Re: Rethink Genetic Engineering in the Light of the Quran

[John Mikes]

1.  There is no wrong religion

2. Adam-story that of Eve, or Korányi?

3. Or else??

The Bible is flexible. Let:S FLEX IT.

Lov-ya SAMIyA!!

jOHN

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> In case anybody on this list is still interested, attached please find a
> presentation (pdf file) explaining the relevance of Adam's story to us, and
> its implications for our future.
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[John Mikes]

Dear John Clark,

it is in most cases very entertaining to read your topical summer -
 saults, no matter in what matter.
You, as most participants, DARE to go as far as "atheist", not further (and
I mean: you do not delve into the domain of the AGNOSTIC) - the starting
point of which is IGNORANCE in (al)most ANYTHING we talk about with pretty
little to claim some scientific doubt in (call it 'knowledge'?).

I deny the ruling power of the majority in any spoken language as to the
meaning of a word. It change/s/d so much that any observing moment is of
limited value. Besides you 'pick' a vocabulary from a limited choice of the
English-called variations for testimony.

I admire the broadness of information of the list-participants - which is
not like consenting.
Created the World? Well, IS THERE a World at all? Logically flawlessly?
Well, who's logic? And So On.

John Mikes
pushing hard at 95

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:43 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> Bruno Marchal via googlegroups.com wrote:
>
>
>> >> There is no "maybe" about it, when it comes to the meaning  of words
>>> the majority is ALWAYS right,
>>
>>
>
> ​> ​
>> ​I​f you are right, then physicists are wrong on many word, as a i saw in
>> a BBC broadcasting where people were interviewed on many elementary notion
>> in physics, and have shown to have a pregalilean physics.
>
>
> ​What the hell does that have to do with the price of eggs? Physical ideas
> are objectively true or false, but the definition of words is subjective.
> Words mean whatever the most people say they mean, and the entire point of
> words is communication, so if you have your own private meaning of a word
> known by nobody but you then it is utterly useless.​
>
>
> > Then you confuse the greek-indian notion of God,
>
>
> Confuse my ass! This has NOTHING to do with God, this has to do with the
> meaning of words
> ​ and nothing more​
> . Words have no intrinsic meaning, the only meaning word have is the
> meaning people decide to give them. and those meanings always change with
> time. In Shakespeare's day if you were "egregious" then you were
> distinguished,  if you were "nice" then you were silly and if you were
> "silly"  then you were blessed. It would be silly (and I don't mean
> blessed) to say we're right and Shakespeare was wrong, we were both right
> in our day because people have changed they mind about what words mean and
> the majority is ALWAYS right.
>
> > Yet, christians, like muslims and jews have kept alive their platonic
>> roots/tradition, and in that sense,
>> > can be said less wrong than some materialist theory. Why some atheists
>> are so inclined to forget all about a millenium of rational theology is
>> weird,
>
>
>
> This has NOTHING to do with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Plato,
> rationalists, materialists, theology or atheists; this has to do with
> vocabulary and the
> ​fact​
>  that words mean what the majority of people say they mean. And what the
> majority of people say a word means always changes; as of 2017 the English
> word "G-O-D" means a omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious being who
> created the universe.
> ​T​
> hat point is not even worth of debate, today that's just what people mean
> by that word, except of course for people who for whatever the reason are
> afraid to use the word "atheist" to describe themselves, so for them the
> English word "G-O-D" means a fuzzy grey blob that is non-intelligent and
> non-conscious and not a person, and that's just silly. And I don't mean
> blessed.
>
> ​ 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[John Mikes]

Brent:
do you think we are that sure how to identify *intelligence and
consciousness? *

*Intelligence   (inter-lego)*
*   I identify from the linguistic origin (Latin) as READING BETWEEN THE
(properly) EXPRESSED FEATURES - *to detect additional sense (maybe hidden
so far).

*Consciousness*  is harder,  principally as EVERYTHING being conscious of
itself to some extent, identifying quantitative/qualitative (plus: so far
unidentified)* relations,* acting/response domains and being sensitive to
actions of ANYTHING else.

Both are in line of agnosticism (not the theist/atheist kind, of course).

I wonder if I come close to YOUR definitions?

John Mikes



On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 2/20/2017 7:33 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain complete mysteries.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, what we have is a falsification of current
>>>> theories. They appear to be good enough approximations for many
>>>> things, but then they fail at predicting the expansion rate of the
>>>> universe right? Maybe it's dark matter, maybe it's something else,
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are 2 separate mysteries. Dark Matter is a mysterious something that
>>> makes up 28% of the universe and holds galaxies and clusters of galaxies
>>> together. Dark Energy is a even more mysterious something that makes up
>>> 69%
>>> of everything and causes the expansion of the entire universe to
>>> accelerate.
>>> And about 4% of the universe is made of the sort of normal matter and
>>> energy
>>> that until about 20 years ago was the only type we thought existed.
>>>
>>> There is a straightforward extension of General Relativity and Quantum
>>> Mechanics that explains Dark Energy, however it gives a figure that is
>>> 10^120 too large, it's been called the worse mismatch between theory and
>>> observation in the entire history of science. I think it's fair to say we
>>> really don't have a clue about Dark Energy, and Dark Matter is almost as
>>> confusing.
>>>
>>> If science failed so far at explaining something, then it doesn't
>>>>
>>>> matter?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Science has an explanation for consciousness that works beautifully,
>>> consciousness is the way information feels when it is being processed
>>> intelligently.
>>>
>> I know that your position is that information processing is
>> nonsensical without matter. Many times you invited Bruno to compete
>> with Intel, etc. So what you are saying is that "consciousness is the
>> way matter feels when it participates in an intelligent computation".
>> This "explanation" begs the question already.
>>
>> Then there's the issue of defining "processed intelligently". What
>> does that even mean? Where do you draw the line between intelligent
>> and non-intelligent processing? Let me guess: intelligent processing
>> is the kind that generates consciousness.
>>
>
> No, intelligent processing it that which leads to useful activity toward a
> goal.  That's why consciousness has to be consciousness OF a world in which
> action is possible.  It only exists in a context.
>
> For me, the interesting question is whether there can be intelligence
> without consciousness, or more accurately can there be intelligence which
> is conscious in a different way.  We can see from Big Blue, Watson, and
> deep neural nets that there can be intelligence based different kinds of
> information processing.  I suspect this means there would be different
> kinds of consciousness associated with them - but how could we know and
> what would it mean?  John McCarthy warned many years ago that we should be
> careful not to create robots that had general intelligence, lest we
> inadvertently create conscious beings to whom we would have ethical
> obligations.
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[John Mikes]

Stathis asked:

*Is agnosticism about God different from agnosticism about other entities
such as fairies and elves?*
My reply is ab astounding * " N O " *

I wold add to te fairies and elves the forces, the energy, the matter and
all facets of a universe-built world we came up with in our speculations
upon halfway understood (??) observations and their explanations (our way).
An agnostic just "doesn't know". Not those facets we talk about an not
those we have no idea about (so far?).
Agnosticism is a hard principle to follow (ask Bruno).
JM

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

>
> On Wed., 1 Feb. 2017 at 4:32 am, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>> > Are you really agnostic about the god of theism?
>>
>> Quoting from wikipedia:
>>
>> "The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term
>> theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[5] In Cudworth's
>> definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who
>> affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind,
>> existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other
>> things".[6]
>> Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest
>> sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in a god or gods.[7] The
>> claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is
>> agnosticism.[8][9]"
>>
>> I would say that, under these definitions, the correct scientific
>> stance is to be agnostic.
>>
>> In this mailing list, we have seen hypothesis about such a mind that
>> do not require man-in-the-sky, creationism or other absurdities, nor
>> conflict with current scientific models. Are they correct? I don't
>> know, so...
>
>
> Is agnosticism about God different from agnosticism about other entities
> such as fairies and elves?
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[John Mikes]

Bruno,
You seem to know so much about that Artifact "GOD" and that other one: our
"subconscious". At least you say so about "HER".
Why do you assign the topic to our Solar system to time the 'full answer'
to at least 2 years (Solar, I suppose, otherwise "YEAR" has no meaning).

We talk in human terms/ideas/concepts/logic.I left it open to the BEYOND.
I agree ith your 'natural' world-image.

JM

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 29 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote:
>
> I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more
> than one reason:
> 1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be.
>
>
> *You just have to ask God what she is.  Then she will answer.  But it may
> take two years to get the full answer.*
>
>1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?)
>
>
> *Yes, God is a person.  In the same way as your own personality is build
> up by trillions of brain cells, then Gods personality is build up by
> billions of human beeings.*
>
>
>
> The human conception of God can be said to be build up to trillions of
> human brain cells, but that is not God, given that by definition God is the
> primary cause of the Universe, and you would not say that the physical
> universe's primary cause is the human brain cells.
>
> Of course the phsyical universe as we know it is also a human brain
> construct, but if we assume mechanism, we can show that it is a "Turing
> machine" constructs. the machine themselves are realized in arithmetic, as
> all logicians know since 1931.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the question: How
> was God originated?)
>
>
> *No, she did not originate the world.  She is a result of the natural
> selection.*
>
>
>
> Well, you are not talking about God as the reason of the Universe and all
> realities, but on the human conception of the universe. We could say
> likewise that the human theory of natural selection is also only a
> successful meme of the human brain. The physical universe can be explained
> away in the same manner.
>
> Natural selection need Mechanism to work, but with mechanism, the physical
> universe cease to exist in any primitive way. So your explanation becomes
> circular or wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious. Have you
> ever M E T
> yours? I figure it must be something limitless of which we fathom only
> a bit.
> Or is all t his rather fitting the Superconscious? we have some idea
> about our 'conscious'?
>
>
> *I have talked with my subconscious.  I do it every time I pray.  And
> sometimes my subconscious answer me.  And sometimes my subconscious talks
> directly to me, she reminds me when I have forgotten something.*
>
>
>
> The subconscious can take the form of person in dreams, but I would not
> consider it as a person in the waking life, it is part of your own
> personhood, I would say.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. An immortal person? Cf. Wagner's Gotterdammerung.
>
>
> *No, God is not immortal.  But God will live much longer than a human
> being.  God will *live *as long as the mankind exists.*
>
> 5. "Supernatural powers"? did you ever define the "natural ones" (beyond
> our ever changing concept of a system of our "physical"  explanations?
>
>
> *No, God have no supernatural powers.  God can only do what a human being
> can do.*
>
>
> With a non-standard definition of God, as this contradict the general
> definition of the notion. In this list people have used the word "God" as
> the cause or reason (not necessary physical, perhaps physical, it will
> depend on the theory) of reality and realities.
>
> We can reject a definition as being too much precise (like God = the
> christian God), but we have to keep the basic of the definition: the reason
> of everything, including consciousness and matter (real or appearances).
>
> You do seem have some faith in the second God of Aristotle: a physical
> universe. But with mechanism, both God of Aristotle (the Creator and the
> Creation) stop making sense. Only Plato abstract notion continue to make
> sense, and indeed, Plato took it to Pythagoras, mainly, and we are driven
> again toward it after the discovery of the universal number/machine.
>
> Mechanism is incompatible with both supernatural powers and ... natural
> powers. Those who use the mind-brain identity link attribute without saying
> some supernatural powe

Re: The Weirdening

[John Mikes]

KIM (and Brent, Telmo of course)
what should we call * " W E I R D "*  ???

Is this an epitheton for our 'unusual'? or 'unruly'? or 'disorderly'?
I detected that the 'weirdness' (whatever you define it by) of the World
smoothened up as I got older and older. I have more understanding
N O W (in my 90s) for other peoples' shenanigens than I had when I was
30-40 (50-60? (70-80) or even younger?)

I just want one thing to make sure:
to finish this (surely deteriorating existence of mine) while I am in
control,
consciously and in possession of my logical decisionmaking. This is NOT
a suicidal wish, this is a reasonable ending of a long, successful working
and loving life before becoming a vegetable to satisfy the financial needs
of goalkeeper strangers. paid for keeping my 'biology' churning.
Unfortunately medics and clerics are not understanding in such matters
and the established law gives them the power to arrange for MY exit.

I would transcribe your 'the world getting weirder' into DETECTING more
weirdness as we get older (= widen our fact-based horizon).
Whatever 'weird' may mean.

John Mikes



On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Kim Jones  wrote:

>
> On 27 Dec 2016, at 10:03 pm, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
> If we assume the MWI, isn't it the case that we should expect the
> world to become weirder as we get older?
>
>
>
> I don’t think that only mature-age people think that the fact that Donald
> Trump got elected is weird. Perhaps your theory can be ramped up another
> tier: not only does the world seem weird to the elderly but the more human
> civilisation ages the weirder it actually does become in some real sense.
> It feels a bit weird living in a pre-Donald Trump universe. Surely this
> weirdness is real and a metric of something
>
> Kim Jones
>
>
> Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL
>
> Email:  kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
> Mobile:0450 963 719
> Landline: 02 9389 4239
> Web:http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
>
> “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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[John Mikes]

Brent I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr
more than one reason:
1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be.
   1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?)
1.B a Force - a Complexity - a System (etc.) or the like?
1,C Did He/She/It originate the World? (what draws the question: How
was God originated?)
2. I am aware of many stories people believe in and repeat ad nauseam, they
do not impress me.
3. A am also ignorant about my (or anyone else's) Subconscious. Have you
ever M E T
yours? I figure it must be something limitless of which we fathom only
a bit.
Or is all t his rather fitting the Superconscious? we have some idea
about our 'conscious'?
4. An immortal person? Cf. Wagner's Gotterdammerung.
5. "Supernatural powers"? did you ever define the "natural ones" (beyond
our ever changing concept
of a system of our "physical"  explanations?
John M


On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>> 2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with
> supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.
>

>>>

>>> ​> ​That's the Christian use
 ​ ​. Why do atheists insist so much we use the christian notion,

>>>
>>> Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the
>>> word
>>> ​.​ It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with
>>> supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means
>>> something.
>>> ​  Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally
>>> don't know what they're talking about when they talk about "God".
>>> ​ ​As near as I can tell to them the word "God"  means an
>>> invisible fuzzy amoral blob that does nothing and knows nothing and
>>> thinks about nothing
>>> ​ that we can not effect and that does not effect our lives​. Why
>>> even invent a word for a concept as useless as that?
>>>
>>
>> I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious.  And my
>> subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.
>>
>> When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious.  Then my subconscious talks
>> to other peoples subconsciouses.  Then one persons subconscious is
>> affecting this persons behavior, so that I get answer to my prayer.
>>
>>
> Psychiatrist:   "Look--how do you know you're God?"
> Lord Gurney: "Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to myself."
> --- Peter Barnes, "The Ruling Class"
>
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Cpies and Doppelgangers

[John Mikes]

Brent:

what an idea the non-light version of the elemtary "LIGHT"? (a dark photon,
eh? Like perhaps the nonexistence for existence? or non-math Platonism -
all qualitative?) Needs a real scientific mind to think about it. Of course
Hawking was such a mind and his brain-child is an inside-out parallel to
"our" concept of the ((physical??)) world.

I find the "DARK" concept highly entertaining.

(in your post the word "matter" surely refers to "shining matter". My
question:
would you include into (your) "spiral galaxies" also photo-photons? (I
mean: elemental LIGHT particles imbedded into the DARK WORLD? That would
uphold the parallel - unless those quanitative impossibilities between
Hawkingian amounts of dark vs light may not reverse into the new imaginary
world?)



On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> If there were dark photons and dark charged particles forming atoms, then
> dark matter collisions would radiate away energy and dark matter would
> condense into spiral dark galaxies instead of producing essentially
> spherical halos around matter galaxies.
>
> Brent
>
> On 11/12/2016 7:07 AM, medinuclear wrote:
>
> *[Philip Benjamin*]
> *Implications of Bio Dark-Matter ChemistryPublications listed
> elsewhere*
> Laws of chemistry are universal and invariable and applicable to *atomic*
> dark matter also. So are the effects under analogous conditions. Animal and
> vegetable life (genetics) have extensive influence over chemistries. They
> suspend them, change them or traverse them to produce an innumerable number
> of products essential for life and adapted to the purpose of survival. Some
> of these processes are known and many often unknown and beyond laboratory
> capabilities.
>
>
>
> *Bio Dark Matter Chemistry:*
>
> *Light Matter *+ Chemistry--> Perishable Body.
>
> *Dark Matter *+ *Dark Chem*. --> Durable Invisible Body.
>
> Dark/Light  Chem. Bond Dissociation --> Dissonance, Disease, Death
>
> *"Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research
> and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012.* *ISSN: 0975-5241*  * "Spiritual Body
> or Physical Spirit? Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry & Your Invisible
> Doppelganger". Sunbury Press, PA. February 2013. ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4*
> *http://biodarkmatter.webs.com* 
>
> *Philip Benjamin PhD MSc MA*
>
>  *Discover magazine *quotes a Harvard theoretical physicist positing
> dark-life from dark-matter.
> *http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/21-the-possible-parallel-universe-of-dark-matter*
> 
>
> *Researchgate *quotes physicist G. K. Ustinova of Rusian Academy of
> Science indicating that* bio dark-matter chemistry *offers a new fruitful
> direction of investigation in this enigmatic field.(https://www.
> researchgate.net/post/Is_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energy).
>
> *http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/sep/21/is-dark-matter-mostly-dark-atoms
> *
>
> *1. David Kaplan et al *(Johns Hopkins U) conclude from "new
> observational and experimental data" that dark matter exists as *composite
> particles *– atoms of dark protons and dark electrons that are acted on
> by [*dark photons*] the dark-matter equivalent of the electromagnetic
> force". This is based on the data of Neal Weiner and David Tucker-Smith in
> 2001,
>  *2.* "*Daniel Hooper,* an astrophysicist at Fermilab in the US, affirms
> that the atomic dark-matter model is really viable and that all the
> lingering doubts "are resolved fairly easily."
>
> *3. Christopher Wells (*Kaplan's colleague) sees here the "additional
> benefit of bringing dark matter more into line with the ordinary matter
> that we are familiar with".
>
> *Note:* They claim that "dark hydrogen atoms could bind to form hydrogen
> molecules and that the formation of these molecules could then lead to the
> creation of "*dark stars*
>
> " or other compact objects and add that the interaction of dark photons
> with ordinary photons could lead to emission lines in the spectra of cosmic
> gamma rays".
>
> *Implications of Dark-matter Chemistry*
> 1. Laws of chemistry are the same universally in *light-m*atter and 
> *dark-matter
> *(only *ab initio* computational chemistries).
> 2.  Dark-matter chemistry/genetics begins *at the moment of conception*
> just as light-matter chemistry/genetics leading to an invisible
> doppelganger identical/eidetic to the visible body at all stages of human
> development (*en-dark-body-ment, endarkbodiment*).
> 3.  Dark-matter body may be invisible to electromagnetic tools
> including the senses in their normal state of existence.
> 4.  Dark and light chemical bonds have similar properties, interact with
> each other, rotate, vibrate, oscillate, have reciprocal motion, stretch,
> contract, have resonance structures, associate, dissociate, bend and break.
>

Re: Self-explaining Game of Life?

[John Mikes]

Bruno,
it was the third reading when I realized that I do not understand what you
wrote.

as for "...

> "Life is a pure religious concept, based on delusion that there is
> something in an organism that makes it alive."
>
standing for consciousness?
I do not feel it.

JM


On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 15 Oct 2016, at 14:32, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> John,
>>
>> No, I do not know what life is. I guess, nobody does.
>>
>> From what I have seen recently, I like:
>>
>> "Life is a pure religious concept, based on delusion that there is
>> something in an organism that makes it alive."
>>
>
> That's consciousness, and if that is an illusion then everything is. Such
> a "definition" of  life is eliminative materialism.
>
> With computationamism the material composing the organism can itself be
> described by a delusion of a universal person brought by an infinity of
> universal machine. We can say then that Matter is a pure religious concept
> based on the universal number delusion that there is something made up of
> something when there might plausibly be only a statistics on number's
> (sharable) dreams.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Evgenii
>>
>> Am 14.10.2016 um 21:08 schrieb John Mikes:
>>
>>> Evgenii,
>>>
>>> do you have some idea about  "LIFE", not the '*Game *of it'? Are
>>> there disclaimers that may lead to a STATE - callable 'life'? I would
>>> not rely entirely on the biology, life may be much more and not
>>> quite(?) moelcularly bound. How is 'mentality' involved? Changes???
>>> (and I mean: self induced ones!) We have a very limited image of
>>> Mother Nature. Is 'life' more, or less than our limited knowledge of
>>> 'nature'? Please do not forget: I am an agnostic and believe in many
>>> many facets of the Entirety we know nothing about, yet supposedly
>>> exist beyond our world. Is a 'self-induced change'  L I F E ? How
>>> induced?
>>>
>>> The question is exciting, I would learn more about it.
>>>
>>> John Mikes
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture. His world view is
>>>> actually similar to the Game of Life, well, the rules are a bit
>>>> more complicated. Below is the link to the equation that he
>>>> proposes.
>>>>
>>>> Carroll claims that his equation describes human beings as well. He
>>>> takes a compatibilist position in respect to free will: free will
>>>> is compatible with the determinism. At the same time, he says that
>>>> his equation is the very strong intellectual achievement of the
>>>> mankind.
>>>>
>>>> I thought that it could be possible to invent some sort of the Game
>>>> of Life where during the system evolution one gets the rule of the
>>>> game printed on the screen. In my view, this should be somewhat
>>>> analogous to what Carroll says. Well, it is hard to say in what
>>>> form the rules of the game should appear, but this after all gives
>>>> some freedom to invent such a game.
>>>>
>>>> I should mention that I mean nothing fancy. "Explaining" is meant
>>>> in pure epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appeared
>>>> on a sheet of paper, nothing else.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a self-explaining
>>>> Game of Life in that sense?
>>>>
>>>> Evgenii
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Carroll's Game of Life:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-
>>>> world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/
>>>>
>>>> -- 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 https://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

Re: Self-explaining Game of Life?

[John Mikes]

OK, Evgenii, I am game.
Do you have any closer(?) idea what *ALIVE* may mean? (and watch out,
the next question maybe about *"ORGANISM") .*

I would not go that deeply as to question a (pure???) religious concept.

Mit vorzüglicher Anerkennung   - (for 'best regards')

John Mikes

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:

> John,
>
> No, I do not know what life is. I guess, nobody does.
>
> From what I have seen recently, I like:
>
> "Life is a pure religious concept, based on delusion that there is
> something in an organism that makes it alive."
>
> Evgenii
>
> Am 14.10.2016 um 21:08 schrieb John Mikes:
>
>> Evgenii,
>>
>> do you have some idea about  "LIFE", not the '*Game *of it'? Are
>>
>> there disclaimers that may lead to a STATE - callable 'life'? I would
>> not rely entirely on the biology, life may be much more and not
>> quite(?) moelcularly bound. How is 'mentality' involved? Changes???
>> (and I mean: self induced ones!) We have a very limited image of
>> Mother Nature. Is 'life' more, or less than our limited knowledge of
>> 'nature'? Please do not forget: I am an agnostic and believe in many
>> many facets of the Entirety we know nothing about, yet supposedly
>> exist beyond our world. Is a 'self-induced change'  L I F E ? How
>> induced?
>>
>> The question is exciting, I would learn more about it.
>>
>> John Mikes
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture. His world view is
>>> actually similar to the Game of Life, well, the rules are a bit
>>> more complicated. Below is the link to the equation that he
>>> proposes.
>>>
>>> Carroll claims that his equation describes human beings as well. He
>>> takes a compatibilist position in respect to free will: free will
>>> is compatible with the determinism. At the same time, he says that
>>> his equation is the very strong intellectual achievement of the
>>> mankind.
>>>
>>> I thought that it could be possible to invent some sort of the Game
>>> of Life where during the system evolution one gets the rule of the
>>> game printed on the screen. In my view, this should be somewhat
>>> analogous to what Carroll says. Well, it is hard to say in what
>>> form the rules of the game should appear, but this after all gives
>>> some freedom to invent such a game.
>>>
>>> I should mention that I mean nothing fancy. "Explaining" is meant
>>> in pure epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appeared
>>> on a sheet of paper, nothing else.
>>>
>>> What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a self-explaining
>>> Game of Life in that sense?
>>>
>>> Evgenii
>>>
>>> P.S. Carroll's Game of Life:
>>>
>>> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-
>>> world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/
>>>
>>> -- 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Self-explaining Game of Life?

[John Mikes]

Evgenii,

do you have some idea about  "LIFE", not the '*Game *of it'?
Are there disclaimers that may lead to a STATE - callable 'life'?
I would not rely entirely on the biology, life may be much more and not
quite(?) moelcularly bound. How is 'mentality' involved? Changes??? (and I
mean: self induced ones!)
We have a very limited image of Mother Nature. Is 'life' more, or less than
our limited knowledge of 'nature'?
Please do not forget: I am an agnostic and believe in many many facets of
the Entirety we know nothing about, yet supposedly exist beyond our world.
Is a 'self-induced change'  L I F E ? How induced?

The question is exciting, I would learn more about it.

John Mikes

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:

> I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture. His world view is actually
> similar to the Game of Life, well, the rules are a bit more complicated.
> Below is the link to the equation that he proposes.
>
> Carroll claims that his equation describes human beings as well. He takes
> a compatibilist position in respect to free will: free will is compatible
> with the determinism. At the same time, he says that his equation is the
> very strong intellectual achievement of the mankind.
>
> I thought that it could be possible to invent some sort of the Game of
> Life where during the system evolution one gets the rule of the game
> printed on the screen. In my view, this should be somewhat analogous to
> what Carroll says. Well, it is hard to say in what form the rules of the
> game should appear, but this after all gives some freedom to invent such a
> game.
>
> I should mention that I mean nothing fancy. "Explaining" is meant in pure
> epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appeared on a sheet of
> paper, nothing else.
>
> What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a self-explaining Game
> of Life in that sense?
>
> Evgenii
>
> P.S. Carroll's Game of Life:
>
> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-
> world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Conversations Between Trees

[John Mikes]

Bruno wrote:
"... related to the Aristotelian idea that what we experience/see/measure
is what is real. ..."
I wanted to raise the 'scientific doubt' about "REAL". (An 'idea' cannot be
REAL). We may accept it as a condition to work on, make 'science' out of
it,
but I doubt if anybody has an acceptable (workable) version of REALITY?
Your text supports my fundamental tenet(s) in more than one way.

We also do not know what to call "FACTS"? (3p??)
(Pardon my agnosticism!)

I wanted to raise the 'idea' that human formulations about non-human ways
of communbication/thinking may be anthropo-centric/morphic at best.
An animal thinks differently from a human, a plant develops response-like
reply movements (incl. growth) a microbe does - I wish I knew what. Even a
rock undergoes 'giving-in' to forces what we could list as a 'reply'.
We 'know' pretty little about the Entirety and build out of that fraction
our entire world as an 'experienced fact-based reality;.
I think we agreed on such ideas many times.

Regards
John Mikes



On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hello John,
>
>
> On 20 Sep 2016, at 21:02, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno,
> we are still in the anthropocentric/anthropomorphic failure to equate
> EVERYTHING with our humanbased experience.
>
>
>
> I am not sure, although what you say might be related to the Aristotelian
> idea that what we experience/see/measure is what is real.
> But the history of science shows that very often big progress comes when
> people guess that there is something behind what we see and behind the
> human based experience we live, and which is indeed plausibly only a
> symptom of what we do not know.
>
> Mathematics, as a science, is (slowly) born from the doubt with respect to
> Aristotle theology. Then, when it worlks, we tend to forget the origin, or
> to dismiss it for some reason (usually related to power).
>
> Recently I have discovered that even the modern mathematical logic is born
> from theological problems, notably how to get rigorous in that field.
> Again, once the science is born, there has been professionalization
> pressures to dismiss the original problems and motivations.
>
>
>
> Organisms without brain-tissue do not exercise brain-functions as we THINK
> they do occur in our 'head' (guts?)
>
>
> In which theory? With mechanism, all entities think in basically the same
> way. And all entities which introspect eneough know that even the head and
> the neurons are "in our head" (note the pun). I mean that neuron are good
> local approximations of something, but is not the "real" thing.
>
>
>
> and do not develop similar thoughts to us - the ways we try to understand
> our own thinking through neurons(?).
>
>
>
> That is why we submit theories and abandon them when they do not work. And
> if they work, no serious/honest scientists will ever claim that they are
> true.
>
> We can't decide to not build theories under the pretext they are biased by
> our neurons and experiences. It is only by making our theories precise
> enough to be REFUTED that we can learn and discover that we are missing
> something.
>
> We never known the 3p truth as such, but can only learn by building
> theories and confronting them with facts and other theories.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16 Sep 2016, at 23:11, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3792036/Do-trees-brains.html
>>
>>
>> It is my feeling too, and there are many evidences for some form of
>> thought, and I read (where?) that even at the molecular level, there are
>> some biochemical similarity with animal's neuron at the extremity of some
>> roots.
>>
>> Now it is hard to conclude anything at this stage, but the idea is cute,
>> and, as I said sometimes, it is less ethically grave to attribute
>> consciousness wrongly than to dismiss consciousness wrongly.
>>
>> A tree, to another tree:  do you think animals can think?
>> --- What? No! they are  too much agitated for that!
>>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> --
>> 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 https://groups.google.com

Re: Conversations Between Trees

[John Mikes]

Dear Bruno,
we are still in the anthropocentric/anthropomorphic failure to equate
EVERYTHING with our humanbased experience.
Organisms without brain-tissue do not exercise brain-functions as we THINK
they do occur in our 'head' (guts?) and do not develop similar thoughts to
us - the ways we try to understand our own thinking through neurons(?).

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 16 Sep 2016, at 23:11, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3792036/Do-trees-brains.html
>
>
> It is my feeling too, and there are many evidences for some form of
> thought, and I read (where?) that even at the molecular level, there are
> some biochemical similarity with animal's neuron at the extremity of some
> roots.
>
> Now it is hard to conclude anything at this stage, but the idea is cute,
> and, as I said sometimes, it is less ethically grave to attribute
> consciousness wrongly than to dismiss consciousness wrongly.
>
> A tree, to another tree:  do you think animals can think?
> --- What? No! they are  too much agitated for that!
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
> Jason
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: ​Computationalism​

[John Mikes]

Dear Bruno,

in my agnosticism *computationalism* (as so many other 'concepts' and
'processes') is (are?) figments of the human thinking (logic? imagination?
or 'views' how we try to explain the mostly unknowable infinite Entirety)
 - so I cannot argue about it's (their's?) truth???, or fantasy-base
(convolutedness).
Math etc. is in this ballpark.

I have a linguistic version of the Latin origin "to compute":
to put (things) together as by *" C O M "  *and *think* about them in such
way hard *" P U T A R E "  * which may include* quantitative *as well as
qualitative thinking.

John Mikes


On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 05 Aug 2016, at 22:02, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> Keep well in mind that I am not arguing for or against computationalism.
>> I assume it, and study the consequences.
>
>
> ​No, y
> ou're assuming at the very start that Computationalism is false and then
> going on from there.
>
>
> That contradicts directly what I did.
>
>
>
> Computationalism means that every subjective experience about you can be
> duplicated by computations made with a physical system.
>
>
> This is fuzzy, but OK. I see what you intend to mean, and I am OK.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Not almost everything, EVERYTHING. But then you say:
>
> "*Nothing can duplicate a first person view from its first person point
> of view, with or **without computationalism**.*"
>
> ​
> Computationalism​ says ​intelligent behavior
>
>
> But behavior is 3p.
>
>
> can be duplicated by computations performed by a physical system, and
> Darwin's Theory demands that consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence,
> so your statement contradicts both the meaning of
> Computationalism​ and Evolution.
>
>
> You forget that we distinguish 3p and 1p.
>
> I think you have not yet understood what is a "first person", and still
> less what is the first person as seen by the first person view.
>
> If it was possible to duplicate a first person view in a way such that the
> first person view would notice the duplication, then the guy in M would be
> able to know, in M, if the doppelganger in W (and vice versa) has been
> reconstituted, but again that suppose some telepathy.
>
> The quantum corresponding statement is Everett's famous: the observer does
> not feel the split.
>
> Do you really think that you can distinguish, from an 1p view, the step 3
> WM duplication experience with the experience where you are told that you
> will undergo the step 3 protocol, except that now we lie and we
> reconstitute you only in M? You need something like that to affirm that the
> first person experience can be duplicated *from its own point of view".
>
> BTW, you have given contradictory answer to the question 1 in the same
> week. You are currently inconsistent, so please do the correction needed,
> if you intend to continue to claim that there is no first person
> indeterminacy. If not, you will bring the exact same invalid argument again
> and again. So let us settle this completely, or let us move to step 4.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

[John Mikes]

Leave the Milky Way for Andromeda?
reminds me of the Hungarian joke (heard around 1930):
Guy goes to God and begs: Oh my God, in who's eyes a second seem like a
million years, could you give me a million bucks?
And God replies: OK, just wait a second.
JM

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:53 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> We cannot yet leave the Milky Way as yet, Professori! I feel humans and
> other animals need something better to dwell on then, The Big Sleep.
> Andromeda must wait a few billion years, eh. I do not have a good mental
> grip on non-material existence, but neither am I fluent in network
> engineering yet. It's back to casting your fate to the wind as the old folk
> song went. Pattern Identity, I understand I think.
>
> *Let us be careful so that humanity stays connected when the Milky Way
> will meet Andromeda. That might be quite a big challenge. It will involve
> huge amounts of computations. Meeting the mini galaxy Magellan, as we do
> today, will be a good preparation, perhaps. *
>
> *But we might count on some surprises too, as we know virtually nothing
> about 'reality'.*
>
> *With Digital Mechanism, there is an inflation of type of immortality
> possible, some of which are accessible here and now (the progress here is
> that we have stopped to burn on the stake those who practice them. We send
> them in jail or in asylum).*
>
> *Bruno*
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Fri, Jul 8, 2016 11:14 am
> Subject: Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve,
> why?
>
>
> On 08 Jul 2016, at 02:05, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>
> Well, for psychological reasons, I agree with John Clark's initial
> response.The goal, I am guessing is restoration, in principle, as Brent
> Meeker's comment, earlier. I am guessing that file restoration from the
> past, if done exact enough would render full resurrection or file
> restoration of us, complete to the point of engaging in these emails, and
> then doubting that a replica would really be you? If it is based on quantum
> information, one physicist writer, started off her essay, stating that the
> information that is us, that is the universe is preserved in the quantum.
> The physicist in question is Sabine Hossenfelder, in here article about
> natural evolving quantum computers, aka block holes.
> After you die, your body’s atoms will disperse and find new venues,
> making their way into oceans, trees and other bodies. But according to the
> laws of quantum mechanics, all of the information about your body’s build
> and function will prevail. The relations between the atoms, the uncountable
> particulars that made you *you*, will remain forever preserved, albeit in
> unrecognisably scrambled form – lost in practice, but immortal in principle
> .
> Good enough for me, on this Now the rest is engineering and data
> restoration. Easy, huh?
>
>
> You are not made of atoms, which mainly change every decades. You are a
> pattern of immaterial information, and you survive in any reasonable sense
> only if you have the environment (aka universal numbers) capable of
> processing that pattern of information. Now that exists in infinitely many
> occurrence in elementary arithmetic. But that is not necessary consoling,
> as in principle it could mean that life is 100 years of bearable life
> followed by an eternal agony, as from your 1p view, you will feel surviving
> as long as some universal numbers make you believe in them, and they are
> infinitely many competing/collaborating universal numbers for that.
>
> Immortality without some quality of life might be worst than mortality.
>
> Let us be careful so that humanity stays connected when the Milky Way will
> meet Andromeda. That might be quite a big challenge. It will involve huge
> amounts of computations. Meeting the mini galaxy Magellan, as we do today,
> will be a good preparation, perhaps.
> But we might count on some surprises too, as we know virtually nothing
> about 'reality'.
>
> With Digital Mechanism, there is an inflation of type of immortality
> possible, some of which are accessible here and now (the progress here is
> that we have stopped to burn on the stake those who practice them. We send
> them in jail or in asylum).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> https://aeon.co/essays/is-the-black-hole-at-our-galaxy-s-centre-a-quantum-computer
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brent Meeker 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Jul 7, 2016 7:18 pm
> Subject: Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve,
> why?
>
> Information about the past is available to us (at least according to our
> present understanding of the laws of physics).  It's the future that we
> have only limited information about.
> Brent
>
> On 7/7/2016 3:36 PM, Mindey wrote:
>
> Cryonics can help those who are alive today. That is good, but not good
> enough, since I do miss some people who die

Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

[John Mikes]

Dear Mindy,
I have no idea what the most important problems (to solve?) the World MAY
have, I can only guess to my limited accuracy and extent what problems
WE MAY SEE as to be solved within the already accessible fragment of the
World. And SOLVED they may be by our limited means to our limited results.
The WORLD may have absolutely different problems (to solve, or live with)
amd we have no access even to guess about them.

Agnosticism gives a wider horizon to consider than a 'know-it-all'
stupidity. The difference is: we cannot even guess.

John Mikes

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Mindey  wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> so, over time, we had actually came to near-maturity creating the basis of
> The Infinity Project I mentioned before (an economic and innovation forum).
> A question that we realized having, is -- what is the list of the world's
> currently most important problems?
>
> I and a few friends of mine had shared some problems already --
> https://infty.xyz. Which among them do you think are important, which are
> not?
>
> What problems do you think are the most important to solve for humanity,
> how would you define them?
>
> --
> Mindey I.
> https://mindey.com <https://www.mindey.com/index.html>
> Scientific Computing
> & Web Applications
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: numeracy

[John Mikes]

Brent: excellent comix and very very true. Explain America? ...

Would you include geometry into math? e.g. trigonometry?

We had all that in the 1930s in high school, including algebra
and integrals/differentials. Of course that all beside  8 years
of Latin (incl. old-Roman studies) 7 years German (not too
efficient) and 4 years French - or Greek, I spoke French at the
end pretty fluently. My geography is still close to perfect, only
history was deficient (what I don't regret: IMO history is the
study of lies). Physix and Chem was mediocre, but we SANG.
And we had SOME phys. education (basket ball incl.)
My Ph.D. (1948) was in all chem, - exptl. physics and - math,
the 2nd one (D.Sc.1967) IN specialty polymers (Ion Exchangers).

Thanks for the back-and-forth drawings.

John M


On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> Bruno should approve.
>
> Brent
>
>  Forwarded Message 
>
> "The only math we should teach children is arithmetic."
>
> http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4150
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

[John Mikes]

JKC: you wrote


*Atoms are more fundamental than molecules but molecules have properties
than atoms don't have, and molecules are more fundamental than life but
life has properties that molecules don't have; in the same way
consciousness needs intelligent behavior and intelligent behavior needs
computation and computation need​s​physics.​  *

* John K Clark*
*--*
*  --  then:*

Would you care to tell how you define 'life'?
>

​No, I would not care to do so..​




> or: 'intelligent behavior'?
>

​No.

John K Clark

so the content of your diatribe is not meaningful for you? and I selected
only SOME from the
7 items you used.
JM


On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:41 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 John Mikes  wrote:
>
>
> Would you care to tell how you define 'life'?
>>
>
> ​No, I would not care to do so..​
>
>
>
>
>> or: 'intelligent behavior'?
>>
>
> ​No.
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

[John Mikes]

Jason,
you asked 8 questions only. Some of them require volumes to discuss and I
appreciate your
open mind to concentrate your questionnaire to these 8 only.
First: what would you call "physical"? it is our defined meaning according
to that limited tiny
experience we have about the world.
My agnosticism accepts infinite possibilities, pro and con, it sure
includes what you would call "physical' (whatever that may be).
I liked to play with the 2D version as well, however I started with the 1D
alternative. There was
a book on that, I may find it, if necessary.

Our mind is restricted, we cannot even 'imagine' the varieties the infinite
may have. Not to deny.

Thanks for entertaining my words

John Mikes



On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:35 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ​>> ​
>>>> mathematics is the best language for describing physics, but the point
>>>> is mathematics is a *language*
>>>> *​ *​
>>>> and
>>>> ​ ​
>>>> physics isn't, physics just *is*.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​> ​
>>> I give an example, with arithmetic.
>>> ​ ​
>>> You have a language, that is, symbols and grammar.
>>> ​ [blah blah]​
>>> Then you have the semantics
>>> ​
>>>
>>>
>> ​But semantics is about meaning, you've got to give those symbols a
>> meaning, otherwise you're ​just talking about squiggles. And by the way,
>> "=" is just another squiggle. The way we get around this problem and the
>> reason mathematics and other languages are not just silly squiggle games is
>> that we can point to a squiggle and then point to something in the real
>> PHYSICAL world and people get the connection. Using symbols is good way to
>> think about something if you can make that connection, but without the
>> physical there are no semantics, its just squiggles, i
>> t's literally meaningless.
>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>>> Then you have the theories,
>>>
>>
>> ​And to be worth a damn theories have to be about something not just
>> squiggles ​
>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> Robinson Arithmetic
>> ​ [...]
>>
>> Squiggles.​
>>
>>
>>
>>> ​> ​
>>> And we are not obsessed
>>> ​ [by consciousness]​
>>> . We might be tired of its being pushed under the rug.
>>>
>>
>> ​For every sentence about how intelligent behavior ​works there are a
>> thousand about how consciousness works because theorizing about
>> consciousness is many orders of magnitude easier than theorizing about
>> intelligence due to the fact that intelligence theories actually have to
>> perform while a consciousness theory doesn't need to do anything.
>>
>>> ​>> ​
>>>> Whatever consciousness is one thing is very clear, it can't be produced
>>>> entirely from the
>>>> ​stuff at the ​
>>>> fundamental level of reality,
>>>
>>>
>>> ​> ​
>>> Ah! Glad you saw this.
>>>
>>
>> ​So you agree with me that even if mathematics is the most fundamental
>> thing you still need matter to produce intelligence and consciousness.
>>  ​
>>
>> ​> ​
>>> The notion of computation belongs to arithmetic. Only a physical
>>> implementation of a computation needs physical assumptions.
>>>
>>
>> ​So you agree that arithmetic ​
>> ​alone is not sufficient for physical computations; therefore physics
>> must have something that arithmetic doesn't.
>>
>
> John,
>
> 1. Would you say other physical universes are possible having completely
> different physical laws and without atoms and molecules as we know them in
> our universe?
>
> 2. Would you agree that one such possible physical has 2 spatial
> dimensions, unlike our universe with its 3 spatial dimensions?
>
> 3. Would you agree that one possible physical world is an infinite 2
> dimensional plane, each with cells which either does or does not contain a
> particle?
>
> 4. Would you agree a possible physical world is a 2 dimensional plane with
> cells containing particles where from one time to the next, cells update
> their state (of having or not having a particle) according to some rules,
> e.g. as according to Conway's game of life?
>
> 5. Would you accept that in such physical universes, which operate
> according to Conway's game of life, that Turing machines mi

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

[John Mikes]

JKC wrote:
--
Atoms are more fundamental than molecules but molecules have properties
than atoms don't have, and molecules are more fundamental than life but
life has properties that molecules don't have; in the same way
consciousness needs intelligent behavior and intelligent behavior needs
computation and computation need
​s​
physics.
​

 John K Clark​
-
Would you care to tell how you define 'life'?
or: 'intelligent behavior'? furthermore - I hope - 'your'
computation is not mathematical churnings only.
(Com - putare means th put things mentally together).

JM




On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> Bruno has shown that arithmetic is a viable candidate for explaining
>> physics:
>>
>
> ​
> Bruno wasn't
> ​ ​
> the first to discover that,
> ​ ​
> people have
> ​ ​
> known for
> ​ ​
> 400 years
> ​ ​
> that mathematics is the best language for describing physics, but the
> point is mathematics is a *language*
> *​ *​
> and
> ​ ​
> physics isn't, physics just *is*. And even if it turns out that I'm wrong
> and that in some sense mathematics is more fundamental
> ​ ​
> than physics it wouldn't change the status of what this list is unhealthily​​
> (in my
> ​humble ​
> opinion) obsessed with, consciousness. Whatever consciousness is one thing
> is very clear, it can't be produced entirely from the
> ​stuff at the ​
> fundamental level of reality, and being more fundamental is not the same
> as being more important. Atoms are more fundamental than molecules but
> molecules have properties than atoms don't have, and molecules are more
> fundamental than life but life has properties that molecules don't have; in
> the same way consciousness needs intelligent behavior and intelligent
> behavior needs computation and computation need
> ​s​
> physics.
> ​
>
>  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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

[John Mikes]

Jason, I accept your response. For the sake of better following we might
use the ("   ...  ") addition to our listings to show that there may be
more than ONE

John M

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

> John,
>
> Comments in-line:
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:35 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> JKC: why do you think your ??? is  T H E  FLOOR? there may be innumerable
>> lower levels... we just don't have the brains to think further.
>>
>>
> "???" is not necessarily one thing, but a stand in for at least one
> explanatory layer that exists below physics.
>
>
>> Q: what is the  T O P ?
>>
>
> There's not necessarily a singular top, many things might go above
> sociology such as game theory, political theory, economics, etc. I arranged
> the layers mainly in a manner to show the reductionist relationships
> between different fields, and how some fields can be entirely explained by
> more fundamental sciences.
>
> Jason
>
>
>>
>> John M
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:31 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016  Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>
>>> ​> ​
>>>> These diagrams might help give you a picture for what Bruno is talking
>>>> about when he mentions Aristotelism. It relates to a question of
>>>> reductionism and explaination. "Is physics the most fundamental science, or
>>>> can it be explained and derived from something at a lower layer?"
>>>>
>>>
>>>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>>
>>> ​Is ??? really the floor or does ??? need an explanation too? If not
>>> and there are only finitely many layers to your pyramid then I think it
>>> more likely that physics =???, physics is the explanatory floor and
>>> mathematics is just the best language minds can use to describe physics.
>>>
>>>  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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

[John Mikes]

JKC: why do you think your ??? is  T H E  FLOOR? there may be innumerable
lower levels... we just don't have the brains to think further.

Q: what is the  T O P ?

John M

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:31 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016  Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> These diagrams might help give you a picture for what Bruno is talking
>> about when he mentions Aristotelism. It relates to a question of
>> reductionism and explaination. "Is physics the most fundamental science, or
>> can it be explained and derived from something at a lower layer?"
>>
>
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> ​Is ??? really the floor or does ??? need an explanation too? If not and
> there are only finitely many layers to your pyramid then I think it more
> likely that physics =???, physics is the explanatory floor and mathematics
> is just the best language minds can use to describe physics.
>
>  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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

[John Mikes]

YOUR argumentation includes:
*"...is the only theory we know of ..."*
*-* well, this is *THE * insufficient argument.

With a moderate agnosticism (my kind?) we accept our ignorance of the total
with very little exception. A  'we know' is a tiny fraction and even that
in a way adjusted to the present capabilities of our mental functioning.
The 'Entirety' allows counter-arguments and counter-evidences, - maybe -
invalidating our present views.

Regards

John Mikes


On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Pierz  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:58:11 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Pierz  wrote:
>> ​\
>>
>> ​
>>
>> ​> ​
>>> Not sure about Smolin's theory making a comeback. His idea depended on
>>> the notion of black holes spawning new universes, with each BH tweaking the
>>> laws of physics slightly in the new universe. But black hole theory has
>>> progressed a lot since then and I don't think anything in the modern
>>> theories allows for them to spawn new universes.
>>>
>>
>> ​
>> Richard Dawkins
>> ​ said​
>> "*The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only
>> theory we know of that is, in principle, capable of explaining the
>> existence of organized complexity*."
>> ​ That's certainly true for biology, for it to be true for physics too
>> you need reproduction and mutation.  Some say the singularity at the center
>> of a Black Hole is infinitely small and spacetime is infinitely curved and
>> space and time comes to an end at that point.
>> But
>> ​ ​
>> Smolin
>> ​ ​
>> says the singularity is very small but not infinitely small and spacetime
>> is highly curved but not infinitely curved there and space and time will
>> not end but bounce off the singularity producing a new universe. And
>> because of quantum uncertainty a dozen or so physical constants in the
>> offspring universe will be slightly different from its parent.
>>
>> As for recent developments ruling it outfor Smolin's theory
>> ​ ​
>> to work at least some
>> ​ ​
>> information
>> ​ ​
>> would be needed to be
>> ​ ​
>> transferred
>> ​ ​
>> from the parent universe to the baby universe through a black hole
>> ​, and that may not be possible but there is no scientific consensus on
>> that yet. ​
>>
>> ​  John K Clark​
>>
>>
>> I enjoyed Smolin's book when I read it years ago, but conceptually as an
> explanation for complexity I'm not so sure. I like the evolutionary
> cosmology, because I agree with Smolin that purely anthropic explanations
> for fine-tuning are unsatisfying, but Smolin's idea itself rests on a
> remarkable "coincidence": the fact that tuning for black holes also happens
> to be good for the evolution of life. It would be a great theory if the
> problem were explaining the surprising number of black holes, but it isn't.
> It's explaining fine-tuning for life. With Smolin's theory we're still left
> wondering why the universe isn't just a giant swiss cheese of black holes
> getting better and better at reproducing themselves with no trace of life
> anywhere. For his theory really to work, the life itself would need to
> contribute to the generation of black holes, otherwise the development of
> life looks like a "third wheel".
>
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: New prime number found

[John Mikes]

Brent to your 1-22 post:
what trapped me was a negligent way of writing. JCK wrote it right, you
repeated it nonchallantly (leaving out the empty space):
 2^74207281-1 (instead of correctly:  (2^74207281 -1)
what really included the (-1) into the wxponent rather than into the RESULT
of the raised big number.
JM

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> It's to correct your misreading.  2^74207281 concludes ...436352 so 
> 2^74207281-1
> concludes ...436351 and does not end in zero.
>
> Brent
>
> On 1/22/2016 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> *Is this to vindicate, or abrogate my negative response?*
> *JM*
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>> The number ends in 1 not the power of two, which must end in 2.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 1/20/2016 11:49 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> JKC: is that so indeed? my minuscule math tells me that if something (any
>> long number - or short) ends with a "1" then the* MINUS 1* of this
>> number ends in a zero, dividable e.g. by 2, even 10 etc... 22 million
>> digits???
>> John M
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:26 PM, John Clark < 
>> johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The largest known prime number has just been found, 2^74207281 -1 is
>>> prime; it starts off as 300376 carries on for a bit and then concludes with
>>> 436351
>>>
>>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

[John Mikes]

John, a beautiful fairy tale, indeed.
First you may tell me what is a Primordial Black Hole?
Then tell me the story of Dark Matter at all, not based on differences in
our alleged mathematical results (missings?) of the physical view of the
world.
Then, please explain, why you believe in a Big Bang, the results of some
backwards calculation in current time on a basis of our PRESENT view of
physics, all LINEARLY counted?

The rest comes out of this.

Nucleosynthesis? nice. Time(frame) of it? OK. The "Solar Mass" as a
counting unit for the entire - what? - Universe (what I call OUR fraction
of the Entirety only, with many many more and different ones, of which we
have no knowledge of - we just have no reason to restrict the Entirety to
the tiny little fraction of (alleged!) knowledge we THINK we know of (and
even THAT in an adjusted way to fit the capabilities of our present
mind-level).
The rest is unknowable for now.

Outside of the fairy tale.

But it is good to read self-assured peoples' "know-it-all" fairytales.
Gives us confidence in the human ingenuity.

Restpectfully

John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc., agnostic ret. scientist (38 patents)
orig. profession: macromolecular chem. science and technology.


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:07 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> I would give  50% odds that the mystery of Dark Matter has been solved and
> it will turn out not to be some new particle but will consist of Primordial
> Black Holes. We know from the percentage of the  elements Hydrogen,
> Deuterium, Helium and  Lithium  how much regular matter was around one
> minute after the Big Bang when nucleosynthesis cooked up these elements,
> and there is no room for Dark Matter. So the Black Holes that form the bulk
> of the Dark Matter can't have come from the corpses of dead stars made of
> regular matter; but maybe Black Holes formed long before nucleosynthesis
> occurred when the universe was much less than one minute old and things
> were too hot for even protons to exist much less elements.
>
> Stephen Hawking proposed this explanation for Dark Matter some years ago
> but the idea had fallen out of favor because it was largely (but not
> entirely) ruled out by the data. We know that to account for all the Dark
> Matter the Black Holes can't be larger than 100  solar masses because there
> would be more gravitational microlensing than we observe. And we know that
> to account for all the Dark Matter the Black Holes can't be smaller than 10
> solar masses because we'd see Black Hole explosions /evaporations (if they
> were REALLY small) and the orbits of widely spaced binary stars would be
> disrupted, but we don't see any of that.
>
> There is still a window for Primordial Black Holes being Dark Matter that
> the data hasn't excluded and it's between 10 and 100 solar masses, and
> during its short engineering run that's just what LIGO discovered. It found
> a 29 solar mass Black Hole merging with a 36 solar mass Black Hole in a
> fifth of a second producing a 62 solar mass black hole and 3 solar masses
> of energy in the form of Gravitational Waves.  Everybody was amazed they
> found something that good so quickly when the instrument hadn't even
> reached its design sensitivity yet, everybody thought it would take years
> of observing to detect a thing like that. Maybe they just got
> extraordinarily lucky, or maybe Black Holes are far far more common than
> had been previously thought. Maybe 85% of all the matter in the universe is
> in the form of Primordial Black Holes.
>
> Primordial Black Holes could solve another mystery too. Astronomers have
> found a 12 billion solar mass supermassive Black Hole that existed just 900
> million years after the Big Bang, and they've had a very hard time
> explaining how a Black Hole could get that big so quickly from the merger
> of much smaller Stellar Black Holes that were produced from dead stars. But
> if you had 100 solar mass Black Holes around since day one, and if they
> were very very common, in fact if 85% of all matter in the universe was in
> that form, then the creation of a 12 billion solar mass Black Hole just 900
> million years later is much easier to explain.
>
> The two LIGO detectors will get back online in September and with greatly
> improved sensitivity and will be joined by a third detector, VIRGO near
> Pisa in Italy. So we should know pretty soon if Dark Matter and Black Holes
> are the same thing, if they are then the second greatest mystery in physics
> will have been solved, but we'll still have the mystery of Dark Energy.
>
>
>   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 re

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

Dear Samiya,
you were kind enough to post additional verses from the Quran and ask at
the end:
*"Hope the above helps."*
Not really, at least not me. Now I know that "soul" (whatever that may be)
is NAFS in Arabic and the 3 versions of it are the 3 versions of SELF
(called again in Arabic).

I wrote: "I hope you are not caught within the terrestrial trap of C-based
BIO cop-outs." - you went into an earlier stage and invoked WATER as
*"... all LIFE contains water as an essential component: ..."*
when I tried to free the 'life' concept even from more than just water:
"... the terrestrial trap of C-based BIO cop-outs. "

I tried to generalize the concepts we use and not restrict them into our
ancient and narrow views.
Verses of a text of one and a half millennia ago are not the ones I want to
substitute for a worldview evolved over the past (last?) era in our (and I
admit: sometimes questionable) search for explantions beyond the little we
think we have about the (already known?) portion of the infinite
complexity:  WORLD.

Your ancient words are not pointing forwards for me. I am agnostic and take
it as my fate. I have very little time (if any) to improve.

Thanks for taking me seriously

John Mikes




On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Fourth State of Water
>  http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.167802
>
>  http://www.gizmag.com/fourth-state-of-water/42999/
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Samiya Illias 
> wrote:
>
>> Based upon my reading of the Quran so far, I would consider LIFE or ALIVE
>> to be that which contains a NAFS.
>>
>> *NAFS*
>> From the little that I understand yet, NAFS is a physical object. Sleep
>> is a sort of a brief-death, in which the body-machine is still running. It
>> states in the Quran that God takes the NAFS of all when they sleep, and
>> those upon whom death is decreed, their NAFS is not returned.
>> The NAFS has the ability to suggest, and three forms have been described
>> in the Quran:
>> The NAFS-e-AMMARRA is the SELF which urges us to evil [
>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/12/53/]
>> The NAFS-e-LAWAMMA is the SELF which we speak of as our conscience [
>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/75/2/]
>> The NAFS-e-MUTMAINNA is the SELF who's conscience is clear and is
>> satisfied and contented with God, and God is pleased with this SELF. [
>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/89/27/]
>>
>> [Quran 50:16-18, Translator: Sahih International] And We have already
>> created man and know what his soul* whispers to him, and We are closer to
>> him than [his] jugular vein When the two receivers receive, seated on the
>> right and on the left. Man does not utter any word except that with him is
>> an observer prepared [to record].
>> * soul= the Arabic word used in the verse is NAFS
>> http://searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=50
>>
>> *DEATH & RECORD *
>> The longer death, which we believe will end upon resurrection, occurs
>> when the Angel(s) of Death extracts the thing which contains our entire
>> recorded life-data from our neck, as mentioned in the following verses:
>>
>> [Al-Qur’an 17:13-15, translator: Sahih International] And [for] every
>> person We have imposed his fate upon his neck, and We will produce for him
>> on the Day of Resurrection a record which he will encounter spread open.
>>  [It will be said], "Read your record. Sufficient is yourself against you
>> this Day as accountant.” Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit
>> of] his soul*. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of
>> burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We
>> sent a messenger.
>> * soul= the Arabic word used in the verse is NAFS
>> http://searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=17
>>
>> [Al-Qur’an 56:83-87, translator: Literal (word by word)] Then why not
>> when it reaches the throat, And you (at) that time look on, And We (are)
>> nearer to him than you but you (do) not see, Then why not, if you are not
>> to be recompensed, Bring it back, if you are truthful.
>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/56/83/
>>
>>
>> *ALTERNATE BIOCHEMISTRY *
>> Of course, LIFE is or will be more than carbon-based. I've tried to
>> understand the following verse in this blogpost Alternate Biochemistry [
>> http://signsandscience.blogspot.ca/2015/03/alternate-biochemistry.html]:
>> [Al-Qur’an 56:60-62, translator: Sahih International] We have decreed
>> death among you, and We are not to be outdone In that We will change your
>> likenesses and produce you i

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[John Mikes]

BruceK and Smitra,
my apologies for being obsolete and uninformed, I learned math & phsx in
the very early 40s (19- that is) and did not need to refresh in my 1/2 c.
of a successful R&D activity in specialty polymers. Since then (1987),
however, I became an agnostic.
What reverberates now is that Everett called MWI a bunch of IDENTICAL
universes. In my agnostic view "MY" MWI consists of possibly no two
identical universes, ours being one pretty simpleminded system - we know it
only from the inside. We have no access to the others.

John Mikes Ph.D. (chem-phys-math 1948)



On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> On 11/05/2016 1:54 am, smitra wrote:
>
>> On 10-05-2016 06:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> Non-locality was not the issue with this example of the cat in the
>>> box. All I was seeking to establish was that the observer maybe on
>>> definite branches of the wave function (i.e., have been "split")
>>> without knowing about it. The wave function here is taken to be an
>>> objective description of the system, and the observer is part of the
>>> wave function. So the observer might well be on both the cat-dead and
>>> cat-alive branches, but be unaware of which. The cat is definitely
>>> dead on the cat-dead branch and alive on the cat-alive branch. So this
>>> is an objective fact of the evolved wave function, even thought the
>>> observer has no yet self-located. Opening the box then conveys
>>> information to the observer, but does not kill the cat, or cause the
>>> split in the wave function, or the observer. The duplicated persons
>>> may objectively be, one in Washington and one in Moscow, without being
>>> aware of which city (branch of the wave function) they are in. Opening
>>> the door and finding out conveys information, but does not transport
>>> the person to that city.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but even in the case of the observer getting localized without he or
>> she consciously being aware of that, this localization effect will still be
>> due to local interaction with the branches in the region he/she is in. So
>> whether or not localization in a branch requires conscious awareness of the
>> differences between the two branches isn't relevant.
>>
>> This means that when Alice is on her way to meet with Bob, she won't be
>> localized inside Bob's branches corresponding to Bob having obtained
>> definite results with definite polarizer settings, at least until that time
>> she gets located inside the light cone emanating from the points at Bob's
>> location at the times when the relevant information about these facts were
>> created.
>>
>
> So what? The information is already present in the wave function-- nothing
> new is created when the light cones overlap.
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[John Mikes]

Bruno wrote:

*"If you agree that "2+2=4" cannot be corrupted ..."*

only, if you deny the existence of 'random' (in the physical world,
including math, of course). Otherwise 2 + 3715(?) may be 4 etc. and your
math became
illusoric. Since we agree (you and me at least,* agnostics*) in an
overwhelming unknowable infinite complexity as the *Entirety* (World?) and
reduce our accessible knowables to a tiny-tiny fraction of such, we have to
exclude the RANDOM from the potentialities of such World, to make ANY
theory believable. And that may go to religious considerations as well
(what I do not include in my train of thoughts).
I never received an answer to my skepticism about 2+2=4 in *ANY* relations.

Maybe I am not scientific enough - so be it. (Science = doubt).

Just a short remark

John Mikes

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 08 May 2016, at 23:48, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Apr 2016, at 05:30, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>
>> This email list has been pondering, discussing and debating machine
>> theology, the mind-body problem, 1P, 3P, and so on. You understand the
>> relationship between the software and the hardware. Who then can better
>> appreciate the scriptures when they speak of the WORD preceding everything,
>> that is, the CODE which generated the entire creation and everyone and
>> everything in it?! Who then can better understand that it is the COMMAND
>> which effects changes in the PROGRAM, and the COMMAND is generated by the
>> PROGRAMMER (God)?! Who then knows that even what appears RANDOM is
>> generated by CODE?! Who then can better relate to the concepts of NAFS (1P)
>> and OBSERVERS & WITNESSES (3P)?! Who then can better realise that if a CODE
>> was originally conceived and has been WRITTEN, then repeating the CODE to
>> RECREATE it is far easier?!
>>
>>
>>
>> That is cool, Samya.
>>
>>
>> And, especially, who then can better understand that tampering with the
>> PERFECT CODE only corrupts it?!
>>
>>
>>
>> If the PERFECT CODE can be corrupted, it means that it is not the perfect
>> code.
>>
>> I don't think you can corrupt the perfect code, as I don't believe there
>> is bugs in elementary arithmetic (not confuse again with possible human or
>> machine theories about it).
>>
>> If you agree that "2+2=4" cannot be corrupted then the entire universal
>> dovetailing cannot be corrupted. It emulates all programs with all possible
>> bugs, but none on this will change the elementary facts on which it
>> proceeds. Plausibly, most phenomenologies (NAFS) inherit a part of its
>> stability, and correctness, and perhaps even an atom of its perfection, who
>> nows?
>>
>> You can't corrupt the Big One. You can trust HIM/SHE/IT on this. I think.
>>
>
> My God (Allah) is the One who wrote/spoke all the codes of creation,
> including the big one(s). I trust Allah does not allow anyone, including
> the big one(s), to corrupt creation. In fact, they all humbly submit to the
> Will of Allah and live their purpose in the grand scheme of creation. Those
> created beings who misuse their free will to try to corrupt were never
> taken nor will ever be taken as part of the executive of the grand creation
> (Quran 18:51 <http://islamawakened.com/quran/18/51/>). Respite is given
> for a certain amount of time. When that period expires, all will be judged,
> and in perfect justice the corrupt will be contained for ever.
>
> As I understand the scripture and its message, Allah bestowed some
> advanced intelligence to humans to entrust us with some big
> responsibilities (Quran 33:72 <http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/72/>).
> However, we need to prove that we are worthy of undertaking those
> responsibilities (Quran 33:73 <http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/73/>),
> and therefore He created death and life to test us (Quran 67:2
> <http://islamawakened.com/quran/67/2/>, 29:2
> <http://islamawakened.com/quran/29/2/>). Thus, He created this contained
> environment, practical exam room, (Quran 76:2
> <http://islamawakened.com/quran/76/2/>) where we have been granted a
> certain degree of freedom along with guidance, an open book exam (Quran
> 76:3 <http://islamawakened.com/quran/76/3/>).
>
> Adam was initially examined in the Garden, and in his pursuit of
> Immortality and a Kingdom that Never Decays
> <http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/11/mission-of-messengers-iii.html>
> (Quran 20:120 <http://islamawakened.com/quran/20/120/>), Adam's tampering
> 

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

[John Mikes]

Bruno: do you have a good definition you could use for "physical"?
(I mean: beyond what science calls physics in physical sciences).
*
In my agnostic mind whatever might be included into - even - some thinking
of potentially imaginable domains/factors/items/complexifiers etc. - "IS" -
existing in the Entirety of which we have had access only in a tiny-tiny
little fraction so far. Even that: adjusted to our (simple?) capabilities
of the 'contemporary'' human mind. (The perfect agnosticism).
I feel free to 'think' beyond whatever we can think of today.  Of course,
without substance. I.O.W.: to allow more to 'exist' than our knowables.

JOhn Mikes


On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Apr 2016, at 00:12, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> ​
>
>> ​> ​
>> "is" in which sense?
>>
>
> ​"​sense" in which sense?
>
> ​You must be a fan of Bill Clinton who notoriously said in answer to a
> question in a legal deposition:
>   ​
> "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' i
> ​s."​
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> Some multi or multimulti verses could be everything physical that there
>> is, but not everything needs to be physical
>>
>
> ​But physicists deal in the physical that why they're bored to tears when
> people start talking about what things would look like from places that are
> impossible to exist even in theory.  ​
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> exemple: the natural numbers, the complex numbers,
>>
>
> ​First of all we don't even know for certain that the Real Numbers exist
> much less the ​
>
> Complex Numbers, and even it they do they don't have a location. but a
> viewpoint ​does, it's a
> position of observation
> ​; ​and if that location is not inside the multiverse it does not exist.
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> but logically, it is conceivable to have structure containing themselves,
>>
>
> ​Fine, but it is not logical to have something that is not part of itself
> be part of itself; like a place that is not part of the multiverse you can
> ​stand on to look at it from the outside. The multiverse has no outside.
>
>
> That is why Nagel called it the point of view of nowhere, and sometimes I
> call something slightly similar the 0th person point of view. What you say
> does not refute what I said, given that here, the 0th point of view is
> given by the mathematics of the Everett Universal Wave. It just means that
> we look at the wave function of the universe assuming QM without collapse.
> And I have not use this, only any superposition coming from Alice and Bob
> entangling themselves with a singlet state (sometehing you have eliminate
> from the successive quotes, so we were leading astray from the topic).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> ​>> ​
>>> If the works of
>>> ​
>>> Galilee, Einstein
>>> ​
>>> or
>>> ​
>>> Maxwell
>>> ​
>>> were built on unphysical foundation
>>> ​s​
>>> then today nobody would remember their names, instead they are among the
>>> most
>>> ​famous​
>>>  physicists of all time. In fact Einstein came up with relativity by
>>> trying to imagine what the viewpoint would be of somebody moving at the
>>> speed of light and
>>> ​​
>>> discovered that viewpoint would produce logical contradictions
>>> ​,​
>>> and therefore CAN NOT EXIST.
>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> No, he put itself at the place of a photon which does move at the speed
>> of light, and concluded to the laws of relativity and to the fact that the
>> photon can't have a mass non null. I think.
>>
>
> ​Einstein figured that ​if the fundamental laws of physics were worth
> anything then they must be true for any frame of reference, but from the
> frame of reference of somebody moving at 186,000 miles a second all
> electromagnetic waves would have a undulating shape that changes in space
> but not in time and light would have zero velocity. But that would be
> contrary to Maxwell's equations, therefore Einstein concluded that the
> viewpoint of a observer moving at 186,000 miles a second CAN NOT EXIST. And
> after that realization the rest of special relativity fell into place.
>
> ​> ​
>> Many works of many physicists are built in part (at least) on unphysical
>> foundation: mathematics.
>>
>
> I can't think of one. It's true that before Einstein proved them wrong
> people though non-Euclidean geometry was unphysical, but a place to stand
&g

Re: Aharanov-Bohm non-locality is an artifact of invoking classical potentials

[John Mikes]

Saibal wrote:
*"The Universe,as we perceive it at least, seems to behave in a regular
way, it is describable in terms of laws of physics that can be formulated
using only a few bits of information."*

...'as we perceive it' ...'seems'... 'that CAN BE formulated' ... cautious
words.
My feeling is that our science (physical in the first place) puts the
carriage before the horse and uses those few bits we *THINK* we know of
into a frame- work that can be manipulated into - mostly not immediately
false - 'laws'.
However: look back a few millennia and try to apply your present thinking
onto the knowledge-base of those times - you may be disappointed. Alas, I
cannot offer the opposite, to try to apply the 'bits of information' from
3000 years in the future in a similar experiment. (30,000 years? 3 million?)

The strained mental efforts for understanding 'information obtained about
the World' seek a concentration into applicable laws for describing as much
(and as well) whatever we think is describable. Physically, mathematically
etc.

Of course I am starting from my agnostic views, believing that all we MAY
know today is a tiny-tiny part of the infinite complexity of the Entirety.
I condone the positive results of our science and technology without which
we would still live on trees (or in the waters). I consider it a step into
even more (partial???) knowledge about the World (not the Universe, mind
you) with the attached doubt of going the wrong way.
Our observations result in knowledge adjusted to our present capabilities
of the mind. That we try to order into usability.

JM


On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:39 PM, smitra  wrote:

>
> On 20-04-2016 21:16, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Dear Saibal,
>>
>> what makes you think that we can deduct (know??) anything rightfully
>> about the REAL WORLD into our feable human mind? You may LIKE more the
>> QM than the classical versions, but that is no verification.
>>
>> We obtain(ed) SOME input about the 'WORLD' and deposited it adjusted
>> to the capabilities of the human mind (at THAT time) APPLYING human
>> logic (math?) and the content earlier deposited on the subjects.
>>
>
> The Universe,as we perceive it at least, seems to behave in a regular way,
> it is describable in terms of laws of physics that can be formulated using
> only a few bits of information.
>
> Saibal
>
>
>> John Mikes
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:08 PM, smitra  wrote:
>>
>> The real world is quantum-mechanical, no classical. At the
>>> macroscopic level, quantum mechanics does not become equivalent to
>>> classical physics at all (there is no way an infinite dimensional
>>> Hilbert space will somehow reduce to a classical phase space), what
>>> happens is that the results of computations can be performed by
>>> pretending that classical mechanics is correct, with impunity.
>>>
>>> So, whenever classical concepts are introduced, the results may be
>>> good enough for the physical quantities that one computes, for
>>> interpretational issues there can be problems.
>>>
>>> As pointed out by Vaidman here:
>>>
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6169 [1]
>>>
>>> This is also the case for the Aharonov-Bohm effect. So, the effect
>>> is obviously real, but the purported non-locality is just an
>>> artifact of classical reasoning.
>>>
>>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
>>> [2].
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].
>>>
>>
>>  --
>>  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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
>> [2].
>>  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> --
>> [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6169
>> [2] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
>> [3] htt

Re: Aharanov-Bohm non-locality is an artifact of invoking classical potentials

[John Mikes]

Dear Saibal,

what makes you think that we can deduct (know??) anything rightfully about
the REAL WORLD into our feable human mind? You may LIKE more the QM than
the classical versions, but that is no verification.

We obtain(ed) SOME input about the 'WORLD' and deposited it adjusted to the
capabilities of the human mind (at THAT time) APPLYING human logic (math?)
and the content earlier deposited on the subjects.

John Mikes



On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:08 PM, smitra  wrote:

> The real world is quantum-mechanical, no classical. At the macroscopic
> level, quantum mechanics does not become equivalent to classical physics at
> all (there is no way an infinite dimensional Hilbert space will somehow
> reduce to a classical phase space), what happens is that the results of
> computations can be performed by pretending that classical mechanics is
> correct, with impunity.
>
> So, whenever classical concepts are introduced, the results may be good
> enough for the physical quantities that one computes, for interpretational
> issues there can be problems.
>
>
> As pointed out by Vaidman here:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6169
>
> This is also the case for the Aharonov-Bohm effect. So, the effect is
> obviously real, but the purported non-locality is just an artifact of
> classical reasoning.
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Counterfactual Definiteness

[John Mikes]

Bruno et al:
I think *"definiteness"* is always counterfactual since it *MUST* deny the
potential influences from unknown factors (domains, a/effects, even some
definitely counterfactual influences we do not recognize as such at all).
It is a consequence of our agnostic view (as I recall: we agreed on such,
 at least to some degree) and our (accepted?) view on 'scientific' - as
doubtful.
I mean the 'counterfactual' mildly: it "counters" the factual *TOTAL*
impact, not necessarily negating all the infuences. Our views are partial
at best.

I do not know much about rhe QM-related readings and am too old already to
start learning. I accept my ignorance and try to live with it as long as I
can.

John Mikes

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 16 Apr 2016, at 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On 16/04/2016 12:20 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Apr 2016, at 14:31, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> It is interesting that you have not answered my question about what
> exactly you mean by 'counterfactual definiteness' so that we know what you
> mean when you say that a theory is not counterfactually definite.
>
>
> It is hard to define, especially if we avoid being technical. But we have
> a good example: QM-with-collapse (or QM with a single universe). Like
> Einstein already explain at the Solvay Meeting: if QM (with a single
> universe) is correct, we can't ascribe an element of reality knowing a
> result that we would obtain with certainty if we would make some
> measurement, but will not do. Then Kochen and Specker proved that QM (+ a
> single universe) is precisely like that. The proof does not apply to the
> many-world, although it might apply to some too much naive rendering of the
> many world (notably if we interpret wrongly the singlet state as I have
> explained in previous post).
>
>
> I do not understand what you are saying. Are you claiming that ordinary QM
> with collapse is counterfactually definite because Einstein realism does
> not apply?
>
>
>
>
>
> I say the contrary: t is NOT counterfactual making Einstein realism not
> able to be applied.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I.e., we cannot know with certainty what would have been the outcome of an
> experiment that was not performed? (This is also the consequence of the
> Kochen-Specker result that no set of hidden variables can predict the
> results of all possible spin measurements on a spin 1/2 particle.) I would
> have thought that this was one possible definition of counterfactual
> *indefiniteness*.
>
>
> I would be OK too.
>
>
>
>
> What additional fact about MWI changes this conclusion?
>
>
> None. Except that with a single physical reality that counterfactualness
> entails non locality, but the same conunterfactualness with eother
> computationalism and/or QM-without collapse does not entail physical nopn
> locality, but only its statistical *appearances* in the memory of the
> machine testing it.
>
>
>
>
> Since in MWI all possible experiments are performed in some word or other,
> I would have thought that experimental outcomes are available for all
> possible experiments -- nothing is *actually* indefinite
>
>
> It is relatively to you knowledge of a state. If you measure the position
> very precisely, you "soul" is attached to an infinity of
> "body/representation" with many definite, but different, momenta.
>
> If you measure something the result is definite only relatively to one
> representation among many. If you look at the transfer of information in
> the 3p picture of the entire quantum teleportation, you can see that the
> information is spread locally at all times. It is even somehow made
> explicit if you are using Bob Coecke's use category to describe such
> quantum events.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402130
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402014
>
> -- even though not all outcomes occur in this one world that we happen to
> inhabit at the moment.
>
>
> There is no real sense to say that we inhabit a world. We are all the
> times in an infinity of worlds/situation, which differentiate or not
> relatively to what we interact with.
> An electronic orbital is a sort of map of the set of all words we are
> relatively to the possible energy of that "electron".
> But by the linearity of the tensor product, we share the worlds only with
> the person we interact with.
> You might look at the Rubin's paper (provided by Scerir). Or Bob's Coocke.
>
> I will comment your other post with more detail perhaps later. But I do
> not really grasp your
>
> <<
> A and B perform their measurements at spacelike separation, b

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

In addition to that: I doubt whether Bruno would deny life from an
infertile person (animal - plant) althouth there is NO reproduction there.
I am not sure about the role of 'universal numbers' in that.
Pack of cigarettes as epitome of *life*? I am a non-smoker, but alive (I
think).

Now comes the first person view that does not require faith? I think it
does.
Whatever we 'think' 'conclude' 'decide' is based on our faith in ourselves.
If we do not BELIEVE that we ARE, all these thinks disappear. That is FAITH.
JM

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

>
>
> On 08-Apr-2016, at 4:34 am, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Do you have a definition for life?
> >
> > Whatever can reproduce itself relatively to some universal numbers.
>
> Reproduction is a need of mortals to perpetuate/live through their
> progeny; life can be both mortal and immortal. Immortal Life need not
> reproduce. Yet, it would still be alive, rather more so than us mortals.
> Wouldn't it?
>
> Samiya
>
>
> > example: pack of cigarettes, which have a complex reproduction system,
> involving human brains, ...
> >
> > Bruno
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

Dear Samiya
(I do not reflect on Brent's remarks, only on topics addressed to me):

I have no *DEFINITION* for life, I have a vague belief, almost as vague as
your suggestions from Quran-verses.

My agnostic belief (picture of the existence including ourselves) is based
on the "Entirety" (Totality, World, etc.) as an* infinite complexity* of
them all, of which we have (ever had) access only to a tiny little fraction
and that, too, in a way adjusted to our (then - now?) mental capabilities.
In this view everything is related (?) to everything in ways of which we
know only some, but all relations are actively influencing each other. All
of them - in various vividity. My interest of such components (terms?)
tried to be widened and
generalized into known, unknown, even unknowable domains (?) without the
restrictions of the *human* environment. I did that with "consiousness" as
well.

What I came up with as 'life' (very close to MY -extended consciousness -
as
defined earlier - as *"response to relations"*) is *CHANGE* as a/effected
by the outcome of the effect of various strength and influences of the
unlimited and unspecified combination of processes on the items we point
to.
On whatever, by whatever - in our widest existing knowledge base.

Of course humans of terrestrial interest prefer to visualize only
terrestrial life, among them animal - preferably HUMAN life and the group
as defined in this same interest-circle as biological (C-H-O based)
processes of humans. It does not restrict the total scope of life (Cc) -
only the *view* we humans apply.
I mentioned that a hint to the Creation and Maintenance of the Entirety
looks like being such infinite complexity the origin of which is not (yet?)
aproached.

Early developmental levels of humanoid mentality personnified such factor
into God(s) of diverse stature and activity and used such tribal
superstitions for upholding  the leaders' power. What most religions still
do.
Those 'early developmental levels' and their follow-up 'religions' - even
up to the present day - have no hint towards believeng such
personnification, no verification for 'messengers' or 'scribes', no support
to aid a belief of the stories described/told.


On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Brent & John M,
>
> I do not know if any tests have been performed specifically to measure if
> some of the loss of mass during sleep is regained upon waking up. Neither
> do I know what physical substance the NAFS is made of, nor if it can be
> measured as a loss/regain of weight. After all, we can neither observe nor
> measure the angels and jinns and whatever else may exist in the Shadow
> Biosphere.
>
> Yes, the body-machine does keep running (I think I mentioned it in my
> previous post as well). I guess, it does appear from the little that we
> know, that the 'awake' thoughts and actions are what we are accountable
> for.
>
> Presently, I cannot explain the phenomenon any further, I simply take it
> on faith. The reason I shared it was because you were asking what life
> meant.
>
> Do you have a definition for life?
>
> Samiya
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:39 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Brent, as I recall the 21 g was "the weight of life" - not sleep. And not
>> ALL outlets were sealed for the weighings.
>>
>> To Samiya:
>> "NAFS is a physical object" means it is part of the observable physical
>> measurements we carry today, or 1500 years ago? is it composed of the
>> 'atoms' of our present physical illusions? furthermore are only "wake" body
>> functions included in NAFS, because intestinal functions do not stop when
>> sleeping, air intake is undisturbed, saliva is running, dreams are pressing
>> and - most important - an alarm clock, or a kiss wakes you up (does it
>> bring your NAFS back from Allah?) I just try to understand - and follow -
>> your words.
>> JM
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/4/2016 7:41 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>>
>>>> From the little that I understand yet, NAFS is a physical object. Sleep
>>>> is a sort of a brief-death, in which the body-machine is still running. It
>>>> states in the Quran that God takes the NAFS of all when they sleep, and
>>>> those upon whom death is decreed, their NAFS is not returned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, something obviously testable.  All we have to do is measure the
>>> weight change of a person as he falls asleep and as he wakes up and we will
>>> know the weight of the naf.   Of course such a simple test I'm sure it has
>>

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

Brent, as I recall the 21 g was "the weight of life" - not sleep. And not
ALL outlets were sealed for the weighings.

To Samiya:
"NAFS is a physical object" means it is part of the observable physical
measurements we carry today, or 1500 years ago? is it composed of the
'atoms' of our present physical illusions? furthermore are only "wake" body
functions included in NAFS, because intestinal functions do not stop when
sleeping, air intake is undisturbed, saliva is running, dreams are pressing
and - most important - an alarm clock, or a kiss wakes you up (does it
bring your NAFS back from Allah?) I just try to understand - and follow -
your words.
JM

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 4/4/2016 7:41 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>> From the little that I understand yet, NAFS is a physical object. Sleep
>> is a sort of a brief-death, in which the body-machine is still running. It
>> states in the Quran that God takes the NAFS of all when they sleep, and
>> those upon whom death is decreed, their NAFS is not returned.
>>
>
> OK, something obviously testable.  All we have to do is measure the weight
> change of a person as he falls asleep and as he wakes up and we will know
> the weight of the naf.   Of course such a simple test I'm sure it has
> already been performed by Islamic scientists, interested as they are in
> truth.  Where is the experiment reported? Was the weight 21g?
>
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

In addition to the "topic" of this note I do not ask about the ORIGIN of
life as posted, rather ask about an identification what YOU would consider
  * "LIFE"*
I hope you are not caught within the terrestrial trap of C-based BIO
cop-outs.
(Nor the tribal superstition assigned reply about "a gift of God").

I would prefer (really?) a reply like* "CHANGE* (whatever), effectuated by
Cc (consciousness, what I define as RESPONSE to RELATIONS, whatever - and
in what respect they may arise). I would not restrict either Life, nor Cc
to the (humanly) physically described world and have a hard time to
separate the two terms.
We have but a tiny insight into the infinite complexity (Entirety) so we
have no idea - as per now -  what domains and what 'relations' may come
into play.
I do not propose my thoughts to be accepted and do not want to argue FOR
them at present.

I am seeking a reply (correction, addition, negative reply, etc.) which
then I can use to the betterment of my thinking.

John Mikes

We have but a ti

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 3/27/2016 8:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> But the question I really want an answer to is why faith is considered by
> God, or by anyone for that matter, to be a virtue and not a vice.
>
>
> Why would a leader teach that unthinking faith in his goodness and
> knowledge is a virtue?  Hmmm...the answers right on the tip of my tongue
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: God

[John Mikes]

Dear Samiya, I cannot argue two ways: one direction towards JohnKC's
(rather firvolous?) position and one direction towards your unshakable
belief.
However I could write beautiful "verses" *on my own*, with the spirit of
the -
what you may call - "REAL" ones. Maybe even more beautiful ones (??).
Then some people (e.g. agnostics) may say: they MUST be from supernatural
sources. I would not disclose my authorship either.

It is not my goal to put 'úncertainty' into your faith, I appreciate
faithfulness.

John Mikes


On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:34 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 JohnM  wrote:
>>
>> ​> ​
>>> "Entirety" - IS in fact identical to the concept religions cover by the
>>> word "God".
>>
>>
>> ​If they're identical then I must say there is Godly too many people
>> willing to abandon the idea of God but not the ASCII sequence G-O-D.
>>
>>
>> I claim to be agnostic in the topic, not the classical agnostic in the
>>> books, just "I dunno" agnostic.
>>
>>
>> ​
>> You dunno if the word
>> ​
>> "Entirety"
>> ​
>> corresponds with anything in reality?? As for me I'm a true believer, I
>> truly believe that the word "God" and the word "entirety" are NOT synonyms.
>>
>>
>
> Excerpt from The Quran, Chapter 39 [
> http://searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=39&translator=4]
> ...
> 53 Say: O My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt! Despair not
> of the mercy of Allah, Who forgiveth all sins. Lo! He is the Forgiving, the
> Merciful.
> 54 Turn unto your Lord repentant, and surrender unto Him, before there
> come unto you the doom, when ye cannot be helped.
> 55 And follow the better (guidance) of that which is revealed unto you
> from your Lord, before the doom cometh on you suddenly when ye know not,
> 56 Lest any soul should say: Alas, my grief that I was unmindful of
> Allah, and I was indeed among the scoffers!
> 57 Or should say: If Allah had but guided me I should have been among the
> dutiful!
> 58 Or should say, when it seeth the doom: Oh, that I had but a second
> chance that I might be among the righteous!
> 59 (But now the answer will be): Nay, for My revelations came unto thee,
> but thou didst deny them and wast scornful and wast among the disbelievers.
> 60 And on the Day of Resurrection thou (Muhammad) seest those who lied
> concerning Allah with their faces blackened. Is not the home of the
> scorners in hell?
> 61 And Allah delivereth those who ward off (evil) because of their
> deserts. Evil toucheth them not, nor do they grieve.
> 62 Allah is Creator of all things, and He is Guardian over all things.
> 63 His are the keys of the heavens and the earth, and they who disbelieve
> the revelations of Allah - such are they who are the losers.
> ...
>
>
> Samiya
>
>
>
> ​> ​
>>> The closest relative we had, the apes, are unable the THROW: they cannot
>>> coordinate the release of the stone while the holding hand is still moving.
>>>
>>
>> ​True but the difference isn't as big as you might think. ​
>> There are only about
>> ​
>> 35 million DNA base pairs
>> ​
>> that differ between the genome of a chimpanzee and the genome of a human;
>> 2 bits
>> ​
>> per base pair and
>> ​
>>  8 bits per
>> ​byte
>>  so
>> ​
>> there is
>> ​
>> only 8.75
>> ​
>> meg
>> ​
>> difference between the two species.
>> ​
>> By
>> ​​
>> comparison
>> ​
>> a  old fashioned CD can hold 737 Meg, 84 times as much information
>> ​.​
>>
>> ​And
>>  a Blu Ray
>> ​disk ​
>> can hold 68 times as much information as a CD.
>>
>> ​ 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

It did not strike me, because the 'gods' created men (?) upon their pwn
image, so you may be an image of a 'Brent-god' as well.
(The idea came from my wife, who helps me out if I am in trouble)
JM

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> To bad (did you notice Brent was on the list)?
>
>
>
>
> On 3/22/2016 1:14 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Nope, Sir, he was a Roman Catholic ONLY.
> But you forgot Satan (Belzebub etc.) and I am sure some more as well. I
> missed Wotan in the list and several more who were adored hotly.
> Thanks for the list, I will NOT include them into my daily adoration.
> JM
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3/21/2016 2:47 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>>> I had a good friend - almost ordained into Catholic priesthood - who
>>> said:
>>> it represents so little effort with so much benefit at stake to believe,
>>> that it is really not worthwhile not to...
>>>
>>
>> So did he believe in  Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda,
>> Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu,
>> Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat,
>> Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir,
>> Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres,
>> Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang,
>> Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di
>> Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti,
>> Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga,
>> Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate
>> (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod,
>> Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna,
>> Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah,
>> Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau,
>> Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki,
>> Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir,
>> Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna
>> (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu,
>> Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi,
>> Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe,
>> Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius,
>> Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi,
>> Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut,
>> Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh,
>> Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu,
>> Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh,
>> YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil or Zeus?
>>
>> All worthy gods (with apologies to H. L. Mencken) who all promised great
>> reward for worshippers and diaboloical tortures for unbelievers.
>>
>> 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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

Amazing your width of knowledge and information.
You did not reply my question (could do it in a private e-mail - I keep it
private) whether you are that ravishing beauty young female in the internet
- or the scholar grandfather of her?
JM

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> What is the eye of a needle in the Bible?
> http://www.creationtips.com/eye_of_needle.html
>
>
> Samiya
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Samiya Illias 
> wrote:
>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>> The Eye of the Needle in Jerusalem? I didn't know that - thanks. I was
>> trying to understand the concept only in terms of evolution - devolution.
>>
>> I don't know about that kind of faith being worthwhile - sounds like
>> Pascal's Wager - wouldn't that be kind of hypocritical? I understand that
>> only sincere faith and gratitude are acceptable.
>>
>> Samiya
>>
>> On 22-Mar-2016, at 2:47 am, John Mikes  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, very kind, although you still did not improve my way to 'believe'
>> - i.e. to knowingly accept those concepts you write about (incl.: Allah).
>>
>> Just a little side-remark: you wrote several times about the "camel that
>> passes through the eye of the needle". Well, I was never in Jerusalem, but
>> was told that there is a very narrow and low passage in an old street,
>> called "the eye of the needle" and a full grown camel cannot pass through
>> on foot.
>> But it sounds great if you figure a sawing needle's eye.
>>
>> I had a good friend - almost ordained into Catholic priesthood - who said:
>> it represents so little effort with so much benefit at stake to believe,
>> that it is really not worthwhile not to...
>> He died lately, would be interesting to learn about his experiences NOW.
>>
>> JM
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Samiya Illias 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I was just trying to answer your queries. I cannot bring you or anyone,
>>> or even myself, for that matter to belief. It is only through the favour
>>> and blessings of God that faith finds its place in our hearts. I could also
>>> have grown agnostic or atheist in spite of being born to believing parents.
>>> Its only Allah whose took care of my heart, and guided me, and increased me
>>> in guidance and belief. The favour of Allah upon me has truly been
>>> magnificent! I'm humbled in gratitude, and I hope and pray that I am able
>>> to live my purpose and when I meet Allah, He is well-pleased with me.
>>>
>>> So many mighty civilisations have passed, only to end in utter ruin and
>>> annihilation:
>>> Say, "Travel in the earth and see how was (the) end (of) those who
>>> (were) before. Most of them were polytheists."
>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/30/42/
>>>
>>> I wonder what is the purpose why our paths have crossed? Perhaps God
>>> intends to lead you to forgiveness and a reward that will never end.
>>>
>>> So look at (the) effects (of the) Mercy (of) Allah, how He gives life
>>> (to) the earth after its death. Indeed, that surely He (will) give life
>>> (to) the dead. And He (is) on every thing All-Powerful.
>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/30/50/
>>>
>>> I'm posting an excerpt from my blogpost,
>>> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/03/fuel-of-hell-humans-and-stones.html.
>>> I cannot provide 'induction', perhaps this will mean something, and be of
>>> some use:
>>>
>>> *Seven Gates*
>>> *لَهَا سَبْعَةُ أَبْوَابٍ لِّكُلِّ بَابٍ مِّنْهُمْ جُزْءٌ مَّقْسُومٌ*
>>>
>>> [Al-Qur’an 15:44 <http://islamawakened.com/quran/15/44/>, translator:
>>> Sahih International] It has *seven gates*; for every gate is of them a
>>> portion designated."
>>>
>>> A video footage, published on Feb 20, 2015, of Ambrym’s crater, Marum,
>>> located along the Ring of Fire in the Vanuatu Archipelago, home to one of 
>>> *only
>>> seven permanent lava lakes *in the world:
>>> http://adventureblog.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/20/video-adventurer-and-drones-go-into-the-volcano-for-science
>>>
>>>
>>> [Al-Qur’an 7:40 <http://islamawakened.com/quran/7/40/>, translator:
>>> Shakir] Surely (as for) those who reject Our communications and turn away
>>> from them haughtily, the doors of heaven shall not be opened for them, nor
>>> shall they enter the garden until the camel pass through the eye of the
>>>

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

Nope, Sir, he was a Roman Catholic ONLY.
But you forgot Satan (Belzebub etc.) and I am sure some more as well. I
missed Wotan in the list and several more who were adored hotly.
Thanks for the list, I will NOT include them into my daily adoration.
JM

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 3/21/2016 2:47 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> I had a good friend - almost ordained into Catholic priesthood - who said:
>> it represents so little effort with so much benefit at stake to believe,
>> that it is really not worthwhile not to...
>>
>
> So did he believe in  Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda,
> Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu,
> Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat,
> Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir,
> Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres,
> Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang,
> Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di
> Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti,
> Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga,
> Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate
> (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod,
> Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna,
> Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah,
> Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau,
> Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki,
> Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir,
> Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna
> (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu,
> Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi,
> Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe,
> Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius,
> Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi,
> Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut,
> Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh,
> Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu,
> Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh,
> YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil or Zeus?
>
> All worthy gods (with apologies to H. L. Mencken) who all promised great
> reward for worshippers and diaboloical tortures for unbelievers.
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

Thanks, very kind, although you still did not improve my way to 'believe' -
i.e. to knowingly accept those concepts you write about (incl.: Allah).

Just a little side-remark: you wrote several times about the "camel that
passes through the eye of the needle". Well, I was never in Jerusalem, but
was told that there is a very narrow and low passage in an old street,
called "the eye of the needle" and a full grown camel cannot pass through
on foot.
But it sounds great if you figure a sawing needle's eye.

I had a good friend - almost ordained into Catholic priesthood - who said:
it represents so little effort with so much benefit at stake to believe,
that it is really not worthwhile not to...
He died lately, would be interesting to learn about his experiences NOW.

JM

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> I was just trying to answer your queries. I cannot bring you or anyone, or
> even myself, for that matter to belief. It is only through the favour and
> blessings of God that faith finds its place in our hearts. I could also
> have grown agnostic or atheist in spite of being born to believing parents.
> Its only Allah whose took care of my heart, and guided me, and increased me
> in guidance and belief. The favour of Allah upon me has truly been
> magnificent! I'm humbled in gratitude, and I hope and pray that I am able
> to live my purpose and when I meet Allah, He is well-pleased with me.
>
> So many mighty civilisations have passed, only to end in utter ruin and
> annihilation:
> Say, "Travel in the earth and see how was (the) end (of) those who (were)
> before. Most of them were polytheists."
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/30/42/
>
> I wonder what is the purpose why our paths have crossed? Perhaps God
> intends to lead you to forgiveness and a reward that will never end.
>
> So look at (the) effects (of the) Mercy (of) Allah, how He gives life (to)
> the earth after its death. Indeed, that surely He (will) give life (to) the
> dead. And He (is) on every thing All-Powerful.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/30/50/
>
> I'm posting an excerpt from my blogpost,
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/03/fuel-of-hell-humans-and-stones.html.
> I cannot provide 'induction', perhaps this will mean something, and be of
> some use:
>
> *Seven Gates*
> *لَهَا سَبْعَةُ أَبْوَابٍ لِّكُلِّ بَابٍ مِّنْهُمْ جُزْءٌ مَّقْسُومٌ*
>
> [Al-Qur’an 15:44 <http://islamawakened.com/quran/15/44/>, translator:
> Sahih International] It has *seven gates*; for every gate is of them a
> portion designated."
>
> A video footage, published on Feb 20, 2015, of Ambrym’s crater, Marum,
> located along the Ring of Fire in the Vanuatu Archipelago, home to one of 
> *only
> seven permanent lava lakes *in the world:
> http://adventureblog.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/20/video-adventurer-and-drones-go-into-the-volcano-for-science
>
>
> [Al-Qur’an 7:40 <http://islamawakened.com/quran/7/40/>, translator:
> Shakir] Surely (as for) those who reject Our communications and turn away
> from them haughtily, the doors of heaven shall not be opened for them, nor
> shall they enter the garden until the camel pass through the eye of the
> needle
> <http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/05/until-camel-passes-through-eye-of-needle.html>;
> and thus do We reward the guilty.
>
>
> Samiya
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:26 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>>
>> sorry,
>>  Samiya,
>> you can use more and more texts if you do not provide one iota  of
>> induction to make me believe your (or the quoted written?) words.
>> Calling 'names' and stating features is not the way to make one believe.
>> We are people of the (so called) 21st century.
>> The entire image is formulated upon the pagan origins composed into  the
>> Jewish - then  the Christian Bible, arriving 5 centuries later as the
>> Quran-version.
>> Whatever I read is "just said, or written" (passive voice) and the
>> "Gardens" are *locally* unspecified, (in Iraq?)  while *temporarily*
>> they are elusive in the millennia of development(over the past 3-4 billion
>> recent-earthly) years. Where are the "Heavens"-used as to point to a place?
>>
>> I can write promises and threats myself.
>> That is not hypocrisy. That is not 'disbelieving' if nothing points
>> positively WHY to beleive any of it. Agnosticism does not lead to belief.
>> I was a 'believer' when a child - I followed the Mummy-stories and later
>> the
>> lectures I got at school. Then I got a wider horizon and the stories did
>> not fit.
>> I am not even FOR science, I consi

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

rts.
> http://searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=57&translator=2
>
> Chapter 27, verses 60-65
> 60 [More precisely], is He [not best] who created the heavens and the
> earth and sent down for you rain from the sky, causing to grow thereby
> gardens of joyful beauty which you could not [otherwise] have grown the
> trees thereof? Is there a deity with Allah? [No], but they are a people who
> ascribe equals [to Him].
> 61 Is He [not best] who made the earth a stable ground and placed within
> it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two
> seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah? [No], but most of them do not
> know.
> 62 Is He [not best] who responds to the desperate one when he calls upon
> Him and removes evil and makes you inheritors of the earth? Is there a
> deity with Allah? Little do you remember.
> 63 Is He [not best] who guides you through the darknesses of the land and
> sea and who sends the winds as good tidings before His mercy? Is there a
> deity with Allah? High is Allah above whatever they associate with Him.
> 64 Is He [not best] who begins creation and then repeats it and who
> provides for you from the heaven and earth? Is there a deity with Allah?
> Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful."
> 65 Say, "None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah, and
> they do not perceive when they will be resurrected."
> http://searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=27&translator=29
>
> --
> Yes, I meant the Gardens of Eden
>
> --
> Thank you for pointing out. I should have checked and quoted the verses:
>
> He said, "Its knowledge (is) with my Lord, in a Record. Not errs my Lord
> and not forgets."
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/20/52/
>
> And not we descend except by (the) Command (of) your Lord. To Him
> (belongs) what (is) before us and what (is) behind us, and what (is)
> between that. And not is your Lord forgetful
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/19/64/
>
> The hypocrite men and the hypocrite women, some of them (are) of others.
> They enjoin the wrong and forbid what (is) the right, and they close their
> hands. They forget Allah, so He has forgotten them. Indeed, the hypocrites,
> they (are) the defiantly disobedient. Allah has promised the hypocrite men,
> and the hypocrite women and the disbelievers, Fire (of) Hell, they (will)
> abide forever in it. It (is) sufficient for them. And Allah has cursed
> them, and for them (is) a punishment enduring.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/9/67/ ;
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/9/68/
>
> Those who took their religion (as) an amusement and play and deluded them
> the life (of) the world." So today We forget them as they forgot (the)
> meeting (of) this Day of theirs, and [what] (as) they used to reject Our
> Verses.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/7/51/
>
> And it will be said, "Today We forget you as you forgot (the) meeting (of)
> this Day of yours, and your abode (is) the Fire, and not for you any
> helpers.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/45/34/
>
> For the difference between We and I in the Quran, please read:
> http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2016/01/shiftng-pronouns-in-quran.html
>
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.513685862018044.1073741826.182594355127198&type=3
>
>
>
> Samiya
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:40 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Samiya wrote:
>>
>> *"All life that we call life is life. In fact, there are more kinds of
>> life than we have identified so far. All life is water-based..." *
>>
>> *Contradictory: '*mentlal' life is not water-based*. Also:* "all we CALL
>> something" is no distinction.
>>
>> *"...There is only one God. ..."*
>>
>> A blank statement, especially with no distinction WHAT to call 'God'?
>>
>> *"All creation will be gathered to God upon resurrection, and all who
>> were tried in this life will be judged and recompensed. The Quran speaks of
>> humans and jinns being judged. I do not know if other creatures are also
>> under trial and if they are to be judged and recompensed as well"*
>>
>> In brief: "I don't know". For the 'Quran' see my previous sentence as for
>> 'Quran'.
>>
>> *When the Gardens are given as inheritance to those of the progeny of
>> Adam whom God considers worthy of such reward and responsibility, they will
>> enjoy the wondrous creations of God in their Garden(s). *
>> *When those who are unworthy of the Gardens are made to enter the Fire,
>> they will suffer greatly as God 

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

Samiya wrote:

*"All life that we call life is life. In fact, there are more kinds of life
than we have identified so far. All life is water-based..." *

*Contradictory: '*mentlal' life is not water-based*. Also:* "all we CALL
something" is no distinction.

*"...There is only one God. ..."*

A blank statement, especially with no distinction WHAT to call 'God'?

*"All creation will be gathered to God upon resurrection, and all who were
tried in this life will be judged and recompensed. The Quran speaks of
humans and jinns being judged. I do not know if other creatures are also
under trial and if they are to be judged and recompensed as well"*

In brief: "I don't know". For the 'Quran' see my previous sentence as for
'Quran'.

*When the Gardens are given as inheritance to those of the progeny of Adam
whom God considers worthy of such reward and responsibility, they will
enjoy the wondrous creations of God in their Garden(s). *
*When those who are unworthy of the Gardens are made to enter the Fire,
they will suffer greatly as God will reject and forget them just as they
rejected and forgot God in this world. *

"progeny of Adam?" where in the genetic history of animals should I look
for him? You do not seem to deny the progress of scientific discoveries.

"Gardens?"  you mean 'of Eden?'

Then again the last sentence in Italics seems to contain blasphemy:
compairing God's imitation to the human (emotional???) rejection and
forgetfulness. 'Just as' points to equals.

JM

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:17 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Excuse me, Samiya, do you have a distinction WHAT to call LIFE?
>> What life? human only, or "ANY"? including plant, microbial, inorganic,
>> etc.?
>> Do the diverse kinds of such diversified life-listings have different
>> Gods?
>>
> Do a rose struggle to get into the ROSE-HEAVEN? (or into the same, where
>> we may prefer to spend eternity?) Are bed-bugs in the afterlife? (No, no,
>> that was just a stupid joke).
>> JM
>>
>
> John M,
>
> All life that we call life is life. In fact, there are more kinds of life
> than we have identified so far. All life is water-based.
> There is only one God.
> All creation will be gathered to God upon resurrection, and all who were
> tried in this life will be judged and recompensed. The Quran speaks of
> humans and jinns being judged. I do not know if other creatures are also
> under trial and if they are to be judged and recompensed as well.
> When the Gardens are given as inheritance to those of the progeny of Adam
> whom God considers worthy of such reward and responsibility, they will
> enjoy the wondrous creations of God in their Garden(s).
> When those who are unworthy of the Gardens are made to enter the Fire,
> they will suffer greatly as God will reject and forget them just as they
> rejected and forgot God in this world.
>
> Samiya
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:26 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> I failed to connect your 'veses' to my questions.
>> John Mikes
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Samiya Illias 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John M,
>>>
>>> The following verses address some of your questions:
>>>
>>> *Present Creation*
>>> Do not see those who disbelieved that the heavens and the earth were a
>>> joined entity, then We parted them and We made from [the] water every
>>> living thing? Then will not they believe?
>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/21/30/
>>>
>>> And present to them the example (of) the life (of) the world, like water
>>> which We send down from the sky, then mingles with it (the) vegetation (of)
>>> the earth then becomes dry stalks, it (is) scattered (by) the winds. And
>>> Allah over every thing (is) All Able.
>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/18/45/
>>>
>>> And not [of] any animal in the earth and not a bird (that) flies with
>>> its wings - but (are) communities like you. We have not neglected in the
>>> Book [of] anything, then to their Lord they will be gathered.
>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/38/
>>>
>>> Glory be (to) the One Who created (in) pairs all of what grows the earth
>>> and of themselves, and of what not they know.
>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/36/36/
>>>
>>> *Creation in the Hereafter *
>>> Regarding the details of the wonderful life promised in the Gardens of
>>> Eden, they are intended as a delightful surprise:
>>> And not knows a soul what is hidden f

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

I failed to connect your 'veses' to my questions.
John Mikes

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> John M,
>
> The following verses address some of your questions:
>
> *Present Creation*
> Do not see those who disbelieved that the heavens and the earth were a
> joined entity, then We parted them and We made from [the] water every
> living thing? Then will not they believe?
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/21/30/
>
> And present to them the example (of) the life (of) the world, like water
> which We send down from the sky, then mingles with it (the) vegetation (of)
> the earth then becomes dry stalks, it (is) scattered (by) the winds. And
> Allah over every thing (is) All Able.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/18/45/
>
> And not [of] any animal in the earth and not a bird (that) flies with its
> wings - but (are) communities like you. We have not neglected in the Book
> [of] anything, then to their Lord they will be gathered.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/38/
>
> Glory be (to) the One Who created (in) pairs all of what grows the earth
> and of themselves, and of what not they know.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/36/36/
>
> *Creation in the Hereafter *
> Regarding the details of the wonderful life promised in the Gardens of
> Eden, they are intended as a delightful surprise:
> And not knows a soul what is hidden for them of (the) comfort (for) the
> eyes (as) a reward for what they used (to) do.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/32/17/
>
> The Quran does list some of the characteristics of the Gardens promised
> for the Hereafter. What strikes me is that the characteristics listed are
> generally those which scientists theorise as primary conditions essential
> for life, as well as those to not to age or decay. I've listed some verses
> at:
> Immortality & A Kingdom that Never Decays:
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/11/mission-of-messengers-vi.html
> Bliss & Realm Magnificent:
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/09/bliss-realm-magnificent.html
> On the contrary, Immortality is also promised in Hell, but everything
> there will be in a state of decay, and thus great suffering will be the
> fate of those who must dwell there. The following are some aspects of that
> which I've tried to understand:
> Fuel of Hell: Humans & Stones:
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/03/fuel-of-hell-humans-and-stones.html
>
> Until the Camel passes through the Eye of the Needle:
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/05/until-camel-passes-through-eye-of-needle.html
>
>
> *One and Only God*
> And they make with Allah partners - jinn though He has created them, and
> they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge.
> Glorified is He and Exalted above what they attribute. Originator (of) the
> heavens and the earth. How can be for Him a son while not (there) is for
> Him a companion, and He created every thing? And He (is) of every thing
> All-Knower. That (is) Allah your Lord, (there is) no god except Him, (the)
> Creator (of) every thing, so worship Him. And He (is) on every thing a
> Guardian.
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/100/ ;
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/101/ ;
> http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/102/
>
> Quran Chapter 27, verses 60-66 question thus:
> 1 Ta, Seen. These are the verses of the Qur'an and a clear Book
> ...
> 60 [More precisely], is He [not best] who created the heavens and the
> earth and sent down for you rain from the sky, causing to grow thereby
> gardens of joyful beauty which you could not [otherwise] have grown the
> trees thereof? Is there a deity with Allah? [No], but they are a people who
> ascribe equals [to Him].
> 61 Is He [not best] who made the earth a stable ground and placed within
> it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two
> seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah? [No], but most of them do not
> know.
> 62 Is He [not best] who responds to the desperate one when he calls upon
> Him and removes evil and makes you inheritors of the earth? Is there a
> deity with Allah? Little do you remember.
> 63 Is He [not best] who guides you through the darknesses of the land and
> sea and who sends the winds as good tidings before His mercy? Is there a
> deity with Allah? High is Allah above whatever they associate with Him.
> 64 Is He [not best] who begins creation and then repeats it and who
> provides for you from the heaven and earth? Is there a deity with Allah?
> Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful."
> 65 Say, "None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah, and
> they do not perceive when they will be resurrected."
> 66 Rather, thei

Re: Humanity's best Go player was just beten by a computer

[John Mikes]

Just as fair as a running match between an athlete on foor and another one
on a motorcycle. (Or say: on rollers...)


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:29 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:48 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> what I would call "FAIR" in the GO-game would be to allow the human(s)
>> the use of the (partner) computer's database and computing wisdom in their
>> game to make them equal.
>>
>
> Don't be a sour loser! The computer found its own wisdom you need to do
> the same. Both the human and the machine were allowed to memorize anything
> they wanted, and if the human player had in addition wanted to to bring
> along "GO For Dummies" or any other book about how to play the game I doubt
> anybody would object.
>
> Raw databases of old games are available to anyone but by themselves are
> of no help because you're never going to see the same game twice, there are
> just too many moves. Instead the old games must be analyzed to tease out
> strategies that are good given the circumstances. And face it, computer was
> better than the human at doing 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

Excuse me, Samiya, do you have a distinction WHAT to call LIFE?
What life? human only, or "ANY"? including plant, microbial, inorganic,
etc.?
Do the diverse kinds of such diversified life-listings have different Gods?
Do a rose struggle to get into the ROSE-HEAVEN? (or into the same, where we
may prefer to spend eternity?) Are bed-bugs in the afterlife? (No, no, that
was just a stupid joke).
JM

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Please see: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/origin-of-life-video/
> PZ Myers - Perry Marshall debate: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/pz-myers/
>
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Humanity's best Go player was just beten by a computer

[John Mikes]

JKC:
what I would call "FAIR" in the GO-game would be to allow the human(s) the
use of the (partner) computer's database and computing wisdom in their game
to make them equal.
Then it would show if the machine had more imaginative power than the human
to play 'GO'.
Would that serve an advantag to the humans? I take that chance.
JM

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:55 PM, thermo  wrote:

> The human allowed to use books nor historical databases. Is not fair play!
> El 12/3/2016 14:54, "John Clark"  escribió:
>
>> It"s over , the computer beat the human 3 games to zero.
>>
>>
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/google-deepmind-alphago-beat-go-world-champion-lee-sedol-2016-3?r=UK&IR=T
>>
>>   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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

[John Mikes]

Dear Samiya, I am a poor video-watcher, my hearing deficiency does not
support well the comprehension of machine-speech (harmonics are mixed up)
yet I went through the video.
Evolution is not something WE (both) should embrace: if (your) Allah
created something, it should be perfect and final, not subject to human (or
other) engineering to approach (does it really?) it's final - better -
 design.
In my views the word implies some teleological taste of getting more and
more perfect - towards some final(?) state (unpronounced/disclosed).
What I see is a complexification in Nature, not haphazardous, not random,
leading to more ínvolved(?) formats on and on.
We can observe such in the so called 'living'world we have access to.

Mutations are pressure-involved by (mostly unknown/able) factors in the
Entirety, not complying to Darwinism (he was a genious, who directed the
human mind towards changes *for *perfection  i.e. more complex features).
Scientific is a word I do not bow to. The content changed so much over the
millennia and we foresee it changing further, so I consider it a PRESENT
state-of-the-thinking (however very usedul in creating our technology).

Still agnostically yours
John Mikes



On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Please see: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/origin-of-life-video/
> PZ Myers - Perry Marshall debate: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/pz-myers/
>
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Some remarks on the mathematical structure of the multiverse

[John Mikes]

Bruno, Brent and Dr. Cabessa(?)

The paper is a beautiful scientific work (I used to enjoy the style when
young)  and the tw reflections are commendable.
I did not bother to carefully read/follow Dr. Cabessa's paper, it is a
different world from my present mental occupation, browsed through it ad
read the 2 remrks (mainly Bruno's)  upon it.
I do not abide by stale points as: -  "let us agree about what we may call
intelligence"  -  (as in AI) which in my opinion includes the little we
think we know about it omitting the lion's share we don't.

Bruno:
*To get the "super-Turing" power, you still need non recursive patterns in
nature.*
of course from the part we think we know as part of the Entirety.
Then again I am weary in my agnosticism about math-logic (human) and the
image we crry of "Nature".
I cannot accept Bruno's RANDOM distinctions: agnostically (mine, that is)
all random-deemed remarks are based on our missing knowledge of the source.
(Remember: if there were 'random' happenings, there would be no math-based
physics, not even 'math' with it's NOT-RANDOM 2+2=4). (2+2 = R?)

The title pf the paper refers to 'neural networks' (nevermind the
adjectives) -
surely thinking about the little we think we know about such. We have a lot
of scientific effort done on the 'neural' concept without discovering one
basic feature of them: the *TOPICAL* distinction of the data evaluated
about of their functions. The complexity of our 'topically diversified'
mentality does not fit into our neuronal
psych/ologic/iatric/-physi/ologic/cal evaluation measurements or neurologic
explanations, all of mentality is a much used terra incognita. Even the
domains of the brain - assigned to certain mental functions - do not
include  topical functions (or: mixtures of different ones).

Accordingly I cannot say much about the mind-body problem, the MIND being
mentality, the body our physical exploitation of information received from
(poor) observation. MY phrase: "We THINK we know".
Mind-body came out of Descartes' genius to escape from the Inquisition - by
a SOUL substitute partnered with the BODY.

Agnostically yours
John Mikes


On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 01 Mar 2016, at 04:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Bruno, what do you think of this paper?
>
> Brent
>
>
>  Forwarded Message 
>
> *The Super-Turing Computational Power of Plastic Recurrent Neural Networks*
>
> http://binds.cs.umass.edu/papers/2014_cabessa.pdf
>
>
>
> It is interesting. It might suggest an "easy" solution of the measure
> problem of Digital Mechanism.
>
> To get the "super-Turing" power, you still need non recursive patterns in
> nature. They suggest it might come from the quantum background, but
> obviously, you get it also through the "random oracle" given by the FPI
> (First Person Indeterminacy) on all computations (structured by the modal
> logics). Such random information has a measure 1 (for the same reason that
> we should bet the random "movie" in the iteration of self-multiplication on
> all screen images---if you remember  the iterated self-multiplication
> thought experience). The normal worlds would come from nature exploiting
> the (quantum, or computationalist (below the substitution level))
> randomness.
>
> Again, to solve the mind-body problem, such models of computation must be
> extracted from the measure imposed by self-reference, but such type of
> solution have some plausibility (more than many other more magical use of
> Super-Turing (which are Turing + Turing's oracle).
>
> Is it plausibly usable by humans in AI some day? I am not an expert on
> this, but I don't see why not.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visi

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

[John Mikes]

Brent:
 *"That's just subscribing to Hume's dictum and cause and effect is nothing
but constant *
*conjuction." *

Could you explain? HD refers to metaphysical items, not applicable to
physically measured data
on brain (neuronal? or other) tissues. I feel I am out of the HD domain.
The "M E A S U R E D" (measurable) physical/physiological data cannot
assign TOPICAL content
as of a mental activity. You have to START with a topic (invent one you
apply)  to force 'changes'
 into it by the data. Or: you can do it afterwards as well.
JM

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 2/16/2016 12:38 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>
> * (JM):Physical sciences - so far - never explained the MENTAL activity
> assigned to brains (guts?) (Brent:) No, but they explained a lack of mental
> activity in the brain due to a variety of different chemical and physical
> cause*
>
> I would not use "mental activity in the brain" - rather *the explanation*
> referred to
> connectivity to (some?) mentality action INFLUENCING (or what?) the
> brain's
> measurable data. No hint where such came from.
>
> Furthermore Brent wrote:
>
> *So it was no merely assumed, but based on empirical observation of what *
> *interferes with mental processes.*
>
> The 'empirical observation' was noticing coincidence (or not) between the
> measurable tissue-data and the mental activity. I still hold no intrinsic
> connectivity *What Kind Of TOPICAL ISSUES* in mental items could be
> expressed by what kind of data measured on (brain - or else) tissues.
>
>
> That's just subscribing to Hume's dictum and cause and effect is nothing
> but constant conjuction.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> *I abstain from asking "where" is that mentality (center?) - it may not
> be *
> *a localizable (or even temporarily traceable) locus. *
> *We know so little!*
>
> *John Mikes*
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2/15/2016 12:38 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> JKC wrote: "
>> Giuseppe Peano
>> ​ did not have​
>>  a brain made of matter that obeyed the laws of physics
>> ​ ?!​ Was he headless or just brainless? Perhaps Giuseppe's mother had
>> the Zika virus when she was pregnant.
>>
>> Physical sciences - so far - never explained the MENTAL activity assigned
>> to brains (guts?)
>>
>>
>> No, but they explained a lack of mental activity in the brain due to a
>> variety of different chemical and physical causes.
>>
>> - the physical measurements simply ASSUMED some neuronal activity
>> "translated" into mental processes.
>>
>>
>> So it was no merely assumed, but based on empirical observation of what
>> interferes with mental processes.
>>
>> 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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

[John Mikes]

*(JM):Physical sciences - so far - never explained the MENTAL activity
assigned to brains (guts?)(Brent:) No, but they explained a lack of mental
activity in the brain due to a variety of different chemical and physical
cause*

I would not use "mental activity in the brain" - rather *the explanation*
referred to
connectivity to (some?) mentality action INFLUENCING (or what?) the brain's
measurable data. No hint where such came from.

Furthermore Brent wrote:

*So it was no merely assumed, but based on empirical observation of what *
*interferes with mental processes.*

The 'empirical observation' was noticing coincidence (or not) between the
measurable tissue-data and the mental activity. I still hold no intrinsic
connectivity *What Kind Of TOPICAL ISSUES* in mental items could be
expressed by what kind of data measured on (brain - or else) tissues.

*I abstain from asking "where" is that mentality (center?) - it may not be *
*a localizable (or even temporarily traceable) locus. *
*We know so little!*

*John Mikes*

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 2/15/2016 12:38 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> JKC wrote: "
> Giuseppe Peano
> ​ did not have​
>  a brain made of matter that obeyed the laws of physics
> ​ ?!​ Was he headless or just brainless? Perhaps Giuseppe's mother had the
> Zika virus when she was pregnant.
>
> Physical sciences - so far - never explained the MENTAL activity assigned
> to brains (guts?)
>
>
> No, but they explained a lack of mental activity in the brain due to a
> variety of different chemical and physical causes.
>
> - the physical measurements simply ASSUMED some neuronal activity
> "translated" into mental processes.
>
>
> So it was no merely assumed, but based on empirical observation of what
> interferes with mental processes.
>
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

[John Mikes]

JKC wrote: "
Giuseppe Peano
​ did not have​
 a brain made of matter that obeyed the laws of physics
​?!​ Was he headless or just brainless? Perhaps Giuseppe's mother had the
Zika virus when she was pregnant.

Physical sciences - so far - never explained the MENTAL activity assigned
to brains (guts?) - the physical measurements simply ASSUMED some neuronal
activity "translated" into mental processes.
In the 'physical] view Peano did have indeed a head and brains and certain
measurements could be assigned to the mental activity experienced by such.
Try to trace the topical output by the lab-results.
  WHERE (if it is a localizable concept) and HOW (if it is subject to ANY
of our physical conundrums) such mentality was performed is still unknown.
Similarly the 'connectivity' between a physically 'headed' and 'brained'
person - his ideas and topical conclusions - are beyond our present
physiological - physical data.

John Mikes


On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:09 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> ​>> ​
>>> Giuseppe Peano
>>> ​ did not have​
>>>  a brain made of matter that obeyed the laws of physics
>>> ​?!​ Was he headless or just brainless? Perhaps Giuseppe's mother had
>>> the Zika virus when she was pregnant.
>>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> I mean that there are zero evidence that his brain is made of primary
>> matter. Easy: there are no evidence at for primary matter.
>>
>
> ​Who cares? I maintain that matter is needed to produce both intelligence
> ​and consciousness, it's irrelevant if matter is primary or not.
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> PA proves ~(2+3= 7), without any need of primary matter.
>>
>
> ​Who has Mr. PA ​proven that to?
>
>
>> ​>>​
>>>  if Michelangelo had just displayed a huge block of natural marble and
>>> said David was inside few would say he was a great artist.
>>
>>
>> ​>​
>> The analogy is misleading. A marble is a not a digital machine, nor an
>> effective theory, for which the presence theorem-hood in an arithmetical
>> property.
>>
>
> Michelangelo
> ​ ​
> was able to differentiate
> ​between ​
> marble that was David from marble that was not David
> ​;
>  and Giuseppe Peano
> ​ was able to ​
> differentiate
> ​between true mathematical statements and false
> mathematical statements
> ​. And both ​
> Michelangelo
> ​ and
> Giuseppe Peano
> ​ had brains made of matter that obeyed the laws of physics.​
>
>
> ​>> ​
>>> ​A machine made of matter that obeys the laws of physics can correctly
>>> inform John Clark that
>>> ​ ​
>>> 2
>>> ​^​
>>> 57,885,161 − 1
>>> ​ is prime,
>>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> I doubt this,
>>
>
> ​Do you doubt that 2^57,885,161 − 1 is prime or do you doubt that John
> Clark was informed that 2^57,885,161 − 1 is prime?
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> but even if true, that would only shows that JC needs a physical
>> implementation to get a physical result,
>>
>
> ​It shows that a *CONSCIOUS* being named John Clark who has a brain made
> of matter that obeys the laws of physics needs a ​
> physical implementation
> ​ to be *CONSCIOUS* of the fact that
> 2
> ​^​
> 57,885,161 − 1
> ​ ​
> ​is prime.​
>
> ​> ​
>> A digital machine is not made of anything
>>
>
> ​If it's not made of matter that obeys the laws of physics then that ​
> digital machine
> ​ will never change, and that means it will never do anything.​
>
>  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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gravitational Waves Detected By LIGO!

[John Mikes]

Reassuring to read excellently educated scientists talk about
hypo(thetical) items using other hypo(thetical) names to explain the
unexplainables. The outstanding post came from Russell, who referred to
theoretical texts of other scientists (the rest spoke for themselves) -
however fell into the trap of the "famos" E=m.c^2 of which - reasonably -
only the '^' makes sense (I take the '2' also as a human derived
mathematical wonder in my agnosticism).
Human ingenuity built up a system (called 'Nature') that WORKS, in view of
it's own right, technology is applicable, we live in some 'civilized' ways
and have food etc. from the perceived 'natural' resources.
Just do not ask "WHAT IS ENERGY"?

(BTW I was careless lately to volunteer a solution to that - do not argue
FOR it though - it comes with my hypothesis of the proto-world - the
Entirety - in which everything (literally) coincides with everything in
equilibrium with - well - everything. When such coincidence accumulates too
many too similar items the equilibrium changes into 'complexity' what - in
some cases - we call a UNIVERSE, (including this,our own one) with a
tendency to return into the equilibrium state (reducing the complexity) by
dissipation of the irregularly accumulated 'similars'. Such tendency is
what I called (past tense) energy in our universe-system (physics). By the
vision of 'physical' dissipation (e.g. black hole theory) the constituents
of the 'universe(s)' return into the well equilibrated Entirety by such
tendency - the universe-related denomination
in our physics may be called 'energy'.
It does not refer only to materialistically physical items since a complete
imagintion of the Entirety is way above our head (and it's content).
Please, don't ask me for similarly fantasy-laden explanations about
'mass','time' etc.

Now I joined the line of the self-expressing posters (vs Russell's wisdom).
John Mikes


On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> The best definition I've heard, which I ascribe to Vic Stenger, is
> that it is what is conserved when a physical system is translated in
> the time dimension. This comes from the Noether theorem.
>
> Of course, relativity changes this a bit, since there is no longer a
> unique time dimension. In relativity, what is conserved is a 4-vector
> when the system is translated in spacetime. Conventionally we call
> that vector the "mass-energy-momentum" vector. The magnitude of that
> vector is just the rest mass of the system, and that is an intrinsic
> property of the system. E=mc^2 is just a famous equation referring to
> the fact that components of a vector change when you change the
> coordinate system (which depends on the observer) - much like the
> width and height of a 2D object change into each other as you rotate
> the x-y axes of the coordinate system.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 09:34:09AM -0500, spudboy100 via Everything List
> wrote:
> > You know, I have never heard a decent definition of what energy is? I
> learnt in grade school was that energy was the ability to do work. Yah! Now
> that sounds really, scientific, not. I refined the definition, to be
> "matter in motion." Anyone have a better definition? "It takes energy.."
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Terren Suydam 
> > To: everything-list 
> > Sent: Sat, Feb 13, 2016 9:47 pm
> > Subject: Re: Gravitational Waves Detected By LIGO!
> >
> >
> >
> > Great, but what is the specific way in which mass is converted into the
> energy required to produce gravitational waves?  When planetary orbits
> decay, kinetic energy is lost... No mass is converted.
> > On Feb 13, 2016 1:20 PM, "John Clark"  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ​> ​
> > Sure, but John said the black holes lost 3 solar masses, which was
> converted into gravitational waves... how?  Fusion and fission are easy
> examples of mass to energy conversion - so what's the specific interaction
> here according to theory?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ​Einstein found in General Relativity a new law of nature, he said it
> takes energy to make gravitational waves and that an accelerating mass
> produces gravitational waves, just as Maxwell said a accelerating charged
> particle makes a electromagnetic wave. Normally this effect is far too
> small to be important and can be ignored, but when it's something as
> massive as a black hole and its vibrating at almost the speed of light 

Re: Old Testament, New Testament & Quran: text analysis

[John Mikes]

Telmo, I think you left out the main question:
WHERE FROM did those texts generate (criticized by you only as for
their technical content (different cultures and linguistic backgrounds).

As for the "general problem of AI"? did we ever come to a conclusion
how to identify "INTELLIGENCE"? I am inclined to go back to the - -
linguistic - origin (Lat) as reading (lego) the meaning(s) INTER, the
hidden ones, not the straight vocabulary hit only. And I apply this not
only to words proper I  include paragraphs, even total contents to be
understood even
metaphorically, if you like, as 'close-enough' meaning of the written
words.
Anyway a mind-work above the )materialistic?) human thinking.
Then we can start fabricating the 'machine-based' ARTIFICIAL.

John M

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

> Hi Samiya,
>
> We have to be careful. This uses a technique usually referred to as
> "sentiment analysis" and sometimes as "opinion mining". There is extensive
> research on using it for things like election forecasting, and the results
> are not exactly encouraging...
>
> The idea is very interesting in itself, but the current methods are quite
> limited. The common approaches are:
>
> 1) Using a dictionary where every word is annotated by humans in terms of
> a score for each base emotion, do a lookup for the entire text and present
> the final summation;
>
> 2) Using machine learning to train a model to recognize emotions taking
> into account n-grams, instead of a single word.
>
> The first method is very naif, many words have quite different emotional
> valencies depending on context. It also fails to detect sarcasm and other
> complexities of human language.
>
> The second method could in principle work much better, but it requires a
> large corpus of text annotated by emotional valencies. Such corpora exist
> for specific applications, but models trained that way tend to not work
> when you deviate too much from the context of the training data. Religious
> texts are most likely too far away from any useful training corpora.
>
> Worse still, we are comparing translations from vastly different cultures
> and linguistic backgrounds.
>
> Some people suspect (me included) that producing a reliable sentiment
> analysis algorithm requires solving the general problem of AI.
>
> Best,
> Telmo.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Samiya Illias 
> wrote:
>
>> Bible, Quran and Violence
>> Software uses scripture to show what text analysis can do:
>> http://m.toledoblade.com/Religion/2016/02/06/The-Bible-the-Qur-an-and-violence-computerized.html
>>
>>
>> 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: LIGO

[John Mikes]

What difference does it make (to us) if something happens 50 or 650 million
lightyears away? - No matter if  _NOW_ or _THEN-in the deepest past_ .
Iwould be less benevolent and call those "rumors' rather fantasy (even if
supported by some human mathemaital considerations...)
John M

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:57 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thursday at 10.30 EST (15.30GMT) the Laser Interferometer
> Gravitation-Wave Observatory will announce if they've found gravitational
> waves or not after its recent upgrade. Before the upgrade LIGO could detect
> binary neutron star mergers 50 million light years away, after the
> upgrade it could detect them 650 light years away, a volume over 2000 times
> larger. The physics world is full of rumors.
>
>  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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

[John Mikes]

Dear Samiya,

your posts are impressing - thank you.
There are things (in my personal opinion) you missed (or used in a
contrarian sense) in "MY" own *agnosticism.*
I do not state, or ask: (and I *quote* from your post):

1. "...there is always someone who makes something, i.e. nothing comes from
nothing"
Your 'someone' points to a 'personal' factor. I can imagine an "Entirety"
we are part of, with 'self-starting' + 'propagating' within, what we would
call: NOTHING
(Meaning nothing more than in our limited knowledge we - so far - did not
find such factors and consider them nonexisting i.e. parts of nothing).

2. "Evidence (or the lack of it) for An Omniscient Being:"

I - sort of - deny the 'evidence' concept, at all,  it is restricted to our
today's ways of thinking and knowledge. (Compare it to similar millennia
ago...)
In the infinite Entirety (I do hold for our impenetrable existence-feeling)
MAY include contrary 'evidences' to those we list as positive, or negative
evidence. The hypothetical 'Omniscient Being' is again a 'person-oriented'
fantasy. One does not argue 'against' unsubstantiated  imaginary items.

3. "Thus, logically, there can only be one God."

I did not follow the 'logic' from the power-struggle. How 'bout a
democratic republic? (Compare to the preceding two points).

4. "Of course, that leads us to the question that if there is a God who is
uncreated, *(OK - see my 1st input*) then why can't everything else also
come into existence without a creator? There is a definite gap in our
knowledge as we know nothing about God, but that is not a proof for the
non-existence of God. It simply means that our knowledge is limited and
inadequate."

And here comes the REVERSE question: *the Proof for the Non-existence *
I may rather look for a proof for the* Existence *(cf my #2)
The quoted par is very close to my thinking - thank you.

5. "The greatest injustice conceivable is to deny the existence of God..."

As long as one did not settle with the 'existence', to* DENY it -* is
uncalled for.
JKC quoted some good arguments on how the God(s?) belief has spread.
That's why I do not call myself an atheist: I would have needed a concept
to deny. An "agnostic" (ignorant?) only looks for reasons(?) to take
something as seriously applicable. In the POSITIVE sense. Not negatively.

6. The "Hereafter"???

An open topic to fantasize about, nobody 'came back' to report the "truth".
I had a friend (deceased) who went through catholic priest-education and
said there is so little surcharge for "believeing" vs. denying and the
rewards are so compelling that a resonable person cannot dismiss faith. Is
he in Heaven?
That imaginary 'Garden of Eternity' may include beside the zillions of
human 'souls' also the super-zillions of animal-souls and plant-souls all
and all balled together in 'eternity' - to be just to all, not exclusively
to humans. Terrifying!
And there is Hell. say what you wish.

I enjoy your 'faith-dictated posts, keep them coming, please.

John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc. ret. nat. scientist


On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> John Clark, I can see that you are concerned about the outcome of Cryonics
> program you've signed up your brain for. Someone or something set in motion
> a process which brought you into existence in this life - trust the same to
> repeat the process and bring you back into existence.
> I urge you to worry more about the quality of that life!
> We believe that the quality of that life depends on the beliefs and
> actions in this life. Do take the time to study the Quran or Torah or start
> with any scripture you feel more comfortable with.
> This link may be a good place to start: http://searchtruth.com/list.php
>
>
> Samiya
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:28 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> Everybody agrees that synaptic connections between neurons are needed to
>> access memories, but there is reason to think those connections may not be
>> where memories are ultimately stored, at least not important very long term
>> memories. The theory that memories are stored in the strengthening of
>> synapses based on recent activity (Long Term Potentiation) does a pretty
>> good job at explaining how memory can be retained for hours or days, but
>> when you get beyond a week or so there are problems because the proteins
>> associated with Long Term Potentiation (LTP) are not particularly stable,
>> and experiments with snails have shown that even when LTP has been
>> destroyed with chemicals the loss of memory is not always permanent. So
>> there must be an informati

Re: Political correctness run amuck

[John Mikes]

A remark to Dr. Dawkins:
JKC wrote in the above e-mail:
"...the fact that neither muslims nor women nor feminists nor radical
feminists are examples of races NECSS was unable to specify what race the
song was making fun of"

When a child (1922-38)  in Central Europe, I did encounter many times the
word equivalent (but not exactly identical) to 'racist' as referred to
"anti-semites".
It was used to someone biased and hateful towards a group of "DIFFERENT"
people who might have been of the same race as well. The Hungarian
expression was indeed rather closer to the meaning  - "race-protector" than
to "race hater" fighting to eliminate "Jewish-input".
To enforce the "Hingarian race" (again a misnomer, not used to point to the
Asian origin of the Magyars vs the Indo-Europeans (Germanics, Slavs,
Scandinavians etc.) which would have benn no-racial difference either.

John M


On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:41 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> The scourge of political correctness has hit Richard Dawkins yet again.
> Just days before he was to give the keynote speech at The Northeast
> Conference on Science and Skepticism (NECSS) he was disinvited because
> Professor Dawkins retweeted a song in a video making fun of both Islam and
> radical feminism.
>
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08
> He tweeted the link with this caveat "Obviously this doesn't apply to the
> vast majority of feminists, among whom I count myself. But the minority is
> pernicious". Soon afterward he learned that the woman in the song was based
> on a real woman who had allegedly been threatened online for her
> activities, so Professor Dawkins sent another tweet "Having learned that
> the woman in the joke song is a real person who has been disgracefully
> threatened with violence, I'm deleting my tweets. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
> don't EVER threaten anyone with violence. We should be free to use
> comedy/ridicule without fear it may inspire violence". That was not good
> enough for the humorless moral paragons over at NECSS because they kicked
> him out at the last moment saying the video was racist; although given the
> fact that neither muslims nor women nor feminists nor radical feminists are
> examples of races NECSS was unable to specify what race the song was making
> fun of. Apparently The Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism is
> also skeptical of the value of logic as were the people who were outraged a
> few years ago when Professor Dawkins wrote "Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent
> pedophilia is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild pedophilia,
> go away and learn how to think."
>
>  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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: New prime number found

[John Mikes]

*Is this to vindicate, or abrogate my negative response?*
*JM*

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> The number ends in 1 not the power of two, which must end in 2.
>
> Brent
>
> On 1/20/2016 11:49 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> JKC: is that so indeed? my minuscule math tells me that if something (any
> long number - or short) ends with a "1" then the* MINUS 1* of this number
> ends in a zero, dividable e.g. by 2, even 10 etc... 22 million digits???
> John M
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:26 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> The largest known prime number has just been found, 2^74207281 -1 is
>> prime; it starts off as 300376 carries on for a bit and then concludes with
>> 436351. I omitted the middle bit because the entire number is 22,338,618
>> digits long.
>>
>>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/01/20/the-newest-prime-number-is-more-than-22-million-digits-long/
>>
>>   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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: New prime number found

[John Mikes]

JKC: is that so indeed? my minuscule math tells me that if something (any
long number - or short) ends with a "1" then the* MINUS 1* of this number
ends in a zero, dividable e.g. by 2, even 10 etc... 22 million digits???
John M

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:26 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> The largest known prime number has just been found, 2^74207281 -1 is
> prime; it starts off as 300376 carries on for a bit and then concludes with
> 436351. I omitted the middle bit because the entire number is 22,338,618
> digits long.
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/01/20/the-newest-prime-number-is-more-than-22-million-digits-long/
>
>   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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Native Hawaiian Religious Imbeciles

[John Mikes]

I don't think it makes much sense to search the origin of the supernatural
fables
in a world of minuscule - even natural - knowledge. Did the Spaniards have
better
support for their (religious?) actions than the Aztecs? Or the Jews? Or
anyone in
any religion?
(Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful. -Lucius Annaeus Seneca - VERY long time ago)

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/28/2015 2:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/27/2015 3:56 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Brent Meeker < 
>> meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2015 1:12 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, John Clark < 
>>> johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Dec 23, 2015  Telmo Menezes < 
 te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:

 ​ >
>>> ​ >>​
>>> ​
>>> and their land is not your land.
>>>
>>
>> ​
>> ​ >> ​
>> I do not have the same faith in the divine right of inherited wealth
>> as you do.
>>
>
> ​ > ​
> Nice dodge. Yes, let's put all in the same bag, Wall Street trust fund
> kids and remote tribes wanting to keep living their way in *the place they
> were born in*.
>

 ​
 I'm not a big fan of
 ​ ​
 Wall Street trust fund kids
 ​ ​
 either, and if one of them owned one of the 3 places on the planet
 where a thirty meter telescope could be built and refused to let it be used
 for that purpose I would be in favor of using the law of eminent domain to
 force the brat to sell it. And by the way, no native Hawaiian or anybody
 else was ever born atop Mauna Kea, there is nothing living up there except
 for a few astronomers, and if native Hawaiians
 ​ ​
 get there way soon there won't even be that, they want to remove all
 telescopes from the mountain including the world class ones that have been
 there for decades. Why do you defend these people?

>>>
>>> I don't defend them. I think they should not interfere with the
>>> construction of the telescope. All I am saying is that ramming things down
>>> people's throats isn't working out so well. I am suggesting that something
>>> like the "prime directive" is probably a good idea. It would be nice to put
>>> a telescope in a certain mountain, but it's not our mountain, so tough shit.
>>>
>>>
>>> ?? Why isn't it our mountain?  The Hawaiians didn't create it.  The
>>> ownership of land is a concept invented and enforced by the U.S. and
>>> Hawaiian state government.  There's no ownership of land apart from the
>>> society that enforces it.  In this case the state of Hawaii owns the land
>>> and they approved the use of the land for astronomy.
>>>
>>
>> This is the usual confusion between lawful and ethical.
>> The desire and need to have some control over one's environment already
>> existed in biological species much more ancient than the Homo Sapeins.
>>
>>
>> But among social animals it was joint ownership...which is exactly the
>> kind of ownership the government exercises over.   The Hawaiians are like a
>> small fraction of the tribe who wants to have exclusive control of a part
>> of the joint territory because they have supernatural myths they tell about
>> it.
>>
>
> Suppose that centuries from now we are capable of traveling to inhabited
> planets in other star systems. We come across a planet populated by
> humanoids who are roughly in the middle ages. They are terribly afraid of
> us and regard us as the demons of some ancient prophecy of their religion.
> Do we see them as part of our tribe, take over the planet and impose our
> values and technology for the greater good? Or do we try to remain
> benevolently distant until they are ready? And if we chose the first, isn't
> it true that they were right to consider us demons to being with?
>
>
> The ethical choice is number one.  And the answer is no.
>
>
> This is not so different from the situation native Hawaiians found
> themselves in when the Europeans arrived.
>
>
> Or when the Spaniards arrived in Mexico.  Do you suggest that the
> Spaniards should have just waited until the Aztecs "were ready" to stop
> sacrificing slaves everyday to make the sun rise?   Do you think they
> should have waited until the tribes subjugated by the Aztecs "were ready"
> to stop providing sacrifices?
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 

Re: Native Hawaiian Religious Imbeciles

[John Mikes]

Telmo:
and what is the difference between interfering with a superstition FOR a
*mountain* and interfering with a superstition FOR removing an unwanted
parasite from a womb that might evolve into a human baby? Or ... I could
list long lines of similar (dualistic???) superstitions humanity widely
observes
in today's belief?
Fairitales abound, people take it for granted from times BEFORE doubt
arose. Agnosticism reduces the items we take for granted, without replacing
them by other fairy tales.
We don't KNOW a lot, but exercise violence in cases we THINK we KNOW.
Also: we are far, far away from seeing clearly and acting on reason.
John M

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

> Disappointing, but I imagine a truly advanced civilization to have
> something akin to the "prime directive" à la Star Trek. And respect the
> fact that, superstitious and unsophisticated as the other cultures might
> appear to you, they were there first and their land is not your land.
>
> We might have to adapt quickly to such a way of thinking, if we are not to
> let the Donald Trumps of the world destroy our culture in a fight against
> the Donald Trumps of other cultures.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> The death of the Thirty Meter Telescope seems complete. In a sad parade
>> construction equipment has been coming down Mauna Kea for the last several
>> days probably never to return. The state said the equipment could stay
>> there if the Thirty Meter Telescope people want to appeal but that would
>> take years and jittery donors are terrified of offending religious
>> imbeciles; so it looks like they're not even going to try an appeal and are
>> just throwing in the towel.  Kuuipo Freitas, a native Hawaiian imbecile,
>> said: *"It's all pretty much cleared now. We know right now there's no
>> construction that's going to be happening on Mauna Kea. We need to stop
>> bowing down to the dollar and starting bowing down to the Mauna. She can
>> just stand majestically without being harmed."*
>> So instead of an instrument to help us understand the universe we have a
>> bunch of ignorant dimwits bowing down to a mountain. You'd think they were
>> trying to build a glue factory and not one of the most noble structures
>> ever built by humans on the planet.
>>
>>  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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Debate questions.

[John Mikes]

Mitch, I can afford to be an optimist at 93.
It is not the question about those who "vote" - but about those who
'finance' it. The voters get zilch. (And then come the interjected
Elector-assembly to 'review' the voting - deciding yes, or no.
I consider (don't tell anybody) the 1st C.W. the SHAME of the US history, I
wonder what will be the 2nd one? Rome did not survive a 3rd one.
Do not think you can 'find' the moneys I wrote about: Bill is too smart -
yes, smart - majing sure to hide it under titles not detectable by IRS or
ilk.

We have a hint how and against whom Moma will rise - from the time when she
was NY-Senator: to succumb to the lies of the gov't.


On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 4:40 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> My, you are an optimist, Mr. Mikes. Bill is quite a character and Moma
> will likely *win*, not out of brilliance, however, but, because of the
> promise of free things, to those who  believe that they will get their
> share, if only they vote for Moma. By the time Moma goes up against
> whomever, the decision will be done. Welcome to the US, a Plutocracy, if
> you can keep it?  Because of this, smartness will not count, and for the
> same reason, we are likely heading for a 2nd US civil war, because there is
> no opportunity for compromise.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Mikes 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sat, Nov 28, 2015 3:24 pm
> Subject: Re: Debate questions.
>
> Mitch, don't be naive: you will not find moneys assigned to HRC for prez.
> Bill is smarter than that. Even smarter than you.
> Besides: the questions will emerge when the 2-party debate comes up.
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 9:28 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> One could ask the Dems directly -
>> Ms Clinton-What do accept money for the Clinton Foundation from the
>> Saudi's ?
>> Ms. Clinton - How much money do you accept from George Soros Foundation
>> ?
>> Ms. Clinton- George Soros, the funder of environmentalist causes just
>> bought a chunk of Peabody Coal, why?
>> Ms. Clinton -Do you, as of right now, do you know of a storage technology
>> that can store Terawatts of Solar?
>> Clinton-Benghazi, Clinton-Syria, Clinton-Economy, Clinton-Spying...
>>
>> I could also apply this to the Bushes, but since you gace drawn the
>> lineunguarde!
>>
>> Ok, Brent, I will leave you be, because for you, Texas must be a sort of
>> purgatory for you, yes? So yes, you are permitted to be sarcastic, via
>> Slate. On the other hand, I am feeling that the US will soon be a failed
>> state, as CIA used to term this.This, because there is *no reasonable
>> resolution* between us. I am seriously, not, a social, or even an
>> economic conservative. I am, for what it's worth, a *nationalist* and
>> your party and your team (Dems) are Not. Your lot is anti-nationalist,
>> worldwide, with *progressivism* having a strong leaning towards
>> Stalinist practices...eventually. On immigration, if they
>> (Democrats-Progressives) start* eroding* the base of whites, older
>> blacks, and Latinos who have been here long-term, The Bamers, and the
>> Merkels, and the EU, want to Import *replacement Voters*, in exchange
>> for goodies from the State. Thus, to ensure the Progressive Choke Hold on
>> power, numerically. So its a play on your ideologies part, and a failure on
>> my ideologies part (I am genuinely a pragmatist but want ourt nation-state
>> to survive for a good while).
>>
>> I feel (not think) that the US is due for a civil war, and what happens
>> afterwards, is anyone's guess. Maybe a US continent looking something like
>> the HBO series, The Man in the High Castle (book written in 62) will
>> result? Perhaps, the best we can all hope for would be territorially, a
>> velvet divorce, like between the Czech and Slovak Republic. You'd move out
>> of Texas, and I'd move out of Ohio. A traumatic vision in either case, and
>> one I do not look forward to.
>>
>> Apologies, for this rant, but I felt that your Slate article needed a
>> reposite. I used 'effects' on this email to assist in your reading of this
>> epistle, so as to speed it all up, and lessen your likely, disgust at my
>> words.
>>
>> Regards,  none the less,
>>
>> Mitch
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Brent Meeker 
>> To: EveryThing 
>> Sent: Fri, Nov 27, 2015 10:16 pm
>> Subject: Debate questions.
>>
>> Questions you wish they'd rea

Re: Debate questions.

[John Mikes]

Mitch, don't be naive: you will not find moneys assigned to HRC for prez.
Bill is smarter than that. Even smarter than you.
Besides: the questions will emerge when the 2-party debate comes up.

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 9:28 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> One could ask the Dems directly -
> Ms Clinton-What do accept money for the Clinton Foundation from the
> Saudi's ?
> Ms. Clinton - How much money do you accept from George Soros Foundation
> ?
> Ms. Clinton- George Soros, the funder of environmentalist causes just
> bought a chunk of Peabody Coal, why?
> Ms. Clinton -Do you, as of right now, do you know of a storage technology
> that can store Terawatts of Solar?
> Clinton-Benghazi, Clinton-Syria, Clinton-Economy, Clinton-Spying...
>
> I could also apply this to the Bushes, but since you gace drawn the
> lineunguarde!
>
> Ok, Brent, I will leave you be, because for you, Texas must be a sort of
> purgatory for you, yes? So yes, you are permitted to be sarcastic, via
> Slate. On the other hand, I am feeling that the US will soon be a failed
> state, as CIA used to term this.This, because there is *no reasonable
> resolution* between us. I am seriously, not, a social, or even an
> economic conservative. I am, for what it's worth, a *nationalist* and
> your party and your team (Dems) are Not. Your lot is anti-nationalist,
> worldwide, with *progressivism* having a strong leaning towards Stalinist
> practices...eventually. On immigration, if they (Democrats-Progressives)
> start* eroding* the base of whites, older blacks, and Latinos who have
> been here long-term, The Bamers, and the Merkels, and the EU, want to
> Import *replacement Voters*, in exchange for goodies from the State.
> Thus, to ensure the Progressive Choke Hold on power, numerically. So its a
> play on your ideologies part, and a failure on my ideologies part (I am
> genuinely a pragmatist but want ourt nation-state to survive for a good
> while).
>
> I feel (not think) that the US is due for a civil war, and what happens
> afterwards, is anyone's guess. Maybe a US continent looking something like
> the HBO series, The Man in the High Castle (book written in 62) will
> result? Perhaps, the best we can all hope for would be territorially, a
> velvet divorce, like between the Czech and Slovak Republic. You'd move out
> of Texas, and I'd move out of Ohio. A traumatic vision in either case, and
> one I do not look forward to.
>
> Apologies, for this rant, but I felt that your Slate article needed a
> reposite. I used 'effects' on this email to assist in your reading of this
> epistle, so as to speed it all up, and lessen your likely, disgust at my
> words.
>
> Regards,  none the less,
>
> Mitch
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brent Meeker 
> To: EveryThing 
> Sent: Fri, Nov 27, 2015 10:16 pm
> Subject: Debate questions.
>
> Questions you wish they'd really asked at the Republican debate:
>
>
> http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/11/16/hardball-questions-for-the-next-debate/
>
> 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.
>

-- 
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: Microsoft releasing quantum computing simulator

[John Mikes]

Brent Meeker via 
googlegroups.com
Nov 13 (3 days ago)
to István: ihol a cikk, ha eddig nem láttad volna. - J
 Forwarded Message 

FYI --

"The simulator is 30 qubits, which requires 32 gigabytes of memory.  That
means it can run on a high-end laptop or desktop.  Every qubit added, he
warns, will *double* the memory requirement."

http://fortune.com/2015/11/13/microsoft-quantum-computing-simulator/?xid=yahoo_fortune

Microsoft Simulator Brings Quantum Computing One Step Closer to the Masses

by  Barb Darrow  @FortuneMagazine  9:11 AM EST

On Friday, Microsoft is releasing simulation software that it says will let
academics, scientists, or even do-it-yourself eggheads simulate quantum
computing on their laptops.

The promise of quantum computing, which breaks the nuts-and-bolts of
computing down to the sub-atomic level, is that it can solve problems that
go far beyond the capabilities of even today’s most powerful computers.

The current generation of computers represent all data as ones and zeros.
It’s all a very binary, on-or-off proposition.  By relying on smaller
particles, like photons or electrons, a quantum computer would be able to
look at data that can hold several contradictory states at the same time.
For instance, instead of those ones and zero, a quantum computer would deal
with quantum bits (also known as qubits), which would accommodate multiple
states.

It’s a bit complicated for mere mortals to understand, but what all that
means is that quantum computers should be able to calculate certain
problems—modeling molecules for example—-much, much faster than their
transistor-based forebears.

One problem with all of this work is it’s still largely theoretical.
Scientists think it will work, but the gear required to run these
calculations isn’t here yet.  That’s because to keep all those wee
subatomic particles in a stable state, the equipment has to be very, very
cold—100 times colder than the temperature in outer space—according to Dave
Wecker, chief architect of the Microsoft’s quantum team, also known as
QuArC.

As if that’s not difficult enough, it’s also not clear how best to state
the problems that need to be solved by quantum computers, or how to
interpret those results since this will be a whole new qubit-inspired
world.  That’s something the simulator can help researchers get their minds
around.

The software, which Microsoft has been using in house for some time, is
called Language-Integrated Quantum Operations, or LIQUi|> (and no, that’s
not a typo).  LIQ stands for language integrated quantum, says Wecker.  The
vertical bar stands for “ket” which is tech speak for the quantum state.  U
is the operation performed on the quantum state and the “greater than”
bracket is simply a bracket, Wecker says.

As an example of a problem that a quantum computer could solve, Wecker
cites the creation of high-temperature superconductors.  “We lose
electricity on our transmission lines.  Superconductors would have no
losses, but no one can build a super conductor at anything near room
temperature.  We could model than on a quantum computer and at least have
the hope of solving that problem,” Wecker says.

Ditto the creation of organic batteries, which wouldn’t have to rely on
expensive and polluting heavy metals.  “We know we can build them but which
molecules do we use?  There are millions.  A cloud of quantum computers
could test them all out.”

Drug modeling and testing is another potentially huge use for these
computers, which explains why companies like Microsoft, Google, IBM, and
others are investing in the field.  D-Wave Systems, has its own version of
a quantum processor, one of which was just sold to Los Alamos National
Laboratory.

There are also other quantum computing simulators on the market, including
one from Google for example.  Wecker says the differentiator here is this
is industrial strength and academics or researchers can extend it, adding
their own quantum calculations as needed.

The simulator is 30 qubits, which requires 32 gigabytes of memory.  That
means it can run on a high-end laptop or desktop.  Every qubit added, he
warns, will double the memory requirement.  The code means some simulations
can run locally, or if you have bigger requirements, you can turn to the
cloud of your choice—such as Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services, or
Google Cloud Platform—-he adds, there are no restrictions on use.

The executable code, along with documentation, will be available on the
Github code repository for download.  Microsoft will talk more about the
simulator next week at Supercomputing 2015 in Austin.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
>
>  Forwarded Message 
>
> FYI --
>
> "The simulator is 30 qubits, which requires 32 gigabytes of memory.  That
> means it can run on a high-end laptop or desktop.  Every qubit added, he
> warns, will *double* the memory requirement."
>
>

Re: Virgin Birth

[John Mikes]

About the biological makeup of reproducing Brent Maker wrote:



*> >Biological theory says that sexual reproduction should halve the>
>fitness of the organism as compared with asexual (or parthenogenetic)>
>reproduction, so asexual reproduction should be the norm (as it is in>
>bacteria).*



*>> But does it halve the reproductive chances of a gene; or does it> give
it more chances of survival?>*
And Russell replied.

*Halves it, because its a 50/50 lottery whether the gene from thefemale or
the gene from the male is expressed in the offspring.*

*-*
The offspring is not a quantitative distribution of the (fe)-male genes. it
is an unqualified mixture of those PLUS earlier generations' genetic
effects.
JM


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:05:53PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
> > >
> > >Biological theory says that sexual reproduction should halve the
> > >fitness of the organism as compared with asexual (or parthenogenetic)
> > >reproduction, so asexual reproduction should be the norm (as it is in
> > >bacteria).
> >
> > But does it halve the reproductive chances of a gene; or does it
> > give it more chances of survival?
> >
>
> Halves it, because its a 50/50 lottery whether the gene from the
> female or the gene from the male is expressed in the offspring.
>
> Of course, the same logic would indicate that incest should be very
> evolutionary advantageous - which gives a potent clue as to what's
> going on.
>
> --
>
>
> 
> 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.
>

-- 
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: Intelligent design - maybe?

[John Mikes]

Thanks, Quentin,
I take it as a reply to my questioning PA and RA.
(the "A" in PA meaning axioms, in RA arithmetic?).

None of them satisfies my own take on 'intelligent'.
I start from the llinguistic origin (Latin: inter-lego), I *READ between* -
the lines and words, that is). To catch  a 'meaning' (sense) more
widely and accurately than a flat translation from a dictionary.
Arithmetic is restricted IMO, I see no straight penetration into the
emotional, feelable, artsy, thought-provoking, even freely anticipatory
etc. by it's application (maybe, because I am no mathematician).
Axioms I consider artificial rules made up to make (scientific?)
conclusions valid.

Maybe I am all wrong on this list.

John Mikes

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> PA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
> RA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_arithmetic
>
> 2015-11-03 21:17 GMT+01:00 John Mikes :
>
>> I read it all, did not find what PA and RA are standing for.
>> Can you explain in brief?
>> Thanks
>> John M
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 02 Nov 2015, at 18:30, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/1/2015 11:09 PM, Pierz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has
>>>>> intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being
>>>>> about whether one buys Bruno's UDA) states that consciousness supervenes 
>>>>> on
>>>>> computation. This necesssarily implies (by Church thesis)  that the
>>>>> hardware doesn't matter. This commits us to some unintuitive scenarios in
>>>>> which thought is instantiated by means of carrier pigeons delivering
>>>>> letters with symbols written on them, or dominoes falling or whatever. 
>>>>> It's
>>>>> assumed that such a computation must reach a certain level of complexity 
>>>>> in
>>>>> order to become conscious, though what level of complexity is not
>>>>> specified. According to some views (Brent has expressed this position), it
>>>>> is necessary that the computations reference a "world", though I'll admit 
>>>>> I
>>>>> don"t understand the rationale for that exactly. Important though is that
>>>>> it is neither necessary that the computations are carried out in some
>>>>> localised "device"/brain nor that they are carried out by "wetware".
>>>>>
>>>>> So my thinking is this: isn't *evolution* precisely such a
>>>>> computation?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I take it you mean life is doing a computation which consists of
>>>>> finding ways to live and reproduce.  Life on Earth is executing  THE
>>>>> paradigmatic genetic algorithm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>>> It is undoubtedly an extremely complex calculation (more so than any
>>>>> human thought has ever been), and it undoubtedly "references a world".
>>>>> Bruno mentions "Loebianity" in this context as well, or the capacity for
>>>>> self-reference. I'm not so sure about this in relation to an evolutionary
>>>>> computation. Certainly it is a highly recursive procedure with a continual
>>>>> self-environment feedback loop. I don't understand Loebianity sufficiently
>>>>> to say whether genes , or the gene-environment system, might possess it.
>>>>> However I'm also not sure if it's required for consciousness, or merely
>>>>> *self*- consciousness. I don't see that the possession of qualia
>>>>> demands the possession of self-awareness, though I can also see that it is
>>>>> at least conceivable that an evolutionary feedback system might possess  a
>>>>> kind of self-reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway it seems that if we're committed to compu

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

[John Mikes]

I read it all, did not find what PA and RA are standing for.
Can you explain in brief?
Thanks
John M

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 02 Nov 2015, at 18:30, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/1/2015 11:09 PM, Pierz wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has
>>> intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being
>>> about whether one buys Bruno's UDA) states that consciousness supervenes on
>>> computation. This necesssarily implies (by Church thesis)  that the
>>> hardware doesn't matter. This commits us to some unintuitive scenarios in
>>> which thought is instantiated by means of carrier pigeons delivering
>>> letters with symbols written on them, or dominoes falling or whatever. It's
>>> assumed that such a computation must reach a certain level of complexity in
>>> order to become conscious, though what level of complexity is not
>>> specified. According to some views (Brent has expressed this position), it
>>> is necessary that the computations reference a "world", though I'll admit I
>>> don"t understand the rationale for that exactly. Important though is that
>>> it is neither necessary that the computations are carried out in some
>>> localised "device"/brain nor that they are carried out by "wetware".
>>>
>>> So my thinking is this: isn't *evolution* precisely such a computation?
>>>
>>>
>>> I take it you mean life is doing a computation which consists of finding
>>> ways to live and reproduce.  Life on Earth is executing  THE paradigmatic
>>> genetic algorithm.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>>> It is undoubtedly an extremely complex calculation (more so than any
>>> human thought has ever been), and it undoubtedly "references a world".
>>> Bruno mentions "Loebianity" in this context as well, or the capacity for
>>> self-reference. I'm not so sure about this in relation to an evolutionary
>>> computation. Certainly it is a highly recursive procedure with a continual
>>> self-environment feedback loop. I don't understand Loebianity sufficiently
>>> to say whether genes , or the gene-environment system, might possess it.
>>> However I'm also not sure if it's required for consciousness, or merely
>>> *self*- consciousness. I don't see that the possession of qualia
>>> demands the possession of self-awareness, though I can also see that it is
>>> at least conceivable that an evolutionary feedback system might possess  a
>>> kind of self-reference.
>>>
>>> Anyway it seems that if we're committed to computationalism plus Church
>>> thesis, then we have to consider the possibility that evolution may be a
>>> conscious process - indeed the onus should be on us to say why it
>>> *wouldn't* be conscious. Which does not mean I am suggesting some
>>> mystical additional ingredient. Evolution would still be described
>>> objectively in terms of random mutation plus environmental selection, but
>>> this process may have an interior component, its own "1P".
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I think that's right in a sense.  Life in a sense forms a
>>> representation of the world.   If a alien scientist were told just about
>>> the living organisms on Earth he could infer a great deal about the
>>> inorganic aspects of the planet.   I don't know if you could say it's
>>> self-aware, except by inclusion of ourselves.  The problem is that it may
>>> be conscious in such a different way from humans or animals that it doesn't
>>> really add anything to our understanding of it to say it is conscious.
>>> I've sometimes had a similar idea about the atmosphere and weather.  Isn't
>>> weather a kind of computation performed by the atmosphere and isn't it
>>> aware of things in its environment like solar heating, ocean currents and
>>> temperatures, human activities like jet liners and burning fossil fuel,...
>>>
>>> Yes. But then isn't an orbiting planet carrying out a computation? Isn't
>> a river? Isn't an atom doing quantum computing? It almost becomes a matter
>> of perspective whether any given physical process is a computation or not,
>> e.g., if someone wanted to compute the route that water would take down a
>> given slope, they could "compute" it analogically with actual water on an
>> actual slope. Which, combined with computationalism, seems like the (ahem)
>> slippery slope to panpsychism, which *I* am happy enough with, but which
>> I suspect to be too mystical for *your* metabolism...
>>
>>
>> I don't see anything mystical about saying all those physical processes
>> are computations, i.e. they are also information processes.  Have you
>> slipped over from computation to assuming they are conscious?
>>
>
> Computationalism is precisely that assumption (that computation equates to
> consciousness).
>
>

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

[John Mikes]

Russell, please: what is your take on "INTELLIGENT"?
John Mikes

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:23:47PM -0800, Pierz wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:39:12 PM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:55:09PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Anyway it seems that if we're committed to computationalism plus
> Church
> > > > thesis, then we have to consider the possibility that evolution may
> be a
> > > > conscious process - indeed the onus should be on us to say why it
> > > *wouldn't* be
> > > > conscious.
> > >
> > > I don't think we know enough about consciousness to really say one way
> > > or the other, so no the onus is not on anyone.
> > >
> > > "Onus" or not, computationalists should at least attempt to be
> consistent.
> > If genetic algorithms are considered potentially conscious, then it is
> > legitimate to ask why evolution itself would not be. One should examine
> all
> > the ramifications of a theory and not simply wave the uncomfortable ones
> > away by saying "we can't know." It's often in the pursuit of the
>
> To be fair, I never said "we can't know". What I said is "we don't
> know". I think it premature to speculate whether biological evolution
> implements a conscious program, in other words, maybe fun for pub
> talk, but generally speaking a waste of time.
>
> > implications of a theory to the last possible limit that things get
> > interesting - think Einstein pursuing the constancy of the speed of light
>
> Sure - but there are plenty of ways of doing this without falling over
> into idle speculation. The notion that consciousness is an
> evolutionary process does have some testable claims, for example.
>
> > to its logical conclusion. It's also where the theory's flaws are likely
> to
> > be exposed. It seems to me though that computationalists are generally
> > mainly interested in explaining away the apparent mystery of the Hard
> > Problem of consciousness in the brain, rather than overturning the
> > conception of nature as an unconscious machine. But that *is* what it
> leads
> > to ISTM - at least the Putnamesque, functional type version of CTM.
> >
>
> How so? It's not at all clear it has anything to say on these matters.
>
>
> --
>
>
> 
> 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.
>

-- 
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 desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

[John Mikes]

Beautiful!
Not very flattering to acceptors of the Theory of Everything though:
you have to forget EVERYTHING to begin with. Then make up the
WORLD from that fraction you experienced and format it into a Total.
The hack with the rest...
JM

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Pierz  wrote:

> So imagine a guy washed up on a small desert island after a plane crash.
> Unfortunately during the plane crash he suffered a traumatic injury which
> caused him to completely lose his memory. He wakes up on the sure without
> the faintest clue about who he is or where he comes from. He doesn't even
> remember that there are other people in the world and that he was born of a
> mother and father. After sorting out his immediate survival needs, being a
> philosophical type, he begins to wonder about his own origins. He begins to
> speculate about the what conditions might have given rise to him and the
> island he finds himself on.
>
> Without the benefit of the memory of any scientific knowledge, he is
> struck by the strangeness of the fact that the world he finds himself in
> seems so well-adapted to him - or he to it. Isn't it marvellous, he
> reasons, that when I feel this particular unpleasant sensation of dryness
> (which we, but not he, would call "thirst"), it happens that there is some
> abundant substance I can locate that, if conveyed into my mouth, relieves
> that sensation? Isn't it astonishing that I have these dextrous digital
> appendages that seem so perfectly made for constructing a shelter, or
> making and throwing a spear? How to explain it?
>
> Being more of a mathematician than a naturalist by nature, he reasons that
> perhaps the explanation is simply this: the ocean that he sees that appears
> to extend indefinitely in all directions is in fact infinite. And scattered
> across that infinite ocean there are other islands. He can see at least a
> couple from where he is, so if the ocean is infinite there would end up
> being an infinity of such islands. And if there are an infinite number of
> such islands, then all possible arrangements of matter will eventually form
> by chance. If they happen to form something conscious - and conscious
> enough to reason about its origins - then that conscious being will be
> required to be complex enough and well adapted enough to the stuff around
> it that it can maintain its own integrity long enough to form such deep
> thoughts.
>
> OK, there are still some holes in his Theory of Everything (where did the
> ocean come from?) but a man has to draw the line *somewhere*. He is smart
> enough to see the lurking possibility of infinite regress and skirt around
> it. With this he is satisfied and settles back to eat another coconut,
> convinced he has found a coherent explanation of his own existence...
>
> The problem with his impoverished account, of course, is that it misses a
> vast amount of structure in the world. The line he has drawn to stave off
> infinite explanatory regress is clearly far too high in the hierarchy of
> complexity, but because of the limited range of his experience, he is
> unlikely to see that. If he could witness mating and birth, for instance,
> he might start to wonder if he hadn't been a little hasty in his invocation
> of infinite permutation as an explanatory principle. With sufficient
> exposure to time and diverse biology, he might start to wonder about the
> role of an *evolutionary* process.
>
> It's clear how much better the evolutionary explanation is because, armed
> with it, he might be able to make predictions. He might be able to foresee,
> for instance, that his body should have robust mechanisms for dealing with
> normal environmental vicissitudes. Suffering his first minor wound, he
> might predict that the injury would heal. On the other hand, with the
> "infinite permutations theory", he could predict nothing at all. Though it
> offers a somewhat satisfying conceptual neatness, it also lacks any
> predictive power whatsoever.
>
> You can see perhaps see where I'm going with this. I tend to believe in a
> multiverse. But I also tend to believe that as an explanation of
> fine-tunedness *per se*, the combination of a multiverse with the
> anthropic principle is scientifically and philosophically bankrupt. I
> believe that we are like desert island amnesiacs, lacking the breadth of
> observation that we would need in order to see the correct picture of how
> fine tuning arises in our local environment. Lee Smolin's theory of an
> evolutionary universe gets closer, but suffers from the serious flaw that
> he sees universes evolving towards black-hole production, which is only
> incidentally or co-incidentally related to life-friendliness.
>
> My hunch is that the true explanation of fine-tuning (and hence of the
> physical laws we observe) is one that involves our universe being embedded
> in much larger multiversal structures and processes which we probably can't
> even guess at with our current technological and theore

Re: Fwd: Responsibility and Personhood

[John Mikes]

You wrote:




*"Then you have not met an algorithm whose output is directly influencedby
the environment. Most robots are agents in this sense. If the agents
areprocessing and reacting to rules, then those agents can be punishedfor
breaking the rules." *

As I understand: a 'robot' is not an 'algorithm', I still cannot imagine a
set of (math?) rules with an OUTPUT.
Maybe I do not understand what an algorithm is? what kind of an "AGENT" it
is? what does if ACT? as I think, algorithms have to be followed by an
agent.

And thanks for your wisdom on 'personhood'.

JM

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 03:28:22PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
> > Jason, Russell, Stathis, Brent
> >
> > I am not a Platonian, not a physicist and not a believer, just an
> agnostic
> > (in my OWN sense of the term). I don't believe that an algorithm
> *"DOES"*,
> > or *"ACTS" * so it cannot be 'held responsible'. We, the People do all
> > this.
> >
> > *Russell's* 'sense of agency' requires more than included in (my) a set
> of
> > computing rules in an algorithm.
>
> Then you have not met an algorithm whose output is directly influenced
> by the environment. Most robots are agents in this sense. If the agents are
> processing and reacting to rules, then those agents can be punished
> for breaking the rules.
>
> > The remark "company is not a person" is
> > lately debated by the USA Supreme Court statement that a COMPANY IS A
> > PERSON (just as MONEY is FREE SPEECH!) - what I tend to disagree with.
>
> People use language in different ways. Person, as we use it in this
> list, refers to a conscious entity. The legal notion of person is more
> one of agency, than consciousness.
>
> >
> > *Brent*  wrote on the tpic with closer relation to how I feel about it:
> >  * The ability to have an AI's future behavior changed by us, the
> >  community,  assigning responsibility.   Note that this assumes *
> > * there is a community of  intelligent beings,...*
> > recalling the 'active agent' role of 'intelligent' beings.
> >
>
> That's in full concordance with what I wrote :)
>
>
> --
>
>
> 
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Fwd: Responsibility and Personhood

[John Mikes]

Jason, Russell, Stathis, Brent

I am not a Platonian, not a physicist and not a believer, just an agnostic
(in my OWN sense of the term). I don't believe that an algorithm *"DOES"*,
or *"ACTS" * so it cannot be 'held responsible'. We, the People do all
this.

*Russell's* 'sense of agency' requires more than included in (my) a set of
computing rules in an algorithm. The remark "company is not a person" is
lately debated by the USA Supreme Court statement that a COMPANY IS A
PERSON (just as MONEY is FREE SPEECH!) - what I tend to disagree with.

*Brent*  wrote on the tpic with closer relation to how I feel about it:
 * The ability to have an AI's future behavior changed by us, the
 community,  assigning responsibility.   Note that this assumes *
* there is a community of  intelligent beings,...*
recalling the 'active agent' role of 'intelligent' beings.



On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

> At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions
> because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed to
> do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a human level AI,
> however, we seem able to assigning responsibility/culpability. What does an
> algorithm minimally have to have before it reaches this point?
>
> The ability to learn?
> Understanding of the consequences of its actions?
> Rights that it cares about?
> Personhood?
>
> I am most interested to hear the thoughts of others on this list on this
> question.
>
> Jason
>
> --
> 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 scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Brent, is dreaming (thinking?) about a better world a 'waste of time'
indeed, even if it has no realistic base in today's (wretched??)
 ""system""?

You wrote - (BM):
*... democracy is the rule of the (entire) population..."  I took that to
mean that the entire population would make rules: who can claim land, who
own copyrights, how inventions can be patented, how taxes will be
collected, how accused criminals will be tried, how fraud is
prosecuted,...  But it's obviously unworkable to say the entire population
must agree completely on each rule.  So that's why I said it is not a
system at all.  It's a fantasy.*

I used Bruno's wording (rules) - sorry. You faithfully described today's
capitalistic system of ours, taxes, patents, copyrights etc. Even included
the ownership of L A N D what I want to accept from (obsolete) Marxism as
No-No
and the 'advanced'(???) judicial system I abhore.

Please read the next par in my post, I apply Lenin's maxim on 'a communist
man' to 'a democrat', who is active FOR the community without special rules
according to his capabilities and takes what he needs (adjusted amounts?)
without exploiting anyone, or accumulating big fortunes for themselves.

Yes, it is a fantasy, but worthwhile thinking about it - sometimes we may
approach such society - or, if not, we perish.



On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/29/2015 7:20 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent:
> who said I require "rules"? In a wishful state of democracy people would
> live in freedom (free to do what they like (including helping others and
> solvin occasional problems?) as long as it does not inflict onto the
> 'freedom' of others.
>
>
> You wrote,"... democracy is the rule of the (entire) population..."  I
> took that to mean that the entire population would make rules: who can
> claim land, who own copyrights, how inventions can be patented, how taxes
> will be collected, how accused criminals will be tried, how fraud is
> prosecuted,...  But it's obviously unworkable to say the entire population
> must agree completely on each rule.  So that's why I said it is not a
> system at all.  It's a fantasy.
>
> A very idealistic evolutionary dream, of which Lenin concluded that to
> implement (he spoke about 'communism' in a similar sense) that kind of
> society a NEW TYPE HUMAN has to evolve (he called it "communist man").
> Such evolvement *cannot be orchestrated* by (majority?) rules and not by
> a government of old-fashioned (capitalistic? self-centered and
> growth-related - I mean gowth of their private wealth - upper class,
>  involved* in* any ongoing politics) *existing societies*.
> But to dream about it is free.
>
>
> Yeah and it's free to dream about my date with Scarlett Johansson...but
> it's a waste of time.
>
> 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 scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Brent:
who said I require "rules"? In a wishful state of democracy people would
live in freedom (free to do what they like (including helping others and
solvin occasional problems?) as long as it does not inflict onto the
'freedom' of others.
A very idealistic evolutionary dream, of which Lenin concluded that to
implement (he spoke about 'communism' in a similar sense) that kind of
society a NEW TYPE HUMAN has to evolve (he called it "communist man").
Such evolvement *cannot be orchestrated* by (majority?) rules and not by a
government of old-fashioned (capitalistic? self-centered and growth-related
- I mean gowth of their private wealth - upper class,  involved* in* any
ongoing politics) *existing societies*.
But to dream about it is free.
JM

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/27/2015 12:55 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno, it seems I cannot shake you out from the 'classical' format that
>  -WHOEVER (Nominative, not: "whomever" which is Accusative) *lies*
> himself into getting the (questionable?) majority of the voting population
> (and THEN can do WHATEVER his interest dictates - in the name of such
> majority  - )
> means *D E M O C R A C Y *.  NO, it does not. You may call it a
> distortion, or any political malaise, but democracy (the cratos of the
> demos) is the rule of the (entire) population, not a select majority only,
> leaving any size of minority suppressed in the system.
> It is not timely, to implement such system in our (ongoing) World. - So be
> it. - I try to keep the vocabulary clean and do not compromise for ongoing
> corruptions.
>
>
> That's not even a system.  Rule by the entire population would require the
> entire population to agree on rules.  As Lyndon Johnson once said, "If two
> people agree on everything only one of them is doing the thinking."  A
> democracy necessarily must have some way of deciding rules that people do
> not all agree on.  Majority vote seem to be the only workable one; although
> there are many variants to deal with multiple choices (plurality, ranking,
> run-offs...).  The way to avoid suppression of minorities is to limit the
> range of action of the government.  Define individual rights which are
> beyond the reach of majority vote.
>
> 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 scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno, it seems I cannot shake you out from the 'classical' format that
 -WHOEVER (Nominative, not: "whomever" which is Accusative) *lies* himself
into getting the (questionable?) majority of the voting population (and
THEN can do WHATEVER his interest dictates - in the name of such majority
 - )
means *D E M O C R A C Y *.  NO, it does not. You may call it a distortion,
or any political malaise, but democracy (the cratos of the demos) is the
rule of the (entire) population, not a select majority only, leaving any
size of minority suppressed in the system.
It is not timely, to implement such system in our (ongoing) World. - So be
it. - I try to keep the vocabulary clean and do not compromise for ongoing
corruptions.

Religious authoritarian systems are not apt for a democratic instalment,
unless *every member* of the society is equally devout to that religion.
 (I don't mean the 'IS' method: to cut off the heads of all the infidels).

An example of the efficiency of the ongoing voting technique: We changed
domicile (State) before election, so we could not vote. We wanted to vote
for candidate* A* and in the new state candidate* B* got the majority of
votes. We were not upset, because in the nationwide election candidate *A*
became the president anyway. Our vote - if cast - would have been wasted, *yet
efficient*.

Regards

John M



On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 23 Sep 2015, at 21:24, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On 9/23/2015 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Sep 2015, at 23:55, John Mikes wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active first 50
>>>> years of my life in Europe and never heard about such 'liberalism' (for a
>>>> short time was even connected to the Hungarian Liberal Democratic Party).
>>>>
>>>
>>> In my counntry the right party has the name "parti libéral", for
>>> example. Liberal means "open to free markets".
>>> May be that is only in West Europa.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/left,
>>>> only pointed to some freedom of action in the political arena. And the
>>>> other thing:
>>>>
>>>> Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise it's
>>>> full "cratos" for ruling,
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Democracy means, for me, presence of election. It can be partial, like
>>> in the beginning where woman did not have the right to vote, or like in the
>>> antic greece were election was for the educated class, and not for slaves,
>>> or it is "universal", meaning everyone can vote. In some country it is
>>> "everyone *must* vote (in Belgium election are obligatory).
>>>
>>> Then a democracy can be corrupted, and/or under the influence of
>>> corporatism, and/or sick etc. Democracy is not the final state of politics,
>>> it is the prerequisite of having a representative politics. If the main
>>> powers (mainly justice and press) are not independent, a democracy can be
>>> de facto a tyranny disguised into democracy. I think that is the case today
>>> (since prohibition).
>>>
>>> It is the like the Islamic bill or right, which is a copy of the
>>> universal definition except that they have added "as long as it verifies
>>> the Charia" for each principle (which of course changes the very idea). The
>>> same with Obama who signed a text which respect the human right except for
>>> a category or people, but something have to be universal to make sense. The
>>> human right applies to all humans, or there is no more human right at all.
>>>
>>>
>> Democracy is necessary but not sufficient for good government.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
>
> Supposing that democracy is enough was the mistake of George W. Bush and
>> the neo-conservatives.
>>
>
> That mistake, but also the mistake that we can impose democracy to others,
> or the even more naïve idea that by eliminating a dictator will make people
> opting for a democracy.
>
> A democracy needs a lot of generation of thinking people.
>
> And just one generation of people can make it disappear, or weakened so
> much that it "stays" as a democracy only for a part of the population.
>
>
>
>
>  They thought that if we just held elections in Iraq all would be well.
>> But there must be limitations on government, constitutional restraints and
>> traditional restraints.  Otherwise whomever

Re: Human-amoeba etc.

[John Mikes]

First remark: I do not equate 'compute' with 'calculate math.-ly', but from
the Latin origin: "put together thoughts (whatever putare refers to)".
Second remark: amoeba is  SSOOO different from a 'human' that in human
terms it sounds "strange" to imagine how/what it feels/thinks.

Supporting idea:
1. according to my (agnostic) belief the WORLD (call it Nature, or call it
whatever you like) is an infinite complexity of the Entirety and we have
but a tiny proportional access to some segments of it.
AND - to try to explain our entire existence (let me call it instead of
our "objective human reality" our human subjective composite)  ---
math-related terms would simplify the task into one plane (numbers) instead
of applying the unlimited 'planes' (connections) of the infinite complexity
of Everything we cannot even fathom.

2. the complexity-levels of an amoeba and a human (mind? I don't know about
'soul' mentioned here) are so vastly different that no straight comparison
seems realistic.

John Mikes


On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Pierz  wrote:

> I disagree with most of the theorising about this scenario, which seems to
> me to be coming from a much too theoretical place. Humans may or may not be
> computational at base, but we are not PCs. We are not blank slates, waiting
> for an operating system to be installed. Our brains and bodies imply an
> environment and a developmental trajectory in which social interaction and
> emotional nurture play a critical role. (Consider the famous "wire mother"
> experiments performed on rhesus monkeys:
> http://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/studies/HarlowMLE.htm) A person raised
> like a brain in a vat, "sans eyes, sans teeth, sans everything", is not an
> amoeba, but a torture victim. Certainly they would fail to develop into
> something we would recognize as a person, but they would not and could not
> "fail to become a person", because personhood is not a function of the
> development of specific physical or cognitive capabilities. People with
> locked-in syndrome are also often not recognised as persons because they
> cannot communicate their personhood. My own suspicion with regards to this
> scenario is that the victim would die, as people sometimes do who are
> deprived of all hope. Physical health is not merely a product of the input
> of certain nutrients, the removal of wastes and so on. Like development
> itself, it is a function of a relationship between a body and an
> environment to which that body, mind and soul are adapted. That is the
> meaning of being an organism, and it's why the computational metaphor sits
> badly with me sometimes (I don't agree with much of what Craig Weinberg
> used to say, but I suspect we're aligned on that point).  If we're
> computers, it is only in the most abstract sense, but the metaphor tends to
> extend itself, as metaphors do. The infant "expects" a mother, without
> being able to name that expectation. It expects a lot more too - to put it
> simply, it expects a *world. *In some sense, it *is* that world, having
> evolved over billions of years as a response to it. This makes the
> "experiment" extremely artificial - as a philosopher of mind we might be
> tempted to think of the subject as a kind of computational tabula rasa, as
> Bruno appears to do. But in truth he or she is much more like the most
> extreme form of amputee.
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 10:55:55 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brian, Telmo and others,
>>
>> On 21 Sep 2015, at 02:49, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> That's an interesting question. My take is this: I think trying to
>> understand that experience is like trying to understand what it feels like
>> to be an amoeba. It's just too alien.
>>
>>
>> I am not sure. I can imagine an amoeba having "proto-feeling" comparable
>> to ours. An amoeba or a paramecium might feel something like some urge to
>> find food when hungry, some urge to find a mate, some urge to build a kist
>> due to pollution, ... A monocellular eukaryotic organism is a cell playing
>> the roles of liver cells, digestive cells, skin cells, neuronal cells,
>> muscular cells, etc. In the case of paramecium, this is more or less
>> confirmed by the molecular structure of the cells, in which key molecules
>> playing the corresponding role of each organ can be found. In particular we
>> can anesthetize a paramecium, we can block its locomotion with inhibiters
>> similar to what can inhibit our muscles, etc.
>> (Note that muscular and neuronal key molecules of that type have been
>&

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active first 50
years of my life in Europe and never heard about such 'liberalism' (for a
short time was even connected to the Hungarian Liberal Democratic Party).
"Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/left, only
pointed to some freedom of action in the political arena. And the other
thing:

Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise it's full
"cratos" for ruling, becuase every person has different aims, goals,
interests, etc. Those, who call a "majority-rule" a democracy are
establishing a minority whose interests are trampled down by the so called
"majority" which is not even so sure, to BE a majority indeed. Voting is
cheating, candidates LIE in the campaign and the voters compromise their
(real?) interests for the least controversial lies. What is even worse: the
"elected" persons don't even follow their own lies later on in practice.
They go after their (untold???) interest. Impeachment is difficult.

One word about 'capitalism' - with a caveat not to fall into Marxist traps:
it is the open exploitation of the power of wealth over the have-nots, be
it by employment, marketing, or production policy. Not the "haves" - mind
you, but the oligarchs, super-wealthy owners, political donors, etc. etc.
established since Adam Smith. Growth is NOT maintainable with the limited
resources existing. And a
(cut-throat?) Competition as life? thanks, but no thanks. .
Do you mean cooperative and collaborating goodwilling people dead?




On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Sep 2015, at 22:49, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno wrote.
> *That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the Marxist
> sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal = right, in
> europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as much as
> possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself competitive by
> allowing any human to choose the state, real or virtual, to live in (= to
> pay tax for)*.
>
> Capitalism (in Adam Smith's sense?) means FOr Profit, Growth, competition,
> etc.
>
>
> That is what I would call life.
>
>
> Liberalism comes from your langiage (Liberte' - freedom).
>
>
> Liberalism means "right" in Europa. It means that adults can sign (job)
> contracts to do things and are free to sell them to any adults, or kids if
> it is legal, without any or very few intervention of the state. This leads
> necessarily to grow, profit, competition. It is opposed to economy planned
> by a state, like it was in China and the ex-URSS where all companies were
> owned by the state. Today we have mafia, which is like an unregulated
> liberal economy, except that violence is used between the competitors for
> the market attribution.
>
> Democracy allows, in principle, to vote for the left when the country go
> too much on the right, and to vote for the right when the country go too
> much on the left. But this works only if the system is regulated by
> different powers which are kept well separated, which is not really the
> case today (the Press is rarely really independent, nor is Justice; even
> some academies are under the influence of non academical powers, usually of
> the type religious).
>
> Bruno
>
>
> JM
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19 Sep 2015, at 21:16, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Bruno,
>> even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic system in
>> the US,
>> leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the
>> population.
>> I am not talking Marxism.
>> The diverse prohibition-S (and other installments)  just made it worse.
>> The basic question is *"FREEDOM" *- in my terms: *no restrictions of
>> one's acting **decisions AS LONG as it doesnot hurt the 'freedom' of
>> others.*
>>
>>
>>
>> That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the Marxist
>> sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal = right, in
>> europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as much as
>> possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself competitive by
>> allowing any human to choose the state, real or virtual, to live in (= to
>> pay tax for).
>>
>>
>>
>> Within such all subchapters are viable.
>>
>>
>> We might agree, and have only vocabulary problem. If you defend freedom,
>> we are on the same political side.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (About 'offer/demand': how local would you

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno wrote.
*That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the Marxist
sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal = right, in
europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as much as
possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself competitive by
allowing any human to choose the state, real or virtual, to live in (= to
pay tax for)*.

Capitalism (in Adam Smith's sense?) means FOr Profit, Growth, competition,
etc.
Liberalism comes from your langiage (Liberte' - freedom).
JM

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Sep 2015, at 21:16, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno,
> even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic system in
> the US,
> leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the
> population.
> I am not talking Marxism.
> The diverse prohibition-S (and other installments)  just made it worse.
> The basic question is *"FREEDOM" *- in my terms: *no restrictions of
> one's acting **decisions AS LONG as it doesnot hurt the 'freedom' of
> others.*
>
>
>
> That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the Marxist
> sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal = right, in
> europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as much as
> possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself competitive by
> allowing any human to choose the state, real or virtual, to live in (= to
> pay tax for).
>
>
>
> Within such all subchapters are viable.
>
>
> We might agree, and have only vocabulary problem. If you defend freedom,
> we are on the same political side.
>
>
>
>
> (About 'offer/demand': how local would you go with it? the neighbor's
> demand may be high and drives up prices, while a local overproduction is
> not even paying for
> susistence of the workers. Global is not practical.)
>
>
> Global is new, and we have to adapt and revise many things. But that
> cannot be enforced: it needs good education and less lies.
>
> Prohibition must be stopped, like any violent crimes, but as you say, it
> is not the deeper culprit, which is 1500 years of authoritative argument in
> the most fundamental human science, itself supprted in part by billions
> years of nature's brainwashing. We are too much mammals, we can learn from
> the invertebrates.
>
> Let each of us do what is possible. The necessary will care of itself.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> JM
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Bruno:
>>  could you please define* "free market"* (system?) into YOUR terms?
>> Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:
>>
>> "*only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "*
>>
>>
>>
>> Basically that was the state in the US before prohibition.
>>
>> Free market means free contract between adults, and laws must ensure the
>> respect of the contracts, not the content of the contract.
>>
>>
>>
>> where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'?
>>
>>
>> Laws must evolve, jurisprudence, etc. I am OK with punishing people doing
>> false advertisement in the matter of health.
>>
>> I would like we avoid making something illegal because it cures some
>> important disease, and of course is a threat for those doing money on that
>> disease, like today with cannabis and cancer to take a notorious example. I
>> think that the illegality of cannabis is a crime against humanity, given
>> that the danger have been debunked, and the benefits have been proved (in
>> the sense of having been able to be repeated in all laboratories which are
>> not dependent of a big lucrative organization.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Is a 'regulating system a power?
>>
>>
>> Like the immune system in biological organism. It is a sort of power, OK.
>>
>>
>>
>> (I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by the
>> Supremes'
>> "MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T Imaking.
>> It would
>> undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality.
>>
>>
>> That is why a regulating system is very important: it verifies if the law
>> of offer and demand is respected. It prevents as much as possible genuine
>> competition.
>>
>>
>>
>> The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see it
>> in EU.
>> And so on.
>>
>>

Re: Some questions on ontology of dreams

[John Mikes]

Interesting set-up. Goes around the notion that our 'environment' is a
subjective composition upon whatever we (humans etc.) can compose as a
result of OUR
(partial) views collected from Nature (whatever we call so). Without such
composite there is no 'human' identified.
The details my learned listers mentioned, are partial consequences, as
looked
from diverse points of view.
(And please, do not even think that in my views either 'ontology', or
'dreams' are
objective items in such 'Nature'. Our* virtual subjectivity* (worldview, or
call it as
you wish - some like to call it* objective reality*) constructs an
environment in which the rest of such imagination can exist. So: we are
*humans* - etc.)
I accept if someone calls my views "un-scientific", I have a pretty lowly
opinion
about 'science' as we know (construed) it. I am an old (natural) scientist.
JM

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:57 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I believe a person subjected to that kind of experiment would rather
> quickly become insane! And that if they were born into such an "experiment"
> the outcome result would be the same.
>
> -Chris
>
> --
> *From:* Bruno Marchal 
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 6:09 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Some questions on ontology of dreams
>
>
> On 21 Sep 2015, at 03:16, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> If you raise kittens in complete darkness for a few weeks they never
> develop vision.  I don't think people who are born blind hallucinate
> visions.  Those are couple of data points.  I suspect that if a person were
> to grow up without any sensory input, or extremely impoverished ones, they
> would not develop human-like thoughts or consciousness at all.   They would
> fail to be a person.
>
> I would say that they would fail to be a human person. But they might be
> like the kind of non human person we can feel to be in state of extreme
> "complete" amnesia. It would be like to be *any* universal machine before
> having any input. Of course, here, I do speculate, but that hypothesis
> marry well the computationalist theory of consciousness (brain processing)
> and the reports of experience of some dissociative altered consciousness
> state.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
> On 9/20/2015 5:21 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>
> I wonder what would happen to someone's mind if they were born in a white
> (or any color) isolation tank. What would happen as years wore on? Would
> the person ever hallucinate anything? It has only seen the tank for his
> whole life. So what would inspire him to hallucinate something? Can he
> hallucinate, say, a friend staring at him from across the void without ever
> seeing a friend or anything for that matter except the white isolation
> tank. Would he dream and what would he dream of? Would dreaming become
> one with waking? Would he even know what a dream is? He has never heard the
> word "dream" spoken out loud. But he knows which worlds decay faster or are
> more "curvy" in the world-line sense: dreams decay faster or are more
> "curvy" than waking events. So, locally, we usually know when it's a dream.
> When the event world-line is straight, that means we pretty much never know
> what is a dream and what is "real"?
> --
> 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://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 ever

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Brent, you wrote:


*...You also need such an organization to say who owns what and who has
violated a contract and who has committed murder and who has committed
fraud, etc.Brent...*

would you please write your OWN* Bible*? a* "Noch Nie Dagewesene"*? (one
that so far never existed here-around)
JM

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/18/2015 7:34 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> ​ > ​
>> Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free market,
>> but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws, like
>> defamation of products and misinformation of the public.
>
>
> ​ I think it would be preferable for people to decide for themselves what
> is a fact and what is not, b
> ut to do what you say above you've got to have some organization get into
> the truth determining business, and it must be far far more powerful than
> any other organization. That might be OK if there was some way to guarantee
> that such a organization was always led by a genius who was also a saint,
> but unfortunately such paragons are a little hard to find.   ​
>
>
>
> You also need such an organization to say who owns what and who has
> violated a contract and who has committed murder and who has committed
> fraud, etc.
>
> 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 scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno,
even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic system in the
US,
leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the
population.
I am not talking Marxism.
The diverse prohibition-S (and other installments)  just made it worse.
The basic question is *"FREEDOM" *- in my terms: *no restrictions of one's
acting **decisions AS LONG as it doesnot hurt the 'freedom' of others.*
Within such all subchapters are viable.

(About 'offer/demand': how local would you go with it? the neighbor's
demand may be high and drives up prices, while a local overproduction is
not even paying for
susistence of the workers. Global is not practical.)

JM

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno:
>  could you please define* "free market"* (system?) into YOUR terms?
> Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:
>
> "*only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "*
>
>
>
> Basically that was the state in the US before prohibition.
>
> Free market means free contract between adults, and laws must ensure the
> respect of the contracts, not the content of the contract.
>
>
>
> where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'?
>
>
> Laws must evolve, jurisprudence, etc. I am OK with punishing people doing
> false advertisement in the matter of health.
>
> I would like we avoid making something illegal because it cures some
> important disease, and of course is a threat for those doing money on that
> disease, like today with cannabis and cancer to take a notorious example. I
> think that the illegality of cannabis is a crime against humanity, given
> that the danger have been debunked, and the benefits have been proved (in
> the sense of having been able to be repeated in all laboratories which are
> not dependent of a big lucrative organization.
>
>
>
>
> Is a 'regulating system a power?
>
>
> Like the immune system in biological organism. It is a sort of power, OK.
>
>
>
> (I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by the
> Supremes'
> "MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T Imaking.
> It would
> undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality.
>
>
> That is why a regulating system is very important: it verifies if the law
> of offer and demand is respected. It prevents as much as possible genuine
> competition.
>
>
>
> The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see it in
> EU.
> And so on.
>
>
> I agree with you. "free" designates often plausible "protagorean virtue",
> which in machine theology can be shown to be destroyed when asserted on
> people. That is the case with free-thinking, which leads to more hidden
> dogma, or free-exam, etc.
> But I am not sure for free-market, which just means that the state does
> not intervene in the content of what is sold, with few exceptions (perhaps)
> like radioactive material, or anything which is known to be problematic
> (meaning the proof of the problem exist and are not political propaganda).
> If you study the case of cannabis, all statements on its danger comes from
> paper which have not been made available to the public, and was
> contradicted by all papers available to the public. The cannabis set-up was
> gross, immense, obvious, and nobody was failed, except the general public
> and the physicians. Many doctor, askd to vote for the inegality of
> marijuana, said that they were not aware that marijuana was cannabis, at
> that time, and took some time to realize the maneuver. We had to wait 10
> years before the paper by Nahas gave the protocols used to prove that
> cannabis demolish brain cells, and indeed, now we have them, and it is just
> ridiculous (the rabbit were smoking ten joints simultaneously for seven
> days 24/24, and the neurons have been shown since dying from asphyxia, just
> to give one example among many).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> John Mikes
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary
>> witness
>> during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
>> Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what
>> does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.
>>
>>
>> I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing can
>> progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It might be that
&

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno:
 could you please define* "free market"* (system?) into YOUR terms?
Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:

"*only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "*

where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'? Is a 'regulating system a
power?
(I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by the
Supremes'
"MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T Imaking.
It would
undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality.
The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see it in
EU.
And so on.

John Mikes



On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary
> witness
> during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
> Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what
> does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.
>
>
> I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing can
> progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It might be that
> stopping prohibition is not enough, but it is a necessary step. It is not
> that difficult, as the lies exists only since 75 years. It is another
> matter about theology (1500 years of lies), and matter (billions years of
> lies).
>
>
>
>
> I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming majority
> of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic system to work for
> less than what they may have produced.
>
>
> Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free market,
> but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws, like
> defamation of products and misinformation of the public. We must avoid
> mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases and wars. Only a few minority
> makes big benefits, but it go with a lot of suffering.
>
>
>
> Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products, beyond the
> effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an ownership of the so
> called law-enforcement forces to suppress any opposition - making the
> advanced society an *economical inequality* of haves and have-nots, the
> latter being forced to work FOR the former for their mere survival.
>
>
> Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is everything
> but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the money of the less
> rich. It is not free-market, it is organized banditism.
>
>
>
>
> Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and force the have-nots
> into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the wealthy. It is
> called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead, injured casualties of wars)
> of the system are called heros.
>
> Just to vent off
>
>
> I agree with you, but I think that it is not the system which is faulty,
> but a well prepared perversion of the system, that the founders of America
> were quite aware of the possibility.
>
> They did not find a way to solve the problem, except by the US
> Constitution, which has been indeed eroded more and more (and is virtually
> dead with the NDAA 2012, actually).
>
> It is not a question of politics: it is a question of good and bad people.
> The liars, the lied which parrots, and the lied which lives the lies.
>
> The applied human science, except for laws and democracy (in principle) is
> still governed by the "the boss is right" principle. People are still
> discouraged to make the thinking and take the responsibility. Only in
> movies.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> John Mikes
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote:
>>
>> The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big inertia, it
>>> takes them a long time to see that the World has changed and that they need
>>> to focus on other issues than they currently are engaged with. In some
>>> cases that can lead to escalation of a pointless conflict that has its
>>> roots in past issues that are no longer relevant, as is the case with the
>>> war on drugs. And that then can cause a lot of harm.
>>>
>>> But I think the general issue is this huge inertia. So, when Gorbachov
>>> was in power and he was ready to deal seriously with the West, it took us a
>>> very long time to engage with him. A point on which we never engaged with
>>> the Soviets in a constructive way was Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> The Soviets were willing to withdraw from  Afghanistan

Re: Cryonics in the NYT

[John Mikes]

Irrespective from the hardship to decide when and who might have been the
'first' Mummy to tell tales and WHAT those tales might have been to develop
into later (religious?) tales, the 'Mummy' is an adult who was already
subject
to 'religious' stories of the powerful for subjecting folks to their own
rules.
This is an involved cultural history of political power development.

May I reverse your quetion:
Where did the first 'interpreter' get *his* story to tell - and I am not
asking about present religious stories. Fear and fantasy, greed, etc. etc.
the basic human and late animal amotions construed fairytales of the
'supernatural' to be told.

Nothing tangible and/or of proving power. Nothing of a 'Supernatural'
being's "communication" - yet believed to be understandable(?) by a
primitive human (-ignorant!) mind. Told as a story, later even written(?)
into the 'Holy Books'.
Then came the adjustments to the 'understandable' formats etc. etc.
All that I place in the several millennia before we talk about religion(s)
at all.

Anyway: I am not a religious student.

John Mikes


On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Where did the first Mummy get the tale from?
>
> On 18-Sep-2015, at 1:39 am, John Mikes  wrote:
>
> Samiya,* "forever"* is NOT a timespan, it is the *infinite* (maybe
> without an
> end, or without a beginning?) so your 'to live forever' may mean:
> IT IS OVER WITHIN THE INSTANT IT STARTED.
> (Or: it may indeed mean a duration without an end, as you suggest).
>
> THE 'HARD WIRED WITHIN' is natural in an environment of many many
> generations educated into a belief system from all around. The content
> may come from Mummy's eary fairy tales for the baby - and completed
> by studies later on from 'smart' books and 'smart' teachers galore.
> None has a reasonable evidencing base.
> JM
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Samiya Illias 
> wrote:
>
>> Is the 'belief in an afterlife' natural? Perhaps it's something hard
>> wired within, such that even atheists hope to live forever!
>>
>> Samiya
>>
>> On 13-Sep-2015, at 11:26 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
>>
>> Neuroscience as a new messiah. People's belief in an afterlife will never
>> go away. Especially in our enlightenment age.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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: Cryonics in the NYT

[John Mikes]

Samiya,* "forever"* is NOT a timespan, it is the *infinite* (maybe without
an
end, or without a beginning?) so your 'to live forever' may mean:
IT IS OVER WITHIN THE INSTANT IT STARTED.
(Or: it may indeed mean a duration without an end, as you suggest).

THE 'HARD WIRED WITHIN' is natural in an environment of many many
generations educated into a belief system from all around. The content
may come from Mummy's eary fairy tales for the baby - and completed
by studies later on from 'smart' books and 'smart' teachers galore.
None has a reasonable evidencing base.
JM


On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Is the 'belief in an afterlife' natural? Perhaps it's something hard wired
> within, such that even atheists hope to live forever!
>
> Samiya
>
> On 13-Sep-2015, at 11:26 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
>
> Neuroscience as a new messiah. People's belief in an afterlife will never
> go away. Especially in our enlightenment age.
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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: What day is it?

[John Mikes]

Hi!
I vote for Sunday (Saturday?) when I don't have to work.
Good dreams
JM

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:41 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> You will undergo the following experiment:
>> 1. During the weekend you will be put to sleep with a drug and not be
>> woken up until Monday.
>> 2. On monday you will be woken up and asked what day it is. *How do you
>> answer?*
>>
>
> ​I was put to sleep on Friday and subjectively that was less than 2
> seconds ago so I'd say Friday.​
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> 3. You are then given a drug to put you to sleep again and also given a
>> drug that induces amnesia of being woken up at all on Monday.
>> 4. You are woken up on Tuesday, and asked what day it is. *How do you
>> answer?*
>>
>
> ​Friday.​
>
> *​> ​If asked to ascribe a probability to it being Monday when you are
>> woken up, how do you answer on either of the days you are awoken?​ ​*(I
>> am particularly interested in John Clark's answer to the final question)
>>
>
> ​There is a 100% probability that it will seem to be Friday to me. I
> could not say what day of the week (or what year or what century or what
> milenium) it will seem to be to other people unless I knew how long I was
> sleeping.  ​I wouldn't have enough information to even make a guess.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>

-- 
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: Could we live forever?

[John Mikes]

What prompts the question in my mind: what is 'forever'?
Time is a relative coordinate we apply under our own universe - based
circumstances together with space (motion?). In human reasoning (!).

*Forever *brings to mind first: in a *timelessly* momentary fashion,
definitely
not the long-long-long timespan which can be measured. Infinites are tricky.
Forget about the religious etc. connotations of 'burning in hell forever.
Once it started it is over - that is "a" forever. With no 'time'-concept
involved.

The other question is more usual: what should we understand as "to live"?
Do we restrict ourselves to the Earthly carbon-based bio churnings (or some
similar ones more than carbon based), or should it be a mentally connected
existence - complying to our 'matter' concept, or not? Does "change" mean
life (in which case all happenings are included)?

It all depends on the deep ends how we follow the literal intelligence
(meaning: understanding more than the straight vocabulary of our words).
And please, do not ask what do I mean by understanding, or words.

With best regards

JM

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:50 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I am kind of deeply interested in this stuff, because it, at least, is
> supposedly, hopeful. It seems, at this point, that the time for uploading
> is far, far, away. It could emerge out of neuroscience research, and all
> that, but it doesn't feel like there is anything reliable at this point.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 12:28 pm
> Subject: Could we live forever?
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLS3XGZxi7cBU51zQvc2S6SNKI4mYgO_SO&t=1&v=STsTUEOqP-g
>
>
>   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.
>

-- 
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: Gödel's Philosophy

[John Mikes]

I do not intend to get involved in a discussion with Gődel about his
phikosophy, I appreciate his talent and knowldge, just a remark on
the #1 of his list: "Nature is reasonable"

In my *agnostic *views I would not go for that: we have a mental image
about 'Nature' based on the little we THINK we know about Her based
on the portion we (think we) observed and formulated a "human" reason
upon it. According to such formulation the imagined 'Nature" (part) does
fit
into such   *human reason*, what I would not translate into
  *"Nature  I S  reasonable"*.

John Mikes



On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/13/2015 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Sep 2015, at 23:48, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Bruno Marchal < 
> marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11 Sep 2015, at 04:08, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> So aliens or beings on other worlds, or in other universes, need not be
>> made of the same particles, or same elements/chemicals as we, if it is the
>> functions/patterns/mathematical relations that determine consciousness.
>>
>>
>> Interesting but I am not sure if that was what Gödel thought about.
>>
>> (But I confess I have not yet read the entire work of Gödel, I still miss
>> probably some of the unpublished writings)
>>
>>
>
> I am not certain either. It was conjecture on my part. Another possible
> interpretation: God-like intelligences may converge on the same set of
> beliefs/actions/personalities, etc. as with increasing intelligence becomes
> decreased probability of making mistakes.  Therefore matters of
> disagreement between any two entities converges toward zero as intelligence
> increases.
>
>
> Then it looks like humans are less intelligent than animals. Should not
> the possibility of doing mistake grows with intelligence? Is not
> intelligence an opening to the change of mind? That is also the experience
> of having been mistaken or deluded or failed and of possibly still being
> mistaken and probably being mistaken in the (hopefully consistent and
> sound) extensions.
>
>
> So the omniscient Gods of monotheism are even less intelligent.
>
> 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 scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary witness
during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what does
not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.

I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming majority of
people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic system to work for less
than what they may have produced. Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature,
including her products, beyond the effort the claimant has put into getting
them, plus an ownership of the so called law-enforcement forces to suppress
any opposition - making the advanced society an *economical inequality* of
haves and have-nots, the latter being forced to work FOR the former for
their mere survival. Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and
force the have-nots into their armies to die in wars for the interest of
the wealthy. It is called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead, injured
casualties of wars) of the system are called heros.

Just to vent off

John Mikes

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote:
>
> The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big inertia, it
>> takes them a long time to see that the World has changed and that they need
>> to focus on other issues than they currently are engaged with. In some
>> cases that can lead to escalation of a pointless conflict that has its
>> roots in past issues that are no longer relevant, as is the case with the
>> war on drugs. And that then can cause a lot of harm.
>>
>> But I think the general issue is this huge inertia. So, when Gorbachov
>> was in power and he was ready to deal seriously with the West, it took us a
>> very long time to engage with him. A point on which we never engaged with
>> the Soviets in a constructive way was Afghanistan.
>>
>> The Soviets were willing to withdraw from  Afghanistan, even before
>> Gorbachov came to power, but on certain conditions like leaving behind a
>> stable government. We never wanted to engage with the Soviets on that,
>> because of pur mondset that the root of all evil was communism, and the
>> Soviets were just talking bullshit about our allies there, the Jihadists.
>>
>> Them posing a threat to the World? that to us was just ridiculous. We
>> knew for sure that with the Soviets gone out of Afghanistan, their
>> communist puppet government dismantled, the Afghan population would be able
>> to form a democratic state. We were so sure about this that we never
>> critically analyzed all the hidden assumptions made here.
>>
>> It later turned out that we were wrong and that the Soviets were right,
>> not in their general approach but about seeing the threat of Jihadism that
>> we helped to fuel. Also they were right about the dangers of having failed
>> states. Our ideology at the time was that a failed state would quickly get
>> itself organized into  a flourishing democracy if you could only keep the
>> evil communists out.
>>
>> Another fallout of this was that Gorbachov's political position was
>> weakened in the Soviet Union, which made his  nationalist opposition who
>> were critical of the West politically stronger. When Yeltsin took over he
>> had to deal with an economically weak Russia while in the background there
>> were forces lurking who were extremely critical of the West. In any country
>> you'll have the opposition that tends to question the government's policy
>> especially if things are not going well economically and especially when
>> there has been a recent radical change. In the years after the collapse of
>> communism that move was democratization, liberalization of the economy etc.
>> etc.
>>
>> It's easy for us to say that the Russians who were critical at the time
>> were stupid, just look at the opposition in the US against a universal
>> health care system. Now, if we could turn back the clock and had dealt with
>> Afghanistan differently, then the outcome of that might not just have
>> prevented the rise of international Jihadism, you would also have had the
>> pro-Western reformists in Russia to be in a politically far stronger
>> position. Likely you would not have had Putin in power today, or Putin may
>> not have become that anti-Western (he wasn't when came into power).
>>
>> Another thing is that we would have improved the UN Security Council
>> System to deal with complex problems. As it currently functions, the UNSC
>> is a panel of prosecutors who are the World's policemen, prosecutor, jury
>> and judge at th

Re: What day is it?

[John Mikes]

Q #3 is irrelevant, after Q #2.
The answer is "I DUNNO" unless you detect indications for a better one.
JM

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

> You will undergo the following experiment:
>
> 1. During the weekend you will be put to sleep with a drug and not be
> woken up until Monday.
> 2. On monday you will be woken up and asked what day it is. *How do you
> answer?*
> 3. You are then given a drug to put you to sleep again and also given a
> drug that induces amnesia of being woken up at all on Monday.
> 4. You are woken up on Tuesday, and asked what day it is. *How do you
> answer?*
>
> *If asked to ascribe a probability to it being Monday when you are woken
> up, how do you answer on either of the days you are awoken?*
>
> (I am particularly interested in John Clark's answer to the final question)
>
> Jason
>
> --
> 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: The Mental Being

[John Mikes]

Dear Samiya, IMO 'supernatural' bounces back intu 'natural' what is
EVERYTHING in (and around?) the World, the Entirety, including all
you may add into "God". So NOTHING is Supernatural.
Regards
John

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> I asked you what you meant by the term supernatural because you present
> conflicting views, or so they appear to me. I don't see how that becomes
> playing straw man. However, I understand if you feel we've exhausted the
> discussion.
> Regards,
> Samiya
>
> On 18-Aug-2015, at 1:54 am, John Mikes  wrote:
>
> Samiya: thanks for your detailed reply. I do not play straw-man so I let
> it go.
> JM
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Samiya Illias 
> wrote:
>
>> John M,
>> I'm not sure exactly what you had earlier asked about Satan and how I had
>> attempted to answer it.I will try to answer 'where does 'Satan' come
>> into the picture?' here.  However, my scripture informs me that we can
>> only warn with this Quran those who believe in the unseen, hence perhaps
>> that is the reason why our discussions have been in vain.
>>
>> May I ask why you refuse to admit the existence of a supernatural when
>> you yourself admit that we know only a small fraction of the infinite
>> complexity? And what do you mean by 'supernatural'? Do you use this term to
>> refer to 'The Creator of Nature'?
>>
>> So, coming back to your question:  'where does 'Satan' come into the
>> picture?' The following is as I understand it from the Quran.
>> However, due to gaps in my understanding, the sequence of the events may be
>> different, as I attempt to collect my thoughts:
>>
>> God, Allah: The Creator, The Sustainer, The King and The Deity, created
>> everything for some purpose.
>> He created dJinns and Humans to serve Him. He created dJinns from Fire
>> and Humans from Clay.  The dJinns were created earlier, the humans later.
>> However, there was a period of time when humans were nothing worth
>> mentioning. Excerpts from my blogpost Human Evolution [
>> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/01/human-evolution.html]:
>> *Earthly Origins*
>> [Al-Qur’an 71:17, Translator: Sahih International] And Allah has *caused
>> you to grow from the earth* a [progressive] growth.
>> *Pre-historic Humans *
>> [Al-Qur’an 76:1, Translator: Sahih International] Has there [not] come
>> upon man *a period of time* *when he was not a thing [even] mentioned*?
>>
>> *Perfection through Evolution *
>> [Al-Qur’an 32:7-9, Translator: Sahih International] *Who perfected
>> everything which He created* and *began* the creation of man from clay. *Then
>> He made his posterity* out of the extract of a liquid disdained. *Then
>> He proportioned him and breathed into him *from His [created] soul and
>> made for you hearing and vision and hearts; little are you grateful.
>> [unquote]
>>
>> The Trust was offered to the Heavens, Earth and Mountains, all refused,
>> scared to undertake the responsibility. Human undertook it.
>> This act of being a Trustee necessitates that God judges humans,
>> punishing the idolaters and the hypocrites, while rewarding the believers.
>> Quran 33:72-73 <http://quran.com/33/72-73> Lo! *We offered the trust* unto
>> the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it
>> and were afraid of it. *And man assumed it. *Lo! he hath proved a tyrant
>> and a fool. *So Allah punisheth hypocritical men and hypocritical women,
>> and idolatrous men and idolatrous women. But Allah pardoneth believing men
>> and believing women, and Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful*.
>> However, the Compassionate and Just God is not going to punish anyone for
>> no fault of theirs. Hence, after creating Adam, God took out Adam's progeny
>> (all potential consciousnesses) and asked us all if He[God] is their god.
>> We all testified to it, and hence each one of us is a witness to our own
>> covenant with God.
>> Quran 7:172-174 <http://quran.com/7/172-174> And [mention] *when your
>> Lord took from the children of Adam* - from their loins - *their
>> descendants and made them testify of themselves,* [saying to them],*"Am
>> I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified."* [This] - lest
>> you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this
>> unaware." Or [lest] you say, "It was only that our fathers associated
>> [others in worship] with Allah before, and we were but descendants after
>> them.

Re: The Mental Being

[John Mikes]

Sorry for my inaccurate English (the 5th I learned) - I wanted to express
deterioration, not total annihilation.
John

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 5:16 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/17/2015 1:52 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent, I really hate to contrast you, I appreciate your mind and stances.
> However:
>
> *"About 1700 US troops died in Afghanistan in six years under Obama. About
> 600 died under Bush.  In Iraq 256 died under Obama, and 4500 under Bush.
> But a "further hundred thousand" is accurate enough for Fox News."*
>
> is official warmonger statistics, counting only select cadavers 'over
> there' and discounting the victims of dying en-route or at home, later on
> outside the official  statistical restraints. I wrote about 'victims'
> (called heros?) forced into war and I also referred to other type victims,
> like those who came home with injuries (bodily AND/OR mentally) plus those
> whose lifes has been interrupted (marriage, careet, family etc.) why I
> wrote *"sent to"* and not *"returned dead"*.
>
>
> "sent to their *demise*" is what you wrote.  demise = die.
>
> Brent
>
> It is not a Fox soundbite, I am not supporting either of our political
> parties.
> (Your supporting Sanders seems commendable, although not too hopeful.)
>
> JM
>
>
> --
> 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: The Mental Being

[John Mikes]

> minds (desires / temptations / expectations / fears / doubts / ?? ).
> Whether to act upon the suggestions or to resist them is in our control.
> Satan and his progeny do not have any real power upon us. Our intellect and
> our conscience are great blessings, and we must use them together to
> overcome the challenges.
>
> We are clearly and repeatedly warned that Satan is a determined,
> relentless enemy and that humans should not worship him. The only being
> worthy of worship is the One, True, Ever-Living God, and all other worship
> are actually forms of Satan-worship, who deceives us in multiple ways.
>
> Excerpts from my blogpost: Mission of the Messengers [
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/06/mission-of-messengers.html]
> *Adam’s Covenant and Fall*
> Quran 20:115 <http://quran.com/20/115> informs us that a covenant was
> already taken from Adam, but he forgot and there was no firm resolve on his
> part. The subsequent verses <http://quran.com/20/116-122> go on to relate
> the event of all angels prostrating to Adam while Iblees (Satan) refused.
> Adam is forewarned that Satan is an enemy to Adam and his wife; hence to be
> careful lest Satan causes their expulsion from the Garden where all their
> needs (food, clothing, comfort) were taken care of. However, they were
> seduced by Satan and ate the forbidden fruit. Quran 20:123
> <http://quran.com/20/123> informs us that, at the time of their expulsion
> from the Garden to the earth, Adam and Eve are yet again warned of the
> enmity between humans and Satan, but that whoever follows God’s guidance
> will not lose his way or fall into misery. The subsequent verses of Chapter
> 20 <http://quran.com/20> expand upon the result of not heeding to God’s
> message.
>
> *Satan’s Plan to Destroy Humans*
> Modern scientific research points to the origin of RNA in clay. Advances
> in Genetic Engineering are opening new avenues for alterations in and
> modification of the ‘code of life’.
> Experiments in cloning and cross-breeding on cattle have been going on
> since the past many years. Though  samples for cloning can be taken from
> anywhere, the most convenient and popular method is to take sample from the
> ear.
> The following verses help us understand the relationship between keeping
> our covenant and duty to God and the womb, and how Satan plans to corrupt
> creation by means of cloning and cross-breeding:
>
> Quran 4:117-121 <http://quran.com/4/117-121> informs us that the
> rebellious *Satan is cursed because he has sworn to take a portion of
> humans *and that:
> ‘… And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires,
> and *I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will
> command them so they will change the creation of Allah* ." And whoever
> takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear
> loss. …’
>
> Quran 17:61-66 <http://quran.com/17/61-66> relating the story when the
> angels were ordered to prostrate to Adam, quotes Iblees' (Satan) *objection
> to prostrate to one made of clay*, vowing that ‘*I will surely destroy
> his descendants, except for a few*’. Granting Iblees respite till the Day
> of Resurrection, he is given permission to: ‘Go, for whoever of them
> follows you, indeed Hell will be the recompense of you - an ample
> recompense. And incite [to senselessness] whoever you can among them with
> your voice and assault them with your horses and foot soldiers and *become
> a partner in their wealth and their children and promise them*.’
> [unquote]
>
> Leviticus 18-20 also forbids cross-breeding and related harmful practices.
>
> It is important to note that Iblis [Satan] is not unaware of God. He
> acknowledges God, yet refuses to obey Him. He arrogantly considers himself
> superior to another creation, and yet prays, to the same God he is daring
> to disobey, to grant him respite to the Day of Judgement. In the narrative
> in the Quran, Adam and his wife also err, tempted by Satan: 'Then Satan
> whispered to him; he said, "O Adam, shall I direct you to the tree of
> eternity and possession that will not deteriorate?" ' [
> http://quran.com/20/120]. Yet they humbly admit their error and turn to
> God in repentance. Hence, the importance of humility, submission and piety,
> the will to keep our duty to God. That, in my understanding, is what Faith
> is all about: willful submission to the Will of God!
>
> Regards,
> Samiya
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:52 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Brent:
>> did it slip your mind that your friend, the prez started the Arab
>> Awakening by stabbing Mubarak in the back by his letter and supporting the
>> US-enem

Re: The Mental Being

[John Mikes]

Brent, I really hate to contrast you, I appreciate your mind and stances.
However:

*"About 1700 US troops died in Afghanistan in six years under Obama. About
600 died under Bush.  In Iraq 256 died under Obama, and 4500 under Bush.
But a "further hundred thousand" is accurate enough for Fox News."*

is official warmonger statistics, counting only select cadavers 'over
there' and discounting the victims of dying en-route or at home, later on
outside the official  statistical restraints. I wrote about 'victims'
(called heros?) forced into war and I also referred to other type victims,
like those who came home with injuries (bodily AND/OR mentally) plus those
whose lifes has been interrupted (marriage, careet, family etc.) why I
wrote *"sent to"* and not *"returned dead"*. It is not a Fox soundbite, I
am not supporting either of our political parties.
(Your supporting Sanders seems commendable, although not too hopeful.)

JM





On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 5:31 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/16/2015 12:52 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Brent:
>> did it slip your mind that your friend, the prez started the Arab
>> Awakening by stabbing Mubarak in the back by his letter and supporting the
>> US-enemy Morsi ("The first DEMOCRATICALLY(?) elected Egyptian prez and his
>> Brotherhood!!!)
>>
>
> What's your point?...that we should have continued to support Mubarak the
> same way we did the Shah in Iran?  I don't think Morsi was a US enemy
> except in the sense that any despotic tyrant should not be regarded as a US
> friend.
>
> together with his then Foreign Sec'y Hillary, giving billions in weapons
>> etc.
>>
>
> Egypt has been a big recipient of U.S. foreign aid since WW2, but it only
> gets about half as much as Israel.
>
> - then again  he stuffed the investors' etc. pockets with our health-care
>> billion dollars
>>
>
> Sounds like you write sound-bites for Fox News.  Under Obama the rate of
> growth in per capita healthcare cost has been brought down closer to the
> overall inflation rate.  So there are no extra billions for investors in
> health care.
>
> and
>> sent further hundredthousand Americans to their demise in the Middle East
>> (very few come home sane and safe)
>>
>
> About 1700 US troops died in Afghanistan in six years under Obama. About
> 600 died under Bush.  In Iraq 256 died under Obama, and 4500 under Bush.
> But a "further hundred thousand" is accurate enough for Fox News.
>
> and so on and on. But he is a religious(?) chap.
>>
>> Atheism is more than just absence of belief IMO: it requires a
>> supernatural to disbelief in it.
>>
>
> So does disbelief in witches require that witches exist "to disbelief
> in"?  How about your disbelief in a competent Obama?  Does it require that
> a competent Obama exist?
>
> I look at a 'religiously motivated violence' with suspicion since I still
>> look for a fitting definition for 'religious'. I asked Samiya where does
>> 'Satan' come into the picture in vain. IMO every thinking person starts out
>> with SOME belief (e.g. the existence (reality?) of an infinite complexity
>> we like to call 'WORLD'' of which we only know a small fraction.)
>>
>> Telmo's 'douchebag' is a criminal: he lured character-weak persons into
>> his casinos to take their money (legitimately!) and added it to his
>> billions. Every gambling Bigboss is a criminal. I saw too much in my 93
>> years so far.
>>
>> I am not an ''A"- THEIST, I am an ágnostic.
>>
>
> So you're uncertain as to whether there's an extremely powerful person who
> created the world and loves you and wants you to love him and if you don't
> he'll torture you forever in an afterlife.  Just how uncertain are you
> about this?  50:50?  40:60?
>
>
> 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: The Mental Being

[John Mikes]

Brent:
did it slip your mind that your friend, the prez started the Arab Awakening
by stabbing Mubarak in the back by his letter and supporting the US-enemy
Morsi ("The first DEMOCRATICALLY(?) elected Egyptian prez and his
Brotherhood!!!) together with his then Foreign Sec'y Hillary, giving
billions in weapons etc.
- then again  he stuffed the investors' etc. pockets with our health-care
billion dollars and
sent further hundredthousand Americans to their demise in the Middle East
(very few come home sane and safe)
and so on and on. But he is a religious(?) chap.

Atheism is more than just absence of belief IMO: it requires a supernatural
to disbelief in it. I look at a 'religiously motivated violence' with
suspicion since I still look for a fitting definition for 'religious'. I
asked Samiya where does 'Satan' come into the picture in vain. IMO every
thinking person starts out with SOME belief (e.g. the existence (reality?)
of an infinite complexity we like to call 'WORLD'' of which we only know a
small fraction.)

Telmo's 'douchebag' is a criminal: he lured character-weak persons into his
casinos to take their money (legitimately!) and added it to his billions.
Every gambling Bigboss is a criminal. I saw too much in my 93 years so far.

I am not an ''A"- THEIST, I am an ágnostic.

JM


On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 4:32 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/9/2015 6:33 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>
> Brent, false! They killed to suppress religious belief, and exterminate
> believers,
>
>
> Nonsense.  You've swallowed the religious propaganda.  The killings were
> purely punishment for opposing the regime or not working hard enough for it.
>
> and yes they were totalitarian and many atheists claim not to be. They
> killed to support atheism, which is indisputable,
>
>
> It's not only disputable, it's unevidenced.  They didn't care what people
> believed about the supernatural, just so they didn't oppose the regime.
>
> and out of loyalty to Mao, Stalin, and your pal Bamers, Oops! Did I say
> that?
>
>
> You mean President Obama, the guy passed universal health insurance and
> ended U.S. occupation of Iraq and has avoided getting us into a war in
> Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and all those other places you'd like
> send your fellow citizens to attack?
>
> The bigger question is why doesn't religious belief or atheism reduce
> violence?
>
>
> Atheism is just and absence of belief, so it's not surprising that it has
> little bearing on violence.  It's only effect would be to reduce
> religiously motivated violence, e.g. ISIS or the IRA.  Religious beliefs
> are all over the place, from,"Love everyone as your brother." to "If they
> don't want to worship God kill them."
>
> 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: FPI & possible continuations

[John Mikes]

Hi Terren,
so you think there ARE UFOs? just as you think there are those other
features you mentioned (or even Telmo's Mongol invasions?)
I could question TIME as well (Quentin) in my agnosticism.
Our "knowable(??)" world/science is flexible and creative.
I would not mix it up with 'reality' what we cannot know for sure.
(Please, consider the English ambiguity in this last sentence:
A. We cannot know for sure WHAT reality is,  -  or  -
B. I cannot mix up time and the other items with reality. )

John Mikes

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

> Question for Bruno or anyone else:
>
> Let's say I see a UFO. There are potentially many competing explanations
> for what I saw. Does FPI entail that all of them could be a continuation
> from my current state, so long as the explanation robustly produces the
> phenomena I experienced?
>
> In other words, so long as what I experience is identical, relative to
> each possible explanation of the phenomena (e.g. aliens / military
> prototype / atmospheric disturbance / holographic projection / etc), does
> that not entail computational equivalence among the potential
> continuations, even if the measure would differ among them?  Is my ongoing
> experience the only thing that matters when it comes to the set of "the
> infinite computations going through my state"?  If not, what principle
> could rule out a particular explanation despite it potentially being able
> to produce identically the phenomena in my experience (UFO)?
>
> Terren
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Vast Methane releases in Arctic Ocean

[John Mikes]

Samiya: good reply!  Thanks
JM

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> John,
> Among the signs of the End of our world is the heating of the seas. I had
> sent the link in a discussion on global warming a while back: 'When the
> Seas Boil' [
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/10/when-seas-boil.html]
> Were you able to read the full text of the 'Mission of the Messengers' [
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/06/mission-of-messengers.html]
> that I sent earlier? I have quoted Quranic and Biblical verses in it which
> lead me to the understanding that the crime of the people of the Messenger
> Noah and Messenger Lot are being or will be repeated, and then a Great
> Flood will occur, as it did in Noah's time perhaps.
> Samiya
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:44 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Dear Samiya, do the 'Messengers' teach about Arctic Melt, or methane
>> accumulation? IS IT RELEVANT FOR HUMANITY?
>> jm
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Samiya Illias 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Arctic melt and its implications:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/07/arctic-sea-ice-collapse-threatens.html
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>
>
>  --
> 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 curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity

[John Mikes]

I think JC resoinded to Brent:

*"​I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity. Do
you?" ​*

I wonder if 'immensity' means  - B I G - ? in which case I cannot refrain
from thinking about the* infinite SMALL* as well. Just like I may think for
'eternal' as
being momentary and timeless. We like to imagine meanings for concepts as
we like.

JM

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 14 Jul 2015, at 20:25, meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 07/14/15, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 , Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ​> ​Just ask yourself how you grasp the notion of infinity.
>>
>>
>> ​I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity. Do you?
>> ​
>>
>>
>> No, I don't, which was more or less my point.  What we think of as our
>> "grasp of infinity" is an ability to consistently manipulate and use some
>> symbol that just means "bigger than anything else we're concerned with".
>>  In mathematics it mostly comes up in proofs by induction.  There's an
>> interesting book available  online,
>> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/publications/moore-wirth-2014a.pdf
>> which describes one somewhat successful effort to have a computer do
>> automatic proof by induction; which is what I would regard as one kind of
>> 'grasping infinity'.
>>
>
> Another one is a theorem prover for a formal and effective (the theorems
> are recursively enumerable) set theory. It has the axiom that there is an
> infinite set, but soon or later the theorem prover will prove Cantor
> theorem that all sets have a smaller cardinal than their power set. This is
> proved by diagonalization instead of induction. In fact diagonalization is
> very often effective or computable, and that is why machine can be aware of
> their own limitation.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>> Brent
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Pierz  wrote:
>> ​
>>
>>
>>
>> ​> ​Sure. It's a concept even very young children can understand
>>
>>
>>
>> ​Have you actually tried this experiment? I think if you ask a very young
>> child for the largest number there is he will say something like a million
>> zillion, if you counter with a million zillion +1 he will look puzzled for
>> a second and then with a note of triumph in his voice will say a million
>> zillion +2 and it will take some time to convince him that still isn't
>> quite right. ​
>>
>> ​> ​Computers just iterate until told or forced to stop, they cannot
>> reason about their own iterative processes.
>>
>>
>> ​Actually they can. ​
>> ​The computer program​ Mathematica
>> ​ uses iteration to calculate the numerical value of PI, if you tell it
>> to calculate the first 500 digits to the right of the decimal point it can
>> do it in about half a second, if you tell it to calculate the first
>> ​10,000​ digits to the right of the decimal point it can do it in about
>> ​3​ second
>> ​s, but if you ask it to calculate an infinite number of digits to the
>> right of the decimal ​point it won't even start the iteration procedure,
>> instead it will tell you that is an impossible task and you're being a
>> idiot for asking it to do such a thing. Well OK,... the program is more
>> polite than that and its language more diplomatic but I have a hunch that's
>> what it's thinking.
>>
>>
>> ​> ​infinity and zero are about equally easy mathematical concepts to
>> grasp - historically both appeared in Indian mathematics around the same
>> time.
>>
>>
>> ​And yet the idea that there was more than one sort of infinity and some
>> infinite things were bigger than others wasn't​
>> ​discovered until about 1880, not because the proof was so technically
>> difficult it isn't (​the ancient Greeks could have discovered it), but
>> because before Georg Cantor nobody had even tried; before Cantor everybody
>> thought it was obvious that nothing could be larger than infinity and that
>> was that. Everybody thought they understood infinity but they did not.
>>
>>
>> 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://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
> --
> You receiv

Re: Vast Methane releases in Arctic Ocean

[John Mikes]

Dear Samiya, do the 'Messengers' teach about Arctic Melt, or methane
accumulation? IS IT RELEVANT FOR HUMANITY?
jm

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Arctic melt and its implications:
>
>
> http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/07/arctic-sea-ice-collapse-threatens.html
>
>
> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
>
> --
> 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: Mission of the Messengers

[John Mikes]

Samiya, tha 'Satan' fable bothers me. Now we should 'believe' not only a
'God', but
also a 'Satan' with destructive tendencies against humanity?
I do not understand your "
*'...God saved humanity from extinction by annihilating the criminals and
their corruptions...'*

*D*oes that mean that there are no more criminals and their corruption?  or
did God only annihilate THOSE criminals of the previous cultural flare-ups?

Never mind.
Have a good day
John M

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Mission of the Messengers:
>
> No change should there be in the creation of Allah [Quran 30:30]
> *World History & Future Implications*
> *Abstract   *
> Scriptural records, mythology and archeological evidence together indicate
> that this is not the first time that humans have technologically advanced -
> rather ancient human civilisations were far mightier. According to
> scripture, they indulged in the grave crime of altering creation, and
> despite repeated warnings, when they persisted in their transgressions, God
> saved humanity from extinction by annihilating the criminals and their
> corruptions. Satan’s constant enmity for and relentless efforts to destroy
> mankind, and his methods are mentioned in the scriptures.
> As science advances, great strides are being made in genetic engineering
> and many other fronts. To ensure judicious and beneficial use of
> technology, it is vital at this juncture for believers, especially
> scholars, scientists and policy-makers to revisit the scriptures and take
> guidance from it, lest we unwittingly become Satan’s tool for our own
> eternal loss.
>
>
> *Full Text  *
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/06/mission-of-messengers.html
>
>  --
> 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 (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

[John Mikes]

Bruno wrote:

Do you assume a physical reality, or are you agnostic on this question?

I do believe in a natural or physical reality, but I am agnostic if it
needs to be assume and thus involved primitive element, or if what we take
as a physical universe is a (collective) experience of numbers that we can
derive from arithmetic (as it seems to be necessarily the case once we bet
that brains are Turing emulable (I am agnostic on this, but not on the fact
that if the brain is Turing emulable then the physical is an emergent
pattern in the mind of the (relative) numbers).

Hard to follow the summersaults of your concepts. I was waiting for some
'mathematical' reality as well. To "LIVE" in this universe I have to accept
some scientific conclusions of the little info we so far absorbed
(observed?) from a wider infinite Nature. That does not mean "I ASSUME". I
may use it.
Turing - as I think - was a human person so T-emulable is human conclusion.
Again you seem to have circumwent the 'physical experience that we can
derive from arithmetic" vs. "arithmetic, for which we learned a lot from
Nature".
I don't think arithmetic just jumped out from the human mind as Pallas
Athene from the head of Zeuss. In full armor. Integers, Primes or else. We
know a nice history how "zero" was invented and so on after the Romans with
their decimal(pentagonal?) system.

Our agnosticism may be different (I stress the so far unknown and maybe
even unknowable infinite complexity of the Entirety as potentially
influencing our (known/knowable) world as the basis of "MY" agnosticism.
Beyond that I try to comply with the World as we humans may know it by now).

JM

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 17 Jun 2015, at 22:11, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno: to describe what OTHERS did does not mean (in my vocabulary)
> that "I KNOW (agree?) the same domain as it was handled. I 'know' (or
> may know) the efforts to derive science by human scientists.
>
> Does NATURE have regularities indeed? or our scientific observation
> assigns returning facets and calls them regularities as long as they are
> not
> contradicted? OK, maybe I should use "EVENTS" instead of regularities.
> And please do not make me a Straw-Man by repeating what I wrote.
> Your sentence:
>
> *"Humans *might have learned a lot in mathematics by looking at nature,
> but this does not prove that nature precedes logically mathematics."*
>
> I have not included "logically" and may write: Q.e.D.
>
>
> Do you assume a physical reality, or are you agnostic on this question?
>
> I do believe in a natural or physical reality, but I am agnostic if it
> needs to be assume and thus involved primitive element, or if what we take
> as a physical universe is a (collective) experience of numbers that we can
> derive from arithmetic (as it seems to be necessarily the case once we bet
> that brains are Turing emulable (I am agnostic on this, but not on the fact
> that if the brain is Turing emulable then the physical is an emergent
> pattern in the mind of the (relative) numbers).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 15 Jun 2015, at 21:53, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Brent concluded ingeniously:
>>
>>
>> *They have a theory for why THIS might be so no matter what THIS is.  You
>> just have to find the right mathematics to describe it and miracle of
>> miracles the mathematics is obeyed!Brent*
>>
>> May I step a bit further: by careful observations humanity (or some
>> 'higher' cooperating intellect maybe?)  derived the connotions we call
>> 'theories', math, even axioms to make them fit. Then we fall on our
>> backside by admiration that they fit. Don't forget the historic buildup of
>> our 'science' etc, stepwise, as we increased the observational
>> treasure-chest of Nature.
>> So Nature does not "obey" mathematics, mathematics has been derived in
>> ways to follow the observed regularities of Nature.
>>
>>
>> I thought that you were agnostic, but here you talk like if you *knew*
>> something, which I don't.
>>
>> Even assuming Nature, the question remains: why does it have
>> regularities? Why does it look like it obeys mathematics? To say we derive
>> mathematics from nature does not really address the question.
>>
>> *Humans *might have learned a lot in mathematics by looking at nature,
>> but this does not prove that nature precedes logically mathematics. I have
>> given argument that the contrary might have happened: nature might belong
>> to the imagination of

Re: Enlightenment

[John Mikes]

Hard to explain to someone deeply anchored in a 'firm belief' of something
else. I wanted to stress that whatever we deem 'good' or 'bad' may be just
pertinent to a momentary view at our interest(s). IOW: maybe the weapons
for mass destruction etc. are necessary 'good' for those factors keeping us
here.
That does not imply a belief in some Hereafter, those 'factors' may be
anything (Zookeepers..- Huris ... Spirits... or just  inhabitants of
another universe. ).


On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:32 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Samiya wrote:
>>
>> 'our centuries of enlightenment'? really? creating deadly weapons of mass
>>> destruction and using them, poisoning the planet and creating imbalance in
>>> the ecosystem, rendering entire species extinct, toying with the weather,
>>> ... enlightenment??? and where can we run away from it all? except in
>>> trying to find meaning in this suffering and trial?
>>>
>>
>> In the idea of my beloved wife (the Zookeeper, recently: experimental
>> maintenance of humanity by 'them') humanity might have slipped out
>> and approached the ripeness to be discontinued. In such set-up the
>> enlightenment does not restrict facts according to   Y O U R  benefitial
>> ideas - i.o.w. what YOU find  G OO D, but all those "BAD" facts you
>> listed may be part of it.
>> We cannot run away from it at all.
>> And who cares if we "find meaning"? we may be finished - period.
>> (I don't believe it - maybe I am more emotional).
>> Do not fall for your own vocabulary in explaining meanings,
>> Have a 'good' day (in any sense - ha ha).
>> John Mikes
>>
>> I do not understand what you're trying to say in the above post. If I
> read it correctly, do you mean by the following quote: 'And who cares if we
> "find meaning"? we may be finished - period.
> (I don't believe it - maybe I am more emotional).'
> that you do believe in or hope for a Hereafter?
>
> 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.
>

-- 
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.