing-in-itself ' from physical point of view ? Is it possible to explain the 'philosophy of Idealism ' using physical laws and formulas ? =. On Jan 13, 2:30?m, Roger Clough wrote: Hi socra...@bezeqint.net Not exactly prove but explain: 1. means that there is an intelligence beyond the universe 2. is not true according to Leibniz. Above is perfect, below is contingent. 3. According to Leibniz, all existence is active (because alive) 4. I have linked Leibniz to Sheldrake, and he speaks of morphic resonances. 5. Is the principle of sufficent reason. 6. Can't give a basis for this. 7. same as 4. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-13, 01:22:32 Subject: Science is a religion by itself. ? The Seven Hermetic Principleshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI =. 1. The Universe is something Intellectual. 2. As above, so below. 3. From potential to active existence. 4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate. 5. Everything in the Universe has its cause. 6. Everything in the Universe has its opposite. 7. The Universe has its own rhythm. ?/ Hermes Trismegistus / =. Can these Seven Hermetic Principles be explained ?y physical laws and formulas ? ===? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To
Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Richard Ruquist OK--- in the mind. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 08:45:18 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light Agreed Roger,But IMO em waves and quantum waves, like thoughts in the quantum mind, can collapse instantly to make particles, IMO this is necessary for all interpretations of quantum mechanics including MWI and Feynman renormalization. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
THe problem with solar energy is that it is strongly subsidized. Instead of you being stolen by monopolistic energy companies, you can steal the taxpayer thank to state planning. Most solar panels are installed because they receive subsidies by KW. As a logical consequience a boost in production is expected. In fact they produced electricity even in the night at full level. ... With some help of pirate electrogenerators working with fossil fuels, hidden near then. Many governments, ruined by this authentic robbery or all these ecological friends of the planet, had to switch the schema of subsidies, to a fixed schema, that don´t take into account the production. That foreseeable bureaucratic move had the foreseeable consequences: That rendered the most productive and expensive and technologically advanced panels a ruinous investment. Technological development has stopped and engineers fired. Because the subsidies is independent of production now, most of them don care to maintain the panels. Most of them do not plug them to the transmission lines and generate the minimum required of production at sun ours with less fossil fuel generators while they receive the solar subsidies. According with the subsidies contracts, made at the peak of the bubble, countries like Spain and Germany have compromises of payment that they will not have enough money from taxpayers to pay now and in the coming years. The had to break contracts and reduce subsidies, damaging the credibility of the judicial system, many best producers lost their investments and only the worst had benefits. Most of them, big companies which had contact with the government and knew in advance the changes so they reacted accordingly to have the maximum cost-benefit with the less investment. Those that were conscious that what the panels produce is not electricity forever, but suck money from the taxpayers as long as the subsidy plans were active, won. And this is the result of just another wonderful state planning experiment 2013/1/14 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy A more powwerful way to steal from the future is to continue govt spending as it is. But to get back to the issue, I'll let the market decide. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:50:52 Subject: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Hi Roger On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I always let the market decide. Please. It's peoples' behavior that determines market. And it has decided: you can steal from the coming generations by allowing energy industry to continue stealing from you or you can work to lower long term costs for your friends and family, the people you live with, local interests and community, energy independence and profit in long term. But sure, go ahead, think that gas and utilities prices will keep falling as dramatically as they have. ? You can't go wrong that way. I doubt Leibniz would agree. Harnessing energy all around us instead of burning, drilling etc. is the least materialistic prospect for now, concerning energy. Additionally, both Jesus and numbers of straight market economics over the long run, and if you're smart even in short to mid term (I know people who are making profit TODAY by mixing their energy needs with contributing energy themselves; the moment you can afford to do this, it makes sense from any economic point of view), do not cohere with your infallibility derived from market + short-term perspective. Also, you could consider dealing the most harmful, addictive drugs and/or get into organized crime: the market has decided these to be very lucrative. But drop the Jesus and God talk for now on, because your usage and relationship to personal theology seems pretty clear now. Thanks for sharing. PGC -- ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 11:06:43 Subject: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Hi Roger, On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Roger Clough ?rote: The unpredictability of solar energy ? I've lost the page ref for the graph below, but it's typical of numerous other graphs of the daily variation in solar energy on the internet. (For a comparison see solar variations on http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/2010/01/yearly-water-temps-precip-and-solar-energy.html ?) ? The hourly variation would be much worse, since the sun does not shine at night. ? The variation from day to day is unpredicatable and enormous, going from?ear 0 Ly to almost 100 Ly. This
Re: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
Hi Richard Ruquist God is not righteous by what standards ? Yours? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 08:52:51 Subject: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Romans 3:10 As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one. This statement could be broadened to include god and therefore account for misery in this world. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Are numbers substances ? Are quanta substances ?
I say discrete digital fermionic particles of any kind are substances. whereas continuous analog quantum bosonic loops, and waves and fields are not. Richard On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Good question. It's a difficult question to answer, but here's my best answer at present. Monads or substances are the fundamental entites of Leibniz's universe. They are all substances of one part. --- Here's Bertrand Russell's view of Leibniz's definition of substance http://www.ditext.com/russell/leib1.html#3 Every proposition has a subject and a predicate. A subject may have predicates which are qualities existing at various times. (Such a subject is called a substance.) - The phrase predicates which are qualities existing at various times gets me off the hook with regard to wavicles and numbers. Both quanta and numbers are substances of one part and so are monads. And all monads, whatever they be, must have a fixed identity. Subjectpredicate(s) (of fixed identity) ordinary matteralways both 1. physcal matter 2. mental matter wavicle either 1. physical matteror 2. mental (quantum) matter numbers always 2. mental matter. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 11:57:48 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily related to lines and circles), and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its neighborhood. Summing waves gives arbitrary functions (in some functional spaces), so simple wave can be see as the base in the space of arbitrary functions (for reasonable functional spaces, there are any natural restrictions here). The whole problem with QM, is that the wave's physical interpretation is an amplitude of probability, and that we can make them interfere as if they were physical. But in MWI, the quantum waves are just the map of the relative accessible physical realities. An electronic orbital is a map of where you can find an electron, for an example. I would say it is something physical (even if it emerges from the non physical relations between numbers). Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) extended in space, 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed
Re: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
Hi Roger Clough, God is everything, including this list. Richard David, complex variables and quantum theory go together On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist God is not righteous by what standards ? Yours? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 08:52:51 Subject: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Romans 3:10 As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one. This statement could be broadened to include god and therefore account for misery in this world. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter
- Physics - Chemistry - Biology - Efferent Motive - *Sense* -^ Afferent Feeling ^ Awareness ^ Consciousness ^ Cognition ^ Theology ^ Philosophy ^ Logic ^ Math - On Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:48:13 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Space and time may be a perception of the mind in the Kantian sense. I don´t find that space must be independent of the mind. space and time may be the way we perceive a space-time manifold which is pure mathematical and nothing else. If something was purely mathematical, how could anything perceive it? Maybe we can see space out there We can't see space out there. We see colors and shapes which invite a spatial interpretation based on our experience of navigating our own body through a world of tangible bodies. and we can think on geometrical figures in space (not algebraically) because we have space-mode rasoning on the mind, not because space is pre-existent to the mind, neither because space is something in mathematics, because space is described in math without gemetry. Is space inevitable in math without geometry, or is it just adapted to math from a geometric analysis of our bodily experience? Craig And may be that the autopoietic computation, in the forms of natural selection, life and mind are trajectories in the space-time manifold, which, when looked closely form outside space-time, they are nothing but fortunate collisions of particle trajectories and molecules so that entropy stay controlled along these lines, with no reason but fortunate manifold structure and fortunate initial conditions. But looked from inside it appears to have phenomena like matter space, causality, termodinamic irreversibility, time, minds etc. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/NMtYVUW4yloJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 13 Jan 2013, at 02:41, meekerdb wrote: On 1/12/2013 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 07:00, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: He [me] would rather avoid those topics altogether and take solace in denying specific instances of inconsistent or silly definitions of God. All I ask is a definition of God that has 2 attributes: 1) It is not silly or inconsistent. You ask already a lot. 2) There is no other word except G-O-D that works as well. And when 99.9% of the religious use the word God they mean a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe, I am not sure of that. Even restricting ourself to Abramanic religion. The beliefs are quite variate on this. Here's the statement of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest protestant sect in the U.S. - There is one and only one living and true God. We agree. By we I mean me and the classical computationalist Löbian Universal Machine. There is only ONE truth. I take living as a metaphor. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. Hmm Up to know the (physical) universe might be a failed attempt by God to solve a degree 4 Diophantine equation. Again ruler can be a (misleading) occidental metaphor only. God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. Of course this is too much imprecise. How do we measure or scale holiness? What is holiness? What are perfections? This is akin to St Anselme definition of God, the one use by Gödel to prove the existence of God, by using the S5 modal logic. But I don't believe in S5. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. I don't know. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience. I doubt this. The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being. This might be a simplification of a doctrine by St Augustin, itself a simplification of Plotinus three primary hypostases: the ONE (sometimes called father by Plotinus, and I think this was a way to attract some Christians), the Noùs (the intelligible reality that you can describe with words, but not necessarily prove), the Universal Soul. To make this closer to some more primitive religion, and to comp, I like also, sometimes described this by the Mother, the Creation, and the (lost) Son. God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. Who know? He is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and all wise. God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ. He is fatherly in His attitude toward all men. With comp, and the definition of God I suggest, there is a tradeoff between power and knowledge. The more powerful he can be, the less knowledge he can access, and vice versa. Jesus might be a sort of shaman, but no human can be designate as having some special relationship to God. Either Jesus was metaphorical, or he was a con, all this assuming comp, and accepting the idea that God = (arithmetical) Truth, the 0-person point of view. The baptists are not so bad (with respect to comp), but probably too much naïve, literal, and they still encourage the belief in authoritative arguments, which separate theology from science, and that is problematic (with or without comp, imo). Bruno --- Or see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity and http://preceptaustin.org/notes_for_attributes_of_god_%28ii%29.htm Brent Those who object to the punishment of heresy are like dogs and swine, --- John Calvin Bruno and when non-religious people say they believe in God they mean they believe in the word G-O-D and that's it. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 13 Jan 2013, at 02:53, meekerdb wrote: On 1/12/2013 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 07:30, meekerdb wrote: On 1/11/2013 9:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/11/2013 2:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 1/11/2013 2:27:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, jasonre...@gmail.com writes: 1) Choose some religion, it doesn't matter which 2) Find an idea some adherents of that religion put forward but almost no one seriously believes in or is easily shown to be inconsistent 3) Assume that because you have disproved one idea of one religion that all ideas found in all religions are false and/or unscientific 4) Bask in the feeling of superiority over those who are not so enlightened Jason Ok, so in Darwinian fashion you sort through hundreds of faiths, so what happens when you cannot dissprove a religion? You sort them down till you hit a toughie, does that make it automatically correct, or is it the intellectual limitation of the sorter? Your Basking, is angering many non-believers, even. Witness Higg's criticism of Dawkins. Believers, Jason, I suppose will merely, pray for your soul (poor lad!). Perhaps if you decided to create your own religion, that couldn't be disproved, based on physics, or math, you would be coming up with the best faith? Then we could all be converted to being Jasonites. Or Reschers-whichever you prefer? I'm nor sure I understand your point. My point was only that John's adherence to atheism, which he defines as belief in no Gods, is less rational than someone following his 4-step program to become a liberal theologian. In particular, it is the above step 3, rejecting all religious ideas as false without giving the idea a fair scientific evaluation, which is especially problematic. John is perhaps being prescient in turning a blind eye to these other ideas, as otherwise we might have the specter of a self-proclaimed atheist who finds scientific justification for after lives, reincarnation, karma, beings who exercise complete control over worlds of their design and creation, as well as a self-existent changeless infinite object responsible for the existence of all reality. He would rather avoid those topics altogether and take solace in denying specific instances of inconsistent or silly definitions of God. But your parody fails as a serious argument because the ideas put forward by *almost all theists* include a very powerful, beneficent, all knowing superbeing who will judge and reward and punish souls in an after life and who answers prayers. Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that definition of God. I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate every facet of that definition. Every facet?? It's only the standard, three omni's of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam except I left the requirements even weaker, plus answering prayers. You're just being obtuse. You know perfectly well that's what theism means. Even between various sects of Christianity and Islam, views differ regarding whether or not God is all knowing. An all- knowing God implies predestination, which is contested between various groups. Now some, far from powerful, humans with far from complete information, eliminated smallpox from the world. God therefore must have had that power and simply chose not to do it. So if any very powerful, very knowledgeable superbeing exists, it is not beneficent and not an acceptable judge of good and evil. These are not just a peripheral idea of theisms and it's falsehood is not a minor point because all theism insist that these ideas are definitive of their religion. It doesn't matter if 95% of theisms are ones you find fault with; it only takes one correct theism to make atheism wrong, which is why I think it is an untenable and illogical position. But there can't be even 'one correct theism' as I pointed out above, the very definition of theism allows it to be empirically falsified by the appearance of unnecessary evil, in my example evil that mere human beings had the power to eliminate and did eliminate. What can you say about a superbeing who can eliminate an evil but chooses not to. You can't say he's the beneficent God of theism. Even the Christian Thomists were aware that God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient (unless inconsistent). Which is why I was careful in my example to require only that God be very powerful and very knowledgeable and beneficent - not that he be perfect or 'omni' in any of these virtues, only that He be much better than we expect people to be. OK. Anyway, I don't use the term god and religion or theology in the occidental conventional religion sense. Like I don't use the term genetics in the
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: Craig, You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie. However, yo might very well be right. Richard Craig is often right, or well inspired, from the comp perspective. But he is not valid when thinking that what he says needs non-comp, alas. Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:33:11 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. How do you know that they don't exist in matter? Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. I don't see anything as nonphysical, only public and private ranges of physics. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. Once you consider that possibility, there is no need to imagine phantom particles and waves in a vacuum full of 'energy'...it's all Emperor's New Clothes stuff that keeps coming back again and again - aether, phlogiston, prana, chi, radiation, élan vital. It's screamingly obvious to me now that these are all the same misapplication of private range physics to public range experience because we cannot accept that private experience is real or that public realism is an experience. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. None of it is real. EM waves are feelings that matter shares with matter. Nothing collapses, Planck scale is a mathematical abstraction, and quantum mind is just plain old ordinary sense. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. A universe based on the foundation of perceptual participation (sense) makes MWI unlikely and irrelevant. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Consciousness isn't an energy, energy is a model of sensory-motor experience with the personal orientation stripped out of it. Useful, but not concretely real - just another name for the presumed external universal resource like élan vital. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. The more sense elaborates within itself, fragments into layers upon layers of embodied feelings, the more the quality is enriched. Consciousness encapsulates many awarenesses, awareness encapsulates feelings, feeling encapsulates perceptions, perception encapsulates sensations, etc. It is the elaboration of sense which allows experiences to become intelligent, and with intelligence, the higher quality of sense educates the motivations, expands the experience of time so that instincts can be interrupted and replaced by more refined considerations. This virtuous cycle between intelligence and free will is inevitable, but it is will beneath intelligence which integrates information and utilizes it. Craig Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness observed in the two-slit experiment.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:22, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: The Seven Hermetic Principles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI =. 1. The Universe is something Intellectual. 2. As above, so below. 3. From potential to active existence. 4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate. 5. Everything in the Universe has its cause. 6. Everything in the Universe has its opposite. 7. The Universe has its own rhythm. Hmm... This is already too much Aristotelian to fit with computationalism. / Hermes Trismegistus / =. Can these Seven Hermetic Principles be explained by physical laws and formulas ? We have first to explain the physical laws appearances, and formula, in comp, and thus in arithmetic. See (*) for a concise explanation. Bruno (*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness
Re: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
Instead of complaining now or watching what the market does, by not really watching it á la Roger, better include the future when considering past and present: I bet that Spain, with its sunshine monopoly and mix of renewable energy and infrastructure investment of the last years, will be able to fend off worst effects of economic woes in Europe when compared to Greece etc. Spain will be better positioned in the next years even though it now looks worrying. My home country is neighbouring Portugal, and we made a huge investment on renewable energy sources in the last decade - solar and wind. It was (and still is) highly subsidised by the state. I still have an appartement there and pay the monthly energy bill. I pay a similar amount to my friends and family who actually live there and use energy, because the energy bill is now about 75% taxes. I recently received an email warning me that I'll have to pay even more this year. Energy-dependent industry is collapsing all over the country because their business in no longer viable. One of the main industrial plants (metallurgic) near my home town closed its doors last year. This tax now extends to gas. Stealing gas from cars is now becoming a common crime (almost unheard of a couple years ago). Meanwhile Paris runs on nuclear energy. My energy bill here is about half of my Portuguese energy bill - the latter for zero kW. I spent Christmas night at my in-laws and they turned up the heating as a special treat. Keeping it on the entire month would cost them about 900 euros. This is the view from the ground. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:50, meekerdb wrote: On 1/12/2013 9:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that definition of God [ a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe] . I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate every facet of that definition. That's true. Many theists, the more intelligent ones anyway, reject the idea of God but they become so in love with a word they play a silly and rather cowardly game. If, as so many have, you redefine the word God to mean a power greater than myself then I am a theist who firmly believes in God because I believe that bulldozers exist. But if by God you mean a being with super-human abilities then God is just a comic book superhero (or supervillan) and I am a agnostic about something like that actually existing somewhere in the universe. It doesn't matter if 95% of theisms are ones you find fault with; it only takes one correct theism to make atheism wrong, which is why I think it is an untenable and illogical position. Obviously I can't refute every one of the tens of thousands of Gods that humans have invented over the eons, It is not about refuting all of them. It is that maybe there are some you would do believe in, if you knew more about them. Even one who has spent years studying all known human religions lacks knowledge about religions unknown to history, or any of the individually developed privately known religions, or religions of other species or civilizations on other planets. How can anyone presume to know enough to know that they are all false? but your statement assumes that if there is no hard evidence for or against a theory then there is a 50% chance that it is correct and thus worthy of serious consideration. And that is idiotic. I never said there was a 50% probability, or that all theories are worthy of serious consideration. I do find it absurd, however, to reject all theories when one has no evidence for or against them. Why not remain neutral until you have a reason otherwise? Also, if you don't think 50% is a valid starting point, what do you suggest is a good prior probability to use in Bayesian inference when one lacks any evidence for or against a proposition? John said that he just believes in one less god than I do, but he refused to say what that one God was that I believed in but he doesn't. I don't believe in a omnipotent omniscient being that created the universe and I think you do. No you don't. I've said before an omniscient being does not have the power to forget, and hence cannot be considered omnipotent. However, if you limit those words to refer to something else, like a universe (rather than to itself, where the contradiction is created), then it may be possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent in reference to that other thing. Since you and I are both platonists, we agree that anything not ruled out by its definition exists. So you should agree there are instances in the plentitude where beings create vast simulations of entire universes. We humans have already played this role in creating relatively simple GoL universes. In the context of the simulation, a being can know everything about it and simultaneously exercise complete control over it, even changing the laws or altering its natural progression of the simulation. As one who often writes simulations, I note that I *don't* know everything about them and the reason I create them is to find out something I don't know. Of course you may say that I could find it out, after the simulation has run - but that does seem to be what the religious mean by omniscient since they include knowing things before they happen. If you believe everything with a consistent definition exists, then there exists a universe just like ours that was created by a being who knows everything that happens in it and has complete control to alter it in any way that being sees fit. There is nothing inconsistent or impossible about this. So you have a choice: either abandon platonism or abandon atheism. The two are incompatible. If it's possible we live in a simulation, it's also possible we don't. So I don't see the incompatibility. If we live in a simulation, we live in an infinity of simulation (and this is testable below our c-substitution level). It makes the physical reality non simulable, at least in all details. If 3-we live in a simulation, the 1-we can't, literally speaking. This is more easily demonstrable when you use other definitions of God, such as when you identify the platonic plenitude with the Hindu's Brahman. You and Brent seem hell-bent on using a definition where God is an
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 13 Jan 2013, at 09:13, meekerdb wrote: On 1/12/2013 11:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:50 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/12/2013 9:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that definition of God [ a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe] . I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate every facet of that definition. That's true. Many theists, the more intelligent ones anyway, reject the idea of God but they become so in love with a word they play a silly and rather cowardly game. If, as so many have, you redefine the word God to mean a power greater than myself then I am a theist who firmly believes in God because I believe that bulldozers exist. But if by God you mean a being with super- human abilities then God is just a comic book superhero (or supervillan) and I am a agnostic about something like that actually existing somewhere in the universe. It doesn't matter if 95% of theisms are ones you find fault with; it only takes one correct theism to make atheism wrong, which is why I think it is an untenable and illogical position. Obviously I can't refute every one of the tens of thousands of Gods that humans have invented over the eons, It is not about refuting all of them. It is that maybe there are some you would do believe in, if you knew more about them. Even one who has spent years studying all known human religions lacks knowledge about religions unknown to history, or any of the individually developed privately known religions, or religions of other species or civilizations on other planets. How can anyone presume to know enough to know that they are all false? but your statement assumes that if there is no hard evidence for or against a theory then there is a 50% chance that it is correct and thus worthy of serious consideration. And that is idiotic. I never said there was a 50% probability, or that all theories are worthy of serious consideration. I do find it absurd, however, to reject all theories when one has no evidence for or against them. Why not remain neutral until you have a reason otherwise? Also, if you don't think 50% is a valid starting point, what do you suggest is a good prior probability to use in Bayesian inference when one lacks any evidence for or against a proposition? John said that he just believes in one less god than I do, but he refused to say what that one God was that I believed in but he doesn't. I don't believe in a omnipotent omniscient being that created the universe and I think you do. No you don't. I've said before an omniscient being does not have the power to forget, and hence cannot be considered omnipotent. However, if you limit those words to refer to something else, like a universe (rather than to itself, where the contradiction is created), then it may be possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent in reference to that other thing. Since you and I are both platonists, we agree that anything not ruled out by its definition exists. So you should agree there are instances in the plentitude where beings create vast simulations of entire universes. We humans have already played this role in creating relatively simple GoL universes. In the context of the simulation, a being can know everything about it and simultaneously exercise complete control over it, even changing the laws or altering its natural progression of the simulation. As one who often writes simulations, I note that I *don't* know everything about them and the reason I create them is to find out something I don't know. Of course you may say that I could find it out, after the simulation has run - but that does seem to be what the religious mean by omniscient since they include knowing things before they happen. Time doesn't translate between universes. Consider two independent universes A, and B each with inhabitants. For those inhabitants in universe A, you cannot say what time is it in universe B, whether universe B even started or is it already over. Time only has meaning in the context of existing within some universe. The same is true of the full trace of your simulations execution. From our perspective there is no time, it is a timeless object which we can inspect and one can know the beginning and end and all the details in between. If you believe everything with a consistent definition exists, then there exists a universe just like ours that was created by a being who knows everything that happens in it and has complete control to alter it in any way that being sees fit. There is nothing inconsistent or impossible about this. So you have a
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: Craig, You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie. However, yo might very well be right. Richard Craig is often right, or well inspired, from the comp perspective. But he is not valid when thinking that what he says needs non-comp, alas. Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:33:11 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. How do you know that they don't exist in matter? Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. I don't see anything as nonphysical, only public and private ranges of physics. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive monads, Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds, each perceiving all other monads instantly, as in indra's net of jewels in buddhism. Once you consider that possibility, there is no need to imagine phantom particles and waves in a vacuum full of 'energy'...it's all Emperor's New Clothes stuff that keeps coming back again and again - aether, phlogiston, prana, chi, radiation, élan vital. It's screamingly obvious to me now that these are all the same misapplication of private range physics to public range experience because we cannot accept that private experience is real or that public realism is an experience. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. None of it is real. EM waves are feelings that matter shares with matter. Nothing collapses, Planck scale is a mathematical abstraction, and quantum mind is just plain old ordinary sense. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. A universe based on the foundation of perceptual participation (sense) makes MWI unlikely and irrelevant. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Consciousness isn't an energy, energy is a model of sensory-motor experience with the personal orientation stripped out of it. Useful, but not concretely real - just another name for the presumed external universal resource like élan vital. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. The more sense elaborates within itself, fragments into layers upon layers of embodied feelings, the more the quality is enriched. Consciousness encapsulates many awarenesses, awareness encapsulates feelings, feeling encapsulates perceptions, perception encapsulates sensations, etc. It is the elaboration of sense which allows experiences to become intelligent, and with intelligence, the higher quality of sense educates the motivations, expands the experience of time so that instincts can be interrupted and replaced by more refined considerations. This virtuous cycle between intelligence and free will is inevitable, but it is will beneath intelligence which integrates information and utilizes it. Craig Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why:
Re: Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter
On 13 Jan 2013, at 10:46, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I Bruno. I wanted to put geometry in the chain because materialists seems to base their firm belief in the fact that space is both in mathematics, in the reality and in the mind, so space it is the firm thing where real things are located. I try to show that space is just our mental representation of a mathematical reality in R3 where information with survival value is presented and colored . This information is the matter. and therefore space and matter is only on the mind. That can be locally correct, but is part of what I want an explanation. Geometry, topology, analysis *and* physics should emerge from the arithmetical (notably from the view from inside. geometry is tricky because we have a qualia for the space of dimension 3 (and lower), but none for higher dimension, and I still don't know if this is a necessity or if it is contingent. Can we hardwired a machine so that he could imagine, and have qualia, for higher than 3 dimensional space? Both chains can be alternative descriptions of the same cosmology (basically). since Arithmetic + computation unfold the set of all structures, Only the subjective structure. The objective structure of those subjective structure is beyond arithmetic. There is sort of Skolem paradox. With comp, arithmetic got inside views, and the content of those views are bigger than arithmetic. including the ones with good properties of simplicity etc. for biology. But there is an introduction of consciousness in your chain that is lacking in the one I propose. Consciousness is mind in the first person perspective. I'm conscious that mine is incomplete since the mind (or consciousness in your case) appears as a derivative and this is not so, since existence properly seen, is not possible without consciousness and therefore it must be more at the beginning of the chain by definition. Here I disagree,if only methodologically. Consciousness is too much interesting to be taken as an assumption. Computer science suggest an explantion of consciousness in term of the truth that machine cannot avoid, despite they remain unjustifiable. It is really the coupling consciousness/material-realities which emerges from the addition and multiplication of natural numbers. A better chain would be, with (-) in the two first steps since the mind or in your case consciousness is the selector of existence. Like in the UD Argument. There is no magic involved. I assume comp, and derive from it. in your case, I think that consciousness would cause-back Arithmetic and computation: Exactly: cause back, but not at the same logical state. Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter We have only dreams, strictly speaking, and we must justifies in detail why we can share some of them. Bruno 2013/1/13 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:48, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Space and time may be a perception of the mind in the Kantian sense. I don´t find that space must be independent of the mind. space and time may be the way we perceive a space-time manifold which is pure mathematical and nothing else. Maybe we can see space out there and we can think on geometrical figures in space (not algebraically) because we have space-mode rasoning on the mind, not because space is pre-existent to the mind, neither because space is something in mathematics, because space is described in math without gemetry. And may be that the autopoietic computation, in the forms of natural selection, life and mind are trajectories in the space-time manifold, which, when looked closely form outside space-time, they are nothing but fortunate collisions of particle trajectories and molecules so that entropy stay controlled along these lines, with no reason but fortunate manifold structure and fortunate initial conditions. But looked from inside it appears to have phenomena like matter space, causality, termodinamic irreversibility, time, minds etc. OK. My point is that if we assume computationalism it is necessarily so, and constructively so, so making that hypothesis testable. We have the logical entaiment: Arithmetic - computations - consciousness - sharable dreams - physical reality/matter - human biology - human consciousness. It is a generalization of natural selection operating from arithmetical truth, and in which the physical reality is itself the result of a self-selection events (the global first person indeterminacy). This generalizes both Darwin and Everett, somehow. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Monday, January 14, 2013 12:11:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive monads, Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds, each perceiving all other monads instantly, as in indra's net of jewels in buddhism. I agree more or less, although it gets difficult as such a distant and primitive level of description to say whether it is a literal net of monads or a monadic theater projecting stories in a net-like distribution of perspectives. I tend to think that electromagnetism is the process by which atoms generate spacetime and divide from each other rather than impulses or waves which travel through spacetime. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/I_qTpJGawd4J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 1/13/2013 3:13 AM, meekerdb wrote: Nearly all scientists would agree that the material identity is not important to continuity of consciousness. Therefore any time the appropriate instantiation arises, consciousness can continue. In an infinitely large and varied reality (Platonism, QM, infinite hubble volume, or eternal inflation), our patterns continually reappear. That would imply that copies of one's soul exist. But John defined souls as being impossible to copy. Yes, and that's why I don't think that souls exist; but I do think that the most important part of consciousness, information, exists. John K Clark Hi, I disagree, if we bet on comp there is only one soul, just infinitely many 'versions' or 'projections' of it. Consciousness is the 1p associated with the local version, IMHO, unless we allow for 1p that contain experiences that are mutually contradictory. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
Hi Roger Clough, On 13 Jan 2013, at 11:37, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal No, the Devil would never disparage reason. For reason, as we can see on this list, is the father of doubt. We are on the domain where we might disagree a lot. I hope you don't mind. I think that: doubt = sanity, and absence of doubt = madness. Reason, for example through Aquinas' 5 proofs of God, can get you no closer to God than plausibility. You have to take the blind leap of faith to actually reach God. I think you need only to look inward, and stop using words. You need only to open the mind of your brain to the mind of your heart, or perhaps just to have a good connection between your left and right brain. I think that if you ask a blind faith, you can only favor atheism. See how clever Satan is, using perfectly reasonable questions and common sense to deceive Eve into eating the apple: The Fall 3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” And we know she will not, unless dying means eyes opening and seeing that we are naked, that is living on the terrestrial plane. So either Eve lied, or God lied to Eve. The serpent just told the truth. How weird! 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” The first prohibition law. That God looks like the incarnation of the authoritative argument. Looks like the killer of the doubting reason, and the hesitating democracy (when sane). 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, So the serpent was right. Unless again dying means (in paradise) living (on earth). Are we dead? and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. The end of innocence. That text might be an echo of the climate-change passage where we lived first in trees, and were eating and drinking in a generous jungle, and probably naked, in an hot climate, to a more cold period, with much less food and much difficulties to get it and keep it. It might be an echo of a humanity nostalgia for its childhood, and an echo of the passage of childhood (with the father and the mother providing food and warm) to adulthood where usually you have to find those things by yourself. It might be an echo for the penible truth that knowledge is not always fun, it can hurt. The one believing in the one (truth) fears mainly the hurting due to the lies deposit on the truth, as when the truth win, the shock is proportional to the thickness of the lies. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, and this without any army. But she is patient, as the Löbian number can make *quite* long detours. Roger, that text is terribly hard to interpret. From comp it can still describe a genuine meeting with God, but then it should have been never written. Some truth are just non doubtable, but when asserted, generates the infinitely many doubts. In that sense, the fall is closer to the Plotinian and neoplatonic fall, with the birth of matter as its main consequence. I favor the second interpretation, but it inverts completely life and death. You are living when you are ignorant in the paradise, and you are dead when you get the knowledge that you are naked on earth. Or God is a liar. But I insist. Such text are not easy to interpret. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 17:41:09 Subject: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN On 12 Jan 2013, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb As you observe, beliefs can be slippery, because reason is the devil's whore. That's a rumor propelled by the Devil :) Reason is bad only for those of bad faith. Religion does not oppose with reason. It extends it. Reason is the best ally to honest religion. Reason is the enemy of those who want to manipulate you in religion's name. From your post, I am sure you agree on this at some level. The more you trust God, the less you fear the use of reason, even if not especially in theology. To oppose science and faith perverts ... science and faith. I think. Bruno That's why
Re: A brief synopsis of morphic resonance and the presence of the past according to the monadology.
On 13 Jan 2013, at 11:42, Roger Clough wrote: Here very briefly is how Leibniz might explain morphic resonance and the presence of the past. in terms of his monadology. For that, see : http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm I am not a marxist. 1. Each substance or simple body has a physical representation in the phenomenol world and a mental representation called a monad in the mental world. (This is Idealism) Too much fuzzy for me. 2. The monads are closely related to morphisms. Each monad has within it a homunculus (so that the monadology is throughly anthropomorphic), representing roughly Aristotle's levels of being, some complete (man) , some primitive (a rock). I think a universal program might do the work, or a Löbian one. A universal person. 3. Also within each monad are a stack of perceptions, which are not conventional perceptions (seen directly by the monad) but are snapshots given it in a rapid series of updates by the Supreme Monad (God or the One). That's the heart of the aristotelian error, pehaps. This is only a local probable universal machine. Reality is *much* vaster. 4. These perceptions reflect all of the perceptions of the other monads (from their own perspectives) in the universe, which is made up entirely of monads. So it's a holographic universe. Not bad metaphor. 5. The stack of past perceptions in each monad are its memory. Each contains a snapshot of the entire universe of other monads. There is something like that. It would be long to show the math here. 6. Leibniz does not (so far I know) go into the past with any monad, but each monad also contains a stack of appetites, which are what the monad desires at any instant. If there is a connection between the perceptions and the appetites, the monad would inform the homunculus to repeat the past. Here's your habits. OK. Leibniz was well inspired. He would have love the UMs. I think. And Church's thesis, which make the U genuinely Universal. In all the universe of monads acts like a computer program with the Supreme Monad as its central processing unit. The supreme monad are the man, the God of comp is far more beyond (transcendental), at least from inside computerland. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter
On 13 Jan 2013, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: We have the logical entaiment: Arithmetic - computations - consciousness - sharable dreams - physical reality/matter - human biology - human consciousness. It is a generalization of natural selection operating from arithmetical truth, and in which the physical reality is itself the result of a self-selection events (the global first person indeterminacy). This generalizes both Darwin and Everett, somehow. Bruno Where dies the substitution level lie in this entainment? Do you agree with the first seven step of UDA? If you get them, you can understand that for each computations going through your state, there is an infinity of finer grained (notably) computations going through you state below your substitution level. That is why if you look below, you get indirect information on the comp parallel computations, which all exists in arithmetic. We might call them the 3-dreams. You next events are given by a probability bearing on that continuum. So the substitution level lies in the computation- consciousness, and in sharable dreams - physical reality/matter. OK? Bruno PS I will have to go soon ... Sorry for the comments delays. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
You are californian its'nt? 2013/1/14 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: THe problem with solar energy is that it is strongly subsidized. Yes, but this is lessening. Protectionism is crumbling. Instead of you being stolen by monopolistic energy companies, you can steal the taxpayer thank to state planning. I am the taxpayer and this is better than weapons business or paying for prohibition. Most solar panels are installed because they receive subsidies by KW. As a logical consequience a boost in production is expected. In fact they produced electricity even in the night at full level. ... With some help of pirate electrogenerators working with fossil fuels, hidden near then. Many governments, ruined by this authentic robbery or all these ecological friends of the planet, had to switch the schema of subsidies, to a fixed schema, that don´t take into account the production. You have to incentivize early adopters. When they are weaned off in a couple of years, more renewable energies and their mixes will have the same cost effectivity. That foreseeable bureaucratic move had the foreseeable consequences: That rendered the most productive and expensive and technologically advanced panels a ruinous investment. Technological development has stopped and engineers fired. Because the subsidies is independent of production now, most of them don care to maintain the panels. Most of them do not plug them to the transmission lines and generate the minimum required of production at sun ours with less fossil fuel generators while they receive the solar subsidies. For the first time last year; at certain times, up to half of Germany's electricity demand were covered by mix of renewable energy. According with the subsidies contracts, made at the peak of the bubble, countries like Spain and Germany have compromises of payment that they will not have enough money from taxpayers to pay now and in the coming years. The had to break contracts and reduce subsidies, damaging the credibility of the judicial system, many best producers lost their investments and only the worst had benefits. Most of them, big companies which had contact with the government and knew in advance the changes so they reacted accordingly to have the maximum cost-benefit with the less investment. Instead of complaining now or watching what the market does, by not really watching it á la Roger, better include the future when considering past and present: I bet that Spain, with its sunshine monopoly and mix of renewable energy and infrastructure investment of the last years, will be able to fend off worst effects of economic woes in Europe when compared to Greece etc. Spain will be better positioned in the next years even though it now looks worrying. Those that were conscious that what the panels produce is not electricity forever, but suck money from the taxpayers as long as the subsidy plans were active, won. Yeah, so traditional fossil fuels produce energy forever and don't cost taxpayer any money while minimizing harm for the environment and democratizing energy generation. And the prices keep falling. And this is the result of just another wonderful state planning experiment A state that makes no bets on sustainability, however misguided or corrupt they seem at the start (technology never appears in its most efficient guise at the beginning), is undermining its own role as infrastructure provider and governing body. Luckily more people are taking things into their own hands: local engineers are volunteering their free time to help render their communities and districts more sustainably through more intelligent and locally sourced energy mixes. Nobody is pounding on solar exclusively: straw man. Thus in a non-literal sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTErMW2jBJA PGC -- 2013/1/14 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy A more powwerful way to steal from the future is to continue govt spending as it is. But to get back to the issue, I'll let the market decide. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:50:52 Subject: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Hi Roger On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I always let the market decide. Please. It's peoples' behavior that determines market. And it has decided: you can steal from the coming generations by allowing energy industry to continue stealing from you or you can work to lower long term costs for your friends and family, the people you live with, local interests and community, energy independence and profit
Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
On 13 Jan 2013, at 14:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Romans 3:10 As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one. This statement could be broadened to include god and therefore account for misery in this world. Apparently God lied to Eve. He said that eating the fruit would kill her, but she only got the illumination (I am naked), and then live on earth. Unless God calls birth what we call death, and vice versa. Hmm... I don't know. I am not sure we can judge God, nor even any creatures. We can only evaluate contract unbalance, and possible dangers, not moral values, or then just for ourselves. (speculating a bit from comp and possible attempts to make sense of the bible). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: God is everything, including this list. Then God means nothing because meaning needs contrast. If everything that exists and everything that doesn't exist and everything you can imagine and everything that you can't imagine has the property of being Klogknee then the word Klogknee means nothing. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A brief synopsis of morphic resonance and the presence of the past according to the monadology.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 11:42, Roger Clough wrote: Here very briefly is how Leibniz might explain morphic resonance and the presence of the past. in terms of his monadology. For that, see : http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm I am not a marxist. 1. Each substance or simple body has a physical representation in the phenomenol world and a mental representation called a monad in the mental world. (This is Idealism) Too much fuzzy for me. 2. The monads are closely related to morphisms. Each monad has within it a homunculus (so that the monadology is throughly anthropomorphic), representing roughly Aristotle's levels of being, some complete (man) , some primitive (a rock). I think a universal program might do the work, or a Löbian one. A universal person. 3. Also within each monad are a stack of perceptions, which are not conventional perceptions (seen directly by the monad) but are snapshots given it in a rapid series of updates by the Supreme Monad (God or the One). That's the heart of the aristotelian error, pehaps. This is only a local probable universal machine. Reality is *much* vaster. 4. These perceptions reflect all of the perceptions of the other monads (from their own perspectives) in the universe, which is made up entirely of monads. So it's a holographic universe. Not bad metaphor. 5. The stack of past perceptions in each monad are its memory. Each contains a snapshot of the entire universe of other monads. There is something like that. It would be long to show the math here. I speak of a 4 dimensional semi-infinite block universe that may be the universally accessible storage of everything that ever happened,, with calculations of every possibility for the future semi-infinity (in my Neuoroquantolgy paper*) and suggest that it may store the Akashic Records. *Implications of a Multiverse String Cosmology http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=523402733411806220#editor/target=post;postID=2391911751582781301 wiki- Hinduism In Hinduism Akasha means the basis and essence of all things in the material world; the first material element created from the astral world (Air, Fire, Water, Earth are the other four in sequence). It is one of the Panchamahabhuta, or five elements; its main characteristic is Shabda (sound). In Sanskrit the word means space, the very first element in creation. 6. Leibniz does not (so far I know) go into the past with any monad, but each monad also contains a stack of appetites, which are what the monad desires at any instant. If there is a connection between the perceptions and the appetites, the monad would inform the homunculus to repeat the past. Here's your habits. OK. Leibniz was well inspired. He would have love the UMs. I think. And Church's thesis, which make the U genuinely Universal. In all the universe of monads acts like a computer program with the Supreme Monad as its central processing unit. The supreme monad are the man, the God of comp is far more beyond (transcendental), at least from inside computerland. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 14:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Romans 3:10 As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one. This statement could be broadened to include god and therefore account for misery in this world. Apparently God lied to Eve. He said that eating the fruit would kill her, but she only got the illumination (I am naked), and then live on earth. Such illumination eventually led to nuclear weapons by which we may eventually drive eve's race into extinction. Richard Unless God calls birth what we call death, and vice versa. Hmm... I don't know. I am not sure we can judge God, nor even any creatures. We can only evaluate contract unbalance, and possible dangers, not moral values, or then just for ourselves. (speculating a bit from comp and possible attempts to make sense of the bible). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
Neither the state neither the market can build a society. It a question of something more, that has a fundamental ingredient: the contact with reality. When a person believe that receiving from the taxpayer two three four times the market price for his solar electricity, and still think that he is doing someting good for them. When a central banker believes that fabricating credit out of nothing for state caprices or fanciful business would create wealth and not create unpayable debts and/or a degraded money . When an elected politician or a influential intellectual or businessman incentivates promotes, advertises or subsidizes people, attitudes of ideologies whose main purpose is to aniquilate us, our past, present and future, If every problem had a new law, new taxes a new government body over the back of the taxpayer, then there is no human institution that can work and no society that can go along. Since many time ago, these attitudes were in a path of direct collision with reality, and our actual situation see the consequences of that shock that is happening now. 2013/1/14 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 13 Jan 2013, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I always let the market decide. You can't go wrong that way. I agree with you on this, but only if the press, the justice, the politics, the police, ..., are kept independent. Which is no more the case. The prohibition laws have been a Trojan Horse for the bandits (since Nixon). The market does no more refer to the needs. This leads to the contrary of what the market decide. Lobbying should be forbidden. The state should interfere with much less than today. Our democracies are very sick. A large part of the market is build on lies, this rotten all levels of the human society. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 11:06:43 Subject: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Hi Roger, On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote: The unpredictability of solar energy ? I've lost the page ref for the graph below, but it's typical of numerous other graphs of the daily variation in solar energy on the internet. (For a comparison see solar variations on http://www.bigindianabass.com/**big_indiana_bass/2010/01/** yearly-water-temps-precip-and-**solar-energy.htmlhttp://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/2010/01/yearly-water-temps-precip-and-solar-energy.html ?) ? The hourly variation would be much worse, since the sun does not shine at night. ? The variation from day to day is unpredicatable and enormous, going from?ear 0 Ly to almost 100 Ly. This is probably due to variable cloud cover, not auto exhaust emissions. ? I'll stay with conventional electric power, thank you very much. ? ? ? ? Ly. Langley, a measurement of solar energy. One langley is equal to one gram-calorie per square centimeter. A gram-calorie is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius. ? ? Good for you but perhaps bad for your wallet in long term. In Germany, many are starting to see that independence from fossil fuel monopolies is not just ideological... it turns citizens into energy traders instead of big oil slaves. See: In Germany, where sensible federal rules have fast-tracked and streamlined the permit process, the costs are considerably lower. It can take as little as eight days to license and install a solar system on a house in Germany. In the United States, depending on your state, the average ranges from 120 to 180 days. More than one million Germans have installed solar panels on their roofs. Australia also has a streamlined permitting process and has solar panels on 10 percent of its homes. Solar photovoltaic power would give America the potential to challenge the utility monopolies, democratize energy generation and transform millions of homes and small businesses into energy generators. Rational, market-based rules could turn every American into an energy entrepreneur. That transition to renewable power could create millions of domestic jobs and power in this country with American resourcefulness, initiative and entrepreneurial energy while taking a substantial bite out of the nation? emissions of greenhouse gases and other dangerous pollutants. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/**12/13/opinion/solar-panels-** for-every-home.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/opinion/solar-panels-for-every-home.html?_r=0 It's really not an ideological green vs. conservative matter. People just don't like being stolen from. The energy monopolies thank YOUR wallet very much, as for solar panel users, we don't care if people have ideological axes to grind for which they want to pay, instead of
Re: A brief synopsis of morphic resonance and the presence of the past according to the monadology.
On Monday, January 14, 2013 1:50:24 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: I speak of a 4 dimensional semi-infinite block universe that may be the universally accessible storage of everything that ever happened,, with calculations of every possibility for the future semi-infinity (in my Neuoroquantolgy paper*) and suggest that it may store the Akashic Records. If sense is the primitive, then the Akashic records are stored by default as there is nothing which erases what happens. It's not so much that it is universally accessible as it is universe itself. There is nothing which is not composed entirely out of the living Akashic records. Our limited awareness of the present, which indeed may not be the true cutting edge of 'now' but a smaller set of nested 'nows', so that our more intuitive individuals or experiences tend to get a peek higher up the chain, not of things which *will* happen, but iconicized traces of things that are happening already in a larger scope of 'now' and *might* happen in some form or another which satisfies the theme of the intuitive expectation. *Implications of a Multiverse String Cosmology http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=523402733411806220#editor/target=post;postID=2391911751582781301 Eh, multiverse isn't necessary with sense, and strings presume primitive spatial designs. Before you can have actual strings, you have to have an ontology of perception-participation which supports objects. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Q_QitlYbBKsJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 13 Jan 2013, at 18:56, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If, as so many have, you redefine the word God to mean a power greater than myself then I am a theist who firmly believes in God because I believe that bulldozers exist. Bulldozers are not responsible for your existence. Both my parents were bulldozer drivers who first met at a bulldozer convention. So a bulldozer is God. I was using responsible in a less literal sense. one consistent notion of God is enough to make atheism into a dogmatic (non rational) belief There is no way to make sense out of the notion of God, ? (Note that you are not commenting me). but you can redefine the word God so radically that it becomes virtually unrecognizable to the billions of religious on this planet, and then and only then does the word God correspond with something that actually exists, even if there is already plenty of perfectly good words for that thing. People just want to say they believe in G-O-D, what the word actually means is unimportant. Study the field, please. You might find help in Aldous Huxley's Philosophia Perrenis. In the greek sense you are a believer in God, and even close to Aristotle theology, once you believe in the existence of primary matter, or naturalism, physicalism, etc. But you are also more christian than the pope as you want God be defined by the current common religion, which is nothing but using the same authoritative argument than the fundamentalist. Yes, all creature believe in God, but this does not make the notion trivial at all, as all creature can see God very differently. I have never met a theologian genuinely believing in both omnipotence and omniscience. I've had 13 years of formal religious training and I never met a theologian who didn't preach that God was omnipotent and omniscient. Well. I am sorry for you. I don't know how many genuinely believed in the bullshit they were spouting but I'd guess most of them did, certainly the vast majority of those listening to the crap swallowed every word of it, in fact I think I was the only one who did not. You can't know that, but of course, we live in different countries. I do have a feeling that in the US there might be more literalist indeed. Again, we know that since the closure of Plato Academy (+500) the field has been betrayed, exactly like genetics in the USSR, but on a much larger historic-geographic scale. It is normal as it touches very deep questions having relation with identity and culture. But today we can't avoid coming back to those questions through computer science, with question like can a machine think?, or is the brain a machine?, etc. Note that I use computer science mainly to show how those questions become hard, .. with the comp simplifying hypothesis. This reminds us that the big divide (Plato/Aristotle) has not yet been decided, if ever, in any scientific theories. Seriousness entails modesty. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: God is everything, including this list. Then God means nothing because meaning needs contrast. If everything that exists and everything that doesn't exist and everything you can imagine and everything that you can't imagine has the property of being Klogknee then the word Klogknee means nothing. John K Clark The universe provides sufficient contrasting objects, some even consciousness. However, one may identify various aspects of god and thereby cover all the kinds of gods that people might want to have. At the top level we want the most comprehensive god possible. I say that omniscience is the most comprehensive aspect of a god. Such a comprehensive god is consistent with Indra's Net of Jewels, each reflecting the entire universe; and certainly consistent with the monads of liebniz, each having perception of the entire universe; And perhaps the universal cubic lattice of string theory Calabi-Yau Compact Manifold (CM) particles, each conjectured to map the entire universe is also a most comprehensive god.. In the next level down, omniscience is locally sacrificed for power, a quantum dynamic duality between power and omniscience, a kind of consciousness inverse uncertainty principle in the quantum mechanics of consciousness that even works on the human level.* *In order to focus consciousness on a project, you have to block out all other sources of information. Richard, complex variables go with quantum mechanics -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
I will try to understand situation from today fashion physical point of view. =. Let us say that Plato's world of ideas is a dark mass ( because nobody knows that their are). And Leibniz monadas and Kant's things-in- themselves are quantum particles ( because nobody knows their physical parameters). We can suppose that the dark mass (the world of ideas) is consist of quantum particles (monads / things-in-themselves). And then all these monadas / quantum particles were pressed together in . . . . a 'singular point ' . . . by some power. But after some time they felt themselves uncomfortable and . . . . separated as a 'big bang'. In this way we can understand the connection between physics and philosophy of idealism and the existence ( from today point of view) . If somebody didn't understand me I can explain the modern physical point of view on existence in the other words. You was born because your mother was pregnant, and your mother was born because you was pregnant. == socratus On Jan 14, 5:44 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:22, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: The Seven Hermetic Principles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI =. 1. The Universe is something Intellectual. 2. As above, so below. 3. From potential to active existence. 4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate. 5. Everything in the Universe has its cause. 6. Everything in the Universe has its opposite. 7. The Universe has its own rhythm. Hmm... This is already too much Aristotelian to fit with computationalism. / Hermes Trismegistus / =. Can these Seven Hermetic Principles be explained by physical laws and formulas ? We have first to explain the physical laws appearances, and formula, in comp, and thus in arithmetic. See (*) for a concise explanation. Bruno (*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract... http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: We have the logical entaiment: Arithmetic - computations - consciousness - sharable dreams - physical reality/matter - human biology - human consciousness. It is a generalization of natural selection operating from arithmetical truth, and in which the physical reality is itself the result of a self-selection events (the global first person indeterminacy). This generalizes both Darwin and Everett, somehow. Bruno Where dies the substitution level lie in this entainment? Do you agree with the first seven step of UDA? If you get them, you can understand that for each computations going through your state, there is an infinity of finer grained (notably) computations going through you state below your substitution level. That is why if you look below, you get indirect information on the comp parallel computations, which all exists in arithmetic. We might call them the 3-dreams. You next events are given by a probability bearing on that continuum. So the substitution level lies in the computation- consciousness, and in sharable dreams - physical reality/matter. OK? Two substitution levels??? Are different things being substitutes at each level? Bruno PS I will have to go soon ... Sorry for the comments delays. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 1/14/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:50, meekerdb wrote: On 1/12/2013 9:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that definition of God [ a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe] . I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate every facet of that definition. That's true. Many theists, the more intelligent ones anyway, reject the idea of God but they become so in love with a word they play a silly and rather cowardly game. If, as so many have, you redefine the word God to mean a power greater than myself then I am a theist who firmly believes in God because I believe that bulldozers exist. But if by God you mean a being with super-human abilities then God is just a comic book superhero (or supervillan) and I am a agnostic about something like that actually existing somewhere in the universe. It doesn't matter if 95% of theisms are ones you find fault with; it only takes one correct theism to make atheism wrong, which is why I think it is an untenable and illogical position. Obviously I can't refute every one of the tens of thousands of Gods that humans have invented over the eons, It is not about refuting all of them. It is that maybe there are some you would do believe in, if you knew more about them. Even one who has spent years studying all known human religions lacks knowledge about religions unknown to history, or any of the individually developed privately known religions, or religions of other species or civilizations on other planets. How can anyone presume to know enough to know that they are all false? but your statement assumes that if there is no hard evidence for or against a theory then there is a 50% chance that it is correct and thus worthy of serious consideration. And that is idiotic. I never said there was a 50% probability, or that all theories are worthy of serious consideration. I do find it absurd, however, to reject all theories when one has no evidence for or against them. Why not remain neutral until you have a reason otherwise? Also, if you don't think 50% is a valid starting point, what do you suggest is a good /prior probability/ to use in Bayesian inference when one lacks any evidence for or against a proposition? John said that he just believes in one less god than I do, but he refused to say what that one God was that I believed in but he doesn't. I don't believe in a omnipotent omniscient being that created the universe and I think you do. No you don't. I've said before an omniscient being does not have the power to forget, and hence cannot be considered omnipotent. However, if you limit those words to refer to something else, like a universe (rather than to itself, where the contradiction is created), then it may be possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent in reference to that other thing. Since you and I are both platonists, we agree that anything not ruled out by its definition exists. So you should agree there are instances in the plentitude where beings create vast simulations of entire universes. We humans have already played this role in creating relatively simple GoL universes. In the context of the simulation, a being can know everything about it and simultaneously exercise complete control over it, even changing the laws or altering its natural progression of the simulation. As one who often writes simulations, I note that I *don't* know everything about them and the reason I create them is to find out something I don't know. Of course you may say that I could find it out, after the simulation has run - but that does seem to be what the religious mean by omniscient since they include knowing things before they happen. If you believe everything with a consistent definition exists, then there exists a universe just like ours that was created by a being who knows everything that happens in it and has complete control to alter it in any way that being sees fit. There is nothing inconsistent or impossible about this. So you have a choice: either abandon platonism or abandon atheism. The two are incompatible. If it's possible we live in a simulation, it's also possible we don't. So I don't see the incompatibility. If we live in a simulation, we live in an infinity of simulation Are you claiming that as a logical inference, or what? Can you derive a contradiction from the negation? (and this is testable below our c-substitution level). It makes the physical reality non simulable, at least in all details. If 3-we live in a
Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
Brent, thanks for the remark on the Th - salt fission prosess it may be workable if technically easily performed and safe - I claim obsolescence for not knowing the details. You may be right with solar, just consider the surfaces to be covered with panels to match an increasing global energy requirement. I think the geothermic is a better option - not exclusively, but in addition. JohnM On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 5:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/13/2013 12:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: if we agree with the Solar System origination from a dissection of the (original-bigger) Sun, even the geothermic is solar energy. Well, 'wind' definitely is, hydro indirectly. We need lots more of usable energy for humankind's survival - to save energy G and I am an advocate of the geothermal, transforming the (oil-wells in exhaustion) into steam-production by lowering the level into 'hot' depth and pumping down desalinated water in a double conduit where the overheated steam can come up into turbines (all figured within today's circumstances). It will save profits to the oil magnets and is a pretty constant - hard-to-reduce source. Sea-based hydro is another good option. Just let's forget about coal, oil, nuke: coal and oil should be used as a staple for chemicals (only), nuke should NOT be used as fission-process. I think liquid salt thorium based fission reactors are a good energy source. They can be used to burn up plutonium and uranium from aging weapons. The radioactive material left to dispose of is orders of magnitude smaller and it's hard to divert material to weapons. And since solar and wind are variable we either need a way to store the energy (dams?) or to supplement those sources. It is suicidal. Any additional thoughts? John M I have one objection to present terrestrial usage of solar energy: the (NOW!) existing technical level requires costly maintenance. I consider it temporary. Most PV installers guarantee 80% rated power or more for 20yrs. A lot of conventional power plants don't last more than 20yrs. In the long run, everything is temporary. Brent On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ??? Who asked you to? I guess you're unaware that hydroelectric generators depend on solar energy? And that the energy in coal and oil came from the Sun. And that it's not an either-or choice. And that the Sun shines all the time, just not on your spot? And that energy can be stored? I assume you're switching to nuclear. Brent On 1/12/2013 2:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote: The unpredictability of solar energy truncated -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
On 1/14/2013 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Lobbying should be forbidden. But it's just another name for petitioning your government. Lobbyists provide a lot research and expertise to the legislative process, so I don't think it is workable to just forbid them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 1/14/2013 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, all creature believe in God, but this does not make the notion trivial at all, as all creature can see God very differently. It's the latter, not the former, that makes the notion trivial. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/13/2013 12:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:13 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/12/2013 11:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:50 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/12/2013 9:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that definition of God [ a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe] . I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate every facet of that definition. That's true. Many theists, the more intelligent ones anyway, reject the idea of God but they become so in love with a word they play a silly and rather cowardly game. If, as so many have, you redefine the word God to mean a power greater than myself then I am a theist who firmly believes in God because I believe that bulldozers exist. But if by God you mean a being with super-human abilities then God is just a comic book superhero (or supervillan) and I am a agnostic about something like that actually existing somewhere in the universe. It doesn't matter if 95% of theisms are ones you find fault with; it only takes one correct theism to make atheism wrong, which is why I think it is an untenable and illogical position. Obviously I can't refute every one of the tens of thousands of Gods that humans have invented over the eons, It is not about refuting all of them. It is that maybe there are some you would do believe in, if you knew more about them. Even one who has spent years studying all known human religions lacks knowledge about religions unknown to history, or any of the individually developed privately known religions, or religions of other species or civilizations on other planets. How can anyone presume to know enough to know that they are all false? but your statement assumes that if there is no hard evidence for or against a theory then there is a 50% chance that it is correct and thus worthy of serious consideration. And that is idiotic. I never said there was a 50% probability, or that all theories are worthy of serious consideration. I do find it absurd, however, to reject all theories when one has no evidence for or against them. Why not remain neutral until you have a reason otherwise? Also, if you don't think 50% is a valid starting point, what do you suggest is a good *prior probability * to use in Bayesian inference when one lacks any evidence for or against a proposition? John said that he just believes in one less god than I do, but he refused to say what that one God was that I believed in but he doesn't. I don't believe in a omnipotent omniscient being that created the universe and I think you do. No you don't. I've said before an omniscient being does not have the power to forget, and hence cannot be considered omnipotent. However, if you limit those words to refer to something else, like a universe (rather than to itself, where the contradiction is created), then it may be possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent in reference to that other thing. Since you and I are both platonists, we agree that anything not ruled out by its definition exists. So you should agree there are instances in the plentitude where beings create vast simulations of entire universes. We humans have already played this role in creating relatively simple GoL universes. In the context of the simulation, a being can know everything about it and simultaneously exercise complete control over it, even changing the laws or altering its natural progression of the simulation. As one who often writes simulations, I note that I *don't* know everything about them and the reason I create them is to find out something I don't know. Of course you may say that I could find it out, after the simulation has run - but that does seem to be what the religious mean by omniscient since they include knowing things before they happen. Time doesn't translate between universes. Consider two independent universes A, and B each with inhabitants. For those inhabitants in universe A, you cannot say what time is it in universe B, whether universe B even started or is it already over. Time only has meaning in the context of existing within some universe. The same is true of the full trace of your simulations execution. From our perspective there is no time, it is a timeless object which we can inspect and one can know the beginning and end and all the details in between. If you believe everything with a consistent definition exists, then there exists a universe just like ours that was created by a being who knows everything that happens in it and has complete control to alter it in any way
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/11/2013 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jan 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote: On 1/10/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis. That is dishonest in two ways. First, primary matter is not god-like except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian). Why? Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God or many Platonists (the most famous one being Aristotle). Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is already very different for some american and european Christians. It's not a person, it didn't create the world, it doesn't care what people do, it has not dogma, no temples, no priesthood, no sacred writings. OK. Nice. It's not like any god, That's not true. It is like the God of those who introduce the concept, or the very idea that we can reason on that concept. except the liberal theologians god which can be anything. It might be any thing that we can conceive as being the explanation or model of the universal realm. Why does atheist defended so much the idea that only the Christian's notion of God make sense? Why defending a notion of God just to say that it does not exist? That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant. It is not a necessary part of being an atheist. You might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally true. I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already believer in some sort of God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman sense). But you've redefined 'God' (in the greek sense) so that anybody who believes anything is a theist? Well, everybody who believe in primary matter is a theist. But you don't need to be theist to believe in matter. Only when you posit the existence of something non jusitifiable, as a complete type of explanation, are you doing theology. Science is agnostic, by definition. But many scientist believe in primary matter without even realizing that this needs an act of faith, and then as I show it contradicts the comp explanation of mind and body, without suggesting any theory of mind and its relation with matter. When atheists judge that there is no God (none at all, not even taoist one, in my neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter into the God, How do you know that? I asked them for years. They reject papers who submit doubts in the domain. Do they worship at a shrine of primary matter? They reject papers who submit doubts in the domain. It is equivalent, even if it looks more modern. The atheists around here hate more the agnostic than the Christians. They consider as crackpot any attempt to just doubt primary matter. And some of them have cult and quasi equivalent notion of God, when you ask the details. If you insist they can even invoke secrecy. Do they quote primary matter as a reason for legislation? Well, there is the case of China and the USSR who did. and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make them quite sectarian, arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the inquisition (actually much worst)). It is arrogant and impolite to attribute implicit beliefs to those who disagree with you in order to discredit them. It is explicit beliefs. It is true that some can doubt in private, but they will not say so in public, and will discredit you, i.e. the doubter, in name of non dogma, but yet dogmatic proposition. you are just lucky never have met that kind of sectarian form of atheism. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. ? Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part
