Re: The Next Twenty Years
> On 16 Feb 2015, at 9:30 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> On 16 Feb 2015, at 07:22, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >>> On 16 Feb 2015, at 5:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> I am not sure if I fear more radical islamism or the political correctness >>> which has never stop to sustain the radical (pseudo--Islam), which is >>> nazism in disguised. In fact the nazis have disguised antisemitism into >>> antizionism since the end of war II. >> >> >> There are some like David Icke and other loudmouths who see the Jewish >> people not as the beneficiaries of Zionism but as its victims. > > I find this rather grave. Jews are victims of those who extended their > religion and can't accept they did not convert to that extension. Then > zionism was a mean to defend themselves and take their fate in their own > hands. > > > > >> I have not formed any views about that but would love to get your take on >> Zionism. > > I defend the israelian right to live their lives in peace. I do this for the > same reason that I defend the french, the belgium, the people from > Luxembourg, Congo, Japan, the russian, etc. > > I take antizionism as squared antisemitisme. It is antisemitism disguised as > politically correct, which sometimes it is, because for some people think > "antizionism" is only a critics of Israel politics, but of course it is > false: antizionism is against the very existence of the state of Israel. > > The palestinians are not victim of the Israelians, they are victim of the > antizionist who stoled their cause to transform the place they live into a > battle-field in a total war against Israel. They are victim of the "Muslim > Brotherhood", not of the Israelians. > The palestinians are victim of us, including facebook and Youtube, where > videos showing Palestinians killed and tortured by the Hamas (palestinian > branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) disappeared all the time. > > You can look at the chart of the Hamas: which is good summary of Mein Kampf. > They are no more muslims than Hitler was christian. Here is a version in > french: > http://iremam.cnrs.fr/legrain/voix15.htm > > The enemies of Israel are the antisemite, anti-free-thinking, > anti-democracies, anti-homosexuals, anti-anything-different-from-me, etc. > > The Muslim Brotherhood is much dangerous than IS. They use with some success > propaganda instead of bullets, and the occident seemed to fall in the trap. > They work for the long run, and they fight against all christians, jews and > muslims, to impose their nazi ideology, with some "islamic clothe" which is > only that "clothes". > > Saudi, Qatar, Iran and all countries financing those "religious" armed groups > are the enemies of humanity. > > > > >> >> >>> >>> The problem is not so much radical "islam", that those who finance them, >>> directly or indirectly. >> >> >> Well, who are they? Don't tell me - the banksters. > > The banks are taken into hostage. They are victim of the prohibitionists > already. That is what makes the problem hard to solve: the petrol interest, > the cold war, etc. > > > >> Are the banksters your modern-day Nazis? > > I think that the modern day Nazis are the direct descendant of the war II > nazis who escaped and take refuge in some south america country and in the > Middle-East. They are nazi in the sense that they want eliminate all jews > from the planet, and incidentally all christians, all atheists, all secular > muslims, ... well, everyone except themselves. > > Banks, media, academies, governement are not really the enemies, but they are > infiltrated by them, in some large proportion, due to the convergence of > interest of the prohibitionists, the special interests (petrol, paper, > textile, pharmaceutical, etc.) and the "islamic nazis". > > > >> The banksters must love radical Islam. With every head that gets lopped off, >> with every prisoner burnt alive, the banksters hear that familiar "kerching!" > > Some banksters, yes. > > >>> Solution: step 1: stop the prohibition of medication, which fuels the motor >>> of the international criminality. >>> >>> But we can't do that. Why? "I'm not saying there aren't a lot of dangerous people out there. I am saying a lot of them are in government" - Russell Brand >>> >>> >>> That's why. >>> >>> It is not conspiracy. It is a dangerous amount of corruption. >>> >>> Bruno >> >> >> OK - are you a fan of Karen Hudes? Ex senior counsel at the World Bank >> turned whistle-blower. This woman has seen the Heart of Darkness of the >> global financial machine and she has seen uttermost evil at the highest >> level. >> >> For anyone not familiar with Karen, here is a good link to get started: >> >> The interviewer is a bit of an alarmist, but Karen is as cool and as >> together as anything I have ever seen: >> >> http://youtu.be/SWNsU9ANO98 > > I will take a look at this this evening. I think I recogni
RE: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
This may seem off the subject, but conservation of mass-energy must not be correct, otherwise our Universe could not have become so large (in terms of both mass and energy). With the recognition of the existence of tronnies, everything in our Universe can be explained very simply. Explanations of our Universe based on the quark model are much more complicated. I suppose it is possible that the quark model is correct and that my model is incorrect. Until someone provides some proof that my model is basically flawed, I am sticking with it. As an example the quark model presumes that there are neutrons in the nuclei of stable atoms. But neutrons have a half-life to 10.23 minutes. I have shown that all stable and long-lived atoms can be constructed with alpha particles (59 for uranium 236), electrons (26 for uranium 236), up to three protons (zero for U-236) and gamma ray entrons (a total of 297.15 MeV for U-236). You know what happens to some of those gamma ray entrons when U-236 splits. U-235 is comprised of 58 alpha particles, three protons and 27 electrons and 293.42 MeV of gamma ray entrons. When it absorbs a neutron it either fissions or the proton in the neutron combines with the three protons to produce an additional (the 59th)alpha particle in U-236. The electron in the neutron becomes the 28th electron in the U-236 isotope. U-236 has a half-life of 2.342 X 107 years and decays with an alpha particle. John Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:52 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential On 14 February 2015 at 06:47, John Ross wrote: Liz, A universe from nothing may sound absurd but a universe that has always existed and had no beginning is more absurd. Neither of these is absurd. That would just be human preconceptions, based around the domain we evolved in, in which mass-energy is conserved and things change regularly. I have shown that it is possible to construct everything in our Universe with an equal number of point particles with charges of plus and minus e. Add them all together and you can get a universe or you can get nothing. However you do it, you're still left with the laws governing their existence, and unanswered questions like "why should tronnies appear,rather than quarks (or anything else) ?" -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
There are no limits to space and there are no limits to time (both past and future). There are limits in time for our Universe. Our universe was born with the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago and it will be destroyed in another Big Bang many billion years from now. ( I estimate the lifetime of our Universe at 100 billion years, so we have a while to go.) Our Universe replaced our predecessor universe and our Universe will be replace by our successor universe. There are also limits to space in our Universe because our Universe is surrounded by a cold plasma shell. That reflects most radiation to produce the cosmic background radiation that fills our Universe. I am not sure you gain anything by assuming that the laws of physics “exists”. The laws of physics as I understand them are merely human attempts to explain how our Universe and the Cosmos operates. It is our Universe and the Cosmos that exists. Our Universe did not exist prior to the Big Bang and it will not exist after the Big Bang that will destroy it. However, our successor universe will exist and our predecessor universe did exist prior to the Big Bang. I define the Cosmos as everything that exists, has existed in the past and will exist in the future. I believe that there was a time, long, long ago, before there was anything when there was nothing, just empty space. This to me seems perfectly logical. John Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:54 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential On 14 February 2015 at 07:08, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2015, at 11:41, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2015 at 18:20, meekerdb wrote: On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: John, Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a confusion. I can only repeat what I said before: 'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of "a universe from nothing" is absurd.' Either you have pre-existing laws and substrate -- which is not 'nothing' -- or the universe just "pops" spontaneously, and laws, etc, are just descriptions of observed regularities in whatever has "popped". You don't have many other options. The other popular option (in both religion and physics) is that the universe is eternal and no "popping" is needed. Some are eternal and infinite and others are eternal and cyclic. This is true, of course, and changes the question (slightly) - "Why does the eternal universe, and its laws of physics, exist?" A conspiration made by the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 8, sqrt(2), e, pi, i, gamma, 24 and 808,017,424,794,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000, tries to make you believe so. (The big number is the number of elements of the Monster group, and is related to the Moonshine conjecture; which gives light on some shortcut between number theory and physics, and groups, and measures, ...). Anyway, if that is true, that has to be justified by the self-introspecting universal machine. And that gives a piece of formalism (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*), so we get some light and testing abilities. Liz, could you please remind me which hat you put during month with "r". For the purposes of discussion with Mr Ross, it has to be a "primary materialist" one. I don't think he's ready to discuss other ideas (yet). -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 16 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb wrote: The faith step is assuming arithmetic. It's always been clear that Bruno's work is effectively an enquiry into whether something as apparently simple as first-order arithmetical relations are nonetheless a sufficient ontological basis for the full range of observable phenomena. We could argue till Kingdom Come about the nature of the 'existence' or otherwise of arithmetic and get precisely nowhere, faith or no faith. Alternatively we could put the assumption to the test, or perhaps more realistically, continue to follow with interest Bruno's indefatigable investigation of its possible consequences. As with any hypothesis, any securely established conflict with the empirical facts would suffice to invalidate it. Contrariwise, especially given the startling (but certainly not unmotivated) simplicity of the assumption, the longer it can resist refutation the more interesting it may begin to look. I really don't see that it need be any more controversial than that. David -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 2/16/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OUR faith? stories for the believers to sooth their mind. Possible, but this does not entail that the faith has no object. Again, with computationalism, faith is "meta-justified" by the fact that all (Löbian) machines cannot avoid the discovery that truth, if it exists, extends vastly what they can justify or explain. It is a faith in some truth, and then some people fill it with legend and fairy tales, which is perhaps a not bad beginning, unless they fall in the trap of literalism, which can transform an inspiring guide into an obstacle for the approach toward truth. I don't know why you refer to it as faith. It is provable that there are true but unprovable propositions in arithmetic. The faith step is assuming arithmetic. Brent -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Common Miracle of Jews, Christians and Muslims
I was relating to my father that there is this mailing list [Everything-List] and the kind of discussions going on here. He suggested I share this article: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.315782551808377.85159.182594355127198&type=3 Samiya -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Interesting John. In steinharts view the first initiator of reality may indeed not have been a super mind, except in power. Kind of like gnosticism, maybe. 2+2=4 is enough. No need to add unnecessary metaphysics. This is not controversial, although not well known by philosophers, logicians know this since Gödel, Kleene, etc. What is not trivial is that it leads to "new equation" for fundamental physics (given by the FPI, translated in the intensional variant of self-reference, making comp testable in some sense). The succeeding universes and each cosm has a god will be succeedingly better. But this does not make sense. Universe are not things which exists ontologically. People get moved to better universes after croaking, akin to processes getting pipelined as with software engineering. We would be one on a gigantic processes, aka programs, aka cellular automata, that are copied and then initiated later. As with Bostrom, steinhart says that these programs, us, eventually begin their own sim creations. I got this from steinharts other papers I have been studying. So your critique of steinharts 1st mind or god, would not find opposition with him, but it would suggest that evolution (to me) must be a primary program. Thanks for your coment. Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to infinities of computations, and the appearance of the universe emerges from a statistics on all computations. Bostrom participated to this list but seems to not have yet taken into account the first person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me at some meeting that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still be saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR we are in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an infinite amount of energy to lie to us, as they must change our minds each time we look at the details of the simulation]. Bruno Mitch Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote: > John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars Disputandi of an eric steinhart paper, on the theological implications of the simulation argument. This is the only copy I downloaded of the url, but I was able to do a download and print at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be an atheist, but believes there was a creator and now a system of creators above and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but don't pray to him. If you can read this, please give out with the feedback. I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will guess that you will not see it this way. Which is good with me. http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive simulations it doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's simulating us must be smarter than we are, and it would be a pretty poor sort of God if we're smarter than He is. A simulated hurricane is smarter at predicting what a real hurricane will do than the meteorologist who created the simulation, and a simulated Chess grandmaster is smarter at Chess than the real Chess grandmaster who wrote the Chess program. And even if the simulation argument is true (and the restriction on the number of calculations that can be performed in the observable universe may rule out infinite levels, unless that restriction was just tacked on by our simulators) you wouldn't have all the knowledge that the infinite number of simulations below you have. Steinhart also seems to assume that every event have a cause, but I know of no law of logic that demands that. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridi
Re: The Next Twenty Years
On 16 Feb 2015, at 07:22, Kim Jones wrote: On 16 Feb 2015, at 5:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not sure if I fear more radical islamism or the political correctness which has never stop to sustain the radical (pseudo-- Islam), which is nazism in disguised. In fact the nazis have disguised antisemitism into antizionism since the end of war II. There are some like David Icke and other loudmouths who see the Jewish people not as the beneficiaries of Zionism but as its victims. I find this rather grave. Jews are victims of those who extended their religion and can't accept they did not convert to that extension. Then zionism was a mean to defend themselves and take their fate in their own hands. I have not formed any views about that but would love to get your take on Zionism. I defend the israelian right to live their lives in peace. I do this for the same reason that I defend the french, the belgium, the people from Luxembourg, Congo, Japan, the russian, etc. I take antizionism as squared antisemitisme. It is antisemitism disguised as politically correct, which sometimes it is, because for some people think "antizionism" is only a critics of Israel politics, but of course it is false: antizionism is against the very existence of the state of Israel. The palestinians are not victim of the Israelians, they are victim of the antizionist who stoled their cause to transform the place they live into a battle-field in a total war against Israel. They are victim of the "Muslim Brotherhood", not of the Israelians. The palestinians are victim of us, including facebook and Youtube, where videos showing Palestinians killed and tortured by the Hamas (palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) disappeared all the time. You can look at the chart of the Hamas: which is good summary of Mein Kampf. They are no more muslims than Hitler was christian. Here is a version in french: http://iremam.cnrs.fr/legrain/voix15.htm The enemies of Israel are the antisemite, anti-free-thinking, anti- democracies, anti-homosexuals, anti-anything-different-from-me, etc. The Muslim Brotherhood is much dangerous than IS. They use with some success propaganda instead of bullets, and the occident seemed to fall in the trap. They work for the long run, and they fight against all christians, jews and muslims, to impose their nazi ideology, with some "islamic clothe" which is only that "clothes". Saudi, Qatar, Iran and all countries financing those "religious" armed groups are the enemies of humanity. The problem is not so much radical "islam", that those who finance them, directly or indirectly. Well, who are they? Don't tell me - the banksters. The banks are taken into hostage. They are victim of the prohibitionists already. That is what makes the problem hard to solve: the petrol interest, the cold war, etc. Are the banksters your modern-day Nazis? I think that the modern day Nazis are the direct descendant of the war II nazis who escaped and take refuge in some south america country and in the Middle-East. They are nazi in the sense that they want eliminate all jews from the planet, and incidentally all christians, all atheists, all secular muslims, ... well, everyone except themselves. Banks, media, academies, governement are not really the enemies, but they are infiltrated by them, in some large proportion, due to the convergence of interest of the prohibitionists, the special interests (petrol, paper, textile, pharmaceutical, etc.) and the "islamic nazis". The banksters must love radical Islam. With every head that gets lopped off, with every prisoner burnt alive, the banksters hear that familiar "kerching!" Some banksters, yes. Solution: step 1: stop the prohibition of medication, which fuels the motor of the international criminality. But we can't do that. Why? "I'm not saying there aren't a lot of dangerous people out there. I am saying a lot of them are in government" - Russell Brand That's why. It is not conspiracy. It is a dangerous amount of corruption. Bruno OK - are you a fan of Karen Hudes? Ex senior counsel at the World Bank turned whistle-blower. This woman has seen the Heart of Darkness of the global financial machine and she has seen uttermost evil at the highest level. For anyone not familiar with Karen, here is a good link to get started: The interviewer is a bit of an alarmist, but Karen is as cool and as together as anything I have ever seen: http://youtu.be/SWNsU9ANO98 I will take a look at this this evening. I think I recognize her. I think that the enemy are in large part those who killed Kennedy, and perpetuate prohibition. By signing the NDAA 2012, Obama confessed that either he has a gun on its head, or that he has a gun on our head. You can sum up that bill by "the terrorists have won". After that bill, the "war on terror" appears to
