Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.
i ENVY YOU, guys, to know so much about BHs to speak of a singularity.
I would not go further than according to what is said about them, they may
wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity.
Galaxies, whatever, fall into those hypothetical BHs and who knows how much
Dark Matter (the assumed), we just don't know - it all may be neatly
stuffed
in and escape from the habitual description of the 'singularity' as an
indiscernible
structural view, - or - as seemingly you assume: they homogenize (paste?)
it all into a - well - singularity-content.
Whoever KNOWS more about singularities, BHs, Dark Matter, should
speak up - please: NO assumptions ('it got to be's) or deductions of such!
John M
On 3/8/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/9/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind.
1/ [Not far from the post-Freudian speculation :-] ... Attendance
within the event horizon of a common or garden galactic variety black
hole would seem to incorporate a one-way ticket *to* the singularity,
would it not?
Yes, but it could take a very long time to get there in a massive enough
black hole.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.
Hi John,
Singularity is just a name that means that the solutions of the equations
describing the BH gives infinity... It's what is a singularity. Does
the infinity is real (we must still be in accordance about what it means)
is another question, but accepting GR as a true approximation of reality,
singularity existence is a real question.
Quentin
On Friday 09 March 2007 23:37:49 John Mikes wrote:
i ENVY YOU, guys, to know so much about BHs to speak of a singularity.
I would not go further than according to what is said about them, they may
wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity.
Galaxies, whatever, fall into those hypothetical BHs and who knows how much
Dark Matter (the assumed), we just don't know - it all may be neatly
stuffed
in and escape from the habitual description of the 'singularity' as an
indiscernible
structural view, - or - as seemingly you assume: they homogenize (paste?)
it all into a - well - singularity-content.
Whoever KNOWS more about singularities, BHs, Dark Matter, should
speak up - please: NO assumptions ('it got to be's) or deductions of such!
John M
On 3/8/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/9/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind.
1/ [Not far from the post-Freudian speculation :-] ... Attendance
within the event horizon of a common or garden galactic variety black
hole would seem to incorporate a one-way ticket *to* the singularity,
would it not?
Yes, but it could take a very long time to get there in a massive enough
black hole.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Actually if all we're talking about is first-person experience and personal tastes, then there would be cause for alarm if someone is claiming that there's some normative rules governing them. I agree: How could any such normative rules ever be verified as being the right way of interpreting things? Not! This is not what I am talking about. You need to look at the *whole* control loop in order to be able to talk about sharable 3rd person meaning. Personal feelings of oo that's good or bleah are fine for what they are, but are they sufficient as the total input into our decision making system? Without real morality the answer *must* be yes. As in Russell Standish's post, the answer *must* be that whatever I *happen* (for no reason that I need to worry about) to feel is good stuff, is good stuff. Marquis de Sade with no escape. It's not just personal tastes, but also second order feelings about the tastes. Consider the importance attached to the Japanese tea ceremony, for example. If there is a strong feeling in the tea ceremony participant that they are not just engaging in a cultural quirk but doing something of profound significance, this does not mean there is a supernatural source for this significance. Psychological factors are necessary and sufficient to explain it, and to explain morality as well. Stathis Papaioannou It seems that you are missing my point. I will better explain my point about the whole control loop. Personal tastes and second order feelings about the tastes are all on the *input* side of our system of consciousness. But the input is not the whole system. Instead of saying are personal feelings sufficient as the total input into our decision making system? I should have said are personal feelings (and other interpretations of inputs) sufficient to make up our decision making system, actually our whole system of consciousness? Here a diagram would be useful. The reductionist tendency seems to be to lump all of consciousness into the input interpretting box and explain it in terms of smaller parts making up an autonomous machine. Hence, now that it is all explained and we are a machine, there is no room for real morality and we can do whatever we want. (I think I heard an Amen! from Brent.) That's fine for those of us who are older and have one foot still back in the days when our parents believed in something that was based on ultimate meaning and reality. Hence we know what we want. But what about the future generations? The big question for them is, What are we supposed to want? We answer, Whatever you want! See the circularity? By lumping everything into the input interpretting box and explaining it, we have left the output creating box totally undefined. The nobility of humanity is not in how to interpret things alone, but in creating things. If we are trying to eliminate any normative thinking about this creating ability, we have left the creating ability to atrophy without guidance. Freedom must be guided by form, on purpose, in a meaningful way. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff. The good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it. This is what I mean by being in charge of it. The good stuff knows that it's good stuff, just as you will still know that you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant place full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a conscious entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle = observed reality). Stathis Papaioannou Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is only half of the equation of the meaning of life. Modern science is only in the left side of the brain of humanity. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
Tom Caylor wrote: On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Actually if all we're talking about is first-person experience and personal tastes, then there would be cause for alarm if someone is claiming that there's some normative rules governing them. I agree: How could any such normative rules ever be verified as being the right way of interpreting things? Not! This is not what I am talking about. You need to look at the *whole* control loop in order to be able to talk about sharable 3rd person meaning. Personal feelings of oo that's good or bleah are fine for what they are, but are they sufficient as the total input into our decision making system? Without real morality the answer *must* be yes. As in Russell Standish's post, the answer *must* be that whatever I *happen* (for no reason that I need to worry about) to feel is good stuff, is good stuff. Marquis de Sade with no escape. It's not just personal tastes, but also second order feelings about the tastes. Consider the importance attached to the Japanese tea ceremony, for example. If there is a strong feeling in the tea ceremony participant that they are not just engaging in a cultural quirk but doing something of profound significance, this does not mean there is a supernatural source for this significance. Psychological factors are necessary and sufficient to explain it, and to explain morality as well. Stathis Papaioannou It seems that you are missing my point. I will better explain my point about the whole control loop. Personal tastes and second order feelings about the tastes are all on the *input* side of our system of consciousness. But the input is not the whole system. Instead of saying are personal feelings sufficient as the total input into our decision making system? I should have said are personal feelings (and other interpretations of inputs) sufficient to make up our decision making system, actually our whole system of consciousness? Here a diagram would be useful. The reductionist tendency seems to be to lump all of consciousness into the input interpretting box and explain it in terms of smaller parts making up an autonomous machine. Hence, now that it is all explained and we are a machine, there is no room for real morality and we can do whatever we want. (I think I heard an Amen! from Brent.) That's fine for those of us who are older and have one foot still back in the days when our parents believed in something that was based on ultimate meaning and reality. Hence we know what we want. But what about the future generations? The big question for them is, What are we supposed to want? Wrong question. The question is what do you want? What's going to be a life well lived? What epitaph do you want on your tombstone? We answer, Whatever you want! See the circularity? Yes - you're going around in circles because you think you need ultimate purpose to have any purpose at all. By lumping everything into the input interpretting box and explaining it, we have left the output creating box totally undefined. No, I want to create things. I get a lot my satisfaction in life by creating things. It's part of what I want. Brent Meeker My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can. Frank Zappa --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
