Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/16/2013 12:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LizR wrote: I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I do know that banks are stealing our wealth - as indeed are rich people generally, since wealth breeds more wealth and that more wealth has to be extracted from you and me. Money and richness is not a problem. It is the blood of the social system. Money and richness is a problem only when it is based on lies, and when it is used to hide the lies and perpetuate them. Honest money enrich everybody. True, it is slower for poor, and quicker for the rich, but when people play the game honestly, everyone win, and poverty regress. In a working economy, there are few poor. Presence of poverty means that there are stealers and bandits (or war or catastrophes). Accusing the system and money itself is all benefices for the bandits. It dilutes their responsibility and wrong-doing in the abstract. It helps them to feel like not guilty. As I said, criticizing the economical system is like attributing to the blood cells the responsibility of some tumor since the blood cells feeds it. It hides the real root of the problem, and focus on the wrong target. I agree, unsurprisingly. :) I also agree with Liz, in that it is clear who is stealing the money. The rich get richer is a very fundamental phenomenon. Even if we remove money from society, it will still happen because it also applies to social interactions. The more friends and alliances you have, the more likely you are to get new ones. This is the reason why every entrepreneur seeks the allegiance of celebrities. It's a more subtle form of currency. However, we got trapped into a system that effectively amplifies rich get richer dynamics. This system is central banking -- since the powerful have the capacity to issue fiat money in the form of debt, two things happen: It doesn't take central banking to make the rich get richer. Yes, that is what I said. My claim is that central banking amplifies the effect. Ever since civilization began the rich have been able to get richer just by owning stuff. For a couple of millenia it was owning land. If you owned land then serfs and peasants had to pay you for working the land. Then merchantilism added ships to what you could own. Then industrialization added mines and oil and factories. Banking and insurance added financial instruments that you could own. But it's all of a piece. If you own stuff that you can rent/lend you're rich and you can get richer. But central banks can print new money. This new money is lent. The more money you have, the more new money the banking system will lend to you. Thus the amplification. Also, the marginal value of money decreases the more you have, so this devaluation and speculation with new money exposes the poor to more risk, while they don't actually have access to the investment opportunities that the rich have. You always refer to central banks. But all banks always did this. The bank would take 1M$ in deposits and then make 10M$ in loans, depending on the fact that statistically only a few depositors would ask for their money at any one time. So they collected interest on 10M$ while only having to pay interest on 1M$ (if at all). I agree. It is interesting to notice that it is highly illegal if a private citizen does this, but it is the business model of modern banks. An advantage of bitcoin is that it removes the need for the bank as a storage facility. It will still be useful to have security experts providing safe wallets, but they will not be able to behave as banks and lend your money. We already have pear to pear lending, although it is illegal in many places. Again, with bitcoin, it will be very hard to regulate against such behaviours, and I think that is a good thing. The current situation is very unfair. We need banks to store our money, and they get to invest it in ways that we are not allowed. Then, we don't get any of the profit the bank generates from our own money. This also amplifies rich get richer dynamics. Of course this occasionally resulted in runs on banks and consequence failure of the bank. Central banks were set up as part of a system to regulate this. The central bank insures deposits, but also the same regulatory system limits the discount rate, i.e. the amount of money a
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 22 Dec 2013, at 20:55, meekerdb wrote: On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question. The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that can be added. As I understand it, that was the point of http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic, In set theory, OK. But not in arithmetic. That's the point of the paper, that a truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic. I put truth in scare quotes because the predicate is really 1-Probability(x)--0. OK. It is not a *truth* predicate, only an approximation. In fact, for each sigma_i or pi_i sentence, Löbian theories or machine can define a corresponding sigma_i or pi_i truth, and even limiting approximations, which are far enough for practical purposes, but our concern here is not a practical one, but a conceptual one. And in a set theory (like ZF) you cannot define a set theoretical predicate for set theoretical truth. In ZF+kappa, you can define truth for ZF, but not for ZF+kappa. (ZF +kappa can prove the consistency of ZF). Shortly put, no correct machine can *define* a notion of truth sufficiently large to encompass all its possible assertions. Self-consistency is not provable by the consistent self (Gödel) Self-correctness is not even definable by the consistent self (Tarski, and also Gödel, note). but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model. Computationalism uses only the standard model of arithmetic, except for indirect metamathematical use like proof of independence of axioms, or for modeling the weird sentences of G*, like []f (the consistency of inconsistency). But aren't you assuming the standard model when you refer to the unprovable truths of arithmetic. If you allowed other models this set would be ill defined. Exactly, and that is why I don't allow them. This leads to a technical difficulty in AUDA here (alluded to in Torkel's book on the misuse of Gödel's incompleteness), which is solved by the use of the intensional nuances, but that would be lengthy and technical to describe here right now. I am not sure we are disagreeing on something here, but if it is the case, let me know, thanks. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 22 Dec 2013, at 21:00, meekerdb wrote: On 12/22/2013 5:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Dec 2013, at 01:00, Edgar Owen wrote: Hi John, First thanks for the complement on my post! To address your points. Of course we do have some knowledge of reality. We have to have to be able to function within it which we most certainly do to varying degrees of competence. That is proof we do have sufficient knowledge of reality to function within it. Yes, computations include logic as well as math. Computations is only a very tiny part of arithmetic and thus of math. Logic is something else, despite many i-rich interrelation with computation and computability theory. Computability can be represented in term of a very special case of provability, and provability can be represented as a very special case of computability, but those notion are very different and non isomorphic. But computable means halting and returning a value. That means total computable. But we know that the price of universality is that some program might not stop on some input, and so we will say that a computer computes even when it does not stop. In particular, the universal dovetailing can be considered as a non stopping computation. After all that universal dovetailing machine is doing something, OK? In terms of measure aren't there infinitely more non-terminating programs than terminating? Both are enumerable, although not recursively enumerable. But the measure is not on programs, but on the (possibly non terminating) computations as viewed from the first person (relatively to its actual states). This forces us to dovetail on infinite streams, and makes such computations non enumerable, and the constraints provided by the intensional nuances (notably the material one (p sigma_1 + p or Dt or both) suggests the existence of a quantum measure (and a quantization). Keep in mind that, as absurd it could seem to be, the UD does dovetail on you (3p) embedded in a reality or emulating a computation which iterate infinitely the WM-duplication. That explains quickly why your maximally complete consistent extension will be 3p non enumerable. Bruno Brent Proof and mathematical theories are never universal. For computability, we do have universality (that's why universal purpose computer exists). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 22 Dec 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? No. What I said is that *for* each (3p-numerous) first person view possible, it is felt as being unique So what? The first 7 billion integers are all unique too, in fact that is precisely why it is meaningful to speak of the first 7 billion integers, otherwise the phrase would be meaningless as would the very idea of integers. I can't agree more. The question is ambiguous. If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view ! If your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give or take a few orders of magnitude) first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view exist on planet Earth right now, but of course if it means nothing then you can't. In the 1-views or in the 3-1 view? (the 3-1 view = the view which uses the third person attribution of first-personhood to 3p countable entities). Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On 23 Dec 2013, at 10:29, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/16/2013 12:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LizR wrote: I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I do know that banks are snip The reason why I put more faith in cryptocurrencies is that, if one or several of them succeed, then it won't be possible to tamper with what made them work in the first place. The other thing that excites me is that more and more cryptocurrencies are being tried. If I have an ideology, it's experimentalism. Technology finally allows us to experiment with currency, weather the politicians like it or not. Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and privateness. Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work honestly or not. honestly is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they became obsolete). Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life goal. When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so those who make money the main goal crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become pyramidal. It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool. Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid. The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth. Such competitor money can help to follow the non-monopoly rule. But they can be swallowed by other money, and they are not immune against new lies per se. (risk can be diminushed by investment in real education (≠ brainwashing)). When the bandits got power, count on them to exploit (disadvantageously for *you*) any solution you could find on the economical problem. You might need to encrypt it :) Bruno Telmo. Jason http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: I will try to answer for Bruno as I think I understand what he means. The number is equal to the number of entities that have a first person experience. I know that, what I don't know is what number Bruno believes that number to be. Although I can't prove it I think the number is probably about 7 billion; if I am correct about that then Bruno's never ending chant you confuse the 1p with the 3p is not correct. But even after asking the question five times I still don't know if Bruno thinks it's 1 or 0 or 7 billion or infinity or something in between. The point here is that each entity can only experience their own. That's real nice but it is NOT the point and it plays no part in the question how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrot The question is ambiguous. If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view ! If your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give or take a few orders of magnitude) first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view exist on planet Earth right now, but of course if it means nothing then you can't. In the 1-views or in the 3-1 view? Either you're stalling because you don't want to answer the question or it's you and not me that confuses the 1P with the 3P because I quote you clear as day in the above first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view. So for the sixth time WHAT IS THE NUMBER? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
2013/12/23 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrot The question is ambiguous. If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view ! If your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give or take a few orders of magnitude) first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view exist on planet Earth right now, but of course if it means nothing then you can't. In the 1-views or in the 3-1 view? Either you're stalling because you don't want to answer the question or it's you and not me that confuses the 1P with the 3P because I quote you clear as day in the above first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view. So for the sixth time WHAT IS THE NUMBER? He did answer and did it correctly, only Liar Clark is dodging questions and lying. Quentin John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
2013/12/23 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? Buy some pair of eyes and come back here. Liar Clark is dodging questions and lying. Dodging AND lying? That seems redundant. Not redundant at all for Liar Clark. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
God or not?
All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 12/23/2013 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In terms of measure aren't there infinitely more non-terminating programs than terminating? Both are enumerable, although not recursively enumerable. Even so, one can be much bigger than the other by most measures. But the measure is not on programs, but on the (possibly non terminating) computations as viewed from the first person (relatively to its actual states). I'm not sure I understand the distinction between programs and computations. Doesn't every program produces a sequence of states which constitute a computation? And aren't all the sequences assumed to be deterministic? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: God or not?
2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist Well no... It is certain that I experience a reality but that there exists a consistent physical universe defined everywhere is not certain... Quentin (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Posting problems
I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Thanks, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Posting problems
Hi, I'm using gmail and it works flawlessly. Just check when replying that the address is set to everything-list@googlegroups.com (it should normally default to that as the Reply-To header is set to that address). Regards, Quentin 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Thanks, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Bruno, Thanks for your comments. However I think you are coming at Reality from the POV of human logico-mathematical theory whose results you are trying to impose on reality. My approach is to closely examine reality and then try to figure out how it works and what ITS innate rules and structures are. I would probably agree with much of what you say, if you were saying it about human logico-mathematical structures, but the logico-mathematical structure of reality is not bound by human rules. It runs according to its own logic and science is the process of trying to figure out what those rules are and how they work... For example, reality is clearly a computational process, and it runs against pure information which is the fundamental stuff of the universe. There is simply no other way current information states of reality could result from previous ones other than by a computational process. How that computational process works must be determined by examining reality itself. We may try to make sense of it in terms of traditional human math theory, but when there are differences then reality always trumps human math theory, which applies to human math rather than reality's logico-mathematical system. Edgar On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book on Reality available on Amazon under my name. Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a logical structure just as is the case in computational reality. Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I present a computational based information approach to these in my book among many other things. The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality). I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in my book... Edgar Owen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and privateness. Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work honestly or not. honestly is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they became obsolete). Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life goal. When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so those who make money the main goal crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become pyramidal. It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool. Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid. The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth. I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was redeemable in gold or silver. BUT they always loaned much more script than they had gold or silver. They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their script in gold or silver. Now you may say this is lying, but so long as not done to excess, it makes for good economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge over small river near the town. The banker loans him the script. He pays for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script is backed by gold. The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold to back up his script. Artificially increasing the money supply can be very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on trust. If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0 Brent Such competitor money can help to follow the non-monopoly rule. But they can be swallowed by other money, and they are not immune against new lies per se. (risk can be diminushed by investment in real education (≠ brainwashing)). When the bandits got power, count on them to exploit (disadvantageously for *you*) any solution you could find on the economical problem. You might need to encrypt it :) Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
All, The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe. When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different clock times within the same shared present moment. Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, named that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not clock time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is cosmological space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 4-dimensions of this geometry all the time and visually verify this, as the radial P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every point in the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface. What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior to my stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a great example of how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no matter how important, if it isn't part of the accepted world view of, in this case, either common sense or science. Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Craig, All this is explained in my book on Reality available on Amazon. The key insight to several of your questions is covered in Part IV: Mind and Reality. Basically the world we think we live in with shapes, colors, flavors and feelings etc. (various types of qualia) is actually a model of the actual external reality constructed in our minds. The actual external reality has none of these qualia and consists of evolving information only. When what mind adds to its internal model of reality is identified and subtracted all that remains is discovered to be an evolving information structure and thus that is the actual nature of external reality. When this is understood the answers to most of your 5 points becomes clear. As to the nature of consciousness, the so called 'Hard Problem' there is a straightforward answer to that given also. I won't cover it in detail right now but basically it has to do with a deeper understanding of reality and how it self-manifests as opposed to waiting passively to be made conscious. The modern misunderstanding of consciousness, that it's something that arises in human brains, can be compared to the ancient theory of vision in which it was mistakenly thought that vision involved the eyes shining light on external objects. That erroneous model still exists with respect to consciousness in which it is mistakenly thought that consciousness consists of brains shining consciousness on external objects. The truth in both cases is that it is external reality that produces both light and the actual real presence of things in the present moment and both vision and consciousness are simply opening and participating in this self-manifestation of reality by an observer who then interprets the information content according to his own nature. I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read my book which covers Mind and Reality and explains what Consciousness is quite thoroughly. Edgar On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book on Reality available on Amazon under my name. Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a logical structure just as is the case in computational reality. Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I present a computational based information approach to these in my book among many other things. The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality). I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in my book... Edgar Owen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Brent, I don't avoid infinities but Reality does. When one understands what infinities are and how they are defined as an unending and uncompletable process of addition it is quite clear that nothing physical can be infinite. As I've posted in other replies Reality is a computational system like running software. Godel and the implications for the Principia don't apply to the logico-mathematical computational system of reality, they apply only to human logico-mathematical systems. The logico-mathematical system of Reality simply computes one state of the universe from the previous. There are no statements out of the blue that are subject to proof which what Godel, Halting, Russell and Whitehead are all about. It's like trying to apply these to a piece of software, there is no relevance, in this case reality's software Edgar On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book on Reality available on Amazon under my name. Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a logical structure just as is the case in computational reality. Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I present a computational based information approach to these in my book among many other things. The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality). I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in my book... Edgar Owen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
The 'Fire' that animates the logic - reply to Stephen
Stephen, A very important point which I cover extensively in my book, but rather subtle to grasp. Reality clearly exists. There is something really here now and actual and happening. The totality of that is defined as reality and I refer to its 'stuff' (non-physical but real and actual) as an entity I call 'ontological energy'. It is somewhat similar to the ancient concept of Tao. This ontological energy is originally formless, similar to a generalized quantum vacuum, and contains the possibilities of all information forms which can arise within it. Similar to a formless sea of water whose nature determines what forms of waves, currents and ripples which can arise within it. The universe, at its fundamental level, is all the information forms that are actualized within ontological energy, beginning with the big bang, and which continue to evolve according to the laws of nature (the logico-mathematics of reality which we have been discussing). Thus the complete picture of reality consists of the original formless sea (logical space) of ontological energy and all the evolving forms which exist within it. These forms, everything in the universe, are pure information only and have no self-substances other than the ontological energy in which they arise. Just as the self-substances of all wave forms in water is only water. Now to answer your question, it is the fact that the information forms are forms that exist in the sea of reality (the ontological energy) that makes them real and actual, and the fact that happening is one of the fundamental aspects of ontological energy that gives them the fire of life as they continually computationally evolve to manifest the real actual universe. This is why the information structures of reality are real and actual but those of computer software simulating something is not, because they run in reality rather than some silicon computer The universe can/must be considered a living entity in the sense that it is self-animated from within. There is no external force that moves it and there could not be since by definition it includes everything. Therefore the universe is a living entity, and our life and the life of all things comes from the fact that we are information forms, programs, that run within reality. This is the source of the 'fire' that animates the information Edgar On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Edger, Where does the fire come from that animates the logic? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Posting problems
Or maybe your SMTP server that your email program is using is somehow rejected by googlegroups or by SPF... Do you correctly use the smtp server associated with your domain email (att.net) ? SPF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework can prevent email from being sent correctly if you use another SMTP server than the one whitelisted by the domain owner (att.net). Quentin 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Thanks, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Posting problems
I'm using my email edgaro...@att.net for this group but I connect to the net via Optimum Online, a cable co. which provides my internet service, rather than ATT. But I do the same thing with all my yahoo groups and it works just fine. Do you think that might be the problem? If so it would be horribly dumb for Google not to let me sign up with whatever email I wanted! Thanks, Edgar On Monday, December 23, 2013 2:09:10 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Thanks, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: God or not?
On 12/23/2013 10:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist Well no... It is certain that I experience a reality but that there exists a consistent physical universe defined everywhere is not certain... Is your experience consistent, i.e. describable without contradictions? OK, then how you conceive it is your model of reality and the universe. If it includes things independent of your thoughts external to you, and other people that agree on these things, then that's the physics of it. Whether it's 'defined everywhere' would depend on your model. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Posting problems
It's not a problem of signing up, it is a problem of using the correct SMTP server to send an email with your address in from header. You must use the SMTP server of att.net to send an email with a from address of att.net . Quentin 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net I'm using my email edgaro...@att.net for this group but I connect to the net via Optimum Online, a cable co. which provides my internet service, rather than ATT. But I do the same thing with all my yahoo groups and it works just fine. Do you think that might be the problem? If so it would be horribly dumb for Google not to let me sign up with whatever email I wanted! Thanks, Edgar On Monday, December 23, 2013 2:09:10 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Thanks, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: God or not?
2013/12/23 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/23/2013 10:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist Well no... It is certain that I experience a reality but that there exists a consistent physical universe defined everywhere is not certain... Is your experience consistent, i.e. describable without contradictions? OK, then how you conceive it is your model of reality and the universe. If it includes things independent of your thoughts external to you, and other people that agree on these things, then that's the physics of it. Whether it's 'defined everywhere' would depend on your model. I agree but any model is *far* from certainty... so defining God as meaning the universe doesn't settle at all that it exists... Quentin Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
On 12/23/2013 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe. When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different clock times within the same shared present moment. Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, named that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not clock time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is cosmological space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 4-dimensions of this geometry all the time and visually verify this, as the radial P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every point in the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface. So it's co-moving clock time in an isotropic, homogenous universe that started with a big-bang? Brent What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior to my stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a great example of how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no matter how important, if it isn't part of the accepted world view of, in this case, either common sense or science. Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: God or not?
On 12/23/2013 11:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 12/23/2013 10:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist Well no... It is certain that I experience a reality but that there exists a consistent physical universe defined everywhere is not certain... Is your experience consistent, i.e. describable without contradictions? OK, then how you conceive it is your model of reality and the universe. If it includes things independent of your thoughts external to you, and other people that agree on these things, then that's the physics of it. Whether it's 'defined everywhere' would depend on your model. I agree but any model is *far* from certainty... so defining God as meaning the universe doesn't settle at all that it exists... I agree. In fact it tends to drag a lot of bronze age tribal baggage into scientific questions - which is why I wish Bruno would stop casually using religious metaphors. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Posting problems
I post and receive via google email. My only complaint is that I cannot intersperse in others posts as is the practice here. Richard On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Thanks, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Posting problems
2013/12/23 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com I post and receive via google email. My only complaint is that I cannot intersperse in others posts as is the practice here. You can, I'm using gmail for posting right now, just click on the three dots ... when replying, that will display the entire post and you can write in it anywhere you see fit. Quentin Richard On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Thanks, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Posting problems
Quentin, Your 3dot method does not work for me. Richard On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/23 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com I post and receive via google email. My only complaint is that I cannot intersperse in others posts as is the practice here. You can, I'm using gmail for posting right now, just click on the three dots ... when replying, that will display the entire post and you can write in it anywhere you see fit. Well, it works if I click on the 3dots in my post. Perhaps I first have to get to Reply and then click Richard Quentin Richard On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Thanks, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: God or not?
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. I agree. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. But then how do you define the universe itself? Two people could have a very different conception of how big reality is unless a definition is given. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. Anyone who holds that God is the greatest thing that exists must agree that God = Reality. Otherwise, God would be a sub-element of reality, and reality would be greater than God. Jason But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Posting problems
2013/12/23 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Quentin, Your 3dot method does not work for me. It works for everyone using gmail, just click on the dots... Quentin Richard On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/23 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com I post and receive via google email. My only complaint is that I cannot intersperse in others posts as is the practice here. You can, I'm using gmail for posting right now, just click on the three dots ... when replying, that will display the entire post and you can write in it anywhere you see fit. Well, it works if I click on the 3dots in my post. Perhaps I first have to get to Reply and then click Richard Quentin Richard On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote: I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Thanks, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Posting problems
2013/12/23 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Quentin, Your 3dot method does not work for me. Richard On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/23 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com I post and receive via google email. My only complaint is that I cannot intersperse in others posts as is the practice here. You can, I'm using gmail for posting right now, just click on the three dots ... when replying, that will display the entire post and you can write in it anywhere you see fit. Well, it works if I click on the 3dots in my post. Perhaps I first have to get to Reply and then click Richard Well didn't see you did finally succeed... just hit reply, when the box to reply display, click the three dots, and then (and only then) go where you want in the reply and write. Quentin Quentin Richard On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote: I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Thanks, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and privateness. Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work honestly or not. honestly is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they became obsolete). Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life goal. When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so those who make money the main goal crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become pyramidal. It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool. Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid. The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth. I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was redeemable in gold or silver. BUT they always loaned much more script than they had gold or silver. They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their script in gold or silver. Now you may say this is lying, but so long as not done to excess, it makes for good economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge over small river near the town. The banker loans him the script. He pays for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script is backed by gold. The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold to back up his script. Artificially increasing the money supply can be very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on trust. If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0 Brent One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are not required for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers. If they are never held by intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out. Jason Such competitor money can help to follow the non-monopoly rule. But they can be swallowed by other money, and they are not immune against new lies per se. (risk can be diminushed by investment in real education (≠ brainwashing)). When the bandits got power, count on them to exploit (disadvantageously for **you**) any solution you could find on the economical problem. You might need to encrypt it :) Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Privacy
List-Friends of diverse linguistic origins: is there in another language a WORD meaning the same idiosyncrasy as what the USA p r i v a c y indeed covers? I know of none in German, Hungarian, Latin, French, Russian but maybe my 'second' vocabularies are defcient. I also wonder whether in the Pre-American English-English there was something like that? (Anotrher similar US-puzzle emerged lately: the Christ in Christmas what 'faithful' souls want to preserve in the 'spirit' of the holyday, I know names for Christmas in several languages and none includes 'Christ'. Anybody increasing my knowledge?) John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Privacy
Hi, I would translate privacy in french by Intimité or Vie privée. Regards, Quentin 2013/12/23 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com List-Friends of diverse linguistic origins: is there in another language a WORD meaning the same idiosyncrasy as what the USA p r i v a c y indeed covers? I know of none in German, Hungarian, Latin, French, Russian but maybe my 'second' vocabularies are defcient. I also wonder whether in the Pre-American English-English there was something like that? (Anotrher similar US-puzzle emerged lately: the Christ in Christmas what 'faithful' souls want to preserve in the 'spirit' of the holyday, I know names for Christmas in several languages and none includes 'Christ'. Anybody increasing my knowledge?) John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Privacy
Hi John, On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:18 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: List-Friends of diverse linguistic origins: is there in another language a WORD meaning the same idiosyncrasy as what the USA p r i v a c y indeed covers? In Portuguese, the most common word is privacidade, which indeed is an anglicanism (although it's so commonly used that most people are not aware of that). But we have an older word: sigilo. It is still the one used in legal contexts. So, for example, sigilo bancário is an old recognized right to bank privacy and sigilo médico the right to privacy about your health history. There's also sigilo de justiça, which protects the privacy of people under criminal investigation. Then you have direito de imagem, which translates literally to the right to your image, and which includes norms against being surveilled with photographic equipment. I know of none in German, Hungarian, Latin, French, Russian but maybe my 'second' vocabularies are defcient. I also wonder whether in the Pre-American English-English there was something like that? (Anotrher similar US-puzzle emerged lately: the Christ in Christmas what 'faithful' souls want to preserve in the 'spirit' of the holyday, I know names for Christmas in several languages and none includes 'Christ'. Anybody increasing my knowledge?) The portuguese word for Christmas is Natal, which directly translates to birth. It is implicit who's birth it is. I suspect that the Saturnalia, that it came to replace, was a whole lot more fun. Telmo. John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Privacy
Quentin, thanks, but both 'intimité' or 'Vie privée' have their proper (different) translations in English. You would not defend by law (constitution?) you intimité. JohnM On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would translate privacy in french by Intimité or Vie privée. Regards, Quentin 2013/12/23 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com List-Friends of diverse linguistic origins: is there in another language a WORD meaning the same idiosyncrasy as what the USA p r i v a c y indeed covers? I know of none in German, Hungarian, Latin, French, Russian but maybe my 'second' vocabularies are defcient. I also wonder whether in the Pre-American English-English there was something like that? (Anotrher similar US-puzzle emerged lately: the Christ in Christmas what 'faithful' souls want to preserve in the 'spirit' of the holyday, I know names for Christmas in several languages and none includes 'Christ'. Anybody increasing my knowledge?) John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On 12/23/2013 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and privateness. Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work honestly or not. honestly is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they became obsolete). Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life goal. When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so those who make money the main goal crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become pyramidal. It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool. Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid. The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth. I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was redeemable in gold or silver. BUT they always loaned much more script than they had gold or silver. They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their script in gold or silver. Now you may say this is lying, but so long as not done to excess, it makes for good economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge over small river near the town. The banker loans him the script. He pays for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script is backed by gold. The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold to back up his script. Artificially increasing the money supply can be very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on trust. If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0 Brent One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are not required for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers. If they are never held by intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out. The point of my example is that you don't HAVE to have anything to loan out. Banks loaned out the value of gold without having the gold (having only a small part of it). As for security I'm not sure; can't you lose your bitcoins? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Privacy
2013/12/23 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com Quentin, thanks, but both 'intimité' or 'Vie privée' have their proper (different) translations in English. You would not defend by law (constitution?) you intimité. Yes, you can use it for that... but you would mostly use Vie privée, but Intimité is ok too... Quentin JohnM On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I would translate privacy in french by Intimité or Vie privée. Regards, Quentin 2013/12/23 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com List-Friends of diverse linguistic origins: is there in another language a WORD meaning the same idiosyncrasy as what the USA p r i v a c y indeed covers? I know of none in German, Hungarian, Latin, French, Russian but maybe my 'second' vocabularies are defcient. I also wonder whether in the Pre-American English-English there was something like that? (Anotrher similar US-puzzle emerged lately: the Christ in Christmas what 'faithful' souls want to preserve in the 'spirit' of the holyday, I know names for Christmas in several languages and none includes 'Christ'. Anybody increasing my knowledge?) John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
2013/12/23 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/23/2013 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and privateness. Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work honestly or not. honestly is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they became obsolete). Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life goal. When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so those who make money the main goal crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become pyramidal. It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool. Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid. The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth. I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was redeemable in gold or silver. BUT they always loaned much more script than they had gold or silver. They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their script in gold or silver. Now you may say this is lying, but so long as not done to excess, it makes for good economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge over small river near the town. The banker loans him the script. He pays for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script is backed by gold. The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold to back up his script. Artificially increasing the money supply can be very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on trust. If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0 Brent One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are not required for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers. If they are never held by intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out. The point of my example is that you don't HAVE to have anything to loan out. Banks loaned out the value of gold without having the gold (having only a small part of it). As for security I'm not sure; can't you lose your bitcoins? Not only you can lose them... but they are lost for everyone... Also, bitcoin is full of intermediaries (to change bitcoin with accepted currencies)... bitcoin doesn't solve anything... but it's not because bitcoin is I think bad, that I think any digital crypto currencies are bad... I've not come accros one that could be useful yet. Quentin Quentin Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Privacy
Telmo, thanks. Does 'sigilo' not come from the Latin word for 'sign' (sigillum)? which I would trace through its way of 'expression of' rather than the American privacy-crase.Your translations are OK, if you use the translational ways I wanted to veryfy in their REAL format. I would not divert either into the 'secretive' side as e.g. in a confessional. Of course Americaisms raised their ugly heads in many countries (languages) - I don't buy such plagiarism for a vocabularian treasure of a language. The religious hubbub for 'keep Christ in Christmas' does not IMPLY. Just as Santa Claus is now assigned to English-Dutch origin, when it originated from a Bishop Nicolaus whose pet-name in German spells Klaus (Claus?). (In Southern Italy I was shown a mountainvillage where - as they calim - the first Niclas bishop walked around with gifts to the poor (Near Marathea, the name escaped). Also Brindisi claims origination according to residents. Interestingly the Santa Claus craze in Europe falls usually on the evening of Dec. 5, (for Dec. 6 - the 'name-day' of St.Nicolas) - not attached to the Catholic date of Christmas. (or the Orthodox?) On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: Hi John, On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:18 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: List-Friends of diverse linguistic origins: is there in another language a WORD meaning the same idiosyncrasy as what the USA p r i v a c y indeed covers? In Portuguese, the most common word is privacidade, which indeed is an anglicanism (although it's so commonly used that most people are not aware of that). But we have an older word: sigilo. It is still the one used in legal contexts. So, for example, sigilo bancário is an old recognized right to bank privacy and sigilo médico the right to privacy about your health history. There's also sigilo de justiça, which protects the privacy of people under criminal investigation. Then you have direito de imagem, which translates literally to the right to your image, and which includes norms against being surveilled with photographic equipment. I know of none in German, Hungarian, Latin, French, Russian but maybe my 'second' vocabularies are defcient. I also wonder whether in the Pre-American English-English there was something like that? (Anotrher similar US-puzzle emerged lately: the Christ in Christmas what 'faithful' souls want to preserve in the 'spirit' of the holyday, I know names for Christmas in several languages and none includes 'Christ'. Anybody increasing my knowledge?) The portuguese word for Christmas is Natal, which directly translates to birth. It is implicit who's birth it is. I suspect that the Saturnalia, that it came to replace, was a whole lot more fun. Telmo. John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Yes, my book 'Reality' does cover quantum reality.
All, Someone asked somewhere if I cover quantum theory in my book. Yes, I do. The entire 'Part III: Elementals' of the book covers reality at its finest scale, the quantum world. I'll summarize here but can only gloss over some of the main points. As stated before reality, at its most fundamental level, consists of pure computationally evolving information only. It is not physical. Thus there is no dimensional spacetime. Dimensional spacetime is in fact something that arises from quantum events, e.g. the conservation of particle properties as they are computed in particle interactions that specify the dimensional relationships between particles emerging from particle interactions, such as relative energies and momenta. It is these purely numeric NON-physical computed dimensional relationships that are part of the fundamental computational reality. Thus instead of a single pre-existing all pervading spacetime that exists as a background to all events, what really happens is that many independent mini-spacetimes arise from networks of particle interactions. It is only when these networks connect via common events that their spacetimes merge into larger mini-spacetimes, and the spacetime that we think we inhabit is actually the end result of the merging of innumerable mini-spacetimes as the result of all the billions of particle level events we continually interact with, e.g. all the photons impinging on our retinas. These continual particle level interactions build up the simulacrum of a classical spacetime and our minds then interpolate that and mentally construct a fixed, pre-existing common spacetime that does not actually exist in external reality itself even though our minds convince us that it does. Now there is plenty of evidence this view is correct, part of which is that it solves two of the most profound problems of physics. The beauty of this insight is that it enables two very important advances. 1. First it enables the conceptual unification of general relativity and quantum theory because the reason they seem incompatible is precisely the pre-existing all pervading spacetime that quantum theory mistakenly assumes. When it is understood that spacetime emerges from quantum events rather than being a pre-existing background to them this incompatibility vanishes and in fact it is easy to get the curved spacetime of general relativity directly from this emergence by simply taking the mass-energy particle property as the scale of the spacetime that emerges. 2. In one fell swoop it eliminates ALL quantum paradox. Why? Because quantum processes only seem paradoxical again with respect to the pre-existing fixed common spacetime mistakenly assumed. When the way spacetime emerges FROM quantum processes is understood all the paradoxical nature of quantum theory vanishes. Now, I know this probably seems counter intuitive and is a lot to get one's mind around in one post which is not as clearly stated as I'd like but I'd be happy to explain further or you can read my book available on Amazon under my name. When it is properly understood it becomes quite clear and very obvious and it is so simple and straightforward one wonders why no one discovered it before Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Yes, my book 'Reality' does cover quantum reality.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and privateness. Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work honestly or not. honestly is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they became obsolete). Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life goal. When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so those who make money the main goal crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become pyramidal. It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool. Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid. The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth. I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was redeemable in gold or silver. BUT they always loaned much more script than they had gold or silver. They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their script in gold or silver. Now you may say this is lying, but so long as not done to excess, it makes for good economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge over small river near the town. The banker loans him the script. He pays for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script is backed by gold. The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold to back up his script. Artificially increasing the money supply can be very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on trust. If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0 Brent One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are not required for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers. If they are never held by intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out. The point of my example is that you don't HAVE to have anything to loan out. Commercial banks from which people get loans don't create the Federal Reserve notes they loan out, they need to already have some on hand before they can make a loan. With bitcoins it is clear you can't loan any out unless they are in your possession. Of course, our money today is fundamentally nothing but IOUs, which can be created out of thin air and backed by nothing but a promise. The instability of such a system arises when debt (which is money in our system) is created faster than the rate at which the economy grows. Defaulted debt destroys outstanding IOUs and collapses the money supply. Banks loaned out the value of gold without having the gold (having only a small part of it). As for security I'm not sure; can't you lose your bitcoins? You can, but their security need not depend on traditional physical security approaches: vaults, guards, cameras, etc. You can encrypt your wallet and then its security is assured. Your wallet may even be based on some suitably long password or passphrase which is not stored physically anywhere (as http://brainwallet.org/ demonstrates). So long as you don't forget and don't disclose this secret your funds are safe. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Yes, my book 'Reality' does cover quantum reality.
Thanks for purchasing it. Note that in the Kindle edition the Title page and table of contents formatting is a little screwed up but the text seems OK. Edgar On Monday, December 23, 2013 7:15:13 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Someone asked somewhere if I cover quantum theory in my book. Yes, I do. The entire 'Part III: Elementals' of the book covers reality at its finest scale, the quantum world. I'll summarize here but can only gloss over some of the main points. As stated before reality, at its most fundamental level, consists of pure computationally evolving information only. It is not physical. Thus there is no dimensional spacetime. Dimensional spacetime is in fact something that arises from quantum events, e.g. the conservation of particle properties as they are computed in particle interactions that specify the dimensional relationships between particles emerging from particle interactions, such as relative energies and momenta. It is these purely numeric NON-physical computed dimensional relationships that are part of the fundamental computational reality. Thus instead of a single pre-existing all pervading spacetime that exists as a background to all events, what really happens is that many independent mini-spacetimes arise from networks of particle interactions. It is only when these networks connect via common events that their spacetimes merge into larger mini-spacetimes, and the spacetime that we think we inhabit is actually the end result of the merging of innumerable mini-spacetimes as the result of all the billions of particle level events we continually interact with, e.g. all the photons impinging on our retinas. These continual particle level interactions build up the simulacrum of a classical spacetime and our minds then interpolate that and mentally construct a fixed, pre-existing common spacetime that does not actually exist in external reality itself even though our minds convince us that it does. Now there is plenty of evidence this view is correct, part of which is that it solves two of the most profound problems of physics. The beauty of this insight is that it enables two very important advances. 1. First it enables the conceptual unification of general relativity and quantum theory because the reason they seem incompatible is precisely the pre-existing all pervading spacetime that quantum theory mistakenly assumes. When it is understood that spacetime emerges from quantum events rather than being a pre-existing background to them this incompatibility vanishes and in fact it is easy to get the curved spacetime of general relativity directly from this emergence by simply taking the mass-energy particle property as the scale of the spacetime that emerges. 2. In one fell swoop it eliminates ALL quantum paradox. Why? Because quantum processes only seem paradoxical again with respect to the pre-existing fixed common spacetime mistakenly assumed. When the way spacetime emerges FROM quantum processes is understood all the paradoxical nature of quantum theory vanishes. Now, I know this probably seems counter intuitive and is a lot to get one's mind around in one post which is not as clearly stated as I'd like but I'd be happy to explain further or you can read my book available on Amazon under my name. When it is properly understood it becomes quite clear and very obvious and it is so simple and straightforward one wonders why no one discovered it before Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On 12/23/2013 6:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and privateness. Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work honestly or not. honestly is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they became obsolete). Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life goal. When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so those who make money the main goal crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become pyramidal. It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool. Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid. The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth. I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was redeemable in gold or silver. BUT they always loaned much more script than they had gold or silver. They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their script in gold or silver. Now you may say this is lying, but so long as not done to excess, it makes for good economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge over small river near the town. The banker loans him the script. He pays for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script is backed by gold. The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold to back up his script. Artificially increasing the money supply can be very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on trust. If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0 Brent One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are not required for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers. If they are never held by intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out. The point of my example is that you don't HAVE to have anything to loan out. Commercial banks from which people get loans don't create the Federal Reserve notes they loan out, they need to already have some on hand before they can make a loan. With bitcoins it is clear you can't loan any out unless they are in your possession. That's like saying those banks in the old west couldn't loan out gold unless they had it in their possession. Sure; but it didn't keep them from loaning script that, according to them, was backed by gold. Of course, our money today is fundamentally nothing but IOUs, which can be created out of thin air and backed by nothing but a promise. The instability of such a system arises when debt (which is money in our system) is created faster than the rate at which the economy grows. Defaulted debt destroys outstanding IOUs and collapses the money supply. Which is the down side when money creation is excessive - but you miss the point of my example which shows that this same fiat creation of money can also be good. Fundamentally all money rests on trust. Even gold is only good because people believe others will accept it for food, sex, etc. Banks loaned out the value of gold without having the gold (having only a small part of it). As for security I'm not sure; can't you lose your bitcoins? You can, but their security need not depend on traditional physical security approaches: vaults, guards, cameras, etc. You can encrypt your
Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 6:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and privateness. Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work honestly or not. honestly is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they became obsolete). Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life goal. When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so those who make money the main goal crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become pyramidal. It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool. Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid. The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth. I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was redeemable in gold or silver. BUT they always loaned much more script than they had gold or silver. They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their script in gold or silver. Now you may say this is lying, but so long as not done to excess, it makes for good economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge over small river near the town. The banker loans him the script. He pays for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script is backed by gold. The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold to back up his script. Artificially increasing the money supply can be very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on trust. If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0 Brent One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are not required for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers. If they are never held by intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out. The point of my example is that you don't HAVE to have anything to loan out. Commercial banks from which people get loans don't create the Federal Reserve notes they loan out, they need to already have some on hand before they can make a loan. With bitcoins it is clear you can't loan any out unless they are in your possession. That's like saying those banks in the old west couldn't loan out gold unless they had it in their possession. Sure; but it didn't keep them from loaning script that, according to them, was backed by gold. This would be considered fraud in any other line of business. Of course, our money today is fundamentally nothing but IOUs, which can be created out of thin air and backed by nothing but a promise. The instability of such a system arises when debt (which is money in our system) is created faster than the rate at which the economy grows. Defaulted debt destroys outstanding IOUs and collapses the money supply. Which is the down side when money creation is excessive - but you miss the point of my example which shows that this same fiat creation of money can also be good. Fundamentally all money rests on trust. Even gold is only good because people believe others will accept it for food, sex, etc. Trust is not a bad thing to have, but to design a system that inherently requires trust to function and will crash should that trust ever evaporate is a less-than-perfect design. Banks loaned out the value of gold without having the gold (having only a small part of it). As for security I'm not sure; can't you lose your bitcoins? You can, but their security need not depend on traditional physical security approaches: vaults, guards, cameras, etc. You can encrypt your wallet and then its security is assured. Your wallet may
Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On 12/23/2013 8:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 6:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and privateness. Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work honestly or not. honestly is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they became obsolete). Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life goal. When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so those who make money the main goal crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become pyramidal. It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool. Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid. The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth. I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was redeemable in gold or silver. BUT they always loaned much more script than they had gold or silver. They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their script in gold or silver. Now you may say this is lying, but so long as not done to excess, it makes for good economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge over small river near the town. The banker loans him the script. He pays for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script is backed by gold. The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold to back up his script. Artificially increasing the money supply can be very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on trust. If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0 Brent One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are not required for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers. If they are never held by intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out. The point of my example is that you don't HAVE to have anything to loan out. Commercial banks from which people get loans don't create the Federal Reserve notes they loan out, they need to already have some on hand before they can make a loan. With bitcoins it is clear you can't loan any out unless they are in your possession. That's like saying those banks in the old west couldn't loan out gold unless they had it in their possession. Sure; but it didn't keep them from loaning script that, according to them, was backed by gold. This would be considered fraud in any other line of business. Are you a utilitarian or a moralist? Their script was backed by gold - just not enough to cover *all* the script. Of course, our money today is fundamentally nothing but IOUs, which can be created out of thin air and backed by nothing but a promise. The instability of such a system arises when debt (which is money in our system) is created faster than the rate at which the economy grows. Defaulted debt destroys outstanding IOUs and collapses the money supply. Which is the
