Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light.
15 views
Skip to first unread message
sadovnik socratus
Aug 17, 2010, 1:39:40 PM8/17/10
to Epistemology
Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light.
==.
The scientific laws are already there in Nature.
The scientists only discovered them and usually name them after
themselves.
Maybe these laws were there by chance, but maybe these laws were
created
and set in motion which explain the evolution of Nature.
If the Universe was created by chance – we don't need consciousness.
But if the Universe was developed by way of evolution
( from simple to complex ) it means it needed consciousness
for its development.
And then we have a question:
How and where was the first germ of consciousness born?
#
Can evolution be possible by chance?
No, because “ The second law of thermodynamics “ says the Universe
as whole goes to cold equilibrium ( T=0K) , to regress, to death.
So, by chance evolution is impossible.
Evolution means progress. But if evolution is progress
it must have consciousness to make this progress possible.
If it so, we have an astonishing situation.
In 1900 , Max Planck , trying to save the Universe from ice age
discovered
Quantum of Light. This Quantum of Light saves the Universe from
extinction, gives life and it means takes part in the Cosmic
evolution.
Question:
Does Quantum of Light have consciousness?
#
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question ' What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken
/ Albert Einstein /
#
"There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive
solution could provide considerable elucidation.
What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission?"
/ Max Planck. Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920 /
This question still waits for its answer.
=======================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
=============================.
==.
The scientific laws are already there in Nature.
The scientists only discovered them and usually name them after
themselves.
Maybe these laws were there by chance, but maybe these laws were
created
and set in motion which explain the evolution of Nature.
If the Universe was created by chance – we don't need consciousness.
But if the Universe was developed by way of evolution
( from simple to complex ) it means it needed consciousness
for its development.
And then we have a question:
How and where was the first germ of consciousness born?
#
Can evolution be possible by chance?
No, because “ The second law of thermodynamics “ says the Universe
as whole goes to cold equilibrium ( T=0K) , to regress, to death.
So, by chance evolution is impossible.
Evolution means progress. But if evolution is progress
it must have consciousness to make this progress possible.
If it so, we have an astonishing situation.
In 1900 , Max Planck , trying to save the Universe from ice age
discovered
Quantum of Light. This Quantum of Light saves the Universe from
extinction, gives life and it means takes part in the Cosmic
evolution.
Question:
Does Quantum of Light have consciousness?
#
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question ' What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken
/ Albert Einstein /
#
"There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive
solution could provide considerable elucidation.
What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission?"
/ Max Planck. Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920 /
This question still waits for its answer.
=======================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
=============================.
awori achoka
Aug 18, 2010, 1:05:17 PM8/18/10
to episte...@googlegroups.com
The scientific laws are already there in Nature.
The scientists only discovered them and usually name them after
themselves.
I made such an observation some time back--and a shortsighted character in this forum hurled abuses.The scientists only discovered them and usually name them after
themselves.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
--
nubiaafrika.blogspot.com
abcdefz
Sep 4, 2010, 2:37:41 AM9/4/10
to Epistemology
Ever read any Greene? The second law of thermodynamics only says that
in a closed system, entropy will increase over time. It says nothing
about the state of the system at any given instant. And it certainly
doesn't say that in pursuit of that level of entropy, the system can't
belch here and there and give rise to mutations that may or may not be
capable of rational action and reproduction.
I've rarely seen a less impressive 'argument' for the fallacy of
'intelligent design'. Whenever someone is afraid of the dark, they
immediately start to 'anthropomorphize' the shadows, and see 'reasons'
and 'choices' and 'intent' in things that require none of these
chracteristics...unless you're afraid of the dark, and just HAVE to
have an answer as to 'why' you're afraid of it...
in a closed system, entropy will increase over time. It says nothing
about the state of the system at any given instant. And it certainly
doesn't say that in pursuit of that level of entropy, the system can't
belch here and there and give rise to mutations that may or may not be
capable of rational action and reproduction.
I've rarely seen a less impressive 'argument' for the fallacy of
'intelligent design'. Whenever someone is afraid of the dark, they
immediately start to 'anthropomorphize' the shadows, and see 'reasons'
and 'choices' and 'intent' in things that require none of these
chracteristics...unless you're afraid of the dark, and just HAVE to
have an answer as to 'why' you're afraid of it...
chazwin
Sep 6, 2010, 3:32:00 PM9/6/10
to Epistemology
There is something fundamentally wrong with you conception of laws.
The laws do not simply pre-exist only to be uncovered by a hard-
working or lucky scientist.
It is true to say that laws are designed by people to reflect the
natural phenomena they are witness to, experiment with and design
experiments to verify. But this is not the same as simply uncovering
something that is already there. Laws are also dependent on the
framework of understanding in which they are designed and are limited
by the interpretive horizons and perceptions of humanity.[ A famous
mathematician once said that geometry was not true but advantageous.]
For one thing many of these Laws have been proved wrong despite them
often working for many years happily. For certain, abandoned laws
cannot have been part of some magical design that pre-existed mankind.
And thus we should realise with some humility that in some time in the
future any of our current laws that seem to work so well, may go under
with new discoveries and new ways of looking at the universe.
As for consciousness, and the first germ born. That would depend on
what you think it is. This is a question of degree.
Is evolution possible by chance? No, there is no chance if you mean by
that a random event, but events that result in 'mistakes' in
transcription lead to natural selection of traits that persist. These
'mistake' are determined by events such asThis is nothing more
remarkable than the fact that the larger of two objects striking will
be moved less than the smaller.
On Aug 17, 6:39 pm, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light.
> ==.
> The scientific laws are already there in Nature.
> The scientists only discovered them and usually name them after
> themselves.
> Maybe these laws were there by chance, but maybe these laws were
> created
> and set in motion which explain the evolution of Nature.
> If the Universe was created by chance – we don't need consciousness.
> But if the Universe was developed by way of evolution
> ( from simple to complex ) it means it needed consciousness
> for its development.
> And then we have a question:
> How and where was the first germ of consciousness born?
> #
> Can evolution be possible by chance?
> No, because “ The second law of thermodynamics “ says the Universe
> as whole goes to cold equilibrium ( T=0K) , to regress, to death.
> So, by chance evolution is impossible.
> Evolution means progress.
Evolution does not mean progress of necessity but change.
But if evolution is progress
> it must have consciousness to make this progress possible.
aruzinsky
Sep 11, 2010, 12:09:14 PM9/11/10
to Epistemology
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove or disprove the
hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation. To point out
the obvious, that computer would have to be governed by different laws
of physics than the simulation. Possibly, that computer is part of a
universe, including an operator/programmer, governed by different laws
than this one. The computer operator/programmer could, at whim, do
just about anything with that simulation, including making an
appearance as an avatar to tell the inhabitants that that they are
inside a computer simulation. Gee, I wonder how such a communication
might be misinterpreted by an anthropocentric populous? And, then
the question is, how does that programmer know that he is not living
inside a computer simulation?
Rent the video, The Thirteenth Floor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor
.
hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation. To point out
the obvious, that computer would have to be governed by different laws
of physics than the simulation. Possibly, that computer is part of a
universe, including an operator/programmer, governed by different laws
than this one. The computer operator/programmer could, at whim, do
just about anything with that simulation, including making an
appearance as an avatar to tell the inhabitants that that they are
inside a computer simulation. Gee, I wonder how such a communication
might be misinterpreted by an anthropocentric populous? And, then
the question is, how does that programmer know that he is not living
inside a computer simulation?
Rent the video, The Thirteenth Floor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor
.
aruzinsky
Sep 11, 2010, 5:39:51 PM9/11/10
to Epistemology
That should be "populace," you dumb F.
On Sep 11, 10:09 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove or disprove the
> hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation. To point out
> the obvious, that computer would have to be governed by different laws
> of physics than the simulation. Possibly, that computer is part of a
> universe, including an operator/programmer, governed by different laws
> than this one. The computer operator/programmer could, at whim, do
> just about anything with that simulation, including making an
> appearance as an avatar to tell the inhabitants that that they are
> inside a computer simulation. Gee, I wonder how such a communication
> might be misinterpreted by an anthropocentric populous? And, then
> the question is, how does that programmer know that he is not living
> inside a computer simulation?
>
> Rent the video, The Thirteenth Floor,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor
>eplyto=8b286c63-e57a-42f3...@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com
On Sep 11, 10:09 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove or disprove the
> hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation. To point out
> the obvious, that computer would have to be governed by different laws
> of physics than the simulation. Possibly, that computer is part of a
> universe, including an operator/programmer, governed by different laws
> than this one. The computer operator/programmer could, at whim, do
> just about anything with that simulation, including making an
> appearance as an avatar to tell the inhabitants that that they are
> inside a computer simulation. Gee, I wonder how such a communication
> might be misinterpreted by an anthropocentric populous? And, then
> the question is, how does that programmer know that he is not living
> inside a computer simulation?
>
> Rent the video, The Thirteenth Floor,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor
awori achoka
Sep 12, 2010, 5:56:59 AM9/12/10
to episte...@googlegroups.com
This brings in the issue of knowledge as an end--or should I say an infinity.
--
nubiaafrika.blogspot.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
--
nubiaafrika.blogspot.com
einseele
Sep 12, 2010, 9:27:28 AM9/12/10
to Epistemology
I agree with this here
And also want to add that this idea is a classic of all times hard to
trace back. Even if the point is the same, I like to read it as the
Chuang-Tsu's butterfly:
"Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a
butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I
did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I,
visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a
butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu. Between Tzu and
the butterfly there must be some distinction. [But one may be the
other.] This is called the transformation of things."
Somehow everything is made of the same. Science, religion, and all
knowledge's forms try to discover how something becomes another, like
alchemy pairing dust-gold.
Lately Steven Hawking posted a sort of proof of non existent God
needed to create the "something" out of the "nothing". In other words
there is no need of God for something to come out of nothing.
This of course triggered the religious authority counterpart response
pointing the necessary opposite demonstration.
But you do not hear about the linguistic problem involved.
"Nothing" only exist in language, and even there has substance, making
it a double object. All equivalent, null, empty, zero, etc, have their
own double side.
If "nothing" only lives in language, then it is true that at the
beginning there was only the Word. Though this true can only be false.
To play with words is interesting and lead you to linguistic issues.
Now, to bring these to the Universe's creation is no sense IMO
On 11 set, 13:09, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove or disprove the
> hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation. To point out
> the obvious, that computer would have to be governed by different laws
> of physics than the simulation. Possibly, that computer is part of a
> universe, including an operator/programmer, governed by different laws
> than this one. The computer operator/programmer could, at whim, do
> just about anything with that simulation, including making an
> appearance as an avatar to tell the inhabitants that that they are
> inside a computer simulation. Gee, I wonder how such a communication
> might be misinterpreted by an anthropocentric populous? And, then
> the question is, how does that programmer know that he is not living
> inside a computer simulation?
>
> Rent the video, The Thirteenth Floor,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor
And also want to add that this idea is a classic of all times hard to
trace back. Even if the point is the same, I like to read it as the
Chuang-Tsu's butterfly:
"Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a
butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I
did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I,
visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a
butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu. Between Tzu and
the butterfly there must be some distinction. [But one may be the
other.] This is called the transformation of things."
Somehow everything is made of the same. Science, religion, and all
knowledge's forms try to discover how something becomes another, like
alchemy pairing dust-gold.
Lately Steven Hawking posted a sort of proof of non existent God
needed to create the "something" out of the "nothing". In other words
there is no need of God for something to come out of nothing.
This of course triggered the religious authority counterpart response
pointing the necessary opposite demonstration.
But you do not hear about the linguistic problem involved.
"Nothing" only exist in language, and even there has substance, making
it a double object. All equivalent, null, empty, zero, etc, have their
own double side.
If "nothing" only lives in language, then it is true that at the
beginning there was only the Word. Though this true can only be false.
To play with words is interesting and lead you to linguistic issues.
Now, to bring these to the Universe's creation is no sense IMO
On 11 set, 13:09, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove or disprove the
> hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation. To point out
> the obvious, that computer would have to be governed by different laws
> of physics than the simulation. Possibly, that computer is part of a
> universe, including an operator/programmer, governed by different laws
> than this one. The computer operator/programmer could, at whim, do
> just about anything with that simulation, including making an
> appearance as an avatar to tell the inhabitants that that they are
> inside a computer simulation. Gee, I wonder how such a communication
> might be misinterpreted by an anthropocentric populous? And, then
> the question is, how does that programmer know that he is not living
> inside a computer simulation?
>
aruzinsky
Sep 12, 2010, 11:36:07 AM9/12/10
to Epistemology
I think there are many advantages to modeling reality as a simulation
on a hypothetically perfect computer . For example, science becomes,
"Reverse engineer reality.", and we would no longer be burdened with
verbose blather such chazin's.
> > > =============================.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
on a hypothetically perfect computer . For example, science becomes,
"Reverse engineer reality.", and we would no longer be burdened with
verbose blather such chazin's.
>
> - Show quoted text -
awori achoka
Sep 13, 2010, 2:30:12 AM9/13/10
to episte...@googlegroups.com
The problem with Hawkin's statement---which i consider a poorly thought through---is that to state that God does or does not exist---you need proof. He never offered any----such things are better left to the fancies of the mind.
--
nubiaafrika.blogspot.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
--
nubiaafrika.blogspot.com
Heebong Kim
Sep 14, 2010, 12:59:56 AM9/14/10
to episte...@googlegroups.com
I agree with what you said, but I would like to add something more. In geometry, somebody argued that there is no need for the addition postulate because you can just express it as negative shape. How in the world would you draw a "negative shape"? You can't. It doesn't exist.
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:30:12 +0300
Subject: Re: [epistemology 11606] Re: Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light.
From: awori....@gmail.com
To: episte...@googlegroups.com
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:30:12 +0300
Subject: Re: [epistemology 11606] Re: Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light.
From: awori....@gmail.com
To: episte...@googlegroups.com
einseele
Sep 14, 2010, 9:37:35 AM9/14/10
to Epistemology
Interesting...
The negative particle "no", or any equivalent in all languages is the
origin of all abstraction processes, like I suppose it is in a
geometry environment as well.
It is specially meaningful in English where you say "no-thing" to
refer to an absence.
In other words, you need the "thing" first in order to abstract its
absence, the thing is needed for being "denied"
The question "Why there is something instead of nothing" is therefore
sort of delusion.
Better to put it this way: "How "nothing" could ever be possible"
God could not create the something out of nothing, simply because
"nothing" is an abstraction process and can only be second in time.
That includes God him/herself, which IMO is a good story telling, and
"nothing" else.
On 14 set, 01:59, Heebong Kim <heebongkim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with what you said, but I would like to add something more. In geometry, somebody argued that there is no need for the addition postulate because you can just express it as negative shape. How in the world would you draw a "negative shape"? You can't. It doesn't exist.
>
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
The negative particle "no", or any equivalent in all languages is the
origin of all abstraction processes, like I suppose it is in a
geometry environment as well.
It is specially meaningful in English where you say "no-thing" to
refer to an absence.
In other words, you need the "thing" first in order to abstract its
absence, the thing is needed for being "denied"
The question "Why there is something instead of nothing" is therefore
sort of delusion.
Better to put it this way: "How "nothing" could ever be possible"
God could not create the something out of nothing, simply because
"nothing" is an abstraction process and can only be second in time.
That includes God him/herself, which IMO is a good story telling, and
"nothing" else.
On 14 set, 01:59, Heebong Kim <heebongkim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with what you said, but I would like to add something more. In geometry, somebody argued that there is no need for the addition postulate because you can just express it as negative shape. How in the world would you draw a "negative shape"? You can't. It doesn't exist.
>
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:30:12 +0300
> Subject: Re: [epistemology 11606] Re: Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light.
> From: awori.ach...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [epistemology 11606] Re: Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light.
> To: episte...@googlegroups.com
>
> The problem with Hawkin's statement---which i consider a poorly thought through---is that to state that God does or does not exist---you need proof. He never offered any----such things are better left to the fancies of the mind.
>
>
> The problem with Hawkin's statement---which i consider a poorly thought through---is that to state that God does or does not exist---you need proof. He never offered any----such things are better left to the fancies of the mind.
>
aruzinsky
Sep 14, 2010, 12:14:44 PM9/14/10
to Epistemology
Butterfly shmutterfly. You are missing an important point made in my
first post in this thread (via renting a video). In the The Thirteen
Floor, it was proved to the inhabitants that they were inside a
computer simulation by showing them that their universe had unexpected
dimensional boundaries of the kind that they could walk up to. There
is no such thing in the butterfly dream.
This universe also has boundaries, not just dimensional, but on things
like the speed of light. An important question is not what the
physical laws ARE, or, are they sufficient, but, "Are the laws
NECESSARY to sustain a system resembling a universe in some important
sense?" For example, if you magically change the speed of light and,
maybe, make accommodating changes elsewhere (which can be done in a
computer simulation) does the universe fall apart?
In high school, my physics teacher pointed out that water had a
maximum density at 4 deg. C., and, had the maximum density been at 0
deg. C., bodies of water such as lakes would freeze from the bottom
up, killing the fish, and, humans would never have evolved. It seems
as though our universe was designed to be interesting. Thus, another
important question is, "Is this the only possible set of physical laws
that can support life and technology?"
I suspect that the answers to these questions are problematic insofar
as we (including, Stephan Hawkings) do not currently have sufficient
intelligence to answer them .
first post in this thread (via renting a video). In the The Thirteen
Floor, it was proved to the inhabitants that they were inside a
computer simulation by showing them that their universe had unexpected
dimensional boundaries of the kind that they could walk up to. There
is no such thing in the butterfly dream.
This universe also has boundaries, not just dimensional, but on things
like the speed of light. An important question is not what the
physical laws ARE, or, are they sufficient, but, "Are the laws
NECESSARY to sustain a system resembling a universe in some important
sense?" For example, if you magically change the speed of light and,
maybe, make accommodating changes elsewhere (which can be done in a
computer simulation) does the universe fall apart?
In high school, my physics teacher pointed out that water had a
maximum density at 4 deg. C., and, had the maximum density been at 0
deg. C., bodies of water such as lakes would freeze from the bottom
up, killing the fish, and, humans would never have evolved. It seems
as though our universe was designed to be interesting. Thus, another
important question is, "Is this the only possible set of physical laws
that can support life and technology?"
I suspect that the answers to these questions are problematic insofar
as we (including, Stephan Hawkings) do not currently have sufficient
intelligence to answer them .
aruzinsky
Sep 14, 2010, 12:49:01 PM9/14/10
to Epistemology
Smaller talk:
The small minded butterfly analogy reminds me of something else. When
I mention that I loved the movie, Forbidden Planet (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet), often some asshole is
quick to emphasize the similarity to Shakespeare's The Tempest. Well,
I am unaware of Shakespeare or any other story teller speculating on
the ultimate goal of technology and what might go wrong in achieving
that goal. I think that part of Forbidden Planet is more profound
than anything Shakespeare ever said.
The small minded butterfly analogy reminds me of something else. When
I mention that I loved the movie, Forbidden Planet (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet), often some asshole is
quick to emphasize the similarity to Shakespeare's The Tempest. Well,
I am unaware of Shakespeare or any other story teller speculating on
the ultimate goal of technology and what might go wrong in achieving
that goal. I think that part of Forbidden Planet is more profound
than anything Shakespeare ever said.
einseele
Sep 14, 2010, 1:15:55 PM9/14/10
to Epistemology
It is somehow risky to say "...Forbidden Planet is more profound than
anything Shakespeare ever said."
Magic is an important component of fiction, and I believe
Shakespeare's fiction is far beyond of ideas as changing the speed of
light (magically) in a story telling
Can you deepen on your example about "magically change the speed of
light" ?
On 14 set, 13:49, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> Smaller talk:
>
> The small minded butterfly analogy reminds me of something else. When
> I mention that I loved the movie, Forbidden Planet (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet), often some asshole is
anything Shakespeare ever said."
Magic is an important component of fiction, and I believe
Shakespeare's fiction is far beyond of ideas as changing the speed of
light (magically) in a story telling
Can you deepen on your example about "magically change the speed of
light" ?
On 14 set, 13:49, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> Smaller talk:
>
> The small minded butterfly analogy reminds me of something else. When
aruzinsky
Sep 15, 2010, 11:12:56 AM9/15/10
to Epistemology
Changing the speed of light is possible in a mathematical model or
computer simulation. If the computer simulation had people living
inside it, such a change would appear to be magic.
You (plural) underestimate the importance of technology in
philosophy. Instead of "Can evolution be possible by chance?", you
should ask, "Is technology possible by chance?" It is difficult to
see how a universe, that permits intelligent carbon based life,
automatically permits, as a sort of byproduct to be taken for granted,
technology such as television. To me, the possibility of advanced
technology seems like a very unlikely coincidence and provides the
best argument for the intelligent design of the universe. Thus, to
speculate on the ultimate goal of technology is to speculate on the
ultimate goal of the design of the universe.
> > than anything Shakespeare ever said.- Hide quoted text -
computer simulation. If the computer simulation had people living
inside it, such a change would appear to be magic.
You (plural) underestimate the importance of technology in
philosophy. Instead of "Can evolution be possible by chance?", you
should ask, "Is technology possible by chance?" It is difficult to
see how a universe, that permits intelligent carbon based life,
automatically permits, as a sort of byproduct to be taken for granted,
technology such as television. To me, the possibility of advanced
technology seems like a very unlikely coincidence and provides the
best argument for the intelligent design of the universe. Thus, to
speculate on the ultimate goal of technology is to speculate on the
ultimate goal of the design of the universe.
awori achoka
Sep 16, 2010, 2:36:50 AM9/16/10
to episte...@googlegroups.com
When we say advanced technology---what do we mean? Advanced to who? Do parallel intelligences (if they exist) out there, consider our very earthly, tinkering with the laws of nature---advancement at all?
--
nubiaafrika.blogspot.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
--
nubiaafrika.blogspot.com
Heebong Kim
Sep 16, 2010, 3:24:40 AM9/16/10
to Epistemology Group
If mathematically possible, it is always possible.
E = MC^2 was applied in real life.
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:36:50 +0300
Subject: Re: [epistemology 11614] Re: Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light.
From: awori....@gmail.com
To: episte...@googlegroups.com
E = MC^2 was applied in real life.
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:36:50 +0300
Subject: Re: [epistemology 11614] Re: Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light.
From: awori....@gmail.com
To: episte...@googlegroups.com
aruzinsky
Sep 16, 2010, 12:13:23 PM9/16/10
to Epistemology
Within the context of my writing, "advanced" means that there is a
nonempty intersection between the set of laws governing carbon based
life and set governing some technology. I already gave you an
example. If television is not sufficiently advanced to you, then show
me how the laws governing carbon based life implies the possibility of
television. If you cannot, then you should suspect that an nonempty
intersection of the two sets of laws exist by design.
And, don't forget, I am still describing my reason for loving
Forbidden Planet.
On Sep 16, 12:36 am, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When we say advanced technology---what do we mean? Advanced to who? Do
> parallel intelligences (if they exist) out there, consider our very earthly,
> tinkering with the laws of nature---advancement at all?
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:12 PM, aruzinsky
> <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com>wrote:
> > epistemology...@googlegroups.com<epistemology%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
nonempty intersection between the set of laws governing carbon based
life and set governing some technology. I already gave you an
example. If television is not sufficiently advanced to you, then show
me how the laws governing carbon based life implies the possibility of
television. If you cannot, then you should suspect that an nonempty
intersection of the two sets of laws exist by design.
And, don't forget, I am still describing my reason for loving
Forbidden Planet.
On Sep 16, 12:36 am, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When we say advanced technology---what do we mean? Advanced to who? Do
> parallel intelligences (if they exist) out there, consider our very earthly,
> tinkering with the laws of nature---advancement at all?
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:12 PM, aruzinsky
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
> --
>
> nubiaafrika.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
> >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
> --
>
aruzinsky
Sep 16, 2010, 3:59:25 PM9/16/10
to Epistemology
That should be "nonempty complement of the intersection" instead of
"nonempty intersection," you dumb F.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
"nonempty intersection," you dumb F.
chazwin
Sep 17, 2010, 5:44:34 PM9/17/10
to Epistemology
On Sep 16, 5:13 pm, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> Within the context of my writing, "advanced" means that there is a
> nonempty intersection between the set of laws governing carbon based
> life and set governing some technology.
There is no support for your proposed 'intersection' (whatever you
dream that to be).
I already gave you an
> example. If television is not sufficiently advanced to you, then show
> me how the laws governing carbon based life implies the possibility of
> television. If you cannot, then you should suspect that an nonempty
> intersection of the two sets of laws exist by design.
>
> And, don't forget, I am still describing my reason for loving
> Forbidden Planet.
chazwin
Sep 17, 2010, 5:59:56 PM9/17/10
to Epistemology
This is truly supreme ignorance.
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; Forbidden
Planet is a plagiarism of The Tempest. The writer Cyril Hume
acknowledged his supreme debt to Shakespeare for Cyril's borrowing.
Forbidden Planet is a cheap B-movie with less profundity that any
single scene of Shakespeare.
I personally like the movie , but it is not even in the same league as
the poorest of Shakespeare's plays.
Forbidden Planet does not speculate on anything much, whereas The
Tempest engages with the human spirit;family; imperialism; power
politics; magic; the relationship between rationality and mysticism
and the abuse by the rational upon those that swallow mystically; the
role of women on society.
Your assertion that you think 'FP is more profound that anything
SHakespeare said' indicates to me that you need to actually read
'anything' he said. Get off you backside and see a play, or read one,
before you denigrate the entire works of a man for whom he is to you a
complete mystery.
On Sep 14, 5:49 pm, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> Smaller talk:
>
> The small minded butterfly analogy reminds me of something else. When
aruzinsky
Sep 18, 2010, 3:07:46 PM9/18/10
to Epistemology
Too bad that people with extreme anthropocentrism can't legally be
committed to an insane asylum.
committed to an insane asylum.
einseele
Sep 19, 2010, 8:14:23 AM9/19/10
to Epistemology
Seems that you believe that your computer simulation fantasy is not
anthropocentric.
Or worst, like you truly believe you live in such fantasy.
I'm beginning to think you suffer a Matrix's delusion... may be you
are the ONE...
This group already had all types of lunatics, there is still one that
says he is God, and he uses even the Cabala to demonstrate that.
But as I remember this is the first time we have this type of "non
based carbon unit" like you believe you are
anthropocentric.
Or worst, like you truly believe you live in such fantasy.
I'm beginning to think you suffer a Matrix's delusion... may be you
are the ONE...
This group already had all types of lunatics, there is still one that
says he is God, and he uses even the Cabala to demonstrate that.
But as I remember this is the first time we have this type of "non
based carbon unit" like you believe you are
chazwin
Sep 19, 2010, 12:38:19 PM9/19/10
to Epistemology
On Sep 18, 8:07 pm, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> Too bad that people with extreme anthropocentrism can't legally be
> committed to an insane asylum.
Nothing I wrote bears on anthropocentrism.
chazwin
Sep 19, 2010, 12:39:07 PM9/19/10
to Epistemology
I think he has taken the blue pill and the red pill at the same time
and is confused.
aruzinsky
Sep 20, 2010, 11:29:25 AM9/20/10
to Epistemology
No. Unlike Thirteenth Floor, in The Matrix, the vast majority of
people in the simulation had an existence outside the simulation. As
I recall, the "machine world" used humans outside the simulation as
"batteries." Unlike The Matrix, in The Thirteenth Floor, the
inhabitants of the simulation could not "bend the rules."
Since it is you, not I, who bring up The Matrix, despite these
irrelevancies, it is you who are projecting.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
people in the simulation had an existence outside the simulation. As
I recall, the "machine world" used humans outside the simulation as
"batteries." Unlike The Matrix, in The Thirteenth Floor, the
inhabitants of the simulation could not "bend the rules."
Since it is you, not I, who bring up The Matrix, despite these
irrelevancies, it is you who are projecting.
aruzinsky
Sep 20, 2010, 11:40:27 AM9/20/10
to Epistemology
> Nothing I wrote bears on anthropocentrism.
Wrong. Anthropocentrism is inherent your belief that this is
important:
> > > Tempest engages with the human spirit;family; imperialism; power
> > > politics; magic; the relationship between rationality and mysticism
> > > and the abuse by the rational upon those that swallow mystically; the
> > > role of women on society.
> You'd be the first in line: a TV engineer with a star trek fixation.
I am not a TV engineer and I am not very anthropocentric because I
believe that Shakespear is unimportant.
einseele
Sep 20, 2010, 12:17:36 PM9/20/10
to Epistemology
...
but you certainly are an ignorant
> I am not a TV engineer and I am not very anthropocentric because I
> believe that Shakespear is unimportant.
You are not a TV engineer and you are not "very anthropocentric" (??),
> believe that Shakespear is unimportant.
but you certainly are an ignorant
aruzinsky
Sep 20, 2010, 12:23:34 PM9/20/10
to Epistemology
And, you are as knowledgeable as an encyclopedia and just as
intelligent.
intelligent.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages