Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-07 Thread Mark Peaty
Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand 
the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out 
by themselves.'

MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to understand 
'it' to be able to exist within it!

SO, yes I will ask: What do you mean by 'physical'?

And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?

These are very basic questions, and in our context here, 'dumb' 
questions for sure, but without some clarification on how people are 
using these words, I don't think I can go any further.

Regards  

Mark Peaty  CDES

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

I think therefore I am right! - Angelica  [Rugrat]



Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Hi Mark,



 Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit :


 John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I
 look at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up
 back in the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is
 that clearly prior to anything else is the fact of existence. I
 have to take this at too levels:
 1/   firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I
 am', although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to
 say something like: 'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea
 that if I say I don't exist it doesn't seem to sound quite right',



 That is good for you. I would say that Descartes gives a correct but 
 useless proof of the existence of Descartes' first person. It is 
 useless because He knew it before his argument.



 2/   the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just
 mentioned is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just
 seems to be plain wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find
 myself in - beset as I am with ceaseless domestic responsibilities
 and work related bureaucratic constraints, the clearest simple
 intuition about it all is that the universe exists whether I know
 it or not.



 Nobody has ever said that nothing exist. I do insist that even me 
 has a strong belief in the existence of a universe, even in a 
 physical universe. But then I keep insisting that IF the comp hyp is 
 correct, then materialism is false, and that physical universe is 
 neither material nor primitively physical. I am just saying to the 
 computationalist that they have to explain the physical laws, without 
 assuming any physics at the start.
 It is a technical point. If we are digital machine then we must 
 explain particles and waves from the relation between numbers, knots, 
 and other mathematical object.
 Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the 
 whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out 
 by themselves.



 In short, being anything at all seems to entail being somewhere
 now, and even though numbers and mathematical operations seem to
 be wonderfully effective at representing many aspects of things
 going on in the world, there seems to be no way of knowing if the
 universe should be described as ultimately numeric in nature.



 You are right. Actually if comp is correct, what you are saying here 
 can be justified.



 I must say too, that I am finding this and other
 consciousness/deep and meaningful discussion groups somewhat akin
 to the astronomer Hubble's view of the universe; the threads and
 discourses seem to be expanding away from me at great speed, so
 that every time I try to follow and respond to something,
 everything seems to have proliferated AND gone just that little
 bit further out of reach!



 Keep asking. Have you understood the first seven steps of the UD 
 Argument ? Look at my SANE paper. I think this makes available the 
 necessity of the reversal physics/math without technics.
 Most in this list were already open to the idea that a theory of 
 everything has the shape of a probability calculus on observer 
 moment. Then some of us believe it is a relative measure, and some of 
 us accept the comp hyp which adds many constraints, which is useful 
 for making things more precise, actually even falsifiable in Popper 
 sense.

 I must go. I am busy this week, but this just means I will be more 
 slow than usual. Keep asking if you are interested. Don't let you 
 abuse by possible jargon ...

 Just don't let things go out of reach ... (but keep in mind that 
 consciousness/reality questions are deep and complex, so it is normal 
 to be stuck on some post, etc.).


 Best,


 Bruno



  
 Regards
 Mark Peaty  CDES
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ 

 John Mikes wrote: Bruno:


 has anybody ever seen numbers? (except for Aunt Milly who
 dreamed up the 5 numbers she saw in her dream - for the lottery).

 Where is the universe - good question, but:
 Has anybody ever seen Other universes?

 Have we learned or developed (advanced) 

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-07 Thread Torgny Tholerus





Mark Peaty skrev:

  
And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? 

'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'.

Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe
exists. Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same
way. But we can not get in touch with any of the other Universes, so
from our point of view does the other Universes not exist.

-- 
Torgny Tholerus


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group.  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en  -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---






Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-07 Thread John M
Hal:
you really believe that anybody could provide responses acceptable for all 
others? (I did not say understandable) 
Everybody sits in his own mindset and speaks his own scientific religion 
(=scientific belief system) - [said so, whether I aggraveted  now (again) 
Russell or not.]  
We are in a pretty liquid exchange-state (liquid OM).
Otherwise the idea is excellent, with multiple choice. 
John
  - Original Message - 
  From: Hal Ruhl 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 PM
  Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds


  Hi John:

  Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ for the list.  Perhaps we 
should give it another try.

  Hal Ruhl 




  At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:

Hal and list:
I do not think anybody fully understands what other listers write, even 
if one thinks so.
Or is it only my handicap?
John M

  - Original Message - 

  From: Hal Ruhl 

  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 

  Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM

  Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds



  Hi Bruno:


  I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.


  Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its 

  evolving universes - meaning I take it that all 

  successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state.


  I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two.


  Lets us say that you are correct about this 

  result re your model, this just seems to 

  reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order 

  to avoid the information generating selection in the full set.


  Yours


  Hal Ruhl



  At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote:



  Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit :

  

 As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as

a subset.

  

  

  This means that even if my theory makes disappear all (1-person)

  white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does

  not reintroduce new one.

  

  Bruno

  

  

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

  

  

  





  



--


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 - Release Date: 2/6/2007 
5:52 PM

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-07 Thread Brent Meeker

Torgny Tholerus wrote:
 Mark Peaty skrev:
 And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?
 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'.
 
 Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility.  That is why our Universe 
 exists.  Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way.  
 But we can not get in touch with any of the other Universes, so from our 
 point of view does the other Universes not exist.
 
 -- 
 Torgny Tholerus

But what is mathematical possibility?  Is it the same as logically 
possible?  Does it rule out, The book is green and the book is red.?  Or 
does it only rule out, The book is green and the book is not green.?

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-07 Thread Torgny Tholerus

Brent Meeker skrev:
 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
   
 Mark Peaty skrev:
 
 And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?
   
 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'.

 Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility.  That is why our Universe 
 exists.  Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way.  
 But we can not get in touch with any of the other Universes, so from our 
 point of view does the other Universes not exist.
 
 But what is mathematical possibility?  Is it the same as logically 
 possible?  Does it rule out, The book is green and the book is red.?  Or 
 does it only rule out, The book is green and the book is not green.?
   
Yes, it is the same as logically possible.  One simple Universe is the 
Game of Life, with some starting configuration.  This simple Universe 
exists in the same way as our Universe, even if nobody ever tries this 
starting configuration.

-- 
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-07 Thread Brent Meeker

Torgny Tholerus wrote:
 Brent Meeker skrev:
 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
   
 Mark Peaty skrev:
 
 And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?
   
 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'.

 Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility.  That is why our Universe 
 exists.  Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way.  
 But we can not get in touch with any of the other Universes, so from our 
 point of view does the other Universes not exist.
 
 But what is mathematical possibility?  Is it the same as logically 
 possible?  Does it rule out, The book is green and the book is red.?  Or 
 does it only rule out, The book is green and the book is not green.?
   
 Yes, it is the same as logically possible.  One simple Universe is the 
 Game of Life, with some starting configuration.  This simple Universe 
 exists in the same way as our Universe, even if nobody ever tries this 
 starting configuration.
 

But that doesn't answer the question.  Can a thing be both red and green?  Is 
that logically impossible or only nomologically impossible?  It seems to me 
there is a problem with talking about logically possible.  I can adopt some 
axioms including an axiom that says a thing can be any two different colors at 
the same time and then proceed with logical inferences to derive a lot of 
theorems and so long as I don't have another axiom that says a thing can only 
be one color at a time I won't run into an inconsistency.  Does that mean it is 
possible for the a thing to be two different colors at the same time - I don't 
think so.  But the reason I don't think so is an inductive inference about the 
physical world and the meaning of words by reference to it (as Bruno would say, 
the absence of white rabbits), not with logic.

Also, logically possible is the same as logically consistent (at least 
under most rules of inference).  But except for simple systems you cannot know 
when a logical system is consistent.  I think that's why Bruno builds on 
arithmetic; because he can ask you to bet it is true and you probably will 
even though it cannot be proven consistent (internally).  If he asked you to 
bet on metric manifolds over the octonions you might bet the other way.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-07 Thread John M
By who's logic?
John M
  - Original Message - 
  From: Torgny Tholerus 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:35 PM
  Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error



  Brent Meeker skrev:
   Torgny Tholerus wrote:
 
   Mark Peaty skrev:
   
   And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?
 
   'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'.
  
   Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility.  That is why our Universe 
   exists.  Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way.  
   But we can not get in touch with any of the other Universes, so from our 
   point of view does the other Universes not exist.
   
   But what is mathematical possibility?  Is it the same as logically 
possible?  Does it rule out, The book is green and the book is red.?  Or 
does it only rule out, The book is green and the book is not green.?
 
  Yes, it is the same as logically possible.  One simple Universe is the 
  Game of Life, with some starting configuration.  This simple Universe 
  exists in the same way as our Universe, even if nobody ever tries this 
  starting configuration.

  -- 
  Torgny Tholerus


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-07 Thread John M
Mark:
fascinating. I like to ask such stupid questions myself.

On my question 'what is consciousness' the best answer I got was: everybody 
knows it from a prof-fessional. 
(Yes, but everybody knows it differently).

Existence??? I wonder how the honored listers will vote, I would resort to the 
process (we think) we are in. What process? I can't see it from the inside. 

With 'physical' I take a more primitive stance: I consider it epistemological 
over our past history, to put primitive and unsatisfactory experiences 
(observations?) into position of the premature image we formed about the world 
in the past (including now). Matter-concept is still an imprtant part of it, 
even in E~m relations. Sensorial - in it - still has the upper hand over 
mental. 
I try to include ideation into matterly. And (after Planck) in the reverse 
order. My firm opinion is: I dunno. We are not yet epistemized enough to form 
an educated guess. 
*
If I combine the two: physical existence (no 'primitive' included, rather 
implying it to ourselves) I visualize the unrestricted complexity of 
'everything' (already known or not) so any teleported remnant of 'us' sounds 
impossible without 'all' of the combined ingredients we are part of. 
*
I carry an intrauniverse view as a human, product of the churnings here and 
now and a BIG complexity-view  as a spaceless-timeless multiverse  BY the 
'plenitude' about which we cannot know much. In between I allow a 'small' 
complexity-view as pertinent to our universe. For this I violate my scepticism 
against the Big Bang fable - and consider our universe from BB to dissipation, 
the entire history, as evolution. 
I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions.

I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions.

John M

and let me join Angelica [Rugrat](???)

  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Peaty 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:34 AM
  Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error


  Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the 
whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out by 
themselves.'

  MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to understand 'it' 
to be able to exist within it!

  SO, yes I will ask: What do you mean by 'physical'?

  And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? 

  These are very basic questions, and in our context here, 'dumb' questions for 
sure, but without some clarification on how people are using these words, I 
don't think I can go any further. 


  Regards   
  Mark Peaty  CDES

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ 

  I think therefore I am right! - Angelica  [Rugrat]




  Bruno Marchal wrote: 
Hi Mark, 



Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit : 



  John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look at 
the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in the same place 
[and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly prior to anything else 
is the fact of existence. I have to take this at too levels: 
  1/   firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I am', 
although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say something like: 
'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if I say I don't exist it 
doesn't seem to sound quite right', 



That is good for you. I would say that Descartes gives a correct but 
useless proof of the existence of Descartes' first person. It is useless 
because He knew it before his argument. 




  2/   the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just mentioned 
is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just seems to be plain 
wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find myself in - beset as I am with 
ceaseless domestic responsibilities and work related bureaucratic constraints, 
the clearest simple intuition about it all is that the universe exists whether 
I know it or not. 



Nobody has ever said that nothing exist. I do insist that even me has a 
strong belief in the existence of a universe, even in a physical universe. 
But then I keep insisting that IF the comp hyp is correct, then materialism is 
false, and that physical universe is neither material nor primitively physical. 
I am just saying to the computationalist that they have to explain the physical 
laws, without assuming any physics at the start. 
It is a technical point. If we are digital machine then we must explain 
particles and waves from the relation between numbers, knots, and other 
mathematical object. 
Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the whole 
point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out by themselves. 




  In short, being anything at all seems to entail being somewhere now, and 
even though numbers and mathematical operations seem to be wonderfully 
effective at representing many aspects of things going on in the world, 

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-07 Thread John M
And you, Stathis, are very kind to assume that I know' a right position from a 
wromng one. I may be in indecision before I denigrate...
On the contrary. if someone 'believes' the 6 day creation, I start speculating 
WHAT days they could have been metaphorically, starfting before the solar 
system led us to our present ways of scheduling. Etc. Etc. Accepting that 
whatever we 'believe' is our epistemic achievement, anything 'from yesterday' 
might have been 'right' (maybe except the old Greeks - ha ha). in their own 
rites. 
Sometimes I start an argument about a different (questionable?) belief just 
to tickle out arguments which I did not consider earlier. But that is my dirty 
way. 
I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider.

John M
  - Original Message - 
  From: Stathis Papaioannou 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM
  Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life


  John,

  Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief 
systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must 
be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much kinder to 
alternative beliefs than I am, but in reality, you *must* think that some 
beliefs are wrong, otherwise you would hold those beliefs! For example, if you 
say you don't personally believe the earth was created in six days, but respect 
the right of others to believe that it was, what you're really saying is that 
you respect the right of others to have a false belief. I have no dispute with 
that, as long as it is acknowledged.

  Stathis Papaioannou




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:07:52 -0500


Stathiws,
no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the futility of 
arguing from one belief system (and stressing its solely expanded truth) 
against a different truth and evidence carrying OTHER belief system.

BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept 
(alternately) ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking the 
professional). 
IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with our rather elastic 
ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est onetrackminded..(the 9th 
beatitude). 

To your initial sentence: do you believe (in YOUR criteria of your beliefs) 
that TWO people may have absolutely identical beliefs? I am almost certain that 
as your immune system, DNA, fingerprint and the other zillion characteristics 
are not identical to those of other animals, the mental makeup is similarly 
unique. 
We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized machine-identity (Oops, 
no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem. 

John M
  - Original Message - 
  From: Stathis Papaioannou 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM
  Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life


  John,

  You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different 
criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs 
about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on 
top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and Odyssey 
must be true, then they would be consistently applying the standards they 
apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: other peoples' religious beliefs are 
subjected to rational scrutiny and (rightly) found wanting, but their own 
beliefs are special. 

  Stathis Papaioannou




Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life

Stathis:

is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system 
ONLY with a person 
who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout 
catholic and an excellent
 biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, 
he answered:
I never mix the two together. Tom is an excellent natural scientist 
and has brilliant 
arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - 
what he, quite 
inderstandably - does not want to give up. 
We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia of 
intelligence. 
Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your 
profession. 
Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from another?

John M



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to 

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-07 Thread Russell Standish

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 06:10:34PM -0500, John M wrote:
 
 I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions.
 
 John M
 


My take on physical and existence.

Physical: that which kicks back in the Samuel Johnson sense. It
doesn't rule out idealism, because the virtual reality in a VR
simulation also kicks back.

Existence: This is a word with many meanings. To use it, one should
first say what type of existence you mean. For instance mathematical
existence means a property of a number that is true - eg 47 is
prime. Anthropic existence might mean something that kicks back to
some observer somewhere in the plenitude of possibilities. There is
another type of existence referring to that which kicks back to me
here, right now. And so on.

It is possible to say physical existence = mathematical existence as
Tegmark does, but this is almost a definition, rather than a statement
of metaphysics.

Cheers

-- 


A/Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics  
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



RE: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

I don't know a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only trying to 
make the best guess I can given the evidence. Sometimes I really have no idea, 
like choosing which way a tossed coin will come up. Other times I do have 
evidence on which to base a belief, such as the belief that the world was not 
in fact created in six 24-hr days. It is certainly possible that I am wrong, 
and the evidence for a very old universe has either been fabricated or grossly 
misinterpreted, but I would bet on being right. Wouldn't you also, if something 
you valued depended on the bet?
 
Stathis Papaioannou


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeDate: Wed, 7 
Feb 2007 18:28:25 -0500



And you, Stathis, are very kind to assume that I know' a right position from a 
wromng one. I may be in indecision before I denigrate...
On the contrary. if someone 'believes' the 6 day creation, I start speculating 
WHAT days they could have been metaphorically, starfting before the solar 
system led us to our present ways of scheduling. Etc. Etc. Accepting that 
whatever we 'believe' is our epistemic achievement, anything 'from yesterday' 
might have been 'right' (maybe except the old Greeks - ha ha). in their own 
rites. 
Sometimes I start an argument about a different (questionable?) belief just 
to tickle out arguments which I did not consider earlier. But that is my dirty 
way. 
I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider.
 
John M

- Original Message - 
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent 
belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their 
beliefs must be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much 
kinder to alternative beliefs than I am, but in reality, you *must* think that 
some beliefs are wrong, otherwise you would hold those beliefs! For example, if 
you say you don't personally believe the earth was created in six days, but 
respect the right of others to believe that it was, what you're really saying 
is that you respect the right of others to have a false belief. I have no 
dispute with that, as long as it is acknowledged.Stathis Papaioannou


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The Meaning of LifeDate: Tue, 6 
Feb 2007 11:07:52 -0500
Stathiws,
no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the futility of arguing 
from one belief system (and stressing its solely expanded truth) against a 
different truth and evidence carrying OTHER belief system.
 
BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept (alternately) 
ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking the professional). 
IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with our rather elastic 
ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est onetrackminded..(the 9th 
beatitude). 
 
To your initial sentence: do you believe (in YOUR criteria of your beliefs) 
that TWO people may have absolutely identical beliefs? I am almost certain that 
as your immune system, DNA, fingerprint and the other zillion characteristics 
are not identical to those of other animals, the mental makeup is similarly 
unique. 
We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized machine-identity (Oops, no 
reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem. 
 
John M

- Original Message - 
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different 
criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs 
about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on 
top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and Odyssey 
must be true, then they would be consistently applying the standards they 
apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: other peoples' religious beliefs are 
subjected to rational scrutiny and (rightly) found wanting, but their own 
beliefs are special. Stathis Papaioannou


Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
Re: The Meaning of LifeStathis:is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one 
set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a 
brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked 
him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he answered:I never mix the two 
together. Tom is an excellent natural scientist and has brilliant arguments in 
it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what he, quite 
inderstandably - does not want to give up. We all have 'second belief bases' in 
our multiple schizophrenia of intelligence. Some have 'Platonia', some 
'primitive matter view' - it is your profession. Do you really think you can 
penetrate 

Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-07 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi John:

I think the idea before was to provide an acronym 
list and also give each person or like minded 
group a limit of a few pages in the FAQ document 
in which to present a summary of their point of view.

Hal Ruhl

At 11:59 AM 2/7/2007, you wrote:
Hal:
you really believe that anybody could provide 
responses acceptable for all others? (I did not say understandable)
Everybody sits in his own mindset and speaks his 
own scientific religion (=scientific belief 
system) - [said so, whether I aggraveted  now (again) Russell or not.]
We are in a pretty liquid exchange-state (liquid OM).
Otherwise the idea is excellent, with multiple choice.
John
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl
To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

Hi John:

Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ 
for the list.  Perhaps we should give it another try.

Hal Ruhl




At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
Hal and list:
I do not think anybody fully understands what 
other listers write, even if one thinks so.
Or is it only my handicap?
John M
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hal Ruhl
To: 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

Hi Bruno:
I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state.
I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two.
Lets us say that you are correct about this
result re your model, this just seems to
reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order
to avoid the information generating selection in the full set.
Yours
Hal Ruhl

At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote:

 Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
 
As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as
   a subset.
 
 
 This means that even if my theory makes disappear all (1-person)
 white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does
 not reintroduce new one.
 
 Bruno
 
 
  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 
- Release Date: 2/6/2007 5:52 PM



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---