Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Of course theories are not the physical entities. But the laws of physics are a good approximation of how the universe works and string theory just says where they come from. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Yes, theories REFER to physical entitires, but they are NOT the entities > themselves. > > This is kindergarten stuff, Richard, give me a break. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/22/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Richard Ruquist > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-08-22, 09:21:12 > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection > > Theories always refer to physical entities. Otherwise they are unless. > In string theory the monads supernatural entities > but still part of nature. > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> In my opinion, the CYM is only extended geometrically on paper. >> In a theory, not physically. >> >> Although they describe what actually happens physically, they themselves, >> being theory, are unextended. >> >> It's just like the Pythagorean Theory. It doesn't exist physically as >> triangles ihn space, it only exists on paper. >> >> >> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >> 8/22/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >> everything could function." >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> *From:* Richard Ruquist >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2012-08-22, 06:56:13 >> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection >> >> Agreed Roger, except that the CYM monads have extension. >> The physical laws you speak of are in human imagination >> and seemingly not extended, >> but there is necessarily a substantial manifestation of them... >> The supernatural of course extends across the entire universe. >> Richard >> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >>> Hi Richard Ruquist >>> >>> Physical law is unextended, while physical objects are extended. >>> >>> As I understand it, Nature is extended while Supernature is not. >>> >>> So I could call physical law supernatural. >>> >>> >>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >>> 8/22/2012 >>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >>> everything could function." >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> *From:* Richard Ruquist >>> *Receiver:* everything-list >>> *Time:* 2012-08-21, 08:12:42 >>> *Subject:* Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection >>> >>> Roger, >>> You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the >>> existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set >>> of monads. >>> >>> The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of >>> nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is. >>> They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP. >>> Richard >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Richard Ruquist >>>> I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion >>>> with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper >>>> concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know >>>> what the meaning of anything is. Period. >>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >>>> 8/21/2012 >>>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >>>> everything could function." >>>> >>>> - Receiving the following content - >>>> *From:* Richard Ruquist >>>> *Receiver:* everything-list >>>> *Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 >>>> *Subject:* Re: divine selection versus natural selection >>>> >>>> Roger, >>>> >>>> Divine selection and natural selection are sourced, >>>> however at differing levels of information integration, >>>> in the "universal�CYM monad�subspace". >>>> >>>> Belief can also be a product of science. >>>> I be
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, theories REFER to physical entitires, but they are NOT the entities themselves. This is kindergarten stuff, Richard, give me a break. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 09:21:12 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Theories always refer to physical entities. Otherwise they are unless. In string theory the monads supernatural entities but still part of nature. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist In my opinion, the CYM is only extended geometrically on paper. In a theory, not physically. Although they describe what actually happens physically, they themselves, being theory, are unextended. It's just like the Pythagorean Theory. It doesn't exist physically as triangles ihn space, it only exists on paper. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 06:56:13 Subject: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Agreed Roger, except that the CYM monads have extension. The physical laws you speak of are in human imagination and seemingly not extended, but there is necessarily a substantial manifestation of them... The supernatural of course extends across the entire universe. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Physical law is unextended, while physical objects are extended. As I understand it, Nature is extended while Supernature is not. So I could call physical law supernatural. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 08:12:42 Subject: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set of monads. The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is. They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know what the meaning of anything is. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 Subject: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced, however at differing levels of information integration, in the "universal?YM monad?ubspace". Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God.?e have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that > suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If > it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not > governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is > reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. > > What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the > human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics > and i
Re: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Theories always refer to physical entities. Otherwise they are unless. In string theory the monads supernatural entities but still part of nature. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > In my opinion, the CYM is only extended geometrically on paper. > In a theory, not physically. > > Although they describe what actually happens physically, they themselves, > being theory, are unextended. > > It's just like the Pythagorean Theory. It doesn't exist physically as > triangles ihn space, it only exists on paper. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/22/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Richard Ruquist > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-08-22, 06:56:13 > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection > > Agreed Roger, except that the CYM monads have extension. > The physical laws you speak of are in human imagination > and seemingly not extended, > but there is necessarily a substantial manifestation of them... > The supernatural of course extends across the entire universe. > Richard > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Physical law is unextended, while physical objects are extended. >> >> As I understand it, Nature is extended while Supernature is not. >> >> So I could call physical law supernatural. >> >> >> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >> 8/22/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >> everything could function." >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> *From:* Richard Ruquist >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2012-08-21, 08:12:42 >> *Subject:* Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection >> >> Roger, >> You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the >> existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set >> of monads. >> >> The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of >> nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is. >> They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP. >> Richard >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >>> Hi Richard Ruquist >>> I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion >>> with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper >>> concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know >>> what the meaning of anything is. Period. >>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >>> 8/21/2012 >>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >>> everything could function." >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> *From:* Richard Ruquist >>> *Receiver:* everything-list >>> *Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 >>> *Subject:* Re: divine selection versus natural selection >>> >>> Roger, >>> >>> Divine selection and natural selection are sourced, >>> however at differing levels of information integration, >>> in the "universal�CYM monad�subspace". >>> >>> Belief can also be a product of science. >>> I believe science. >>> Richard >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Bruno Marchal >>>> According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and >>>> that trust >>>> does not come from you, it is a gift from God.�We have nothing to do >>>> with it, >>>> at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. >>>> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net >>>> 8/20/2012 >>>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >>>> everything could function." >>>> >>>> - Receiving the following content - >>>> *From:* Bruno Marchal >>>> *Receiver:* everything-list >>>> *Time:* 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 >>>> *Subject:* Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked >>>> semanticfield(mind). >>>> >>>> On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >>>> >>>> > The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that >>>> > supposs
Re: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Hi Richard Ruquist In my opinion, the CYM is only extended geometrically on paper. In a theory, not physically. Although they describe what actually happens physically, they themselves, being theory, are unextended. It's just like the Pythagorean Theory. It doesn't exist physically as triangles ihn space, it only exists on paper. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 06:56:13 Subject: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Agreed Roger, except that the CYM monads have extension. The physical laws you speak of are in human imagination and seemingly not extended, but there is necessarily a substantial manifestation of them... The supernatural of course extends across the entire universe. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Physical law is unextended, while physical objects are extended. As I understand it, Nature is extended while Supernature is not. So I could call physical law supernatural. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 08:12:42 Subject: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set of monads. The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is. They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know what the meaning of anything is. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 Subject: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced, however at differing levels of information integration, in the "universal?YM monad?ubspace". Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God.?e have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that > suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If > it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not > governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is > reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. > > What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the > human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics > and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope > in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists > when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between > both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division. But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different. And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between woman and man, east and west, yin and yang. Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the "schizophreny appears only when one pole believes to be more
Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Agreed Roger, except that the CYM monads have extension. The physical laws you speak of are in human imagination and seemingly not extended, but there is necessarily a substantial manifestation of them... The supernatural of course extends across the entire universe. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Physical law is unextended, while physical objects are extended. > > As I understand it, Nature is extended while Supernature is not. > > So I could call physical law supernatural. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/22/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Richard Ruquist > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-08-21, 08:12:42 > *Subject:* Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection > > Roger, > You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the > existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set > of monads. > > The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of > nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is. > They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP. > Richard > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion >> with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper >> concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know >> what the meaning of anything is. Period. >> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >> 8/21/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >> everything could function." >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> *From:* Richard Ruquist >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 >> *Subject:* Re: divine selection versus natural selection >> >> Roger, >> >> Divine selection and natural selection are sourced, >> however at differing levels of information integration, >> in the "universal�CYM monad�subspace". >> >> Belief can also be a product of science. >> I believe science. >> Richard >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger wrote: >> >>> Hi Bruno Marchal >>> According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and >>> that trust >>> does not come from you, it is a gift from God.�We have nothing to do with >>> it, >>> at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. >>> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net >>> 8/20/2012 >>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >>> everything could function." >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> *From:* Bruno Marchal >>> *Receiver:* everything-list >>> *Time:* 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 >>> *Subject:* Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked >>> semanticfield(mind). >>> >>> On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >>> >>> > The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that >>> > suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If >>> > it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not >>> > governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is >>> > reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. >>> >>> I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The >>> reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by >>> self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the >>> > human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics >>> > and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope >>> > in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists >>> > when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between >>> > both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division. >>> >>> But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from >>> their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different. >>> And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already >>> reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between >>> woman and man, east and west, yin and yang. >>> >>> Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the "schizophreny >>> appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other >>> pole. >>> >>> >>> >>> > The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian >>> > movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the >>> > fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics. >>> > >>> > So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever. >>> >>> I concur. >>> >>> >>> >>> > When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and >>> > within new organization. >>> >>> Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy r
Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Hi Richard Ruquist Physical law is unextended, while physical objects are extended. As I understand it, Nature is extended while Supernature is not. So I could call physical law supernatural. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 08:12:42 Subject: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set of monads. The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is. They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know what the meaning of anything is. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 Subject: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced, however at differing levels of information integration, in the "universal?YM monad?ubspace". Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God.?e have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that > suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If > it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not > governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is > reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. > > What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the > human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics > and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope > in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists > when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between > both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division. But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different. And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between woman and man, east and west, yin and yang. Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the "schizophreny appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other pole. > The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian > movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the > fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics. > > So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever. I concur. > When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and > within new organization. Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative arguments. I am thinking to some atheist masonic lodges (not all). > The modern Global warming alarmism is an episode of adivination by > makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a scholastic > school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers over > the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the > URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But > also the small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries > out a religious sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a > greath influence in our lives. Religion is everywhere and foreve
