Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 06-févr.-07, à 03:06, Russell Standish a écrit :

 The informatic destructive effects are due to conflicting
 information reducing the total amount of information.

Perhaps you could expand?

Bruno



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


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



Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 07-févr.-07, à 02:45, Hal Ruhl a écrit :

  Given an uncountably infinite number of objects generated from a 
 countably infinite list of properties and an uncountably infinite 
 number of UD's in the metaphor I can not see an issue with this re my 
 model.  As I said above Our World can be as precisely as random as 
 it needs to be.


I don't understand.

Bruno



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


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



Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

Le 07-févr.-07, à 17:34, Mark Peaty a écrit :

  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!


Of course! Like babies can use their brain without understanding it ...




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



It concerns the stable appearance described by hypothetical physical 
theories (like classical mechanics, QM, etc.).

I found an argument showing that IF comp(*) is correct THEN those 
stable appearances emerge from arithmetic as seen from internalized 
point of views. Those can be described in computer science, and It 
makes the comp hyp falsifiable: just extract the physical appearance 
from comp and compare with nature. I will say more in a reply to 
Stathis.



(*) comp means there exist a tuiring emulable  level of description of 
myself (whatever I am), meaning I would notice a functional 
substitution made at that level).





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

There are mainly two sort of existence. The absolute fundamental one, 
and the internal or phenomenological one.
If you understand the Universal Dovetailer Argument, you can understand 
that, assuming the comp hypothesis, it is enough to interpret existence 
by the existential quantifier in some first order logic description of 
arithmetic. (like when you say it exist a prime number).
All the other existence (like headache, but also bosons, fermions, 
anyons, ...) are phenomelogical, and can be described by It exist a 
stable and coherent collection of machines correctly believing from 
their point of view in bosons, etc. (I simplify a bit).

If you want, I say that IF comp is true, only numbers exist, all the 
rest are dreams with relative degree of stability.






  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.

You are welcome, and I don't believe there is dumb questions. I have 
developed the Universal dovetailer argument, in the seventies, and it 
was a pedagogical tools for explaining the mathematical theory which 
consist in interviewing an universal machine on its possible physics.
I have published all this in the eighties and defend it as a thesis in 
the nineties. I am aware it goes against materialism (based on the 
concept of primary (aristotelian) materialism.
All this provides mathematical clean interpretation of neoplatonist 
researchers (like Plato, Plotinus, Proclus). If you want I show that 
concerning machine's theology it is wrong to reify matter or nature.

Note that I am using the term materialism in a weaker sense than its 
use in philosophy of mind. But materialism I mean the metaphysical 
reification of Matter. The idea that some primitive matter exists.

Hope this helps a bit. Perhaps you could study my last version of UDA 
in my SANE04 paper to see the point. You can ask question for any step. 
Then if you are willing to invest in mathematical logic, you will see 
how the UDA can be made entirely mathematical *and*  falsifiable.

Bruno


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

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



Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

Le 07-févr.-07, à 18:06, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

  Mark Peaty skrev: And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?


  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.


If comp is true, the physical universe is not a mathematical 
possibility. It is something much more deeply related to mathematics. 
With the comp hyp physical universes emerge necessarily from the 
interference of all mathematical possibilities, and the physical laws 
are the invariant of such possibilities for their internal local 
observers.

This entails we *are* in touch with the other universes, and they do 
exist from our point of view. It is just an open problem if QM really 
confirms this easily (cf UDA+movie-graph) derivable, from comp, fact.

This is what I try to explain in this list since the beginning (and 
elsewhere before). Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed this fundamental 
point. Schmidhuber missed it by his refusal to distinguish between 1 
and 3 person points of view, and Tegmark missed it by not postulating 
the comp hyp (making a little bit physics just a geography.

Bruno



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

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



Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

Le 08-févr.-07, à 00:10, John M a écrit :

 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.


See my posts to Mark and Torgny.




 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.

Then, all what I say, is that comp would be false. I am open to that 
idea, and that is why I try to show comp being falsifiable (but surely 
not yet falsified).



 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.

I think a excellent epistemization has been done from Pythagorus to 
Proclus, but then on this matter (!) we have been brainwashed by 1500 
years of authoritative aristotelianism. the scientific field of 
theology has regressed, but at the same time I would like to insist 
that even christian theology has been able to keep intact a large part 
of Plotinus. Alas, christian theology is incorrect on the part where 
they agree with the atheists.



 *
 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.

Yes. That is provably comp-correct (if I understand you well).



 *
 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


OK.



   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.


H.  To be sure comp is not enough developed so as to say 
anything precise on the big bang, but it is hard to believe the big 
bang could be a beginning, with comp.



 I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions.

I'm not sure why.


Bruno



  
 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 

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

Le 08-févr.-07, à 23:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :

  John,
   
  I agree: being open-minded is more important than being right.


OK, but being open-minded would be meaningless if the notion of being 
right was meaningless. Being open-minded means being open to the idea 
that someone else can be right (independently of the fact that in 
practice we can only judge personally someone to be interesting or not, 
but the notion of being right has to be implicit in the background. To 
be right entails we *could* be wrong.

Bruno







 Stathis.
   
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:09:25 -0500

 Thanks, Fellow Uncertain (agnostic...). Let me quote to your question 
 at the end the maxim from Mark's post:
 I think therefore I am right! - Angelica  [Rugrat]
 (whatever that came from. Of course we value more our (halfbaked?) 
 opinion  than the wisdom of others.People die for it.
 With the religious marvels: I look at them with awe, cannot state it 
 is impossible because 'they' start out beyond reason and say what 
 they please.
 The sorry thing is, when a crowd takes it too seriously and kill, 
 blow up, beat or burn live human beings in that 'belief'. Same, if 
 for money.
  
 John M
 - Original Message -
 From: Stathis Papaioannou
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:49 PM
 Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life

 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]
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
 Date: 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]
 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 

Re: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki

2007-02-09 Thread John M
Jason,

the site is great, maybe greater than I can realize today. 
I, as a practical computer illiterate, (never learned any computerese courses, 
not even from books) sat before it with awe, - admiring that it works! 
I might have missed it when I tried: I did not find a place to look up topics 
(as in an index) to read about - to my choice. Clivkably, or advised under what 
name to find it, 
not 'included' in some topic, but alphabetically. Search seemed to work like a 
computer: lookiong for 'exact format' only. Maybe this is too hard, however I 
trust your skills, professor.

John Mikes

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jason Resch 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:57 PM
  Subject: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki


  John M mentioned in a recent post that many on the Everything List may have 
conflicting or poor understandings of all the various terminology used on the 
list. Hal Ruhl brought up the fact that someone had previously tried to 
maintain an acronym list and FAQ for the Everything List.  I thought that a 
wiki would suit this role rather nicely, and offered to set one up for the 
list. 

  I've finished setting up the site and it is currently running on a webhost 
which I use and have much underutilized space on.  The URL is:

  http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

  I envision the wiki being used to explain the various concepts, acronyms, and 
theories so often mentioned on this list.  Every account created on the wiki 
has its own dedicated page, which I think would be an ideal place for people to 
describe their backgrounds and the theories they subscribe to. 

  Jason
  

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki

2007-02-09 Thread Jason



On Feb 9, 7:59 am, John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Jason,

 the site is great, maybe greater than I can realize today.
 I, as a practical computer illiterate, (never learned any computerese 
 courses, not even from books) sat before it with awe, - admiring that it 
 works!
 I might have missed it when I tried: I did not find a place to look up 
 topics (as in an index) to read about - to my choice. Clivkably, or advised 
 under what name to find it,
 not 'included' in some topic, but alphabetically. Search seemed to work like 
 a computer: lookiong for 'exact format' only. Maybe this is too hard, however 
 I trust your skills, professor.

John,

Thanks, I think too that the site will evolve into something great.
You are right the search functionality of pages is lacking, however on
the main page ( http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/ ) I included a link
to the listing of all pages ( 
http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Allpages
).  There is also a listing of Categories (
http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Categories )
which I think might be what you are looking for.  As long as people
are good about placing articles into categories then the category
system provides an effective organiziation for the site.  Clicking any
of those category links will automatically show all articles placed
into that category.  Articles can also belong to multiple categories.
I think its up to all of us how useful the site becomes, if we make
the most of all the features the wiki provides we should do pretty
well.

Regards,

Jason


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki

2007-02-09 Thread John Mikes
Jason,
just about the technicalities: I tried the main page with 2-3 topics and the
result was no such title. Categories I did not venture into, because to
find the right wording/spelling requires familiarity in our lingo and I had
in mind to educate the innocent(ignorant) by passers outside Brunoistic or
Schmidthuberistic  use of vocabulary (and myself also).
Those 'blog=like' concentrates of one's positions on topics will be much
better than the spread-and-cut remarks in reply-posts containing 6 - 3000
preliminary texts ea. While I find it useful to let the prerequisites run,
it makes it difficult to concentrate on the issue on hand - way above. Or:
vice versa.
I think the use of this 'wiki'  would reduce the redundancy and increase the
reasonability of the list by knowing what we are talking about.
(This last sentence refers to myself).

I think what you started is of a huge benefit to all of us.

John M

On 2/9/07, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




 On Feb 9, 7:59 am, John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Jason,
 
  the site is great, maybe greater than I can realize today.
  I, as a practical computer illiterate, (never learned any computerese
 courses, not even from books) sat before it with awe, - admiring that it
 works!
  I might have missed it when I tried: I did not find a place to look up
 topics (as in an index) to read about - to my choice. Clivkably, or advised
 under what name to find it,
  not 'included' in some topic, but alphabetically. Search seemed to work
 like a computer: lookiong for 'exact format' only. Maybe this is too hard,
 however I trust your skills, professor.

 John,

 Thanks, I think too that the site will evolve into something great.
 You are right the search functionality of pages is lacking, however on
 the main page ( http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/ ) I included a link
 to the listing of all pages (
 http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Allpages
 ).  There is also a listing of Categories (
 http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Categories )
 which I think might be what you are looking for.  As long as people
 are good about placing articles into categories then the category
 system provides an effective organiziation for the site.  Clicking any
 of those category links will automatically show all articles placed
 into that category.  Articles can also belong to multiple categories.
 I think its up to all of us how useful the site becomes, if we make
 the most of all the features the wiki provides we should do pretty
 well.

 Regards,

 Jason


 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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

2007-02-09 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, I 'may' come back to your (appreciated) remarks, to the last 'why' I
respond:

Because I feel my head in all these ideas - back-and-forth - like looking
at a busy beehive and trying to follow ONE particular bee in it.

John

On 2/9/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Le 08-févr.-07, ŕ 00:10, John M a écrit :

  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.


 See my posts to Mark and Torgny.



 
  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.

 Then, all what I say, is that comp would be false. I am open to that
 idea, and that is why I try to show comp being falsifiable (but surely
 not yet falsified).



  I try to include ideation into matterly. And (after Planck) in the
  reverseorder. My firm opinion is: I dunno. We are not yet epistemized
  enough to form an educated guess.

 I think a excellent epistemization has been done from Pythagorus to
 Proclus, but then on this matter (!) we have been brainwashed by 1500
 years of authoritative aristotelianism. the scientific field of
 theology has regressed, but at the same time I would like to insist
 that even christian theology has been able to keep intact a large part
 of Plotinus. Alas, christian theology is incorrect on the part where
 they agree with the atheists.



  *
  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
  combinedingredients we are part of.

 Yes. That is provably comp-correct (if I understand you well).



  *
  I carry an intrauniverse view as a human, product of the
  churningshereand now and a BIGcomplexity-view as a
  spaceless-timelessmultiverse


 OK.



  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.


 H.  To be sure comp is not enough developed so as to say
 anything precise on the big bang, but it is hard to believe the big
 bang could be a beginning, with comp.



  I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions.

 I'm not sure why.


 Bruno



 
  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, ŕ 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 

Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki

2007-02-09 Thread Jason

John M mentioned in a recent post that many on the Everything List may
have conflicting or poor understandings of all the various terminology
used on the list. Hal Ruhl brought up the fact that someone had
previously tried to maintain an acronym list and FAQ for the
Everything List.  I thought that a wiki would suit this role rather
nicely, and offered to set one up for the list.

I've finished setting up the site and it is currently running on a
webhost which I use and have much underutilized space on.  The URL is:

http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

I envision the wiki being used to explain the various concepts,
acronyms, and theories so often mentioned on this list.  Every account
created on the wiki has its own dedicated page, which I think would be
an ideal place for people to describe their backgrounds and the
theories they subscribe to.

Jason


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---