[OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half...

[Scott Stephens]

Once one realizes one has been taken as a sucker, how much more shall
one demand in recompense? How less can one be trusted to deliver value
for value in light of being pain in hurt for value?

The presumption that those that behave altruistically are moral fools in
a cynical world can only result in the degradation and destruction of
that world.

May God answer prayers, Jews and Gentiles, Protestant and Catholics,
Theist and Atheist. Its all the same - Predators and Prey playing silly
name-games.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce

**********************************

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:56:57 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Scott Stephens wrote:
Once one realizes one has been taken as a sucker, how much more
shall one demand in recompense? How less can one be trusted to
deliver value for value in light of being pain in hurt for value?

The presumption that those that behave altruistically are moral
fools in a cynical world can only result in the degradation and
destruction of that world.

May God answer prayers, Jews and Gentiles, Protestant and Catholics,
Theist and Atheist. Its all the same - Predators and Prey playing
silly name-games.

Indeed. Its all Darwinian Evolution.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most."

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

I really doubt Mr. Darwin had any more of a hand in how the system
was designed than you or I.

I don't understand the relevance of your comment. No one designed the
system. It just evolved.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:00:05 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

I'd say, one would have to be pretty clever to even figure out _how_
to embezzle that kind of money, let alone charm herself into a position
where she could actually _do_ it.

As I understand it, she took cash out of the register and stuffed it
into her, er, bodice. She has an expansive, er, bodice.

John

 

[Scott Stephens]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

These are the kinds of questions I'm looking for the answer to.

You're making the dangerous assumption that "the answer" exists. That
way lies religion (pun intended).

Both science and religion are based on a premise.

The premise of religion is "because God says", so to know why,
understand God.

The premise of science is the universe acts according to principles
amenable to logic and reason.

Perhaps it could be said that in the course of Nature taking the path of
least action to thermaly equalize, structures and systems of particles
emerged which have the emergent properties of consciousness and reason.

Living systems which optimize their logic and reason (philosophy) the
way lower organisms optimize metabolic processes, the way lower
molecules crystalize, the way lower particles form atoms and molecules...

So Nature gives us Reason, Reason gives us 1st religion "because God
says so" (based on crude reasoning and magical thinking, which is cheap
for me to say inlight of my 21st century education), then later science
gives us more powerful tools (which we can use to refute much of
religion's sick magical reasoning & scientific conclusions).

It reduces to the Anthropic Principle - if the universe wasn't such as
it is, we wouldn't be conscious to examine it. But that doesn't tell us
how or why the universe is, just that it is.

What if the principles of science change tomorrow, and the space-time
manifold becomes chaotic? Who says the fundamental constants of physics,
or how they relate to each other can't change? What if the value of Pi
were to change?

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce

**********************************

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:56:36 +0000, Scott Stephens wrote:

It reduces to the Anthropic Principle - if the universe wasn't such as
it is, we wouldn't be conscious to examine it. But that doesn't tell us
how or why the universe is, just that it is.

What if the principles of science change tomorrow, and the space-time
manifold becomes chaotic? Who says the fundamental constants of physics,
or how they relate to each other can't change? What if the value of Pi
were to change?

Pretty scary, huh?

;^j
Rich

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Scott Stephens wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

These are the kinds of questions I'm looking for the
answer to.

You're making the dangerous assumption that "the
answer" exists. That way lies religion (pun intended).

Both science and religion are based on a premise.

The premise of religion is "because God says", so to know
why,
understand God.

Then, it tells you that you're incapable of that level of
understanding, so bend over and shut up.

The premise of science is the universe acts according to
principles
amenable to logic and reason.

That's a _hypothesis_. So far, it's been borne out.

Perhaps it could be said that in the course of Nature
taking the path of
least action to thermaly equalize, structures and systems
of particles
emerged which have the emergent properties of
consciousness and reason.

Sure, why not? Except, I'd insert "appear to" just before
"have the emergent properties...".

Living systems which optimize their logic and reason
(philosophy) the
way lower organisms optimize metabolic processes, the way
lower
molecules crystalize, the way lower particles form atoms
and molecules...

Careful, extending patterns is a very bad human habit.

So Nature gives us Reason, Reason gives us 1st religion
"because God says so" (based on crude reasoning and magical

thinking, which is cheap for me to say inlight of my 21st
century education), then later science gives us more
powerful tools (which we can use to refute much of
religion's sick magical reasoning & scientific conclusions).

Problem with religions is that they aren't amenable to
recursive analysis. Once you are given The Explanation,
you're supposed to nod (kneel, whatever) and shut the fuck
up. Science requires you to keep asking "what causes _that_?"

It reduces to the Anthropic Principle - if the universe
wasn't such as it is, we wouldn't be conscious to examine

it. But that doesn't tell us how or why the universe is,
just that it is.

That's a circular argument, not worth discussing. It's
easy to point out that we have exactly one example of how a
Universe works to examine, and speculations about variations
on the theme are just that; speculations.

What if the principles of science change tomorrow, and
the space-time manifold becomes chaotic? Who says the

fundamental constants of physics, or how they relate to each
other can't change? What if the value of Pi were to change?

We do know that most systems exhibit inertia; for pi or
any other so-called constant to change for such a large,
self-consistent system, there'd have to be a cause.
Postulate some?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:14:34 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Scott Stephens wrote:
....
What if the principles of science change tomorrow, and
the space-time manifold becomes chaotic? Who says the
fundamental constants of physics, or how they relate to each
other can't change? What if the value of Pi were to change?

We do know that most systems exhibit inertia; for pi or
any other so-called constant to change for such a large,
self-consistent system, there'd have to be a cause.
Postulate some?

Well, pi is always pi, and e is always e, but the ratio of
a circumference of a circle to its diameter is only pi
on a 2-D plane.

I think that what conventional 4-space is is simply the
surface of a 7-dimensional hypertorus which has both
major diameter and minor diameter of infinity. I'm not
sure if those are the "right" terms for those properties
of a torus, but I hope you get the idea.

;^j
RIch

 

[Reg Edwards]

There's no essential difference between the human living and dead states.

The materials, atoms and quarks even, of what the body is made continue to
behave according to the universal, all pervading Laws of Nature, Scientific
Laws, the Laws of God, or whatever you choose to call them.

Eventually, everything returns to the Stars to be recycled until Eternity.

And there's nothing George or Tony can do about it. Except turn Saddat
loose and implore him to sort out the mess.
----
Reg.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:23:48 +0000, Reg Edwards wrote:

There's no essential difference between the human living and dead states.

Well, the live one can talk to you, and the dead one can't. I'd say
that's kinda essential.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:23:48 +0000, Reg Edwards wrote:

There's no essential difference between the human living and dead states.

Well, the live one can talk to you, and the dead one can't. I'd say
that's kinda essential.

Dead people "talk" to me all the time.

You don't read many books, do you?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:06:19 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:23:48 +0000, Reg Edwards wrote:

There's no essential difference between the human living and dead states.

Well, the live one can talk to you, and the dead one can't. I'd say
that's kinda essential.

Dead people "talk" to me all the time.

You don't read many books, do you?

I've read almost all of them. And if you're talking about _that_ kind

of "dead," then we're going outside most peple's box right away.

God talks to me through everything and everybody, but Mother talks
to me by making me feel like dancing. ;-)

I'm working on a diagram of the seven-dimensional hypertorus that
we live on the four-space hypersurface of, which is kind of hard,
because the only medium for presentation that I have at hand at
the time is two-dimensional sketches of three-dimensional projections
of multidimensional interrelationships, many of which are valid
simultaneously.

But for a start, think of the point-contact between two interlocked
toruses.

That point is Everything That Has Ever Been. And I think that the
process of distinguishing that Point from the whole rest of our
torus-pair was, itself, the Big Bang.

As far as the toruses themselves, one is the Primordial Current
from Negative Infinity To Positive Infinity, and the other is
the Primordial Line Of Force that Creates a Place For That Current
To Flow.

We're just eddies.

In one way of looking at it.

;^j
Rich

 

[Paul Burke]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Well, we don't know that yet. We don't know if the universe is open or
closed.

Will someone ring a big bell when it's closing time for the universe?
How long will we get for last orders and supping up?

Paul Burke

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:52:24 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

"Paul Burke" <paul@scazon.com> wrote in message
news:2vr9npF2nga0bU1@uni-berlin.de...
Kevin Aylward wrote:


Well, we don't know that yet. We don't know if the universe is open or
closed.


Will someone ring a big bell when it's closing time for the universe?
How long will we get for last orders and supping up?

Paul Burke


2 Billion years!

---
I think it's 4 billion, but that won't be closing time for the
universe, it'll be when we either have gotten off of this planet or,
if not, we'll be getting a severe sunburn.

--
John Fields

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:57:46 +0000, Paul Burke wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:


Well, we don't know that yet. We don't know if the universe is open or
closed.


Will someone ring a big bell when it's closing time for the universe?
How long will we get for last orders and supping up?

Actually, each person decides for itself whether they want their

universe to be "open" or "closed." At that level of dimensionality,
I'm not so sure that that's such a clear-cut distinction anyway. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:52:24 +0000, Clarence wrote:

"Paul Burke" <paul@scazon.com> wrote in message
news:2vr9npF2nga0bU1@uni-berlin.de...
Kevin Aylward wrote:


Well, we don't know that yet. We don't know if the universe is open or
closed.


Will someone ring a big bell when it's closing time for the universe?
How long will we get for last orders and supping up?

Paul Burke


2 Billion years!

I'll see that 2 Billion, and raise you TWELVE TRILLION!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAhahahahahaaaaaaaa! >;->

;^j
Rich

 

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:23:48 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
<g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote:

There's no essential difference between the human living and dead states.

The materials, atoms and quarks even, of what the body is made continue to
behave according to the universal, all pervading Laws of Nature, Scientific
Laws, the Laws of God, or whatever you choose to call them.

Eventually, everything returns to the Stars to be recycled until Eternity.

And there's nothing George or Tony can do about it. Except turn Saddat
loose and implore him to sort out the mess.
----
Reg.

Not only has Saddat been dead a few years now, but there really isn't

any particular problem in Egypt.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com