On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:22:30 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:22 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> Two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong.
>> -- Dire Straits
>
>Actually, lots of people are named Jesus. For real.
>
>Fun fact: the Old Testament property said “He shall be called Emmanuel”.
>He wasn’t.

He probably was. The idiots worship the replacement the DeviL
put in his place. LOL.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021

Relf> The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy).

tnp> Where did the 'residual eXergy' come from?

The cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse.
We're in the middle, always.

On 27/10/2024 13:23, Relf wrote:
> Relf> The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy).
>
> tnp> Where did the 'residual eXergy' come from?
>
> The cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse.
> We're in the middle, always.

Now answer the question...

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

Relf> The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy).
The cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse.

tnp> Now answer the question... Where did the 'residual eXergy' come from?

There's always something leftover, always;
because we play in the middle, always.

Whether it's "too much", or "too little", depends on
who you are, where you are, when you are.

On 27/10/2024 14:07, Relf wrote:
> Relf> The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy).
> The cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse.
>
> tnp> Now answer the question... Where did the 'residual eXergy' come from?
>
> There's always something leftover, always;
> because we play in the middle, always.
>
> Whether it's "too much", or "too little", depends on
> who you are, where you are, when you are.

Christ on a bike

--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 10/26/24 22:22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:22 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> Two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong.
>> -- Dire Straits
>
> Actually, lots of people are named Jesus. For real.
>
> Fun fact: the Old Testament property said “He shall be called Emmanuel”.
> He wasn’t.

It said a lot of things; last time I looked there was no Bethlehem in
Judea until about 60 AD ...but there WAS one in Galilee which
translates to Jesus having been a Samaritan.

On 2024-10-27, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> My nephew is a Native German speaker with a native German father and
> stepfather. He studied philosophy at an English university.
>
> I asked him whether he read Kant in the original German. He said no, he
> found the English translations *easier to understand*.
>
> There is an apocryphal saying that "All the problems of French
> philosophy would have been solved if they had written them down in German"
>
> Heidegger is unmitigated shit really. I gave up after a chapter or two.
> Wittgenstein says that the mark of a true philosopher is that he will
> have thrown a book written by a famous philsopher into the corner,
> unfinished, more than once

Emmanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy begger
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could outconsume
Schopenhauer and Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away:
Half a pint of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed...
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.

-- The Australian Bruce Philosophers' Song

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 11:32:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 27/10/2024 11:18, Relf wrote:
>> tnp: entropy created by the big bang
>>
>> The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy).
>
> Or was it the other way around?
>
> Where did the 'residual eXergy' come from?
>
> Or was it simply God Swill?

Lemaître may have thought so deep down but he didn't let it interfere with
his physics. Einstein, on the other hand, believed so fervently in a
steady state universe that he introduce the Cosmological Fudge Factor to
make his math work.

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:30:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 27/10/2024 13:23, Relf wrote:
>> Relf> The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential
>> entropy).
>>
>> tnp> Where did the 'residual eXergy' come from?
>>
>> The cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse.
>> We're in the middle, always.
>
> Now answer the question...

https://sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits013.htm

'QUESTIONS WHICH TEND NOT TO EDIFICATION.'

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the
> question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe
> at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal
> Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God
> did it'

Enter metaphysics, stage right.

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Neither of which are particularly satisfying.

Is the Universe here to satisfy you?

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:13:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> 'Why are there beings at all rather than nothing?' is simply answered:
>
> 'Because if there weren't no one could ask such an unanswerable
> question'.

Aka the “Anthropic Principle”.

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 11:32:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Or was it simply God Swill?

Is the Universe too complex and wonderful to have arisen by itself?

If so, there must have been some creator agency that brought it into
being.

But wouldn’t this creator agency have been even more complex and wonderful
than the Universe?

So how could it have arisen by itself?

On 27 Oct 2024 17:22:05 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> Einstein, on the other hand, believed so fervently in
> a steady state universe that he introduce the Cosmological Fudge Factor
> to make his math work.

He thought it was a mistake. Some nowadays are not so sure (cf “Dark
Energy”).

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 26/10/2024 19:01, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2024-10-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics
>>>>
>>>> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative”
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than
>>> nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That
>>> was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on.
>>
>> This contrasts with your typical math text book, which starts out with
>> a few pages of trivial statements before making the jump to the edge
>> of the universe, cued by that magical phrase "It is obvious that..."
>>
> My nephew is a Native German speaker with a native German father and
> stepfather. He studied philosophy at an English university.
>
> I asked him whether he read Kant in the original German. He said no, he
> found the English translations *easier to understand*.
>
> There is an apocryphal saying that "All the problems of French philosophy
> would have been solved if they had written them down in German"
>
> Heidegger is unmitigated shit really. I gave up after a chapter or two.
> Wittgenstein says that the mark of a true philosopher is that he will have
> thrown a book written by a famous philsopher into the corner, unfinished,
> more than once
>
> 'Why are there beings at all rather than nothing?' is simply answered:
>
> 'Because if there weren't no one could ask such an unanswerable question'.
> Even asking 'why' in the context of the universe is a massively
> anthropocentric statement. 'Why' applies to human beings, not the world .
> Taoists say it better.
>
> "The Tao is that which exists through itself" (Tao being the sort of essence
> of being-ness).
>
> Or Wittgenstein "The world is everything that is the case"
>
> Right on chum, I would never have guessed.
>
> Nietzsche is more tongue in cheek and amusing:
>
> “Everything about woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has one
> solution: it is called pregnancy. "
>
> But philosophers like Hume, Kant and so on have extreme implication for
> philosophy of science, as they show conclusively that no theory as such can
> ever be proven to be true.
>
> This shocking fact moves science from a repository of true facts, to a
> collection of explanations whose sole justifications are they they are
> mutually consistent and seem to work.
>
> This is important to understand when you are at the bleeding edge of physics.

Are you an instrumentalist, scientific realist or perhaps a constructive
empiricist?

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>
>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to be in
>>> that state ...
>>
>>   Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>   about a week before elections.
>>
>>   As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>   but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>   correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>
> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>
> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all end up
> washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>
> Of course the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is only a
> man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be proven true or
> false.
>

The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades ago.
Here's a hand!

On 10/26/24 00:45, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics
>>
>> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative”
>> ...
>
> About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than
> nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That
> was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on.

Nobody still knows if there's anything. The whole thing has been a
conspiracy among life forms. I was once a neighbor to a philosophy major
in same school. Her thesis was based on the same theme. She was telling
me I was only one among the three in her life that listened and
understood what she was talking about.

I fucked her of course. She was a cro-magnon of Czech background. One of
those feminists I fucked hard!

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:43 this Friday (GMT):
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:39:58 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>
>> In fact, you can never be truly certain of anything at all!
>
> Can you be certain of that?

Certainly maybe.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 10/27/24 1:28 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the
>> question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe
>> at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal
>> Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God
>> did it'
>
> Enter metaphysics, stage right.

Clue about The Universe ... it's NOT ABOUT US.

We need to GET OVER IT.

On 10/27/24 5:34 PM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>>
>>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to
be in
>>>> that state ...
>>>
>>> Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>> about a week before elections.
>>>
>>> As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>> but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>> correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>>
>> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>>
>> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all
>> end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>>
>> Of course the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
>> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
>> proven true or false.
>>
>
> The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
> ago. Here's a hand!

Even the Buddha said the universe was "real" - just
that creatures like US, maybe any, could never really
see it's entirety - barely a key-hole view. Our evolution,
bodies, senses, brains ... we see things through "Human-
Colored Glasses" and that's our kinda faux view of things.

We are PRODUCTS of The Universe, but each product must
have its own special perspective. In more computer terms
it's like The System trying to eval/evolve itself. Even at
best, the eval CHANGES the System, so it's a never-ending
task. Yea, kinda 'quantum' in some respects - don't LOOK
or you change what you're looking at.

It's reality's "Fuck You !" :-)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 11:32:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Or was it simply God Swill?
>
> Is the Universe too complex and wonderful to have arisen by itself?
>
> If so, there must have been some creator agency that brought it into
> being.
>
> But wouldn’t this creator agency have been even more complex and wonderful
> than the Universe?
>
> So how could it have arisen by itself?

It's turtles, all the way down..

On 27/10/2024 21:32, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> This shocking fact moves science from a repository of true facts, to a
>> collection of explanations whose sole justifications are they they are
>> mutually consistent and seem to work.
>>
>> This is important to understand when you are at the bleeding edge of
>> physics.
>
> Are you an instrumentalist, scientific realist or perhaps a constructive
> empiricist?

Closest to the last. But I would say I use transcendental idealism the
most :-)

Use of a metaphysical worldview speeds computations enormously at the
expense of never being 100% reliable...

But that's OK, as there are plenty of sub optimal worldviews to use on
an ad hoc basis.

The problems people encounter is when they mistake a worldview for
objective reality.

Engineers are very used to the idea that laws are not so much real, as
useful rules of thumb.

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On 27/10/2024 21:34, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
>>>>
>>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to be in
>>>> that state ...
>>>
>>>    Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
>>>    about a week before elections.
>>>
>>>    As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
>>>    but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
>>>    correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
>>>
>> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
>>
>> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all
>> end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
>>
>> Of course  the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
>> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
>> proven true or false.
>>
>
> The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
> ago. Here's a hand!

Well no, in any given terms it cant be. At best you end up with
'something exists, even if its only me thinking something exists'

Moore's logic is flawed. He has to presuppose an external world in which
a hand can be held up before he can perform the action.

Which is in the limit circular thinking, as if you stop thinking (proper
transcendental meditation) you and the world both vanish, subjectively.

--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

On 28/10/2024 04:48, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 10/27/24 5:34 PM, D wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >
> >> On 27/10/2024 05:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> >>> On 10/26/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:06:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state..."
> >>>>
> >>>> As I look around, I see some in this noisegroup who still seem to
> be in
> >>>> that state ...
> >>>
> >>>    Normally these groups are VERY quiet. But then it's only
> >>>    about a week before elections.
> >>>
> >>>    As for the universe, it USED to be in a 'hot dense state',
> >>>    but has cooled-off considerably. If 'dark energy' calx are
> >>>    correct we're already on the downside - headed for icy doom.
> >>>
> >> Well so says the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view.
> >>
> >> We are surfing a wave of entropy created by the big bang and will all
> >> end up washed up the beach gasping and then die.
> >>
> >> Of course  the metaphysics of the classical scientific world view is
> >> only a man made theory, when it comes down to it. And can neither be
> >> proven true or false.
> >>
> >
> > The world actually can be proven true. G.E. Moore did it many decades
> > ago. Here's a hand!
>
>
>   Even the Buddha said the universe was "real" - just
>   that creatures like US, maybe any, could never really
>   see it's entirety - barely a key-hole view. Our evolution,
>   bodies, senses, brains ... we see things through "Human-
>   Colored Glasses" and that's our kinda faux view of things.
>
Yes. That is the underlying basis for the views of Plato, Kant,.
Schopenhauer et al.
Its Reality Jim, but not as we know it...

>   We are PRODUCTS of The Universe, but each product must
>   have its own special perspective.

There is a stronger case for saying the Universe is a product of us. If
by Universe you means a comprehensible external reality.

Materialism claims E=f(R) (experience is a function of an external reality)
Idealism claims E=f(M) (experience is a function of the Mind)
Transcendental idealism combines the pair into
E=f(M,R) (experience is a function of 'what's really there' as
interpreted by the mind).

Unfortunately whilst this solves many problems it introduces an idea
that is anathema to the Realists - namely that Mind is an independent
variable neither part of the real world nor the perceived world.

Of course this used to be simply accepted. It was the soul, or the holy
spirit. or holy ghost.

Today we talk about 'consciousness' and the 'problem of consciousness'
which is simply the inherent circular reasoning that comprises the
realists world view, such that an emerging property of something becomes
able to comprehend the thing it is an emergent property of.

> In more computer terms
>   it's like The System trying to eval/evolve itself. Even at
>   best, the eval CHANGES the System, so it's a never-ending
>   task. Yea, kinda 'quantum' in some respects - don't LOOK
>   or you change what you're looking at.
>
Exactly. It's recursive. And recursion leads to paradox. You have to
introduce another independent variable to break out of the loop.

Does the set of all sets contain itself? No, It is of a different
*order* to all sets. It neither contains nor does not contain itself, it
is in fact congruent with itself. Russell was a tosser.

>   It's reality's "Fuck You !"  :-)

Well it does in the limit expose the limitations of our current metaphysics.

And cause us to question exactly what it is that our science is
investigating.

--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you
can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if
you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed
whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Sir Roger Scruton

On 28/10/2024 01:46, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 10/26/24 00:45, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics
>>>
>>> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative”
>>> ...
>>
>> About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than
>> nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That
>> was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on.
>
>
> Nobody still knows if there's anything. The whole thing has been a
> conspiracy among life forms. I was once a neighbor to a philosophy major
> in same school. Her thesis was based on the same theme. She was telling
> me I was only one among the three in her life that listened and
> understood what she was talking about.
>
> I fucked her of course. She was a cro-magnon of Czech background. One of
> those feminists I fucked hard!

The Nietzschean approach. Much to recommend it.

--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

- Stephen Vizinczey