Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Jun 2019, at 17:02, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you 
> > have not even try to read them
> 
> Well of course I haven't read them! Unless your field of study is ancient 
> literature and primitive cultures only a fool would take the time to read a 
> 2000 year old book, and the history of ancient wrong ideas is not a field of 
> study I am personally very interested in.


Mathematicians have been wrong on the harmonic series (1+1/2+1/3+…) for 18 
centuries. It is a catholic abbe, Oresme, who solved the problem in the 
16th/17th century, illustrating that the neoplatonist idea that theology is 
very close to mathematics was still in the (catholic) air. You would have 
dismissed it as you seem to judge people from the category they belong too 
(old, ancient, believer, etc.).

If mathematicians can be wrong 18 centuries on a specific question like the sum 
of the inverse of the positive integers, which was not consider as heretic or 
against the authorities at any time (unlike Cantor Set theory, for example), 
why would it be so astonishing that we are wrong in theology, a field stolen by 
the state since long.

Answer: may be because you have espoused the theology of Aristotle, which is 
based on the act of faith that there is an irreducible (to something simpler) 
ontological/primary physical universe. And that is not a problem, perhaps. But 
it is inconsistent if you believe/assume both a primary physical universe and 
Digital Mechanism.




> 
> > That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your pejorative 
> > sense.
> 
> Yeah yeah I know, I believe you may have mentioned that before, about 6.03 
> *10^23 times. But instead of repeating that old stale insult I wish you'd 
> done something original, like answering my question; you can not claim to be 
> able to read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine 
> which books are worth your time and which books are not?


I work top down. My initial (childhood) question was “is the amoeba immortal?”. 
I found quickly (in library, bookshop) the book by James Watson “Molecular 
Biology of the Gene”, which will be my “bible” for a long time, and I will 
understand/conceive that the Amoeba’s self-reproduction is a “mechanical” 
phenomenon.

But “immortal” refers to infinity, on which I will inquire too, and will 
discover some book on Set Theory and Cantor to put light on this, up to the 
discovery of Angel & Newman little book on Gödel’s proof, which will make me 
realise that the conceptual solution of the self-reproduction problem is 
already provided in the arithmetical relation (to be sure, at that time I did 
not know Church-Thesis, and the continuum appearing in chemistry will make me 
doubt if the arithmetical solution present in Gödel’s proof could be applied to 
amoebas. But that will decide me to study mathematics after high school.

Then digging on this, I will be led to Kleene’s “Introduction to 
Metamathematics”, and meditate on Church’s thesis for a long time. 

Etc. 

So I work top-down, starting from the amoeba immortality question, and I only 
search a new book when I have difficulties in understanding a previews book. 
Immortality refers not just to infinities, but to consciousness, survival, etc, 
so it took not much time before I discover the field of theology, and that the 
Gödelian limitation theorems (which are based on that conceptual solution of 
self-reproduction, a point made clear by Kleene) provides clear (perhaps wrong, 
or different from what the author intended, but clear) arithmetical 
interpretation to neoplatonism (but also Taoism, especially Lie-Tseu).

Fundamental science is interdisciplinary. There are many books, but starting 
from a rather concrete problem (how finite things can refer to themselves and 
what they can know about that), the road (the sequence of books) is paved 
almost deterministically.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3M0FAZKdeMXoj2NPk5gBqdz6kyndUOXkoq5uv4%3Dg%2BmZA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Jun 2019, at 20:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/2/2019 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> To make this into a theory, you need to explain where that virtuous circle 
>> comes from. With mechanism, you have the mathematical tools to address the 
>> “circle” (recursive definition). Probably not its “virtuous” nature.
>> 
>> To say that nothing is primitive will not work: you will need the axioms to 
>> get the things making the circle into a reality.
> The attitude of a scholastic: I will make reality out of axioms.


All what I say comes from the antipode of that idea.

All what I say comes from the fact the arithmetical reality is not obtainable 
from any (axiomatisable, effective) theory.

The arithmetical reality is beyond all effective theory. You can formalise it 
entirely in second order logic, but then you loose the effectiveness and the 
notion of proof parts from chekability.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06ed3e3b-d814-9268-41d2-80ebb2a23abb%40verizon.net.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/96E63E55-4D63-4A27-8775-1FC98878AE2E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Jun 2019, at 09:55, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:35:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Computer science is concerned a lot with non computable notions. 99,999 % 
> of the arithmetical is highly not computable, but plays a key role in the 
> machine’s self”s phenomenology. Löbian machine (i.e. universal machine aware 
> of their universality, like PA) cannot predict their own behaviour, and they 
> know that, giving them a base for a (compatibilist) notion of free-will.
> 
> Recursion theory is often named “computability theory”, but it is mainly a 
> theory of degrees of non computability. 
> 
> All this was (is) well known in mathematical logic and theoretical computer 
> science. I can explain more on this if people asks me.
> 
> To be sure, this week I have many oral exams (June period), so apology for 
> possible delays in comment.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> I question whether chemistry can be (completely) reduced to numerical 
> mathematics (or computing).


With mechanism, any physics (and thus chemistry) is NOT reducible to computing.

That can already be understood intuitively, because matter emerges from the 
entire sigma_1 truth which is only partially computable, and the first person 
indeterminacy relies on the entire set of true and false sigma_1 truth, or even 
the entire mathematical truth, at the phenomenological level.

I (or the humans) am (are) a machine (or sup^ported by a machine) entails that 
all the rest is not a machine, somehow.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee20f885-fb7c-4a76-a925-f1cfa547f685%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B0343926-C8FC-488F-AB6B-8DA647EEB2A6%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Jun 2019, at 17:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> How is he coherent with you if he is aware of non-computable phenomenon, 
> while you are oblivious ?


Pensose is coherent because Mechanism and Materialism are inconsistent when 
taken together.

So a Mechanist must abandon Materialism, which is what I do, methodologically, 
as Mechanism is my working hypothesis.

And a materialist like Penrose has to abandon Mechanism, which he did.

I am not sure why you say that I am oblivious of non computable phenomena. If 
we assume mechanism, we assume to be at least Turing Universal, and the Turing 
universal being are only *partially computable”. All semantic attribute of 
digital machine are provably highly not computable. The simplest of them: the 
halting of the program/digital-machine is not computable in advance, and the 
universal Löbian machine are aware of their own non computability, and can 
refute all complete effective theories about them. There know that they have a 
Soul (accepting the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus) and that their 
soul is not a machine, nor even anything describable in any third person terms.

Computer science is concerned a lot with non computable notions. 99,999 % 
of the arithmetical is highly not computable, but plays a key role in the 
machine’s self”s phenomenology. Löbian machine (i.e. universal machine aware of 
their universality, like PA) cannot predict their own behaviour, and they know 
that, giving them a base for a (compatibilist) notion of free-will.

Recursion theory is often named “computability theory”, but it is mainly a 
theory of degrees of non computability. 

All this was (is) well known in mathematical logic and theoretical computer 
science. I can explain more on this if people asks me.

To be sure, this week I have many oral exams (June period), so apology for 
possible delays in comment.

Bruno




> 
> On Saturday, 1 June 2019 11:11:50 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 31 May 2019, at 14:13, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> But you just said in another post that you are familiar with Roger Penrose 
>> writing about non-computational phenomena. How do you reconcile 
>> non-computational phenomena with computationalism ?
> 
> Despite his non valid use of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, Penrose is 
> coherent with my reasoning. He believes in primitive matter and reject 
> mechanism. I keep mechanism and reject materialism. My simpler result staring 
> the whole thing is that Mechanism and Materialism are incompatible.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/23d9580f-d5e4-482b-9460-91edc7fbb5b9%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1EDD716C-FD5F-445D-8F53-0D20AF9A5823%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Jun 2019, at 20:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/2/2019 2:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> Assuming there is an ontological world, which is precisely what I have never 
>> found any evidence for.
> 
> You refer to ontological existence and phenomenological existence all the 
> time.

Oops sorry. I meant “assuming an ontological *physical* world".

With mechanism: the ontological existence is given by the use of the 
existential quantification rule in the first order logic applied to the base 
(and weak) Turing-complete used (very elementary arithmetic like RA, or the SK 
theory extended in a first order theory, etc.).

The phenomenological existences are given by the modal first-order “extension" 
of Solovay theorem. I put “extension” in quote, because the first order modal 
extension, unlike their proposition variant, are not axiomatisable. qG is 
PI_2-complete, qG* is PI_1 complete in the Oracle of the Arithmetical Truth. 
(Yes, the arithmetical Noùs is far more powerful than God itself!).

Bruno





> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb9dc458-9d6e-b4ec-c555-f0ac76c1584e%40verizon.net.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CB22FE16-D032-4A5A-975D-2172E02F7ABB%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You just said in another post that mechanism = computationalism. Now you 
say that mechanism = partially computationalism. Can you make up your mind ?

On Monday, 3 June 2019 10:35:27 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> If we assume mechanism, we assume to be at least Turing Universal, and the 
> Turing universal being are only *partially computable”.
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d7fdcb4a-f453-4bc5-b089-3142e76dc12c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Jun 2019, at 04:59, Samiya Illias  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 02-Jun-2019, at 11:38 PM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
>>> Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
>>> matter exists, 
>> 
>> A straw man.  Nothing I wrote referred to primitive matter.
> 
> The Quran does mention the existence of something before and beyond the 
> ‘universe/ cosmos/ space’ we live in. This may be of interest: 
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2019/01/space-before-and-beyond.html 
>  
> 

That is still rather Aristotelian. The first half of the Quran is better than 
that, it contains the just reference to Judaism, and you can feel the openness 
to neoplatonism, where indeed there was something deeper than the physical 
reality at play at the origine of the physical reality (the how and why being 
indeed addressed in the Quran).
The second half of the Quran is more problematic, and in my opinion, not 
written by the same people, or something happened to them. It is problematic 
both on the metaphysical level, but also on the ethical level, doubly so if it 
is taken literally (as it contains basic hate speech  toward non-muslims, 
especially the jews, even some call for murdering some people, or sentences 
which can be interpreted easily that way).

That is obviously even aggravated by the fact that many muslims do kill many 
people today, and this by invoking Allah. The media seems to skip this, but 
there is an actual genocide of christians in many muslims countries, and they 
refer to the Quran and even worst Hadith. 

The canonical theology of the machine (the Solovay logic G*) explains why 
theology, even as a science, contains a trap. It shows that the frontier 
between Enlightenment and madness is very thin.That is wise, in the ideal world 
of the self-referentially correct machine, the wise say mute and trust the 
big-one-who-has-no-name to make any religious advertising. Allah is being name 
and words, and religious text can help when not taken literally, and becomes a 
source of burdens and suffering when taken literally.

G* proves <>[]f   (the consistency of inconsistency)

G proves <>t -> <>[]f  (if I am consistent then it is consistent that I am 
inconsistent, if I am not mad, then it is possible that I am mad).

With Mechanism, the closer to Allah you are, the more modest and openminded you 
become.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5FA9BBDF-1EAB-46A1-9270-0C9935CA13EF%40gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AEC81733-1E87-42CF-B373-E89F726F36A6%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:35:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Computer science is concerned a lot with non computable notions. 
> 99,999 % of the arithmetical is highly not computable, but plays a key 
> role in the machine’s self”s phenomenology. Löbian machine (i.e. universal 
> machine aware of their universality, like PA) cannot predict their own 
> behaviour, and they know that, giving them a base for a (compatibilist) 
> notion of free-will.
>
> Recursion theory is often named “computability theory”, but it is mainly a 
> theory of degrees of non computability. 
>
> All this was (is) well known in mathematical logic and theoretical 
> computer science. I can explain more on this if people asks me.
>
> To be sure, this week I have many oral exams (June period), so apology for 
> possible delays in comment.
>
> Bruno
>
>
I question whether chemistry can be (completely) reduced to numerical 
mathematics (or computing).

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee20f885-fb7c-4a76-a925-f1cfa547f685%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Jun 2019, at 20:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/2/2019 12:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people 
>> believed this by ostentation.
> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  
> One can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
 Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
 definition makes sense.
>>> Ostensive definitions are semantic. 
>> OK.
>> 
>> But no sound machine can define its semantic. Ostensive definition requires 
>> an act of fait in some undefinable reality. 
>> 
>> 
>>> You point down where you're standing and say "Earth"...that's how children 
>>> learn words.  And having defined Earth as that which we stand on we have 
>>> not believed anything about it's overall shape.
>> Exactly like the god of the (Neo)platonists. They assume some Reality 
>> (called God) at the origin of everything, and they do not assume much more, 
>> but propose theories and means to make sense of them.
> 
> You seem to be in a bubble of rationalism.  Everything is about axioms and 
> assumptions and words.  Ostensive definitions point outside that bubble.  
> They are fuzzy, but they are not assumptions...they are based on, consist of, 
> evidence.


Given that I tend empiricism, and that I explain that it is the observation of 
the universe which counts, that is an astonishing remark.

Mechanism explains the appearance of the physical universe from an arithmetical 
web of quantum-like statistically interfering computations, and the observation 
of nature confirms mechanism, and add doubts to the idea that a physical 
universe is a thing for itself, independent of the number's experiences.




> 
>> 
>> When a theologian has the scientific attitude, no one could know what is his 
>> personal opinion on that matter. He only propose principles or theories, 
>> shows the consequences and the means to test the theory.
>> 
>> Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
>> matter exists, 
> 
> A straw man.  Nothing I wrote referred to primitive matter.


OK. Then we agree. My critics has never been on physics, only on physicalism, 
and only when taken together with Digital Mechanism.

Bruno





> 
> Brent
> 
>> and never propose anyway to test that idea. It is normal, because there are 
>> evidence and reason why the brain has not been prepared/“programmed”, 
>> through evolution, to handle the metaphysical subtleties.
>> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 
>> Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and 
>> omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The 
>> correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can 
>> have a conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still 
>> in the 19th century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I 
>> guess to just mock it.
>> 
>> I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the 
>> vocabulary. For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not 
>> God, but “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse 
>> physics and metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of 
>> metaphysical brainwashing.
>> 
>> If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you 
>> can show it to us.
> Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality?
 Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* 
 and X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the physical 
 reality is primitive.
 
 
 
 
> As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is a 
> matter of faith…
 Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now 
 require faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable
 
 
 
> except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of 
> faith.
 There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is typically 
 the difference between reasoning with the mechanist hypothesis (and 
 stating neutral or mute about the personal belief we can have or not), and 
 saying “yes” to the doctor in a concrete real life situation. Faith is 
 when some aspect of your first person experience depends crucially on the 
 truth of an hypothesis. It is the difference between jumping from a cliff 
 with an elastic, and just assuming the elastic is good enough without 
 jumping.
 
 
 
 
>> The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that 
>> 

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 7:17:59 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> It is only with the advent of Quantum Mechanics that physicists begin to 
> grasp the problem of relating first person description and third  person 
> theory. Ot out Everett’s wording, the importance of the difference between 
> the subjective and some possible objective knowledge.
>
>
> Bruno 
>
>
This is perhaps the biggest of philosophical errors generated by physicists 
in history.


The contrarian view:

[If one views QM as a generalized measure on a space of histories, then one 
sees not only how quantal processes differ from classical stochastic 
processes (the main difference, they satisfy different sum rules), but also 
how closely the two resemble each other.]

via Rafael Sorkin

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/59c312e9-3f9b-4d90-b130-fdada631fef0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Jun 2019, at 04:37, PGC  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:14:29 AM UTC+2, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> About every century there is a tendency for more sociopathic disordered or 
> malignant narcissists, such as t'Rump *-- see below for more, to assume 
> power. Last century this occurred with the rise of communism in Russia and 
> fascism in western Europe. The century before beginning with the end of the 
> 18th century had Jacobins having fun chopping heads in Paris which culminated 
> in Napoleon. There have been about every century a flare up of these, and the 
> 17th century saw all sorts of collective insanity with the 30 Years War, the 
> Huguenot war, the English Civil War and so forth. Based on the general time 
> table, we are coming due for the next grand episode of chaos. And just as the 
> Grateful Dead song Hell in a Bucket puts it the snakes come marching in --- 
> and sure enough here they come. We may be heading into a doozie this time, as 
> we have the nuclear explosive power to unleash several thousand WWII's. It 
> looks to me that the United States as the leader in the world is now the 
> leader in the coming next mass insanity.
> 
> I hear you Lawrence and appreciate your clarity. Conservative to far right 
> discourses completely eclipse the larger historical backdrop: we are a people 
> dependent and hooked to waging war for thousands of years. And we almost 
> cleaned/sobered up in the latter half of the century. We approached civility 
> even if we couldn't get things like income disparities under control. Folks 
> are justifiably angry with progressive junk democrats are peddling because 
> they weren't effective enough, they didn't cater to middle and lower 
> influence strata of society enough, which you probably know. The US as leader 
> of mass insanity, and it's being copied world wide AND these leaders are 
> meeting. Lol on the great meetings of noob selfish money- and power grubbers, 
> that think they are stronger together! Egoists stronger together! They should 
> rob themselves leave us alone and we prosecute. Win win for everybody lol.
>  
> 
> Look it up, but there is an interview by Barbara Walters of Donald t'Rump 
> where the camera makes views of his office walls. These wall are covered with 
> portraits of himself. Donald t'Rump sees himself as the most brilliant of 
> people, when a professor at his Alma mater called him "the dumbest goddammed 
> student he ever knew."  Danald t'Rump is way past the point of the Dunning 
> Kruger effect. He is also clearly narcissistic and has also been investigated 
> by SNY Attorney General for laundering money going back decades. He is a man 
> who serves the criminal world by laundering its money through illicit real 
> estate transactions.
> 
> Those things reek to the high heavens. Mueller put out the proof: evidence of 
> sweeping and systematic manipulation of the election and despite immunity, no 
> evidence that they didn't obstruct. Immunity or not, that's criminal in my 
> book. And while drowned in the perpetual scandal noise they all do the same 
> thing: enrich themselves by hollowing out checks and balances. They don't 
> want to be checked. So my read is to check them and their discourse. 
>  
> 
> For decades now anything liberal has been repeatedly labelled as almost 
> satanic. The messages of this have been thumping people for decades and now 
> we are at a point where if you do have some liberality of mind you now find 
> yourself contemplating leaving the country. Of course the problem is this is 
> infectious and a number of other nations are into this. Also there is the 
> rise of fascist parties, and in the US we are seeing the rise of far 
> extremists such as neo-Nazis. I see lots of people who have drunk the koolaid 
> of this shit, and it is growing in popularity. On the other hand maybe I 
> should just give this a shrug. I really question whether humanity is going to 
> exist past a half century or so. So whiskey tango foxtrot, maybe if we are 
> all going to die why not let the psychopaths and their idiot followers just 
> blow it all up, rather than going out in a whimper?
> 
> I can relate and would offer you to consider engaging them as democratic 
> equals. Idea: If they mess with us, leave or go hard. Let them spam their own 
> thread full of their gospels. The religious right wing seriousness thread of 
> non-smugness for the good boys too smart to vote along their self-interest, 
> who like marching in rows and going to church like the obedient, kind, 
> trustworthy people they are. They should do it. 
> 
> To Spunkboy: Why you right guys pussying about copy pasting raging like 
> noobs? Bring it on Spud and Co! Make a thread with all the evil crimes 
> pretentious progressive elite smug snobs like myself are guilty of, too dumb 
> to see, and let's see what insights you can offer to science, theories of 
> everything, philosophy, belief, aestheticsTopics of this 

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Jun 2019, at 03:27, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> As a minor of mine in college was philosophy I have read some of these 
> ancient texts. I have even read Aristotle's Physics, which is all wrong 
> really. So of what use are these texts, or really philosophy in general? It 
> is interesting to see how these ancient thinkers were groping in the dark. At 
> least they were trying, while the later Christians just sat around and prayed 
> about things. I find looking at errors in thought to be interesting, for it 
> can well be that we are making now similar category errors with things. It 
> may in some ways be that philosophy serves that role in general; it can help 
> inform us where we are wrong.

Yes, and that works as long as the science/philosophy/theology is not used for 
special interest, which quickly leads to lies, like “big-pharma” has 
illustrated with health, and like all institutionalised religions illustrated 
with their dogma.

I don’t believe that science is a thing. Science emerges from the scientific 
attitude of some humans, and that attitude can be hold in any domain of 
inquiry, except in totalitary regime or dictatorships of course.

Bruno 



> 
> LC
> 
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:02:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal > 
> wrote:
> 
> > The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you 
> > have not even try to read them
> 
> Well of course I haven't read them! Unless your field of study is ancient 
> literature and primitive cultures only a fool would take the time to read a 
> 2000 year old book, and the history of ancient wrong ideas is not a field of 
> study I am personally very interested in.
> 
> > That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your pejorative 
> > sense.
> 
> Yeah yeah I know, I believe you may have mentioned that before, about 6.03 
> *10^23 times. But instead of repeating that old stale insult I wish you'd 
> done something original, like answering my question; you can not claim to be 
> able to read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine 
> which books are worth your time and which books are not?
> 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b8defbd8-b416-4d75-9aaf-3d2dd8c6d80f%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E336CB24-A7C9-4144-A0C7-0D9FF355E7E5%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Jun 2019, at 11:47, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> You just said in another post that mechanism = computationalism.

Yes, I use computationalism as a synonym of “Indexical Digital Mechanism”, or 
simply Mechanism to be short.




> Now you say that mechanism = partially computationalism. Can you make up your 
> mind ?


Important remark.

It is just an (amazing, and amazingly simple) theorem (formalisable in 
elementary arithmetic!) that there is no effective theory of the entire range 
of the total computable (see below).

So, to define mathematically/precisely what is (total) computability, we need 
to accept partial computability. Then, typically, the universal machine 
behaviour will NOT be entirely computable. A universal machine is necessarily a 
code for a partial computable function; it is undefined on some natural number.

A total computable function from N to N is defined on all natural numbers. It 
is a function from N to N.

A partial computable function from N to N can be undefined on some natural 
numbers. It is a function from a subset of N in N.

Note that a total function is a particular partial function, when the subset of 
N on which it defined is the st N itself. A total function is a particular case 
of partial function. We use "strictly partial” to refer to a partial function 
which is not total.

We can effectively, mechanically, enumerate all partial computable function, 
through their codes in some universal system (like a universal programming 
language).

But as I have proved more than ten times in this forum, the price of having a 
universal machine is that we cannot mechanical decide in advance if a code is 
program computing a total or a partial function.

If we were able to distinguish mechanically the codes for the total computable 
functions from the (strictly) partial one, we would be able to enumerate all 
total computable function from N to N:

F_0, F_1, F_2, F_3, …. F_I, ….

Then the function G(n) = F_n(n) + 1 would be a total computable functions, but 
then there would be a F_k equal to G, and we get:

G_k(k) = G_k(k) + 1, and each G_k(k) are numbers, so by subtracting G_k(k) at 
both sides, we get 0 = 1 (contradiction).

OK?  (Ask for any possible further clarification)

This means that the only way to get all total functions is to get all partial 
computable function in the list, and the total functions will be mixed in an 
NON algorithmetical way, among the partial function. The problem above will no 
more appear as the reasoning will only show that G_k(k) is not defined, and so 
cannot be subtracted on both sides. You can program G_k, and verify, on all 
programming language of computer that it crash the machine, making it running 
"forever”.

I have defined mechanism by the idea that we can survive with a digital 
(universal) machine at the place of the brain (in a generalised sense which can 
include the body possibly with any finitely describable part of the 
environment). This needs the notion of universal machine, which are necessary 
*strictly* partial computable, so mechanism cannot avoid that partialness of 
the machine’s behaviours.

So if I am a universal machine (and the universal part of this is provable, it 
is “being a machine” which is not provable), I can only be (strictly) partial 
computable.

Bruno






> 
> On Monday, 3 June 2019 10:35:27 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> If we assume mechanism, we assume to be at least Turing Universal, and the 
> Turing universal being are only *partially computable”.
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d7fdcb4a-f453-4bc5-b089-3142e76dc12c%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2DD3276D-9D47-4406-8E5B-816335C77DFC%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[Philip Thrift]

Like *Richard Rorty*, I'm just a (cultured, intellectual) *bourgeoisie 
liberal*.

"While the Left’s back was turned, the bourgeoisification of the white 
proletariat which began in WWII and continued up through the Vietnam War 
has been halted, and the process has gone into reverse. America is now 
proletarianizing its bourgeoisie, and this process is likely to culminate 
in bottom-up revolt, of the sort [*fill in the blank*] hopes to foment." 
(Rorty, 1997)

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/9/14543938/donald-trump-richard-rorty-election-liberalism-conservatives

@philipthrift

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 3:18:05 PM UTC-5, howardmarks wrote:
>
> I think the labels "fascist" or "liberal" of A. and B. are distortions. 
> There are lots of con-artists, blowhards, cultured and/or intellectual 
> people that have neither of those prejudicial labels.  I don't identify 
> as either...
> Cheers! HowardM
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Thrift  
> To: Everything List  
> Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2019 3:01 pm
> Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?
>
>
>
> When America is presented a choice:
>
> A. con-artist, blowhard fascist
> B. cultured, intellectual liberal
>
> A always has a chance of winning.
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/46c7e101-114f-4d5e-ae75-e3d41a9295d6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 6:01:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 3 Jun 2019, at 04:59, Samiya Illias > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 02-Jun-2019, at 11:38 PM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
> matter exists, 
>
>
> A straw man.  Nothing I wrote referred to *primitive* matter.
>
>
> The Quran does mention the existence of something before and beyond the 
> ‘universe/ cosmos/ space’ we live in. This may be of interest: 
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2019/01/space-before-and-beyond.html 
>
>
> That is still rather Aristotelian. The first half of the Quran is better 
> than that, it contains the just reference to Judaism, and you can feel the 
> openness to neoplatonism, where indeed there was something deeper than the 
> physical reality at play at the origine of the physical reality (the how 
> and why being indeed addressed in the Quran).
> The second half of the Quran is more problematic, and in my opinion, not 
> written by the same people, or something happened to them. It is 
> problematic both on the metaphysical level, but also on the ethical level, 
> doubly so if it is taken literally (as it contains basic hate speech 
>  toward non-muslims, especially the jews, even some call for murdering some 
> people, or sentences which can be interpreted easily that way).
>

There are the Mecca and Medina portions of the Koran. The Mecca Koran is 
the start, at least chronologically, and some of it reads a bit like Psalms 
and Proverbs. As the story goes Muhammad wrote this in Mecca, but was later 
thrown out. The second portion is presumed to be written by Muhammad in 
Medina, and there he was piqued to say the least. This part of the Koran is 
pretty sharp edged with eschatology. Some think these two parts were 
written by different people, though saying that publicly in parts of the 
Islamic world will get your head served on a platter.

LC
 

>
> That is obviously even aggravated by the fact that many muslims do kill 
> many people today, and this by invoking Allah. The media seems to skip 
> this, but there is an actual genocide of christians in many muslims 
> countries, and they refer to the Quran and even worst Hadith. 
>
> The canonical theology of the machine (the Solovay logic G*) explains why 
> theology, even as a science, contains a trap. It shows that the frontier 
> between Enlightenment and madness is very thin.That is wise, in the ideal 
> world of the self-referentially correct machine, the wise say mute and 
> trust the big-one-who-has-no-name to make any religious advertising. Allah 
> is being name and words, and religious text can help when not taken 
> literally, and becomes a source of burdens and suffering when taken 
> literally.
>
> G* proves <>[]f   (the consistency of inconsistency)
>
> G proves <>t -> <>[]f  (if I am consistent then it is consistent that I am 
> inconsistent, if I am not mad, then it is possible that I am mad).
>
> With Mechanism, the closer to Allah you are, the more modest and 
> openminded you become.
>
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5FA9BBDF-1EAB-46A1-9270-0C9935CA13EF%40gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8101562c-6412-4180-b274-aeacdcc3f646%40googlegroups.com.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:18 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *you have espoused the theology of Aristotle, which is based on the act
> of faith*
>

Congratulations, you have now repeated that exact same schoolyard insult
(6.02*10^23) *+1* times, you've broken through the mole barrier!


> > *Mathematicians have been wrong on the harmonic series (1+1/2+1/3+…)
> for 18 centuries. It is a catholic abbe, Oresme, who solved the problem in
> the 16th/17th century, illustrating that the neoplatonist idea that
> theology is very close to mathematics*
>

If a professional insurance salesman discovers a new comet with his
backyard hobby telescope does that mean insurance is very close to
astronomy? I guess for you it does mean that, after all you said atheism is
just a slight variation of Christianity and believe my saying Aristotle was
the worst physicist who ever lived means I have embraced Aristotle's ideas
as an act of faith.

* > I only search a new book when I have difficulties in understanding a
> previews book.*
>

All you've done is state the problem, you still haven't explained how you
make the selection, you can't read all old books and can't read all new
books either: so how do you determine which new book is most likely to
answer your difficulties in understanding something? I do it by listening
to comments and reading reviews written by people who have given good book
advice in the past and I then use induction to conclude their new  advice
is probably good too. And not one of those people who I respect said
reading a 2000 year old book will help anyone better understand any modern
scientific or mathematical problem. Not one.

> *Immortality refers not just to infinities,*
>

Immortality means never having a last thought and the only way I know how
to do that is with infinity.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0mypGvD8s38UWfp9SZmR3SjMy7gGdihU-CoQ%2BDK3kguw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

How do you explain OBE and NDE ?

On Monday, 3 June 2019 14:38:33 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> I have defined mechanism by the idea that we can survive with a digital 
> (universal) machine at the place of the brain
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4bb6f99d-c53f-49a0-8fa6-f28f54a62786%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Also, have a look at my paper "The Problem of the Self" and tell me how do 
you solve those thought experiments.

https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan

On Monday, 3 June 2019 14:38:33 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> I have defined mechanism by the idea that we can survive with a digital 
> (universal) machine at the place of the brain
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f7e317f5-04fc-48c5-a105-390b7d268124%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 4:18 PM howardmarks  wrote:

> I think the labels "fascist" or "liberal" of A. and B. are distortions.
>

I too am very confused about this entire left-wing right-wing business,
just a few years ago right wingers thought the CIA and FBI were the good
guys and the Kremlin the bad guys but Trump suporters thing the oposite,
the republican right wing were free traders but Trump is a self described
"tariff man", the right wing was for smaller less intrusive government but
Trump wants the government to tell women what they can and can't do with
their bodies.

I don't use the word "fascist" lightly, I'm not in the habit, as some on
the left are, of calling anyone who's politics I disagree with a fascist,
but when it comes to Trump supporters I sincerely think the word is
justified; 53% of republicans say they would be OK with Trump canceling the
2020 election. And Fascist dictators cancel elections, lead chants to
imprison their political opponents, try to change the law so they can sue
newspapers and close them down when they write articles against them, jail
reporters who don't cooperate, order TV networks to stop satirizing them,
put family members in positions of power, tell police not to be gentle
when they arrest somebody, say some Nazis are "very good people" and
develop a cult following that will believe anything they say, such as
vaccines cause autism or windmills cause cancer.

Today it's foolish to claim there is a moral equivalence between the two
major political parties, at one time there was one (and I was a Republican
for most of my life) but there is no equivalence anymore. The Democrats
have done stuff that is very unwise and unfair but it would be going way
too far to call them fascist. A fascist political party is as bad as things
can get, the sort of thing you saw in Europe in the 1930s, and things are
not currently as bad as things can get but only because the American
Fascist Party (aka Republicans) still has some competition from a very
large but sometimes silly and often dysfunctional non-fascist party, the
democrats.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3rehae9nthsvkEvQmzysZ_xbHqFb40evjM9fNYY5zjnA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 8:13:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 4:18 PM howardmarks  > wrote:
>
> > I think the labels "fascist" or "liberal" of A. and B. are distortions.
>>
>
> I too am very confused about this entire left-wing right-wing business, 
> just a few years ago right wingers thought the CIA and FBI were the good 
> guys and the Kremlin the bad guys but Trump suporters thing the oposite, 
> the republican right wing were free traders but Trump is a self described 
> "tariff man", the right wing was for smaller less intrusive government but 
> Trump wants the government to tell women what they can and can't do with 
> their bodies.
>
> I don't use the word "fascist" lightly, I'm not in the habit, as some on 
> the left are, of calling anyone who's politics I disagree with a fascist, 
> but when it comes to Trump supporters I sincerely think the word is 
> justified; 53% of republicans say they would be OK with Trump canceling the 
> 2020 election. And Fascist dictators cancel elections, lead chants to 
> imprison their political opponents, try to change the law so they can sue 
> newspapers and close them down when they write articles against them, jail 
> reporters who don't cooperate, order TV networks to stop satirizing them, 
> put family members in positions of power, tell police not to be gentle 
> when they arrest somebody, say some Nazis are "very good people" and 
> develop a cult following that will believe anything they say, such as 
> vaccines cause autism or windmills cause cancer.
>
> Today it's foolish to claim there is a moral equivalence between the two 
> major political parties, at one time there was one (and I was a Republican 
> for most of my life) but there is no equivalence anymore. The Democrats 
> have done stuff that is very unwise and unfair but it would be going way 
> too far to call them fascist. A fascist political party is as bad as things 
> can get, the sort of thing you saw in Europe in the 1930s, and things are 
> not currently as bad as things can get but only because the American 
> Fascist Party (aka Republicans) still has some competition from a very 
> large but sometimes silly and often dysfunctional non-fascist party, the 
> democrats.
>
>  John K Clark   
>  
>


The Republican Party and Democratic Party became pretty much identified 
with their current alignment in 1932 with the election of FDR.

The Democratic Party has since been* the only origin *of what might be 
called progressive legislation: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil 
Rights and Voting Rights Acts, ...

It is true that some Republicans crossed over to help in some cases, and 
the segregationist southern Democrats then changed their party affiliation 
to Republican.

Progressive law like EPA and women's rights in academia sports were passed 
under Nixon, but the Democrats were in charge of Congress.

*So we know that progressive laws have been passed when Democrats were in 
charge of both president and Congress, or just in charge of Congress, but 
...*

*Name a single progressive law passed when there was a Republican president 
and Republican House and Senate since 1932.*


@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8e929ca4-9f65-4b6e-8736-7f8c0f74ce7a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 8:13:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 4:18 PM howardmarks  > wrote:
>
> > I think the labels "fascist" or "liberal" of A. and B. are distortions.
>>
>
> I too am very confused about this entire left-wing right-wing business, 
> just a few years ago right wingers thought the CIA and FBI were the good 
> guys and the Kremlin the bad guys but Trump suporters thing the oposite, 
> the republican right wing were free traders but Trump is a self described 
> "tariff man", the right wing was for smaller less intrusive government but 
> Trump wants the government to tell women what they can and can't do with 
> their bodies.
>
> I don't use the word "fascist" lightly, I'm not in the habit, as some on 
> the left are, of calling anyone who's politics I disagree with a fascist, 
> but when it comes to Trump supporters I sincerely think the word is 
> justified; 53% of republicans say they would be OK with Trump canceling the 
> 2020 election. And Fascist dictators cancel elections, lead chants to 
> imprison their political opponents, try to change the law so they can sue 
> newspapers and close them down when they write articles against them, jail 
> reporters who don't cooperate, order TV networks to stop satirizing them, 
> put family members in positions of power, tell police not to be gentle 
> when they arrest somebody, say some Nazis are "very good people" and 
> develop a cult following that will believe anything they say, such as 
> vaccines cause autism or windmills cause cancer.
>
> Today it's foolish to claim there is a moral equivalence between the two 
> major political parties, at one time there was one (and I was a Republican 
> for most of my life) but there is no equivalence anymore. The Democrats 
> have done stuff that is very unwise and unfair but it would be going way 
> too far to call them fascist. A fascist political party is as bad as things 
> can get, the sort of thing you saw in Europe in the 1930s, and things are 
> not currently as bad as things can get but only because the American 
> Fascist Party (aka Republicans) still has some competition from a very 
> large but sometimes silly and often dysfunctional non-fascist party, the 
> democrats.
>
>  John K Clark  
>

The equivalency between the two parties is often drawn with the fact they 
both take corporate campaign donations. Sure, from the perspective of any 
corporation the outcome of an election is uncertain and while their 
leadership may prefer the right winged candidate if they give money to the 
more liberal candidate who wins then they can still demand their influence. 
It might be said a big difference between a Republican and a Democrat 
elected to office is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when 
confronted by their corporate patrons. Also interestingly during times of 
financial distress, such as 2008, corporations will even favor funding 
Democrats because they know the liberals are more willing to pull the 
Keynesian levers to fix the economic mess the banks and corporations 
generated.

However, since I first voted during the Reagan years my observation has 
been the Republicans are becoming more authoritarian; they talk freedom etc 
and then do everything they can to restrict democratic institutions, and 
now we have a president who recently said to the effect, "This is my damned 
country and I can do what ever the hell I want with it." That is the 
attitude of a dictator. The first inkling of this was after the 1994 
election when there was this rise of extremism, militias and pundits such 
as M. Savage telling citizens to use "headshots" against any officer trying 
to confiscate a gun. I am sensing how a great number of people in this 
country are behind this attitude of totalitarianism as well. It may be the 
case that t'Rump will if he wins this election, or if he annuls the results 
because he loses, that we will see ever more curtailments against the press 
that fails to conform, more harassment against those identified as liberal 
and more laws designed to restrict the expression of various opinions or 
maybe even scientific facts. 

George Orwell wrote on how authoritarians do what they can to erase memory. 
In one decade they may be all for unrestricted flow of capital and the next 
decade they are all for tariffs. Of course we all know that tariffs are a 
terrible way to cure trade imbalances, but with t'Rump his 6th grade 
understanding of the world says otherwise, and average people who are about 
as bright think this has defined conservatism all along. Traditionally 
Republicans regarded Russia as a serious menace, and now for some reason 
Russia is great and t'Rump even seems disposed to Russia's program of 
dismantling the EU and fragmenting Europe into weak states. Ahh, they might 
say, "this is the new Russia." Yeah sure, the Communist commissars burned 
their party cards in 1991 and became mafia-style businessmen --- the sort 

Re: Trump Supporters?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:37 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> Name a single progressive law passed when there was a Republican
> president and Republican House and Senate since 1932.*
>

To be honest at this point I don't think the distinction between
progressive and non-progressive is very important. We've had bad presidents
before and if we get one again it won't be the end of the world, but what
I'm really worried about is getting a bad dictator. In 2016 Trump said he
would abide by the election results *only* if he won, it was bad enough
when he was only a candidate but now he's Commander In Chief with tanks at
his command. Even when he won he was a sore winner and said the election
was fake, if he looses in 2020 do you really think he will be a good sport
about it?

 Even if Trump loses in a landslide in the 2020 election I would say there
is a 40% chance he will say the election was fake and try to stay in office
long after January 2021 and claim he will reschedule a new election at some
vague unspecified future date. And if there is an inverse of the 2016
situation and Trump wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral
College I think it's virtually certain he will need to be dragged out of
the Oval Office by armed guards, the trouble is Trump will have armed
guards of his own. I don't know if Trump's attempt to become dictator will
be successful, he's not very bright so that's a good sign, but even if he
fails it will be ugly, such a power grab will lead to blood literally
flowing in the streets.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1tV_xoEj8Ev%3D4AqY_Tyu5WD_rq8LE41LXj6VDOLCUnnA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Look, Sam, you're not going to succeed at Dawa here, unless you get into the 
weeds, via physics. So, thus, you have got to be prepared to peek over Allah's 
shoulder and answer the biggest questions of all, not the Why questions, but 
the How, the mechanics of How Mister Allah does his things, say, 'qiama'  

You must show how the mechanics will work, based on cause and effect. 
Otherwise, it's merely running away from the difficult issues of How. If you 
are afraid to offend, the Big Guy, that's a personal issue. 
-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2019 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity



On 02-Jun-2019, at 11:38 PM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:



Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
matter exists,  
 
 A straw man.  Nothing I wrote referred to primitive matter.

The Quran does mention the existence of something before and beyond the 
‘universe/ cosmos/ space’ we live in. This may be of interest: 
https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2019/01/space-before-and-beyond.html -- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5FA9BBDF-1EAB-46A1-9270-0C9935CA13EF%40gmail.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1518708800.10240701.1559599468163%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Yes indeed, but it is still rule by rich Rogues whether the Koch's or Georgy 
Soros. Banks were declared too big to fail, under Bush 43, and happy Obama 
continued their funding, if you remember? There are hardly any, billionaire 
good guys, which is why the globalist crap has been pushed by both parties, 
decimating the US middle class. For a health care plan that beats UK style 
ones, we need to go to massively, interstate, and maybe inter-continental 
health plans, that covers tens of millions as a pay-in, pay-out. Don't mind me, 
I am but an American serf, an NPC, because the in this world, cash is the ghost 
in the machine.

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 6:54 pm
Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:10 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


So, you don't feel that the democrats are funded by billionaires as well and do 
the billionaires bidding?

It depends on the billionaire.  Warren Buffett and Bill Gates agree with the 
democrats that everybody in the USA should have health care and it should be 
payed for by increasing the taxes on the rich. The Koch brothers and Sheldon 
Adelson want to lower the taxes on the rich even more than Trump already has 
and pay for that loss of income by striping 22 million Americans of what little 
health care they currently have.  
> Do you think that democrats are the party of the 'little guy," or the US 
> middle class?

The middle class, which is a big improvement from being the party of the super 
mega uber rich.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0uK-TAXoDwCtS6hqeGhCjtqa5wTUR-35QGY8Vrq98Weg%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/778604535.2834902.155960476%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:33 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The equivalency between the two parties is often drawn with the fact they
> both take corporate campaign donations.
>

I don't mind that so much, governments have caused vastly more misery in
the world than governments, that's why I became a libertarian.

> Of course we all know that tariffs are a terrible way to cure trade
> imbalances,
>

Yes, and as as often as not trade imbalances don't even need to be cured, I
have a trade imbalance with my local supermarket, I buy lots of stuff from
them and they never buy anything from me, but that's OK with me.


> > but with t'Rump his 6th grade understanding of the world says otherwise,
>

You're insulting school kids, I would much rather have a bright 6th grader
as president.


> > The wealth gaps and the exponential growth in the power of
> billionaires, while the average middle class or "petite bourgeoisie" person
> is falling into at best income stagnation or decline, are a recipe for
> future chaos.
>

Yes, that's what made me change my political philosophy, until a few years
ago I was a hardcore libertarian, I still am on social issues but not
economic ones. I've always thought if a theory doesn't fit the facts then
it must be abandoned regardless of how much you love it, and I saw some
fact I just could not ignore.

In 2010 the richest 388 people had as much wealth as poorest half of the
entire human race, that's 3.6 Billion people. In 2014 the richest 85
people did.
In 2015 the richest 62 people did. In 2017 the richest 8 people did. Think
of it, the 8 richest Human beings have as much wealth as the poorest 3.6
BILLION Human beings! History has pretty decisively shown that huge
wealth inequality
just ain't healthy for any society, although history has no examples of
inequality of
the
 magnitude
we have now.


The improvements in AI that are certain to come

in the next few years

will only accelerate the acceleration of this socially destabilizing trend
unless something pushes back, something like government action. Health
insurance for all might be a good place to start. However Donald Trump
wants to push for lowering taxes on the rich, getting rid of the
inheritance tax, and eliminating health care for

the

24 million

poorest people in the country;

 but that's pushing in the wrong direction and will only accelerate the
acceleration of
the acceleration
of the wealth gap.

Anybody who is not terrified by this doesn't understand the situation.

One way or another this trend will NOT continue, if government action
doesn't slow down the widening of the gap something far far more unpleasant
will.
If
 I were one of those 8 hyper rich people I'd be calling for change louder
than anyone because I like the fact that there is a connection between my
head and my shoulders and would prefer to keep it that way.
Let me be clear,
I'm not talking about "should", I'm not talking about morality, I'm just
saying
that
when the gap between the rich and the poor gets
too
large social instability occurs
and that can be very unhealthy for those at the very top.


Americans like to think they live in a meritocracy but they don't, the
truth is if you're born poor in the USA and are talented you're less likely
to get rich than if you were born in other advanced countries, particularly
one of the Scandinavian socialist countries. Take a look at this graph,
it's informally called "The Great Gatsby Curve" by economists and is a plot
of the Gini coefficient for several industrialized countries (a measure of
economic inequality) against economic mobility (the likelihood if you're
born in one economic class you'll die in the same economic class):

The Great Gatsby Curve


As you can see the USA is in the extreme upper right of the plot and that
is exactly where you don't want to be; enormous economic inequality and
little economic mobility, the same conditions that occurred just before the
French Revolution. The only reason there hasn't already been blood in the
streets is probably because the poor are unrealistically optimistic about
getting rich. Here is another interesting graph, it plots several countries
actual economic mobility against the perceived economic mobility with the
diagonal line representing an accurate assessment of possibilities. As you
can see Americans are far too optimistic while most other countries are
somewhat too pessimistic, only the Italians get it about right and see
things as they actually are:

Actual Mobility Versus Perceived Mobility

Re: Trump Supporters?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

So, you don't feel that the democrats are funded by billionaires as well and do 
the billionaires bidding?Do you think that democrats are the party of the 
'little guy," or the US middle class?You do know that the money flows in from 
the uber rich and this, then, is a Plutocracy? Or do you feel it's a republic?


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 9:13 am
Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 4:18 PM howardmarks  wrote:


  > I think the labels "fascist" or "liberal" of A. and B. are distortions.

I too am very confused about this entire left-wing right-wing business, just a 
few years ago right wingers thought the CIA and FBI were the good guys and the 
Kremlin the bad guys but Trump suporters thing the oposite, the republican 
right wing were free traders but Trump is a self described "tariff man", the 
right wing was for smaller less intrusive government but Trump wants the 
government to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.
I don't use the word "fascist" lightly, I'm not in the habit, as some on the 
left are, of calling anyone who's politics I disagree with a fascist, but when 
it comes to Trump supporters I sincerely think the word is justified; 53% of 
republicans say they would be OK with Trump canceling the 2020 election. And 
Fascist dictators cancel elections, lead chants to imprison their political 
opponents, try to change the law so they can sue newspapers and close them down 
when they write articles against them, jail reporters who don't cooperate, 
order TV networks to stop satirizing them, put family members in positions of 
power, tell police not to be gentle when they arrest somebody, say some Nazis 
are "very good people" and develop a cult following that will believe anything 
they say, such as vaccines cause autism or windmills cause cancer.
Today it's foolish to claim there is a moral equivalence between the two major 
political parties, at one time there was one (and I was a Republican for most 
of my life) but there is no equivalence anymore. The Democrats have done stuff 
that is very unwise and unfair but it would be going way too far to call them 
fascist. A fascist political party is as bad as things can get, the sort of 
thing you saw in Europe in the 1930s, and things are not currently as bad as 
things can get but only because the American Fascist Party (aka Republicans) 
still has some competition from a very large but sometimes silly and often 
dysfunctional non-fascist party, the democrats.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3rehae9nthsvkEvQmzysZ_xbHqFb40evjM9fNYY5zjnA%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1674024080.10241461.1559599843329%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:10 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

So, you don't feel that the democrats are funded by billionaires as well
> and do the billionaires bidding?
>

It depends on the billionaire.  Warren Buffett and Bill Gates agree with
the democrats that everybody in the USA should have health care and it
should be payed for by increasing the taxes on the rich. The Koch brothers
and Sheldon Adelson want to lower the taxes on the rich even more than
Trump already has and pay for that loss of income by striping 22 million
Americans of what little health care they currently have.


> *> Do you think that democrats are the party of the 'little guy," or the
> US middle class?*
>

The middle class, which is a big improvement from being the party of the
super mega uber rich.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0uK-TAXoDwCtS6hqeGhCjtqa5wTUR-35QGY8Vrq98Weg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

It's an attempt to control or coral the rest of us. I look at the Left 
(soc-comms) whether media or not, as sort of an obsessive-compulsive disorder. 
Hell, I should know, I used to be one them.  


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2019 8:14 pm
Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?

About every century there is a tendency for more sociopathic disordered or 
malignant narcissists, such as t'Rump *-- see below for more, to assume power. 
Last century this occurred with the rise of communism in Russia and fascism in 
western Europe. The century before beginning with the end of the 18th century 
had Jacobins having fun chopping heads in Paris which culminated in Napoleon. 
There have been about every century a flare up of these, and the 17th century 
saw all sorts of collective insanity with the 30 Years War, the Huguenot war, 
the English Civil War and so forth. Based on the general time table, we are 
coming due for the next grand episode of chaos. And just as the Grateful Dead 
song Hell in a Bucket puts it the snakes come marching in --- and sure enough 
here they come. We may be heading into a doozie this time, as we have the 
nuclear explosive power to unleash several thousand WWII's. It looks to me that 
the United States as the leader in the world is now the leader in the coming 
next mass insanity.
Look it up, but there is an interview by Barbara Walters of Donald t'Rump where 
the camera makes views of his office walls. These wall are covered with 
portraits of himself. Donald t'Rump sees himself as the most brilliant of 
people, when a professor at his Alma mater called him "the dumbest goddammed 
student he ever knew."  Danald t'Rump is way past the point of the Dunning 
Kruger effect. He is also clearly narcissistic and has also been investigated 
by SNY Attorney General for laundering money going back decades. He is a man 
who serves the criminal world by laundering its money through illicit real 
estate transactions.
For decades now anything liberal has been repeatedly labelled as almost 
satanic. The messages of this have been thumping people for decades and now we 
are at a point where if you do have some liberality of mind you now find 
yourself contemplating leaving the country. Of course the problem is this is 
infectious and a number of other nations are into this. Also there is the rise 
of fascist parties, and in the US we are seeing the rise of far extremists such 
as neo-Nazis. I see lots of people who have drunk the koolaid of this shit, and 
it is growing in popularity. On the other hand maybe I should just give this a 
shrug. I really question whether humanity is going to exist past a half century 
or so. So whiskey tango foxtrot, maybe if we are all going to die why not let 
the psychopaths and their idiot followers just blow it all up, rather than 
going out in a whimper?
LC 

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 4:12:17 PM UTC-5, PGC wrote:


On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 6:53:36 PM UTC+2, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Because B lies all the more to try to get elected? 



I'll bite the conspiracy discourse bait today by phrasing as follows: There are 
lying corrupt fucks on every side and if you don't identify with simplistic 
politics and its boring ideological labels, then why post at all? To advertise 
your innocence to strangers? Post your name, address, and your credit card 
details with security number please. You'll understand why a few lines down.
Fun and games aside: Who's party/ideology will more likely bring results to 
working class wages, pensions, medical bills, work accidents, workers rights, 
and a tomorrow with less toxic shit piling up where you live? Which party 
history/profile, with all the upper class corrupt bullshit and propaganda of 
all of them fits the bill, at least to a tiny bare minimum?
Which side is more likely to stupidly and expensively try to educate people, 
diminish student debts for those trying to set better track for their home 
zone, instead of snubbing them and pretending they don't exist? 
So surprise, I guess you want to drag me into a flame war: credit card details 
to me privately NOW or no show. Why? Because your vote has consequences: you 
voted to fuck education, so you guys gotta pay up front! BooyakahYeah bitches! 
Plus I copyrighted my cursing to make up for this lesson that you're not paying 
for! Gazingblingbling: That's a double in yo faces!
These answers are not pretty (except my cursing, which is of course classy and 
copyrighted as fuck), definitely far from any ideals we have the luxury to 
discuss out here... but it is what it is, folks. The maverick billionaire with 
cartoon hair will keep mavericking your net take with his billionaire cronies, 
probably on your death beds through some dumb liberal black trans doctors with 
terminator dildos... and guess what? We'll still have to pay more! PGC 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything 

Re: Trump Supporters?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Yeah, of course!  Nyet Problemy, comrade!
 

-Original Message-
From: PGC 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2019 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?



On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 11:47:24 PM UTC+2, spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Darwin bless us all!



Lol, not you. He'd say you're voting against your own survival, work, meds, and 
benefits. He'd call you too stupid to bless. PGC -- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5d3b9fb-6cab-4965-bd19-64bc48a7a598%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/298853382.10218257.1559598886503%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:32 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*>Yes indeed, but it is still rule by rich Rogues whether the Koch's or
> Georgy Soros. *
>

Do you think there is a difference between the rich ruling that the rich
should pay more taxes to pay for healthcare for the poor and the rich
ruling that the poor should receive less healthcare so the rich could get
yet another tax break? I do, I think there is a difference.



> *> Banks were declared too big to fail, under Bush 43, and happy Obama
> continued their funding, if you remember?*
>

I do remember and Obama was absolutely positively correct,  they were too
big to fail, if they had 2008 would have been 1929. We came within a gnat's
ass of a total economic meltdown and I give Obama great credit for avoided
that, I just wish he had done more because we did get the worst rescission
in 80 years and that could have been avoided if he had also bailed out
Lehman brothers.

Fun Fact: the loans were paid back by 2012 and the government actually
ended up making 266.7 billion dollars out of the bailout deal due to
interest and dividends.


> > There are hardly any, billionaire good guys,
>

I don't agree with that at all! Bill Gates has saved more lives and reduced
the net amount of misery in the world VASTLY more than Mother Teresa ever
did. Gates has already given away 50 billion dollars and he isn't finished
yet, and just as important he has given away the money very intelligently
(mostly in the third world) to maximize the number of lives saved. Gates
gave it away so wisely that Warren Buffet asked Gates to figure out how to
best give away his money too. If I could be assured that all
future billionaires would be like them I wouldn't worry so much, but there
is no such assurance.


> > *which is why the globalist crap has been pushed by both parties,*
>

I said it before I'll say it again, in the era of Trump its absolutely nuts
to claim there is any sort of moral equivalence between the two political
parties.


> *> For a health care plan that beats UK style ones* [...]
>

Beats the UK style health plan? You are ambitious! I'd be delighted if the
USA had a plan that was half as good.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Oh%3Dc--WtQ14faiRsGzzX%3DzOBVANRYkQWa%2BxqfLw9MSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:00 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Well,  to tell the world that Most Americans do not have insurance
> coverage would be one of the democrat lies.
>

I never said most don't have insurance, but before Obamacare 41 million
people didn't have any, thanks to Obamacare that number shrank to 28.5, but
if Trump had got his way (and he nearly did) with his "repeal and replace"
obscenity that number would have grown to 52.5 million. Repeal and replace
would have been even worse than just a straight repeal.

The USA spends FAR more on healthcare than any other country on the planet
and has done so for many decades, yet it doesn't seem to be getting much
bang for the buck. In 2016 the USA spends $9451 per-person per-year on
healthcare but is only #31 on the list of countries with the longest lived
citizens; Japan is #1 on the longevity list and spend only $4150 per person
per year, Australia is # 4 and spends $4420, and at  #31 is the USA which
spends $9451. Every one of the top 30 longevity countries have 3 things in
common:

1) They all live longer than people in the USA
2) They all spend far less on healthcare than the USA does.
3) Unlike the USA they all have Single Payer Healthcare.


> As far as Gates goes, for the richest dude on earth (sometimes) he
> doesn't give jack,
>

Gates has given away far more money than other person in human history, and
he done it very wisely (vaccines and clean water). It's estimated that
since 1990 he has saved 122 million lives.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv37D1ya5LQO-z6xacdeZ-ce2gN697inwptJmDQ3WJtwvg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Well,  to tell the world that Most Americans do not have insurance coverage 
would be one of the democrat lies."Health insurance coverage in the United 
States is provided by several public and private sources. During 2016, the U.S. 
population overall was approximately 325 million, with 53 million people 65 
years of age and over, covered by the federal Medicare program. The 272 million 
non-institutional people under age 65 either obtained their coverage from 
employer-based (155 million) or non-employer based (90 million) sources, or 
were uninsured (27 million).[1] Approximately 15 million military personnel 
received coverage through the Veteran's Administration and Military Health 
System.[2] During the year 2016, 91.2% of Americans had health insurance 
coverage.[3] Despite being among the top world economic powers, the US remains 
the sole industrialized nation in the world without universal health care 
coverage.[4][5]"Source: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_coverage_in_the_United_States
As far as Gates goes, for the richest dude on earth (sometimes) he doesn't give 
jack, compared to the self-promoting. late,Teresa. Moral equivalence has zero 
to do with practical matters, like creating and distributing wealth. Your 
siding with Gates simply indicates that you'll tolerate any sort of oligarch 
that funds the party. Where as the Koch brothers, to my eyes are as 
anti-American as the dems are! This is why the uber rich have 3 homes in the 
world. So when they wreck this place, they can set up shop, elsewhere. 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 9:12 pm
Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?


On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:32 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


>Yes indeed, but it is still rule by rich Rogues whether the Koch's or Georgy 
>Soros. 

Do you think there is a difference between the rich ruling that the rich should 
pay more taxes to pay for healthcare for the poor and the rich ruling that the 
poor should receive less healthcare so the rich could get yet another tax 
break? I do, I think there is a difference.

 

> Banks were declared too big to fail, under Bush 43, and happy Obama continued 
> their funding, if you remember?

I do remember and Obama was absolutely positively correct,  they were too big 
to fail, if they had 2008 would have been 1929. We came within a gnat's ass of 
a total economic meltdown and I give Obama great credit for avoided that, I 
just wish he had done more because we did get the worst rescission in 80 years 
and that could have been avoided if he had also bailed out Lehman brothers.
Fun Fact: the loans were paid back by 2012 and the government actually ended up 
making 266.7 billion dollars out of the bailout deal due to interest and 
dividends. 
> There are hardly any, billionaire good guys,

I don't agree with that at all! Bill Gates has saved more lives and reduced the 
net amount of misery in the world VASTLY more than Mother Teresa ever did. 
Gates has already given away 50 billion dollars and he isn't finished yet, and 
just as important he has given away the money very intelligently (mostly in the 
third world) to maximize the number of lives saved. Gates gave it away so 
wisely that Warren Buffet asked Gates to figure out how to best give away his 
money too. If I could be assured that all future billionaires would be like 
them I wouldn't worry so much, but there is no such assurance. 
 

> which is why the globalist crap has been pushed by both parties,

I said it before I'll say it again, in the era of Trump its absolutely nuts to 
claim there is any sort of moral equivalence between the two political parties. 
  
 

> For a health care plan that beats UK style ones [...]

Beats the UK style health plan? You are ambitious! I'd be delighted if the USA 
had a plan that was half as good.
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Oh%3Dc--WtQ14faiRsGzzX%3DzOBVANRYkQWa%2BxqfLw9MSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/626251745.5751015.1559613651725%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I'd go for a cross-state (the Euro's will be confused by this!) wide 
participation on plans, millions throw in, millions take out. I'd do medicare 
for all as a temp thing to cross over into eventually. Obamacare was insolvency 
care and the rates kept going vastly, higher and higher. This is why it 
croaked,  not because of nefarious conservatives, but for inbuilt ideological 
viewpoints, or what's an excreta-covered Los Angeles for?  


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jun 3, 2019 10:34 pm
Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:00 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


> Well,  to tell the world that Most Americans do not have insurance coverage 
> would be one of the democrat lies.

I never said most don't have insurance, but before Obamacare 41 million people 
didn't have any, thanks to Obamacare that number shrank to 28.5, but if Trump 
had got his way (and he nearly did) with his "repeal and replace" obscenity 
that number would have grown to 52.5 million. Repeal and replace would have 
been even worse than just a straight repeal.  

The USA spends FAR more on healthcare than any other country on the planet and 
has done so for many decades, yet it doesn't seem to be getting much bang for 
the buck. In 2016 the USA spends $9451 per-person per-year on healthcare but is 
only #31 on the list of countries with the longest lived citizens; Japan is #1 
on the longevity list and spend only $4150 per person per year, Australia is # 
4 and spends $4420, and at  #31 is the USA which spends $9451. Every one of the 
top 30 longevity countries have 3 things in common:
1) They all live longer than people in the USA
2) They all spend far less on healthcare than the USA does.
3) Unlike the USA they all have Single Payer Healthcare.


> As far as Gates goes, for the richest dude on earth (sometimes) he doesn't 
> give jack,

Gates has given away far more money than other person in human history, and he 
done it very wisely (vaccines and clean water). It's estimated that since 1990 
he has saved 122 million lives.
 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv37D1ya5LQO-z6xacdeZ-ce2gN697inwptJmDQ3WJtwvg%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/472186525.10387908.1559617431000%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

[Samiya Illias]

Nobody succeeds at Dawah except as Allah wills. I'm not trying to do Dawah,
just trying to keep my duty. This is how I understand it: The Quran

I see a lot of speculative discussions on this list where even the basic
assumptions are unknown. The word primitive matter, etc, keep popping up,
so I shared what I know from the source I trust.

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 3:04 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Look, Sam, you're not going to succeed at Dawa here, unless you get into
> the weeds, via physics. So, thus, you have got to be prepared to peek over
> Allah's shoulder and answer the biggest questions of all, not the Why
> questions, but the How, the mechanics of How Mister Allah does his things,
> say, 'qiama'
>
> You must show how the mechanics will work, based on cause and effect.
> Otherwise, it's merely running away from the difficult issues of How. If
> you are afraid to offend, the Big Guy, that's a personal issue.
> -Original Message-
> From: Samiya Illias 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2019 11:00 pm
> Subject: Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity
>
>
>
> On 02-Jun-2019, at 11:38 PM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
> matter exists,
>
>
> A straw man.  Nothing I wrote referred to *primitive* matter.
>
>
> The Quran does mention the existence of something before and beyond the
> ‘universe/ cosmos/ space’ we live in. This may be of interest:
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2019/01/space-before-and-beyond.html
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5FA9BBDF-1EAB-46A1-9270-0C9935CA13EF%40gmail.com
> 
> .
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1518708800.10240701.1559599468163%40mail.yahoo.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CANgFmkH%2B0uPAWvgJ3BxmYuNGPzJOyyXrn2S65fa5xpBcUihD3Q%40mail.gmail.com.