--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3F00000 Date: 03/09/98 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 08:22am \/To: MARK BLOSS (Read 0 times) Subj: The Universe >>> Mark Bloss on The Universe MB> Would not our star, Sol, the Sun, be a more long-lived subject to MB> carry our consciousness into the next age? No, but it will make a worthy incinerator as already planned. -) --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Aloha, OR (503) 642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3F00001 Date: 03/09/98 From: RICHARD MEIC Time: 08:08pm \/To: DAY BROWN (Read 0 times) Subj: Philosophy? Salutatio Day! 07-Mar-98, Day Brown wrote to Richard Meic Subject: Philosophy? RM>> Cut out the self loathing, Day. I have never attacked your RM>> intellect or worth in the past and I have not done so here. If RM>> you feel inadequate that is not my fault, do not blame me. DB> Au Contraire! we just have some misunderstanding here, ... WHEW! That was close. :| DB> as we DB> often do everywhere. I am not depressed, nor lacking in respect DB> for my own opinion. GOOD, good. DB> It is just that I do not need the respect or DB> approbation from others, here or elsewhere. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Dija have tah pull out the ol' thesaurus for that one? ;) DB> After all, I have no DB> way of *knowing* what life in your part of the holodeck is like, [...] DB> too strung out over it. Repression is just as extreme as DB> licensiousness. Understood. Dicere... email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com) Richard Meic --- Terminate 5.00/Pro * Origin: (0) Always watching. (1:134/242.7) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3F00002 Date: 03/09/98 From: RICHARD MEIC Time: 08:17pm \/To: NICK DOUGLAS (Read 0 times) Subj: Cat in the Box Salutatio Nick! 08-Mar-98, Nick Douglas wrote to Richard Claypool Subject: Cat in the Box ND> There's a debate about the probability of whether the cat is deat, ND> and whether it matters at all You see, there was a radioactive ND> isotope placed inside the box with the cat. There was also a vial ND> of poison that would kill the cat if an electron from the isotope ND> hit it. There was a 50% chance of that happen ning. Who was it ND> that proposed this experiment? Shrodinger(sp?). The "hypothetical" experiment is known as Shrodinger's cat. The experiment (to my knowledge) was never done, only hypothesized. There was a lengthy theoretical battle between Shrodinger and Einstein, and I fail to remember who the victor was if there indeed was a victor in that debate. ND> Anyway, the theory was that the two ND> probabilities battled with each other until it was known what ND> happened. I don't see why it matters, since once we knew what ND> happened, the other probability wouldn't exist Nick Douglas, ND> newbie extraordinaire You may be correct, it likely doesn't matter, but for the sake of blabing I feel that we know what the radio active substance (radium, I believe, was proposed for the hypothetical experiment) does to a living creature, and we know how long it _should_ take for the cat to die of radiation poisoning under such circumstances. So, I think it would be safe to estimate when the cat should die and add another five minutes, and say " well the cat is dead", and then open the box to see the cat being quite dead. Besides, all one really had to do is listen for the cat howling in pain to subside to conclude that the cat is in fact dead,... ... then you could pull out that book called "101 Uses For A Dead Cat", and have fun for few hours after the experiment. Not much uncertainty there, IMO. Dicere... email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com) Richard Meic --- Terminate 5.00/Pro * Origin: (0) Always watching. (1:134/242.7) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3F00003 Date: 03/10/98 From: DENNIS MENARD Time: 07:06am \/To: RICHARD MEIC (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Time and Again -[ Quoting Richard Meic <03-08-98 20:19>, to Keith Knapp ]- KK> To the extent that they are testing against observation, they are KK> scientific, though. RM> I do not find this statement very accurate, because what has actually RM> been happening is they observe, conclude, then look for support for RM> their conclusion. That is a far stretch form observing, theorizing, Forgive me for this brief interruption, Richard: Latest observations indicate expansion of the universe is `accelerating!' It is easy enough to check out; all major news sources carried the story. The first effect of this information is the resurrection, wholly intact, of Einstein's long deceased `cosmological constant' and the possibility of that `UNlooked for' and `UNexpected' spectre of the mythological `5th force.' How is your preferred cosmological view coping, with this new information? I realise, of course, the new data is only a week old. -< Dennis >- ... Ghost: no-body. -=- Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- SLMAIL v4.5a (#0185) * Origin: * Pacific Salt BBS * Whitehorse, YT * Canada * (1:3409/3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3F00004 Date: 03/11/98 From: MARK BLOSS Time: 01:07am \/To: MATT EGGLESTON (Read 0 times) Subj: "Existence Exists" > >Matt Eggleston wrote to Mark Bloss about "Existence Exists" ME> You have contained in your answer to me elements of exactly what I ME> have written on many occasions about "infinity". ME> The infinite is a potential, a "possibility", as you put it. But it ME> is not an actuality. Light can travel immense distances, but no ME> matter how long it has travelled, it has only travelled a finite ME> distance. Will it travel farther? Possibly, if it does not strike ME> something to bring it to a halt. Will that distance ever be infinite? ME> No. ME> The same in math: The integer number series is infinite in its ME> potential length, but no matter where you begin, no matter how long ME> you count, you always fall on a finite number in that series. ME> Get the concept? The actual is the finite. The infinite is always a ME> potential. Matt, you are indeed in a trap. If you allow yourself the answer "No", that light will never stretch to infinity - you are saying so because you yourself are finite, with a finite brain - and NOT because it really will never reach infinity - nor ever already having had reached it! Infinity is as real and concrete as the sky is blue; otherwise we would not have irrational numbers to deal with at all - they could not exist; but they _do_ exist. It is a _fact_ of reality, that 3 can be divided an infinite number of times - it isn't metaphysical - it's _real_. It's concrete. Maybe you nor I can spend eternity dividing 3 into its component infinite parts - but that doesn't mean infinity is just a "potential" - that just means you and I are finite! You don't have to understand it - but it is real. When you say "the actual is finite", from whose perspective are you speaking? A finite human? Or from the perspective of reality itself? You cannot speak of what is actual - unless you know what is actual - and as a finite brain - you are _incapable_ of telling me what is actual, and that's the concept you have missed entirely. ... Davis' Explanation: Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence. --- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c * Origin: Cybercosm Nashville 615-831-3774 (1:116/180) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3F00005 Date: 03/11/98 From: MARK BLOSS Time: 01:21am \/To: MATT EGGLESTON (Read 0 times) Subj: "Existence Exists" > >Matt Eggleston wrote to Mark Bloss about "Existence Exists" ME> To restate, then, to fit your definitions: Anything which math ME> describes which does not conform to the observed behaviors of things ME> actually existing in reality are unreal. No actual thing within ME> reality is infinite in nature, as versus in potentiality. QED: There ME> is nothing that is mathematically infinite. MB> An excellent example would be this infinite-radical problem. MB> Add this forever. ME> I don't have that long. Neither do you. Neither does the Universe. Hold on just a second! Who gave you the right to speak for the Universe!? How do you know, in your infinite wisdom, that the Universe doesn't have that long - indeed hasn't already taken that long! Please try to keep your perspective here - you are finite - not the universe or reality itself. MB>So, please: spare me your "proof" that there is nothing which is MB>mathematically infinite. We may have to use three dots to get the MB>idea across - but its existence is _real_ - even if it does reside MB>in the consciousness alone. ME> That which "resides in the consciousness alone" is known as the ME> "delusional". If so-called 'mathematicians' and 'philosophers' are ME> able to gather money and tenure by that process, that is the horror ME> and waste of our modern educational hegemony. It is a delusion to call that which is only in the consciousness a delusion. It is calling the consciousness itself, finite - and our consciousnesses cannot be _assumed_ to be finite, unless we _assume_ that it is. And why should we? It is a trap, and you are in it, hook, line, and sinker. In a sea of infinite depth, does the sinker ever reach the bottom? No, because there is no bottom for it to reach, not because it wouldn't get there if one was there. But does that mean an impossibility? Simply because we don't have it in our experience to observe an infinitely deep sea, nor even the _ability_ to observe one, does NOT mean it does not exist as such; and it especially means that it _could_ exist. And if it can be observed within the consciousness to exist - then we are free indeed. If infinity was an illusion, then why bother with the three dots in an infinite progression of terms _representing_ it? Why do we bother defining it? Why do we go on and on and on trying to explain it? Because, no matter how long we go on, we never quite come to an understanding of it - NOT because infinity isn't part of _reality_ - but because our poor finite brains hasn't GOT a grasp on what reality really is. ... By the time this message gets back on topic, WE'LL ALL BE DEAD! --- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c * Origin: Cybercosm Nashville 615-831-3774 (1:116/180) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3F00006 Date: 03/10/98 From: RELATIF TUINN Time: 02:09pm \/To: RICHARD CLAYPOOL (Read 0 times) Subj: Physics richard claypool discussing "." with All... rc> This was a question we debated in physics class a couple of years rc> ago :). Basicly, we're not sure how time is truly defined. The black Agreed. rc> whole fonominon says that a black whole can increase the speed of rc> relitive time and can create warm wholes. I'm not a physics expert, rc> I'm good with the ideas but not the math :). Please explain how black holes create wormholes. rc> I enjoy physics but I think that some of it shouldnever be rc> considered a science. there was one case where they put a cat in a rc> box with a little gass container. they said that the universe would rc> split into all the different choices given to the cat. I debated then rc> as now that this is not science and shouldn't be classsified as such. They did not put a cat in a box EVER, and there is no evidence to support the bifurcating universe theory. Quantum mechanics (QM) is a very complex subject and you make it quite clear with your above statements that you don't have the first clue about it. The cat in the box _idea_ is an explanation of probability and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Relatif Tuinn ... "WTF?", said Alan Crowther as Worf growled. --- Spot 1.3a #1413 * Origin: (2:254/524.18) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3F00007 Date: 03/10/98 From: RELATIF TUINN Time: 02:14pm \/To: TODD HENSON (Read 0 times) Subj: "Existence Exists" Todd Henson discussing ""Existence Exists"" with Andrew Cummins... TH> You seem to have Jesus in your mind, but not in your heart. Having him TH> in the intellectual sense is the quickest and most deceptive road to TH> hell. This is someone who laid his life down for you when you were a TH> wretched and worthless sinner, and if your ego wasn't so big you'd TH> understand that. I'm 31 not 2031. Your statement is debunked. Also, isn't it claimed by christians that Jesus is still alive and well? If this is true, then when did he die? TH> Unless a man has Jesus in his heart, hell will gladly open its maw to TH> greet such a one. I pray you someday understand this. Provide evidence of this hell you mention. Relatif Tuinn ... "Bother," said Pooh, as ran C3PO through the trash compactor. --- Spot 1.3a #1413 * Origin: (2:254/524.18) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3F00008 Date: 03/10/98 From: RELATIF TUINN Time: 02:12pm \/To: TODD HENSON (Read 0 times) Subj: ORDER! Todd Henson discussing "ORDER!" with All... TH> Since we can see that in order for the universe to posess order it is TH> necessary for the Origin to also posess order, what about TH> consciousness? Consciousness is the greatest example of order in the TH> universe, and so, since this universe contains the ability to sustain TH> consciousness, the Origin must also have posessed consciousness. Define consciousness. Relatif Tuinn ... A politician is a person who approaches every subject with an open mouth --- Spot 1.3a #1413 * Origin: (2:254/524.18) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3F00009 Date: 03/10/98 From: RELATIF TUINN Time: 02:13pm \/To: NICK DOUGLAS (Read 0 times) Subj: Creationism Nick Douglas discussing "Creationism" with All... ND> I just want to take this chance to say that I am a Creationist, and a ND> Christian. Any questions, comments, debates, or unfounded attacks at my ND> beliefs can be sent to me through this echo, or via e-mail at ND> spriterules@juno.com. C-ya! How old is the earth? Relatif Tuinn ... " Go 'head and steal my tagline it flatters me." --- Spot 1.3a #1413 * Origin: (2:254/524.18)