date:20130131

Hi Bruno Marchal 

The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it,
for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or
mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. 

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53
Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe


On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 A block universe does not allow for consciousness.

With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes.

There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the 
mindscape as seen from inside.



 The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think,
 means that our universe is not completely blocked,

 From inside.





 although the deviations from block may be minor
 and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point.

The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with 
comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here 
and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega 
points.

By using the self-reference logics we got all the nuances we need (3p, 
1p, 1p-plural, communicable, sharable, observable, etc.).

Bruno





 Richard.

 On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
 wrote:
 Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between 
 what is
 provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable. Maybe this is 
 a place
 where COMP could contribute to the understanding of QM.

 Brent




 Lessons from the Block Universe


 Ken Wharton
 Department of Physics and Astronomy
 San Jos? State University



 http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wharton_Wharton_Essay.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9


 In Liouville mechanics, states of incomplete
 knowledge exhibit phenomena analogous to those exhibited
 by pure quantum states. Among these are the existence
 of a no-cloning theorem for such states [21, 23],
 the impossibility of discriminating such states with certainty
 [21, 24], the lack of exponential divergence of such
 states (in the space of epistemic states) under chaotic
 evolution [25], and, for correlated states, many of the
 features of entanglement [26]. On the other hand, states
 of complete knowledge do not exhibit these phenomena.
 This suggests that one would obtain a better analogy
 with quantum theory if states of complete knowledge
 were somehow impossible to achieve, that is, if somehow
 maximal knowledge was always incomplete knowledge
 [21, 22, 27]. This idea is borne out by the results
 of this paper. In fact, the toy theory suggests that the
 restriction on knowledge should take a particular form,
 namely, that one? knowledge be quantitatively equal to
 one? ignorance in a state of maximal knowledge.

 It is important to bear in mind that one cannot derive
 quantum theory from the toy theory, nor from any
 simple modification thereof. The problem is that the
 toy theory is a theory of incomplete knowledge about
 local and noncontextual hidden variables, and it is well
 known that quantum theory cannot be understood in this
 way [28, 30, 31]. This prompts the obvious question: if
 a quantum state is a state of knowledge, and it is not
 knowledge of local and noncontextual hidden variables,
 then what is it knowledge about? We do not at present
 have a good answer to this question.


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
 send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything- 
 l...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



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



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to

Re: Hateful

2013-01-31 Thread meekerdb

On 1/30/2013 7:22 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Personally, my take on religion is that it has been an extraordinarily successful means
of organizing groups. I don't religion has ever been any one person's Machiavellian scheme,

Then perhaps you unaware of Joesph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard.

rather I think religion (and other cultural institutions) have been selected for in the
evolution of culture.

This is not contrary to them having been started by a single schemer. Note that many -
David Koresh, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite,... schemers try but fail and some may come
to believe their own myths.

I also tend to see collectives of humans as organisms-in-themselves, in roughly the same
way that a hive of bees can be seen as an organism in itself; and that human genetics
has co-evolved with the cultural memetics.

As such, I tend to run religious dogma through this filter: does it promote values in
individuals, that, taken collectively, make the collective more likely to persist.

You don't care about anything but persistence?

Brent

When I run the above prayer through that filter I find that it is a pretty good fit for
that idea.

Terren

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:

This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or
sung by
the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other
institutions you
would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff.

Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves;
to give and not to count the cost;
to fight and not to heed the wounds;
to till, and not to seek for rest;
to labour, and not to ask for any reward,
save that of knowing we do thy will.

Amen.

But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people
assume
God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards?
I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no
one need
live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious,
less
cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us.

All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really
into all
that? I don't believe it.

Kim Jones

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6069 - Release Date: 01/30/13

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

All you need to know about creationism and naturalism


Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are 
the creation of a supernatural being.
Metaphysical naturalism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the 
universe are NOT the creation of a supernatural being.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Is God created ?

Hi Kim

God is not himself created since the creator of all cannot create himself and 
still remain a creator.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 13:19:48
Subject: Re: Hateful

On 30 Jan 2013, at 06:06, Kim Jones wrote:

 we do WHOSE will???

 I mean, what if God turns out to be a gigantic chicken or the 
 Michelin Man?

Of course it depends on what you mean by God.
If God appears to be he Michelin Man, we have already a problem as the 
Michelin Man has a name, but God does not, hmm...

If you mean that the Michelin is really responsible for our existence, 
then we might have to revised our opinion on the Michelin Man.

 Are we still happy with our chosen values?

Why not?

Our value should be kept independent on any scientific discoveries, 
including in ethics, as they only confirms or refute hypotheses, and 
our values are deeper than those hypothesis. If not, you make some 
science into a religion, but then you play the pseudo-science or 
pseudo-religion games.

Bruno

 K

 On 30/01/2013, at 4:01 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net 
 wrote:

 On 1/29/2013 11:13 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
 This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is 
 recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good 
 many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that 
 it's all fundamentally good stuff.

 Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves;
 to give and not to count the cost;
 to fight and not to heed the wounds;
 to till, and not to seek for rest;
 to labour, and not to ask for any reward,
 save that of knowing we do thy will.

 Amen.

 But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why 
 do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try- 
 hards?
 I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up 
 to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less 
 servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on 
 what we think God wants for us.

 All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is 
 God really into all that? I don't believe it.

 Kim Jones

 Saint Ignatius' prayer, no? Common for those in Jesuit schools. I 
 never hear it in my days of Christian school... Many people live 
 well with such ideas in their heads, why the licentious talk of them?

 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything- 
 l...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list

2013-01-31 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
 I'm getting a bit jack of this term metadiscussion becuse it only ever gets 
 applied to what other people are choosing to discuss. People talk about what 
 people want to talk about. It's about taste, perception, preference and 
 prejudice. Even WITH rigidly adhered-to rules and conventions, this still 
 applies. The challenge is to take WHATEVER is spoken about and MAKE that 
 relevant somehow (to whatever you want to make it relevant to). That's 
 harder, more interesting and dare I say it - more relevant a process than 
 simply corralling all thinking under one topic or heading. As soon as you 
 start to set up rules, conventions and expectations the population divides 
 into those who feel that it is to their advantage to play by the rules and 
 those who believe that this is a constraint. This list is remarkably 
 troll-free. For that very reason I see no need to restrict what is spoken of. 
 The ensemble theories of everything probably won't come from the brains of 
 those who are exclusively obsessed by these things anyway since by now their 
 perception is circular and their belief supports their belief. You need 
 random thinkers, people who will break the local equilibrium and who will 
 introduce the creative concept of idea movement from time to time.

I like the idea of a moderator-free list, but nonetheless I agree with
Russell. The list was set up with a particular purpose in mind but in
the last few months the range of discussion topics has changed
radically. The Internet is large and there are plenty of other forums
in which to discuss politics and religion. Could we return to the old
list please?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Re: Hateful

Hi Terren Suydam 

Faith is a gift we are unworthy of.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Terren Suydam 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 14:21:17
Subject: Re: Re: Hateful

Hi Roger,

What else is it?  

If you say it is the arbiter of morality, then that too can be framed in terms 
of group persistence.

If you're talking about spirituality, whatever one means by that, it has never 
seemed the case to me that religion is *required* for one to realize one's 
spirituality.

Terren

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Terren Suydam 

Considering religion as a stabilizing social phenomenon is true,
but that's not all it is.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Terren Suydam 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 10:22:37
Subject: Re: Hateful

Personally, my take on religion is that it has been an extraordinarily 
successful means of organizing groups. I don't religion has ever been any one 
person's?achiavellian scheme, rather I think religion (and other cultural 
institutions) have been selected for in the evolution of culture.? also tend to 
see collectives of humans as organisms-in-themselves, in roughly the same way 
that a hive of bees can be seen as an organism in itself; and that human 
genetics has co-evolved with the cultural memetics. 

As such, I tend to run religious dogma through this filter: does it promote 
values in individuals, that, taken collectively, make the collective more 
likely to persist. When I run the above prayer through that filter I find that 
it is a pretty good fit for that idea. 

Terren

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:

This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or 
sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other 
institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff.

Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves;
to give and not to count the cost;
to fight and not to heed the wounds;
to till, and not to seek for rest;
to labour, and not to ask for any reward,
save that of knowing we do thy will.

Amen.

But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people 
assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards?
I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no one 
need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious, 
less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us.

All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really into 
all that? I don't believe it.

Kim Jones

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving 
off. use again  www.dreammail.org
%--DreamMail_AD_END--
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to

Re: Re: The least and best means of controlling gun violence

Hi Stephen P. King 

IMHO morals imply that you have somebody looking over your shoulder.
So they are collective.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 13:44:45
Subject: Re: The least and best means of controlling gun violence


On 1/30/2013 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:09:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 

What is the least powerful means of controlling gun violence ?
By legal means, as if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

 Just like if you outlaw biological weapons, then only outlaws will have 
biological weapons. That's pretty much the idea of making things illegal.



What is the most powerful means ?
By restablishing moral values in our homes, in our schools and in the media.

Moral values cannot be re-established by decree, only imitated voluntarily by 
example.


Morals flow from the individual mind. The collective has no morals.




-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Telmo Menezes 

IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, 
whatever it is?

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 
?
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite 
universes.
?
?
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi,

?? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos? Soler Gil,?Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based 
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based 
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in 
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite 
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of 
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories 
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current 
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of 
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John 
Horgan.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

DreamMail?- The first mail software supporting source tracking 
?www.dreammail.org
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
?
?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry

Hi John Mikes 

It didn't feel good.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 17:45:12
Subject: Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry

Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did it 
feel good to mention it as far left? My experience is balanced, I was a 
victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 75 
years of active life on 3 continents. 
Please try to understand what you read.
John Mikes

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi John Mikes 

That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength 
induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on 
defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made 
in the past only count against us.  

Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right,
but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway,
so cutting back will not improve things, and is less
likely to deter them. 

- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-28, 15:04:01
Subject: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry

Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a 
Superior firepower brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 
9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. 
Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw 
materials) and labor-power abroad.  
Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly 
leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations 
for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli 
PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. 
And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on 
the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. 
One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a 
semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. 
Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with 
infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women.
IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims.
JM

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi John Mikes 

You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Mikes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
Subject: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry

Roger - 
thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for 
the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to 
general draft only the female input is hopeful. 
John Mikes

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

The unfairness argument?or allowing women into the infantry
is emotionally based, thus?ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
I fell for it. ?he argument is that?ot allowing women into the 
infantry is unfair to women because they are just as good as men 
at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
advancement.
This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
after 18 months because it didn't work. 
The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the 
military ?
-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving 
off. use again  www.dreammail.org
%--DreamMail_AD_END--
-- 
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

Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

2013-01-31 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi Roger,

In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
quantum computers come from?


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi Telmo Menezes

 IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.



 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

   Hi Roger,

 I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
 whatever it is?


 On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:

  Hi Stephen P. King
 �
 It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
 universes.
 �
 �

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

  Hi,

 牋� I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
 Francisco Jos� Soler 
 Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
 ,�Manuel 
 Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
 (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last
 revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))

 This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
 based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
 Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
 which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
 must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
 shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
 of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
 strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
 ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
 science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


 --
 Onward!

 Stephen

 
 *DreamMail*�- The first mail software supporting source tracking �
 www.dreammail.org

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 �
 �


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: meditation

On 28 Jan 2013, at 00:07, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Dear Bruno and Stephen,

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:

On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a
long and deep computations is going through our state, but comp
suggest that the big bang is not the beginning.

Dear Bruno,

I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big Bang
per observer.

Couldn't the Big Bang just be the simplest possible state? That
doesn't mean it's the beginning, just that it's a likely predecessor
to any other state. The more complex a state is, the smaller the
number of states that it is likely to be a predecessor of.

Are not the big bangs just branches of the quantum vaccum, seen from
inside-1p?

The problem here is that we don't yet have a comprehensive QM. The
physicists needs a correct Quantum account of mass, which is still
lacking. We know nothing about the big bang, just what happens
10^(-35) seconds later ...
Is there a big bang with comp, in arithmetic? Yes, a lot, but hard to
see why some can be winning the measure game, without leading to some
consistent predecessors.

Bruno

PS I am very busy, and there are many mails. If I forget to answer
some questions, please don't hesitate to recall me, thanks. For those
interested, an UDA thread is again active on entheogen.com.

--
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
.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry



On 28 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Telmo Menezes wrote (to Craig):

I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I  
just don't see a way to survive and be free without an equilibrium  
based on fire power. I wish that wasn't the case, but what's the way  
out?


I don't think there is possible way out, but I do believe in slow but  
genuine harm reduction, and that this can become natural when people  
are encouraged to be confronted with truth. Old tribes were better in  
initiating the youth to that, but consumerism tend to obfuscate the  
idea. The problem is not money, as a tool, but money as goal in  
itself. It is the perpetual confusion of goals and means. I think.


Bruno



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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list



On 31 Jan 2013, at 11:05, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kim Jones  
kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
I'm getting a bit jack of this term metadiscussion becuse it only  
ever gets applied to what other people are choosing to discuss.  
People talk about what people want to talk about. It's about taste,  
perception, preference and prejudice. Even WITH rigidly adhered-to  
rules and conventions, this still applies. The challenge is to take  
WHATEVER is spoken about and MAKE that relevant somehow (to  
whatever you want to make it relevant to). That's harder, more  
interesting and dare I say it - more relevant a process than simply  
corralling all thinking under one topic or heading. As soon as you  
start to set up rules, conventions and expectations the population  
divides into those who feel that it is to their advantage to play  
by the rules and those who believe that this is a constraint.  
This list is remarkably troll-free. For that very reason I see no  
need to restrict what is spoken of. The ensemble theories of  
everything probably won't come from the brains of those who are  
exclusively obsessed by these things anyway since by now their  
perception is circular and their belief supports their belief. You  
need random thinkers, people who will break the local equilibrium  
and who will introduce the creative concept of idea movement from  
time to time.


I like the idea of a moderator-free list, but nonetheless I agree with
Russell. The list was set up with a particular purpose in mind but in
the last few months the range of discussion topics has changed
radically. The Internet is large and there are plenty of other forums
in which to discuss politics and religion. Could we return to the old
list please?


I agree. Religion might be discussed but only if it put a specific  
light on the ensemble or everything type of TOE research, not on  
actual problems like gun control which can be debated on better suited  
forum.
May be people could also try to make less posts, more acute on their  
points, to help the mailing boxes to not explode!


Bruno






--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list

Hi Russell Standish 

I have no problem with the idea that the universe is sort of ultimately
mathematical, except that equations by themselves can't
do anything except just be there.  So nothing can happen.
All you have is an a priori.

The other problem I have is that such a universe as you propose
(just mathematics)  has to be a multltiverse. It's totally unnecessary
if you have your ontology grounded in intelligence or consciousness.




- Receiving the following content - 
From: Russell Standish 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 15:53:38
Subject: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list


Might I remind everybody that the purpose of the everything-list is to
discuss ensemble theories of everything. If you want to know what that
is, please consult Wei Dei's description
http://www.weidai.com/everything.html

Granted, this does touch on a lot of topics, ranging over fundamental
science, philosophy and even aspects of religion, but is not relevant
to the current gun control debates, or a move to assert moral values
in our households (whose morals?), just two of the topics discussed
this morning on the list.

The list is deliberately left free-ranging and unmoderated. That has
been its strength, and the list has been remarkably troll-free. But
can I please ask everybody to keep the discussion more or less on
topic, so that the list remains relevant.

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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

multiverses and quantum computers

Hi Telmo Menezes 

Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, 
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.
So no problem.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space


Hi Roger,


In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum 
computers come from?



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes 
 
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
 
 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space


Hi Roger, 


I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, 
whatever it is?



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite 
universes.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space


Hi,

? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295


About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based 
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based 
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in 
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite 
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of 
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories 
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current 
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of 
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John 
Horgan.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.






-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.



On 29 Jan 2013, at 22:14, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my  
theory according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians  
in disguise.


Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never  
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


 same definition of the creator

EXACTLY!  I have a well defined meaning of the word  God  so when  
I say I don't believe in God it actually means something, and the  
meaning of the word is such that it doesn't reduced the sentence to  
triviality. People may and usually do disagree when I say I don't  
believe in God but at least they know what I'm talking about.


The usual answer here is that i don't believe in the GOD in which you  
don't believe in. I agree with you, but I disagree with your  
insistence to define God by the Abramanic one, or even by the fairy  
tales popularly added to it.


God, in philosophy or science, denotes the ultimate explanation which  
we are searching. It is the ultimate ensemble, or the ultimate  
reason for that ensemble. Then comp makes even clearer why such  
reason is related to many intuition conveyed in many texts inspired  
by people having mystical experience, or going through altered  
state of consciousness.




In contrast you've tortured the meanings of words so much that when  
you say I do believe in God nobody knows what you mean and in  
fact, I'm not trying to be insulting I mean this quite literally,  
when you say I do believe in God you don't know what you're  
talking about.


It means that I believe that a theory of everything makes sense. It is  
a way for me to communicate that I am AGNOSTIC on the current paradigm  
which presuppose or assume (very often implicitly) the primary  
physical universe.





I know exactly what it is that I don't believe in,


Really? It looks like Santa Klaus to me. You know that both of us does  
not find such existence plasuible, or even capable of explaining  
anything. But comp explains that the assumption of a primary physical  
universe does not only NOT explain much more (it just compress  
information), but fails on the mind-body issue, so we have to use a  
term different from universe (which has physicalist connotation),  
and I use the term God, as it was used with that large and vague  
meaning for a millenium before it becomes a political tool of  
manipulation. But if you don't like that term I will use ONE with  
discussing with you, as you take the vocabulary too much seriously, imo.




but the thing that you do believe in is a bunch of amorphous mush  
with virtually no relationship to the traditional meaning of the  
word God .


I search a TOE. Concentrate on the understanding, not the vocabulary.





But you are far from alone in doing this, for reasons I don't  
understand some atheist just want to make the noise  I do believe  
in God with their mouth, and they don't care what if anything it  
means.


I think that you have not understand the mind-body problem, from  
cognition to after-life, and the problem of the origin of the physical  
universe.


Do you believe in a primary physical universe? Are you physicalist?





 same impulse to forbid the scientific method on the deep questions.

Bullshit. I'm a atheist
because a world that was intelligently designed



We both have agreed that this does not make any sense, at least as an  
explanation.




would look very different from one that was not, therefore deciding  
between the 2 hypothesis is a scientific question that can be  
resolved just like any other.


Not really with comp. A machine cannot distinguish the result of some  
simple programs, and a random (or not ORACLE. That makes most  
conventional religion not interesting, as being irrefutable. And thus  
non scientific.
That is why comp is interesting, as it is completely refutable. If  
your were willing to study step 4, you would be able to progress  
toward the understanding of that fact. You have not replied to my last  
refutation of your prediction algorithm.






 I was just asking what do you mean by grand concept, with the  
goal of making sense of what you were saying. You elude the point.


I have noticed that when people get into a tight corner they often  
try to change the subject by asking me for a definition of some very  
common word that I've used. The trouble is that any definition I  
give will be made of words and I can be certain that my debate  
opponent will demand a definition of at least one of those words,  
and away we go.


You elude my simple question. What do you mean by grand concept?


 BTW, I am still waiting your comment on my last rebuttal of your  
predicting algorithm in self-duplication.


I wasn't aware that I had a predicting algorithm in self- 
duplication,


In the WM-duplication, with annihilation of the original you do have  
agreed on many

Re: Re: Re: Hateful

2013-01-31 Thread Terren Suydam

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi Terren Suydam

 Faith is a gift we are unworthy of.


Whatever floats your boat.

Terren




 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 14:21:17
 *Subject:* Re: Re: Hateful


 Hi Roger,

 What else is it?

 If you say it is the arbiter of morality, then that too can be framed in
 terms of group persistence.

 If you're talking about spirituality, whatever one means by that, it has
 never seemed the case to me that religion is *required* for one to realize
 one's spirituality.

 Terren

 On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:

  Hi Terren Suydam
  Considering religion as a stabilizing social phenomenon is true,
 but that's not all it is.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 10:22:37
 *Subject:* Re: Hateful

   Personally, my take on religion is that it has been an extraordinarily
 successful means of organizing groups. I don't religion has ever been any
 one person's燤achiavellian scheme, rather I think religion (and other
 cultural institutions) have been selected for in the evolution of culture.營
 also tend to see collectives of humans as organisms-in-themselves, in
 roughly the same way that a hive of bees can be seen as an organism in
 itself; and that human genetics has co-evolved with the cultural memetics.

 As such, I tend to run religious dogma through this filter: does it
 promote values in individuals, that, taken collectively, make the
 collective more likely to persist. When I run the above prayer through that
 filter I find that it is a pretty good fit for that idea.

 Terren




 On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.auwrote:

 This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited
 or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and
 other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally
 good stuff.



 Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves;
 to give and not to count the cost;
 to fight and not to heed the wounds;
 to till, and not to seek for rest;
 to labour, and not to ask for any reward,
 save that of knowing we do thy will.


 Amen.


 But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do
 people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards?
 I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and
 no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less
 obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants
 for us.

 All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God
 really into all that? I don't believe it.



 Kim Jones


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


 
 *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your
 leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org
 %--DreamMail_AD_END--

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



  --
 You

Re: Hateful

2013-01-31 Thread Terren Suydam

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/30/2013 7:22 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:

 Personally, my take on religion is that it has been an extraordinarily
 successful means of organizing groups. I don't religion has ever been any
 one person's Machiavellian scheme,


 Then perhaps you unaware of Joesph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard.


haha, sure. Actually I was talking more about the institution of
religion, or perhaps the first religion - loosely defined as appealing
to a supernatural authority.


  rather I think religion (and other cultural institutions) have been
 selected for in the evolution of culture.


 This is not contrary to them having been started by a single schemer.
 Note that many - David Koresh, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite,... schemers
 try but fail and some may come to believe their own myths.

  I also tend to see collectives of humans as organisms-in-themselves, in
 roughly the same way that a hive of bees can be seen as an organism in
 itself; and that human genetics has co-evolved with the cultural memetics.

  As such, I tend to run religious dogma through this filter: does it
 promote values in individuals, that, taken collectively, make the
 collective more likely to persist.


 You don't care about anything but persistence?


Not really, no, at least not in this context. That's all evolution is when
you get down to it, a search of increasingly persistent forms under dynamic
conditions. Perhaps morals just happen to be what a successful (in terms of
persistence) group instills in its constituent members... which would
account for why morals are so divergent across cultures.

Terren


 Brent

  When I run the above prayer through that filter I find that it is a
 pretty good fit for that idea.

  Terren




 On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.auwrote:

 This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited
 or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and
 other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally
 good stuff.



 Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves;
 to give and not to count the cost;
 to fight and not to heed the wounds;
 to till, and not to seek for rest;
 to labour, and not to ask for any reward,
 save that of knowing we do thy will.


 Amen.


 But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do
 people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards?
 I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and
 no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less
 obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants
 for us.

 All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God
 really into all that? I don't believe it.



 Kim Jones


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6069 - Release Date: 01/30/13


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Is God created ?



On Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:02:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Kim
  
 God is not himself created since the creator of all cannot create himself 
 and still remain a creator.


Why not just say the same of the universe? If the argument for God is that 
everything that exists must be created by something, then why not just say 
that the Universe cannot create itself and still remain the Universe?

Craig
 

  - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Bruno Marchal javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 13:19:48
 *Subject:* Re: Hateful

   On 30 Jan 2013, at 06:06, Kim Jones wrote:

  we do WHOSE will???
 
  I mean, what if God turns out to be a gigantic chicken or the 
  Michelin Man?


 Of course it depends on what you mean by God.
 If God appears to be he Michelin Man, we have already a problem as the 
 Michelin Man has a name, but God does not, hmm...

 If you mean that the Michelin is really responsible for our existence, 
 then we might have to revised our opinion on the Michelin Man.



 
  Are we still happy with our chosen values?

 Why not?

 Our value should be kept independent on any scientific discoveries, 
 including in ethics, as they only confirms or refute hypotheses, and 
 our values are deeper than those hypothesis. If not, you make some 
 science into a religion, but then you play the pseudo-science or 
 pseudo-religion games.

 Bruno



 
  K
 
 
 
  On 30/01/2013, at 4:01 PM, Stephen P. King 
  step...@charter.netjavascript: 

  wrote:
 
  On 1/29/2013 11:13 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
  This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is 
  recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good 
  many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that 
  it's all fundamentally good stuff.
 
 
 
  Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves;
  to give and not to count the cost;
  to fight and not to heed the wounds;
  to till, and not to seek for rest;
  to labour, and not to ask for any reward,
  save that of knowing we do thy will.
 
 
  Amen.
 
 
  But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why 
  do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try- 
  hards?
  I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up 
  to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less 
  servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on 
  what we think God wants for us.
 
  All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is 
  God really into all that? I don't believe it.
 
 
 
  Kim Jones
 
 
 
 
  Saint Ignatius' prayer, no? Common for those in Jesuit schools. I 
  never hear it in my days of Christian school... Many people live 
  well with such ideas in their heads, why the licentious talk of them?
 
  -- 
  Onward!
 
  Stephen
 
 
  -- 
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
  Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
  send an email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.javascript:
  To post to this group, send email to everything- 
  li...@googlegroups.com. javascript:
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 

  .
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
 
  -- 
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
  Groups Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
  send an email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.javascript:
  To post to this group, send email to 
  everyth...@googlegroups.com.javascript:
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 

  .
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

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



 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com. javascript:
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.javascript:
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list

2013-01-31 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Now that the long time users have spoken, I feel the noobs should be
represented as well, so my two virtual cents:

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 31 Jan 2013, at 11:05, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

  On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
 wrote:

 I'm getting a bit jack of this term metadiscussion becuse it only ever
 gets applied to what other people are choosing to discuss. People talk
 about what people want to talk about. It's about taste, perception,
 preference and prejudice. Even WITH rigidly adhered-to rules and
 conventions, this still applies. The challenge is to take WHATEVER is
 spoken about and MAKE that relevant somehow (to whatever you want to make
 it relevant to). That's harder, more interesting and dare I say it - more
 relevant a process than simply corralling all thinking under one topic or
 heading.


Yup. I mean, do people really want posting to be restricted, in terms of
relevance, to journal articles (relating btw to a somewhat fuzzy and
controversial notion of TOE) with high impact factor? I wonder how people
sort out the relevance issue in view of the halting problem. How do we know
if this computation or question will take up more weight in say the
Ensemble TOE frame as time goes by? How can you rule out that it might be
an oracle, if you don't give it any chance?

It is understandable that certain discussions don't interest people: but
this doesn't prevent you from deleting and or blocking posts from certain
authors to reach your inbox. I press delete everyday. Takes 10 seconds.


 As soon as you start to set up rules, conventions and expectations the
 population divides into those who feel that it is to their advantage to
 play by the rules and those who believe that this is a constraint. This
 list is remarkably troll-free. For that very reason I see no need to
 restrict what is spoken of. The ensemble theories of everything probably
 won't come from the brains of those who are exclusively obsessed by these
 things anyway since by now their perception is circular and their belief
 supports their belief. You need random thinkers, people who will break the
 local equilibrium and who will introduce the creative concept of idea
 movement from time to time.



I agree, but a dose of civility and humility makes that freedom more
palatable, even though it's messy by default.


 I like the idea of a moderator-free list, but nonetheless I agree with
 Russell. The list was set up with a particular purpose in mind but in
 the last few months the range of discussion topics has changed
 radically. The Internet is large and there are plenty of other forums
 in which to discuss politics and religion. Could we return to the old
 list please?



Really? Sounds like: Please let's return to the good old days, when there
were only smart people, with proper scientific training, that posted with
restraint and wigs. If you want people to just parrot what you expect,
what falls into the range of discussion topics possible, then why use the
internet at all? Might as well set up a camp and force people to answer how
we would like them to... this is taken to absurd extremes: my point is not
anti-elitist, more that it shouldn't matter. Let people make up their own
minds, and if somebody wants to spam the list with whatever brain droppings
just pop up: ignore or delete.

One could implement a weak what people found relevant filter: if a
message gets ignored, then it is automatically deleted after some time.
Everybody's restraint would help clean up the list and people that get no
replies get the implicit, non face threatening message to stay relevant to
the group's focus, rather than exclusively a fuzzy ideal. Also, whatever
posting guidelines are adopted, the freedom of the list should headline it
along with the group responsibility to keep something messy clean for
people searching the list.


 I agree. Religion might be discussed but only if it put a specific light
 on the ensemble or everything type of TOE research, not on actual
 problems like gun control which can be debated on better suited forum.


Is there a forum that tries to frame gun control as universally chaotic
as here, with this kind of variety of characters and types? Because then we
would also have to keep quiet on prohibition, an actual problem, which
turns out to be woven into beliefs and complex histories, that in turn
bleed into conception of science and assumptions concerning Ensemble TOE's.


 May be people could also try to make less posts, more acute on their
 points, to help the mailing boxes to not explode!


Sure. Restraint and good faith are good partners of freedom.

Free forums resemble chaos/harmony in musical improvisation: we all know
that less experienced players so excited by the novel attention their
improvisations receive, tend to overplay. This can last some time, but
eventually they take the environment more for granted and realize Whoa,

Re: Re: The least and best means of controlling gun violence



On Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:05:00 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Stephen P. King 
  
 IMHO morals imply that you have somebody looking over your shoulder.
 So they are collective.


Interesting. In a sense I agree, but I also agree with Stephen that morals 
flow from the individual mind. The morals of the collective are 
internalized by the individual, but it is up to them, to some degree 
(depending on the context) whether they choose to champion or reject any 
particular moral impulse or 'ought'. You might, for instance, be born into 
a family with parents who are traditional in some ways, eccentric in 
others, with one radical sibling and one more conservative sibling...maybe 
you were in a progressive program within a restrictive school, within a 
suburban culture, within a progressive state... etc. As you navigate 
through it, your morality is shaped by your experiences, and those of your 
family and friends. In my case, the only person looking over my shoulder is 
me - morality is what is demanded of me by the absence of anyone looking 
over my shoulder.

Craig
 

  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Stephen P. King javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 13:44:45
 *Subject:* Re: The least and best means of controlling gun violence

   On 1/30/2013 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:09:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 

   
 What is the least powerful means of controlling gun violence ?
 By legal means, as if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.


  Just like if you outlaw biological weapons, then only outlaws will have 
 biological weapons. That's pretty much the idea of making things illegal.

   
 What is the most powerful means ?
 By restablishing moral values in our homes, in our schools and in the 
 media.


 Moral values cannot be re-established by decree, only imitated voluntarily 
 by example.


 Morals flow from the individual mind. The collective has no morals.



 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The least and best means of controlling gun violence


Hi Roger,

We can add together our claims to get a better claim as I see a way 
to bring our ideas together. How about: morals are the rules of the 
individual generated by interactions with others. I still refuse to 
accept any coherence to the idea that there is a collective with a mind 
at the same level as the individual. Look at the often quoted example of 
a BEC. In such, the aggregate becomes one entity, a new individual and 
the previous individual (from the point of view of behaviors) vanishes.



On 1/31/2013 8:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
IMHO morals imply that you have somebody looking over your shoulder.
So they are collective.

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-30, 13:44:45
*Subject:* Re: The least and best means of controlling gun violence

On 1/30/2013 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:09:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

What is the least powerful means of controlling gun violence ?
By legal means, as if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will
have guns.


 Just like if you outlaw biological weapons, then only outlaws
will have biological weapons. That's pretty much the idea of
making things illegal.

What is the most powerful means ?
By restablishing moral values in our homes, in our schools
and in the media.


Moral values cannot be re-established by decree, only imitated
voluntarily by example.


Morals flow from the individual mind. The collective has no
morals.



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space


IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified.


On 1/31/2013 8:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
*Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
number, whatever it is?


On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough
rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
�
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than
infinite universes.
�
�

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi,

牋� I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295


  About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Francisco Jos� Soler Gil
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1,�Manuel
Alfonseca
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 Jan
2013 (this version, v2))

This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by
Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic
cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on
the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets
and living beings must be repeated an infinite number
of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in
the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the
idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space
cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence
of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be
seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John
Horgan.




--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.



On Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:42:20 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013  Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote:

   i don't believe in the GOD in which you don't believe in. 

  

 I admit there is a story (probably apocryphal) about Pythagoras killing a 
 man for leaking the proof that the square root of 2 could not be expressed 
 as a fraction. 


Wait, someone leaked that?!?  Death to the infidel!

Craig 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.



On 30 Jan 2013, at 13:40, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


About Infinity. / My opinion /
How could mere man comprehend infinity?
==.
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Why is Infinity the cause of the crisis in Physics?
Because we don’t know what infinity is.
The concept of infinite / eternal means nothing to a scientists.
Infinity is no ‘more ‘, ‘ less’, ‘equally’ or  ‘similar’.
The Infinity is something  that could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity cannot be considered in real processes and they
proclaimed  unwritten law:
‘ If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity should be eliminated’  . . . .  by the
' method of  renormalization '  . . .  about which Feynman wrote
' using this method we can  these infinities sweep under a carpet '
and then Feynman asked:
‘ Who can confirm that the infinity conforms with reality of nature?’
 / Book:  The Character of Physical Law.  Lecture 7. /
===.

I will try to explain ‘infinity’ as brief and simple as is possible.
=.
There are billions and  billions Galaxies in the
Universe, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars.
All these billions and billions Galaxies are divided by space,
which we call ‘ Vacuum’.
This Vacuum is an  infinite and eternal continuum.
Why Vacuum is infinite ?
Because the sum of masses of all Galaxies (the cosmological
constant / the critical density ) is as small that it cannot
‘ close’ the whole Universe into sphere and  therefore Universe
 as whole must be  ‘open’, endless, infinite.
Only in some small local parts of this infinite Vacuum continuum
some masses can gather together in an enough quantity to create
stars, planets . . .etc.
Vacuum continuum is not a simple space
Physicists say that in vacuum ‘virtual particles’ exist and they
can appear as real particles.  Nobody knows what they are.
Astrophysicists say that ‘dark mass- matter’ in vacuum is hidden.
This ‘dark mass- matter’ is not ordinary matter but ‘non normal’.
They say that more than 90% of the matter in the Universe
is ‘non normal dark mass – matter’.
So, from ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘non normal dark matter ’ were
created  all billion and billion Galaxies, including our planet Earth
and everything on it,  also including you, who reads  this email.
And because we don’t know what ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘dark matter’
are,
therefore we don’t have answer to the question: who am I ?
..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===..



There are infinity problems also in arithmetic, computer science,  
cognitive science, etc.


Universal numbers are confronted to many different kinds of infinities  
(by computer science, and by the first person indeterminacies, if you  
read about the UDA?).


Do you think that the brain can be emulated by a digital computer? If  
that is the case, physics (science of the observable) can't solve the  
mind body problem. In fact physics *becomes* the problem, for the  
mechanist approach to mind. Yet an interesting one and formulable in  
arithmetic. It makes mechanism testable for the constraints it imposes  
on the nature of the physical reality.


I don't think that science has decided between Aristotle and Plato.  
Comp provides a test, and already a part of the QM weirdness appears  
normal in comp. We might need to backtrack on Plato.


Bruno







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry

2013-01-31 Thread meekerdb


On 1/31/2013 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Telmo Menezes wrote (to Craig):

I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just don't see a way 
to survive and be free without an equilibrium based on fire power. I wish that wasn't 
the case, but what's the way out?


I don't think there is possible way out, but I do believe in slow but genuine harm 
reduction,


And according to Steven Pinker that has been happening; we are becoming less 
warlike.

Brent

and that this can become natural when people are encouraged to be confronted with truth. 
Old tribes were better in initiating the youth to that, but consumerism tend to 
obfuscate the idea. The problem is not money, as a tool, but money as goal in itself. It 
is the perpetual confusion of goals and means. I think.


Bruno


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Is God created ?

2013-01-31 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 God is not himself created


So the God hypothesis can not answer the question of why there is something
rather than nothing.

 since creator of all cannot create himself


Thus God is not omnipotent and is demoted to the status of being a comic
book superhero, or supervillan,  depending on how you feel about genocide
and God smiting all those poor Philistines and stealing their land.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list

2013-01-31 Thread John Mikes

Stathis, you are close to have written what I wanted to add to Russell's
outcry. I wrote some time ago to Roger asking him to give back our list -
to no avail.
Now I would add only one 'catch'phrase of Russell to your invaluable post:
...*the list has been remarkably troll-free*
implying that whoever disregards WeiDai's initiatives does misuse his
generosity in maintaining the list.
I went through crises on other lists generated by closed minded religious
terrorists and most lists survived.
I hope this one will as well, in spite of much discussion I really do not
understand with my limited science.

John Mikes Ph.D.(chem) D.Sc.(polymers) and for the past 3 decades a
(ret.) homespun agnostic philosopher.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
 wrote:
  I'm getting a bit jack of this term metadiscussion becuse it only ever
 gets applied to what other people are choosing to discuss. People talk
 about what people want to talk about. It's about taste, perception,
 preference and prejudice. Even WITH rigidly adhered-to rules and
 conventions, this still applies. The challenge is to take WHATEVER is
 spoken about and MAKE that relevant somehow (to whatever you want to make
 it relevant to). That's harder, more interesting and dare I say it - more
 relevant a process than simply corralling all thinking under one topic or
 heading. As soon as you start to set up rules, conventions and expectations
 the population divides into those who feel that it is to their advantage to
 play by the rules and those who believe that this is a constraint. This
 list is remarkably troll-free. For that very reason I see no need to
 restrict what is spoken of. The ensemble theories of everything probably
 won't come from the brains of those who are exclusively obsessed by these
 things anyway since by now their perception is circular and their belief
 supports their belief. You need random thinkers, people who will break the
 local equilibrium and who will introduce the creative concept of idea
 movement from time to time.

 I like the idea of a moderator-free list, but nonetheless I agree with
 Russell. The list was set up with a particular purpose in mind but in
 the last few months the range of discussion topics has changed
 radically. The Internet is large and there are plenty of other forums
 in which to discuss politics and religion. Could we return to the old
 list please?


 --
 Stathis Papaioannou

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The least and best means of controlling gun violence


On 1/31/2013 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:05:00 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
IMHO morals imply that you have somebody looking over your shoulder.
So they are collective.


Interesting. In a sense I agree, but I also agree with Stephen that 
morals flow from the individual mind. The morals of the collective are 
internalized by the individual, but it is up to them, to some degree 
(depending on the context) whether they choose to champion or reject 
any particular moral impulse or 'ought'. You might, for instance, be 
born into a family with parents who are traditional in some ways, 
eccentric in others, with one radical sibling and one more 
conservative sibling...maybe you were in a progressive program within 
a restrictive school, within a suburban culture, within a progressive 
state... etc. As you navigate through it, your morality is shaped by 
your experiences, and those of your family and friends. In my case, 
the only person looking over my shoulder is me - morality is what is 
demanded of me by the absence of anyone looking over my shoulder.


Craig

Hear Hear!

The environment that molds one individual cannot be assumed to be 
identical to the environment that molds another. Beware of assumptions 
of uniformity and homogeneity... Sometimes Nature is not as symmetric as 
we would like...


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space


On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

What's an entity?


Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some 
kind of fixed point theorem.





On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King 
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:


IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified.



On 1/31/2013 8:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
*Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in
Space

Hi Roger,

I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the
precise number, whatever it is?


On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough
rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
�
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs
than infinite universes.
�
�

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories
in Space

Hi,

牋� I think this paper might be fodder for a nice
discussion!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295


  About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Francisco Jos� Soler Gil

http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1,�Manuel
Alfonseca
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23
Jan 2013 (this version, v2))

This paper analyzes two different proposals, one
by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical
relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of
quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that,
in an infinite universe, planets and living
beings must be repeated an infinite number of
times. We point to some possible shortcomings in
the arguments of these authors. We conclude that
the idea of an infinite repetition of histories
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a
consequence of current physics and cosmology.
Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright}
in the terminology of John Horgan.




--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Mathematical Multiverse

2013-01-31 Thread Russell Standish

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:01:50AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Russell Standish 
 
 I have no problem with the idea that the universe is sort of ultimately
 mathematical, except that equations by themselves can't
 do anything except just be there.  So nothing can happen.
 All you have is an a priori.

This is Hawking's question What breathes the fire into the
equations?, is it not?

My particular answer to that is crafted as section 9.3 of my book. It
is fairly late in the book, so I'm not sure how comprehensible it is
without reading much of the rest of the book. But you're welcome to
answer specific questions. I suspect, given your druthers, you would
take Bishop Berkeley's rescue package :).

 
 The other problem I have is that such a universe as you propose
 (just mathematics)  has to be a multltiverse. It's totally unnecessary
 if you have your ontology grounded in intelligence or consciousness.
 

I don't understand this comment at all. Please explain?


-- 


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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list

2013-01-31 Thread Russell Standish

Hi PGC,

I have never suggested moderation of the list. It has been tried
before (not by me), and it doesn't work. Also, if you are aware of the
events on the FOR list leading up the the establishment of FOAR,
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/blog/?p=5) you would realise that I'm in
perfect agreement with you about not moderating the list, and the most
effective treatment for trolls is to ignore them. Indeed, I am
currently deleting about 80% of the everything-list posts without
reading them, but it does require remembering what each thread is
about before pressing ^D.

I also have been careful not to single anybody out for blame. In fact
I think we're all guilty, to a greater or lesser extent. For example,
I have occasionally pipped in on off-topic threads when I should
better have just ignored them.

What I wanted to remind people of was the purpose of the list, and a
request that we get back to discussing that, rather than things
belonging in different fora.

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 05:29:36PM +0100, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
 Now that the long time users have spoken, I feel the noobs should be
 represented as well, so my two virtual cents:
 
 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
  On 31 Jan 2013, at 11:05, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 
   On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
  wrote:
 
  I'm getting a bit jack of this term metadiscussion becuse it only ever
  gets applied to what other people are choosing to discuss. People talk
  about what people want to talk about. It's about taste, perception,
  preference and prejudice. Even WITH rigidly adhered-to rules and
  conventions, this still applies. The challenge is to take WHATEVER is
  spoken about and MAKE that relevant somehow (to whatever you want to make
  it relevant to). That's harder, more interesting and dare I say it - more
  relevant a process than simply corralling all thinking under one topic or
  heading.
 
 
 Yup. I mean, do people really want posting to be restricted, in terms of
 relevance, to journal articles (relating btw to a somewhat fuzzy and
 controversial notion of TOE) with high impact factor? I wonder how people
 sort out the relevance issue in view of the halting problem. How do we know
 if this computation or question will take up more weight in say the
 Ensemble TOE frame as time goes by? How can you rule out that it might be
 an oracle, if you don't give it any chance?
 
 It is understandable that certain discussions don't interest people: but
 this doesn't prevent you from deleting and or blocking posts from certain
 authors to reach your inbox. I press delete everyday. Takes 10 seconds.
 
 
  As soon as you start to set up rules, conventions and expectations the
  population divides into those who feel that it is to their advantage to
  play by the rules and those who believe that this is a constraint. This
  list is remarkably troll-free. For that very reason I see no need to
  restrict what is spoken of. The ensemble theories of everything probably
  won't come from the brains of those who are exclusively obsessed by these
  things anyway since by now their perception is circular and their belief
  supports their belief. You need random thinkers, people who will break the
  local equilibrium and who will introduce the creative concept of idea
  movement from time to time.
 
 
 
 I agree, but a dose of civility and humility makes that freedom more
 palatable, even though it's messy by default.
 
 
  I like the idea of a moderator-free list, but nonetheless I agree with
  Russell. The list was set up with a particular purpose in mind but in
  the last few months the range of discussion topics has changed
  radically. The Internet is large and there are plenty of other forums
  in which to discuss politics and religion. Could we return to the old
  list please?
 
 
 
 Really? Sounds like: Please let's return to the good old days, when there
 were only smart people, with proper scientific training, that posted with
 restraint and wigs. If you want people to just parrot what you expect,
 what falls into the range of discussion topics possible, then why use the
 internet at all? Might as well set up a camp and force people to answer how
 we would like them to... this is taken to absurd extremes: my point is not
 anti-elitist, more that it shouldn't matter. Let people make up their own
 minds, and if somebody wants to spam the list with whatever brain droppings
 just pop up: ignore or delete.
 
 One could implement a weak what people found relevant filter: if a
 message gets ignored, then it is automatically deleted after some time.
 Everybody's restraint would help clean up the list and people that get no
 replies get the implicit, non face threatening message to stay relevant to
 the group's focus, rather than exclusively a fuzzy ideal. Also, whatever
 posting guidelines are adopted, the freedom of the list should headline it
 along with the group

Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space



On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
  
 What's an entity?


 Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some 
 kind of fixed point theorem.


Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago. 
Some interesting etymology too:

entity (n.)
1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive 
entis) a thing, proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse be (see is), to 
render Greek philosophical term to on that which is (from neuter of prp. 
of einai to be; see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in 
English is from 1620s.

entire (adj.) 
late 14c., from Old French entier whole, unbroken, intact, complete, 
from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer).

 A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity has 
a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual reference 
could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation which 
emphasizes its closure'.

Craig


  

 On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King 
 step...@charter.netjavascript:
  wrote:

  IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified. 



 On 1/31/2013 8:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Telmo Menezes 
  
 IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
  
  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Telmo Menezes javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

  Hi Roger, 

  I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise 
 number, whatever it is?
  

 On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough 
 rcl...@verizon.netjavascript:
  wrote:

  Hi Stephen P. King 
 �
 It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite 
 universes.
 �
 �

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Stephen P. King javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
  
  Hi,

 牋� I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!

 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space 
 Francisco Jos� Soler 
 Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
 ,�Manuel 
 Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
 (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last 
 revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))

 This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, 
 based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and 
 Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of 
 which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings 
 must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible 
 shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea 
 of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered 
 strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such 
 ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic 
 science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


  
 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

2013-01-31 Thread meekerdb


On 1/31/2013 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 you seem to believe that physics does solve the mind-body problem,


The evidence very strongly indicates that mind is what the brain does if that's what 
you mean.


So you do assume the existence of a primitive or primitively material brain?


That doesn't follow. It may be that minds and brains are necessarily linked, without 
assuming that either one is fundamental.


Brent



Are such brain Turing emulable?

If yes, how do you predict the first person feeling of a person doing a physical 
measurement?


You might study some book on the mind-body problem. Serious books makes clear that we 
have not yet solve the problem. Note that UDA, and especially MGA (which I will 
re-explain on the FOAR list) is by itself a formulation of the problem, in the mechanist 
frame.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list

2013-01-31 Thread Pierz

I agree with you Russell. It's nice to have new thinkers contributing ideas 
as I was getting bored with Weinberg vs Clark, but at a certain point this 
group will lose interest for me completely if 90% of the threads are about 
stuff unrelated to the original 'everything' list concept. It's not the 
anything list!

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:53:38 AM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote:

 Might I remind everybody that the purpose of the everything-list is to 
 discuss ensemble theories of everything. If you want to know what that 
 is, please consult Wei Dei's description 
 http://www.weidai.com/everything.html 

 Granted, this does touch on a lot of topics, ranging over fundamental 
 science, philosophy and even aspects of religion, but is not relevant 
 to the current gun control debates, or a move to assert moral values 
 in our households (whose morals?), just two of the topics discussed 
 this morning on the list. 

 The list is deliberately left free-ranging and unmoderated. That has 
 been its strength, and the list has been remarkably troll-free. But 
 can I please ask everybody to keep the discussion more or less on 
 topic, so that the list remains relevant. 

 Cheers 

 -- 

  

 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
 Principal, High Performance Coders 
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: 
 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list

2013-01-31 Thread Pierz

Might I add, I nearly choked on my proverbial cereal reading the heading 
'abortion should be self-limiting since it cleans the gene pool' or some 
such crap from rclough, and was about to fire back until I realized that 
provocation is the *purpose* of trolling. So - I consider him a troll.

On Friday, February 1, 2013 11:24:10 AM UTC+11, Pierz wrote:

 I agree with you Russell. It's nice to have new thinkers contributing 
 ideas as I was getting bored with Weinberg vs Clark, but at a certain point 
 this group will lose interest for me completely if 90% of the threads are 
 about stuff unrelated to the original 'everything' list concept. It's not 
 the anything list!

 On Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:53:38 AM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote:

 Might I remind everybody that the purpose of the everything-list is to 
 discuss ensemble theories of everything. If you want to know what that 
 is, please consult Wei Dei's description 
 http://www.weidai.com/everything.html 

 Granted, this does touch on a lot of topics, ranging over fundamental 
 science, philosophy and even aspects of religion, but is not relevant 
 to the current gun control debates, or a move to assert moral values 
 in our households (whose morals?), just two of the topics discussed 
 this morning on the list. 

 The list is deliberately left free-ranging and unmoderated. That has 
 been its strength, and the list has been remarkably troll-free. But 
 can I please ask everybody to keep the discussion more or less on 
 topic, so that the list remains relevant. 

 Cheers 

 -- 

  

 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
 Principal, High Performance Coders 
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Is God created ?

2013-01-31 Thread Richard Ruquist

That just semantics. In my metaphysical string cosmology god is
created by the compactification of space dimensions.

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Kim

 God is not himself created since the creator of all cannot create himself
 and still remain a creator.

 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Bruno Marchal
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2013-01-30, 13:19:48
 Subject: Re: Hateful

 On 30 Jan 2013, at 06:06, Kim Jones wrote:

 we do WHOSE will???

 I mean, what if God turns out to be a gigantic chicken or the
 Michelin Man?


 Of course it depends on what you mean by God.
 If God appears to be he Michelin Man, we have already a problem as the
 Michelin Man has a name, but God does not, hmm...

 If you mean that the Michelin is really responsible for our existence,
 then we might have to revised our opinion on the Michelin Man.




 Are we still happy with our chosen values?

 Why not?

 Our value should be kept independent on any scientific discoveries,
 including in ethics, as they only confirms or refute hypotheses, and
 our values are deeper than those hypothesis. If not, you make some
 science into a religion, but then you play the pseudo-science or
 pseudo-religion games.

 Bruno




 K



 On 30/01/2013, at 4:01 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
 wrote:

 On 1/29/2013 11:13 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
 This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is
 recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good
 many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that
 it's all fundamentally good stuff.



 Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves;
 to give and not to count the cost;
 to fight and not to heed the wounds;
 to till, and not to seek for rest;
 to labour, and not to ask for any reward,
 save that of knowing we do thy will.


 Amen.


 But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why
 do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-
 hards?
 I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up
 to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less
 servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on
 what we think God wants for us.

 All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is
 God really into all that? I don't believe it.



 Kim Jones




 Saint Ignatius' prayer, no? Common for those in Jesuit schools. I
 never hear it in my days of Christian school... Many people live
 well with such ideas in their heads, why the licentious talk of them?

 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-
 l...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



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



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: multiverses and quantum computers



On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Telmo Menezes

Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.


Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other  
quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on  some  
superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what  
makes them different of other universes?


Bruno




So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power  
of quantum computers come from?



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net  
wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes
　
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
　
　
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi Roger,

I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise  
number, whatever it is?



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net  
wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than  
infinite universes.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Hi,

牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!


http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295

About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space

Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this  
version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and  
Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by  
Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum  
mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe,  
planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of  
times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of  
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition  
of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a  
consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be  
seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic  
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.


--
Onward!

Stephen

DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
　
　

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
　
　


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit

Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space