Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 3:13 PM Subject: Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy I have to say that these 440 persons that die with solar energy is compensated by a similar number of skin cancer victims that are saved, since the entire surface of the country must be covered with solar panels so there is no way to receive sun rays. I assume you are making an attempt at wit. The recoverable incident solar flux that is captured by the US land surface area is many thousands of times greater than the total energy consumption of our society. You have made it clear on another thread how boring you find basing arguments on facts to be -- so I am not holding out much hope that this will have any affect whatsoever on the mental processes at work inside your believer brain Just pointing out the facts; even though facts, seem to take a back seat in how you see the world. 2015-04-30 3:55 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Sellafield, Hiroshima, Bikini atoll, Marshall Islands etc. (OK, maybe I shouldn't have been making jokes about this...) That's fine I like jokes, but lets see how many people die to produce a trillion kilowatt hours of electricity for various energy sources: For coal 170.000 people die. For oil 36,000 people die For biofuel 24,000 people die For natural gas 4000 people die For hydroelectric 1400 people die For solar 440 people die For wind 140 people die For nuclear 90 people die. 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. -- Alberto.-- 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: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 12:13:22AM +0200, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I have to say that these 440 persons that die with solar energy is compensated by a similar number of skin cancer victims that are saved, since the entire surface of the country must be covered with solar panels so there is no way to receive sun rays. Something is awry in your calculation. You only need about 100,000 square km to provide enough energy to supply current world consumption. That's a square about 300km along each side. We can comfortably fit one of those in our deserts outback with room to spare. So Australia can clean up in the energy business? Not really, as it would make more sense to site the solar array in the Gobi desert. Actually, it would make far more sense to have whole bunch of smaller arrays closer to where the consumption is, and to supplement by alternatives such as wind and tidal, but the point remains we're a long way from needing to cover the entire surface of the planet. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
On 5/1/2015 6:01 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Perhaps, however the model of exposure is very different. Being exposed to a given dosage of radiation from an external source is a far different thing than the case of having an aerosolized micro or nano scale radionuclide particle become lodged say into lung or kidney tissue, or become incorporated through bio-uptake into body tissue. Evidence that low doses of externally received radiation do not appear to have a measurable effect -- below some low threshold -- does not address the very different contamination model that would fit the case of internally ingested or absorbed radionuclides. It is an apples to oranges comparison. When a radioactive particle becomes lodged inside the body (in lung tissue for example) it continues to irradiate any adjacent cells (and succeeding generations of cells that are located in close proximity to the particle) and continues to irradiate the physically proximate DNA for as long as the particle remains lodged into (or incorporated into) the body tissue. Chris But how were the projected deaths calculated? Was it assumed that particles have been ingested? Based on what? 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.
Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
On 5/1/2015 2:18 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: -- *From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Friday, May 1, 2015 1:14 PM *Subject:* Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Quoting directly from the 2005 WHO report on Chernobyl accident “/5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA -/A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant And yet that very same 2005 WHO report on the Chernobyl accident says: As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster And yet the same report states that it *expects that 4000 people will die* as a result of cancers that were triggered by radionuclides that they came into contact with, ingested and/or absorbed through bio-uptake channels into their body tissue. But it's now 2015 not 2005 and 10 years later there is STILL not the slightest sign that the prediction of massive deaths from radiation is even close to being correct. Zero, zilch nada, goose egg. In fact I can't think of a single prediction about the harm caused by a large scale radiation release that was made in the last 70 years that didn't turn out to be ridiculously pessimistic. Hundreds of thousands of people die of cancer every year in the areas that experienced fallout from Chernobyl; of these millions and millions of cancer deaths that have occurred in these regions over the many decades since the accident you know that NONE of them were in any way related to or triggered by radionuclides released into the environment as a result of that accident? You know this how? The question is how do we know any of them are? The problem with the projected number of deaths from radiation is that they assume a zero threshold linear model, i.e. that every level of radiation, no matter how small, produces some proportional cancer rate. However, this is a testable theory. Cities at high altitude experience a higher level of background radiation from cosmic rays and solar radiation. So if the zero threshold theory were true we would expect higher cancer rates in cities at high altitude. But it ain't so: /Low levels of background radiation exist around us continuously. These levels increase with increasing land elevation, allowing a comparison of low elevations to high elevations in regard to an outcome such as cancer death rates. The present study compares archived cancer mortality rates in six low versus six high elevation jurisdictions. The study also compares mortality rates for all causes, heart disease, and diabetes in low versus high elevation jurisdictions in an effort to see if other mortality outcomes are different in low versus high elevations. Statistically significant decreases in mortality, with very large effect sizes, were observed in high land elevation for three of the four outcomes, including cancer. One possible explanation for the decreased mortality in high elevation jurisdictions is radiation hormesis. Another possible explanation, at least in the case of heart disease mortality, is the physiologic responses that accompany higher elevations regarding decreased oxygen levels. Since this is an ecological study, no causal inferences can be made, particularly when viewpoints on possible effects of low level radiation are diametrically opposed. Further research is indicated./ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057635/ This and knowledge of cell biology suggests that there is a threshold below which external radiation has no effect. Brent And besides, Chernobyl happened 29 years ago so we don't need half assed predictions about what the long term results will be, we know. Your cavalier denial that any of the cancers that have occurred in the affected regions can possibly have anything to do with Chernobyl is baseless rhetoric. The experts in the affected regions, who have access to the statistics, both before and after the accident, speak of tens of thousands of cases of cancers resulting in the death of the victims. Where is the statistical foundation to support your denial? Are you an expert on cancer perchance? On how the disease is triggered; how it progresses; what factors make it more or less severe? Or are you just producing rhetorical streams of verbiage? Chris 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
NASA breaks the laws of physics!
This looks very E.E. (Doc) Smith-like (penner of the immortal line relativity is only a theory when he wrote the Lensman series with its famous intertialess drive back in the 1920s or 30s). http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/05/01/1929200/new-test-supports-nasas-controversial-em-drive Or indeed similar to James Blish's spindizzy which shifted whole planets using a few AA batteries. (The larger the mass, the more efficient the drive - apparently - which means the entire universe would have been really, really easy to take for a ride, if one could tell.) So, are we going to the stars? Any thoughts? -- 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: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 5:27 PM Subject: Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy On 5/1/2015 2:18 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 1:14 PM Subject: Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Quoting directly from the 2005 WHO report on Chernobyl accident “5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant And yet that very same 2005 WHO report on the Chernobyl accident says: As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster And yet the same report states that it *expects that 4000 people will die* as a result of cancers that were triggered by radionuclides that they came into contact with, ingested and/or absorbed through bio-uptake channels into their body tissue. But it's now 2015 not 2005 and 10 years later there is STILL not the slightest sign that the prediction of massive deaths from radiation is even close to being correct. Zero, zilch nada, goose egg. In fact I can't think of a single prediction about the harm caused by a large scale radiation release that was made in the last 70 years that didn't turn out to be ridiculously pessimistic. Hundreds of thousands of people die of cancer every year in the areas that experienced fallout from Chernobyl; of these millions and millions of cancer deaths that have occurred in these regions over the many decades since the accident you know that NONE of them were in any way related to or triggered by radionuclides released into the environment as a result of that accident? You know this how? The question is how do we know any of them are? The problem with the projected number of deaths from radiation is that they assume a zero threshold linear model, i.e. that every level of radiation, no matter how small, produces some proportional cancer rate. However, this is a testable theory. Cities at high altitude experience a higher level of background radiation from cosmic rays and solar radiation. So if the zero threshold theory were true we would expect higher cancer rates in cities at high altitude. But it ain't so: Low levels of background radiation exist around us continuously. These levels increase with increasing land elevation, allowing a comparison of low elevations to high elevations in regard to an outcome such as cancer death rates. The present study compares archived cancer mortality rates in six low versus six high elevation jurisdictions. The study also compares mortality rates for all causes, heart disease, and diabetes in low versus high elevation jurisdictions in an effort to see if other mortality outcomes are different in low versus high elevations. Statistically significant decreases in mortality, with very large effect sizes, were observed in high land elevation for three of the four outcomes, including cancer. One possible explanation for the decreased mortality in high elevation jurisdictions is radiation hormesis. Another possible explanation, at least in the case of heart disease mortality, is the physiologic responses that accompany higher elevations regarding decreased oxygen levels. Since this is an ecological study, no causal inferences can be made, particularly when viewpoints on possible effects of low level radiation are diametrically opposed. Further research is indicated. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057635/ This and knowledge of cell biology suggests that there is a threshold below which external radiation has no effect. Perhaps, however the model of exposure is very different. Being exposed to a given dosage of radiation from an external source is a far different thing than the case of having an aerosolized micro or nano scale radionuclide particle become lodged say into lung or kidney tissue, or become incorporated through bio-uptake into body tissue.Evidence that low doses of externally received radiation do not appear to have a measurable effect -- below some low threshold -- does not address the very different contamination model that would fit the case of internally ingested or absorbed radionuclides.It is an apples to oranges comparison. When a radioactive particle becomes lodged inside the body (in lung tissue for example) it continues to irradiate any adjacent cells (and succeeding generations of cells that are located in close proximity to the particle) and continues to irradiate the physically proximate DNA for as long as the particle remains lodged into (or incorporated into) the body
Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
On 5/1/2015 5:24 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 12:13:22AM +0200, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I have to say that these 440 persons that die with solar energy is compensated by a similar number of skin cancer victims that are saved, since the entire surface of the country must be covered with solar panels so there is no way to receive sun rays. Something is awry in your calculation. You only need about 100,000 square km to provide enough energy to supply current world consumption. That's a square about 300km along each side. I get only 220km on a side assuming 15% PV conversion efficiency and 300w/m^2 average. But we probably need to throw in another factor of two for service roads and cloudiness. Brent We can comfortably fit one of those in our deserts outback with room to spare. So Australia can clean up in the energy business? Not really, as it would make more sense to site the solar array in the Gobi desert. Actually, it would make far more sense to have whole bunch of smaller arrays closer to where the consumption is, and to supplement by alternatives such as wind and tidal, but the point remains we're a long way from needing to cover the entire surface of the planet. Cheers -- 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: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
I have to say that these 440 persons that die with solar energy is compensated by a similar number of skin cancer victims that are saved, since the entire surface of the country must be covered with solar panels so there is no way to receive sun rays. 2015-04-30 3:55 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Sellafield, Hiroshima, Bikini atoll, Marshall Islands etc. (OK, maybe I shouldn't have been making jokes about this...) That's fine I like jokes, but lets see how many people die to produce a trillion kilowatt hours of electricity for various energy sources: For coal 170.000 people die. For oil 36,000 people die For biofuel 24,000 people die For natural gas 4000 people die For hydroelectric 1400 people die For solar 440 people die For wind 140 people die For nuclear 90 people die. 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: The dovetailer disassembled
On 30 Apr 2015, at 17:07, smitra wrote:
On 30-04-2015 09:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 30 April 2015 at 13:20, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
The way I understand it, nothing happens in Platonia. Which is
to say
nothing ever happens. The real question is why we think stuff is
'happening'. Well, OK - the hallucination that stuff is
happening is what is
happening.
So explain the hallucination. Why does that 'happen'. Note that
'happen' is
a temporal term.
I have the feeling that I have been alive for years, but I would
still
have this feeling if I had only been alive for seconds. There does
not
have to be a physical, causal connection between the observer
moments
of my life for them to form a subjective temporal sequence. The
sequence is implied by their content.
The brain in the vat is always possible. We cannot rule out
solipsism either.
Julian Barbour, in his book 'The End of Time' tried to abolish time
altogether because of the difficulties of defining time in general
relativity. He replaced time as a parameter with the notion of 'time
capsules' present in every point of phase space.
It is not really clear whether this idea was successful or not. It
has
not attracted a great following.
But if any such idea is to make sense, the observer moments do have
to
be connected by quite strong causal laws so that the sequence of
moments tells a coherent story. Or else each moment tells a
different
story, and we are back with 'Last Tuesdayism' or solipsism.
I don't think Fred Hoyle's account works either. It feels like a
'many
minds' collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Bruce
You can use the formalism developed in this article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1615
If we take finite time steps corresponding to a computational step,
then an observer momement is defined by specifying some operator:
sum over {in} of| j1,j2j3,...jni1,i2,i3...in|
where the jk are functions of the i1,...,in.
This then simplify specifies that a computation proceeds from an
initial state defined by the sequence of numbers i1,i2 etc. to the
next step defined by the numbers j1,j2 etc.
The summation has some finite range, so the algorithm is not defined
precisely. On the other hand, the fact that the summand contains
more than just a single term means that the state of the system is
not well defined. The more terms there are in the summation, the
better defined the computation becomes, but the state of the system
becomes less well defined.
A computation that is complex enough to represent what the brain is
capable of will contain an astronomically large number of terms;
whatever consciousness is and how it works, from experience we know
that what we feel and think doesn't contain enough information to
nail down exactly what the brain is doing.
This means that in a MWI picture, it is wrong to represent the
branches as single lines, they are bundles consisting of an
astronomically large number of lines, the correlation contained in
them contain a vast amount of information, more than what you need
to define what computation is actually being performed at any instant.
Anyway, I think that Bruno should consider deriving physics from
starting with defining observer moments as matrix elements O = sum
over i of |ji| and then physics should be derived by introducing
more degrees of freedom and then finding a generator of O. So, you
invent a universe described by a Hamiltonian so that running the
laws of physics starting from some initial conditions will allow you
to properly represent O.
Then one considers that particular representation that requires the
least amount of information given some O. Then one should consider
also minimizing that information over the possible ways of defining
O (note that O being defined by a summation indicates that O itself
doesn't know what state it is in).
That seems interesting, but is there not still treachery here, copying
of physics? How will we take into account the G G* distinction? I have
first to justisfy such O from the material hypostases. But the shadow
of what you say is already there: I mean the ket-bra IijI.
Of course, any intermediate work will help!
Anyway, these are my thoughts that I have not yet developed much. I
have looked into of some of the mathematical details of how one
could proceed further, and so far it looks worthwhile to do more
work on it.
Sure,
Bruno
Saibal
--
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: God
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Your consciousness always exists in all the places it exists. I would argue that assigning a position to consciousness, other than the place you're thinking about, is problematical. In past and future points in time And if my consciousness exists in the distant past or distant future but I am not conscious of it then things are even more problematic. Just because the you-here-now isn't aware of them in the you-elsewhere doesn't mean the you-elsewhere's consciousness has stopped or is not existing. I thought aware was a synonym for consciousness, if I'm not aware of my consciousness then what are we talking about? We're far from having solved all the problems in physics so it's very premature to say that mathematics can explain, much less create, all of it. I said it can explain all possible observations, since all possible computations exist in arithmetic, and by computationalism, all possible observations (conscious states) can be produced by the appropriate computation. If you observe some bizarre physical phenomenon for the first time and it seems counter intuitive and you ask me to explain how it works and I say you observed it because the following neurons in your brain fired in the following order would you consider that an adequate physical explanation? Even video games have laws of physics, they may not correspond to our laws of physics but they are laws nevertheless, and it is the job of video game physicists to figure out what those video game laws are. 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.
Re: The dovetailer disassembled
On 01 May 2015, at 02:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 30 April 2015 at 16:32, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: So where are the space and time dimensions of Platonia? Not to mention the necessity of a Minkoskian metric. (Space and time are interchangeable only within the limits of the light cone.) Dimensions are (represented by) coordinate systems. Minkowski spacetime is (represented by) a 4D manifold. My point was that this has to emerge from the Platonia envisaged by Bruno -- it can't simply be imposed by fiat. I have been looking again at Julian Barbour's book. His Platonia is essentially the configurations space of quantum mechanics: three spatial coordinates for every particle in the universe. In this Platonia all possible configurations of the universe are realized. This has a vast number of dimensions, but still some structure is imposed by knowing that space is three dimensional and that there was a big bang (at some point, not an imposed /beginning/). Computationalism does not have this head start -- it has to get it all from nothing. From nothing physical. But not from nothing. We have to start from any specification of a (Turing) universal system. Precisely, the assumption are predicate logic + identity and the axioms 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Or even simpler: (x = y) - (y = x) (x = y) (x = z) - (y = z) zx = zy - x = y xz = yz - x = y Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) This is not nothing. Comp can be used in the background, but the theory itself does not need it, except to motivate definitions. For example, concerning the observer, we have to prove their existence in those theories, and they are defined by number (resp. combinators) believing in those theories, and believing furthemore in induction axioms. For example an induction axioms for the combinators is that IF F is true for K, and if F is true for S, and if in each case where F is true for x and y we have it true for xy then F is true for all combinators. Keep in mind that a combinators is either K or S, or (x y) with x and y combinators. We write SK(KS) for what is really ((SK)(KS)), we don't write the left parentheses. (((ab)c)d) = abcd. If you have programmed a computer in low level language, and if you know that the theory above are sigma_1 complete, you might imagine the possibility, and tediousness, of the task. We interview the little PA-theory-machine and ZF-machine living in the realm of RA, with the standard model of arithmetic in mind. If you put away one of the axioms in those theories, then we are no more to explain anything. Note also that the explanation is the one recovered by the machine having those induction axioms. The empty theory explains everything, in a trivial way. This theory (RA, SK, any universal number) explains the origin of dreams and might explain why some becomes persistent, and why it can hurt. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan
Set theory is not about sets, but about deriving every other mathematics mathematical structures from sets. It is quite cumbresome and theoretical and does not use the natural mathematical intuitions. And thus it is not appropriate or teaching kids. And yet is is used for teaching since the rationalist/blank slate pedagogy thinks that kids are like void databases that must be feed with sets of rules. These horrible kind of mathematical teaching books that have destroyed the pedagogy of mathematics were called at his time modern mathematics. 2015-05-01 5:50 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-) Brent Forwarded Message https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx Mathematics The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute. Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe, both scientific and mathematical. _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET THEORY. These books have been field-tested, revised, and used successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe. As noted on http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html - End forwarded message - -- 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: God
On 30 Apr 2015, at 21:37, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If additional steps, steps that you has conspicuously not specified, are required to turn mathematical truth into physical truth This is vague, and literally impossible. We don't turn mathematical truth into physical truth. Then please explain what computer hardware does. There are trillions of dollars worth of the stuff on this planet, there must have been some point in building it. The physical hardware makes possible to incarnate or implement universal numbers relatively to us, as we are plausibly ourself implemented in that physical reality (when we assume comp). This does not mean that such a physical reality has a primitive ontology, though. Indeed with the computationalist assumption, that physical reality emerges from the global FPI on all computations in arithmetic. Note that this explain, without invoking the quantum theory, why, the observable refer to many parallel computations for the state we are isolated from, like below our substitution level. A weirdness seems to be an arithmetical necessity. UDA explains that the difference of physics and math is a matter of pronouns or first/third person points of view, So I guess you're saying that the first person (me) doesn't know what 10^100^100 digit of pi is but the third person does, but who is this third person? No, in the math theory, both the first person can know that, in principle. But it is not relevant for the problem of getting the shape of the solution of the body problem in arithmetic. I don't believe in God so I guess you mean mathematics, Mathematics might be a too fuzzy term. But with comp, and simple ideal löbian machine, the theology needs no more that arithmetical truth (and some pi_1-complete set with arithmetical truth as oracle for the Noùs (qG* = the quantified first order version of G*, which is not axiomatizable, and as undecidable as it can possibly be). but If the resources of the observable universe are insufficient to calculate the 10^100^100 digit of pi as seems likely then where does knowledge of what this digit is exist? You claim it exists in Plato's world but provide no evidence that such a world exists. I made clear the theory. Classical predicate calculus + RA (Robinson Arithmetic). I accept the natural idea that the 10^100^100 digit of pi is either 0, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9. Independently of the fact that we might succeed or not, in computing that value. I think that for Pi, there are algorithm to compute far away digits without computing the preceding one, but that is out of this topic. Even if there are none, I will accept the excluded middle which just makes me ignorant about something well definite: the 10^100^100 digit of pi is either 0, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9. Exactly like the Helsinki guy is confiant that he will feel to be at W or at M, never at both, and that he is only ignorant of which one, despite it will be definite after pushing on the button. In the first case the ignorance comes from intractable (though computable). In the second case the ignorance comes from a logical impossibility. And Godel tells us that there are a infinite number of statements that even mathematics doesn't know if they are true or not, Godel show that just for arithmetical truth, which is the set of propositions true in the standard model (N, 0, +, *), there is no mechanical way to generate them all. Don't confuse mathematics (the models of theories) with the theories themselves. Gödel shows that the theories are incomplete with respect to the mathematical truth, or even just the arithmetical truth. and Turing tells us that in general there is no way to know which statements mathematics is knowledgeable about and which ones it is not, that is to say no way to separate statements into these 3 categories and no way for mathematics to do it either. 1) The statement is true and a proof of it exists although humans may not have found it yet. 2) The statement is false although humans may not have found a counterexample yet. 3) The statement is true but no proof of it exists. Thus we can say that mathematics might know if the Goldbach Conjecture is true or not, but then again mathematics might be as ignorant about that as we are. You confuse theories and models. Or you defend intuitionistic philosophy (trying to be kind with you). But again, that would make your critics irrelevant. The answer doesn't exist even in Platonia. I am not a set-platonist. I use really only the sigma_1 arithmetical reality for the ontology, which is needed to even have a Church thesis, but is virtually believed by everyone who thinks. But, yes, at the metalevel I use a bit of second order logic like all
Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan
On 01 May 2015, at 05:50, meekerdb wrote: Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-) Brent Forwarded Message https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx Mathematics The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God No, that is a blaspheme. If true, you can't say it. What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods (creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the notion of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus, and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind. I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and religion. It is the opposite, a priori. and thus absolute. Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe, both scientific and mathematical. That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting. _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET THEORY. The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying too much). I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are excellent mathematical tools, that's for sure. These books have been field-tested, revised, and used successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe. Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All I say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe, it is an immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in the head of all universal machine (and the Lobian can know that and describe it, even, with caution, a part of the non communicable part). Bruno As noted on http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html - End forwarded message - -- 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://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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan
Dear Samiya, Bruno may be a 'believer' - even if not entirely formally - but your question is funny (in my views): * Bruno, what is your concept of God? ... * Accepting a 'God' concept in your (Quran extracted?) terms, such a concept of the infinite (some call it Supernatural) Creator, Maintenant, Director, Motor, etc. etc. of the World (of the Everything) is way beyond our capability of thinking, so we cannot even approach a fitting 'concept' of such term. We can quote from Script, or just mumble our ignorance and argue endlessly - without merit. All the rest may be what you can call blaspheme. I even put the 'mind-body' concept into limbo, *mind being unidentified and the body* a figment of our poorly observed (some) phenomena we got so far - called 'science'. John M On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 01-May-2015, at 10:12 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 May 2015, at 05:50, meekerdb wrote: Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-) Brent Forwarded Message https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx Mathematics The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God No, that is a blaspheme. If true, you can't say it. Bruno, what is your concept of God? From our earlier discussions, I gathered that your idea of God was a very weak or no longer relevant being, perhaps of just some academic historical interest. However, here you speak again of blaspheme which necessarily presumes faith. For a comparison, here is my concept of God: Holy Quran 39:67 -- وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا قَبْضَتُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him. Samiya What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods (creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the notion of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus, and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind. I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and religion. It is the opposite, a priori. and thus absolute. Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe, both scientific and mathematical. That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting. _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET THEORY. The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying too much). I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are excellent mathematical tools, that's for sure. These books have been field-tested, revised, and used successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe. Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All I say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe, it is an immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in the head of all universal machine (and the Lobian can know that and describe it, even, with caution, a part of the non communicable part). Bruno As noted on http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html - End forwarded message - -- 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://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message
Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Quoting directly from the 2005 WHO report on Chernobyl accident “*5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA -* A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant And yet that very same 2005 WHO report on the Chernobyl accident says: As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster But it's now 2015 not 2005 and 10 years later there is STILL not the slightest sign that the prediction of massive deaths from radiation is even close to being correct. Zero, zilch nada, goose egg. In fact I can't think of a single prediction about the harm caused by a large scale radiation release that was made in the last 70 years that didn't turn out to be ridiculously pessimistic. And besides, Chernobyl happened 29 years ago so we don't need half assed predictions about what the long term results will be, we know. 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.
Re: The dovetailer disassembled
Brent: I think you mix up emerges with depends on. A procedure *emerges* from its origination, yet (may) DE*PEND* on equipment, energy (fuel?) - and a lot of (matterly) happenstance. The types of consciousness you people talk about indeed DEPEND on the mattery propagators as well as indicators we already detected and use, we measure them in material-science units and tests, we are anchored in matter. I think mostly, because we need our material science to follow them. We follow in the sense of 'humanly understand' and 'humanly evaluate' them. I do not argue your 'LOTS of reasons' you may have. I argue about that darn consciousness that may be thought of differently from material scientices. (It seems my mailbox did not forwrad this on time. Todate is 5-1-15) Respectfully JM On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 3:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/29/2015 4:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What I also believe is that there is no reason to assume that consciousness emerges from matter. ?? You don't know about concussions, neurosurgery, brain lesions,... There are LOTS of reasons to believe consciousness depends on matter. 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. -- 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: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan
On 01-May-2015, at 10:12 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 May 2015, at 05:50, meekerdb wrote: Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-) Brent Forwarded Message https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx Mathematics The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God No, that is a blaspheme. If true, you can't say it. Bruno, what is your concept of God? From our earlier discussions, I gathered that your idea of God was a very weak or no longer relevant being, perhaps of just some academic historical interest. However, here you speak again of blaspheme which necessarily presumes faith. For a comparison, here is my concept of God: Holy Quran 39:67 -- وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا قَبْضَتُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him. Samiya What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods (creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the notion of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus, and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind. I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and religion. It is the opposite, a priori. and thus absolute. Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe, both scientific and mathematical. That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting. _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET THEORY. The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying too much). I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are excellent mathematical tools, that's for sure. These books have been field-tested, revised, and used successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe. Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All I say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe, it is an immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in the head of all universal machine (and the Lobian can know that and describe it, even, with caution, a part of the non communicable part). Bruno As noted on http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html - End forwarded message - -- 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://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. 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: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan
It may be even worst http://tldrify.com/8hh modern mathematical methods is nothing more than the deliberate destruction of teaching that has happened in every other discipline. Really I don´t think that progressivism of communism is the cause but one of the effects of a wider evil mindset that apply to all kind of elitists or sectarian ideology: This mindset is the one of the people that reason this way: Since knowledge is power, let´s keep this power for ourselves, let´s dumb-down every other to avoid their political and technical competence. Let´s stop education since this is the conveyor belt of social mobility and this is dangerous for Us, the chosen ones. That way we will be safely above and they will be ever below. For their own good, of course. We only want to make a better world (Laughing out loud) 2015-05-01 9:14 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Set theory is not about sets, but about deriving every other mathematics mathematical structures from sets. It is quite cumbresome and theoretical and does not use the natural mathematical intuitions. And thus it is not appropriate or teaching kids. And yet is is used for teaching since the rationalist/blank slate pedagogy thinks that kids are like void databases that must be feed with sets of rules. These horrible kind of mathematical teaching books that have destroyed the pedagogy of mathematics were called at his time modern mathematics. 2015-05-01 5:50 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-) Brent Forwarded Message https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx Mathematics The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute. Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe, both scientific and mathematical. _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET THEORY. These books have been field-tested, revised, and used successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe. As noted on http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html - End forwarded message - -- 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. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- 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: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 1:14 PM Subject: Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Quoting directly from the 2005 WHO report on Chernobyl accident “5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant And yet that very same 2005 WHO report on the Chernobyl accident says: As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster And yet the same report states that it *expects that 4000 people will die* as a result of cancers that were triggered by radionuclides that they came into contact with, ingested and/or absorbed through bio-uptake channels into their body tissue. But it's now 2015 not 2005 and 10 years later there is STILL not the slightest sign that the prediction of massive deaths from radiation is even close to being correct. Zero, zilch nada, goose egg. In fact I can't think of a single prediction about the harm caused by a large scale radiation release that was made in the last 70 years that didn't turn out to be ridiculously pessimistic. Hundreds of thousands of people die of cancer every year in the areas that experienced fallout from Chernobyl; of these millions and millions of cancer deaths that have occurred in these regions over the many decades since the accident you know that NONE of them were in any way related to or triggered by radionuclides released into the environment as a result of that accident? You know this how? And besides, Chernobyl happened 29 years ago so we don't need half assed predictions about what the long term results will be, we know. Your cavalier denial that any of the cancers that have occurred in the affected regions can possibly have anything to do with Chernobyl is baseless rhetoric. The experts in the affected regions, who have access to the statistics, both before and after the accident, speak of tens of thousands of cases of cancers resulting in the death of the victims. Where is the statistical foundation to support your denial? Are you an expert on cancer perchance? On how the disease is triggered; how it progresses; what factors make it more or less severe?Or are you just producing rhetorical streams of verbiage? Chris 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.
Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan
2015-05-01 21:32 GMT+02:00 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: Dear Samiya, Bruno may be a 'believer' - even if not entirely formally - but your question is funny (in my views): * Bruno, what is your concept of God? ... * Accepting a 'God' concept in your (Quran extracted?) terms, such a concept of the infinite (some call it Supernatural) Creator, Maintenant, Director, Motor, etc. etc. of the World (of the Everything) is way beyond our capability of thinking, so we cannot even approach a fitting 'concept' of such term. Some say logic is above it, so we can have a concept of it (and discuss about what attributes it has or not)... so, either we can talk meaningfully about it, either we can't, so as everything we say (about it or not) is meaningless. We can quote from Script, or just mumble our ignorance and argue endlessly - without merit. All the rest may be what you can call blaspheme. It seems, as faith is defined, either your truly has it (faith), either whatever you say is blasphemy. Quentin I even put the 'mind-body' concept into limbo, *mind being unidentified and the body* a figment of our poorly observed (some) phenomena we got so far - called 'science'. John M On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 01-May-2015, at 10:12 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 May 2015, at 05:50, meekerdb wrote: Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-) Brent Forwarded Message https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx Mathematics The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God No, that is a blaspheme. If true, you can't say it. Bruno, what is your concept of God? From our earlier discussions, I gathered that your idea of God was a very weak or no longer relevant being, perhaps of just some academic historical interest. However, here you speak again of blaspheme which necessarily presumes faith. For a comparison, here is my concept of God: Holy Quran 39:67 -- وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا قَبْضَتُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him. Samiya What I say, is that IF we are machine, then the aristotelian gods (creator and creation) theory does not work, and I explain why the notion of Arithmetical Truth plays the role of the ONE of parmenides, Plotinus, and other theoricians, in a different approach to matter and mind. I plead for the coming back of theology in science, but what you describe here is the use of pseudo-theology to filter both science and religion. It is the opposite, a priori. and thus absolute. Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe, both scientific and mathematical. That is nice, out of a fundamentalist setting. _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET THEORY. The pope, through some bishop, seem to have given to Cantor the permission to name the infinite sets, except the last one which Cantor refer as the great inconsistent (which might be already saying too much). I don't believe in set, but that is personal, and sets are excellent mathematical tools, that's for sure. These books have been field-tested, revised, and used successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe. Not so bad. Of course, we, the honest scientists, we do not know if there is a real aristotelian universe, but there is always a real universe of some sort, we just don't know what it is, or who it is. All I say, is that if comp is true, it is not a physical universe, it is an immaterial thing which is already in your head, and in the head of all universal machine (and the Lobian can know that and describe it, even, with caution, a part of the non communicable part). Bruno As noted on http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html - End forwarded message - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
2015-05-01 23:18 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: -- *From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Friday, May 1, 2015 1:14 PM *Subject:* Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Quoting directly from the 2005 WHO report on Chernobyl accident “*5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA -* A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant And yet that very same 2005 WHO report on the Chernobyl accident says: As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster And yet the same report states that it *expects that 4000 people will die* as a result of cancers that were triggered by radionuclides that they came into contact with, ingested and/or absorbed through bio-uptake channels into their body tissue. But it's now 2015 not 2005 and 10 years later there is STILL not the slightest sign that the prediction of massive deaths from radiation is even close to being correct. Zero, zilch nada, goose egg. In fact I can't think of a single prediction about the harm caused by a large scale radiation release that was made in the last 70 years that didn't turn out to be ridiculously pessimistic. Hundreds of thousands of people die of cancer every year in the areas that experienced fallout from Chernobyl; of these millions and millions of cancer deaths that have occurred in these regions over the many decades since the accident you know that NONE of them were in any way related to or triggered by radionuclides released into the environment as a result of that accident? You know this how? And besides, Chernobyl happened 29 years ago so we don't need half assed predictions about what the long term results will be, we know. Your cavalier denial that any of the cancers that have occurred in the affected regions can possibly have anything to do with Chernobyl is baseless rhetoric. The experts in the affected regions, who have access to the statistics, both before and after the accident, speak of tens of thousands of cases of cancers resulting in the death of the victims. Where is the statistical foundation to support your denial? Are you an expert on cancer perchance? You're kidding ? You should know by now that John Clark is an expert on everything, he is even a guy who can doubt the foundation of reality while at the same time knowing exactly what the foundation of reality is... he knows everything... like a... god... maybe... not. If you still think you can have a real discussion with him you're fooling yourself. Quentin On how the disease is triggered; how it progresses; what factors make it more or less severe? Or are you just producing rhetorical streams of verbiage? Chris 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
