--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3U00008 Date: 03/25/98 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 03:15am \/To: BOB SEWELL (Read 0 times) Subj: Infinity >>> Bob Sewell on Infinity BS> infinity + infinity = infinity = infinity ^ 2 = infinity ^ infinity, No!!! 2^infinity > infinity. A diagonal argument can prove this. Are you familiar with set theory? Otherwise a digital proof can be made for denumerable (countable) infinity. Namely that there are -more- real numbers than rational numbers. Hence a -larger- non-denumerable or uncountable infinity in addition to the smaller denumerable or countable infinity. BS> This is what I mean, and maybe this is all the proof you'll need. BS> In any case, it shows you what countably infinite means and gives a BS> visual image of my proof to go with the one I referred you to. BS> Positive Integers: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... BS> All Integers: 0 1 -1 2 -2 3 -3 4 -4 5 -5 6 -6 ... BS> Even Integers: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 ... Basically your proof corresponds x with 2 * x or x/2, so this proof would apply to uncountable as well as to countable infinity. As for showing infinity^2 = infinity, a different correspondence is needed. For countable, a diagonal enumeration suffices. Hence rational numbers and integers are equi-numerous. But to show that the plane and line are equinumerous is more difficult as there is no continuous mapping between the two. --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Aloha, OR (503) 642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3U00009 Date: 03/24/98 From: DAVID MARTORANA Time: 11:31pm \/To: DAY BROWN (Read 0 times) Subj: "Fragments" @@++> FRAGMENTS: HUBBLE: In trying to keep up (little time) with the Hubble-ish projects it seems a new insight a week pops into view (I'm always a bit behind, even when I can inderstand it). Barely took on "black holes" stealing matter from my universe only to find that there would be equivalent "white holes" in another universe sending matter back to us ....a black/white pumping fascility!!! (not to mention "Electromagnetic vacum flux" as a means to move faster than light! This week the terms "MACHOS" & WIMPS brushed by me. But of more curiosity interest, was the insertion of firefly genes into grass. Now the grass lights up in the dark. It might help if we have to mow it at night! Just scratching the surface of possibility, we may yet become gauges of our own doings- a bit more advanced than blushing PASSING NOTE: These past few months I've been working up a latest painting which will be "The preparation of Persephone" at her moment just before picking the hundred headed narcissus, a project that has teased my attention since I actually stood on the mount of ENNA, she was dragged under. In working out the details of image and "working meaning", I am ever more unsure how philosophy fits into working exploration. Though aware of it's technical-ish definitions, it never clarifies in my thinking .....almost a reach for some other less abused word not yet into our vocabulary. Your "HOLODECK" as a mega metaphor leans in such directions of promise, but is also itself some troublesome.............! Most "philosophy" seems predominantly an excercise of historical giants, some very little mentioned in its own role as an everyday tool. @@ ... Dave P.S. QUESTION! To take advantage of your studies into mythic symbologies (especially, "active" plant life), I'm having trouble with the meaning of the "hundred headed narcissus" that Persephone was about to pick in that instant just before her abuction from next to Lake Pergusa. As the flower will be included in my painting, I know my grandchildren WILL question the WHY and HOW of it. In the Robert Graves "Greek Myths" there is some suggestion that the Narcissus is actually a numbing narcotic and more likely the Hyacinth, but I can find no modern references to either the Narcissus or Hyacinth having narcotic properties. .............Any help appreciated. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3U00010 Date: 03/24/98 From: DAVID MARTORANA Time: 11:33pm \/To: CLARENCE HOGAN (Read 0 times) Subj: "Boxes & awkward text" @@> On March 22-98 Clarence Hogan wrote to David Martorana Msg #798, @@> "Boxes & Awkward Text" DM>> Your world becomes simpler .....mine more complex. CH> IMHO, my world has become simpler due only to the fact that I have CH> finally realized that it is the best path to pursue, ....... .......Yes! ........understood! CH> IMHO, all the knowledge that I require is that which will make my CH> present life the most agreeable and all other life around me just CH> as agreeable as mine, ....... .......Yes! ........understood! DM> ...it would soon to becoming a KINGDOM unto itself ....beyond DM>> present limits or imaginations. CH> But David, from what I have been able to understand about the virtual CH> world of the Internet's Cyberspace, has it not already reach the level CH> of the "HOLODECK" interaction with people and is it not already here? I become ever less certain of what a "real world" means; that somewhere in a mix of OUR perceptions and NATURE'S options, I am floating in a ~SOMETHING-SOMEWHERE~ package of limited sensing, at best only poetically clear (to me). As to your above comment "already reach...", it is correct to a point, but not explored beyond a comparison LIKE modern TV with a crystal radio. I would expect in the next few years to converse with someone, not just across the presently configured cyberspace comms, but in a very special sense of synthesized physical reality [holodeck]- like meeting in a tavern in Nepal or on Mars, sitting down and having a conversation with real??? or "established" others. Assuming we don't self destruct (or are so done in by an unhappy first principal), I believe that the "concept edges" of reality will dominate and greatly expand in that coming world ....that we are in a short twilight about to enter what today we might render as alien ...an unknown mission?. I have no way of knowing the goods or bads of it all, or even if such concerns have meaning as we know them. As with many of our few dissimilar views , though the "REAL" in reality is reasonably clear to you, it is "big time" less so to me. There IS an extra awkwardness that WE face because of the belief systems we have adopted as our base of being and our understanding of the "whatevers" that contain us! I do wonder that we can even share our exploratory notions without some "false-to-peacful" tensions .........some kindly but mutually incompatible work-of-words. Never been real comfortable that dissimilar mind basics can be bridged (sure has had a rough history). CH> Just another humble servant of The Kingdom.......clarence....... Just another...........pain in the kingdom...@@..dave........... --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3U00011 Date: 03/24/98 From: DAVID MARTORANA Time: 10:07pm \/To: JEFF MEANEY (Read 0 times) Subj: "Philosophy" @@++> From an intercept between Jeff Meaney to ALL @@++> on "PHILOSOPHY" JM> If you had no finger nails, JM> could you pick up a dime? ........I tried UNSUCCESSFULLY to (literally) do it from a hard flat central surface (NOT sliding it up or to an edge or placing it high enough atop something to grasp it, or using a tool). ..............It also spawns other questions! ... @@ ... Dave --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3U00012 Date: 03/24/98 From: DAVID MARTORANA Time: 10:08pm \/To: NICK DOUGLAS (Read 0 times) Subj: "CREATIONISM" @@++> From intercept between Nick Douglas to Relatif Tuinn @@++> on "Creationism" ND> ... Why does evolution favor weak humans? ... .....a heavy tough question for me to think on!!! .....one of those "pearls" that float through from time to time! .....Many thanks. NOTE: No arguments on EVOLUTION ~ CREATIONISM, I don't see them incompatible, with or without God/gods/first principals/etc.- (with fast-clock-billions or slow-clock-thousands or even no clock at all.......)! ..... @@ ... Dave --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3V00000 Date: 03/25/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 03:29am \/To: KEITH KNAPP (Read 0 times) Subj: Fido Review of Books KK> Hey Frank! It just occurred to me that there's a book you would enjoy, KK> if you haven't already read it. Many thanks, Keith. I'm keeping the reference for after I get finished ith the normal Spring work in the outdoors and some repairs to my computer. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3V00001 Date: 03/24/98 From: BOB SEWELL Time: 09:56pm \/To: MARK BLOSS (Read 0 times) Subj: Creationism [1/2] 21:56:3103/24/98 In a deposition submitted under oath, Mark Bloss said: MB> I hold this belief because the absence of a creator in a universe as MB> well put together as this one, is unacceptable to me. Not to mention illogical. Occam's Razor cuts toward the existence of a creator god, in my mind. But barely. MB> RT>> Indeed. If as you say your god is so honest then why is it so MB> elusive RT>> and totally unevidenced? MB> Because it takes faith to believe in Him, and to evidence Himself MB> would mean that God somehow must prove Himself, so that I would then MB> not need faith to believe in Him. But I evidence myself all the time before people I live with, work with or otherwise interact with on a daily basis, but I don't do it because I must prove myself. Why is God different? MB> If He proved Himself so that faith is not MB> required to believe in Him, then His purpose for me is diminished, MB> ie, I do not develop faith, which is an attribute _of_ God. If faith is an attribute of God, what does God need with faith? What would He possibly need to have faith _in_? RT> Please provide evidence of your god. MB> I just did. He exists because it would be impossible for my limited MB> imagination to understand a universe _without_ God. You probably meant to say that "You believe He exists because...," right? God's existence/nonexistence does not hinge upon the strength of anyone's imagination, but you knew that, I'll bet. ... And trouthe thee shal delivere, it is no drede. --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Seven Wells On-Line * Nashville, TN (1:116/30.3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3V00002 Date: 03/24/98 From: DAY BROWN Time: 11:19pm \/To: RELATIF TUINN (Read 0 times) Subj: Logical impasse On 03-20-98 Relatif Tuinn wrote to Day Brown... RT> This is similar to David Hume's argument which goes something like RT> this: RT> RT> Deists claim that god is benevolent and omnipotent. RT> RT> There is evil in the world. RT> RT> If evil is gods plan then he is not benevolent. RT> RT> If evil is not gods plan then he is not omnipotent. RT> RT> God cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent if evil exists. I too have enjoyed his work. either forgot or never saw this, but it certainly looks reasonable. He also said that since the cause is so holy, there is no act so despicable that a fanatic will not use it in the furtherance of the faith. And for that reason we get truck bombs. By contrast, the philosopher has only reason on his side, and if that will not win, no other tool may be used. ___ * OFFLINE 1.58 * I dont make the rules- Im lucky if I can see what they are. --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: * After F/X * Rochester N.Y. 716-359-1662 (1:2613/415) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3V00003 Date: 03/25/98 From: DAVID MARTORANA Time: 07:38pm \/To: MARK BLOSS (Read 0 times) Subj: "Creationism" @@> From intercept between Mark Bloss and Nick Douglas on @@> Creationism ND> .... I find it hard to accept your go-between way of meshing evolution ND> and Christianity. I don't mean to sound harsh, though. MB> Don't worry about the flames - let'em burn in their own misery - I say. MB> It is not a go-between to accept scientific evidence _and_ accept MB> the Word too. MB> was Heresy against the Truth, and people were burned at the stake as MB> witches if they held such a contrary view of the cosmos. Real physical MB> scientific evidence _proved_ the Church didn't know the Truth after all. MB> ...... firm Christian, a believer in the resurrection, not that MB> that's so important for you to know. It is enough that *I* believe it MB> and live accordingly. As always .....appreciate your mix of mind, belief and language. It is most difficult to understand those that must force all the edges of EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM to be mutually exclusive -- as in "scientific terms", we are still examining those edges, however much taking sides. I believe there will be surprizes on ALL sides of the issue. ..............@@...Dave --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F3V00004 Date: 03/25/98 From: CLARENCE HOGAN Time: 08:29pm \/To: DAVID MARTORANA (Read 0 times) Subj: "Boxes & awkward text" -=> Quoting David Martorana to Clarence Hogan <=- @@> On March 22-98 Clarence Hogan wrote to David Martorana DM> Msg #798, @@> "Boxes & Awkward Text" ... .......>>>=======> MD2SP <=======<<<....... CH> But David, from what I have been able to understand about the virtual CH> world of the Internet's Cyberspace, has it not already reach the level CH> of the "HOLODECK" interaction with people and is it not already here? DM> I become ever less certain of what a "real world" means; that DM> somewhere in a mix of OUR perceptions and NATURE'S options, DM> I am floating in a ~SOMETHING-SOMEWHERE~ package of limited DM> sensing, at best only poetically clear (to me). All I can say in truth is that this is not the "real world" IMHO! For in my limited understanding of it all, if this were the "real world", I for one would not wish to live eternally in it under the present circumstances that we are presented with and living in! DM> As to your above DM> comment "already reach...", it is correct to a point, but not DM> explored beyond a comparison LIKE modern TV with a crystal radio. I noticed that if failed to include the "ed" with reach, it it ain't my brain getting behind, it is my fingers! ;) To me, the "real world" is truly in the mind and in the mind alone and these bodies are truly a bad dream of our minds which are only temporary servants to our minds and only bind us to the temporal world that we presently live in, but the mind, which I believe is the real us will one day be released into it's natural realm of the "real world" that I have eluded to! And if one truly thinks about it in depth as I believe that I have, one could see that even the crystal radio was indeed a early type of HOLODECK, crude but effective within it's limits! Did I muddle that up enough? DM> I would expect in the next few years to converse with someone, not DM> just across the presently configured cyberspace comms, but in a DM> very special sense of synthesized physical reality [holodeck]- DM> like meeting in a tavern in Nepal or on Mars, sitting down and DM> having a conversation with real??? or "established" others. And I would expect the same thing, but IMHO, it will still be only within the mind which is as real as it will ever get IMHO! IOW's in my mind, whatever is constantly changing cannot possibly be rationalized as "real"! And by the same token, I do not consider my mind "real" so long as it is constantly changing, but once it has settled in, so to speak, and has found the truth of the matter, then and only then does it become a real and lasting mind! But to my knowledge, there has been only one who has reached the "real" realm of the mind and the rest of us are still trying to reach that realm! DM> Assuming we don't self destruct (or are so done in by an unhappy DM> first principal), I believe that the "concept edges" of reality will DM> dominate and greatly expand in that coming world ....that we are DM> in a short twilight about to enter what today we might render as DM> alien ...an unknown mission?. And IMHO you are truly not far from the truth of the matter if I understand what you are saying! DM> I have no way of knowing the goods DM> or bads of it all, or even if such concerns have meaning as we DM> know them. As with many of our few dissimilar views , though DM> the "REAL" in reality is reasonably clear to you, it is "big time" DM> less so to me. I am of the same mind set as you in that vein, as I have not fully come to the conclusion that there is good and bad to it all, but I am suspect that there is no bad, but only good in the overall scheme of things and if there is any bad at all, it is of our own making and does not truly have to be so! And although it appears confusing to us now, I firmly believe that once we discover and realize what is truly "real" there will be only good and no bad whatsoever! However, I am also aware that it is indeed a path of realization that each of us must travel alone in this present realm which aids in the elusiveness of it all but at the same time also aids in the realization of it all! DM> There IS an extra awkwardness that WE face because of the DM> belief systems we have adopted as our base of being and our DM> understanding of the "whatevers" that contain us! If my understanding of what you have said here is correct, you have hit the nail squarely on the head! DM> I do wonder DM> that we can even share our exploratory notions without some DM> "false-to-peacful" tensions .........some kindly but mutually DM> incompatible work-of-words. It is indeed a monumental task, but not impossible IMHO! IMHO, if people would only say what they truly mean and mean what they say by just laying aside their prejudices and pre-conceived ideas, teachings, notions, etc., then the accomplishments would truly be astounding! DM> Never been real comfortable that DM> dissimilar mind basics can be bridged (sure has had a rough DM> history). Sadly, it is indeed apparent that some never will, but I do not believe that is true of the majority who would be true seekers of the truth when approached in a truthful and honest manner! Just another humble servant of The Kingdom.......clarence....... ... One does not have to be right to be truthful do they? --- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 * Origin: UltraTech - Nashville, TN (615)356-0453 {V.34/V.FC} (1:116/30)