Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/15/2012 9:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/15/2012 8:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
?? Speaking without permission of the judge may be illegal in open 
court.  Why is that the standard for anything?


If you think Hogan has some insight into cosmology, let's hear it.  
I'm certainly not going to waste my money on his book.




My My Brent, what has soured your life so?


My life is just fine.  What makes you think disagreeing with you 
affects it?


Brent


I am curious why you chose to answer my post. If what I posted was, 
in your opinion, merit-less, why bother responding?



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[meekerdb]

On 11/15/2012 8:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
?? Speaking without permission of the judge may be illegal in open court.  Why is that 
the standard for anything?


If you think Hogan has some insight into cosmology, let's hear it.  I'm certainly not 
going to waste my money on his book.




My My Brent, what has soured your life so?


My life is just fine.  What makes you think disagreeing with you affects it?

Brent

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/15/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 7:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/15/2012 5:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno  and Russell,
The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


Hi Roger,

I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred 
Cow/ .  It 
discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light.


In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside 
mainstream science: HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, 
bacteria don't develop drug immunity,...


Brent

Hi Brent,

I find your blind trust in orthodoxy appalling. Science never 
advances until orthodoxy is overthrown.


So you expect to advance science by accepting every unorthodox, 
contrarian theory?


Brent


Of course not! What an absurd statement! Some modicum of common 
sense must prevail. Hogan's discussions are clear and even handed and 
point out many examples of how innovative thinking is often 
suppressed by activities that would be criminal if they occurred in 
an open court.


?? Speaking without permission of the judge may be illegal in open 
court.  Why is that the standard for anything?


If you think Hogan has some insight into cosmology, let's hear it.  
I'm certainly not going to waste my money on his book.




My My Brent, what has soured your life so?



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[meekerdb]

On 11/15/2012 6:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 7:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/15/2012 5:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno  and Russell,
The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


Hi Roger,

I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ 
.  It discusses the BB (among 
other things) in a different light.


In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside mainstream science: 
HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, bacteria don't develop drug immunity,...


Brent

Hi Brent,

I find your blind trust in orthodoxy appalling. Science never advances until 
orthodoxy is overthrown.


So you expect to advance science by accepting every unorthodox, contrarian 
theory?

Brent


Of course not! What an absurd statement! Some modicum of common sense must prevail. 
Hogan's discussions are clear and even handed and point out many examples of how 
innovative thinking is often suppressed by activities that would be criminal if they 
occurred in an open court.


?? Speaking without permission of the judge may be illegal in open court.  Why is that the 
standard for anything?


If you think Hogan has some insight into cosmology, let's hear it.  I'm certainly not 
going to waste my money on his book.


Brent

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/15/2012 7:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/15/2012 5:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno  and Russell,
The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


Hi Roger,

I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ 
.  It 
discusses the BB (among other things) in a different light.


In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside 
mainstream science: HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, 
bacteria don't develop drug immunity,...


Brent

Hi Brent,

I find your blind trust in orthodoxy appalling. Science never 
advances until orthodoxy is overthrown.


So you expect to advance science by accepting every unorthodox, 
contrarian theory?


Brent


Of course not! What an absurd statement! Some modicum of common 
sense must prevail. Hogan's discussions are clear and even handed and 
point out many examples of how innovative thinking is often suppressed 
by activities that would be criminal if they occurred in an open court.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[meekerdb]

On 11/15/2012 5:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno  and Russell,
The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


Hi Roger,

I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ 
.  It discusses the BB (among 
other things) in a different light.


In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside mainstream science: 
HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, bacteria don't develop drug immunity,...


Brent

Hi Brent,

I find your blind trust in orthodoxy appalling. Science never advances until 
orthodoxy is overthrown.


So you expect to advance science by accepting every unorthodox, contrarian 
theory?

Brent
"They laughed at Bozo the Clown too."

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/15/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno  and Russell,
The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


Hi Roger,

I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ 
.  It discusses 
the BB (among other things) in a different light.


In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside 
mainstream science: HIV doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, 
bacteria don't develop drug immunity,...


Brent

Hi Brent,

I find your blind trust in orthodoxy appalling. Science never 
advances until orthodoxy is overthrown.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/15/2012 11:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
He's got his work cut out for him, not so much as casting doubt
on other's theories, but in explaining all of the data obtained with
alternate theorie.  In which case, the Big Bang
simply happened another way than that taught.


Dear Roger,

It is important to the note the difference between explanations of 
facts and facts. ;-) It is not a "fact" that there was an explosion some 
13 billion years ago. It is a fact that we observe a pattern of red 
shifting of light from stars at various distances.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: (mathematical) solipsism

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/15/2012 11:28 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
Mind is the fundamental nonphysical primitive out of which all 
physical things

were created and which governs them.


Dear Roger,

That implies a subtle contradiction as the postulation of mind as 
primitive implies that its property of "being a mind" is somehow 
necessary and sufficient without any means that selects the properties 
from the class of all possible properties. This is the fundamental 
problem with the theory of innate properties. It seems to me that such 
thinking is just an appeal to authority and has no explanatory power.



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Arithmetic doesn't even suggest geometry, let alone awareness.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43:03 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
> > There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can 
>> think of. 
>>
>
> There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry 
> can describe numbers. What more do you need? 
>

A reason that there could possibly be a difference between the two.
 

>
> >> So the fact that arithmetic can produce the exact same sort of behavior 
>>> that minds are so proud of, like playing Chess or solving equations or 
>>> winning millions on Jeopardy, is all just a big coincidence. If you really 
>>> believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you.
>>>
>>
>> > It's not a coincidence at all, but neither is the fact that arithmetic 
>> fails miserably at producing the sort of behavior that minds take for 
>> granted, like caring about something or having a personality.
>>
>
> The thing I'm most eager to hear is why you said "minds" and not " Craig 
> Weinberg's mind".
>

I was imitating you, since that was how you said it I wanted to be equally 
presumptuous.
 

>
> > They [potassium and sodium ions in your brain] only matter to me because 
>> of the feelings and experiences their configurations make available to me. 
>>
>
> OK, there is no disputing matters of taste.
>
> > what we feel is in no way linked to those objects except through 
>> empirical relation. 
>>
>
> Except for that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?
>

If you mean that bullet-induced mortality is an argument for the 
supervenience of qualia on physics I don't think that it is. A brain with a 
hole in it is just as likely or unlikely to be associated with an 
experience of consciousness as anything else from a functional point of 
view.
 

>
> > There is no theory by which their configuration should lead to anything 
>> beyond the configuration itself.
>>
>
> To hell with theories. Just because there is no theory to explain a 
> phenomenon does not mean the phenomenon does not exist; nobody has a theory 
> worth a damn to explain why the universe is accelerating but all 
> astronomers know that it is nevertheless doing so. 
>

Astronomers can't see neurons turning acoustic patterns into music though. 
Nobody can see that, because it may not be happening at all.
 

> And there may not be a theory to explain why but there is not the 
> slightest doubt that changes in those potassium and sodium ions cause 
> PROFOUND changes in your consciousness and your subjective emotional state. 
> So if ions in a few pounds of grey goo inside the bone box on your 
> shoulders can create consciousness
>

They can't, and they don't. Just as the pixels on your screen do not speak 
in my voice, the grey goo is only a thin slice of what a person actually 
is. The brain is not creating consciousness. The brain is not creating 
consciousness. The computer on your desk is not creating the internet. The 
radio receiver is not creating the radio station.
 

> I don't understand why its such a stretch to imagine that electrons in a 
> semiconductor can do the same thing, especially if they produce the same 
> behavior.  
>

It isn't a stretch at all - atoms in a semiconductor do make sense of 
conditions which affect them - the sense they make of those conditions we 
think are electrons (and other bosons, mesons, and fermions), but that's 
because we are using atoms to look at atoms and imagining that we are 
seeing through a neutral medium. What atoms in a semiconductor don't make 
is the sense with which we employ them. Just as a coffee filter is not 
aware of its role as a coffee filter, the computer knows nothing about the 
computations as a whole. It isn't even a computer, it's just traffic 
signals on a clock for the mindless traffic of unrelated events in the 
semiconductor neighborhoods. 


> > Einstein made more sense of the data was through imagination and 
>> discovery,
>>
>
> OK.
>
> >  not through mechanistic data processing or accumulation of knowledge. 
>>
>
> What's the difference?
>

A filing cabinet can accumulate knowledge, and Google can sort the contents 
semantically, but there is nothing there that cares about it. It's just 
going to sit there forever.
 

>
> > How do you know that Bugs Bunny isn't tasting anything when he eats a 
>> carrot?
>>
>
> I don't know it for a fact but I strongly suspect it because Bugs fails 
> the Turing Test. 
>

We could have a conversation over the phone where I imitate Bugs voice and 
describe the flavor of the carrots. Then Bugs passes the Turing Test.


> > we are a single cell which knows how to divide itself into trillions of 
>> copies. 
>>
>
> A cell in your body can divide into two or a trillion cells, but you don't 
> know how it does it.
>

The how isn't important. I don't know how computers get distributed to 
specific stores either, but that doesn't change that there is a fundamental 
basis for distinction between living org

Re: Emergence of Properties

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/15/2012 11:27 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
But many minds are in agreement that God exists, so that must be true ?


Hi Roger,

In my proposed definitions, "must" only follows if and only if 
there is no accessible possible world where a contraindication of the 
agreement occurs. Put more simply, a statement is true iff there is no 
knowable contradiction of the statement. The possible existence of an 
unknowable contradiction to the truth of a statement acts to support the 
idea of fallibility.



And must unicorns exist because I believe that they do ?


The existence or non-existence is not contingent on anything, 
especially the belief of one person. Your question should be phrased as: 
"Must unicorns be a physical creature because of my belief in such?" The 
answer might be "yes" is there is some means by which your belief has 
the causal power to generate a physical being.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:55:10AM +1100, Russell Standish wrote:
> 
> Actually, according to Wikipedia:
> 
> Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, the
> International Astronomical Union [4] presently use "age of the
> universe" to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or
> equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang in the current
> observable universe.
> 
> 
> Lambda-CDM is apparently the most widely accepted model of how the
> universe expanded since the big bang. I didn't realise the IAU has
> defined an "age of the universe", but its anything but.
> 
> 

Hence I retract my crack about journalists

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:20:14AM -0600, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno  and Russell,
> 
> The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example:
> 

Of course, but the big bang is not the same thing as the beginning of
the universe.

Also, the cosmic microwave background, which is the direct
observational evidence of the big bang comes from the last
scattering, when electrons and nuclei combined for the last time
into atomic matter and stayed that way. Red shift surveys can only
give information about the age of the last scattering, and even then,
interpreting it as a certain number of years can only occur within a
specific model of the universe - the Friedmann model is often used
because of its simplicity - even though we now know the universe
evolved quite differently from the Friedmann model due to things like
dark energy, which introduces far too much uncertainty to claim that
the inverse of an accurate Hubble constant is "the age of the universe"

The big bang theory gives an account of the evolution of the universe
from a quark-gluon soup to the last scattering, and gives quite a good
account of the 300,000 years before the last scattering. Accounts of
what happened prior to the quark-gluon plasma are highly speculative,
including inflation theory, and are likely to be revised as science
progresses. In some of those speculations, the actual beginning of the
universe occurred much earlier, or in the infinite past.

Actually, according to Wikipedia:

Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, the
International Astronomical Union [4] presently use "age of the
universe" to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or
equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang in the current
observable universe.


Lambda-CDM is apparently the most widely accepted model of how the
universe expanded since the big bang. I didn't realise the IAU has
defined an "age of the universe", but its anything but.


Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: the "God" hypothesis

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to exist as it
> does.


And we now know that Leibniz was DEAD WRONG about that, we now know that
some things happen for no reason whatsoever. And in general that's the
trouble with modern philosophers, they keep on quoting their ancient hero
blissfully unaware of the developments made in physics or mathematics or
biology that occurred in the last 400 years;  they actually believe that
scientific and mathematical illiteracy is no handicap in figuring out how
the world works.

> I don't know how to explain that by anything other than the the "God"
> hypothesis.
>

So everything needs a reason to exist. EVERYTHING. And thus God is the
total explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. Are you
trying to tell us with a straight face that you don't see the logical flaw
in that argument?

  John K Clark

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Arithmetic doesn't even suggest geometry, let alone awareness.

[John Clark]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can
> think of.
>

There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry
can describe numbers. What more do you need?

>> So the fact that arithmetic can produce the exact same sort of behavior
>> that minds are so proud of, like playing Chess or solving equations or
>> winning millions on Jeopardy, is all just a big coincidence. If you really
>> believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you.
>>
>
> > It's not a coincidence at all, but neither is the fact that arithmetic
> fails miserably at producing the sort of behavior that minds take for
> granted, like caring about something or having a personality.
>

The thing I'm most eager to hear is why you said "minds" and not " Craig
Weinberg's mind".

> They [potassium and sodium ions in your brain] only matter to me because
> of the feelings and experiences their configurations make available to me.
>

OK, there is no disputing matters of taste.

> what we feel is in no way linked to those objects except through
> empirical relation.
>

Except for that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?

> There is no theory by which their configuration should lead to anything
> beyond the configuration itself.
>

To hell with theories. Just because there is no theory to explain a
phenomenon does not mean the phenomenon does not exist; nobody has a theory
worth a damn to explain why the universe is accelerating but all
astronomers know that it is nevertheless doing so. And there may not be a
theory to explain why but there is not the slightest doubt that changes in
those potassium and sodium ions cause PROFOUND changes in your
consciousness and your subjective emotional state. So if ions in a few
pounds of grey goo inside the bone box on your shoulders can create
consciousness I don't understand why its such a stretch to imagine that
electrons in a semiconductor can do the same thing, especially if they
produce the same behavior.

> Einstein made more sense of the data was through imagination and
> discovery,
>

OK.

>  not through mechanistic data processing or accumulation of knowledge.
>

What's the difference?

> How do you know that Bugs Bunny isn't tasting anything when he eats a
> carrot?
>

I don't know it for a fact but I strongly suspect it because Bugs fails the
Turing Test.

> we are a single cell which knows how to divide itself into trillions of
> copies.
>

A cell in your body can divide into two or a trillion cells, but you don't
know how it does it.

> We are not an assembly of disconnected parts.
>

Nothing is "an assembly of disconnected parts".

>>>  no inorganic lever system seems to aspire to anything other than doing
>>> the same thing over and over again.
>>>
>>
>
> >> A computer calculating the value of PI never repeats itself, it never
>> returns to a previous state.
>>
>
> > It never leaves the state it's in. Calculating the value of Pi is one of
> the kinds of acts which requires infinite resources to complete, therefore
> it never gets chance to repeat itself.
>

It's true that a real computer, unlike a theoretical Turing Machine, does
not have a infinite memory and so can't be in a infinite number of states,
but you don't have a infinite memory either and so your brain can't be in a
infinite number of states. You and the computer are in the same boat.

> you have to finish 'peating' to be able to re-peat.
>

If you believe that a real computer can't finishing peating and thus can't
repeat I take it that you're retracting your comment that a computer just
does "the same thing over and over again".


> > I do think that my approach does solve the Hard Problem of consciousness
>

And your approach is that people are conscious because they use free will
to make decisions and they use free will to make decisions because they are
conscious. That doesn't sound very hard to me, or very deep.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[meekerdb]

On 11/15/2012 6:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno  and Russell,
The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


Hi Roger,

I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ 
.  It discusses the BB (among 
other things) in a different light.


In the light of a contrarian who latches onto to any idea outside mainstream science: HIV 
doesn't cause AIDS, evolution is wrong, bacteria don't develop drug immunity,...


Brent

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: I am a realist rather than a nominalist because universal gravityexists.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:36:44 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> Yes, Berkeley's solopsism is impossible to disprove,
> so your theory that perception causes existence holds.
>  
> But, forgive me, how do you know that there are other people
> to report your findings to ? We could all be chimeras.
>

Logically you could be, but we don't live in a logical universe, we live in 
a universe of sense. Some sense can be explained in terms of other senses, 
but other senses can't. The sense of realism is one example of the latter. 
We don't need to prove that there is a difference between waking and 
dreaming, because proof supervenes on that difference to begin with. 

The miracle of sense is that it is translucent and reflective. You can sort 
of know things that it seems like you shouldn't be able to be sure about. 
But you are sure enough, and that's all that you need to be ultimately. If 
you are chimeras, then there word chimera has no meaning anyhow since it 
means there would be no way to tell the difference. The fact that we can 
conceive of 'illusion' and 'reality' means that some part of us cares to 
discern the difference. Why would that be the case in a solipsistic 
universe, and if it were, what would be the point of caring about it?

Craig 

 
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 11/15/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-11-12, 07:07:07
> *Subject:* Re: I am a realist rather than a nominalist because universal 
> gravityexists.
>
>  
>
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 8:32:27 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> Physics thus tells us that a falling tree will make 
>> a sound even if nobody is there to witness the event. 
>>
>
> Just the opposite. Physics tells us that sound is an experience for 
> subjects who have some kind of ear. Without that, there is only a recurring 
> change in the position of bodies (vibration), which requires that there be 
> bodies which can detect that this change is occurring. There doesn't need 
> to be a human witness unless by 'make a sound' we mean an experience 
> interpreted with human qualities of sound discernment and sensitivity.
>  
>
>>
>> Because existence then is independent of mind 
>> (the realist position), 
>
>
> But it is not independent of experience.
>  
>
>> This also refutes Berkeley's 
>> position that things exist because we perceive them. 
>>
>
> Yes, Berkeley didn't take it far enough and realize that perception was 
> the sole universal principle, and not just a human privilege.
>  
>
>> Those are the complaints of the far left. 
>>
>  They hate everything that has authority or power.
>>
>
> I think that the far left would argue that they do not hate powerful 
> authorities like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai 
> Lama, etc. You know, leaders who rise to positions of adoration without 
> taking power from others.
>
> Craig
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/qzVxV_EizvMJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/LL0wh4qTC2oJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of computers

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:42:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> Everything has at least some intelligence or consciousness, according to 
> Leibniz's metaphysics,
> even rocks.  But these "bare naked monads" are essentially in deep, 
> drugged  sleep and darkness,
> or at best drunk. Leibniz called such a state the unconscious way before 
> Freud and Jung.
>

I believe that there is an experience on the micro-level of what the coffee 
filter is made of - molecules held together as fibers maybe, bit I don't 
think that it knows or cares about filtering. It's like if you write the 
letters A and B on a piece of paper - I think there is an experience there 
on the molecular level, of adhesion, evaporation, maybe other interesting 
things we will never know, but I don't think that the letter A knows that 
there is a letter B there. Do you? I don't think the letters have a 
consciousness because they aren't actually beings, the patterns which they 
embody to us are in our experience, not independent beings.

Craig 

>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 11/15/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-11-12, 09:54:53
> *Subject:* Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of 
> computers
>
>  Doesn't mean that a coffee filter is intelligent too? If so, is a series 
> of coffee filters more intelligent than one? What about one with a hole in 
> it?
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:14:05 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>> Hi 
>>
>> I was wrong. 
>>
>> According to my own definition of intelligence-- that it is the 
>> ability of an entity, having at least some measure of free will, 
>> to make choices on its own (without outside help)--  a 
>> computer can have intelligence, and intelligence in no small measure. 
>>
>> The ability to sort is an example. To give a simple example, a 
>> computer can sort information, just as Maxwell's Demon could, 
>> into two bins. Instead of temperature, it could just be a number. 
>> Numbers larger than A go into one bin, smaller than A go 
>> into another bin.  It does it all on its own, using an "if" statement. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 
>> 11/11/2012   
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/4uRvNZH9oIsJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Ewl6J7rU8jgJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: In the beginning were the numbers

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/15/2012 11:18 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King and Bruno,
Perhaps these problems below fade away if you think
of numbers in this way:
In the beginning were the numbers
and the numbers were with Mind and
the numbers were Mind.


Dear Roger,

"In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the 
Word was God ." I am very familiar with 
that vision. I am proposing a complementary vision that does not have 
its short comings.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Monads and the Diophantine equantions.

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/15/2012 11:06 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal
No connection, I was just looking at the meaning of
the Diophantine equations. Their meanings as categories possibly.
Ie, can numbers be categorized by the D eqns they fit ?
If some numbers fit these equations , do they have some particular meaning
(are categories) ?
Note also that the monads are individuals and so could
fit some of the D eqns. Then if the eqns have some meanings or
categories , that might be the


Dear Roger,

Do you conceptualize Monads as primitive substances or actions?

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 15.11.2012 17:10 Roger Clough said the following:

Hi Evgenii Rudnyi

Perhaps strings might better model materials and their behavior than
current chemistry and materials science can. And suggest the
possibioity of creating new materials (composistes) as well as
explaining little understood materials phenomena.


Chemists need numerical models to reduce the number of experiments. In 
my view, it is highly unlikely that the superstring theory will furnish 
better numerical models for chemists.


Evgenii

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King 

He's got his work cut out for him, not so much as casting doubt
on other's theories, but in explaining all of the data obtained with
alternate theorie.  In which case, the Big Bang
simply happened another way than that taught. 



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-15, 06:41:21
Subject: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion


On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno  and Russell,

The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


Hi Roger,

I invite you to read James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow.  It discusses 
the BB (among other things) in a different light.  

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King 


Infinity is not communicable.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-03, 12:33:49
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic


On 11/3/2012 9:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Necessary truths are/were/shall be always true. They can't be invented,
> they have to be discovered. Numbers are such.

 Yes, but not just discovered, they must be communicable.

>
> Arithmetic or had to exist before man or
> the Big Bang woujld not have worked.

 I do not restrict entities with 1p to humanity.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: (mathematical) solipsism

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King 


Mind is the fundamental nonphysical primitive out of which all physical things
were created and which governs them.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-03, 12:32:31
Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism


On 11/3/2012 9:06 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Although well-founded, solipsism still remains a psychological theory,
> a fact, if you will. As such, it belongs to the contingent world, not the
> world of necessary reason. There may be beings to which it does not hold.
> Mystics claim to have merged with the mind of God. Or perhaps
> some day a proof against it may be found.
Hi Roger,

 If you can find a consistent definition of a mind for me, I will 
give you that proof. ;-)

-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Emergence of Properties

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King 

But many minds are in agreement that God exists, so that must be true ?

And must unicorns exist because I believe that they do ?


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-03, 12:31:14
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties


On 11/3/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

The properties of spacetime things are what can be measured (ie facts).
The properties of beyond spacetime things are propositions that can't be 
contradicted (necessary truths).

Hi Roger,

I do not assume that the "can't be contradicted" is an a priori fixed 
apartheid on truths. I define necessary truths to be contingent on many minds 
in agreement.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

The fundamental primitive

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King 

Truth or mind or numbers or life or intelligence
is the ultimate primitive. They are what
the spacetime universe and man emerged from ultimately.
This is called downward causation.

In the beginning were the numbers
and the numbers were with Mind
and the numbers were Mind.



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-03, 09:17:02
Subject: Re: The two types of truth


On 11/3/2012 7:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal and Stephen,
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/leibniz.html
>
> "Leibniz declares that there are two kinds of truth:
> truths of reason [which are non-contradictory, are always either
> true or false], and truths of fact [which are not always either true or 
> false].
>
> Truths of reason are a priori, while truths of fact are a posteriori.
> Truths of reason are necessary, permanent truths. Truths of fact are 
> contingent, empirical truths.
> Both kinds of truth must have a sufficient reason. Truths of reason have their
> sufficient reason in being opposed to the contradictoriness and logical 
> inconsistency
> of propositions which deny them. Truths of fact have their sufficient reason 
> in
> being more perfect than propositions which deny them."
>
Dear Roger,

 Is truth, either of reason or of fact, independent of the mind or 
in the collective minds of all that could apprehend them?

-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

In the beginning were the numbers

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King and Bruno,

Perhaps these problems below fade away if you think 
of numbers in this way:

In the beginning were the numbers
and the numbers were with Mind and
the numbers were Mind.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-01, 14:21:55
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm


On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

[SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to "not assume a concrete robust 
physical universe". 


?


Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I explicitly do 
assume a primitive physical reality. 
In step 8, it is done for the reductio ad absurdum.

Dear Bruno,

   I have cut and pasted your exact words from SANE04 and you still didn't 
understand... From: 
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf

"...what  if we  don抰  grant a concrete robust  physical  universe?" 
"Actually the 8th present step will  explain 
that such a move is nevertheless without purpose. This will make the notion of 
concrete and 
existing universe completely devoid of  any  explicative  power.  It  will  
follow  that  a  much 
weaker and usual form of Ockham抯 razor can be used to conclude that not only 
physics has 
been  epistemologically reduced  to  machine  psychology, but that  憫matter拻 
has  been 
ontologically reduced to 憫mind拻 where mind is defined  as the  object study of 
fundamental 
machine psychology."

My claim is that neither physical worlds nor numbers (or any other object 
that must supervene on mind) can be ontologically primitive. Both must emerge 
from a neutral ground that is neither and has no particular properties. 
 




[SPK] He goes on to argue that Occam's razor would demand that we reject the 
very idea of the existence of physical worlds 


Only of primitive physical worlds. And you did agree with this. I just prove 
this from comp. That's the originality. A bit of metaphysics is made into a 
theorem in a theory (comp).

Can we agree that physical worlds emerge somehow from sharable aspects of 
multiple sheaves of computations?






[SPK]  given that he can 'show' how they can be reconstructed or derived from 
irreducible - and thus ontologically primitive - Arithmetic 'objects' {0, 1, +, 
*} that are "operating" somehow in an atemporal way. We should be able to make 
the argument run without ever appealing to a Platonic realm or any kind of 
'realism'. In my thinking, if arithmetic is powerful enough to be a TOE and run 
the TOE to generate our world, then that power should be obvious. My problem is 
that it looks tooo much like the 'explanation' of creation that we find in 
mythology, whether it is the Ptah of ancient Egypt or  the egg of Pangu or 
whatever other myth one might like. What makes an explanation framed in the 
sophisticated and formal language of modal logic any different?



I use the self-reference logic, for obvious reason. Again, this entails the sue 
of some modal logics, due to a *theorem* by Solovay. All correct machine whose 
beliefs extend RA obeys to G and G*. There is no choice in the matter.

That is not changed or involved by my argument.





[SPK] I agree 10% with your point about 'miracles'. I am very 
suspicions of "special explanations' or 'natural conspiracies'.  (This comes 
from my upbringing as a "Bible-believing Fundamentalist" and eventual rejection 
of that literalist mental straight-jacket.) As I see things, any condition or 
situation that can be used to 'explain' some other conceptually difficult 
condition or situation should be either universal in that they apply anywhere 
and anytime 


But even in your theory anywhere and anytime must be defined by something more 
primitive, given that you agree that physics cannot be the fundamental theory, 
given that the physical reality is not primitive.

The concepts of "where" and "when" (positions in a space-time) would seem 
to be rendered meaningless if there is no space-time (or observers/measurements 
to define it), no? OH, BTW, I don't think that we disagree that "physics cannot 
be the fundamental theory". Physics requires measurements/observations to be 
meaningful. Where I agree with you is in your considerations of 1p and observer 
indeterminacy. Where you and I disagree is on the question of resources. 
Resources are required for computations to "run" so there has to be the 
availability of resources involved in *any* consideration of computations. 
Ignoring these considerations by only considering computations as Platonic 
objects is wrong, IMHO.
You seem to be OK with computations as purely timeless objects (in 
Platonia) that are such that somehow we finite entities can create physical 
objects that can implement (in their dynamical functions) instances of such, 
while I claim that computations are e

Re: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality

[Roger Clough]

Hi Evgenii Rudnyi 

Perhaps strings might better model materials and their behavior
than current chemistry and materials science can. And
suggest the possibioity of creating new materials (composistes) as well
as explaining little understood materials phenomena.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Evgenii Rudnyi 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-04, 07:18:56
Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality


On 04.11.2012 08:37 Richard Ruquist said the following:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi 
> wrote:
>> On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following:
>>
>>> On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
 p. 210 "We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable
 alternatives:

 o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is
 mistaken, or

 o that scientific representation is not at bottom
 mathematical representation alone, or

 o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know
 it to be incomplete, or

 o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across
 isomorphism, are illusory.

 In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to
 opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on
 the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological
 question: Is there something that I could know to be the case,
 and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part
 of some scientific theory?"
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems to me he left out the most likely case: that our science
>>> is incomplete in a way we know.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Could you please express this knowledge explicitly?
>
> String theory is an example of knowledge of incomplete science as
> for the most part string theory has not been verified/falsified
> experimentally. Richard

Let us imagine that the superstring theory is completed and even 
experimentally verified. So what's then? How the superstring theory 
would change engineering practice?

Evgenii
-- 
p. 278 "... the regularities must derive from not just natural but 
logical necessity. This sentiment is sometimes encountered still, not so 
much among philosophers but in physicists' dreams of a final theory so 
logically airtight as to admit of no conceivable alternative, one that 
would be grasped as true when understood at all."

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist 

Call it what you want, but anything existent exists according
to some pre-existing physical rules etc.  Some Cosmic intelligence.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-15, 08:54:54
Subject: Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis


Hi Roger Clough,

As you have been told, quantum gravity is contained within each string
theory monad.
No one knows where that came from, certainly not any god that humans
are connected to.
Richard

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Stephen Hawking,
>
> So quantum gravity was designed and created by
> mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out
> of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even
> an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ?
>
> This nonsense you apparently believe shows
> that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage.
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 11/15/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Bruno Marchal
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40
> Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis
>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger Clough,
>>
>> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
>> reason to live.
>> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum
>> gravity".
>>
>> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
>> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
>>
>> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving
>> consciousness,
>> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
>> possibilities,
>> according to Leibniz...
>>
>> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
>> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
>> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..
>
> Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>>
>> Richard Ruquist
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough 
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
>>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
>>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
>>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/12/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Stephen P. King

 There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
 them during manufacture.
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
>>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
>>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is
>>> easy to
>>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and
>>> there
>>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets
>>> that
>>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but
>>> any
>>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons
>>> for it.
>>>

 er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 11/10/2012
 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
 Subject: Re: Communicability


 On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up
> inside.
 No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
 "perfectly lined up". ... Right.

> That's Platonia.
>
> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.
>
> Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.

 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


 --
 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
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 .
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
 .

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Onward!
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" grou

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist and Bruno,

There is (infinite) regress in physical nature, but not in mind, because
mind is non-existent (not created). 



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-12, 11:46:34
Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis


On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger Clough,
>>
>> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
>> reason to live.
>> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum gravity".
>>
>> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
>> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
>>
>> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving
>> consciousness,
>> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
>> possibilities,
>> according to Leibniz...
>>
>> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
>> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
>> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..
>
>
> Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it.

Yes. My reasoning is incomplete as all reasonings should be.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Richard Ruquist
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
>>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
>>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
>>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/12/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King

 There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
 them during manufacture.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
>>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
>>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to
>>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there
>>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that
>>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any
>>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it.
>>>

 er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 11/10/2012
 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
 Subject: Re: Communicability


 On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside.

 No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
 "perfectly lined up". ... Right.

> That's Platonia.
>
> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.
>
> Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.


 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


 --
 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
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Onward!
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everythi

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist 

That's just my point.  You can't have quantum gravity
unless it emerged from mind ior universal intelligence.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list,Swines,zoo_no_facts 
Time: 2012-11-12, 08:55:09
Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis


Hi Roger Clough,

Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
reason to live.
As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum gravity".

I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf

Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving consciousness,
that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
possibilities,
according to Leibniz...

But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..

Richard Ruquist



On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 11/12/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Stephen P. King
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
> Subject: Re: Communicability
>
>
> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>
>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
>> them during manufacture.
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to
> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there
> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that
> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any
> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it.
>
>>
>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 11/10/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Stephen P. King
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>
>>
>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside.
>> No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
>> "perfectly lined up". ... Right.
>>
>>> That's Platonia.
>>>
>>> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
>>> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.
>>>
>>> Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.
>>
>> --
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --
> 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 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> 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 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@

Re: Against Mechanism

[John Clark]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> If he's a devout Muslim he believes he will go to heaven with 77 virgins
>> when he pushes that button, but as I said I really don't care what he
>> believes will happen, I care about what will happen.
>>
>
> > That was my point. What happen does not depend on the beliefs.
>

Then why in the name of all that's holy do you keep going on and on about
what the man expects to happen? What the Helsinki man expects to happen
depends entirely on the particular man involved. The Muslim will be very
surprised after he pushes the button when he doesn't see 77 virgins that he
was so certain he would see. I would not be at all surprised to see what I
see after I push the button. And even though you make the exact same
predictions I do nevertheless you say you would be surprised to see what
you see after you push the button, apparently you would be surprised to
find out that you were correct.

You keep looking at this backward and trying to establish a chain of
identity from the present to the future but that's never going to work,
you've got to look from the present to the past. I know for certain that I
am the John Clark of yesterday because I remember being him; if the Many
Worlds theory is true then I'm not the only one who was John Clark of
yesterday and some of them are now experiencing things that the John Clark
of yesterday would say were astronomically (but not infinitely) unlikely,
some are now experiencing vastly different things than I am now, but that
doesn't make me or them any less the John Clark of yesterday.  I am the
John Clark of yesterday from my viewpoint, and the John Clark who was just
elected Pope is the John Clark of yesterday from his viewpoint, and the
John Clark who decided to become a rodeo clown is the John Clark of
yesterday from his viewpoint. As for the John Clark of yesterday himself he
has no voice in any of this because he is no longer around.

And I know nothing for certain about the John Clark of tomorrow, I don't
even know if he will exist.

>> he is not the only Helsinki man because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED, and
>> that means the 1P view has been duplicated too
>>
>
> > As seen from the 3-views on the 1-views. But not as seen by the 1-views.
>

Who's "1-views"? Find somebody after the experiment who complains "my view
was not duplicated"! I dare you, show me!

>> and that means the 1P view from the 1P view has been duplicated too, and
>> that means the 1P view from the 1P view from the 1P view has been
>> duplicated too
>>
>
> >As seen each time from some 3-view, but that is not what is asked.
>

So even after a infinity of iterations you still think there has not been
enough peeing and you can still factor out a p.  Well where the hell is it?

>> There is nothing in those diaries, nothing about the bodies and no third
>> party description that I failed to predict.
>>
>
> > Indeed, but you fail to predict the first party description
>

Using a word like "the" implies there is only one first party description
and of course that is untrue because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. And before
you start peeing I should tell you that I don't know what a 3p of a 1p is,
much less a future 3p of a 1p.

> like if by some magic, you are all the copies at once, which would
> contradict comp.
>

I don't care if it contradicts "comp" or not, I'm not its advocate and
apparently know next to nothing about it. You keep telling me that "comp"
implies all sorts of loony screwy things stuff that is clearly untrue, so I
can only conclude that whatever "comp" means I don't believe a word of it.

And the Helsinki man being all the copies is only a contradiction if you
look at things through the wrong end of the telescope, its perfectly
logical if you look from the present into the past.

> After the pushing on the button, nobody is in helsinki.
>

Correct.

> But the helsinki man survived in W and M,
>

Correct. And I note with pleasure that you said "and" not "or".

> where both copies agree they are in once city
>

Correct.

> and that they could not predict which one in advance.
>

That depends on who's doing the prediction, I could make the correct
prediction while the Muslim could not and would be surprised when he
doesn't find his 77 virgins; but of course a bad prediction will not
destroy his identity. The Muslim Helsinki man may be surprise to find
himself in Washington and the Muslim Helsinki man may be surprise to find
himself in Moscow but both remember being the Muslim Helsinki man so both
are him, and predictions, good or bad, have nothing to do with it.

Bad predictions are made all the time but that doesn't mean the thing
making them ceases to exist, just look at Romney and the Republican party
of the USA.

>> you are still confused by the fact that "I" is no longer singular
>> because I HAS BEEN DUPLICATED AND SO HAS ALL OF I'S VIEWPOINTS.
>>
>
> > Obviosuly not from the 1p perspective.
>

Obviously?! If duplicating your body and your brain as

Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

Hi Roger,

I'm not trying to convince you to listen to 12-tone music, as it is even
misleading to talk about is as a unified whole => every composer that uses
these tools and their funky harmonic logic approaches them differently.

And composers have been doing this since in some form or the other since
16th century. It's "science" in its current atheist, political form that
was late with this kind of thinking. Also unifying this kind of musical
vision with more conjunct and decidable harmony has also been around
musically since the 16th and 17th century, if not earlier. So I shrug my
shoulders at the "novel scientific paradigms" of 20th and 21st century and
say: "meh not impressed if we can only build bombs and dirty energy
with it: just follow our lead and make it so that people can love and like
the fruits of that thinking and logics with a good conscience, without
making a mess. We've shown its possible in our domain for hundreds of
years."

Quantum Cowboy :)


On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>
> 12 tone music can be refreshing for a while but I soon get bored.
> On the other hand, Stravinksy and many others can do exciting
> things with dissonance. The Firebird Suite and the Rites of Spring
> enhance this marvellously with dance.
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
> 11/15/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2012-11-14, 12:42:32
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance
>
>  Hi Roger,
>
> The definition of harmony you cite above is "entertainment biased",
> because: Virtually all music is dissonant as the vast majority of music
> includes more complex fundamental frequency ratios than unison and octave:
> anything more complex than 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 etc. is by strict definition
> already dissonant, leading to rational number ratios etc. Note this is true
> independently of "somewhat muddled and defective senses".
>
> But there's not a large target market for such music: it would be fun to
> compose music with little dissonance and just Octaves all day... but they
> already do a version of this with New Age, meditation music etc. but they
> still need more than the octave, to not bore the listeners to death with
> static sine wave @ 440hz. But you can't mix 12-tone music with more
> traditional systems of harmony, unless you build larger musical contexts,
> because conjunction, transition, simultaneity, harmony, dissonance are
> defined very differently. Like instead of "either this chord or that chord
> for this genre in this musical context" in more traditional harmony, you
> get "this chord AND that chord" in 12-tone music; with either chord on its
> own being "false" in most 12-tone context.
>
> Mark
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>
>> Hi Russell Standish
>>
>>
>> I left out the part that the perfect harmony is
>> only possible in Platonia, but when performed
>> and/or listened to on earth by people with
>> somehat muddled or defective senses (us),
>> will contain distortions and dissonances.
>>
>>
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 11/9/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Russell Standish
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-11-08, 19:23:50
>> Subject: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 05:59:15AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
>> > Hi Russell Standish
>> >
>> > Yes, the orchestra with the supreme monad as
>> > composer/conductor playing a pleasing orchestra
>> > composition (not 12-tone !) that he dug up out of his
>> > a priori files works fine.
>>
>> That is what is incompatible with QM. Sorry...
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 
>> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>> Principal, High Performance Coders
>> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>> University of New South Wales http://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
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options,

Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance

[Roger Clough]

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy 

12 tone music can be refreshing for a while but I soon get bored.
On the other hand, Stravinksy and many others can do exciting
things with dissonance. The Firebird Suite and the Rites of Spring
enhance this marvellously with dance.   


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-14, 12:42:32
Subject: Re: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance


Hi Roger,

The definition of harmony you cite above is "entertainment biased", because: 
Virtually all music is dissonant as the vast majority of music includes more 
complex fundamental frequency ratios than unison and octave: anything more 
complex than 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 etc. is by strict definition already dissonant, 
leading to rational number ratios etc. Note this is true independently of 
"somewhat muddled and defective senses".

But there's not a large target market for such music: it would be fun to 
compose music with little dissonance and just Octaves all day... but they 
already do a version of this with New Age, meditation music etc. but they still 
need more than the octave, to not bore the listeners to death with static sine 
wave @ 440hz. But you can't mix 12-tone music with more traditional systems of 
harmony, unless you build larger musical contexts, because conjunction, 
transition, simultaneity, harmony, dissonance are defined very differently. 
Like instead of "either this chord or that chord for this genre in this musical 
context" in more traditional harmony, you get "this chord AND that chord" in 
12-tone music; with either chord on its own being "false" in most 12-tone 
context. 

Mark


On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi Russell Standish


I left out the part that the perfect harmony is
only possible in Platonia, but when performed
and/or listened to on earth by people with
somehat muddled or defective senses (us),
will contain distortions and dissonances.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/9/2012

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-11-08, 19:23:50
Subject: Re: Leibniz's pre-composed harmonic orchestral performance



On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 05:59:15AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Russell Standish
>
> Yes, the orchestra with the supreme monad as
> composer/conductor playing a pleasing orchestra
> composition (not 12-tone !) that he dug up out of his
> a priori files works fine.

That is what is incompatible with QM. Sorry...


--


Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

[Richard Ruquist]

Hi Roger Clough,

As you have been told, quantum gravity is contained within each string
theory monad.
No one knows where that came from, certainly not any god that humans
are connected to.
Richard

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Stephen Hawking,
>
> So quantum gravity was designed and created by
> mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out
> of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even
> an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ?
>
> This nonsense you apparently believe shows
> that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage.
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 11/15/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Bruno Marchal
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40
> Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis
>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger Clough,
>>
>> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
>> reason to live.
>> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum
>> gravity".
>>
>> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
>> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
>>
>> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving
>> consciousness,
>> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
>> possibilities,
>> according to Leibniz...
>>
>> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
>> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
>> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..
>
> Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>>
>> Richard Ruquist
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough 
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
>>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
>>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
>>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/12/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Stephen P. King

 There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
 them during manufacture.
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
>>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
>>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is
>>> easy to
>>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and
>>> there
>>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets
>>> that
>>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but
>>> any
>>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons
>>> for it.
>>>

 er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 11/10/2012
 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
 Subject: Re: Communicability


 On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up
> inside.
 No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
 "perfectly lined up". ... Right.

> That's Platonia.
>
> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.
>
> Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.

 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


 --
 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
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 .
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
 .

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Onward!
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>>> l...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to thi

Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of computers

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Everything has at least some intelligence or consciousness, according to 
Leibniz's metaphysics,
even rocks.  But these "bare naked monads" are essentially in deep, drugged  
sleep and darkness,
or at best drunk. Leibniz called such a state the unconscious way before Freud 
and Jung.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-12, 09:54:53
Subject: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of computers


Doesn't mean that a coffee filter is intelligent too? If so, is a series of 
coffee filters more intelligent than one? What about one with a hole in it?

Craig


On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:14:05 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi 

I was wrong. 

According to my own definition of intelligence-- that it is the 
ability of an entity, having at least some measure of free will, 
to make choices on its own (without outside help)--  a 
computer can have intelligence, and intelligence in no small measure. 

The ability to sort is an example. To give a simple example, a 
computer can sort information, just as Maxwell's Demon could, 
into two bins. Instead of temperature, it could just be a number. 
Numbers larger than A go into one bin, smaller than A go 
into another bin.  It does it all on its own, using an "if" statement. 





Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 
11/11/2012   
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/4uRvNZH9oIsJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: I am a realist rather than a nominalist because universal gravityexists.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Yes, Berkeley's solopsism is impossible to disprove,
so your theory that perception causes existence holds.

But, forgive me, how do you know that there are other people
to report your findings to ? We could all be chimeras.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-12, 07:07:07
Subject: Re: I am a realist rather than a nominalist because universal 
gravityexists.




On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 8:32:27 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:


Physics thus tells us that a falling tree will make 
a sound even if nobody is there to witness the event. 


Just the opposite. Physics tells us that sound is an experience for subjects 
who have some kind of ear. Without that, there is only a recurring change in 
the position of bodies (vibration), which requires that there be bodies which 
can detect that this change is occurring. There doesn't need to be a human 
witness unless by 'make a sound' we mean an experience interpreted with human 
qualities of sound discernment and sensitivity.
 


Because existence then is independent of mind 
(the realist position), 

But it is not independent of experience.
 

This also refutes Berkeley's 
position that things exist because we perceive them. 


Yes, Berkeley didn't take it far enough and realize that perception was the 
sole universal principle, and not just a human privilege.
 

Those are the complaints of the far left. 

They hate everything that has authority or power.


I think that the far left would argue that they do not hate powerful 
authorities like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, 
etc. You know, leaders who rise to positions of adoration without taking power 
from others.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/qzVxV_EizvMJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen Hawking,

So quantum gravity was designed and created by 
mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out 
of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even
an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ?

This nonsense you apparently believe shows
that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage.

 
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40
Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis


On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> Hi Roger Clough,
>
> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
> reason to live.
> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum 
> gravity".
>
> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
>
> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving 
> consciousness,
> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
> possibilities,
> according to Leibniz...
>
> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..

Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it.

Bruno



>
> Richard Ruquist
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  
> wrote:
>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>
>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>>
>>
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 11/12/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Stephen P. King
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
>>> them during manufacture.
>>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is 
>> easy to
>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and 
>> there
>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets 
>> that
>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but 
>> any
>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons 
>> for it.
>>
>>>
>>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/10/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Stephen P. King

 Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up 
 inside.
>>> No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
>>> "perfectly lined up". ... Right.
>>>
 That's Platonia.

 Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
 floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.

 Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Onward!
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at 
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything- 
>> l...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
>> .
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything- 
>> l...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
>> .
>>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, 

Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/15/2012 6:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno  and Russell,
The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


Hi Roger,

I invite you to read James P. Hogan's /Kicking the Sacred Cow/ 
.  It discusses 
the BB (among other things) in a different light.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

I'm back, thanks to Windows 7

[Roger Clough]

Hi everybody,

I need to catch up with some of you. I've been offline for a 
few days because of computer problems and even thought 
I had lost all of my email. But the "recover" feature of 
Windows 7 works like a charm even though you thought you had
lost the whole OS and wondered if you still had a backup.

But now it's all fixed and I don't seem to have lost anything.

Roger

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Plato's cave analogy

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Stephen,

On 14 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 11/14/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Dear Bruno,

  My claim is that the phrase that you used above "...we agree  
that for all " is just another way of thinking of my  
definition of reality as "That which is incontrovertible for some  
collection of observers that can communicate with each other". It  
is the mutual agreement between all participants, be they  
electrons or amoeba or human or galactic clusters, that makes a  
reality "real".


OK. That is recovered in comp by the notion of first person plural  
(duplication of machine population)

Dear Bruno,

   How exactly is the duplication achieved? What indexes the  
differences? A Blum complexity measure?


The way the duplication are done is not relevant, as in step 7, there  
is no more duplication, but more something like infinite preparation/ 
generation of the many identical state (identical from a first person  
pov). What indexes the difference is, for example, the place in the UD  
work, that is the place in UD*, where the state occur in some  
computation.
With comp, there exist an infinity of number k, j and s, such that the  
comp state of Stephen "here and now", is given by phi_k(j)^s  (the sth  
state of a the kth computations in the UD when computing phi_i(j).  k  
might be the codes of the descriptions in the Heisenberg picture of  
the cluster of galaxies, or some higher level description of the  
neuronal description of you right now, etc.
The Blum complexity can be relevant, but not for indexing the  
difference. The complexity of the computation can play a role in the  
measure problem (but that must be justified), but not in the presence  
or not of your conscious state "in" a computation.


Bruno



--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.