Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-26 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group

Re: Rép : The Meaning of Life

2007-01-18 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/describe the observations. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL

Re: Rép : The Meaning of Life

2007-01-18 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brent Meeker wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SP] The common sense view is that there is an underlying primitive physical reality generating this appearance Your assumption of underlying primitive physical reality puts you in the line of believers. It is not necessary to make

Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evi

2007-02-24 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute

2007-02-26 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Feb 25, 2:06 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute

Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute

2007-02-26 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and pertinent) Jesus said; Not every one that says to me; `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven. (Mt.7:21). On Feb 25, 5:50 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Could you, [EMAIL PROTECTED], please spell out what YOU

Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute

2007-02-26 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to demonstrate the truth. But with each successive proof, clearer and finer, more pleasant, agreeable, radiant levels of knowledge, scenes of acquaintanceship, and windows of love, were opened and revealed. I listened and learned. On Feb 26, 8:50 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Klortho wrote

Re: multiverse talk

2008-07-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Ronald, Of course the main constraints are your audience, Star Trek fans, who usually like talking about frontiers of physics and even mind/body problem issues etc., but also your own background (I don't know what it is) prompts

Re: multiverse talk

2008-07-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jul 12, 2:22 pm, ronaldheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can I explain the Star Trek universe(s) as being a part of Level I or Level III? The “Tegmark's levels” is pure simplification for the consumption by laymen. There are no Multiverse levels; it is continuum of the same concept

Re: multiverse talk

2008-07-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jul 12, 2:22 pm, ronaldheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can I explain the Star Trek universe(s) as being a part of Level I or Level III? The “Tegmark's levels” is pure simplification for the consumption by laymen. There are no Multiverse levels; it is continuum of the same concept

Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?

2005-07-22 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would like to suggest a way of reconciling this situation for your consideration. I have no proof as yet but if accepted and then used as a vehicle of exploration and understanding of context I have found it to be a useful. A formal logic (an arbitrary calculus) is defined by 4 basic

Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?

2005-07-23 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hal Finney writes: : Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot : squares. Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square : a set of equations conceived as able to govern the physics of the : universe. Think more overnight. Next day put a better set of

Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-07-25 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at ONE and TWO above. Abandon philsophy at yopur peril, but use it's output prudently and you will be of a broader ilk. cheers, Colin Hales -Original Message- From: Lee Corbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:12 AM To: EverythingList Subject: Reality vs

Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-07-26 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[col] I aologise in advance for my crap spelling. My fingers don;t type what I think. That's the relaity of it! :-) Warning... I am also adopting Lee-style bombast because I feel like venting. Don't be too precious about it! :-) [Lee] You're right. I must be more direct. Okay, here it is:

RE: A solution to the Qualia riddle and a coherent explanation of my 'Theory Of Everything

2005-07-27 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Imo, I'd concur with Bruno in 'nice try'. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen someone dive in with a proclaimation like yours. I include myself in this :P My reacent outburst is an example! I can only encourage you to follow your ideaS and poke every eye you see. A bit of

Re: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-07-27 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Bruno, Now look at science. We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields. AND THEN we deny phenomenal consciousness? Declare it

Re: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-07-28 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I hereby promise to try really hard with the spelling Hi Bruno, Now look at science. We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields. AND THEN

Re: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-07-31 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[-Original Message-Tom Caylor wrote:] May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin: If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly than the wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but they cannot be discriminated as true

RE: Clarification of Terms (was RE: What We Can Know About the World)

2005-07-31 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lee wrote: Interesting note about mind: there is no German language equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of Teutonic zombies elided. In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought? by Eric Baum, the author

RE: Clarification of Terms (was RE: What We Can Know About the World)

2005-07-31 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Lee wrote:] Interesting note about mind: there is no German language equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of Teutonic zombies elided. In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought? by Eric Baum, the

RE: Clarification of Terms (was RE: What We Can Know About the World)

2005-07-31 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Lee wrote:] Interesting note about mind: there is no German language equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of Teutonic zombies elided. In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought? by Eric Baum, the

Re: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-08-01 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brent Meeker writes: On 31-Jul-05, you wrote: [-Original Message-Tom Caylor wrote:] May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin: ... Our scientific evidentiary process is based on the fallacy of the assumed existence

RE: Clarification of Terms (was RE: What We Can Know About the World)

2005-08-01 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John M: snip:) To Searle's book-title: it implies that we already HAVE discovered what the 'mind' is. Well, we did not. At least not to the satisfaction of the advanced thinking community. John M I think the name was a play the name of another book The discovery of the mind by Bruno

Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-08-03 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi again, I finally found the switch to prepend onto my email! To try and passivate Brent's angst a little The model that I need to unfurl is huge. It's the biggest structure I have ever devised. It has taken me years to create and test against all manner of brain data (pathological

Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-08-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stuff for Brent and more. 1) Phenomenality Definition: Block N. 2003. Consciousness, Philosophical Issues about. In: Nadel L, editor. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London: Nature Pub. Group. What's phenomenality? Did you look for it in a brain? Yes. That's the whole issue.

Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-08-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My final ramblings. From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Moi Reality vs perception of reality? I vote we work really hard on the latter and drop all ascription in relation to the former. A significant dose of humility indeed. Bruno I don't think objective reality can

RE: subjective reality

2005-08-09 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, (via) Reality vs. Perception of Reality In answer to Bruno’s recent comments on the old post: * Thanks for helping me sort out my ‘Nagels’! I had them mixed up in EndNote. * Young? 49 years young. Getting young and seemingly knowing less and less every day. :-) This I seem to have to

RE: The Reality of Observer Moments

2005-08-14 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lee Corbin I wish to emphasize that according to a traditional realist's beliefs, observer moments are objective and real, and hence do exist, so that there is nothing objectionable about speculations concerning them. Suppose that a mouse during some small time delta t is in a particular

RE: subjective reality

2005-08-16 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Lee Corbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:48 AM John writes Lee and Stephen: since we have only our subjective access to out there does it make any difference if it is REALLY? like we interpret it, or in an untraceable manner: different? Colin

RE: subjective reality

2005-08-17 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lee Corbin Colin writes ACCURACY Extent to which a measurement matches an international standard. REPEATABILITY Extent to which a measurement matches its own prior measurement. For example the SICK DME 2000 laser distance measurement instrument has an accuracy of about 10mm

RE: subjective reality

2005-08-17 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lee Corbin Colin writes So, for subjective experience: Yes it can be an illusion, but a systematically erroneous, relentlessly repeatable illusion driven by measurement of the natural world where its errors are not important - .ie. not mission fatal to the observer.

Kaboom

2005-08-23 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The various 'laws' of quantum mechanics, in the minds of those involved in their study, have been discovered, as opposed to invented. In the quest to explain their power in prediction of the behaviour of the natural world I can make the following observation: Let's say we do science on

Re: Kaboom

2005-08-28 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 1:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Kaboom On 24 Aug 2005, at 02:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't even get past the axioms of COMP. They just don’t hold unless I delude myself that the universe is driven

RE: Kaboom

2005-08-29 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
regrettable snip Hi Bruno, The misinterpretations compounded and intermingled so much I decided to cut to the meat of it.. I suspect that this dialogue will end in the usual way. Being ignoredThe well worn path of COMP and all the things it says, the idea that a multiverse explains

The 'stuff', The appearance of 'stuff', neither, both

2005-11-20 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I beg the groups indulgenceA question In your mind there is a great deal of mental manipulation of QM concepts. When you do that what is your belief about what you are doing?: a) Do you think you are manipulating(structuring/causally connecting) the stuff of which the universe is made?

stuff, appearance of stuff etc

2005-11-21 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With a total response of 2 (including me) (Thanks Russel!)... The results of my survey are overwhelmingly in favour of the status of QM as being that of appearances., although with an N of 2 I'd be a bit optimistic to get the P value down to anywhere near significance... oh well... Based on

RE: Mathematics: Is it really what you think it is?

2006-01-29 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Carlton Hi Marc -- it's interesting to wonder about what it would be like to directly perceive mathematics -- but we also have to acknowledge when we ask the question, what are the philosophical assumptions we're smuggling along. For instance, the human brain is not capable of direct

RE: Numbers

2006-03-22 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 1Z Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:09 AM To: Everything List Subject: Re: Numbers Georges Quénot wrote: That too can be discussed. It is not so sure

Re: Theory of Nothing available

2006-07-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 () UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia

Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential Nihilism

2004-01-20 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am writing my high school senior project term paper on defending ethical and existential nihilism based on quantum and multiverse theory. I was looking for any comments on the subject. Here I place my outline for said paper: --- A

Extended Response on Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential Nihilism

2004-01-21 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I mean not so sound supercilious, but I must admit that all counterarguments thus far received are points I have foreseen and chosen to omit in the paper for the sake of length and inherent stupidity of my evaluators. This is why I have come here for intelligent recluse, as it is, so far, the