Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Will do.

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 29, 2016 09:24 AM
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter






On 28 Dec 2016, at 22:50, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:sane04 paper?


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html;>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

I suggest you print the slide too, and that we discuss it in the step by step 
manner.  It is the only way to fix the problem, if there is one.

Bruno



 I will look it up. 88 
was almost 29 years ago. Gad! How the time flies.
 
 
 -Original 
Message-
 From: Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be;>marc...@ulb.ac.be>
 To: everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;>everything-list@googlegroups.com>
 Sent: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:00 pm
 Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter
 
  
 
 On 27 Dec 2016, at 16:35, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Publish, please. 
 OK. My view is that 
Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive science, not physics)  is very 
plausible, even if the consequences are strange, given that the observations 
lead to the same kind of weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse as a 
confirmation of digital mechanism. 
  

  

  
I did, since 1988, I have published some parts or some version of the main 
arguments and the math analysis in many journals or proceedings. 

  
But I hope you will not take this as an argument of authority. Just ask 
question if you don't understand something. I got the UDA (without Church 
thesis) in the sixties, it does not need any technical expertise. Have you try 
to read the sane04 paper? I am not sure what you miss. Tha math parts needs 
familiarity in mathematical logic, but is not part of the main argument.  

  
My last papers (taken together you have the whole thesis) 

  
 Marchal 
B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys 
Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40 
   
Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in 
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.  
 

  
Bruno 

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
 
 -Original 
Message-
 From: Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be;>marc...@ulb.ac.be>
 To: everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;>everything-list@googlegroups.com>
 Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:18 am
 Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter
 
  
 
 On 24 Dec 2016, at 14:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Well, not to intrude on your privacy, but at some point, 
it might be interesting to read on your own personal view.  

  

  
OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive science, not 
physics)  is very plausible, even if the consequences are strange, given that 
the observations lead to the same kind of weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse 
as a confirmation of digital mechanism. 

  

  
 Yes, the fellows on this 
list, will take an axe to your profound, musings, on all this. On the maths, as 
the British term it, I do believe that what makes someone great, or even good 
at math, maybe, inheritance of a gift for memorizing patterns, thus, while the 
rest of us fumble, you and your fellow math-heads, soar into the higher ends of 
human thought. It probably how your dendrites are wiring together, for 
effective, pattern memorization.  My distaste is not incepted, from from being 
emotional, rather I may be emotional by being incapable. ;=)
  

  
Math is for everybody, but not all teachers agree. Cuturally, we use math to 
select people and put insane pressure on it, but like Gauss said, math is the 
simplest domain. now, it is like cannabis and god, when people have been 
brainwashed with wrong assertion since long, they close their mind and keep up 
their prejudices. 

  

  

  

  
   
Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean those 
knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it would be confusing 
if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard definition in analytical 
philosophy. 

  

  
  Like the speculation, earlier this year, that the cosmos 
is all a sim (naw!)  

  
This has been debunked. If we are in a simulation, we are in an infinity of 
simulations, and physics emerge from the computations statistics, which cannot 
be a simulation a priori. 

  

  
 it might be a great 
thing if we can contact the control program of your universal machine. 
 

  
We can do that partially. usually, we use operating systems, but with human 
universal machine, we use education and reflexion (in the best case), and 
insult, propaganda and terror (in the worst case). History of humanity is a 
sequence of fail attempts by humans to control humans. Today, we know or should 
know, assuming some reasonable theory, that this is impossible (and to m

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Dec 2016, at 22:50, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


sane04 paper?



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

I suggest you print the slide too, and that we discuss it in the step  
by step manner.  It is the only way to fix the problem, if there is one.


Bruno




I will look it up. 88 was almost 29 years ago. Gad! How the time  
flies.



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:00 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter


On 27 Dec 2016, at 16:35, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Publish, please.
OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive  
science, not physics)  is very plausible, even if the consequences  
are strange, given that the observations lead to the same kind of  
weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse as a confirmation of digital  
mechanism.




I did, since 1988, I have published some parts or some version of  
the main arguments and the math analysis in many journals or  
proceedings.


But I hope you will not take this as an argument of authority. Just  
ask question if you don't understand something. I got the UDA  
(without Church thesis) in the sixties, it does not need any  
technical expertise. Have you try to read the sane04 paper? I am not  
sure what you miss. Tha math parts needs familiarity in mathematical  
logic, but is not part of the main argument.


My last papers (taken together you have the whole thesis)

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body  
problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40


Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress  
in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.


Bruno









-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:18 am
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter


On 24 Dec 2016, at 14:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Well, not to intrude on your privacy, but at some point, it might be  
interesting to read on your own personal view.



OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive  
science, not physics)  is very plausible, even if the consequences  
are strange, given that the observations lead to the same kind of  
weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse as a confirmation of digital  
mechanism.




Yes, the fellows on this list, will take an axe to your profound,  
musings, on all this. On the maths, as the British term it, I do  
believe that what makes someone great, or even good at math, maybe,  
inheritance of a gift for memorizing patterns, thus, while the rest  
of us fumble, you and your fellow math-heads, soar into the higher  
ends of human thought. It probably how your dendrites are wiring  
together, for effective, pattern memorization.  My distaste is not  
incepted, from from being emotional, rather I may be emotional by  
being incapable. ;=)


Math is for everybody, but not all teachers agree. Cuturally, we use  
math to select people and put insane pressure on it, but like Gauss  
said, math is the simplest domain. now, it is like cannabis and god,  
when people have been brainwashed with wrong assertion since long,  
they close their mind and keep up their prejudices.






Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean  
those knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it  
would be confusing if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard  
definition in analytical philosophy.



Like the speculation, earlier this year, that the cosmos is all a  
sim (naw!)


This has been debunked. If we are in a simulation, we are in an  
infinity of simulations, and physics emerge from the computations  
statistics, which cannot be a simulation a priori.




it might be a great thing if we can contact the control program of  
your universal machine.


We can do that partially. usually, we use operating systems, but  
with human universal machine, we use education and reflexion (in the  
best case), and insult, propaganda and terror (in the worst case).  
History of humanity is a sequence of fail attempts by humans to  
control humans. Today, we know or should know, assuming some  
reasonable theory, that this is impossible (and to me that is a  
relief).




Probably impossible, using the sense that I mean it. By the way,  
much of your commentaries and publications, a capitulated, in the  
writings of Stephen Wolfram, and Eric Steinhart, as you may already  
know.  Steinhart is a naturalist philosopher, also on Evo-Devo, who  
views darwinian evolution, evolving vast computers, which in turn,  
evolve smarter and smarter vast computers, of which you and I are a  
product of.


They have missed the first person indeterminacy, and remains  
Aristotelian in their theology.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

sane04 paper? I will look it up. 88 was almost 29 years ago. Gad! How the time 
flies.



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:00 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter




On 27 Dec 2016, at 16:35, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


Publish, please. 
 
OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive science, not 
physics)  is very plausible, even if the consequences are strange, given that 
the observations lead to the same kind of weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse 
as a confirmation of digital mechanism.
 





I did, since 1988, I have published some parts or some version of the main 
arguments and the math analysis in many journals or proceedings.


But I hope you will not take this as an argument of authority. Just ask 
question if you don't understand something. I got the UDA (without Church 
thesis) in the sixties, it does not need any technical expertise. Have you try 
to read the sane04 paper? I am not sure what you miss. Tha math parts needs 
familiarity in mathematical logic, but is not part of the main argument. 


My last papers (taken together you have the whole thesis)



Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog 
Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40



Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in 
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.



Bruno














 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
 To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
 Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:18 am
 Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter
 
 
 

 
 
On 24 Dec 2016, at 14:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
 

Well, not to intrude on your privacy, but at some point, it might be 
interesting to read on your own personal view. 
 

 
 

 
 
OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive science, not 
physics)  is very plausible, even if the consequences are strange, given that 
the observations lead to the same kind of weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse 
as a confirmation of digital mechanism.
 

 
 

 
 
 
Yes, the fellows on this list, will take an axe to your profound, musings, on 
all this. On the maths, as the British term it, I do believe that what makes 
someone great, or even good at math, maybe, inheritance of a gift for 
memorizing patterns, thus, while the rest of us fumble, you and your fellow 
math-heads, soar into the higher ends of human thought. It probably how your 
dendrites are wiring together, for effective, pattern memorization.  My 
distaste is not incepted, from from being emotional, rather I may be emotional 
by being incapable. ;=)
 
 

 
 
Math is for everybody, but not all teachers agree. Cuturally, we use math to 
select people and put insane pressure on it, but like Gauss said, math is the 
simplest domain. now, it is like cannabis and god, when people have been 
brainwashed with wrong assertion since long, they close their mind and keep up 
their prejudices.
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean those 
knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it would be confusing 
if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard definition in analytical 
philosophy.
 

 
 

 
 
 
 Like the speculation, earlier this year, that the cosmos is all a sim (naw!) 
 

 
 
This has been debunked. If we are in a simulation, we are in an infinity of 
simulations, and physics emerge from the computations statistics, which cannot 
be a simulation a priori.
 

 
 

 
 
 
it might be a great thing if we can contact the control program of your 
universal machine. 
 

 
 
We can do that partially. usually, we use operating systems, but with human 
universal machine, we use education and reflexion (in the best case), and 
insult, propaganda and terror (in the worst case). History of humanity is a 
sequence of fail attempts by humans to control humans. Today, we know or should 
know, assuming some reasonable theory, that this is impossible (and to me that 
is a relief).
 

 
 

 
 
 
Probably impossible, using the sense that I mean it. By the way, much of your 
commentaries and publications, a capitulated, in the writings of Stephen 
Wolfram, and Eric Steinhart, as you may already know.  Steinhart is a 
naturalist philosopher, also on Evo-Devo, who views darwinian evolution, 
evolving vast computers, which in turn, evolve smarter and smarter vast 
computers, of which you and I are a product of. 
 

 
 
They have missed the first person indeterminacy, and remains Aristotelian in 
their theology.
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
On another topic, how are you folks faring in Europe,. given the onslaught (my 
term) of Jihadists? 
 
 

 
 
Not to well. But that is another topic. Imo, as long as we don't get rational 
on health and 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Dec 2016, at 16:35, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


Publish, please.
OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive  
science, not physics)  is very plausible, even if the consequences  
are strange, given that the observations lead to the same kind of  
weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse as a confirmation of digital  
mechanism.





I did, since 1988, I have published some parts or some version of the  
main arguments and the math analysis in many journals or proceedings.


But I hope you will not take this as an argument of authority. Just  
ask question if you don't understand something. I got the UDA (without  
Church thesis) in the sixties, it does not need any technical  
expertise. Have you try to read the sane04 paper? I am not sure what  
you miss. Tha math parts needs familiarity in mathematical logic, but  
is not part of the main argument.


My last papers (taken together you have the whole thesis)

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body  
problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40


Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in  
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.


Bruno










-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:18 am
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter


On 24 Dec 2016, at 14:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Well, not to intrude on your privacy, but at some point, it might be  
interesting to read on your own personal view.



OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive  
science, not physics)  is very plausible, even if the consequences  
are strange, given that the observations lead to the same kind of  
weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse as a confirmation of digital  
mechanism.




Yes, the fellows on this list, will take an axe to your profound,  
musings, on all this. On the maths, as the British term it, I do  
believe that what makes someone great, or even good at math, maybe,  
inheritance of a gift for memorizing patterns, thus, while the rest  
of us fumble, you and your fellow math-heads, soar into the higher  
ends of human thought. It probably how your dendrites are wiring  
together, for effective, pattern memorization.  My distaste is not  
incepted, from from being emotional, rather I may be emotional by  
being incapable. ;=)


Math is for everybody, but not all teachers agree. Cuturally, we use  
math to select people and put insane pressure on it, but like Gauss  
said, math is the simplest domain. now, it is like cannabis and god,  
when people have been brainwashed with wrong assertion since long,  
they close their mind and keep up their prejudices.






Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean  
those knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it  
would be confusing if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard  
definition in analytical philosophy.



Like the speculation, earlier this year, that the cosmos is all a  
sim (naw!)


This has been debunked. If we are in a simulation, we are in an  
infinity of simulations, and physics emerge from the computations  
statistics, which cannot be a simulation a priori.




it might be a great thing if we can contact the control program of  
your universal machine.


We can do that partially. usually, we use operating systems, but  
with human universal machine, we use education and reflexion (in the  
best case), and insult, propaganda and terror (in the worst case).  
History of humanity is a sequence of fail attempts by humans to  
control humans. Today, we know or should know, assuming some  
reasonable theory, that this is impossible (and to me that is a  
relief).




Probably impossible, using the sense that I mean it. By the way,  
much of your commentaries and publications, a capitulated, in the  
writings of Stephen Wolfram, and Eric Steinhart, as you may already  
know.  Steinhart is a naturalist philosopher, also on Evo-Devo, who  
views darwinian evolution, evolving vast computers, which in turn,  
evolve smarter and smarter vast computers, of which you and I are a  
product of.


They have missed the first person indeterminacy, and remains  
Aristotelian in their theology.




On another topic, how are you folks faring in Europe,. given the  
onslaught (my term) of Jihadists?


Not to well. But that is another topic. Imo, as long as we don't get  
rational on health and medication, we will fuel the international  
crimes and terrorism.





My old point is that we need better theologies, not Religions,

by default, I take theology and religion as the same thing. But if  
by religion you mean a special theology + a theurgy, it is OK. Like  
the greek early neoplatonist theologians, I am skeptical on theurgy,  
but why not, as long as the priest can blink (cf Alan Watts)

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Publish, please. 

OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive science, not 
physics)  is very plausible, even if the consequences are strange, given that 
the observations lead to the same kind of weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse 
as a confirmation of digital mechanism.




-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:18 am
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter




On 24 Dec 2016, at 14:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


Well, not to intrude on your privacy, but at some point, it might be 
interesting to read on your own personal view. 




OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive science, not 
physics)  is very plausible, even if the consequences are strange, given that 
the observations lead to the same kind of weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse 
as a confirmation of digital mechanism.






Yes, the fellows on this list, will take an axe to your profound, musings, on 
all this. On the maths, as the British term it, I do believe that what makes 
someone great, or even good at math, maybe, inheritance of a gift for 
memorizing patterns, thus, while the rest of us fumble, you and your fellow 
math-heads, soar into the higher ends of human thought. It probably how your 
dendrites are wiring together, for effective, pattern memorization.  My 
distaste is not incepted, from from being emotional, rather I may be emotional 
by being incapable. ;=)



Math is for everybody, but not all teachers agree. Cuturally, we use math to 
select people and put insane pressure on it, but like Gauss said, math is the 
simplest domain. now, it is like cannabis and god, when people have been 
brainwashed with wrong assertion since long, they close their mind and keep up 
their prejudices.










 
 
Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean those 
knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it would be confusing 
if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard definition in analytical 
philosophy.
 

 
 

 
 
 
 Like the speculation, earlier this year, that the cosmos is all a sim (naw!) 


This has been debunked. If we are in a simulation, we are in an infinity of 
simulations, and physics emerge from the computations statistics, which cannot 
be a simulation a priori.






it might be a great thing if we can contact the control program of your 
universal machine. 


We can do that partially. usually, we use operating systems, but with human 
universal machine, we use education and reflexion (in the best case), and 
insult, propaganda and terror (in the worst case). History of humanity is a 
sequence of fail attempts by humans to control humans. Today, we know or should 
know, assuming some reasonable theory, that this is impossible (and to me that 
is a relief).






Probably impossible, using the sense that I mean it. By the way, much of your 
commentaries and publications, a capitulated, in the writings of Stephen 
Wolfram, and Eric Steinhart, as you may already know.  Steinhart is a 
naturalist philosopher, also on Evo-Devo, who views darwinian evolution, 
evolving vast computers, which in turn, evolve smarter and smarter vast 
computers, of which you and I are a product of. 


They have missed the first person indeterminacy, and remains Aristotelian in 
their theology.





 
 
On another topic, how are you folks faring in Europe,. given the onslaught (my 
term) of Jihadists? 



Not to well. But that is another topic. Imo, as long as we don't get rational 
on health and medication, we will fuel the international crimes and terrorism. 








My old point is that we need better theologies, not Religions,



by default, I take theology and religion as the same thing. But if by religion 
you mean a special theology + a theurgy, it is OK. Like the greek early 
neoplatonist theologians, I am skeptical on theurgy, but why not, as long as 
the priest can blink (cf Alan Watts).


We don't need new theologies, but a scientific attitude (modesty) in the field.






 to put forth (here I go again!) plausible, afterlife theories, which in the 
long term, I am convinced, will ameliorate the situation, that I perceive upon 
your continent.  The trick is, it would be something we all would believe as 
well. This must work for atheists and agnostics, as well as the deeply 
religious. 



I am OK. I use "god" in the greek original sense, so atheism does not exist. We 
all believe in some reality, and that is "divine-like" because nobody can prove 
the existence of a reality. Is it a person? Has it personal aspect? Complex 
question which needs to be addressed, but we are not yet there. 




 

 
 
With this in mind, Professor, have a Joyeux Noel, a happy Chanukah, a 
Prosperous Newtonmass, a glorious, Leonard Susskind Day, May, Carlo Rovelli 
guide your wisdom, may, Sir Andrew Wiles, guid

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Dec 2016, at 14:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Well, not to intrude on your privacy, but at some point, it might be  
interesting to read on your own personal view.



OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive  
science, not physics)  is very plausible, even if the consequences are  
strange, given that the observations lead to the same kind of  
weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse as a confirmation of digital  
mechanism.




Yes, the fellows on this list, will take an axe to your profound,  
musings, on all this. On the maths, as the British term it, I do  
believe that what makes someone great, or even good at math, maybe,  
inheritance of a gift for memorizing patterns, thus, while the rest  
of us fumble, you and your fellow math-heads, soar into the higher  
ends of human thought. It probably how your dendrites are wiring  
together, for effective, pattern memorization.  My distaste is not  
incepted, from from being emotional, rather I may be emotional by  
being incapable. ;=)


Math is for everybody, but not all teachers agree. Cuturally, we use  
math to select people and put insane pressure on it, but like Gauss  
said, math is the simplest domain. now, it is like cannabis and god,  
when people have been brainwashed with wrong assertion since long,  
they close their mind and keep up their prejudices.






Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean  
those knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it  
would be confusing if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard  
definition in analytical philosophy.



Like the speculation, earlier this year, that the cosmos is all a  
sim (naw!)


This has been debunked. If we are in a simulation, we are in an  
infinity of simulations, and physics emerge from the computations  
statistics, which cannot be a simulation a priori.




it might be a great thing if we can contact the control program of  
your universal machine.


We can do that partially. usually, we use operating systems, but with  
human universal machine, we use education and reflexion (in the best  
case), and insult, propaganda and terror (in the worst case). History  
of humanity is a sequence of fail attempts by humans to control  
humans. Today, we know or should know, assuming some reasonable  
theory, that this is impossible (and to me that is a relief).




Probably impossible, using the sense that I mean it. By the way,  
much of your commentaries and publications, a capitulated, in the  
writings of Stephen Wolfram, and Eric Steinhart, as you may already  
know.  Steinhart is a naturalist philosopher, also on Evo-Devo, who  
views darwinian evolution, evolving vast computers, which in turn,  
evolve smarter and smarter vast computers, of which you and I are a  
product of.


They have missed the first person indeterminacy, and remains  
Aristotelian in their theology.





On another topic, how are you folks faring in Europe,. given the  
onslaught (my term) of Jihadists?


Not to well. But that is another topic. Imo, as long as we don't get  
rational on health and medication, we will fuel the international  
crimes and terrorism.






My old point is that we need better theologies, not Religions,


by default, I take theology and religion as the same thing. But if by  
religion you mean a special theology + a theurgy, it is OK. Like the  
greek early neoplatonist theologians, I am skeptical on theurgy, but  
why not, as long as the priest can blink (cf Alan Watts).


We don't need new theologies, but a scientific attitude (modesty) in  
the field.




to put forth (here I go again!) plausible, afterlife theories, which  
in the long term, I am convinced, will ameliorate the situation,  
that I perceive upon your continent.  The trick is, it would be  
something we all would believe as well. This must work for atheists  
and agnostics, as well as the deeply religious.


I am OK. I use "god" in the greek original sense, so atheism does not  
exist. We all believe in some reality, and that is "divine-like"  
because nobody can prove the existence of a reality. Is it a person?  
Has it personal aspect? Complex question which needs to be addressed,  
but we are not yet there.





With this in mind, Professor, have a Joyeux Noel, a happy Chanukah,  
a Prosperous Newtonmass, a glorious, Leonard Susskind Day, May,  
Carlo Rovelli guide your wisdom, may, Sir Andrew Wiles, guide your  
chalk stick! May, William D. Gropp, guide your keyboard! Adieu!


Happy Christmass to you too, but let us not accept any terrestrial  
guides but ourselves, because *you* are the real guide and hero in  
this story.


Bruno






-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Dec 18, 2016 1:12 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter


On 18 Dec 2016, at 00:04, spudboy100 via Everything List 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Well, not to intrude on your privacy, but at some point, it might be 
interesting to read on your own personal view. Yes, the fellows on this list, 
will take an axe to your profound, musings, on all this. On the maths, as the 
British term it, I do believe that what makes someone great, or even good at 
math, maybe, inheritance of a gift for memorizing patterns, thus, while the 
rest of us fumble, you and your fellow math-heads, soar into the higher ends of 
human thought. It probably how your dendrites are wiring together, for 
effective, pattern memorization.  My distaste is not incepted, from from being 
emotional, rather I may be emotional by being incapable. ;=)


Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean those 
knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it would be confusing 
if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard definition in analytical 
philosophy.






Like the speculation, earlier this year, that the cosmos is all a sim (naw!) it 
might be a great thing if we can contact the control program of your universal 
machine. Probably impossible, using the sense that I mean it. By the way, much 
of your commentaries and publications, a capitulated, in the writings of 
Stephen Wolfram, and Eric Steinhart, as you may already know.  Steinhart is a 
naturalist philosopher, also on Evo-Devo, who views darwinian evolution, 
evolving vast computers, which in turn, evolve smarter and smarter vast 
computers, of which you and I are a product of.


On another topic, how are you folks faring in Europe,. given the onslaught (my 
term) of Jihadists? My old point is that we need better theologies, not 
Religions, to put forth (here I go again!) plausible, afterlife theories, which 
in the long term, I am convinced, will ameliorate the situation, that I 
perceive upon your continent.  The trick is, it would be something we all would 
believe as well. This must work for atheists and agnostics, as well as the 
deeply religious. 


With this in mind, Professor, have a Joyeux Noel, a happy Chanukah, a 
Prosperous Newtonmass, a glorious, Leonard Susskind Day, May, Carlo Rovelli 
guide your wisdom, may, Sir Andrew Wiles, guide your chalk stick! May, William 
D. Gropp, guide your keyboard!


Adieu!



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Dec 18, 2016 1:12 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter




On 18 Dec 2016, at 00:04, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


Well, Doc, you mentioned your afterlife view before, 


Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean those 
knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it would be confusing 
if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard definition in analytical 
philosophy.








and I either found it emotively, unpalatable (Damn. there's goes the human 
amygdala again!) or found it too hard to comprehend, 


You can ask question. Do you have a problem with the definition of the weak 
computationalist assumption?










when you used to say "read the universal dovetailer argument," (Darn that weak 
cerebrum!), and so forth. 


I don't believe in weak cerebrum. I think you just showed, indeed just above, 
some emotional unpalatableness, if I can say.











 
 
My own sense of things driven by both cranial structures, indicate for me, that 
since there is and has been unending tragic goings on in the world (perhaps 
3.75 billion years worth?), so I in my insight have decided its up to our 
species, and/or its descendents, to sort thing out. 



yes, but history shows also that the tragic doing is sometime just perpetuated 
by such "good intentions". The passage from unicellular to pluricellular was 
also a way to sort things out, but it made us going out of the ocean and it can 
lost us on Mars, Titan, or far beyond. 
Nothing is simple. Beyond universality, simplifying is itself a root of 
complexifying.








I am believing that, lacking all other available actions, computing is the way 
to go. the only way at this point.  



To compute you need a universal machine, and that machine is only one more 
unknown in a equation of 8 billions of unknowns.












99.95% of our species population thinks differently from I, and taking that as 
a reasonable sign that I am on the wrong side of things, once more, I persist 
anyway.



We have partial control. The attempt to get total control either kill 
universality/freedom, or get inconsistent/delire/catastrophes.






 
 

 
 
You look for and accept (as most do!) reality as it is.





I am not sure this makes sense. At some level we all have to do that. At a 
different level, we all try to improve the human condition relative to this or 
that possible "reality". 


The main lesson here given by the universal machine, but also by Alan Watts 
(The wisdom of insecurity) or Robert Valadier (Inél

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 Dec 2016, at 00:04, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


Well, Doc, you mentioned your afterlife view before,


Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean  
those knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it  
would be confusing if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard  
definition in analytical philosophy.





and I either found it emotively, unpalatable (Damn. there's goes the  
human amygdala again!) or found it too hard to comprehend,


You can ask question. Do you have a problem with the definition of the  
weak computationalist assumption?






when you used to say "read the universal dovetailer argument," (Darn  
that weak cerebrum!), and so forth.


I don't believe in weak cerebrum. I think you just showed, indeed just  
above, some emotional unpalatableness, if I can say.








My own sense of things driven by both cranial structures, indicate  
for me, that since there is and has been unending tragic goings on  
in the world (perhaps 3.75 billion years worth?), so I in my insight  
have decided its up to our species, and/or its descendents, to sort  
thing out.


yes, but history shows also that the tragic doing is sometime just  
perpetuated by such "good intentions". The passage from unicellular to  
pluricellular was also a way to sort things out, but it made us going  
out of the ocean and it can lost us on Mars, Titan, or far beyond.
Nothing is simple. Beyond universality, simplifying is itself a root  
of complexifying.





I am believing that, lacking all other available actions, computing  
is the way to go. the only way at this point.


To compute you need a universal machine, and that machine is only one  
more unknown in a equation of 8 billions of unknowns.







99.95% of our species population thinks differently from I, and  
taking that as a reasonable sign that I am on the wrong side of  
things, once more, I persist anyway.


We have partial control. The attempt to get total control either kill  
universality/freedom, or get inconsistent/delire/catastrophes.







You look for and accept (as most do!) reality as it is.



I am not sure this makes sense. At some level we all have to do that.  
At a different level, we all try to improve the human condition  
relative to this or that possible "reality".


The main lesson here given by the universal machine, but also by Alan  
Watts (The wisdom of insecurity) or Robert Valadier (Inéluctable  
morale) is ... well, it is sum up in the popular saying "Hell is paved  
with good intention".


One way to help, avoiding that warning, is to study the right, and  
politics, and trying to fix the system, which has been taken into  
hostage since sometimes. Today the fundamental powers (media,  
politics, judiciary, academic, etc.) are no more separated, which is  
mandatory for a democracy (Montesquieu).




I sift through science papers (like at ARXIV) and other popular  
online source, attempting to look for possibilities of things, such  
as cosmological registers of some sort, a MAC address in the sky,  
but something, more read-write, a spacetime SSD, for a laugh.


Everything can be used for a laugh (grin).

Not sure why you want a MAC address in the sky, well, not sure a sky  
belongs to the category of things providing addresses. I Hope you  
don't believe that God lives on some cloud (re-grin).


Bruno



I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife,  
soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our  
relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality,  
although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge  
*is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a pain  
here or a pleasure here, that we can know but not  
communicate rationally, nor justified).




-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 16, 2016 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter


On 16 Dec 2016, at 15:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for the  
intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are you  
interested, instead, of allowing humanity better control of our  
region of the universe, by understanding the rules?



I guess each one of us has his, or her, own motivation.

Mine is just to try to figure out what is reality, and what is the  
relation between us and that reality.


I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife,  
soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our  
relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality,  
although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge  
*is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a pain  
here or a pleasure here, that we can know but not  
communicate ra

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 Dec 2016, at 06:40, Brent Meeker wrote:

Bruno poses the question of whether we would let "the doctor"  
substitute some functionally equivalent mechanism for our brain.   
But why substitute?  Why not just add on.  Well before it's possible  
to provide a substitute brain, it will be possible to provide a  
brain prosthesis that allows enormously greater storage capacity and  
communication with the internet and other similarly augmented  
people.  This offers a kind of immortality much more satisfying that  
survival in some other branch of the Multiple Worlds.



I agree with you.

My point is theoretical. Only a brain, artificial or not, can  
prolongate our normal experience, and an artificial one can help us to  
see the grandgrandchildren growing, and the next soccer cups. To be  
immortal *literally* in that sense would assume a robust universe  
(like in step 7).
So for the long run, and assuming the usual theory, it is hard to  
avoid the "other side" (say).



If my memories and experiences and knowledge can be transferred to  
my children, then they will be me+.  I've often reflected how  
inefficient it is that each child has to start over learning  
reading, writing, and Peano.  But if my memories survive then that's  
pretty close to immortality since memories are the primary element  
of identity that connects me to Brent Meeker of 10yrs ago and of  
20yrs ago and 40yrs ago...


OK. But if you go enough far in the past, like in your mother's womb,  
somehow, you can intuit we are quite alike.
We can go up to the universal machine, I think. We can even dissociate  
from the induction axioms!
As long as someone get the glee of some lovely non go theorem in  
arithmetic, like the irrationality of the square root of 2, I will be  
there :)


Bruno



Brent

On 12/17/2016 3:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Well, Doc, you mentioned your afterlife view before, and I either  
found it emotively, unpalatable (Damn. there's goes the human  
amygdala again!) or found it too hard to comprehend, when you used  
to say "read the universal dovetailer argument," (Darn that weak  
cerebrum!), and so forth.


My own sense of things driven by both cranial structures, indicate  
for me, that since there is and has been unending tragic goings on  
in the world (perhaps 3.75 billion years worth?), so I in my  
insight have decided its up to our species, and/or its descendents,  
to sort thing out. I am believing that, lacking all other available  
actions, computing is the way to go. the only way at this point.   
99.95% of our species population thinks differently from I, and  
taking that as a reasonable sign that I am on the wrong side of  
things, once more, I persist anyway.


You look for and accept (as most do!) reality as it is. I sift  
through science papers (like at ARXIV) and other popular online  
source, attempting to look for possibilities of things, such as  
cosmological registers of some sort, a MAC address in the sky, but  
something, more read-write, a spacetime SSD, for a laugh.
I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife,  
soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our  
relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality,  
although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge  
*is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a  
pain here or a pleasure here, that we can know but not  
communicate rationally, nor justified).




-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 16, 2016 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter


On 16 Dec 2016, at 15:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for the  
intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are you  
interested, instead, of allowing humanity better control of our  
region of the universe, by understanding the rules?



I guess each one of us has his, or her, own motivation.

Mine is just to try to figure out what is reality, and what is the  
relation between us and that reality.


I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife,  
soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our  
relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality,  
although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge  
*is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a  
pain here or a pleasure here, that we can know but not  
communicate rationally, nor justified).


I think most fundamental researchers are motivated by a curiosity  
and fascination on some Reality that they are searching, and often,  
it can happen they get cursed by the beauty of their theories,  
which can help but can also become an handicapthat will depend  
on many things.


So it is neither for the enjoyment

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[PGC]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 6:40:17 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
> Bruno poses the question of whether we would let "the doctor" substitute 
> some functionally equivalent mechanism for our brain.  But why substitute?  
> Why not just add on.  
>

Good question.
 

> Well before it's possible to provide a substitute brain, it will be 
> possible to provide a brain prosthesis that allows enormously greater 
> storage capacity and communication with the internet and other similarly 
> augmented people.  This offers a kind of immortality much more satisfying 
> that survival in some other branch of the Multiple Worlds.  If my memories 
> and experiences and knowledge can be transferred to my children, then they 
> will be me+. 
>

That assumes that children would want our memories. Because with such 
memories our descendants could also inherit bad habits, traumas etc. along 
with what we deem to be the positive content. In certain circumstances 
you'd want perhaps to label certain stored memories with a warning maybe, 
as "useful but with side-effect of trauma that caused me social anxiety" 
and leave the choice up to the kids. :-) 

Perhaps offer abridged text-based or holodeck VR versions that require less 
commitment and a bit of distance for some flexibility, lol.

I've often reflected how inefficient it is that each child has to start 
> over learning reading, writing, and Peano.  
>

Inefficient only when we rigidly impose our standards and biases. When we 
don't do that, these seemingly boring tasks are the most awesome magic 
available because above the tedium, you see the full person developing into 
who they are, refuting all our theories and standards + sharing with us the 
beginning of fresh new worlds that replenish the appetite for life. I 
wouldn't trade these useless memories for anything nor would I want 
descendants to be necessarily encumbered by them. This keeps 
control-freakishness and insecurities in check for folks who practice the 
art of letting go.
 

> But if my memories survive then that's pretty close to immortality since 
> memories are the primary element of identity that connects me to Brent 
> Meeker of 10yrs ago and of 20yrs ago and 40yrs ago...
>

There is also perhaps some Brentness beyond the memories. Attitudes, 
styles, the type of clothing/hats we wear, our musics, our jokes, aesthetic 
dimensions of who we are etc. The stuff only our intimate buddies and 
partners have the pleasure or displeasure to get to approach/know, which 
might be alluded to through some poetry, music, farewell from friends and 
family or similar things when we pass away? 

There are also the practical limits of memory: what we can be aware of in 
any single moment, as with Turing machines, is limited to the symbol being 
scanned, even if a Turing machine can alter their m-configuration to 
remember symbols previously scanned. And in any language, there is a good 
reason for an upper limit to awareness concerning length of compound 
symbols. 555 or  are compound symbols and we 
can't tell at a glance whether one is larger or the same. So that 
harmonizes nicely with experience. Also, Turing machines are assumed to 
have finite amount of states for a similar reason to limits of compound 
symbols: If we allow infinity of states, some of them will be arbitrarily 
close and we get a messy confusion, when we could avoid use of highly 
complicated/confusing states of mind by writing more symbols on the tape 
and referring to memory as needed.

But indeed, why encumber descendants with ALL our luggage? Some memories of 
mine, even I can live without, lol. 

I'll just make sure to leave the keys, nuclear weapons, Doctors', lawyers' 
and accountants' contact details, should there ever be any trouble, and 
place memories into some sorted storage with warning labels and sales 
pitches. That is, if this variety of fuzzy Sunday afternoon options ever 
does become available. PGC 


  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

Bruno poses the question of whether we would let "the doctor" substitute 
some functionally equivalent mechanism for our brain. But why 
substitute?  Why not just add on.  Well before it's possible to provide 
a substitute brain, it will be possible to provide a brain prosthesis 
that allows enormously greater storage capacity and communication with 
the internet and other similarly augmented people.  This offers a kind 
of immortality much more satisfying that survival in some other branch 
of the Multiple Worlds.  If my memories and experiences and knowledge 
can be transferred to my children, then they will be me+.  I've often 
reflected how inefficient it is that each child has to start over 
learning reading, writing, and Peano.  But if my memories survive then 
that's pretty close to immortality since memories are the primary 
element of identity that connects me to Brent Meeker of 10yrs ago and of 
20yrs ago and 40yrs ago...


Brent


On 12/17/2016 3:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Well, Doc, you mentioned your afterlife view before, and I either 
found it emotively, unpalatable (Damn. there's goes the human amygdala 
again!) or found it too hard to comprehend, when you used to say "read 
the universal dovetailer argument," (Darn that weak cerebrum!), and so 
forth.


My own sense of things driven by both cranial structures, indicate for 
me, that since there is and has been unending tragic goings on in the 
world (perhaps 3.75 billion years worth?), so I in my insight have 
decided its up to our species, and/or its descendents, to sort thing 
out. I am believing that, lacking all other available actions, 
computing is the way to go. the only way at this point.  99.95% of our 
species population thinks differently from I, and taking that as a 
reasonable sign that I am on the wrong side of things, once more, I 
persist anyway.


You look for and accept (as most do!) reality as it is. I sift through 
science papers (like at ARXIV) and other popular online source, 
attempting to look for possibilities of things, such as cosmological 
registers of some sort, a MAC address in the sky, but something, more 
read-write, a spacetime SSD, for a laugh.


I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife,
soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our
relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality,
although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge
*is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a
pain here or a pleasure here, that we can know but not
communicate rationally, nor justified).




-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 16, 2016 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter


On 16 Dec 2016, at 15:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for
the intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are
you interested, instead, of allowing humanity better control of
our region of the universe, by understanding the rules?



I guess each one of us has his, or her, own motivation.

Mine is just to try to figure out what is reality, and what is the 
relation between us and that reality.


I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife, soul, 
consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our relations 
in general by extending our knowledge of that reality, although with 
computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge *is* knowledge, 
except for a few first person indexical (like a pain here or a 
pleasure here, that we can know but not communicate rationally, 
nor justified).


I think most fundamental researchers are motivated by a curiosity and 
fascination on some Reality that they are searching, and often, it can 
happen they get cursed by the beauty of their theories, which can help 
but can also become an handicapthat will depend on many things.


So it is neither for the enjoyment of some science per se, nor for 
helping humanity, it is by curiosity of what is real, with, in the 
background some enjoyment for what we can see/conceive in the process, 
and the idea that better knowing what is real can only help humanity 
if she needs help.


Bruno



-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au
<mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au>>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Thu, Dec 15, 2016 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:47:03PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> The question you asked was (I quote):
>
> >>>I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
> >>>explain the predi

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Well, Doc, you mentioned your afterlife view before, and I either found it 
emotively, unpalatable (Damn. there's goes the human amygdala again!) or found 
it too hard to comprehend, when you used to say "read the universal dovetailer 
argument," (Darn that weak cerebrum!), and so forth.


My own sense of things driven by both cranial structures, indicate for me, that 
since there is and has been unending tragic goings on in the world (perhaps 
3.75 billion years worth?), so I in my insight have decided its up to our 
species, and/or its descendents, to sort thing out. I am believing that, 
lacking all other available actions, computing is the way to go. the only way 
at this point.  99.95% of our species population thinks differently from I, and 
taking that as a reasonable sign that I am on the wrong side of things, once 
more, I persist anyway. 


You look for and accept (as most do!) reality as it is. I sift through science 
papers (like at ARXIV) and other popular online source, attempting to look for 
possibilities of things, such as cosmological registers of some sort, a MAC 
address in the sky, but something, more read-write, a spacetime SSD, for a 
laugh.  

I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife, soul, 
consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our relations in general 
by extending our knowledge of that reality, although with computationalism, we 
can never be sure our knowledge *is* knowledge, except for a few first person 
indexical (like a pain here or a pleasure here, that we can know but 
not communicate rationally, nor justified).




-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 16, 2016 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter




On 16 Dec 2016, at 15:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for the 
intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are you interested, 
instead, of allowing humanity better control of our region of the universe, by 
understanding the rules? 





I guess each one of us has his, or her, own motivation.


Mine is just to try to figure out what is reality, and what is the relation 
between us and that reality.


I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife, soul, 
consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our relations in general 
by extending our knowledge of that reality, although with computationalism, we 
can never be sure our knowledge *is* knowledge, except for a few first person 
indexical (like a pain here or a pleasure here, that we can know but 
not communicate rationally, nor justified).


I think most fundamental researchers are motivated by a curiosity and 
fascination on some Reality that they are searching, and often, it can happen 
they get cursed by the beauty of their theories, which can help but can also 
become an handicapthat will depend on many things.


So it is neither for the enjoyment of some science per se, nor for helping 
humanity, it is by curiosity of what is real, with, in the background some 
enjoyment for what we can see/conceive in the process, and the idea that better 
knowing what is real can only help humanity if she needs help.


Bruno


 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
 To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
 Sent: Thu, Dec 15, 2016 7:36 pm
 Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter
 
 On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:47:03PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 > 
 > The question you asked was (I quote):
 > 
 > >>>I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
 > >>>explain the predictive power of physics.
 > 
 > 
 > Let me try to explain again.
 > 
 > How do a physicist make a prediction about his future first person
 > experience?
 > 
 > To fix the things, why am I pretty sure I will fell like seeing  an
 > eclipse when predicted by Newton's law.
 > 
 > The usual materialist/physicalist answer is roughly like this. There
 > is the assumption of a physical reality(*) and that it contains or
 > realized objects obeying laws.
 
 I don't think this is the case. For example, in the theory of statics,
 used to construct bridges, solid objects with properties of tensile
 strength, (mass) density, elasticity and so on are assumed, even
 though ontologically, they are known to be composed of mostly empty
 space, with those very ontological properties the result of
 electromagnetic fields.
 
 Most other physical models are the same - the example Brent gave of
 using continuous fluid mechanics to predict hurricances is an
 excelent point. Of course we know that the atmosphere is not a
 continuum, but rather made up of a collection of molecules with
 emergent properties that makes the continuous description a 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[PGC]

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 7:49:20 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 05:54:22PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > In our case, Brent was advertizing materialism or physicalism by 
> > referring to the high predictive power of the physical laws. That is 
> > the point which is inconsistent when we assume digital mechanism. 
> > 
>
> I didn't think Brent was doing that - but maybe Brent can chime 
> in. 'Nuff said. 
>
>
Heaven's sake guys, what a grave sin by Brent! :-)

Bruno building a wall again to protect some interpretation of 
computationalism and making believers in primary matter pay for it? Throwing 
everybody who has a record of assuming primary matter into jail? The grand 
computationalist inquisition? With that reasoning Bruno would have to jail 
Brent, Russell, Telmo, me, as well as himself. Stating to "not have a 
problem with physicists", and then going on to imply somewhat a 
state-of-affairs such that any agent/entity/observer who uses reason 
without reading Bruno's publications is plausibly guilty of invoking a 
primary physical universe to justify predictions... as if he had some 
monopoly to the justified authority of pure reason itself; that's quite 
funny and evidence of Bruno's fine sense of humor. Playing computationalist 
police? Thou shalt pay your dues to the god of mechanism! Sole arbiter of 
the one true power! Respect reason's Messiah on earth and don't fumble with 
the origins of physical laws... in other words: if you use reason, accept 
the pope of mechanism! The shit's patented. Pay up. lol

AFAIK he'll still brew his coffee that way and bet on a range of different 
kinds of primary matter and their behavior, including fluids + temperature 
over time, or that lightning won't strike him for hurting the coffee beans 
by predicting a hurricane, even though he deems these things to be 
incompatible with computationalism. Like he derives the time to turn off 
the heat to his coffee pot from dovetailer branch probabilities! 

Nice Christmas banter guys; the list got fun for a moment, which given all 
the fundamental searching for pure curiosity's sake is quite a feat! 
Because that fundamental searching is most definitely very grave and 
serious; not a laughing matter at all. Enjoyment verboten, if not a little 
bit in the background! AHA!!! How do you KNOW what is background or not?

Maybe a Christmas lecture on how to brew a dovetailer coffee WITHOUT 
resorting to naive algorithms based on nothing but predictable physical 
behavior of all objects and observers involved (yeah, yeah while failing to 
explain the origin of physical laws) would be nice? I'd certainly sign up 
and take notes... 

Yeah, it could all be beautiful and true but what if god were less obvious 
or not around? Aesthetically, the fun and games here exhibit the usual 
over-reliance on consistency and hopefully everybody sees the humor of it. 
Bruno does invoke a primary physical universe for that cup of coffee. 
Regardless of whether it's the Bruno in Moscow or the one in Brussels. 
Shiver me timbers and call me woody: Bruno drinks dark matter => Do we all 
realize the seriousness of this original contribution to science?

Really? Not quite, but it's nice to see how much time everybody has. Large 
parts of the drama here are better represented in the literature concerning 
controversies between platonists/realists, nominalists, universals, 
formalists and all that history of splitting hairs. But sure, this list 
with its awesome opinions has the brains to solve these things once and for 
all! Forward with the inquisition! Heathens- all of you!

Happy Holidays, ye nerds! Hope you survive the Trumpocalypse with minimal 
exposure to excremental dark matter in your news streams, which Telmo had 
to bring up, but which is undeniably here so the messenger cannot be shot.

Regardless of ontological commitments... Dark matter just got real lol. PGC 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 05:54:22PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> In our case, Brent was advertizing materialism or physicalism by
> referring to the high predictive power of the physical laws. That is
> the point which is inconsistent when we assume digital mechanism.
> 

I didn't think Brent was doing that - but maybe Brent can chime
in. 'Nuff said.

Cheers

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Dec 2016, at 15:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for the  
intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are you  
interested, instead, of allowing humanity better control of our  
region of the universe, by understanding the rules?



I guess each one of us has his, or her, own motivation.

Mine is just to try to figure out what is reality, and what is the  
relation between us and that reality.


I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife, soul,  
consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our relations  
in general by extending our knowledge of that reality, although with  
computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge *is* knowledge,  
except for a few first person indexical (like a pain here or a  
pleasure here, that we can know but not communicate rationally,  
nor justified).


I think most fundamental researchers are motivated by a curiosity and  
fascination on some Reality that they are searching, and often, it can  
happen they get cursed by the beauty of their theories, which can help  
but can also become an handicapthat will depend on many things.


So it is neither for the enjoyment of some science per se, nor for  
helping humanity, it is by curiosity of what is real, with, in the  
background some enjoyment for what we can see/conceive in the process,  
and the idea that better knowing what is real can only help humanity  
if she needs help.


Bruno




-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 15, 2016 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:47:03PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> The question you asked was (I quote):
>
> >>>I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
> >>>explain the predictive power of physics.
>
>
> Let me try to explain again.
>
> How do a physicist make a prediction about his future first person
> experience?
>
> To fix the things, why am I pretty sure I will fell like seeing an
> eclipse when predicted by Newton's law.
>
> The usual materialist/physicalist answer is roughly like this. There
> is the assumption of a physical reality(*) and that it contains or
> realized objects obeying laws.

I don't think this is the case. For example, in the theory of statics,
used to construct bridges, solid objects with properties of tensile
strength, (mass) density, elasticity and so on are assumed, even
though ontologically, they are known to be composed of mostly empty
space, with those very ontological properties the result of
electromagnetic fields.

Most other physical models are the same - the example Brent gave of
using continuous fluid mechanics to predict hurricances is an
excelent point. Of course we know that the atmosphere is not a
continuum, but rather made up of a collection of molecules with
emergent properties that makes the continuous description a good one.

It may be that some physicists think that the objects of the Standard
Model (leptons, quarks, bosons etc) are somehow fundamental, but I  
doubt

that many would stick to their guns on that.

But the Standard Model is used quite rarely for making predictions,
and is generally computationally infeasible. Classical dynamics is
much more widely used.

So I cannot see why someone pointing to the predictive power of
physics is in any way making an ontological statement of the form of
physicalism. IIRC, in the original context, Brent was trying to
tongue-in-cheek say that the laws of fluid dynamics is God, even
though I know he strongly asserts that God must be a person, so it
must have been some sort of satirical response. Nevertheless, I didn't
see anywhere where he claimed that the models of physics were  
ontological.



--


Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellow hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 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...@go

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Dec 2016, at 00:37, Russell Standish wrote:


On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:47:03PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:


The question you asked was (I quote):


I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
explain the predictive power of physics.



Let me try to explain again.

How do a physicist make a prediction about his future first person
experience?

To fix the things, why am I pretty sure I will fell like seeing  an
eclipse when predicted by Newton's law.

The usual materialist/physicalist answer is roughly like this. There
is the assumption of a physical reality(*) and that it contains or
realized objects obeying laws.


I don't think this is the case. For example, in the theory of statics,
used to construct bridges, solid objects with properties of tensile
strength, (mass) density, elasticity and so on are assumed, even
though ontologically, they are known to be composed of mostly empty
space, with those very ontological properties the result of
electromagnetic fields.

Most other physical models are the same - the example Brent gave of
using continuous fluid mechanics to predict hurricances is an
excelent point. Of course we know that the atmosphere is not a
continuum, but rather made up of a collection of molecules with
emergent properties that makes the continuous description a good one.

It may be that some physicists think that the objects of the Standard
Model (leptons, quarks, bosons etc) are somehow fundamental, but I  
doubt

that many would stick to their guns on that.


Sure. never got problems with physicists. Only with believer in  
*primary* matter, a notion usually not studied in physics.
The problem raised by computationalism is a problem for people who  
believe in a primary physical universe, and invoked it to justify  
predictions, without explaining how their primary physical universe do  
the selection of a computation, or of a subset of computations, from  
all computations.






But the Standard Model is used quite rarely for making predictions,
and is generally computationally infeasible. Classical dynamics is
much more widely used.

So I cannot see why someone pointing to the predictive power of
physics is in any way making an ontological statement of the form of
physicalism.


They don't.

But they will do it if they explains the prediction by referring to a  
primary physical reality, and assumed mechanism. It is doing these two  
acts that they become inconsistent. If they do not postulate the  
primariness of the physical on the arithmetical, the whole derivation  
of physics from arithmetic justifies completely their method of  
prediction indeed. But physics is no more fundamental, and physicalism  
does not work in that case.


In our case, Brent was advertizing materialism or physicalism by  
referring to the high predictive power of the physical laws. That is  
the point which is inconsistent when we assume digital mechanism.







IIRC, in the original context, Brent was trying to
tongue-in-cheek say that the laws of fluid dynamics is God, even
though I know he strongly asserts that God must be a person, so it
must have been some sort of satirical response. Nevertheless, I didn't
see anywhere where he claimed that the models of physics were  
ontological.


By defending explicitly physicalism or materialism *through* a  
reference to the predictive power of physics.


Bruno







--


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 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.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 15 Dec 2016, at 22:02, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/15/2016 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Dec 2016, at 23:49, Russell Standish wrote:


On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Dec 2016, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:


I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
explain the predictive power of physics.


To predict (exactly and in principle) something physical you have
only one way:  to compute the relative FPI on UD*. (Which is
obviously highly non-computable, as even "W" or "M" is already not
computable in the simple self-duplication, with "W" and "M"  
refering

to the experiences of finding oneself in Washington and finding
oneself in Moscow respectively (step 3 of the Sane04 slide).


Predictions are never exact in 100% detailed, so running a  
dovetailer is not

necessary.


It is run in arithmetic, and that is what we have to take into  
account to explain that we need physicalism to get physical  
prediction when assuming mechanism.





Probabilistic predictions are just fine too.


OK. But they are based on some theory. Lottery assumes balls and a  
bit of mechanics for example. The problem is that if we assume  
mechanism, we cannot rely a priori on the physical laws. We are  
under the global FPI.





So for any
class of system (presumably containing our world to be of interest),


?
I was just answering your question above.
I think you digress and talk about prediction when assuming some  
world, which is not available when we assume mechanism.




there will be some properties that remain constant, or will change  
in
predictable (ie mechanistic or computable) ways. Mostly we have  
just a

model (physicist's model, not logician's) to work with -


OK. That is: a theory.



which of
course brings to light the problem of induction that the model
needn't be faithful to the system being modelled.


We are searching the fundamental theory. Not doing prediction, but  
explaining how physical 3p prediction can be assessed by a digital  
machine, which necessarily belongs to infinities of computations  
(with infinities of inputs, oracles, etc.).








To get a special physicalness or a physical universe, capable of
selecting some special computations on all computations which go
through the actual state of the guy doing the physical test, you
need to invoke some non-computable element, different from the
statistics on all computations, (which, as I just said,  is not
computable).



None of this is required to get predictive power.


I was just explaining that with mechanism, physicalist physics does  
not make sense. See your question above.





Models needn't have
any ontological status - the vast majority of physical model are
_known_ not to have ontological status.


Now, the probability distribution might be computable, or the logic
of the "certain events" might be axiomatisable, and indeed, is (by
S4Grz1; Z1* and X1*).




Particularly when the
whole induction process is explained quite neatly with the
Solomonoff-Levin universal prior and Bayes theorem over a  
multiversal

set of events that naturally arises in the context of
computationalism.


Unless the universal prior is based on the assumption of a unique
physical reality, that makes my point.


?


If you derive the multiversal
set of events from computationalism, physicalism needs to add
something which has no role at all, from the computationalist
perspective, and yet has to have some role to not contradict the
"yes" doctor, or it has to bring some strange actions from some
object having no interaction with a machine (like in the movie  
graph

or Olympia).


We seemed to have diverged from predictive power of physics to  
physicalism? Why?


?
Look at your question. I quote it "I don't see why you would say  
physicalism needs to be assumed to

explain the predictive power of physics.".

The whole problem is that, when we assume mechanism,  physics can  
have a predicting power only if the measure on the relative first  
person experience of the machine realized in UD* (alias the sigma_1  
complete part of arithmetic, alias all computations) is given by  
the probability on those arithmetical experience.





... rest snipped as it is along the same digression ...



I don't think so.

The question you asked was (I quote):


I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
explain the predictive power of physics.



Let me try to explain again.

How do a physicist make a prediction about his future first person  
experience?


To fix the things, why am I pretty sure I will fell like seeing an  
eclipse when predicted by Newton's law.


The usual materialist/physicalist answer is roughly like this.  
There is the assumption of a physical reality(*) and that it  
contains or realized objects obeying laws. We assume that our first  
person experience is related or attached or realized by our brain.  
Then we assume that during the evolution of the 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for the 
intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are you interested, 
instead, of allowing humanity better control of our region of the universe, by 
understanding the rules? 



-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 15, 2016 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:47:03PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> The question you asked was (I quote):
> 
> >>>I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
> >>>explain the predictive power of physics.
> 
> 
> Let me try to explain again.
> 
> How do a physicist make a prediction about his future first person
> experience?
> 
> To fix the things, why am I pretty sure I will fell like seeing  an
> eclipse when predicted by Newton's law.
> 
> The usual materialist/physicalist answer is roughly like this. There
> is the assumption of a physical reality(*) and that it contains or
> realized objects obeying laws.

I don't think this is the case. For example, in the theory of statics,
used to construct bridges, solid objects with properties of tensile
strength, (mass) density, elasticity and so on are assumed, even
though ontologically, they are known to be composed of mostly empty
space, with those very ontological properties the result of
electromagnetic fields.

Most other physical models are the same - the example Brent gave of
using continuous fluid mechanics to predict hurricances is an
excelent point. Of course we know that the atmosphere is not a
continuum, but rather made up of a collection of molecules with
emergent properties that makes the continuous description a good one.

It may be that some physicists think that the objects of the Standard
Model (leptons, quarks, bosons etc) are somehow fundamental, but I doubt
that many would stick to their guns on that. 

But the Standard Model is used quite rarely for making predictions,
and is generally computationally infeasible. Classical dynamics is
much more widely used.

So I cannot see why someone pointing to the predictive power of
physics is in any way making an ontological statement of the form of
physicalism. IIRC, in the original context, Brent was trying to
tongue-in-cheek say that the laws of fluid dynamics is God, even
though I know he strongly asserts that God must be a person, so it
must have been some sort of satirical response. Nevertheless, I didn't
see anywhere where he claimed that the models of physics were ontological.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:47:03PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> The question you asked was (I quote):
> 
> >>>I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
> >>>explain the predictive power of physics.
> 
> 
> Let me try to explain again.
> 
> How do a physicist make a prediction about his future first person
> experience?
> 
> To fix the things, why am I pretty sure I will fell like seeing  an
> eclipse when predicted by Newton's law.
> 
> The usual materialist/physicalist answer is roughly like this. There
> is the assumption of a physical reality(*) and that it contains or
> realized objects obeying laws.

I don't think this is the case. For example, in the theory of statics,
used to construct bridges, solid objects with properties of tensile
strength, (mass) density, elasticity and so on are assumed, even
though ontologically, they are known to be composed of mostly empty
space, with those very ontological properties the result of
electromagnetic fields.

Most other physical models are the same - the example Brent gave of
using continuous fluid mechanics to predict hurricances is an
excelent point. Of course we know that the atmosphere is not a
continuum, but rather made up of a collection of molecules with
emergent properties that makes the continuous description a good one.

It may be that some physicists think that the objects of the Standard
Model (leptons, quarks, bosons etc) are somehow fundamental, but I doubt
that many would stick to their guns on that. 

But the Standard Model is used quite rarely for making predictions,
and is generally computationally infeasible. Classical dynamics is
much more widely used.

So I cannot see why someone pointing to the predictive power of
physics is in any way making an ontological statement of the form of
physicalism. IIRC, in the original context, Brent was trying to
tongue-in-cheek say that the laws of fluid dynamics is God, even
though I know he strongly asserts that God must be a person, so it
must have been some sort of satirical response. Nevertheless, I didn't
see anywhere where he claimed that the models of physics were ontological.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/15/2016 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Dec 2016, at 23:49, Russell Standish wrote:


On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Dec 2016, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:


I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
explain the predictive power of physics.


To predict (exactly and in principle) something physical you have
only one way:  to compute the relative FPI on UD*. (Which is
obviously highly non-computable, as even "W" or "M" is already not
computable in the simple self-duplication, with "W" and "M" refering
to the experiences of finding oneself in Washington and finding
oneself in Moscow respectively (step 3 of the Sane04 slide).


Predictions are never exact in 100% detailed, so running a dovetailer 
is not

necessary.


It is run in arithmetic, and that is what we have to take into account 
to explain that we need physicalism to get physical prediction when 
assuming mechanism.





Probabilistic predictions are just fine too.


OK. But they are based on some theory. Lottery assumes balls and a bit 
of mechanics for example. The problem is that if we assume mechanism, 
we cannot rely a priori on the physical laws. We are under the global 
FPI.





So for any
class of system (presumably containing our world to be of interest),


?
I was just answering your question above.
I think you digress and talk about prediction when assuming some 
world, which is not available when we assume mechanism.





there will be some properties that remain constant, or will change in
predictable (ie mechanistic or computable) ways. Mostly we have just a
model (physicist's model, not logician's) to work with -


OK. That is: a theory.



which of
course brings to light the problem of induction that the model
needn't be faithful to the system being modelled.


We are searching the fundamental theory. Not doing prediction, but 
explaining how physical 3p prediction can be assessed by a digital 
machine, which necessarily belongs to infinities of computations (with 
infinities of inputs, oracles, etc.).








To get a special physicalness or a physical universe, capable of
selecting some special computations on all computations which go
through the actual state of the guy doing the physical test, you
need to invoke some non-computable element, different from the
statistics on all computations, (which, as I just said,  is not
computable).



None of this is required to get predictive power.


I was just explaining that with mechanism, physicalist physics does 
not make sense. See your question above.





Models needn't have
any ontological status - the vast majority of physical model are
_known_ not to have ontological status.


Now, the probability distribution might be computable, or the logic
of the "certain events" might be axiomatisable, and indeed, is (by
S4Grz1; Z1* and X1*).




Particularly when the
whole induction process is explained quite neatly with the
Solomonoff-Levin universal prior and Bayes theorem over a multiversal
set of events that naturally arises in the context of
computationalism.


Unless the universal prior is based on the assumption of a unique
physical reality, that makes my point.


?


If you derive the multiversal
set of events from computationalism, physicalism needs to add
something which has no role at all, from the computationalist
perspective, and yet has to have some role to not contradict the
"yes" doctor, or it has to bring some strange actions from some
object having no interaction with a machine (like in the movie graph
or Olympia).


We seemed to have diverged from predictive power of physics to 
physicalism? Why?


?
Look at your question. I quote it "I don't see why you would say 
physicalism needs to be assumed to

explain the predictive power of physics.".

The whole problem is that, when we assume mechanism,  physics can have 
a predicting power only if the measure on the relative first person 
experience of the machine realized in UD* (alias the sigma_1 complete 
part of arithmetic, alias all computations) is given by the 
probability on those arithmetical experience.





... rest snipped as it is along the same digression ...



I don't think so.

The question you asked was (I quote):


I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
explain the predictive power of physics.



Let me try to explain again.

How do a physicist make a prediction about his future first person 
experience?


To fix the things, why am I pretty sure I will fell like seeing an 
eclipse when predicted by Newton's law.


The usual materialist/physicalist answer is roughly like this. There 
is the assumption of a physical reality(*) and that it contains or 
realized objects obeying laws. We assume that our first person 
experience is related or attached or realized by our brain. Then we 
assume that during the evolution of the object of that reality, our 
first person experience remains connected to the brain 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Dec 2016, at 23:49, Russell Standish wrote:


On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Dec 2016, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:


I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
explain the predictive power of physics.


To predict (exactly and in principle) something physical you have
only one way:  to compute the relative FPI on UD*. (Which is
obviously highly non-computable, as even "W" or "M" is already not
computable in the simple self-duplication, with "W" and "M" refering
to the experiences of finding oneself in Washington and finding
oneself in Moscow respectively (step 3 of the Sane04 slide).


Predictions are never exact in 100% detailed, so running a  
dovetailer is not

necessary.


It is run in arithmetic, and that is what we have to take into account  
to explain that we need physicalism to get physical prediction when  
assuming mechanism.





Probabilistic predictions are just fine too.


OK. But they are based on some theory. Lottery assumes balls and a bit  
of mechanics for example. The problem is that if we assume mechanism,  
we cannot rely a priori on the physical laws. We are under the global  
FPI.





So for any
class of system (presumably containing our world to be of interest),


?
I was just answering your question above.
I think you digress and talk about prediction when assuming some  
world, which is not available when we assume mechanism.





there will be some properties that remain constant, or will change in
predictable (ie mechanistic or computable) ways. Mostly we have just a
model (physicist's model, not logician's) to work with -


OK. That is: a theory.



which of
course brings to light the problem of induction that the model
needn't be faithful to the system being modelled.


We are searching the fundamental theory. Not doing prediction, but  
explaining how physical 3p prediction can be assessed by a digital  
machine, which necessarily belongs to infinities of computations (with  
infinities of inputs, oracles, etc.).








To get a special physicalness or a physical universe, capable of
selecting some special computations on all computations which go
through the actual state of the guy doing the physical test, you
need to invoke some non-computable element, different from the
statistics on all computations, (which, as I just said,  is not
computable).



None of this is required to get predictive power.


I was just explaining that with mechanism, physicalist physics does  
not make sense. See your question above.





Models needn't have
any ontological status - the vast majority of physical model are
_known_ not to have ontological status.


Now, the probability distribution might be computable, or the logic
of the "certain events" might be axiomatisable, and indeed, is (by
S4Grz1; Z1* and X1*).




Particularly when the
whole induction process is explained quite neatly with the
Solomonoff-Levin universal prior and Bayes theorem over a  
multiversal

set of events that naturally arises in the context of
computationalism.


Unless the universal prior is based on the assumption of a unique
physical reality, that makes my point.


?


If you derive the multiversal
set of events from computationalism, physicalism needs to add
something which has no role at all, from the computationalist
perspective, and yet has to have some role to not contradict the
"yes" doctor, or it has to bring some strange actions from some
object having no interaction with a machine (like in the movie graph
or Olympia).


We seemed to have diverged from predictive power of physics to  
physicalism? Why?


?
Look at your question. I quote it "I don't see why you would say  
physicalism needs to be assumed to

explain the predictive power of physics.".

The whole problem is that, when we assume mechanism,  physics can have  
a predicting power only if the measure on the relative first person  
experience of the machine realized in UD* (alias the sigma_1 complete  
part of arithmetic, alias all computations) is given by the  
probability on those arithmetical experience.





... rest snipped as it is along the same digression ...



I don't think so.

The question you asked was (I quote):


I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
explain the predictive power of physics.



Let me try to explain again.

How do a physicist make a prediction about his future first person  
experience?


To fix the things, why am I pretty sure I will fell like seeing  an  
eclipse when predicted by Newton's law.


The usual materialist/physicalist answer is roughly like this. There  
is the assumption of a physical reality(*) and that it contains or  
realized objects obeying laws. We assume that our first person  
experience is related or attached or realized by our brain. Then we  
assume that during the evolution of the object of that reality, our  
first person experience remains connected to the brain of the observer  

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Dec 2016, at 22:11, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/14/2016 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Dec 2016, at 20:20, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/13/2016 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:36, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the religionist, trying to keep their comfort and  
influence, keep fuzzing up the target and spreading it out  
because it's center keeps getting hit by facts.


Atheism is either agnostic, or is a religion: an ontological  
commitment in something we have no evidence to explain away a  
technical problem. The belief in 0 personal god together with  
the belief in one impersonal God, (Primary matter) are  
religious commitment, with the large sense of God.


"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.  Atheism is a  
religion like OFF is a TV channel.  Atheism is a religion like  
an empty lot is a building..."

  --- George Carlin



Correct for agnostic atheism.

False for the atheists who believe that there is no God (the  
gnostic atheists).


That depends on what you mean by "God".  As I've pointed out at  
length, language is defined by usage


Not when we do science. We just make clear what we are talking  
about. In our case it Plato's conception of God, shared by most  
mystics all around the globe since millennia.




and usage says that "God" means an immortal person with  
supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.


That's the Christian use.


And Hindu and Muslim and Judaic and Greek and Zoroastrian and Norse  
and Atzec and Inca and...


Yes, the personification of God is very popular, but if your read the  
text of the theologian, personification is not part of the metaphysics  
in many case. Even taoist can pray the Tao, even Einstein, who insists  
that he dos not believe in a personal God keep calling It the Good Lord.
Many people can say "My car did not want to start this morning"  
without believing that their car have will. I use the term "God" in  
the sense of the greek theologian, and if you look at my publications,  
I never use the word God. When I talk about machine theology, I  
present the arithmetical interpretation of the work of Moderatus to  
Plotinus, and use the term "one" which is the standard name of the  
outer 3p big things from which every realities emanates.


The personification has been made "theoretical" by the politics, has  
it ... popular. But that is just demagogy. The personal character of  
God is a complicated open question. We can come back on that very  
question, but we can also associate a person to any set of beliefs/ 
propositions, as it is a common thing to do, but as always in "serious  
theology", those are metaphor.


I have used the term God only in answering post which were using that  
term. It is not my terming, but it is a common way to refer to It.







Why do atheists insist so much we use the christian notion,


Why do you insist on denying usage and pretend that you are like  
Humpty Dumpty and can make a word mean whatever you want.


Because as Telmo and many others said already, I use the common terms  
used by all theologians and philosophers, and scientists, without  
attaching it to any religious "theory". I am not denying a usage, I  
vindicate it, but I might deny, or not, some theories of It.
Again, if you read serious theologian, even christian one, some are  
open to neoplatonistm and are open that God is not the person describe  
in the sacred texts.






when we know that the christians (and others) have imposed by  
violence the Aristotelian conception of God. Even the early  
christians were quite aware of the two conception of God, and  
debating on this from the start. The Aristotelian use has imposed  
itself by banning or persecuting the skepticals, only. You are just  
confirming that gnostic atheism is essentially the christian  
interpretation of Aristotle after the persecution of the  
(neo)platonists (who were called atheist during that period, note  
that the first to be called atheists, by the Roman, seem to have  
been the christian themselves.






 You want to hijack the word


No. the meaning I use is referred in most dictionnary, including  
christian dictionnary of theological terms. god is just the big  
things at the origin of everything.
read serious theologian or philosophers. My use of God is close to  
Einstein one, Spinoza, Leibniz, St-Anselme, Gödel, Huxley, even St- 
Thomas. ostchristians theologian have quickly taken some distance  
with the popular notion of God, and today, even the Vatican warns  
the catholics on literal reading of the texts.


They distance themselves from the popular notion of God because they  
recognize it is nonsense.  But they don't have the nerve to give up  
the word because they want to keep the respect they get by  
explaining God to the hoi polloi.  They play a dishonest game.



It is the science game. We never said that earth did not exist when 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/14/2016 8:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Sorry for the silence, "real life" etc... :)


I hear people say stuff like "God for me is Nature" all the time. Don't
you?

No, I don't.  But if I did, I'd take it as metaphor, "I worship nature."  I
hear people say, "Time is money." and "Valentino Rossi is a motorcycle god."
but I don't take them literally.

Some people worship nature in some sense, but most of the time when
people say that god for them is nature, they mean that transcendental
reality is nature itself. This is a very common position in Europe,
perhaps not so much in the US, I don't know.

You are right that there are also metaphors, of course.

I'll give you two examples. Yesterday I listened to a presentation by
a mathematician who is working on a very abstract model of knowledge
discovery. She kept saying "god knows" for the set of truths in her
system that are not accessible to humans within their limited
viewpoints. This seems to be an intuitive sense of the word -- some
entity that transcends the reality we can observe.


I hear that expression occasionally, more commonly in the form "God only 
knows.";  but it's used to mean nobody knows or even nobody can possibly 
know as in "God knows where Jimmy Hoffa is now."  And it's also used to 
mean it's certainly true, as in "God knows it's a long trip to Mars."  
So "God" is just kind of thrown in for emphasis.




My second example is this song by Nick Cave (who, I assume, is not
secretly following this mailing list):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0-cncMpt8

You only need the first sentence. He says he does not believe in an
"interventionist god". What could he mean?


He means a God who answers prayers and performs miracles (i.e. makes 
physically impossible things happen); in contrast to a deist God who 
creates the world and lets it run.






I think you have jumped over millenia of human experience to arrive at
industrial age angst.  I wasn't referring to 'miracles' of nature.  Miracles
can only exist in contrast to a mechanistic model of un-miracleous nature.

You can look at existence itself as a miracle.


Or child birth or seeds or volcanoes or artificial mayonnaise.


Or not. I will spare
you the famous Einstein quote.

Nowadays religiously-inclined people point to qualia themselves. "Look
around you, how can you see all this and not believe in god?". I am
not saying that this is a good argument (I don't "believe" in any
god), but I am open to the possibility of transcendence,


But transcendence only exists in contrast to the mundane.  That was my 
point about primitive peoples.  For them there was no transcendence 
because there was no division between the magical and the ordinary; 
religion, science, magic were all just part of knowledge of the world 
and how to manipulate it.



and this is
what they are appealing to. They are using god in the sense that you
reject as bait. Once again, this seems intuitive to them.



Fear of hell is an invention of the priesthood.  Primitive religions, and
even Judaism, don't teach punishment in an afterlife.  It seems to have been
invented by Zoroaster; who at least made the punishment limited.

Yes, but fear of hell is just one example. There is also karma, divine
retribution etc. The game theoretical approach of religion seems to
rely on some cognitive features that are universal to humans.


Of course, and one of them is desire for justice.  It obviously doesn't 
obtain here - so there ought to be an afterlife or a reincarnation where 
the scales of justice balance.  And if there ought to be one, let's just 
all believe there is and maybe that will restrain some of the wickedness.



Animist
religions appears independently all around the globe, and then evolved
into their own branches, but there are universal. It is hard to
believe that evolution does not play a role here.


But cultural, not biological, evolution.  Read Craig A. James "The 
Religion Virus", he lays it out in detail (and it's a short book).





I think you have the cause and effect backwards.  Agriculture made
civilization possible - tribes didn't have to move and so could build
cities.  Religion adapted by going from explaining nature to explaining why
the city had to be ordered around certain principles of behavior and
ownership, and why there was a leader who the gods would favor in war with
other cities.

I don't think it's a good idea to see these hyper-complex systems in
terms of linear chains of cause and effect. Religion adapted to
civilization and civilization to religion. Some aspects of religion
helped agriculture,


But they were invented after agriculture.  Just as rules about civic 
conduct were developed along with city states and were incorporated into 
religion.  I don't think religion ever led.  It just followed and 
reenforced.  It has mostly been a conservative element of society, 
justifying the status quo and explaining why the universe/gods mandate 
society to be just the way the elders 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Russell Standish]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 14 Dec 2016, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
> 
> >I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
> >explain the predictive power of physics.
> 
> To predict (exactly and in principle) something physical you have
> only one way:  to compute the relative FPI on UD*. (Which is
> obviously highly non-computable, as even "W" or "M" is already not
> computable in the simple self-duplication, with "W" and "M" refering
> to the experiences of finding oneself in Washington and finding
> oneself in Moscow respectively (step 3 of the Sane04 slide).

Predictions are never exact in 100% detailed, so running a dovetailer is not
necessary. Probabilistic predictions are just fine too. So for any
class of system (presumably containing our world to be of interest),
there will be some properties that remain constant, or will change in
predictable (ie mechanistic or computable) ways. Mostly we have just a
model (physicist's model, not logician's) to work with - which of
course brings to light the problem of induction that the model
needn't be faithful to the system being modelled.


> 
> To get a special physicalness or a physical universe, capable of
> selecting some special computations on all computations which go
> through the actual state of the guy doing the physical test, you
> need to invoke some non-computable element, different from the
> statistics on all computations, (which, as I just said,  is not
> computable).
> 

None of this is required to get predictive power. Models needn't have
any ontological status - the vast majority of physical model are
_known_ not to have ontological status.

> Now, the probability distribution might be computable, or the logic
> of the "certain events" might be axiomatisable, and indeed, is (by
> S4Grz1; Z1* and X1*).
> 
> 
> 
> >Particularly when the
> >whole induction process is explained quite neatly with the
> >Solomonoff-Levin universal prior and Bayes theorem over a multiversal
> >set of events that naturally arises in the context of
> >computationalism.
> 
> Unless the universal prior is based on the assumption of a unique
> physical reality, that makes my point. 

?

> If you derive the multiversal
> set of events from computationalism, physicalism needs to add
> something which has no role at all, from the computationalist
> perspective, and yet has to have some role to not contradict the
> "yes" doctor, or it has to bring some strange actions from some
> object having no interaction with a machine (like in the movie graph
> or Olympia).

We seemed to have diverged from predictive power of physics to physicalism? Why?

... rest snipped as it is along the same digression ...


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/14/2016 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Dec 2016, at 20:20, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/13/2016 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:36, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the religionist, trying to keep their comfort and influence, 
keep fuzzing up the target and spreading it out because it's 
center keeps getting hit by facts.


Atheism is either agnostic, or is a religion: an ontological 
commitment in something we have no evidence to explain away a 
technical problem. The belief in 0 personal god together with the 
belief in one impersonal God, (Primary matter) are religious 
commitment, with the large sense of God.


"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.  Atheism is a 
religion like OFF is a TV channel.  Atheism is a religion like an 
empty lot is a building..."

  --- George Carlin



Correct for agnostic atheism.

False for the atheists who believe that there is no God (the gnostic 
atheists).


That depends on what you mean by "God".  As I've pointed out at 
length, language is defined by usage


Not when we do science. We just make clear what we are talking about. 
In our case it Plato's conception of God, shared by most mystics all 
around the globe since millennia.




and usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural 
power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.


That's the Christian use. 


And Hindu and Muslim and Judaic and Greek and Zoroastrian and Norse and 
Atzec and Inca and...


Why do atheists insist so much we use the christian notion, 


Why do you insist on denying usage and pretend that you are like Humpty 
Dumpty and can make a word mean whatever you want.


when we know that the christians (and others) have imposed by violence 
the Aristotelian conception of God. Even the early christians were 
quite aware of the two conception of God, and debating on this from 
the start. The Aristotelian use has imposed itself by banning or 
persecuting the skepticals, only. You are just confirming that gnostic 
atheism is essentially the christian interpretation of Aristotle after 
the persecution of the (neo)platonists (who were called atheist during 
that period, note that the first to be called atheists, by the Roman, 
seem to have been the christian themselves.






 You want to hijack the word


No. the meaning I use is referred in most dictionnary, including 
christian dictionnary of theological terms. god is just the big things 
at the origin of everything.
read serious theologian or philosophers. My use of God is close to 
Einstein one, Spinoza, Leibniz, St-Anselme, Gödel, Huxley, even 
St-Thomas. ostchristians theologian have quickly taken some distance 
with the popular notion of God, and today, even the Vatican warns the 
catholics on literal reading of the texts.


They distance themselves from the popular notion of God because they 
recognize it is nonsense.  But they don't have the nerve to give up the 
word because they want to keep the respect they get by explaining God to 
the hoi polloi.  They play a dishonest game.


Anyway, in science we are used to let the concepts evolves and be 
corrected.


But there is no "we".  Theologians, including you, have made no progress 
in studying God over the last ten thousand years.  There is no 
agreement.  No body of evidence.  No progress.






and justify it by referring to a handful of philosophers who also 
wanted to hijack the word to gain popular credence for their ideas 
which actually had nothing in common with the meaning of "God" except 
that it was fundamental in some sense.



Yes. We dare to be a bit skeptical about the rigor of the 
institutionalized religion. Even educated christians have no problem 
with this. Only bigot fundamentalist like the gnostic atheists, and 
the anglo-saxon creationists seem to have a problem with this.


This remind me Einstein alluding to the "free-thinkers":

 [...] there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the 
same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from 
the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight 
of their chain which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They 
are creatures who---in their grudge against the traditional "opium for 
people"---cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature 
does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards 
of human moral and humans aims.

(in the book by Jammer on "Einstein and Religion", page 97).


Notice that Einstein did not use the word "God".
/
//It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious//
//convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do//
//not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but//
//have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be//
//called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the//
//structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."//
//  

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Dec 2016, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:


On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:28:17PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:31, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



it's just like seeing the storm as anger of the sky-god.
People experience anger, so they think they have understood
the storm.  They don't understand fluid dynamics (at least
until very recently).


I recall that such a type of belief does not work. The whole
physics prediction power is based on an identity link which does
not work.


It works pretty damn well in predicting storms.


Only by assuming non-computationalism, but then it is contradicted
with evolution theory, biology. It works in practice, but is flawed
at the fundamental level. I am not saying that this or that physics
theory is not working in practice, I am saying that physicalism is


I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
explain the predictive power of physics.


To predict (exactly and in principle) something physical you have only  
one way:  to compute the relative FPI on UD*. (Which is obviously  
highly non-computable, as even "W" or "M" is already not computable in  
the simple self-duplication, with "W" and "M" refering to the  
experiences of finding oneself in Washington and finding oneself in  
Moscow respectively (step 3 of the Sane04 slide).


To get a special physicalness or a physical universe, capable of  
selecting some special computations on all computations which go  
through the actual state of the guy doing the physical test, you need  
to invoke some non-computable element, different from the statistics  
on all computations, (which, as I just said,  is not computable).


Now, the probability distribution might be computable, or the logic of  
the "certain events" might be axiomatisable, and indeed, is (by  
S4Grz1; Z1* and X1*).





Particularly when the
whole induction process is explained quite neatly with the
Solomonoff-Levin universal prior and Bayes theorem over a multiversal
set of events that naturally arises in the context of  
computationalism.


Unless the universal prior is based on the assumption of a unique  
physical reality, that makes my point. If you derive the multiversal  
set of events from computationalism, physicalism needs to add  
something which has no role at all, from the computationalist  
perspective, and yet has to have some role to not contradict the "yes"  
doctor, or it has to bring some strange actions from some object  
having no interaction with a machine (like in the movie graph or  
Olympia).


Computationalism leads to the idea that the fundamental theory is very  
elementary arithmetic (or Turing equivalent), and that both psychology/ 
theology and physics must be derived from arithmetic.


Physicalism assumes that the fundamental theory pertains on objects  
which are necessarily physical objects, like strings, atoms, space- 
time, energy, that is "measurable numbers". It explains the  
measurability of those numbers by the existence of such objects. But  
then, how could those objects select the computation without throwing  
a doubt on the digital truncations that we have with digital- 
mechanism? Physicalness can only be phenomenological with  
computationalism. That is why we must get the "collapse" and the"wave"  
from the statistics on all (relative) computations. Then, we do get a  
quantum logic from this, and all we can say is that computationalism  
is not refuted.


In the case "nature" would some day contradicts the physicalness  
implied by computationalism, we can either abandon computationalism,  
or still just infer, by keeping up computationalism, that we are in a  
"à-la Boström" type of simulation, by entities wanting to make us  
living in an non-computationalist physics (and have to "manipulated us  
a lot").


Computationalism avoids in this way Descartes' problem that we might  
be manipulated by "malin génies" (smart daemons). Lying has a cost.  
Each time the simulated creature find a discrepancy between the  
arithmetical introspective physics (the quantified Z1* & Al. logics)  
you will have to erase its memory. If you simulated the "real  
apparent" physics, the creature belongs as much in the real physical  
world (of the computationalist theory: that is in all sound consistent  
emulations) than in your emulator.


Bruno







wrong with mechanism/rationalism. To make physics coherent with
physicalism, you need to introduce actual infinities in both mind
and matter, and a univocal link between, which, at the level of
metaphysics or theology becomes as much invalid than an evocation to
God, which makes no sense in any theory, even theology.




--


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Terren Suydam  wrote:
> This exchange between you and Brent is brilliant, thank you.  popcorn>

Hi Terren, you have some weird tastes in entertainment, but thanks :)

> On Dec 10, 2016 7:31 AM, "Telmo Menezes"  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 12/9/2016 2:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Brent Meeker 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12/8/2016 3:52 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> 
>>  On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> 
>>  On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker
>>  
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker
>> >> 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> 
>>  On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker
>>  
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >>> and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a
>> >>> group
>> >>> of
>> >>> atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church
>> >>> and
>> >>> claimed
>> >>> to
>> >>> be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be
>> >>> whatever
>> >>> was
>> >>> good
>> >>> in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.
>> >>
>> >> I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly
>> >> authority
>> >> on
>> >> such a matter is a joke, right?
>> >
>> >
>> > But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians
>> > they
>> > have
>> > to
>> > make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word
>> > salad.
>> 
>>  But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion
>>  about
>>  the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it
>>  falls
>>  under anthropology and history.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which
>> >>> "god"
>> >>> doesn't
>> >>> not refer to a person/agent.
>> >>
>> >> Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native
>> >> Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern
>> >> judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars.
>> >
>> >
>> > But they don't use the word "god".  It's an abuse of language it say
>> > that
>> > "god" means "whatever one's religion worships".  Paul Tillich tried
>> > that
>> > maneuver in the '60s.  He said "god" meant whatever one valued most:
>> > money,
>> > fame, power,...  If you cut a word lose from common usage then, as
>> > the
>> > Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything you want.
>> 
>>  So you are saying that "god" is reserved for judaic-christian style
>>  deities.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It's not "reserved"; it, like any word, is defined by usage, and the
>> >>> usage
>> >>> overwhelmingly denotes a being who is immortal, has supernatural
>> >>> powers
>> >>> and
>> >>> knowledge and should be obeyed and worshipped or placated.  It
>> >>> includes
>> >>> the
>> >>> gods and godesses of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India, Scandnavia,
>> >>> Mayan,
>> >>> Aztec,...
>> >>
>> >> I hear people say stuff like "God for me is Nature" all the time. Don't
>> >> you?
>> >
>> >
>> > No, I don't.  But if I did, I'd take it as metaphor, "I worship nature."
>> > I
>> > hear people say, "Time is money." and "Valentino Rossi is a motorcycle
>> > god."
>> > but I don't take them literally.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I was raised a catholic and had to go through 6 years of Sunday school
>> >> until my father put an end to it (I'm forever grateful to him). Even
>> >> there, I could tell that some people were more literalists while
>> >> others saw god as "more of a concept". I have the impression that more
>> >> educated people had a more abstract and less interventionist
>> >> conception of god. Many did not believe in heaven or hell or miracles.
>> >> Or that the universe as 6000 years old or any of that nonsense.
>> >
>> >
>> > And some of those believed in a god, a deist god perhaps.  But those who
>> > believed in an impersonal order or force didn't believe in a god -
>> > 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

Sorry for the silence, "real life" etc... :)

> I hear people say stuff like "God for me is Nature" all the time. Don't
> you?
>
> No, I don't.  But if I did, I'd take it as metaphor, "I worship nature."  I
> hear people say, "Time is money." and "Valentino Rossi is a motorcycle god."
> but I don't take them literally.

Some people worship nature in some sense, but most of the time when
people say that god for them is nature, they mean that transcendental
reality is nature itself. This is a very common position in Europe,
perhaps not so much in the US, I don't know.

You are right that there are also metaphors, of course.

I'll give you two examples. Yesterday I listened to a presentation by
a mathematician who is working on a very abstract model of knowledge
discovery. She kept saying "god knows" for the set of truths in her
system that are not accessible to humans within their limited
viewpoints. This seems to be an intuitive sense of the word -- some
entity that transcends the reality we can observe.

My second example is this song by Nick Cave (who, I assume, is not
secretly following this mailing list):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0-cncMpt8

You only need the first sentence. He says he does not believe in an
"interventionist god". What could he mean?


> I think you have jumped over millenia of human experience to arrive at
> industrial age angst.  I wasn't referring to 'miracles' of nature.  Miracles
> can only exist in contrast to a mechanistic model of un-miracleous nature.

You can look at existence itself as a miracle. Or not. I will spare
you the famous Einstein quote.

Nowadays religiously-inclined people point to qualia themselves. "Look
around you, how can you see all this and not believe in god?". I am
not saying that this is a good argument (I don't "believe" in any
god), but I am open to the possibility of transcendence, and this is
what they are appealing to. They are using god in the sense that you
reject as bait. Once again, this seems intuitive to them.


> Fear of hell is an invention of the priesthood.  Primitive religions, and
> even Judaism, don't teach punishment in an afterlife.  It seems to have been
> invented by Zoroaster; who at least made the punishment limited.

Yes, but fear of hell is just one example. There is also karma, divine
retribution etc. The game theoretical approach of religion seems to
rely on some cognitive features that are universal to humans. Animist
religions appears independently all around the globe, and then evolved
into their own branches, but there are universal. It is hard to
believe that evolution does not play a role here.

> I think you have the cause and effect backwards.  Agriculture made
> civilization possible - tribes didn't have to move and so could build
> cities.  Religion adapted by going from explaining nature to explaining why
> the city had to be ordered around certain principles of behavior and
> ownership, and why there was a leader who the gods would favor in war with
> other cities.

I don't think it's a good idea to see these hyper-complex systems in
terms of linear chains of cause and effect. Religion adapted to
civilization and civilization to religion. Some aspects of religion
helped agriculture, some aspects of agriculture changed religion. The
point is: humans seem to need some unifying narrative and religion
historically provides it. My point is not to defend religion, but to
recognise that some basic human needs need to be met.

Look at how old soviet or nazi propaganda looks so much like something
a religious cult could come up with. Why?

> People had no prisoner's dilemma when they lived in tribes.  If you didn't
> cooperate you'd be ejected from the tribe.

Not really. Ethnografies tell a much more complex and richer story.

> Existential crises result from
> questions about "meaning" and "purpose" which were invented along with
> religions.  All good marketers know that to sell something you first create
> a demand for it.

Religion did not come out of any centralised effort. It seems to
appear naturally anywhere there is a group of humans. Claiming that
religion invented existencial angst seems quite bold to me...

>
> People don't lose sleep at night because they don't know how the wind
> works,
>
>
> For millenia they lost sleep worrying about whether a storm would kill their
> flock or blow away their tents.
>
> they lose sleep because they feel that they are unimportant or
> that their lives are meaningless.
>
>
> Only since they became comfortable and secure from the wind.

Worshiping wind god did not solve the wind problems, but people still
did it. Can they not learn from past mistakes? Perhaps, but it is also
possible that attributing these events to some transcendental entity
helps them process them.

Take funerals. Surely people know that funerals will not bring their
loved ones back to live, and yet most cultures do them in some for or
another. They are trying to process their own experiences in a 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Dec 2016, at 20:20, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/13/2016 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:36, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the religionist, trying to keep their comfort and influence,  
keep fuzzing up the target and spreading it out because it's  
center keeps getting hit by facts.


Atheism is either agnostic, or is a religion: an ontological  
commitment in something we have no evidence to explain away a  
technical problem. The belief in 0 personal god together with the  
belief in one impersonal God, (Primary matter) are religious  
commitment, with the large sense of God.


"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.  Atheism is a  
religion like OFF is a TV channel.  Atheism is a religion like an  
empty lot is a building..."

  --- George Carlin



Correct for agnostic atheism.

False for the atheists who believe that there is no God (the  
gnostic atheists).


That depends on what you mean by "God".  As I've pointed out at  
length, language is defined by usage


Not when we do science. We just make clear what we are talking about.  
In our case it Plato's conception of God, shared by most mystics all  
around the globe since millennia.




and 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, when we know that the christians (and others) have  
imposed by violence the Aristotelian conception of God. Even the early  
christians were quite aware of the two conception of God, and debating  
on this from the start. The Aristotelian use has imposed itself by  
banning or persecuting the skepticals, only. You are just confirming  
that gnostic atheism is essentially the christian interpretation of  
Aristotle after the persecution of the (neo)platonists (who were  
called atheist during that period, note that the first to be called  
atheists, by the Roman, seem to have been the christian themselves.






 You want to hijack the word


No. the meaning I use is referred in most dictionnary, including  
christian dictionnary of theological terms. god is just the big things  
at the origin of everything.
read serious theologian or philosophers. My use of God is close to  
Einstein one, Spinoza, Leibniz, St-Anselme, Gödel, Huxley, even St- 
Thomas. ostchristians theologian have quickly taken some distance with  
the popular notion of God, and today, even the Vatican warns the  
catholics on literal reading of the texts.
Anyway, in science we are used to let the concepts evolves and be  
corrected.




and justify it by referring to a handful of philosophers who also  
wanted to hijack the word to gain popular credence for their ideas  
which actually had nothing in common with the meaning of "God"  
except that it was fundamental in some sense.



Yes. We dare to be a bit skeptical about the rigor of the  
institutionalized religion. Even educated christians have no problem  
with this. Only bigot fundamentalist like the gnostic atheists, and  
the anglo-saxon creationists seem to have a problem with this.


This remind me Einstein alluding to the "free-thinkers":

 [...] there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the  
same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from  
the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight  
of their chain which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They  
are creatures who---in their grudge against the traditional "opium for  
people"---cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature  
does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards  
of human moral and humans aims.

(in the book by Jammer on "Einstein and Religion", page 97).








Gnostic Atheists use all the time the confusion between ~[]g and  
[]~g.


The difference between ~[]g and []~g is the real fracture between  
the fanatic-radicals and the scientific attitude.









Here many confuse the existing evidences for a physical reality  
with the non existing evidence for a primary matter. That  
confusion is easy to explain by evolution-pressure, but that does  
not make it true. Science is born with the doubt that Matter is  
the explanation. God exist by definition for a Platonist: it is  
what the fundamental researcher is searching: the reality (which  
is transcendental, we cannot prove it exists) but can try  
theories ("first principles" in the antic terming).


Too bad the Platonist can't be consistent in their skepticism.


Where?




You can't define things into existence.


That is what I just say. But that is what is done by pseudo- 
scientists claiming that science is materialist.


A lot of science is materialist.




This does not make any sense.

Materialism is a theory, i.e. an hypothesis, in metaphysics/theology.

I have not find one book, notably in physics, which assumes 

Re: R: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/13/2016 11:15 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:

Brent:

That depends on what you mean by "God".  As I've pointed out at length,
language is defined by usage and usage says that "God" means an immortal
person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be
worshipped.  You want to hijack the word and justify it by referring to
a handful of philosophers who also wanted to hijack the word to gain
popular credence for their ideas which actually had nothing in common
with the meaning of "God" except that it was fundamental in some sense.

BTW, Freeman Dyson writes: 'My favorite version of the multiverse is a story
told by the philosopher Olaf Stapledon, who died in 1950. He taught philosophy
at the University of Liverpool. In 1937 he published a novel, Star Maker,
describing his vision of the multiverse. The book was marketed as science
fiction, but it has more to do with theology than with science. The narrator
has a vision in which he travels through space visiting alien civilizations
from the past and the future, his mind merging telepathically with some of
their inhabitants who join him on his journey. Finally, this “cosmical mind”
encounters the Star Maker, an “eternal and absolute spirit” who has created all
of these worlds in a succession of experiments. Each experiment is a universe,
and as each experiment fails he learns how to design the next experiment a
little better. His first experiment is a simple piece of music, a rhythmic
drumbeat exploring the texture of time. After that come many more works of art,
exploring the possibilities of space and time with gradually increasing
complexity.'
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/11/08/what-can-you-really-know/



"Any eternal God would be so bored after one eternity that It would do 
Its best to commit suicide by creating an equally adept Opponent.  Half 
of the time the Opponent would succeed and the process would repeat.   
It is impossible to know whether the current "God" is an even or odd 
term in the series."

--- Roahn Wynar

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

R: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

['scerir' via Everything List]

Brent:
>That depends on what you mean by "God".  As I've pointed out at length, 
>language is defined by usage and usage says that "God" means an immortal 
>person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be 
>worshipped.  You want to hijack the word and justify it by referring to 
>a handful of philosophers who also wanted to hijack the word to gain 
>popular credence for their ideas which actually had nothing in common 
>with the meaning of "God" except that it was fundamental in some sense.

BTW, Freeman Dyson writes: 'My favorite version of the multiverse is a story 
told by the philosopher Olaf Stapledon, who died in 1950. He taught philosophy 
at the University of Liverpool. In 1937 he published a novel, Star Maker, 
describing his vision of the multiverse. The book was marketed as science 
fiction, but it has more to do with theology than with science. The narrator 
has a vision in which he travels through space visiting alien civilizations 
from the past and the future, his mind merging telepathically with some of 
their inhabitants who join him on his journey. Finally, this “cosmical mind” 
encounters the Star Maker, an “eternal and absolute spirit” who has created all 
of these worlds in a succession of experiments. Each experiment is a universe, 
and as each experiment fails he learns how to design the next experiment a 
little better. His first experiment is a simple piece of music, a rhythmic 
drumbeat exploring the texture of time. After that come many more works of art, 
exploring the possibilities of space and time with gradually increasing 
complexity.' 
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/11/08/what-can-you-really-know/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Russell Standish]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:28:17PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:31, Brent Meeker wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>>it's just like seeing the storm as anger of the sky-god.
> >>>People experience anger, so they think they have understood
> >>>the storm.  They don't understand fluid dynamics (at least
> >>>until very recently).
> >>
> >>I recall that such a type of belief does not work. The whole
> >>physics prediction power is based on an identity link which does
> >>not work.
> >
> >It works pretty damn well in predicting storms.
> 
> Only by assuming non-computationalism, but then it is contradicted
> with evolution theory, biology. It works in practice, but is flawed
> at the fundamental level. I am not saying that this or that physics
> theory is not working in practice, I am saying that physicalism is

I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
explain the predictive power of physics. Particularly when the
whole induction process is explained quite neatly with the
Solomonoff-Levin universal prior and Bayes theorem over a multiversal
set of events that naturally arises in the context of computationalism.

> wrong with mechanism/rationalism. To make physics coherent with
> physicalism, you need to introduce actual infinities in both mind
> and matter, and a univocal link between, which, at the level of
> metaphysics or theology becomes as much invalid than an evocation to
> God, which makes no sense in any theory, even theology.
> 
> 

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/13/2016 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:36, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the religionist, trying to keep their comfort and influence, 
keep fuzzing up the target and spreading it out because it's center 
keeps getting hit by facts.


Atheism is either agnostic, or is a religion: an ontological 
commitment in something we have no evidence to explain away a 
technical problem. The belief in 0 personal god together with the 
belief in one impersonal God, (Primary matter) are religious 
commitment, with the large sense of God.


"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.  Atheism is a 
religion like OFF is a TV channel.  Atheism is a religion like an 
empty lot is a building..."

   --- George Carlin



Correct for agnostic atheism.

False for the atheists who believe that there is no God (the gnostic 
atheists).


That depends on what you mean by "God".  As I've pointed out at length, 
language is defined by usage and usage says that "God" means an immortal 
person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be 
worshipped.  You want to hijack the word and justify it by referring to 
a handful of philosophers who also wanted to hijack the word to gain 
popular credence for their ideas which actually had nothing in common 
with the meaning of "God" except that it was fundamental in some sense.





Gnostic Atheists use all the time the confusion between ~[]g and []~g.

The difference between ~[]g and []~g is the real fracture between the 
fanatic-radicals and the scientific attitude.









Here many confuse the existing evidences for a physical reality with 
the non existing evidence for a primary matter. That confusion is 
easy to explain by evolution-pressure, but that does not make it 
true. Science is born with the doubt that Matter is the explanation. 
God exist by definition for a Platonist: it is what the fundamental 
researcher is searching: the reality (which is transcendental, we 
cannot prove it exists) but can try theories ("first principles" in 
the antic terming).


Too bad the Platonist can't be consistent in their skepticism.


Where?




You can't define things into existence.


That is what I just say. But that is what is done by pseudo-scientists 
claiming that science is materialist.


A lot of science is materialist.  Some science is sociological. Some is 
cognitive.  As Vic Stenger said, "Science isn't everything, but it's 
about everything."  Science is a method of obtaining objective (i.e. 
sharable) knowledge.







You can search for what is fundamental, but that doesn't prove that 
it exists.



We can only start from what we agree on, and to just define digital 
mechanism, we must agree that 2+2 = 4, and Ex(x+2=4) and things like 
that, taught in high school since a long time. 


But that's not the same as agreeing they are fundamental rather than 
descriptive.


Then the reasoning explains that matter and mind are phenomenological 
appearance emerging, from 2+2=4 and alike. It works and is testable. 
Physics works, but use contradictory statement to rely the equation 
and the first person verification of the equation.


If it's contradictory then you should be able to prove anything from 
it.  Let's see you do it.




I have had recently a long discussion with an "atheist" who eventually 
was forced, to make his point, to eliminate consciousness from the 
picture, like Dennett and the Churchland did. He understood that a 
notion of ontological matter simply does not work. It is equivalent 
with God made it by violating the rules of logic.


There is no worry. Either digital mechanism is false, or physics will 
relies on more solid base than observation and inductive inference.


But that's where Platonist suddenly drop their skepticism.  There is no 
reason to think logic is a more solid base than observation. Logic said 
relativity must be wrong.  Logic said quantum mechanics can't be that 
way.  Logic said there can only be five planets.  In fact logic doesn't 
"say" anything except "X and not-X" is false. Everything not 
contradictory is possible, which is why Platonism is useless even if true.


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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:36, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the religionist, trying to keep their comfort and influence,  
keep fuzzing up the target and spreading it out because it's  
center keeps getting hit by facts.


Atheism is either agnostic, or is a religion: an ontological  
commitment in something we have no evidence to explain away a  
technical problem. The belief in 0 personal god together with the  
belief in one impersonal God, (Primary matter) are religious  
commitment, with the large sense of God.


"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.  Atheism is a  
religion like OFF is a TV channel.  Atheism is a religion like an  
empty lot is a building..."

   --- George Carlin



Correct for agnostic atheism.

False for the atheists who believe that there is no God (the gnostic  
atheists).


Gnostic Atheists use all the time the confusion between ~[]g and []~g.

The difference between ~[]g and []~g is the real fracture between the  
fanatic-radicals and the scientific attitude.









Here many confuse the existing evidences for a physical reality  
with the non existing evidence for a primary matter. That confusion  
is easy to explain by evolution-pressure, but that does not make it  
true. Science is born with the doubt that Matter is the  
explanation. God exist by definition for a Platonist: it is what  
the fundamental researcher is searching: the reality (which is  
transcendental, we cannot prove it exists) but can try theories  
("first principles" in the antic terming).


Too bad the Platonist can't be consistent in their skepticism.


Where?




You can't define things into existence.


That is what I just say. But that is what is done by pseudo-scientists  
claiming that science is materialist.





You can search for what is fundamental, but that doesn't prove that  
it exists.



We can only start from what we agree on, and to just define digital  
mechanism, we must agree that 2+2 = 4, and Ex(x+2=4) and things like  
that, taught in high school since a long time. Then the reasoning  
explains that matter and mind are phenomenological appearance  
emerging, from 2+2=4 and alike. It works and is testable. Physics  
works, but use contradictory statement to rely the equation and the  
first person verification of the equation.


I have had recently a long discussion with an "atheist" who eventually  
was forced, to make his point, to eliminate consciousness from the  
picture, like Dennett and the Churchland did. He understood that a  
notion of ontological matter simply does not work. It is equivalent  
with God made it by violating the rules of logic.


There is no worry. Either digital mechanism is false, or physics will  
relies on more solid base than observation and inductive inference.


Bruno






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.


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.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:31, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


it's just like seeing the storm as anger of the sky-god.  People  
experience anger, so they think they have understood the storm.   
They don't understand fluid dynamics (at least until very recently).


I recall that such a type of belief does not work. The whole  
physics prediction power is based on an identity link which does  
not work.


It works pretty damn well in predicting storms.


Only by assuming non-computationalism, but then it is contradicted  
with evolution theory, biology. It works in practice, but is flawed at  
the fundamental level. I am not saying that this or that physics  
theory is not working in practice, I am saying that physicalism is  
wrong with mechanism/rationalism. To make physics coherent with  
physicalism, you need to introduce actual infinities in both mind and  
matter, and a univocal link between, which, at the level of  
metaphysics or theology becomes as much invalid than an evocation to  
God, which makes no sense in any theory, even theology.





And more importantly it can predict not-storms as well - unlike some  
theories that predict everything.


A theory which predicts everything can be said inconsistent and have  
zero interest, we agree. Thankfully, incompleteness saves Mechanism  
from predicting everything. On the contrary it predicts many-worlds  
and quantum logic. (in a large sense of "worlds", as they are only  
computational histories).


Bruno








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.


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.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the religionist, trying to keep their comfort and influence, keep 
fuzzing up the target and spreading it out because it's center keeps 
getting hit by facts.


Atheism is either agnostic, or is a religion: an ontological 
commitment in something we have no evidence to explain away a 
technical problem. The belief in 0 personal god together with the 
belief in one impersonal God, (Primary matter) are religious 
commitment, with the large sense of God.


"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.  Atheism is a religion 
like OFF is a TV channel.  Atheism is a religion like an empty lot is a 
building..."

--- George Carlin

Here many confuse the existing evidences for a physical reality with 
the non existing evidence for a primary matter. That confusion is easy 
to explain by evolution-pressure, but that does not make it true. 
Science is born with the doubt that Matter is the explanation. God 
exist by definition for a Platonist: it is what the fundamental 
researcher is searching: the reality (which is transcendental, we 
cannot prove it exists) but can try theories ("first principles" in 
the antic terming).


Too bad the Platonist can't be consistent in their skepticism.  You 
can't define things into existence.  You can search for what is 
fundamental, but that doesn't prove that it exists.


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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


it's just like seeing the storm as anger of the sky-god.  People 
experience anger, so they think they have understood the storm.  They 
don't understand fluid dynamics (at least until very recently).


I recall that such a type of belief does not work. The whole physics 
prediction power is based on an identity link which does not work.


It works pretty damn well in predicting storms.  And more importantly it 
can predict not-storms as well - unlike some theories that predict 
everything.


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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Dec 2016, at 22:43, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/10/2016 4:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Brent Meeker   
wrote:


On 12/9/2016 2:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Brent Meeker  
 wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:52 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Brent Meeker 

wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 

wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker 

wrote:


On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker

wrote:


On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker

wrote:

and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was  
a group

of
atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a  
church and

claimed
to
be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be
whatever
was
good
in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.
I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly  
authority

on
such a matter is a joke, right?


But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike  
theologians they

have
to
make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix  
word

salad.
But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a  
discussion about
the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god  
-- it

falls
under anthropology and history.


OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in  
which "god"

doesn't
not refer to a person/agent.
Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain  
native
Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of  
modern

judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars.


But they don't use the word "god".  It's an abuse of language  
it say

that
"god" means "whatever one's religion worships".  Paul Tillich  
tried

that
maneuver in the '60s.  He said "god" meant whatever one valued  
most:

money,
fame, power,...  If you cut a word lose from common usage  
then, as the
Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything you  
want.
So you are saying that "god" is reserved for judaic-christian  
style

deities.


It's not "reserved"; it, like any word, is defined by usage, and  
the

usage
overwhelmingly denotes a being who is immortal, has supernatural  
powers

and
knowledge and should be obeyed and worshipped or placated.  It  
includes

the
gods and godesses of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India,  
Scandnavia,

Mayan,
Aztec,...
I hear people say stuff like "God for me is Nature" all the time.  
Don't

you?


No, I don't.  But if I did, I'd take it as metaphor, "I worship  
nature."  I
hear people say, "Time is money." and "Valentino Rossi is a  
motorcycle god."

but I don't take them literally.

I was raised a catholic and had to go through 6 years of Sunday  
school
until my father put an end to it (I'm forever grateful to him).  
Even

there, I could tell that some people were more literalists while
others saw god as "more of a concept". I have the impression that  
more

educated people had a more abstract and less interventionist
conception of god. Many did not believe in heaven or hell or  
miracles.

Or that the universe as 6000 years old or any of that nonsense.


And some of those believed in a god, a deist god perhaps.  But  
those who
believed in an impersonal order or force didn't believe in a god -  
because
"god" refers to a person.  It's just a matter of not distorting  
language.


Noun1.God - the supernatural being conceived as the  
perfect and
omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe;  
the

object
of worship in monotheistic religions
 2.god - any supernatural being worshipped as  
controlling some

part
of the world or some aspect of life or who is the  
personification of a

force

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/God

Well if you go here you get a different picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God


It's not really different.  It equivocates on "god" as "sometimes  
described"

as abstract.  But all the examples are of persons and agents.

I am not trying to cut the religious any slack, by the way. I  
think we

agree on a lot of things.


But isn't it obvious to you that the concept of god was invented  
as a
personalization of forces like storms and volcanoes and light.  
That's why
early religions were animist; there was a deer spirit and a wind  
spirit and

mountain spirit...

I agree that this is a very compelling hypothesis, and I would be
surprised if it didn't in fact play a large role in the origin or
religion.

I think however that this explanation misses the big picture. Yes,  
the

"miracles" of nature are used as evidence that something transcendent
is happening, and if you can point at a specific "miracle" then 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/10/2016 4:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/9/2016 2:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:52 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker

wrote:


On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker

wrote:


and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group
of
atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and
claimed
to
be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be
whatever
was
good
in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.

I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority
on
such a matter is a joke, right?


But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians they
have
to
make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word
salad.

But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about
the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it
falls
under anthropology and history.


OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god"
doesn't
not refer to a person/agent.

Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native
Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern
judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars.


But they don't use the word "god".  It's an abuse of language it say
that
"god" means "whatever one's religion worships".  Paul Tillich tried
that
maneuver in the '60s.  He said "god" meant whatever one valued most:
money,
fame, power,...  If you cut a word lose from common usage then, as the
Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything you want.

So you are saying that "god" is reserved for judaic-christian style
deities.


It's not "reserved"; it, like any word, is defined by usage, and the
usage
overwhelmingly denotes a being who is immortal, has supernatural powers
and
knowledge and should be obeyed and worshipped or placated.  It includes
the
gods and godesses of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India, Scandnavia,
Mayan,
Aztec,...

I hear people say stuff like "God for me is Nature" all the time. Don't
you?


No, I don't.  But if I did, I'd take it as metaphor, "I worship nature."  I
hear people say, "Time is money." and "Valentino Rossi is a motorcycle god."
but I don't take them literally.


I was raised a catholic and had to go through 6 years of Sunday school
until my father put an end to it (I'm forever grateful to him). Even
there, I could tell that some people were more literalists while
others saw god as "more of a concept". I have the impression that more
educated people had a more abstract and less interventionist
conception of god. Many did not believe in heaven or hell or miracles.
Or that the universe as 6000 years old or any of that nonsense.


And some of those believed in a god, a deist god perhaps.  But those who
believed in an impersonal order or force didn't believe in a god - because
"god" refers to a person.  It's just a matter of not distorting language.


Noun1.God - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and
omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the
object
of worship in monotheistic religions
  2.god - any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some
part
of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a
force

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/God

Well if you go here you get a different picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God


It's not really different.  It equivocates on "god" as "sometimes described"
as abstract.  But all the examples are of persons and agents.


I am not trying to cut the religious any slack, by the way. I think we
agree on a lot of things.


But isn't it obvious to you that the concept of god was invented as a
personalization of forces like storms and volcanoes and light. That's why
early religions were animist; there was a deer spirit and a wind spirit and
mountain spirit...

I agree that this is a very compelling hypothesis, and I would be
surprised if it didn't in fact play a large role in the origin or
religion.

I think however that this explanation misses the big picture. Yes, the
"miracles" of nature are used as evidence that something transcendent
is happening, and if you can point at a specific "miracle" then maybe
you can convince other people you are particularly in tune with it,
and that you know what god wants and so on.


I think you have jumped over millenia of 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Terren Suydam]

This exchange between you and Brent is brilliant, thank you. 

On Dec 10, 2016 7:31 AM, "Telmo Menezes"  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/9/2016 2:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/8/2016 3:52 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> 
>  On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> 
>  On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker <
> meeke...@verizon.net>
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> 
>  On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker
>  
>  wrote:
> 
> >>> and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a
> group
> >>> of
> >>> atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church
> and
> >>> claimed
> >>> to
> >>> be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be
> >>> whatever
> >>> was
> >>> good
> >>> in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.
> >>
> >> I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly
> authority
> >> on
> >> such a matter is a joke, right?
> >
> >
> > But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians
> they
> > have
> > to
> > make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word
> > salad.
> 
>  But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion
> about
>  the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it
>  falls
>  under anthropology and history.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god"
> >>> doesn't
> >>> not refer to a person/agent.
> >>
> >> Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native
> >> Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern
> >> judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars.
> >
> >
> > But they don't use the word "god".  It's an abuse of language it say
> > that
> > "god" means "whatever one's religion worships".  Paul Tillich tried
> > that
> > maneuver in the '60s.  He said "god" meant whatever one valued most:
> > money,
> > fame, power,...  If you cut a word lose from common usage then, as
> the
> > Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything you want.
> 
>  So you are saying that "god" is reserved for judaic-christian style
>  deities.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It's not "reserved"; it, like any word, is defined by usage, and the
> >>> usage
> >>> overwhelmingly denotes a being who is immortal, has supernatural powers
> >>> and
> >>> knowledge and should be obeyed and worshipped or placated.  It includes
> >>> the
> >>> gods and godesses of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India, Scandnavia,
> >>> Mayan,
> >>> Aztec,...
> >>
> >> I hear people say stuff like "God for me is Nature" all the time. Don't
> >> you?
> >
> >
> > No, I don't.  But if I did, I'd take it as metaphor, "I worship
> nature."  I
> > hear people say, "Time is money." and "Valentino Rossi is a motorcycle
> god."
> > but I don't take them literally.
> >
> >>
> >> I was raised a catholic and had to go through 6 years of Sunday school
> >> until my father put an end to it (I'm forever grateful to him). Even
> >> there, I could tell that some people were more literalists while
> >> others saw god as "more of a concept". I have the impression that more
> >> educated people had a more abstract and less interventionist
> >> conception of god. Many did not believe in heaven or hell or miracles.
> >> Or that the universe as 6000 years old or any of that nonsense.
> >
> >
> > And some of those believed in a god, a deist god perhaps.  But those who
> > believed in an impersonal order or force didn't believe in a god -
> because
> > "god" refers to a person.  It's just a matter of not distorting language.
> >
> >>
> >>> Noun1.God - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and
> >>> omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the
> >>> object
> >>> of worship in monotheistic religions
> >>>  2.god - any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some
> >>> part
> >>> of 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 12/9/2016 2:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/8/2016 3:52 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker
>> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker
 
 wrote:

>>> and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group
>>> of
>>> atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and
>>> claimed
>>> to
>>> be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be
>>> whatever
>>> was
>>> good
>>> in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.
>>
>> I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority
>> on
>> such a matter is a joke, right?
>
>
> But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians they
> have
> to
> make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word
> salad.

 But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about
 the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it
 falls
 under anthropology and history.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god"
>>> doesn't
>>> not refer to a person/agent.
>>
>> Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native
>> Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern
>> judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars.
>
>
> But they don't use the word "god".  It's an abuse of language it say
> that
> "god" means "whatever one's religion worships".  Paul Tillich tried
> that
> maneuver in the '60s.  He said "god" meant whatever one valued most:
> money,
> fame, power,...  If you cut a word lose from common usage then, as the
> Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything you want.

 So you are saying that "god" is reserved for judaic-christian style
 deities.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not "reserved"; it, like any word, is defined by usage, and the
>>> usage
>>> overwhelmingly denotes a being who is immortal, has supernatural powers
>>> and
>>> knowledge and should be obeyed and worshipped or placated.  It includes
>>> the
>>> gods and godesses of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India, Scandnavia,
>>> Mayan,
>>> Aztec,...
>>
>> I hear people say stuff like "God for me is Nature" all the time. Don't
>> you?
>
>
> No, I don't.  But if I did, I'd take it as metaphor, "I worship nature."  I
> hear people say, "Time is money." and "Valentino Rossi is a motorcycle god."
> but I don't take them literally.
>
>>
>> I was raised a catholic and had to go through 6 years of Sunday school
>> until my father put an end to it (I'm forever grateful to him). Even
>> there, I could tell that some people were more literalists while
>> others saw god as "more of a concept". I have the impression that more
>> educated people had a more abstract and less interventionist
>> conception of god. Many did not believe in heaven or hell or miracles.
>> Or that the universe as 6000 years old or any of that nonsense.
>
>
> And some of those believed in a god, a deist god perhaps.  But those who
> believed in an impersonal order or force didn't believe in a god - because
> "god" refers to a person.  It's just a matter of not distorting language.
>
>>
>>> Noun1.God - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and
>>> omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the
>>> object
>>> of worship in monotheistic religions
>>>  2.god - any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some
>>> part
>>> of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a
>>> force
>>>
>>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/God
>>
>> Well if you go here you get a different picture:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
>
>
> It's not really different.  It equivocates on "god" as "sometimes described"
> as abstract.  But all the examples are of persons and agents.
>
>>
>> I am not trying to cut the religious any 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/9/2016 2:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:52 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker

wrote:


and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group of
atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and
claimed
to
be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be whatever
was
good
in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.

I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority on
such a matter is a joke, right?


But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians they
have
to
make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word salad.

But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about
the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it falls
under anthropology and history.


OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god"
doesn't
not refer to a person/agent.

Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native
Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern
judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars.


But they don't use the word "god".  It's an abuse of language it say that
"god" means "whatever one's religion worships".  Paul Tillich tried that
maneuver in the '60s.  He said "god" meant whatever one valued most:
money,
fame, power,...  If you cut a word lose from common usage then, as the
Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything you want.

So you are saying that "god" is reserved for judaic-christian style
deities.


It's not "reserved"; it, like any word, is defined by usage, and the usage
overwhelmingly denotes a being who is immortal, has supernatural powers and
knowledge and should be obeyed and worshipped or placated.  It includes the
gods and godesses of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India, Scandnavia, Mayan,
Aztec,...

I hear people say stuff like "God for me is Nature" all the time. Don't you?


No, I don't.  But if I did, I'd take it as metaphor, "I worship 
nature."  I hear people say, "Time is money." and "Valentino Rossi is a 
motorcycle god." but I don't take them literally.




I was raised a catholic and had to go through 6 years of Sunday school
until my father put an end to it (I'm forever grateful to him). Even
there, I could tell that some people were more literalists while
others saw god as "more of a concept". I have the impression that more
educated people had a more abstract and less interventionist
conception of god. Many did not believe in heaven or hell or miracles.
Or that the universe as 6000 years old or any of that nonsense.


And some of those believed in a god, a deist god perhaps.  But those who 
believed in an impersonal order or force didn't believe in a god - 
because "god" refers to a person.  It's just a matter of not distorting 
language.





Noun1.God - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and
omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object
of worship in monotheistic religions
 2.god - any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part
of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/God

Well if you go here you get a different picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God


It's not really different.  It equivocates on "god" as "sometimes 
described" as abstract.  But all the examples are of persons and agents.




I am not trying to cut the religious any slack, by the way. I think we
agree on a lot of things.


But isn't it obvious to you that the concept of god was invented as a 
personalization of forces like storms and volcanoes and light. That's 
why early religions were animist; there was a deer spirit and a wind 
spirit and mountain spirit...  As civilization developed it seemed that 
humans were superior and dominant over all animals and even over some of 
inanimate nature - so the concept of god shifted to a great, superhuman 
person, a great leader and law giver - especially one who led his 
worshippers to victory in war.  And of course there must be one greatest 
leader (who happens to be the one we believe in).  It is only because 
science in the broadest sense has shown these ideas to be parochial and 
contradictory and incoherent that theologians have been forced to 
retreat into abstractions and poetic circumlocutions; while still 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 12/8/2016 3:52 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker
>> 
>> wrote:
>>
> and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group of
> atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and
> claimed
> to
> be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be whatever
> was
> good
> in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.

 I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority on
 such a matter is a joke, right?
>>>
>>>
>>> But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians they
>>> have
>>> to
>>> make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word salad.
>>
>> But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about
>> the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it falls
>> under anthropology and history.
>
>
> OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god"
> doesn't
> not refer to a person/agent.

 Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native
 Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern
 judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars.
>>>
>>>
>>> But they don't use the word "god".  It's an abuse of language it say that
>>> "god" means "whatever one's religion worships".  Paul Tillich tried that
>>> maneuver in the '60s.  He said "god" meant whatever one valued most:
>>> money,
>>> fame, power,...  If you cut a word lose from common usage then, as the
>>> Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything you want.
>>
>> So you are saying that "god" is reserved for judaic-christian style
>> deities.
>
>
> It's not "reserved"; it, like any word, is defined by usage, and the usage
> overwhelmingly denotes a being who is immortal, has supernatural powers and
> knowledge and should be obeyed and worshipped or placated.  It includes the
> gods and godesses of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India, Scandnavia, Mayan,
> Aztec,...

I hear people say stuff like "God for me is Nature" all the time. Don't you?

I was raised a catholic and had to go through 6 years of Sunday school
until my father put an end to it (I'm forever grateful to him). Even
there, I could tell that some people were more literalists while
others saw god as "more of a concept". I have the impression that more
educated people had a more abstract and less interventionist
conception of god. Many did not believe in heaven or hell or miracles.
Or that the universe as 6000 years old or any of that nonsense.

> Noun1.God - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and
> omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object
> of worship in monotheistic religions
> 2.god - any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part
> of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/God

Well if you go here you get a different picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I am not trying to cut the religious any slack, by the way. I think we
agree on a lot of things.

Telmo.

> Brent
> "If atheists repudiate traditional faith it is not only because this faith
> is in contrast with the affirmations of believers themselves, with reason
> that denies the idea of God, but because they have understood that false
> dogmas go against true morality, against the social demands of the world we
> live in. The belief in God is not only a simple illusion, a purely
> theoretical error. It misrepresents the practical direction of life by
> orienting it in a chimerical direction. It goes against the social realty,
> against the essential needs of mankind which are the primary motor and the
> ultimate goal of every morality".
> --- Prosper Alfaric, former professor of theology at the Sorbonne
>
>
>> Given that those were invented in the Middle East, and that
>> they didn't speak English there at the time, how did the anglo-saxon
>> term merge with the judaic-christian tradition?
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>>> Brent
>>> “People are more unwilling to give up the 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/8/2016 3:52 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group of
atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and
claimed
to
be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be whatever
was
good
in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.

I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority on
such a matter is a joke, right?


But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians they have
to
make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word salad.

But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about
the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it falls
under anthropology and history.


OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god"
doesn't
not refer to a person/agent.

Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native
Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern
judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars.


But they don't use the word "god".  It's an abuse of language it say that
"god" means "whatever one's religion worships".  Paul Tillich tried that
maneuver in the '60s.  He said "god" meant whatever one valued most: money,
fame, power,...  If you cut a word lose from common usage then, as the
Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything you want.

So you are saying that "god" is reserved for judaic-christian style
deities.


It's not "reserved"; it, like any word, is defined by usage, and the 
usage overwhelmingly denotes a being who is immortal, has supernatural 
powers and knowledge and should be obeyed and worshipped or placated.  
It includes the gods and godesses of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India, 
Scandnavia, Mayan, Aztec,...


Noun1.God - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and 
omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the 
object of worship in monotheistic religions
2.god - any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some 
part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification 
of a force


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/God

Brent
"If atheists repudiate traditional faith it is not only because this 
faith is in contrast with the affirmations of believers themselves, with 
reason that denies the idea of God, but because they have understood 
that false dogmas go against true morality, against the social demands 
of the world we live in. The belief in God is not only a simple 
illusion, a purely theoretical error. It misrepresents the practical 
direction of life by orienting it in a chimerical direction. It goes 
against the social realty, against the essential needs of mankind which 
are the primary motor and the ultimate goal of every morality".

--- Prosper Alfaric, former professor of theology at the Sorbonne


Given that those were invented in the Middle East, and that
they didn't speak English there at the time, how did the anglo-saxon
term merge with the judaic-christian tradition?

Telmo.


Brent
“People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the
idea for which the word has hitherto stood”
 --- Bertrand Russell


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker 
 wrote:

>>> and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group of
>>> atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and
>>> claimed
>>> to
>>> be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be whatever
>>> was
>>> good
>>> in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.
>>
>> I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority on
>> such a matter is a joke, right?
>
>
> But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians they have
> to
> make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word salad.

 But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about
 the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it falls
 under anthropology and history.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god"
>>> doesn't
>>> not refer to a person/agent.
>>
>> Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native
>> Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern
>> judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars.
>
>
> But they don't use the word "god".  It's an abuse of language it say that
> "god" means "whatever one's religion worships".  Paul Tillich tried that
> maneuver in the '60s.  He said "god" meant whatever one valued most: money,
> fame, power,...  If you cut a word lose from common usage then, as the
> Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything you want.

So you are saying that "god" is reserved for judaic-christian style
deities. Given that those were invented in the Middle East, and that
they didn't speak English there at the time, how did the anglo-saxon
term merge with the judaic-christian tradition?

Telmo.

> Brent
> “People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the
> idea for which the word has hitherto stood”
> --- Bertrand Russell
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group of
atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and
claimed
to
be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be whatever was
good
in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.

I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority on
such a matter is a joke, right?


But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians they have
to
make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word salad.

But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about
the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it falls
under anthropology and history.


OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god" doesn't
not refer to a person/agent.

Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native
Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern
judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars.


But they don't use the word "god".  It's an abuse of language it say 
that "god" means "whatever one's religion worships".  Paul Tillich tried 
that maneuver in the '60s.  He said "god" meant whatever one valued 
most: money, fame, power,...  If you cut a word lose from common usage 
then, as the Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything 
you want.


Brent
“People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the 
idea for which the word has hitherto stood”

--- Bertrand Russell

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
> and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group of
> atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and
> claimed
> to
> be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be whatever was
> good
> in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.

 I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority on
 such a matter is a joke, right?
>>>
>>>
>>> But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians they have
>>> to
>>> make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word salad.
>>
>> But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about
>> the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it falls
>> under anthropology and history.
>
>
> OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god" doesn't
> not refer to a person/agent.

Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native
Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern
judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars.

>>
>> Go ask the people in Aleppo if such matters have real world
>> consequences or not...
>
>
> Go ask them if "God" means a person.
>
>
> 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker 
wrote:


and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group of
atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and claimed
to
be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be whatever was
good
in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.

I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority on
such a matter is a joke, right?


But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians they have to
make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word salad.

But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about
the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it falls
under anthropology and history.


OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god" 
doesn't not refer to a person/agent.




Go ask the people in Aleppo if such matters have real world
consequences or not...


Go ask them if "God" means a person.

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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that
>> Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing
>> mechanism
>> and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental researcher
>> often
>> after retirement, except for philosophers, which confuses theology
>> with
>> Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained well that physicists
>> confuse
>> the
>> notion of explanation and prediction. Physicists are good in
>> prediction,
>> but
>> naive about explanation.
>
>
> How do you know an explanation is a good one unless it provides good
> predictions?
>
>> Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement that
>> "there
>> is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a physical
>> universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but that is not
>> better.
>
>
> Sure it is.  It is better not to add imaginary beings to your
> explanation
> for several reasons.  First, it implies you know something for which
> you
> have no evidence.
> Second, brings in a lot of baggage about God:  He's a
> powerful person.  He demands we enforce certain laws.  He hates the
> same
> people we dislike.  He rewards worship

 You are implying specific definitions of God (I would guess
 Judaic-Christian).

 I just invented a new religion. Here's the sacred text:
 God is the explanation for matter existing and behaving the way it
 does. It is not possible to know God.

 Does your argument hold for my religion?
>>>
>>>
>>> Your religion, like Bruno's, misuses the word "god" which has always
>>> meant a
>>> person;
>>
>> Brent, sorry, this is just not true. There have been many different
>> conceptions of god throughout history.
>
>
> Indeed.  But they are all persons, agents, intelligent actors.
>
>>
>>> and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group of
>>> atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and claimed
>>> to
>>> be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be whatever was
>>> good
>>> in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.
>>
>> I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority on
>> such a matter is a joke, right?
>
>
> But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians they have to
> make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word salad.

But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about
the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it falls
under anthropology and history.

Go ask the people in Aleppo if such matters have real world
consequences or not...

Telmo.

>
> 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Russell Standish  wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:03:49PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> Russell,
>>
>> I don't follow you... If you have time to dumb it down a bit, I would
>> appreciate it :)
>>
>> Best,
>> Telmo.
>
> One of the things that Einstein was popularly known for is that the
> speed of light is constant, regardles of who you are (more precisely
> what inertial reference frame you occupy). Of course this leads to all
> sorts of crank claims about Einstein being wrong, because the
> speed of light is slower in glass than it is in a vacuum (say).
>
>
> This work goes on to talk about allowing c (usually called the speed
> of light) to vary as a function of time, slowing down from infinity at
> the origin. Hence the attribution "Einstein was wrong".
> As a
> scientist that would be very sloppy and attention seeking - but
> hopefully this was a journalistic override.
>
> The only thing fundamental are changes to dimensionless constants -
> the fine structure constant \alpha being a classic example. For
> something like c, if we redefined to meter and second to be suitably
> varying functions of time, then we can damn well make c vary any way
> we want. It is not fundamental - just a trick as it were.

Ok, got it!

Cheers
Telmo.

>
> Cheers
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Russell Standish  
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
>> >> Einstein ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.
>> >> To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.
>> >
>> > It's code speak for saying the speed of light is not a constant. It's
>> > more a bone to throw to the media to stir up interest, than a real
>> > scientific statement.
>> >
>> > Of course, since the speed of light is just a conversion constant
>> > beween our time units and our space units, we are always free to vary
>> > the speed of light. It is just a nonlinear reparameterisation of our
>> > coordinates. Verlinde's proposal is much, much more than that.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > 
>> > Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>> > Principal, High Performance Coders
>> > Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>> > Economics, Kingston University 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 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.
>
> --
>
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University 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 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that
Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing
mechanism
and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental researcher
often
after retirement, except for philosophers, which confuses theology with
Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained well that physicists confuse
the
notion of explanation and prediction. Physicists are good in prediction,
but
naive about explanation.


How do you know an explanation is a good one unless it provides good
predictions?


Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement that
"there
is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a physical
universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but that is not
better.


Sure it is.  It is better not to add imaginary beings to your explanation
for several reasons.  First, it implies you know something for which you
have no evidence.
Second, brings in a lot of baggage about God:  He's a
powerful person.  He demands we enforce certain laws.  He hates the same
people we dislike.  He rewards worship

You are implying specific definitions of God (I would guess
Judaic-Christian).

I just invented a new religion. Here's the sacred text:
God is the explanation for matter existing and behaving the way it
does. It is not possible to know God.

Does your argument hold for my religion?


Your religion, like Bruno's, misuses the word "god" which has always meant a
person;

Brent, sorry, this is just not true. There have been many different
conceptions of god throughout history.


Indeed.  But they are all persons, agents, intelligent actors.




and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group of
atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and claimed to
be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be whatever was good
in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.

I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority on
such a matter is a joke, right?


But they are as good an authority as any.  Unlike theologians they have 
to make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word salad.


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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Dec 2016, at 19:45, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker   
wrote:



On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:




Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that
Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing  
mechanism
and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental  
researcher often
after retirement, except for philosophers, which confuses theology  
with
Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained well that physicists  
confuse the
notion of explanation and prediction. Physicists are good in  
prediction, but

naive about explanation.



How do you know an explanation is a good one unless it provides good
predictions?

Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement  
that "there

is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a physical
universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but that is  
not

better.



Sure it is.  It is better not to add imaginary beings to your  
explanation
for several reasons.  First, it implies you know something for  
which you

have no evidence.
Second, brings in a lot of baggage about God:  He's a
powerful person.  He demands we enforce certain laws.  He hates the  
same

people we dislike.  He rewards worship


You are implying specific definitions of God (I would guess Judaic- 
Christian).


I just invented a new religion. Here's the sacred text:
God is the explanation for matter existing and behaving the way it
does. It is not possible to know God.


Ah! Your religion is comp-compatible. The definition of God is still a  
bit limited (to physical events), as God might also be the explanation  
for consciousness existing, or for integers existing. With  
computationalism it is possible to experience God, but not in a  
communicable way, even to oneself: we can't be sure, only God knows  
that such a belief *is* indeed knowledge.


Note that your definition is compatible with physicalism too  
(damned!). Take God = Matter (that explains matter, albeit trivially)  
and a physicalist will claim that this should be able to explain  
consciousness too, which indeed could be the case, if computationalism  
is wrong.


Bruno







Does your argument hold for my religion?












Telmo.



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- 
l...@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.


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.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



 Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that
 Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing
 mechanism
 and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental researcher
 often
 after retirement, except for philosophers, which confuses theology with
 Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained well that physicists confuse
 the
 notion of explanation and prediction. Physicists are good in prediction,
 but
 naive about explanation.
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know an explanation is a good one unless it provides good
>>> predictions?
>>>
 Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement that
 "there
 is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a physical
 universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but that is not
 better.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure it is.  It is better not to add imaginary beings to your explanation
>>> for several reasons.  First, it implies you know something for which you
>>> have no evidence.
>>> Second, brings in a lot of baggage about God:  He's a
>>> powerful person.  He demands we enforce certain laws.  He hates the same
>>> people we dislike.  He rewards worship
>>
>> You are implying specific definitions of God (I would guess
>> Judaic-Christian).
>>
>> I just invented a new religion. Here's the sacred text:
>> God is the explanation for matter existing and behaving the way it
>> does. It is not possible to know God.
>>
>> Does your argument hold for my religion?
>
>
> Your religion, like Bruno's, misuses the word "god" which has always meant a
> person;

Brent, sorry, this is just not true. There have been many different
conceptions of god throughout history.

> and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was a group of
> atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and claimed to
> be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be whatever was good
> in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.

I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority on
such a matter is a joke, right?

Telmo.

>
>
> 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that
Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing mechanism
and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental researcher often
after retirement, except for philosophers, which confuses theology with
Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained well that physicists confuse the
notion of explanation and prediction. Physicists are good in prediction, but
naive about explanation.


How do you know an explanation is a good one unless it provides good
predictions?


Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement that "there
is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a physical
universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but that is not
better.


Sure it is.  It is better not to add imaginary beings to your explanation
for several reasons.  First, it implies you know something for which you
have no evidence.
Second, brings in a lot of baggage about God:  He's a
powerful person.  He demands we enforce certain laws.  He hates the same
people we dislike.  He rewards worship

You are implying specific definitions of God (I would guess Judaic-Christian).

I just invented a new religion. Here's the sacred text:
God is the explanation for matter existing and behaving the way it
does. It is not possible to know God.

Does your argument hold for my religion?


Your religion, like Bruno's, misuses the word "god" which has always 
meant a person; and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage.  There was 
a group of atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church 
and claimed to be a religion for tax purposes.  They defined "God" to be 
whatever was good in the world.  The IRS disallowed their claim.


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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:03:49PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Russell,
> 
> I don't follow you... If you have time to dumb it down a bit, I would
> appreciate it :)
> 
> Best,
> Telmo.

One of the things that Einstein was popularly known for is that the
speed of light is constant, regardles of who you are (more precisely
what inertial reference frame you occupy). Of course this leads to all
sorts of crank claims about Einstein being wrong, because the
speed of light is slower in glass than it is in a vacuum (say).


This work goes on to talk about allowing c (usually called the speed
of light) to vary as a function of time, slowing down from infinity at
the origin. Hence the attribution "Einstein was wrong". As a
scientist that would be very sloppy and attention seeking - but
hopefully this was a journalistic override.

The only thing fundamental are changes to dimensionless constants -
the fine structure constant \alpha being a classic example. For
something like c, if we redefined to meter and second to be suitably
varying functions of time, then we can damn well make c vary any way
we want. It is not fundamental - just a trick as it were. 

Cheers

> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Russell Standish  
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >> I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
> >> Einstein ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.
> >> To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.
> >
> > It's code speak for saying the speed of light is not a constant. It's
> > more a bone to throw to the media to stir up interest, than a real
> > scientific statement.
> >
> > Of course, since the speed of light is just a conversion constant
> > beween our time units and our space units, we are always free to vary
> > the speed of light. It is just a nonlinear reparameterisation of our
> > coordinates. Verlinde's proposal is much, much more than that.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > 
> > Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Principal, High Performance Coders
> > Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> > Economics, Kingston University 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 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.

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

['cdemorsella' via Everything List]

Telmo... I like your new religion though I must confess I can know nothing 
more about it than knowing I can never know anything more than this.Chris


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
 Original message From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> 
Date: 12/4/16  10:45 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter 
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that
>> Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing mechanism
>> and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental researcher often
>> after retirement, except for philosophers, which confuses theology with
>> Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained well that physicists confuse the
>> notion of explanation and prediction. Physicists are good in prediction, but
>> naive about explanation.
>
>
> How do you know an explanation is a good one unless it provides good
> predictions?
>
>> Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement that "there
>> is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a physical
>> universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but that is not
>> better.
>
>
> Sure it is.  It is better not to add imaginary beings to your explanation
> for several reasons.  First, it implies you know something for which you
> have no evidence.
> Second, brings in a lot of baggage about God:  He's a
> powerful person.  He demands we enforce certain laws.  He hates the same
> people we dislike.  He rewards worship

You are implying specific definitions of God (I would guess Judaic-Christian).

I just invented a new religion. Here's the sacred text:
God is the explanation for matter existing and behaving the way it
does. It is not possible to know God.

Does your argument hold for my religion?

Telmo.

>
> 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.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

['cdemorsella' via Everything List]

I also chuckled reading it... an exemplar of light hearted irony I feel. 


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
 Original message From: Russell Standish 
<li...@hpcoders.com.au> Date: 12/4/16  1:20 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: 
everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter 
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 08:44:12AM -0500, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
> The comic was creepy, Telmo, and inaccurate. Maybe I just need to grow a 
> sense of humor?
> 

Well I thought it was funny. And I'm an (ex-)physicist, probably the
sort the cartoon is poking fun of :).


-- 


Dr Russell Standish    Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellow    hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 08:44:12AM -0500, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
> The comic was creepy, Telmo, and inaccurate. Maybe I just need to grow a 
> sense of humor?
> 

Well I thought it was funny. And I'm an (ex-)physicist, probably the
sort the cartoon is poking fun of :).


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that
>> Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing mechanism
>> and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental researcher often
>> after retirement, except for philosophers, which confuses theology with
>> Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained well that physicists confuse the
>> notion of explanation and prediction. Physicists are good in prediction, but
>> naive about explanation.
>
>
> How do you know an explanation is a good one unless it provides good
> predictions?
>
>> Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement that "there
>> is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a physical
>> universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but that is not
>> better.
>
>
> Sure it is.  It is better not to add imaginary beings to your explanation
> for several reasons.  First, it implies you know something for which you
> have no evidence.
> Second, brings in a lot of baggage about God:  He's a
> powerful person.  He demands we enforce certain laws.  He hates the same
> people we dislike.  He rewards worship

You are implying specific definitions of God (I would guess Judaic-Christian).

I just invented a new religion. Here's the sacred text:
God is the explanation for matter existing and behaving the way it
does. It is not possible to know God.

Does your argument hold for my religion?

Telmo.

>
> 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Dec 2016, at 19:22, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/4/2016 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 02 Dec 2016, at 21:28, Brent Meeker wrote:

I thought it was funny, and had a grain of truth (and I'm a  
physicist).




To be sure, it applies to mathematicians, and biologists, too. It  
looks like after retirement, you are no more under the obligation  
to be rigorous, especially on philosophy, where rigor has been  
abandoned even by "professional" since long. It looks like people  
are afraid of admitting their fundamental ignorance before dying.  
It is the usual, and rather sane, fear of the unknown, but they  
won't admit it, I guess.


Bruno


I think it's that physicists, more that most people, strive to  
understand the world and they form an opinion about what is  
fundamental.


Many biologists too, but the idea that physics strives for the  
fundamental is based on the choice of the Aristotelian Theology in the  
Background. The (religious, theological, or metaphysical) assumption  
that there is a physical universe, and that all the rest is build from  
it.




  It's impossible to confirm such a theory, such as quantum field  
theory, so as long as it is not disconfirmed they can hold onto it  
as having solved the question they set out to answer in life.   
Having done that, when they retire they look around to see how their  
theory of the world or their methodology applies to every other  
question.


No problem with that, especially when we live an epoch where the  
fundamental is still in the hand of the politics, and lacks rigor by  
sustained tradition.






Brent
As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual  
certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life-- so  
I became a scientist.  This is like becoming an archbishop so you  
can meet girls.

  -- Matt Cartmill



I think you can't search fame and truth at once. People love only  
fiction, and flight away the shadow of the possible truth ...


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, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/4/2016 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 02 Dec 2016, at 21:28, Brent Meeker wrote:


I thought it was funny, and had a grain of truth (and I'm a physicist).



To be sure, it applies to mathematicians, and biologists, too. It 
looks like after retirement, you are no more under the obligation to 
be rigorous, especially on philosophy, where rigor has been abandoned 
even by "professional" since long. It looks like people are afraid of 
admitting their fundamental ignorance before dying. It is the usual, 
and rather sane, fear of the unknown, but they won't admit it, I guess.


Bruno


I think it's that physicists, more that most people, strive to 
understand the world and they form an opinion about what is 
fundamental.  It's impossible to confirm such a theory, such as quantum 
field theory, so as long as it is not disconfirmed they can hold onto it 
as having solved the question they set out to answer in life.  Having 
done that, when they retire they look around to see how their theory of 
the world or their methodology applies to every other question.


Brent
As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, 
and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life-- so I became a 
scientist.  This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls.

  -- Matt Cartmill

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Bruce,

Interesting, thanks!
I really agree with her that for such a theory to be successful, it
must be possible to derive general relativity up to some precisions...

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Bruce Kellett
<bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Telmo,
>
> You might be interested in this comment by Sabine Hossenfelder on the
> Verlinde paper:
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/can-dark-energy-and-dark-matter-emerge.html
>
> Bruce
>
>
> On 2/12/2016 10:51 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
>>> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>>> Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
>>> Subject: No gravity / no dark matter
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> What do you guys think of this?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Telmo.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out some testable
>>> consequences.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Dec 2016, at 18:03, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that  
Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing  
mechanism and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental  
researcher often after retirement, except for philosophers, which  
confuses theology with Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained  
well that physicists confuse the notion of explanation and  
prediction. Physicists are good in prediction, but naive about  
explanation.


How do you know an explanation is a good one unless it provides good  
predictions?






An explanation provides good predictions, and should be abandonned if  
it gives wrong one.
But a good explanation does not hide problems under the rugs. A good  
explanation explains a lot from a few. With computationalism, I proved  
in all details that physics missed all predictions, without using an  
identity link which simply asks for magical infinities. Physics works  
well, but under supersimplifying assumptions which are just refuted  
today (although the the antic platonisr already get that point, but in  
not a thorough communicable way. They couldn't because they miss the  
universal machine.





Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement that  
"there is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a  
physical universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but  
that is not better.


Sure it is.  It is better not to add imaginary beings to your  
explanation for several reasons.


I agree with you. The point is that a physical universe, conceived as  
*primary*,  is such an imaginary object.  Nobody has ever given the  
slightest evidence for such an object, nor any crtoerion for assessing  
it, and no serious work of physics mention it, and science is born  
from taking some distance with such quasi innate intuition. They are  
very useful, but utility is not a criterion of truth, per se.
Only Einstein seems to assumes a physical universe, but immediately  
acknowledge that this is religion, an act of fait from his part, a  
feeling of wonder (about something which today is reduced to another  
act of fait, yet much weaker, the beliefs in addition and  
mutltuplication of natural numbers + a principle of invariance of  
first person for a minute set of self-transformations.






 First, it implies you know something for which you have no evidence.


Indeed.




Second, brings in a lot of baggage about God:  He's a powerful person.


Only in some tradition, which we have evidence has nothing to do with  
religion or god, but with controlling and manipulating people. Why do  
you stick to the charlatans, without ever coming back to the original  
science?


The greek theology has been extremely fertile, it gave rise to math  
and physics. but physics, as a fundamental theory, is refuted: it just  
cannot explain consciousness without invoking magical metaphysical  
notions, like primary matter, never seen, never explained.




He demands we enforce certain laws.  He hates the same people we  
dislike.  He rewards worship


Forget the mythes and come back to science.

Bruno






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.


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.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

If scientists are ignorant, as Dyson said, it's because they need a budget for 
better, novel, equipment. New equipment leads to new and better discoveries. I 
am betting we are now past the age of pure theoreticals, and we need scientists 
to wear the hat of the experimentalist, as well. 

Neutrino interceptors, off earth, etc..

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Dec 4, 2016 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter




On 02 Dec 2016, at 21:28, Brent Meeker wrote:


  
I thought it was funny, and had a grain of truth (and I'm a  physicist).



To be sure, it applies to mathematicians, and biologists, too. It looks like 
after retirement, you are no more under the obligation to be rigorous, 
especially on philosophy, where rigor has been abandoned even by "professional" 
since long. It looks like people are afraid of admitting their fundamental 
ignorance before dying. It is the usual, and rather sane, fear of the unknown, 
but they won't admit it, I guess.


Bruno







Brent



On 12/2/2016 5:44 AM, spudboy100 via  Everything List wrote:


The comicwas creepy, Telmo, and inaccurate. Maybe I just need to grow a 
   sense of humor?



-Original  Message-
  From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
  To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
  Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 6:51 am
  Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter
  
  On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>  
wrote:
  >
  >
  > -Original Message-
  > From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
  > To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
      > Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
  > Subject: No gravity / no dark matter
  >
  > Hello,
  >
  > What do you guys think of this?
  >
  > 
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
  >
  > Cheers
  > Telmo.
  >
  >
  > It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out  
some testable
  > consequences.
  
  I was bored in an airport the other day and bought "The Grand 
 Design"
  by Hawking. He talks about his "model realism" philosophical  
stance --
  the idea that anything goes modelwise, as long as it fits the
  observable data. I like the idea, somehow. I know wonder if  
demanding
  one true model is not confusing the map with the territory.
  
  On the other hand, he also starts the book by explaining how
  philosophy is dead, and how more or less theoretical physics
  progressively makes all other fields of inquiry obsolete.
  
  It reminded me of this cartoon (with my apologies in advance  
to all
  the physicists in the room):
  
  http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556
  
  Telmo.
  
  > There are several theories being pursued in which space  or
  > spacetime are phenomena emergent from entanglement of  
quantum fields. They
  > can be traced back to a proposal by Sakharov in the '50s.
  >
  > 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

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Dec 2016, at 21:28, Brent Meeker wrote:

I thought it was funny, and had a grain of truth (and I'm a  
physicist).




To be sure, it applies to mathematicians, and biologists, too. It  
looks like after retirement, you are no more under the obligation to  
be rigorous, especially on philosophy, where rigor has been abandoned  
even by "professional" since long. It looks like people are afraid of  
admitting their fundamental ignorance before dying. It is the usual,  
and rather sane, fear of the unknown, but they won't admit it, I guess.


Bruno




Brent

On 12/2/2016 5:44 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
The comic was creepy, Telmo, and inaccurate. Maybe I just need to  
grow a sense of humor?



-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 6:51 am
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Brent Meeker  
<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
> Subject: No gravity / no dark matter
>
> Hello,
>
> What do you guys think of this?
>
> 
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
>
> Cheers
> Telmo.
>
>
> It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out some  
testable

> consequences.

I was bored in an airport the other day and bought "The Grand Design"
by Hawking. He talks about his "model realism" philosophical stance  
--

the idea that anything goes modelwise, as long as it fits the
observable data. I like the idea, somehow. I know wonder if demanding
one true model is not confusing the map with the territory.

On the other hand, he also starts the book by explaining how
philosophy is dead, and how more or less theoretical physics
progressively makes all other fields of inquiry obsolete.

It reminded me of this cartoon (with my apologies in advance to all
the physicists in the room):

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556

Telmo.

> There are several theories being pursued in which space or
> spacetime are phenomena emergent from entanglement of quantum  
fields. They

> can be traced back to a proposal by Sakharov in the '50s.
>
> 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- 
l...@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- 
l...@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.


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.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/3/2016 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that 
Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing 
mechanism and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental 
researcher often after retirement, except for philosophers, which 
confuses theology with Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained well 
that physicists confuse the notion of explanation and prediction. 
Physicists are good in prediction, but naive about explanation. 


How do you know an explanation is a good one unless it provides good 
predictions?


Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement that 
"there is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a 
physical universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but 
that is not better.


Sure it is.  It is better not to add imaginary beings to your 
explanation for several reasons.  First, it implies you know something 
for which you have no evidence.  Second, brings in a lot of baggage 
about God:  He's a powerful person.  He demands we enforce certain 
laws.  He hates the same people we dislike.  He rewards worship


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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Dec 2016, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

Hi Telmo,

On 30 Nov 2016, at 21:33, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hello,

What do you guys think of this?


http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong



Interesting, seems plausible to me, not so original (cf the  
explanation of
space-time from quantum entanglement) and of course all this is in  
line with
the idea that space-time-energy is also emerging. I still hope he  
recovers

phenomenologically general relativity in the large scale. If Verlinde
explain the dynamics and shape of the galaxies without Dark Matter,  
that

would be quite remarkable.

What he means by "illusion" is "not primitive", or "not primary".  
In this
list, we already know (I hope) that if mechanism is correct in  
cognitive
science, the whole of physics is no more fundamental and must be  
derived

from arithmetical self-reference, as it does till now.

I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure  
Einstein

ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.


I have the impression his claim is that general relativity is not a
correct description of gravity (thus dark matter), so his theory would
be to general relativity what general relativity is to Newtonian
physics.


To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.


That is true for sure! I don't like it either, it's just looks as  
clickbait.

Also reinforces the popular misunderstanding of science.


Right. Not just the popular one. It makes the whole of science into a  
pseudo-religion, but that is the natural consequence of not doing  
metaphysics or theology with the scientific attitude.





The serious
scientific stance is that all theories are probably incomplete...


OK. But with second order logic, we can define categorical realm. the  
statement that "there is only numbers" can be made mathematically  
precise, and numbers could be (and has to be, assuming mechanism) a  
complete realm. But your statement is right, as there is no complete  
first order theory of the numbers. Here we have to distinguish the  
theory, the model of the theory, and a notion of ontological realm.  
The fact that physics use the word "model" for "theory" does not help  
in that context.






But
the mainstream doesn't even grasp what a theory is, thus the silly
"evolution is just a theory" type of arguments.


Yes.







To me,
Einstein is still vindicated on both the macro and the micro, and I  
take his

1927 remarks, and its EPR paper as indications that he got a better
understanding on QM than his contemporaries.


When it comes to theoretical physics I am just an enthusiastic outside
observer. Looking at it from the "outside", I can't help but feel that
"dark matter" is an euphemism for "the current theory has been
falsified by observation, but we have nothing better for now".


I am rather agnostic about this. I think "dark matter" is the simplest  
explanation with the current data, but I am agnostic. I guess I have  
some hope that superstring theory will explain it.






In the same issue, the article "Scientists Find Religion Triggers  
Same Area
of Brain as Sex, Drugs and Love" is funny, but a bit trivial, as  
the brain
zone excited are the one related to pleasure. Also, they looked  
only to
Mormons' experiences, well ... It is nice that they make such study  
though,
but here too, they still keep in outdated theory of mind (I guess  
this will

last for sometime).


Right, neural correlates are useful and interesting, but people read
WAY too much into them...


I'm glad you agree. It presupposes usually both mechanism and weak  
materialism, and give a "modern" way to put consciousness and the soul  
under the rug.


The real bomb is the discovery of the universal machine: it is more  
fundamental that the physical universe, and we don't have to assume  
them.


Arithmetic explains entirely by itself the existence, in arithmetic,  
of coherent sheaf of dreams (that is: computations with a notion of  
first person view of the computation). That is testable, and explains  
already the quantum nature of physical events, which is something  
assumed/inferred in physics. As I said, this makes the confusion  
singled out by René Thom between describing/predicting and explaining  
where things come from.


Computationalism extends nicely (canonically) both Darwin and Everett,  
assuming only the natural numbers. And arithmetic (or anything Turing  
equivalent) explains its own non-explainability. Physics lacks the  
conceptual tool for doing this, and by searching one model, is forced  
to accept a brain-mind identity which does not make sense, neither  
with quantum mechanics nor with mechanism 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Dec 2016, at 12:51, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>  
wrote:



-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
Subject: No gravity / no dark matter

Hello,

What do you guys think of this?

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong

Cheers
Telmo.


It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out some  
testable

consequences.


I was bored in an airport the other day and bought "The Grand Design"
by Hawking. He talks about his "model realism" philosophical stance --
the idea that anything goes modelwise, as long as it fits the
observable data. I like the idea, somehow. I know wonder if demanding
one true model is not confusing the map with the territory.


That can be proved to not exist, unless he assumes a strong form of  
non-mechanism. We can't really do that already for arithmetic.






On the other hand, he also starts the book by explaining how
philosophy is dead,


Sure, and theology too. (sarcasm).




and how more or less theoretical physics
progressively makes all other fields of inquiry obsolete.


That is just physicalism. It just can't work. This shows how big is  
the non understanding of logic by physicists. We knew that since  
Penrose.


But it is also wrong, by simple confusion of level of explanation. If  
we did the same error in "modern theology", it would be like saying  
that the fundamental science (making all the other obsolete) is Number  
theory. But with just logic, we know that the inside or internal view  
of arithmetic by machine/number is NOT reducible to the ontological  
theory chosen. With such type of error, I can understand why  
physicists cannot swallow the consequence of mechanism, given that the  
whole of fundamental physics would be made obsolete. Of course that is  
not the case, and, on the contrary, the correct theory of everything  
justifies a non reductionist view of reality. In particular, physics  
(and theology) is theory-independent, and this saves most fielf of  
inquiry from reductionism.
Hmm... My favorite book by Hawking is his selected paper: 'God create  
the integers".







It reminded me of this cartoon (with my apologies in advance to all
the physicists in the room):

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556


Physicists confuse physics and metaphysics, by not seeing that  
Aristotelianism is incompatible with Mechanism, and by confusing  
mechanism and materialism. Yes, that happens often for fundamental  
researcher often after retirement, except for philosophers, which  
confuses theology with Aristotelian theology. René Thom explained well  
that physicists confuse the notion of explanation and prediction.  
Physicists are good in prediction, but naive about explanation.  
Physicalism *is¨a form of creationism. They take the statement that  
"there is a physical universe" as an explanation of why there is a  
physical universe. They replace "God made it", by "it exists", but  
that is not better.


Bruno






Telmo.


There are several theories being pursued in which space or
spacetime are phenomena emergent from entanglement of quantum  
fields.  They

can be traced back to a proposal by Sakharov in the '50s.

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- 
l...@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.


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.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I may lack a proper sense of humor. Also, based on Len Susskind's recent work, 
and his age, I am thinking the cartoonist, though witty, is inaccurate. YOU 
have zero to say you are sorry for ;-)



-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 8:48 am
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

Sorry!

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:44 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> The comic was creepy, Telmo, and inaccurate. Maybe I just need to grow a
> sense of humor?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 6:51 am
> Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
>> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
>> Subject: No gravity / no dark matter
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> What do you guys think of this?
>>
>>
>> http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
>>
>> Cheers
>> Telmo.
>>
>>
>> It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out some testable
>> consequences.
>
> I was bored in an airport the other day and bought "The Grand Design"
> by Hawking. He talks about his "model realism" philosophical stance --
> the idea that anything goes modelwise, as long as it fits the
> observable data. I like the idea, somehow. I know wonder if demanding
> one true model is not confusing the map with the territory.
>
> On the other hand, he also starts the book by explaining how
> philosophy is dead, and how more or less theoretical physics
> progressively makes all other fields of inquiry obsolete.
>
> It reminded me of this cartoon (with my apologies in advance to all
> the physicists in the room):
>
> http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556
>
> Telmo.
>
>> There are several theories being pursued in which space or
>> spacetime are phenomena emergent from entanglement of quantum fields. They
>> can be traced back to a proposal by Sakharov in the '50s.
>>
>> 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.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruce Kellett]

Telmo,

You might be interested in this comment by Sabine Hossenfelder on the 
Verlinde paper:


http://backreaction.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/can-dark-energy-and-dark-matter-emerge.html

Bruce


On 2/12/2016 10:51 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
Subject: No gravity / no dark matter

Hello,

What do you guys think of this?

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong

Cheers
Telmo.


It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out some testable
consequences.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

I thought it was funny, and had a grain of truth (and I'm a physicist).

Brent


On 12/2/2016 5:44 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
The comic was creepy, Telmo, and inaccurate. Maybe I just need to grow 
a sense of humor?



-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 6:51 am
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net 
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com 
<mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>>
> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:l...@googlegroups.com>>

> Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
> Subject: No gravity / no dark matter
>
> Hello,
>
> What do you guys think of this?
>
> 
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong

>
> Cheers
> Telmo.
>
>
> It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out some testable
> consequences.

I was bored in an airport the other day and bought "The Grand Design"
by Hawking. He talks about his "model realism" philosophical stance --
the idea that anything goes modelwise, as long as it fits the
observable data. I like the idea, somehow. I know wonder if demanding
one true model is not confusing the map with the territory.

On the other hand, he also starts the book by explaining how
philosophy is dead, and how more or less theoretical physics
progressively makes all other fields of inquiry obsolete.

It reminded me of this cartoon (with my apologies in advance to all
the physicists in the room):

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556

Telmo.

> There are several theories being pursued in which space or
> spacetime are phenomena emergent from entanglement of quantum 
fields. They

> can be traced back to a proposal by Sakharov in the '50s.
>
> 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 
<mailto:list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to 
everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:l...@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 
<mailto:list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:l...@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 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
<mailto: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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

Sorry!

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:44 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> The comic was creepy, Telmo, and inaccurate. Maybe I just need to grow a
> sense of humor?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 6:51 am
> Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
>> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
>> Subject: No gravity / no dark matter
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> What do you guys think of this?
>>
>>
>> http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
>>
>> Cheers
>> Telmo.
>>
>>
>> It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out some testable
>> consequences.
>
> I was bored in an airport the other day and bought "The Grand Design"
> by Hawking. He talks about his "model realism" philosophical stance --
> the idea that anything goes modelwise, as long as it fits the
> observable data. I like the idea, somehow. I know wonder if demanding
> one true model is not confusing the map with the territory.
>
> On the other hand, he also starts the book by explaining how
> philosophy is dead, and how more or less theoretical physics
> progressively makes all other fields of inquiry obsolete.
>
> It reminded me of this cartoon (with my apologies in advance to all
> the physicists in the room):
>
> http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556
>
> Telmo.
>
>> There are several theories being pursued in which space or
>> spacetime are phenomena emergent from entanglement of quantum fields. They
>> can be traced back to a proposal by Sakharov in the '50s.
>>
>> 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Here's an interesting paper abou (partially) gravity and mass
I call it, The Star Lifters!
Tabby's Star

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/star-lifting-to-mine-star-matter-could.html


-Original Message-
From: spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 8:44 am
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter


The comic was creepy, Telmo, and inaccurate. Maybe I just need to grow a sense 
of humor?



-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 6:51 am
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
> Subject: No gravity / no dark matter
>
> Hello,
>
> What do you guys think of this?
>
> http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
>
> Cheers
> Telmo.
>
>
> It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out some testable
> consequences.

I was bored in an airport the other day and bought "The Grand Design"
by Hawking. He talks about his "model realism" philosophical stance --
the idea that anything goes modelwise, as long as it fits the
observable data. I like the idea, somehow. I know wonder if demanding
one true model is not confusing the map with the territory.

On the other hand, he also starts the book by explaining how
philosophy is dead, and how more or less theoretical physics
progressively makes all other fields of inquiry obsolete.

It reminded me of this cartoon (with my apologies in advance to all
the physicists in the room):

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556

Telmo.

> There are several theories being pursued in which space or
> spacetime are phenomena emergent from entanglement of quantum fields.  They
> can be traced back to a proposal by Sakharov in the '50s.
>
> 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

The comic was creepy, Telmo, and inaccurate. Maybe I just need to grow a sense 
of humor?



-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 2, 2016 6:51 am
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
> Subject: No gravity / no dark matter
>
> Hello,
>
> What do you guys think of this?
>
> http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
>
> Cheers
> Telmo.
>
>
> It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out some testable
> consequences.

I was bored in an airport the other day and bought "The Grand Design"
by Hawking. He talks about his "model realism" philosophical stance --
the idea that anything goes modelwise, as long as it fits the
observable data. I like the idea, somehow. I know wonder if demanding
one true model is not confusing the map with the territory.

On the other hand, he also starts the book by explaining how
philosophy is dead, and how more or less theoretical physics
progressively makes all other fields of inquiry obsolete.

It reminded me of this cartoon (with my apologies in advance to all
the physicists in the room):

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556

Telmo.

> There are several theories being pursued in which space or
> spacetime are phenomena emergent from entanglement of quantum fields.  They
> can be traced back to a proposal by Sakharov in the '50s.
>
> 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.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

Russell,

I don't follow you... If you have time to dumb it down a bit, I would
appreciate it :)

Best,
Telmo.


On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Russell Standish  wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
>> Einstein ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.
>> To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.
>
> It's code speak for saying the speed of light is not a constant. It's
> more a bone to throw to the media to stir up interest, than a real
> scientific statement.
>
> Of course, since the speed of light is just a conversion constant
> beween our time units and our space units, we are always free to vary
> the speed of light. It is just a nonlinear reparameterisation of our
> coordinates. Verlinde's proposal is much, much more than that.
>
>
>
> --
>
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University 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 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Hi Telmo,
>
> On 30 Nov 2016, at 21:33, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> What do you guys think of this?
>>
>>
>> http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
>
>
> Interesting, seems plausible to me, not so original (cf the explanation of
> space-time from quantum entanglement) and of course all this is in line with
> the idea that space-time-energy is also emerging. I still hope he recovers
> phenomenologically general relativity in the large scale. If Verlinde
> explain the dynamics and shape of the galaxies without Dark Matter, that
> would be quite remarkable.
>
> What he means by "illusion" is "not primitive", or "not primary". In this
> list, we already know (I hope) that if mechanism is correct in cognitive
> science, the whole of physics is no more fundamental and must be derived
> from arithmetical self-reference, as it does till now.
>
> I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure Einstein
> ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.

I have the impression his claim is that general relativity is not a
correct description of gravity (thus dark matter), so his theory would
be to general relativity what general relativity is to Newtonian
physics.

> To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.

That is true for sure! I don't like it either, it's just looks as clickbait.
Also reinforces the popular misunderstanding of science. The serious
scientific stance is that all theories are probably incomplete... But
the mainstream doesn't even grasp what a theory is, thus the silly
"evolution is just a theory" type of arguments.

> To me,
> Einstein is still vindicated on both the macro and the micro, and I take his
> 1927 remarks, and its EPR paper as indications that he got a better
> understanding on QM than his contemporaries.

When it comes to theoretical physics I am just an enthusiastic outside
observer. Looking at it from the "outside", I can't help but feel that
"dark matter" is an euphemism for "the current theory has been
falsified by observation, but we have nothing better for now".

> In the same issue, the article "Scientists Find Religion Triggers Same Area
> of Brain as Sex, Drugs and Love" is funny, but a bit trivial, as the brain
> zone excited are the one related to pleasure. Also, they looked only to
> Mormons' experiences, well ... It is nice that they make such study though,
> but here too, they still keep in outdated theory of mind (I guess this will
> last for sometime).

Right, neural correlates are useful and interesting, but people read
WAY too much into them...

Cheers,
Telmo.

>
> Best,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Telmo.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
> Subject: No gravity / no dark matter
>
> Hello,
>
> What do you guys think of this?
>
> http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
>
> Cheers
> Telmo.
>
>
> It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out some testable
> consequences.

I was bored in an airport the other day and bought "The Grand Design"
by Hawking. He talks about his "model realism" philosophical stance --
the idea that anything goes modelwise, as long as it fits the
observable data. I like the idea, somehow. I know wonder if demanding
one true model is not confusing the map with the territory.

On the other hand, he also starts the book by explaining how
philosophy is dead, and how more or less theoretical physics
progressively makes all other fields of inquiry obsolete.

It reminded me of this cartoon (with my apologies in advance to all
the physicists in the room):

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556

Telmo.

> There are several theories being pursued in which space or
> spacetime are phenomena emergent from entanglement of quantum fields.  They
> can be traced back to a proposal by Sakharov in the '50s.
>
> 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

You folks are speaking of Verlinde's new theory of gravity. For me, my mind 
jumps to astrophysicist, and sci fi writer, Alastair Reynold's, faux technology 
for the far future, where humans control micro black holes, as a magical means 
to create 1 G gravity on very low gravity planetoids. It's a device Reynold's 
called a "swallower."  In the variability of light speed, thinkably, could be 
variable, as proposed by some physicists that is (unrelated?) to the gravity 
theory and general relativity. 



-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 1, 2016 8:01 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:02:49AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 2/12/2016 9:26 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
> >>Einstein ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.
> >>To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.
> >It's code speak for saying the speed of light is not a constant. It's
> >more a bone to throw to the media to stir up interest, than a real
> >scientific statement.
> >
> >Of course, since the speed of light is just a conversion constant
> >beween our time units and our space units, we are always free to vary
> >the speed of light. It is just a nonlinear reparameterisation of our
> >coordinates. Verlinde's proposal is much, much more than that.
> 
> It is interesting that the speed of light can be regarded as nothing
> more than a conversion constant only if special relativity is
> strictly correct. If temporal variation in the speed of light is
> discovered, say by finding that the fine structure constant changes
> with time, then we would have to rethink the idea that c is just a
> conversion constant.
> 

Temporal variation of alpha is a completely different beast, as it is
a dimensionless quantity, and far more interesting, of course.

Cheers

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:02:49AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 2/12/2016 9:26 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
> >>Einstein ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.
> >>To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.
> >It's code speak for saying the speed of light is not a constant. It's
> >more a bone to throw to the media to stir up interest, than a real
> >scientific statement.
> >
> >Of course, since the speed of light is just a conversion constant
> >beween our time units and our space units, we are always free to vary
> >the speed of light. It is just a nonlinear reparameterisation of our
> >coordinates. Verlinde's proposal is much, much more than that.
> 
> It is interesting that the speed of light can be regarded as nothing
> more than a conversion constant only if special relativity is
> strictly correct. If  temporal variation in the speed of light is
> discovered, say by finding that the fine structure constant changes
> with time, then we would have to rethink the idea that c is just a
> conversion constant.
> 

Temporal variation of alpha is a completely different beast, as it is
a dimensionless quantity, and far more interesting, of course.

Cheers

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruce Kellett]

On 2/12/2016 9:26 am, Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
Einstein ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.
To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.

It's code speak for saying the speed of light is not a constant. It's
more a bone to throw to the media to stir up interest, than a real
scientific statement.

Of course, since the speed of light is just a conversion constant
beween our time units and our space units, we are always free to vary
the speed of light. It is just a nonlinear reparameterisation of our
coordinates. Verlinde's proposal is much, much more than that.


It is interesting that the speed of light can be regarded as nothing 
more than a conversion constant only if special relativity is strictly 
correct. If  temporal variation in the speed of light is discovered, say 
by finding that the fine structure constant changes with time, then we 
would have to rethink the idea that c is just a conversion constant.


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.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
> Einstein ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.
> To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.

It's code speak for saying the speed of light is not a constant. It's
more a bone to throw to the media to stir up interest, than a real
scientific statement.

Of course, since the speed of light is just a conversion constant
beween our time units and our space units, we are always free to vary
the speed of light. It is just a nonlinear reparameterisation of our
coordinates. Verlinde's proposal is much, much more than that.



-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Telmo,

On 30 Nov 2016, at 21:33, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hello,

What do you guys think of this?

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong


Interesting, seems plausible to me, not so original (cf the  
explanation of space-time from quantum entanglement) and of course all  
this is in line with the idea that space-time-energy is also emerging.  
I still hope he recovers phenomenologically general relativity in the  
large scale. If Verlinde explain the dynamics and shape of the  
galaxies without Dark Matter, that would be quite remarkable.


What he means by "illusion" is "not primitive", or "not primary". In  
this list, we already know (I hope) that if mechanism is correct in  
cognitive science, the whole of physics is no more fundamental and  
must be derived from arithmetical self-reference, as it does till now.


I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure  
Einstein ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.
To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.  
To me, Einstein is still vindicated on both the macro and the micro,  
and I take his 1927 remarks, and its EPR paper as indications that he  
got a better understanding on QM than his contemporaries.


In the same issue, the article "Scientists Find Religion Triggers Same  
Area of Brain as Sex, Drugs and Love" is funny, but a bit trivial, as  
the brain zone excited are the one related to pleasure. Also, they  
looked only to Mormons' experiences, well ... It is nice that they  
make such study though, but here too, they still keep in outdated  
theory of mind (I guess this will last for sometime).


Best,

Bruno






Cheers
Telmo.

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

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Brent Meeker]

-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
Subject: No gravity / no dark matter

Hello,

What do you guys think of this?

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong

Cheers
Telmo.


It's a respectable theory, but Verlinde needs to work out some testable 
consequences.  There are several theories being pursued in which space 
or spacetime are phenomena emergent from entanglement of quantum 
fields.  They can be traced back to a proposal by Sakharov in the '50s.


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: No gravity / no dark matter

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

It would kind of make sense, especially if there are two trillion galaxies 
instead of 200 billion. 



-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
Subject: No gravity / no dark matter

Hello,

What do you guys think of this?

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong

Cheers
Telmo.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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: No gravity / no dark matter

[Russell Standish]

Hmm - since the speed of light is merely a conversion constant between
units for measuring time and units for measuring space, this sounds to
me like a re-parameterisation of spacetime to flatten out the initial
inflation.

Admittedly, I haven't read the original paper, but could this be
called "inflation in disguise"?

Cheers

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 09:33:11PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> What do you guys think of this?
> 
> http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
> 
> Cheers
> Telmo.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 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.

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Philip Benjamin]

No Thinking needed. Group-think will do.



From: everything-list@googlegroups.com <everything-list@googlegroups.com> on 
behalf of Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:33 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: No gravity / no dark matter

Hello,

What do you guys think of this?

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong

[http://assets2.bigthink.com/system/idea_thumbnails/61999/primary/GettyImages-71525117.jpg?1480271902]<http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong>

Remarkable New Theory Says There's No Gravity, No Dark Matter, and Einstein Was 
Wrong<http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong>
bigthink.com
A theoretical physicist proposes a new way to think about gravity and dark 
matter.




Cheers
Telmo.

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

No gravity / no dark matter

[Telmo Menezes]

Hello,

What do you guys think of this?

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong

Cheers
Telmo.

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