Re: On the meaning of men thinking about ultimate reality
But the idea came to Guth in 1978 after hearing a lecture by Dicke inflation by month: 1978 6.8 6.4 6.6 6.5 7.0 7.4 7.7 7.8 8.3 8.9 8.9 9.0 7.6 So at most the influence was in the choice of word for the concept. Or maybe the market heard about Guth's theory and... Brent On 1/17/2014 5:45 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: And At the peak of the great inflation, in the year 1980, the inflationary theory of the universe was born: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) inflation in US by year and month: 19828.39 % 7.62 % 6.78 % 6.51 % 6.68 % 7.06 % 6.44 % 5.85 % 5.04 % 5.14 % 4.59 % 3.83 % 6.16 % 198111.83 % 11.41 % 10.49 % 10.00 % 9.78 % 9.55 % 10.76 % 10.80 % 10.95 % 10.14 % 9.59 % 8.92 % 10.35 % 198013.91 % 14.18 % 14.76 % 14.73 % 14.41 % 14.38 % 13.13 % 12.87 % 12.60 % 12.77 % 12.65 % 12.52 % 13.58 % 19799.28 % 9.86 % 10.09 % 10.49 % 10.85 % 10.89 % 11.26 % 11.82 % 12.18 % 12.07 % 12.61 % 13.29 % 11.22 % 2014/1/17, Alberto G. Corona : Is it a coincidence that: -During the cold war the image of the universe and the theory that explained it was an inmense nuclear explosion? -In the world dominated by the multicultural ideology and computers, it is a multiverse and/or a computer simulation the preferred paradigm? That is not fortuitous for me. That is what I was trying to say with the "canal effect" post time ago. For me the deepest question is not what is true about the ultimate reality. That is a question that never ever can be answered without faith. Thus, that question it is not scientific even in the broadest meaning that scientific inquiry might be considered. The deepest question that puzzles me the most is the psychology of men across ages asking themselves about the ultimate reality from which religion of any kind derives, including the modern secularist ideologies. And for the psychology of men shaped by natural selection can not and will never be separated from a form of expected _good_ for him and/or for their society. That good can derive from many sources that are of two kinds: either the good for himself or alternatively, the good for the society as a whole, with a middle, that promote the good exclusively for the initiated ones of a reduced group . The goods of the first kind are whatever idea that increase self power, self worship. The second group correspond with what promotes predictive power over the environment and in general, self confidence in the community, as well as good moral rules. Whathever ultimate explanation is ever created by the Mytopoetic faculty of the mind, that was shaped by natural selection that faculty match truth and good (and how believable can be by others) That is my hypothesis. That faculty construct and/or accept a myth about oneself, their society and the nature of the ultimate reality. It does not matter if the mythic speculation depart from an scientific or properly mythic inquiry. Because the last step in the nature of ultimate reality need a leap on faith. This leap is produced by the mytopoetic, unconscious element that match Truth and Good. On creating myths about oneself, the mythopoesis produces whatever that favours oneself that is at the same time credible by others. That is corroborated by scientists. The same happens with the mythos produced for the own society and for the nature of the reality (in which he and his society must have a teleological mission to be coherent). Whatever of the possible goods for oneself or the society is more considered in the mythic elaboration depend on each one愀 aims and personality, and the zeitgeist of the age. The good for oneself can be a great evil for the rest. But first your mythos must be believed by others, to be believable by others, the result of the mytopoesis should be fashionable. You can not talk about daemons in the internet age. but you can make believable your mytopoesis talking about "science" "energies" and ovnis instead of religion spirits and miracles respectively. So you can have your seat in the university or a chord of young women after you, the privileged messenger of the creator aliens. Should each one consider the nature of the goodness of their myths that you, no doubt, have. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: On the meaning of men thinking about ultimate reality
On 17 Jan 2014, at 13:34, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Is it a coincidence that: -During the cold war the image of the universe and the theory that explained it was an inmense nuclear explosion? -In the world dominated by the multicultural ideology and computers, it is a multiverse and/or a computer simulation the preferred paradigm? That is not fortuitous for me. That is what I was trying to say with the "canal effect" post time ago. For me the deepest question is not what is true about the ultimate reality. I think it is the only deep question worth of interest. That is a question that never ever can be answered without faith. I totally agree with you. Thus, that question it is not scientific even in the broadest meaning that scientific inquiry might be considered. I totally disagree with you. The question is scientific. May be the answer is not scientific. That is why I love comp, it shows this, in some sense. Normal machine have faith. The real mystery is why they can lost faith. That is the complex process, somehow. With comp, like in plotinus, souls fall. The fall of the soul, and the rise of the matter, is basically the same phenomenon, seen from two different perspective. The deepest question that puzzles me the most is the psychology of men across ages asking themselves about the ultimate reality from which religion of any kind derives, including the modern secularist ideologies. People tries theories. The real progress are in the means of justification. Yesterday: Theorem 4: God made it all Proof: easy, because if you don't say so we will burn you alive with your kids. Today: Theorem 4: God made it all. Proof: easy, because if you don't say so, you will not be published. Of course we are still in the dark age. Science has not yet begun, because science still deny the faith it needs, vitally. Enlightenment has been only half enlightenment, with theology kept by "politics". Half-enlightenment might be worst that no enlighnment, because it provides the technology without the faith. It provide the science without the conscience. That is a promise for catastrophes, and catastrophes merchandising. It is the culprit for making bandits into power. And for the psychology of men shaped by natural selection can not and will never be separated from a form of expected _good_ for him and/or for their society. That good can derive from many sources that are of two kinds: either the good for himself or alternatively, the good for the society as a whole, with a middle, that promote the good exclusively for the initiated ones of a reduced group . The goods of the first kind are whatever idea that increase self power, self worship. The second group correspond with what promotes predictive power over the environment and in general, self confidence in the community, as well as good moral rules. Whathever ultimate explanation is ever created by the Mytopoetic faculty of the mind, that was shaped by natural selection that faculty match truth and good (and how believable can be by others) That is my hypothesis. We just build lanterns to look at the Unknown. That faculty construct and/or accept a myth about oneself, their society and the nature of the ultimate reality. It does not matter if the mythic speculation depart from an scientific or properly mythic inquiry. Because the last step in the nature of ultimate reality need a leap on faith. This leap is produced by the mytopoetic, unconscious element that match Truth and Good. Is it not Truth and God. The truth we search, because we have faith in, not the one we pretend to have find it (which is always a lie, provably so in the comp theory). On creating myths about oneself, the mythopoesis produces whatever that favours oneself that is at the same time credible by others. That is corroborated by scientists. The same happens with the mythos produced for the own society and for the nature of the reality (in which he and his society must have a teleological mission to be coherent). Teleological mission? You mean "goal"? Whatever of the possible goods for oneself or the society is more considered in the mythic elaboration depend on each one´s aims and personality, and the zeitgeist of the age. The good for oneself can be a great evil for the rest. Really? Not sure. But first your mythos must be believed by others, to be believable by others, the result of the mytopoesis should be fashionable. You can not talk about daemons in the internet age. but you can make believable your mytopoesis talking about "science" "energies" and ovnis instead of religion spirits and miracles respectively. So you can have your seat in the university or a chord of young women after you, the privileged messenger of the creator aliens. Should each one consider the nature of the goodness of their myths that you, no doubt, have. Yeah... I believe in the myth that 2+2=4. It is the myth
Re: On the meaning of men thinking about ultimate reality
And At the peak of the great inflation, in the year 1980, the inflationary theory of the universe was born: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) inflation in US by year and month: 19828.39 % 7.62 % 6.78 % 6.51 % 6.68 % 7.06 % 6.44 % 5.85 % 5.04 % 5.14 % 4.59 % 3.83 % 6.16 % 198111.83 % 11.41 % 10.49 % 10.00 % 9.78 % 9.55 % 10.76 % 10.80 % 10.95 % 10.14 % 9.59 % 8.92 % 10.35 % 198013.91 % 14.18 % 14.76 % 14.73 % 14.41 % 14.38 % 13.13 % 12.87 % 12.60 % 12.77 % 12.65 % 12.52 % 13.58 % 19799.28 % 9.86 % 10.09 % 10.49 % 10.85 % 10.89 % 11.26 % 11.82 % 12.18 % 12.07 % 12.61 % 13.29 % 11.22 % 2014/1/17, Alberto G. Corona : > Is it a coincidence that: > > -During the cold war the image of the universe and the theory that > explained it was an inmense nuclear explosion? > > -In the world dominated by the multicultural ideology and computers, > it is a multiverse and/or a computer simulation the preferred > paradigm? > > That is not fortuitous for me. That is what I was trying to say with > the "canal effect" post time ago. > > For me the deepest question is not what is true about the ultimate > reality. That is a question that never ever can be answered without > faith. Thus, that question it is not scientific even in the broadest > meaning that scientific inquiry might be considered. The deepest > question that puzzles me the most is the psychology of men across > ages asking themselves about the ultimate reality from which religion > of any kind derives, including the modern secularist ideologies. > > And for the psychology of men shaped by natural selection can not and > will never be separated from a form of expected _good_ for him and/or > for their society. That good can derive from many sources that are of > two kinds: either the good for himself or alternatively, the good for > the society as a whole, with a middle, that promote the good > exclusively for the initiated ones of a reduced group . > > The goods of the first kind are whatever idea that increase self > power, self worship. The second group correspond with what promotes > predictive power over the environment and in general, self > confidence in the community, as well as good moral rules. > > Whathever ultimate explanation is ever created by the Mytopoetic > faculty of the mind, that was shaped by natural selection that faculty > match truth and good (and how believable can be by others) That is my > hypothesis. > > That faculty construct and/or accept a myth about oneself, their > society and the nature of the ultimate reality. It does not matter if > the mythic speculation depart from an scientific or properly mythic > inquiry. Because the last step in the nature of ultimate reality need > a leap on faith. This leap is produced by the mytopoetic, unconscious > element that match Truth and Good. > > On creating myths about oneself, the mythopoesis produces whatever > that favours oneself that is at the same time credible by others. That > is corroborated by scientists. The same happens with the mythos > produced for the own society and for the nature of the reality (in > which he and his society must have a teleological mission to be > coherent). > > Whatever of the possible goods for oneself or the society is more > considered in the mythic elaboration depend on each one´s aims and > personality, and the zeitgeist of the age. The good for oneself can be > a great evil for the rest. But first your mythos must be believed by > others, to be believable by others, the result of the mytopoesis > should be fashionable. > > You can not talk about daemons in the internet age. but you can make > believable your mytopoesis talking about "science" "energies" and > ovnis instead of religion spirits and miracles respectively. So you > can have your seat in the university or a chord of young women after > you, the privileged messenger of the creator aliens. > > Should each one consider the nature of the goodness of their myths > that you, no doubt, have. > > > -- > Alberto. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
On the meaning of men thinking about ultimate reality
Is it a coincidence that: -During the cold war the image of the universe and the theory that explained it was an inmense nuclear explosion? -In the world dominated by the multicultural ideology and computers, it is a multiverse and/or a computer simulation the preferred paradigm? That is not fortuitous for me. That is what I was trying to say with the "canal effect" post time ago. For me the deepest question is not what is true about the ultimate reality. That is a question that never ever can be answered without faith. Thus, that question it is not scientific even in the broadest meaning that scientific inquiry might be considered. The deepest question that puzzles me the most is the psychology of men across ages asking themselves about the ultimate reality from which religion of any kind derives, including the modern secularist ideologies. And for the psychology of men shaped by natural selection can not and will never be separated from a form of expected _good_ for him and/or for their society. That good can derive from many sources that are of two kinds: either the good for himself or alternatively, the good for the society as a whole, with a middle, that promote the good exclusively for the initiated ones of a reduced group . The goods of the first kind are whatever idea that increase self power, self worship. The second group correspond with what promotes predictive power over the environment and in general, self confidence in the community, as well as good moral rules. Whathever ultimate explanation is ever created by the Mytopoetic faculty of the mind, that was shaped by natural selection that faculty match truth and good (and how believable can be by others) That is my hypothesis. That faculty construct and/or accept a myth about oneself, their society and the nature of the ultimate reality. It does not matter if the mythic speculation depart from an scientific or properly mythic inquiry. Because the last step in the nature of ultimate reality need a leap on faith. This leap is produced by the mytopoetic, unconscious element that match Truth and Good. On creating myths about oneself, the mythopoesis produces whatever that favours oneself that is at the same time credible by others. That is corroborated by scientists. The same happens with the mythos produced for the own society and for the nature of the reality (in which he and his society must have a teleological mission to be coherent). Whatever of the possible goods for oneself or the society is more considered in the mythic elaboration depend on each one´s aims and personality, and the zeitgeist of the age. The good for oneself can be a great evil for the rest. But first your mythos must be believed by others, to be believable by others, the result of the mytopoesis should be fashionable. You can not talk about daemons in the internet age. but you can make believable your mytopoesis talking about "science" "energies" and ovnis instead of religion spirits and miracles respectively. So you can have your seat in the university or a chord of young women after you, the privileged messenger of the creator aliens. Should each one consider the nature of the goodness of their myths that you, no doubt, have. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
