subject:"Re\: the \"God\" hypothesis"

Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-17 Thread Stephen P. King


On 11/17/2012 7:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
Now I see that there is a remote hint of what you say in Leibniz's
metaphysics. Each monad perceives only the phenomenol world,
the world from his own perspective. The actual object is only
truly perceived if "perceived" by all perceivers.


Hi Roger,

Right, but the "object" is "real" only insofar as it is m-perceived 
- perceived by all synchronized monads.



But that does create the object, the actual object always was, as
it is itself a monad, and they can be neither created nor
destroyed.
There is no object outside of m-perception! It is maya, illusion. 
This is how I understand Bruno's notion of 3p, it is that which is 
m-perceived. The sum of all possible monads = God.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-17 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Stephen P. King 

Now I see that there is a remote hint of what you say in Leibniz's 
metaphysics. Each monad perceives only the phenomenol world,
the world from his own perspective. The actual object is only
truly perceived if "perceived" by all perceivers.

But that does create the object, the actual object always was, as
it is itself a monad, and they can be neither created nor
destroyed.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/17/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-17, 06:41:52
Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis


On 11/17/2012 6:33 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal 

My concept of the infinite regress problem
is the one that pops up in materialistic theories of
perception. Is there a homunculus in the brain to
experience what the eye sees? And if so, does the homunculus
have a homunculus inside him to interpret that etc. etc, etc.

Dennent wrote a whole book or a lot at least
on that issue without coming up with a sensible solution
other than to say that it just happens that there is no infinite
regress because there cannot be one. 

It's similar to Aristotle's "First Cause" doctine.



Dear Roger,

We can solve the homunculus problem by consideration that consciousness 
requires resources to occur. For example, the 1st homunculus uses 1/2 the 
resource available, the next uses 1/4, the next uses 1/8, ... This converges to 
1 unit of resource, no? Of course this assumes that there are homunculi ... 
Infinite regresses are only a problem if they are used to avoid a difficult 
explanation.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-17 Thread Stephen P. King


On 11/17/2012 6:33 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal
My concept of the infinite regress problem
is the one that pops up in materialistic theories of
perception. Is there a homunculus in the brain to
experience what the eye sees? And if so, does the homunculus
have a homunculus inside him to interpret that etc. etc, etc.
Dennent wrote a whole book or a lot at least
on that issue without coming up with a sensible solution
other than to say that it just happens that there is no infinite
regress because there cannot be one.
It's similar to Aristotle's "First Cause" doctine.


Dear Roger,

We can solve the homunculus problem by consideration that 
consciousness requires resources to occur. For example, the 1st 
homunculus uses 1/2 the resource available, the next uses 1/4, the next 
uses 1/8, ... This converges to 1 unit of resource, no? Of course this 
assumes that there are homunculi 
 ... 
Infinite regresses are only a problem if they are used to avoid a 
difficult explanation.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-17 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Bruno Marchal 

My concept of the infinite regress problem
is the one that pops up in materialistic theories of
perception. Is there a homunculus in the brain to
experience what the eye sees? And if so, does the homunculus
have a homunculus inside him to interpret that etc. etc, etc.

Dennent wrote a whole book or a lot at least
on that issue without coming up with a sensible solution
other than to say that it just happens that there is no infinite
regress because there cannot be one. 

It's similar to Aristotle's "First Cause" doctine.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/17/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-16, 11:27:09
Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis




On 15 Nov 2012, at 16:52, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Richard Ruquist and Bruno,

There is (infinite) regress in physical nature, but not in mind, because
mind is non-existent (not created). 


There are a lot of infinite regress in arithmetic. I am not sure how you 
related this with created and uncreated.


Bruno









[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-12, 11:46:34
Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis


On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger Clough,
>>
>> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
>> reason to live.
>> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum gravity".
>>
>> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
>> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
>>
>> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving
>> consciousness,
>> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
>> possibilities,
>> according to Leibniz...
>>
>> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
>> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
>> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..
>
>
> Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it.

Yes. My reasoning is incomplete as all reasonings should be.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Richard Ruquist
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
>>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
>>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
>>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/12/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>>
>>>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
>>>> them during manufacture.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
>>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
>>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to
>>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there
>>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that
>>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any
>>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>>> 11/10/2012
>>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
>>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough w

Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 15 Nov 2012, at 16:52, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Richard Ruquist and Bruno,

There is (infinite) regress in physical nature, but not in mind,  
because

mind is non-existent (not created).


There are a lot of infinite regress in arithmetic. I am not sure how  
you related this with created and uncreated.


Bruno







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-12, 11:46:34
Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger Clough,
>>
>> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
>> reason to live.
>> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum  
gravity".

>>
>> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
>> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
>>
>> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving
>> consciousness,
>> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
>> possibilities,
>> according to Leibniz...
>>
>> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
>> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
>> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..
>
>
> Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know  
it.


Yes. My reasoning is incomplete as all reasonings should be.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Richard Ruquist
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  
 wrote:

>>>
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
>>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
>>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
>>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/12/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>>
>>>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
>>>> them during manufacture.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
>>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and  
theories
>>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is  
easy to
>>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled  
and there
>>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets -  
sets that
>>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member,  
but any
>>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient  
reasons for it.

>>>
>>>>
>>>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>>> 11/10/2012
>>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
>>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>>>
>>>>> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up  
inside.

>>>>
>>>> No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
>>>> "perfectly lined up". ... Right.
>>>>
>>>>> That's Platonia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
>>>>> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Onward!
>>>>
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>>

Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-15 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to exist as it
> does.

And we now know that Leibniz was DEAD WRONG about that, we now know that
some things happen for no reason whatsoever. And in general that's the
trouble with modern philosophers, they keep on quoting their ancient hero
blissfully unaware of the developments made in physics or mathematics or
biology that occurred in the last 400 years;  they actually believe that
scientific and mathematical illiteracy is no handicap in figuring out how
the world works.

> I don't know how to explain that by anything other than the the "God"
> hypothesis.
>

So everything needs a reason to exist. EVERYTHING. And thus God is the
total explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. Are you
trying to tell us with a straight face that you don't see the logical flaw
in that argument?

  John K Clark

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-15 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Richard Ruquist 

Call it what you want, but anything existent exists according
to some pre-existing physical rules etc.  Some Cosmic intelligence.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-15, 08:54:54
Subject: Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis


Hi Roger Clough,

As you have been told, quantum gravity is contained within each string
theory monad.
No one knows where that came from, certainly not any god that humans
are connected to.
Richard

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Stephen Hawking,
>
> So quantum gravity was designed and created by
> mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out
> of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even
> an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ?
>
> This nonsense you apparently believe shows
> that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage.
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 11/15/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Bruno Marchal
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40
> Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis
>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger Clough,
>>
>> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
>> reason to live.
>> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum
>> gravity".
>>
>> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
>> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
>>
>> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving
>> consciousness,
>> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
>> possibilities,
>> according to Leibniz...
>>
>> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
>> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
>> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..
>
> Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>>
>> Richard Ruquist
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough 
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
>>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
>>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
>>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/12/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>>
>>>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
>>>> them during manufacture.
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
>>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
>>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is
>>> easy to
>>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and
>>> there
>>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets
>>> that
>>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but
>>> any
>>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons
>>> for it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>>> 11/10/2012
>>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
>>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>>>
>>>>> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up
>>>>&

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-15 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Richard Ruquist and Bruno,

There is (infinite) regress in physical nature, but not in mind, because
mind is non-existent (not created). 



[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-12, 11:46:34
Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis


On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger Clough,
>>
>> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
>> reason to live.
>> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum gravity".
>>
>> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
>> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
>>
>> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving
>> consciousness,
>> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
>> possibilities,
>> according to Leibniz...
>>
>> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
>> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
>> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..
>
>
> Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it.

Yes. My reasoning is incomplete as all reasonings should be.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Richard Ruquist
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
>>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
>>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
>>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/12/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>>
>>>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
>>>> them during manufacture.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
>>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
>>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to
>>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there
>>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that
>>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any
>>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>>> 11/10/2012
>>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
>>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>>>
>>>>> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside.
>>>>
>>>> No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
>>>> "perfectly lined up". ... Right.
>>>>
>>>>> That's Platonia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
>>>>> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Onward!
>>>>
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>> To post to

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-15 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Richard Ruquist 

That's just my point.  You can't have quantum gravity
unless it emerged from mind ior universal intelligence.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list,Swines,zoo_no_facts 
Time: 2012-11-12, 08:55:09
Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis


Hi Roger Clough,

Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
reason to live.
As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum gravity".

I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf

Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving consciousness,
that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
possibilities,
according to Leibniz...

But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..

Richard Ruquist



On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 11/12/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Stephen P. King
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
> Subject: Re: Communicability
>
>
> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>
>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
>> them during manufacture.
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to
> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there
> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that
> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any
> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it.
>
>>
>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 11/10/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Stephen P. King
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>
>>
>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside.
>> No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
>> "perfectly lined up". ... Right.
>>
>>> That's Platonia.
>>>
>>> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
>>> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.
>>>
>>> Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.
>>
>> --
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --
> 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 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> 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 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-15 Thread Richard Ruquist

Hi Roger Clough,

As you have been told, quantum gravity is contained within each string
theory monad.
No one knows where that came from, certainly not any god that humans
are connected to.
Richard

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Stephen Hawking,
>
> So quantum gravity was designed and created by
> mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out
> of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even
> an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ?
>
> This nonsense you apparently believe shows
> that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage.
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 11/15/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Bruno Marchal
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40
> Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis
>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger Clough,
>>
>> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
>> reason to live.
>> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum
>> gravity".
>>
>> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
>> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
>>
>> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving
>> consciousness,
>> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
>> possibilities,
>> according to Leibniz...
>>
>> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
>> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
>> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..
>
> Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>>
>> Richard Ruquist
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough 
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
>>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
>>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
>>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/12/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>>
>>>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
>>>> them during manufacture.
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
>>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
>>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is
>>> easy to
>>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and
>>> there
>>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets
>>> that
>>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but
>>> any
>>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons
>>> for it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>>> 11/10/2012
>>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
>>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>>>
>>>>> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up
>>>>> inside.
>>>> No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
>>>> "perfectly lined up". ... Right.
>>>>
>>>>> That's Platonia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
>>>>> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-15 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Stephen Hawking,

So quantum gravity was designed and created by 
mindless, random, brute forces ? Or came out 
of nothing at all, not even intelligence, not even
an idea or form ? Not even the tooth fairy ?

This nonsense you apparently believe shows
that materialistic thinking can cause brain damage.

 
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-12, 10:56:40
Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis


On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> Hi Roger Clough,
>
> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
> reason to live.
> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum 
> gravity".
>
> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
>
> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving 
> consciousness,
> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
> possibilities,
> according to Leibniz...
>
> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..

Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it.

Bruno



>
> Richard Ruquist
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  
> wrote:
>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>
>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are). I don't know how to
>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>>
>>
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 11/12/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Stephen P. King
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
>>> them during manufacture.
>>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is 
>> easy to
>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and 
>> there
>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets 
>> that
>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but 
>> any
>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons 
>> for it.
>>
>>>
>>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/10/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>>
>>>> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up 
>>>> inside.
>>> No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
>>> "perfectly lined up". ... Right.
>>>
>>>> That's Platonia.
>>>>
>>>> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
>>>> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Onward!
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at 
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Onward!
>>
>> St

Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-12 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger Clough,
>>
>> Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
>> reason to live.
>> As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum gravity".
>>
>> I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
>> http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
>>
>> Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving
>> consciousness,
>> that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
>> possibilities,
>> according to Leibniz...
>>
>> But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
>> Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
>> for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..
>
>
> Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it.

Yes. My reasoning is incomplete as all reasonings should be.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Richard Ruquist
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
>>> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
>>> a sufficient reason to be (as they are).  I don't know how to
>>> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/12/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Stephen P. King
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
>>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King

 There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
 them during manufacture.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
>>> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
>>> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to
>>> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there
>>> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that
>>> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any
>>> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it.
>>>

 er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 11/10/2012
 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
 Subject: Re: Communicability


 On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside.

 No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
 "perfectly lined up". ... Right.

> That's Platonia.
>
> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.
>
> Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.


 --
 Onward!

 Stephen


 --
 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
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Onward!
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro

Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Nov 2012, at 15:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Hi Roger Clough,

Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
reason to live.
As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum  
gravity".


I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf

Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving  
consciousness,

that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
possibilities,
according to Leibniz...

But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..


Yes, life as we know it, but not necessarily life as we don't know it.

Bruno





Richard Ruquist



On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough   
wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
a sufficient reason to be (as they are).  I don't know how to
explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/12/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
Subject: Re: Communicability


On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
them during manufacture.


Hi Roger,

The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is  
easy to
fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and  
there
is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets  
that
have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but  
any
time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons  
for it.




er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
Subject: Re: Communicability


On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up  
inside.

No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
"perfectly lined up". ... Right.


That's Platonia.

Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.

Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.





--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 Nov 2012, at 13:29, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen P. King

Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
a sufficient reason to be (as they are).  I don't know how to
explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.


It is always dangerous (for the mental sanity) to invoke "God" in an  
explanation. It is an easy evacuation of the problem.


But I can relate with this idea, though.

With comp, in fine, we need also a "God hypothesis", which seems to be  
innocent: as it is the "arithmetical truth hypothesis". It needs  
studies in logic to understand that such an hypothesis is quite  
strong, and share many religious principle with God, as we can only  
scratch a tiny part of arithmetical truth, and don't know really what  
it is. We can even not give it a name. Like "God", "arithmetical  
truth" is only a pointer to something which, assuming comp,  
intrinsically transcends us.


Note also that divine intellect (the complete quantified G*) is far  
more complex than Arithmetic Truth. Even with Arithmetical truth as  
oracle, the divine intellect (the arithmetical noùs) is undecidable.  
So the theology of the universal machine is even beyond "God". This is  
counter-intuitive and explains some difficulties and quasi divergence  
between Plato and Plotinus. Comp seems to side with Plotinus on this.  
God is simpler than its "creation/emanation", making it losing  
omnipotence and omniscience.


Bruno






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/12/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
Subject: Re: Communicability


On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
them during manufacture.


Hi Roger,

The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy  
to
fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and  
there
is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets  
that
have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but  
any
time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons  
for it.




er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
Subject: Re: Communicability


On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up  
inside.

No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
"perfectly lined up". ... Right.


That's Platonia.

Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.

Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.





--  
Onward!


Stephen


--  
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-12 Thread Richard Ruquist

Hi Roger Clough,

Actually the action of mathematical physics gives "everything" the
reason to live.
As Hawking says, there is "no need for god if you got quantum gravity".

I confess to giving cosmic consciousness a reason to live.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf

Hopefully, a benevolent, understanding, tolerant and forgiving consciousness,
that somehow chooses the best universe from an infinitude of mental
possibilities,
according to Leibniz...

But physical Nature can be stern and unforgiving.
Life as we know it will eventually disappear from earth,
for cosmic reasons later, if not human reasons sooner..

Richard Ruquist



On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
> exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
> a sufficient reason to be (as they are).  I don't know how to
> explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 11/12/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Stephen P. King
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
> Subject: Re: Communicability
>
>
> On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>
>> There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
>> them during manufacture.
>
> Hi Roger,
>
>  The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
> to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
> and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to
> fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there
> is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that
> have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any
> time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it.
>
>>
>> er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 11/10/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Stephen P. King
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
>> Subject: Re: Communicability
>>
>>
>> On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>>
>>> Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside.
>> No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
>> "perfectly lined up". ... Right.
>>
>>> That's Platonia.
>>>
>>> Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
>>> floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.
>>>
>>> Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.
>>
>> --
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --
> 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 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> 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 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: the "God" hypothesis

2012-11-12 Thread Stephen P. King


On 11/12/2012 7:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to
exist as it does. Thus all of the parts of the universe have
a sufficient reason to be (as they are).  I don't know how to
explain that by anything other than the the "God" hypothesis.

Dear Roger,

Yes, I understand all that. My point is that the God hypothesis is 
just a way to hide the infinite regress problem. I would like to find a 
solution to it.  I see a quilt-work of theories as necessary, stitched 
together the way we stitch coordinate systems together to make manifolds 
in topology...
I think that tying computation to resources gets us half-way to the 
solution. The other half is covered by the way that time and logical 
entailment work on Pratt's theory and the use of non-well founded sets. 
Gregg Zuckerman's theory of consciousness uses the latter nicely.






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/12/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-10, 12:28:31
Subject: Re: Communicability


On 11/10/2012 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

There's no mystery. That's presumably how a machine packed
them during manufacture.

Hi Roger,

  The order of the crackers has a cause, some physical process lead
to the order. When we are considering ontological models and theories
and using ideas that depend on epistemological knowledge, it is easy to
fall into regress. I have found that regress can be controlled and there
is even a nice mathematical theory that uses regressive sets - sets that
have no least member and sets that have themselves as a member, but any
time that we claim a 'cut off' there has to be sufficient reasons for it.


er Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-09, 13:32:23
Subject: Re: Communicability


On 11/9/2012 11:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Get a box of crackers with the crackers all lined perfectly up inside.

No explanation at all is given as to how the cracker got to be
"perfectly lined up". ... Right.


That's Platonia.

Now invert the box and let the crackers fall, scattering on the
floor and some even breaking. That's our contingent world.

Nobody knows why, but that's the way time works.





--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: the "God" hypothesis

Re: the "God" hypothesis

16 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information