C O N N O T E
Rant


From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.ai,comp.ai.alife,talk.politics.theory,comp.theory.cell-automata Subject: Re: Relativity ?? Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 18:45:02 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Brian Perrine wrote: > Which brings me to this question: why are some of you so intent on > trying to disprove it? I would gamble that many of you are not > physicists or mathematicians and would therefore lack the ability to > actually work these theories(at least GR) As any good salesman will tell you, "Disagreement is a request for more information." Not always true of course, but it gives the salesman the will to carry on, despite obvious negativity. If you find that you cannot explain your view simply or easily then either you do not fully understand it yourself or there are some serious problems with your view. THAT is why it is important to keep not only your mouth (or in this case, your fingers) open, but your ears (or eyes) as well. > Hell, I once read an awfully convincing theory on Darksuckers. It seems > that scientists have been mistaken for quite some time. Light bulbs > don't actually emit light, but suck dark. Dark pervades everything. > Darksuckers simply suck out this darkness, though their ability to do so > diminishes with distance... As good an explanation as any. Why do we define matter as the existance of something rather than the absence of something? For example, there is a certain hacksaw pattern in Conway's Game of Life in which one emitter shoots out one particle: http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~callahan/patterns/hacksaw.html But as the particle gets further away from the emitter, it gets larger. If organisms in this world define light as the absence of particles, then indeed it would get darker as the distance from the "light source" increases. ---------- Every intelligent society eventually runs simulations and experiments to explain its own creation, creating new intelligent societies in the process. God isn't dead. God is just away from his keyboard.
7.6.97 To model their own evolution. From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,sci.econ,can.politics,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: religion Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 15:25:39 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paul D. Lanier wrote: > > The Ape squealed in rage and terror: "Take him away. Take him > > away. Take him where he cannot hear us, nor we hear him. There > > tie him to a tree. I will - I mean, Aslan will - do justice > > to him later." > I think right now I'll just note that the quote taken from the Last Battle > by CS Lewis is painting what an anti-Christ will do, the ape (Shift) being > the mastermind of a plan to fool the masses that he the apoe is in control > (Puzzle the donkey doing the play acting as Aslan/God) but God/Aslan > breaks up the plans of the ape anyway. Very good. If a set of "truths" cannot be questioned, then it is impossible to ever know if they really are true. The difference between a leader that seeks self-glorification and one that does not is how often she teaches others everything she has learned. History's "leaders" failed because they were too intent on self- glorification, and once these "leaders" died, so did their secrets. At least it left thousands of new generations to try to rediscover these secrets, and make themselves feel useful in the process. ------- Conquer fear. Question faith. Humor distraction. Thou shalt not make any graven image, or bow down before any creation in heaven or on earth.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: religion Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 17:23:03 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paul D. Lanier wrote: > I have immense respect for the Objectivist philosophy that Ayn Rand > guided the formulation of. But I disagree with her that belief in God is > irrational. > "I am that I am" is the total self-declaration of God, found in Exodus > where God speaks to Moses. This implies God needs no other to exist; He > exists of His own accord, by His own power. > (Humans exist for external causes, such as they need to breathe, eat, be > given birth to. Of course, the human mind is able to make its own thoughts > and carry the ideas out into the world by using the human body to apply to > the thoughts to the human's surroundings.) God, in terms of interaction, comes in many levels. In terms of decision making, God is Communication and Observation. Human communication is rational, although always misinformed. In terms of observation, that includes our entire environment, from the air we breathe, to gravity from distant stars. Thus, God is indeed all of the universe. We exist as part of that as much as our lung cells exist as part of us. The question of what entity directly created life on earth is a different issue. It could well be that one or more alien species brought life to this planet in order to model their own evolution, quite like how we grow plants, study ant colonies, or run computer similations of artificial life. Who created these aliens or this computer similation we call the Universe? That of course is irrelevant to religion. What religion is primarily concerned with is Eternal Life and Morality. Morality we can easily control with laws. Whether we can achieve eternal life or if alien races or the scientist in charge of this particular instance of the universe can grant Eternal Life As We Want It (TM) is a different matter. ------- The Ape squealed in rage and terror: "Take him away. Take him away. Take him where he cannot hear us, nor we hear him. There tie him to a tree. I will - I mean, Aslan will - do justice to him later."
7.6.97 Corporate democracy with economic autocracy. 17.6.97 Resimulate the past. From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,comp.ai.alife,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: A Defense of Socialism Against the Writings of John Boston Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:06:29 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paul D. Lanier wrote: > What if some were chosen to escape burning when the similution ends, and > not by the totalitarian society that built the simulations? And what > makes people so confident that Calvinism is Capitalism? It isn't. Many simulations may have already ended, but the simulated life just gets moved around into new simulations, for nothing more than the self-education of those running the simulations. But's that is beside the point. The realization that human behavior is deterministic gave Jesus the rationale behind forgiveness. There are two ways societies deal with crimes of want. Organized punishment and organized charity. Selfish bastards don't fight charity nearly as hard as selfish bastards fight their own punishment. ----------- Once ... in the wilds of Afghanistan, I lost my corkscrew, and we were forced to live on nothing but food and water for days. -- W. C. Fields, "My Little Chickadee"
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,comp.ai.alife,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: A Defense of Socialism Against the Writings of John Boston Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 20:36:41 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. G*rd*n wrote: > You are in no danger from socialists; there are very few of > them about. The capitalist woods are full of Calvinists, > however, so be careful. And maybe all Calvinist capitalists, Calvinist tyrants, and Calvinist murderers are destined to burn... or simply disappear into nothingness, except to be held up as examples of stupidity for future generations of Calvinists. Imagine if we decided to base our laws on, of all things, a computer simulation of human society. Various simulations will lead to dead-ends, so we backtrack a little bit, remove a few offending errors, and continue on... maybe even implant false memories into a large number of individuals, just so we wouldn't have to resimulate the past. How often we're willing to stop time just depends on how much patience we have. Eventually, we may just give up on the simulation altogether and let everyone burn. --------- If we teach gorillas our history, would they fight wars over it?
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: A Defense of Socialism Against the Writings of John Boston Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:50:53 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > No we will not: A political class to administer our "common" property > will receive what we now have. > In any case your theory has been repeatedly disproven by experiment. > Repeated experiments in a wide variety of times and places, by a wide > variety of people, from a wide variety of cultures, under a wide > variety of theories, and every such experiment has been accompanied by > rivers of blood. > Socialism only works when accompanied by terror, and often not even > then. When Kruschev eased up on the terror, pretty soon the lights > started going out. Literal lights, not metaphorical. People found > themselves sitting in darkness, which gets pretty depressing during > Moscow winters. There you go confusing corporate democracy with economic autocracy again. Which is it under the Soviet system? Which is it under our system? Terror: fear of execution, fear of job termination, fear of imprisonment, fear of demotion, fear of disagreement with superiors, fear of unemployment. If you think the Soviets had real socialism then you probably also think we have real democracy. -------- If communication defines poverty, then poverty is the lack of control over communication.
6.6.97 17:27 The mass of larger particles. 6.6.97 18:00 Rococo nomenclature and imperspicuous glossography. 9.6.97 No invisible man in the room. 13.6.97 Creating ourselves in our own image. From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.ai.alife,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: The psychology of relativists Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:06:45 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Martin Tom Brown wrote: > > Fascinating. The Field is stationary, while the change in the Field > > travels at the speed of light ? > In GR the old Newtonian gravitation field is just a consequence of > the effects of masses on the framework of space and time. > Essentially yes- the prohibition is on not being able to transfer > information at speeds exceeding the speed of light, in this case > about the gravitational configuration of say a double star. Remember when this planet was thought to be the center of the Universe? We invented hugely complex equations to explain the movement of various celestial bodies, and these equations did actually have the ability to predict the movement of various things in our sky. And then we "discovered" that the sun was the "center" and these equations became much simpler. In the true relativist spirit, equations from any point of view can be written to make valid predictions. From some points of view, these equations get simpler. But it's not just from WHERE you look at it, it's also HOW you look at it. In this case, the HOW is a photon. We may be able to see an entire universe through a telescope, but we won't be able to see the telescope. ----------- If spacetime is quantized and we are red bishops, we will never encounter any black bishops.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.ai.alife,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: The psychology of relativists Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 14:48:32 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Erik Max Francis wrote: > No. In Newtonian gravitation, gravitation propagates instantaneously. > Newtonian gravitation is, however, wrong -- it is only a special case (low > speeds, weak fields) of general relativity. General relativity is a > causal theory, and thus nongravitational disturbances in the gravitational > field must propagate no faster than c. Say we give a supercomputer to Newton. He puts his "erroneous" laws into that computer and attempts to model the Universe, starting from the Big Bang. Will it work? Will his simulation eventually produce an exact copy of Newton himself? Say we give a supercomputer to Einstein. He puts his relativistic laws into that computer and attempts to model the Universe as well. Will Einstein's Big Bang simulation eventually result in another Einstein? If so, then in this simulation, the simulated Einstein will also believe that nothing can travel faster than light. BUT. But is the simulation's light speed as fast as OUR light speed? Are we creating ourselves in our own image? --------- If a Universe can be simulated on a computer, organisms in that Universe would not be able to tell they are living in a simulation.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.ai.alife,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory Subject: Re: The psychology of relativists Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 22:11:48 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John August wrote: > : >In other words: if light can't escape a black hole, how can > : >gravity? > : It doesn't. At the event horizon there is infinite time dilation and > : therefore the gravitational field is "frozen" at it's value when the > : event horizon formed. > : What propagates through gravitons in not gravity but _changes_ in the > : gravitational field. Why is it that we assume there is no ether and that waves and fields can propagate by magic? If we do not have the tools to observe air molecules, we could also assume wind propagates by magic. As science advances, we have been able to observe ever smaller particles. Like trying to prove there is no invisible man in the room, we can't prove that there aren't particles smaller than we can observe. If photons can propagate through truly empty space like a particle, and also exhibit wave properties in space where light has already propagated before, it could well be that photons leave behind their own ether like a Conway puffer: http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~callahan/patterns/slopuf2.html Can gravity escape the Singularity (TM) to affect the rest of the matter within the event horizon? -------- If spacetime is quantized and we are red bishops, we will never encounter any black bishops.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.physics.relativity,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions Subject: Re: The psychology of relativists Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 18:00:51 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Michael Weiss wrote: > First of all, you obviously dislike the idea of warped spacetime. In > your mind, the mere fact that GR relies on this notion is a big strike > against it. > However, the mathematics of warped spacetime is well-understood; much > of it was worked out by the mathematicians before Einstein ever > realized it was just what he needed for his theory of gravity. > How do you distinguish your objection from mere prejudice against > an unfamiliar notion? There is the tendency of teachers to simplify things and the tendency of researchers to complicate things. Teachers want to get their point across as fast as possible. Researchers want to make their point as obscure as possible, because they are competing for funding, for fame, for medals. They feel no paper is good unless it meets a certain length minimum. Not only does it make them feel useful, but it also prevents young upstarts from threatening their jobs. In physics, it's warped spacetime. In music, it's the five lined staff on which notes are written. (In both, it's rococo nomenclature and imperspicuous glossography.) There is NO relation between octaves and the five lines on the traditional staff, but it makes music teachers feel superior teaching their students how to use a primitive dinosaur. -------- Pride is the irrelevant man's excuse for still feeling relevant.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.ai.alife,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory,comp.theory.cell-automata,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: The psychology of relativists Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 17:27:35 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Fred McGalliard wrote: > stars. We place the neutron stars in orbit about the hole just above > the event horizon. After adding a few million stars we might expect to > find that the orbit is now within the event horizon. Are the neutron > stars no longer in orbit? Do they emit gravity waves and fall in? Once > within, can they emit gravity waves and where do they (the gravity > waves) go? Just how long does it take for an object to fall from the > event horizon to the singularity? In other words: if light can't escape a black hole, how can gravity? If only gravity can escape a black hole, then gravity must be a better form of communication than light. What is the speed of gravity? Is it faster than light? We used to think atoms were solid objects. Then we broke that down to neutrons, electrons, etc. And now we have quarks and friends. If we continue to try to break down a neutron, we will reach the point at which force and sub-neutron particles become indistinguishable. In fact, force, energy, AND matter could all be different aspects of the same thing. If all of these can come in discrete quantized packets, then time and space may be as quantized as they are in Conway's Game of Life. Thus, maximum density WILL be reached when every packet of space has been filled. And therefore, no singularity. Does light have mass? We believe photons to be massless only because we use photons to measure mass. We are able to measure the mass of larger particles because we have a much smaller particle to measure them with. Thus all we need is a particle "lighter than light". -------- We think light is at the speed limit only because we've yet to observe or create a faster particle. If Conway's lifeforms measure the universe only with c/4 glider photons, they would have an entirely different concept of maximum speed and orthogonality.
5.6.97 17:35 The exact spot on which you were born. 7.6.97 The first to go. 19.6.97 21:48 Plenty of time. From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Brainwashing? Growth and Immigration. Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:56:40 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jay Hanson wrote: > I know that it is really going to be tough, but are populations are now > over carrying capacity. Populations MUST fall to, or below carrying > capacity because that is how carrying capacity is defined. > The only choice we have is wheither we do it our way or nature does it > her way. If most humans were as stupid as you, we would've never learned to support as many people with so few farmers as we are doing now. "Carry capacity" is only constant if the animals living in it do not learn how to modify it... or haven't learned to savor the delicacies of algae and kelp. ---------- If time is money, then bean counters waste their money keeping track of their time.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics Subject: Re: Brainwashing? Growth and Immigration. Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:48:54 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jay Hanson wrote: > The two most prestegous scientific instutions in the world, the > National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, stated: > "The future of our planet is in the balance. ... The next > 30 years may be crucial." Archived http://dieoff.org/page7.htm > If that means nothing to you, then you will have to wait till > you see the bodies piling up on CNN. Translation: "Give us more funding so we can argue about it some more." Fact is, we've got plenty of time to come up with solutions. So much so that we spend hours everyday grooming the perfect golf course, or putting up fences around preserves where animals inside live and humans outside starve. ----------- Producers who can't produce anything useful keep hiring advertisers until they have redefined "useful".
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Brainwashing? Growth and Immigration. Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 16:41:59 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jay Hanson wrote: > Here is a population graph of what we can human populations > can expect in the future: > http://dieoff.org/Crash2.GIF And capitalist pawns like you will be the first to go. Immigration (TM) is a boogeyman invented by slave masters to draw attention away from their autocracy. Limited Resources (TM) is a religion invented by financiers who think patent law is more productive than marine farming.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Brainwashing? Growth and Immigration. Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 17:35:39 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jay Hanson wrote: > > I didn't think it was so great. Immigration is not being stepped up fast > > enough. We need more people than that. We've got a lot of problems to > > solve, and the more minds we have working on them, the better. > Gosh Steve, what problem do you have that needs immigrants to solve? > Is it hard to find good factory workers for $1.30 per hour? YOU are the problem. Why don't YOU go back where you came from? How do you define immigration? Immigration is any movement away from the exact spot on which you were born. Christ, get a life. What kind of paranoia are they teaching pawns these days? Either somebody thinks like you or she doesn't. Either somebody is willing to kill you for thinking differently, or she isn't. Where they are born makes no different. The only way immigration and population growth can hurt any society is if it is based on competition. --------- Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.
5.6.97 Where is the causality? From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.politics.theory,comp.ai,alt.politics.economics,comp.ai.philosophy,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.psychology.misc,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: What is consciousness? A simple biological answer to some big questions Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 20:48:19 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Lee Davis wrote: > Oh no! Not blind guessing! There's never been any of that done in science > before! :) > It is only our arrogance that makes us think that the established > traditional mythologies of modern science are absolute or that we really > understand anything better than a hunter/gatherer shaman. > Lighten up and explore the world...remember that historically, more > invention and discovery has occurred when people practiced balanced > investigation, using both idealist and materialist philosophies. (This > means use your intuition every now and then-It has served our species well > for lo these many years) And the vast majority of the world in fact DOES explore the world. Who doesn't? Control freaks. The more power they have, the more important they actually think their role in the universe is. Little do they know that they are as deterministic as any other collection of moving particles. "Intuition" was a concept invented out of laziness to explain their own thought process, and perpetuated by idiots who try to inflate their own egos with proclamations of superior intellience. Human thought is little more than the sum of the communication that person has heard to date, combined with a few complete strokes of "luck" called cosmic rays and background radiation. The more monkeys with typewriters there are, the more likely there will be one would think he's Shakespeare. ----------- A human is a sex manual's way of producing more sex manuals.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,alt.consciousness,comp.theory.cell-automata,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.cognition,alt.politics.socialism,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.psychology.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: What is consciousnes? A simple biological answer to some big questions Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 17:03:19 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote: > > One definition of consciousness is "the ability to react to self". The > > biological advantages of this include understanding what your predator > > sees, so that you can defend yourself. > I can think of another. It is one thing to distinquish one's physical > self from the rest, but quite another to distinquish between events caused > to one's self and those caused by one's self. Life is a chemical reaction. How does one go about defining what "self" is? At what point does something you eat, drink, or breathe "become" a part of you? At what point do your body's waste products "stop" being a part of you? If you write your thoughts down and then forget them, who do those thoughts on that paper belong to? That paper itself? That tape recorder? That student or audience member? If you tell a lie that everybody believes (for example, "the universe is as round as the earth"), and they then manage to brainwash you into thinking that your statement was in fact the truth, where is the causality? Fans of Conway's Game of Life are constantly in search of the ultimate self-replicating pattern - a real organism. But even "life" like us have not achieved that, because every new "organism" is quite a bit different from its parents... and unlike the various perfect life-particles, we are not as eternal as the atomic and subatomic particles we are made of. -------- A human is a sex manual's way of producing more sex manuals.
5.6.97 15:59 Just because we can't determine it. 5.6.97 16:18 After billions and billions of years. 5.6.97 16:27 Many worlds interpretation of quantum theory. 6.6.97 Because we've yet to observe anything smaller. 7.6.97 The initial state at the start of each game. Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,comp.ai,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.time-travel,comp.theory.cell-automata,rec.games.chess.misc,sci.physics,comp.ai.alife,sci.physics.relativity From: i17@netcom.com (Writer of Wrongs) Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al. Organization: Go Player. Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 05:07:32 GMT S. Arsheesh (cyu@geocities.com) wrote: : Shane Hitching wrote: name morphs again, b c n u. (Yes I wrote something at the end of this.) : > > >I think it *is clear* that these calculations could not be done. To do : > > >them you would need to take the position, velocity, heading and state (at : > > >least) of all matter and energy in the universe and record these figures. : > > >Looking at this its quite obvious that the universe could not hold this : > > >amount of information. : > > Actually, the universe holds precisely this amount of information - not one : > > bit more, not one bit less! : > Bollocks, the universe holds the CURRENT state of the universe or are you : > saying that I'm in two places at once? : Depending on the definition of "information". It can be argued that : the amount of information in our universe is no more than the 'sum' : of its initial state and the laws that govern it. 'Much like how' the : initial conditions and rules of Conway's Game of Life completely : determine its future. So why do we even play Conway's game? Because : we don't actually KNOW the future. So you might say the concept of : "information" must also include time. : ------ : If spacetime is quantized and we are red bishops, we will never : encounter any black bishops. Uh, no. Black bishops eat queens and checkmate kings. 'ENcounters' need not be DIRECT CONTACT, but can certainly be CLOSER than CLOSE. And also, APPEARANCES can be much different from IMPLEMENTATION. My GAME OF LIFE runs on a network of Crays, NTs, Newtons, SGIs, NeXTs and more. 17. 22:00 12jun97. 37lines. -- ***************************************************************************** 6+ Trillion Dollars GNP in the USA alone, and NO DECENT SOFTWARE YET ?! Boss don't let me die until I debug this life, and don't let me rhincornate until I can't make a mess of next time. "A .sig is a tail-feather tacked on to a turd." -- Tak Eeyawn *****************************************************************************
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,alt.misc.forteana,comp.theory.cell-automata,alt.paranormal,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory,alt.philosophy.debate,sci.econ,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.politics.socialism,alt.sci.time-travel,talk.politics.libertarian,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.physics,alt.society.labor-unions,sci.physics.relativity,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al. Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 16:55:46 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. raven1 wrote: > Non-chess material snipped > This thread has nothing to do with chess. PLEASE > trim your headers. Here's some chess material for you: 1. The question of whether a deterministic machine can beat a human player is moot, because human behavior is also deterministic when placed in context with the environment. We only think human thoughts are non-deterministic because the initial state of the human mind at the start of each game is different.... and we cannot predict external stimulus, like conversation or cosmic rays. 2. Chess is basically a universe of quantized space. Each piece can only be on one square. The chess universe is limited, but only *appears* limited because one side does not wrap around to the other side. Chess is also a universe of quantized time - players take turns making moves. The implications for OUR universe are this: if our spacetime is quantized, and we are all bishops on one type of square, we will never detect nor be able to interact with bishops on another type of square, unless some sort of intermediary can be found. -------- Every intelligent society eventually runs simulations and experiments to explain its own creation, creating new intelligent societies in the process. God isn't dead. God is just away from his keyboard.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: comp.theory.cell-automata,comp.ai,comp.ai.alife,talk.politics.theory,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al. Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 15:20:59 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bernard Badger wrote: > > We only THINK the universe started as a singularity because it seems > > all matter originates from the same general vicinity. It could be > > quite possible that all matter originated from an area the size of > > New Jersey, or my backyard, and we would not know the difference. > > Say we ran a simulation of Conway's Game of Life on a supercomputer. > > Initially, we could just populate it with a few particles within a > > 10x10 grid, but after incredible growth for billions and billions > > of years, organisms in that universe will notice that all matter > > originates from a Singularity (TM). > Since Life doesn't have a reversable rule and doesn't have any concepts > of momentum, you cannot, in general determine from the pattern a point > where it originated. For example, starting with a single glider, you can > trace it backwards as far as you like, but there's no single point. > If you had two gliders that came from an intersection, then, you could plot > that point. However, given Life's many-to-one irreversable mapping, you're > not likely to be able to get any "source direction" out of a random region. It's quite possible that we also live in a universe of irreversible mappings on the small scale, but reversible (and mostly predictable) on the large scale. We believe photons, quarks, neutrinos, etc are small scale only because we've yet to observe anything smaller. We can also trace the movement of waves and particles as far back as we like and find no starting point. The only reason we think the universe originates from from a Singularity is because the gliders shot out of distant moving glider guns tell us that most glider guns are moving away from us. Something with both particle and wave properties may just be similar to something like a breeder. http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~callahan/patterns/breeder3.html ...and wave cancellation may just be the mutual annihilation of colliding gliders. -------- Newton's Law of General Stupidity: Human behavior can be completely predicted by knowledge of all the chemical and electrical interactions within the brain. Thus there's no such thing as "free will". Heisenburg's Law of Special Stupidity: By trying to study the chemical and electrical interactions within a person's brain, we change those interactions. Thus it is not possible to determine "destiny".
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: comp.theory.cell-automata,alt.misc.forteana,comp.ai.alife,alt.paranormal,talk.politics.theory,alt.philosophy.debate,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.politics.socialism,alt.sci.time-travel,sci.econ,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.physics,alt.politics.economics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al. Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 16:27:18 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. P Vincent wrote: > Or then there's the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory, in > which the universe is constantly branching and rebranching into > endless alternate universes. Every time you toss a coin at least > another three versions of the universe are generated: one in which the > coin lands Heads Up, one for Tails Up; and one where it lands on its > edge (maybe even one where it doesn't land at all, but let's not get > *too* fanciful ). Looking at the psychology of a computer scientist watching Conway's Game of Life unfold, we see only one decision: when she will stop the simulation. The simulation itself is completely deterministic. The "many worlds" concept pops up when the observer notices a pattern she particularly likes. She then saves it to disk, emails her peers, until more and more versions of that pattern are being run in computer simulations around the world. If the observer notices a pattern she DOESN'T like, she could easily stop the simulation and delete it... or start a new version of the simulation, with the offending mistake corrected. ---------- We think light is at the speed limit only because we've yet to observe or create a faster particle. If Conway's lifeforms measure the universe only with c/4 glider photons, they would have an entirely different concept of maximum speed and orthogonality.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,alt.misc.forteana,comp.theory.cell-automata,alt.paranormal,talk.politics.theory,alt.philosophy.debate,sci.econ,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.politics.socialism,alt.sci.time-travel,talk.politics.libertarian,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.physics,alt.society.labor-unions,sci.physics.relativity,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al. Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 16:18:15 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Shane Hitching wrote: > > When you start talking about knowing exactly the initial > > conditions of the universe, you are not talking about anything that is > > possible in this universe, and so any conclusions your argument reaches > > do not apply here. > How can you say that the initial condition of the universe cannot exist in > the universe? That's a bit like saying that you can't fit a pint of water > in a pint jug. > I assume that you meant to say that the big bang singularity (or whatever > the universe's state was before it was "The Universe") could not exist in > the universe as it is now. To use this argument to say that we cannot work > out the initial state of the universe is quite simply wrong. We only THINK the universe started as a singularity because it seems all matter originates from the same general vicinity. It could be quite possible that all matter originated from an area the size of New Jersey, or my backyard, and we would not know the difference. Say we ran a simulation of Conway's Game of Life on a supercomputer. Initially, we could just populate it with a few particles within a 10x10 grid, but after incredible growth for billions and billions of years, organisms in that universe will notice that all matter originates from a Singularity (TM). -------- Every intelligent society eventually runs simulations and experiments to explain its own creation, creating new intelligent societies in the process.
From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,comp.theory.cell-automata,alt.misc.forteana,comp.ai.alife,alt.paranormal,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.politics.socialism,alt.sci.time-travel,alt.politics.radical-left,rec.games.chess.misc,sci.econ,sci.physics,alt.politics.economics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al. Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 15:59:04 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Rolf Tore Randeberg wrote: > >Assuming we have an ability to analyse each and every atomic, > >electromagnetic and gravitational interaction from the "Big Bang" onward > >then surely all events that occur can be exactly and precisely described, > >whether in the "future" or the "past > No. Ever heard of quantum mechanics? It is the physicists' most usefull > and most incomprehensible theory. One of it's outcomes is that you cannot > know the position and velocity of something at the same time. And that > makes it impossible to know all events in the past, and certainly in the > future! > >Is the Universe, past, present and future entirely predictable as in the > >ultimate best game of Chess, if not why not? > >Does Random Chance actually exist? (Was it Einstein that said "God doesn't > >play Dice?") > This is a very interesting question. According to my statement above, the > answer should have been no, the universe is not predictable. But the > puzzle is: Is the universe deterministic, but does not allow us to > determine it's future? Or is the universe indeterministic? You see, most > physicists dealing with quantum mechanics would say that the uncertainty in > the position and velocity is a fundamental aspect of the universe. Others, > like me, who is not an expert, would say that the uncertanty is sort of a > "filter" that inhibit us from determinating the future, but that the > universe really evolves in a deterministic way. In other words: just because we can't determine it, doesn't mean it's non-deterministic. In Conway's Game of Life, there is a "Law" that says once symmetry has been achieved, it can never be lost. This however, assumes that there are no hardware (nor software) glitches in the computer on which the simulation is running. If Werner Heisenberg sits down in front of that computer, he could easily emit a photon that ultimately results in a computer glitch, changing the world Through the Looking Glass. ----------- We think light is at the speed limit only because we've yet to observe or create a faster particle. If Conway's lifeforms measure the universe only with c/4 glider photons, they would have an entirely different concept of maximum speed and orthogonality.
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Morality and Brainwashing Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 16:06:27 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paul D. Lanier wrote: > Excuse me, sir. Or maybe ma'am for all I know. But when was the last > time people were killed for violating marriage, that is when was the last > time people were executed by law because they committed adultery? Not in > this country, the U.S. Maybe in Islamic nations. And if I remember, the > Israelite law that said adultery was wrong, also said it was punishable by > death. But the precedent now followed is this: people get divorced > because of adultery. (They divorce for far sillier reasons than this.) > Yes, people are murdered for adultery, but if caught the murderer is put > in jail for a long time. But the free love lifestyle is more likely to > bring violence, by the personal accounts I've listened to, besides the > news stories I've read. American society is far likelier in this day > and age to fall into the tribal flaws of killing for temporary mates than > it is in instituting execution for violations of marital vows. (Though its > possible that neither extreme comes about.) What the heck are you getting > at? Brainwashing is not morality. What, then, is morality? Who defines it? Who has the RIGHT to define it? There is marriage and there is non-marriage. There is sex and there is non-sex. There is aggression and there is apathy. Violence over adultery happens when Marriage (TM) becomes so canonized that aggressors begin to believe their own sense of self-worth is completely tied to what their spouses do in their free time. Marriage is little more than a past agreement over the future monopolization of another person's time. It has its good points and it has its bad. Idiots can't tell the difference. -------- Shift would always say, "Now, Puzzle, I understand what needs to be done better than you. You know you're not clever Puzzle." And Puzzle always said, "No, Shift. It's quite true. I'm not clever." Then he would sigh and do whatever Shift had said.
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.econ,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.ronald-reagan,talk.politics.misc,misc.jobs.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: wages Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 15:42:46 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Randy Reingold wrote: > >>Let's look at this like a cynic. Two companies make the same product. They > >>use the same raw materials and pay the same taxes. The next large cost to > >>both is, of course, labour. For either company to get a competitive edge, > >>they must lower a cost, and if raw materials and taxes are constant, they > >>must attack labour. That's why once one company in an industry moves a > >>factory to Mexico, all the others must follow suit - or fold. > >The irony is that as labor "fights" to keep wages up, it merely give > >the employers greater motivation to move their operations across the > >border. hehehe, the more they fight, the more they lose. > >indispensable to him. Not only do you have to prepare yourself for > >the competitive job market, you have to make sure that you keep one > >step ahead of it and your competition. I've done this.....most of my > >friends and peers have done this, my kids are doing it, almost > >everybody is doing it. If you get put out of a job, you haven't. > Actually, the answer to keeping jobs in th U.S. is real simple: > If you don't want to support shipment of our industry abroad, > DON'T BUY ANYTHING MANUFACTURED IN A FORIEGN COUNTRY! Pavlov's dogs, everywhere we look. Prosperity is NOT employment at any cost, it's employment ONLY when needed OR desired. An import is nothing but another bozo doing your work for you. A distributer pays cash for a real product, to resell within the country for more cash. After the cost of shipping, marketing, and his own livelihood, what the distributor has left is called profit. Where does the money go? Where currency goes MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. What DOES matter is if free time is increasing while standard of living is constant or if free time is constant while free time is increasing. Buying domestic products does nothing but keep slavery inside the country, instead of outside. But hey, that's what more jobs are all about isn't it? Universal slavery. -------- Life is a tennis match - an audience of journalists, a capitalist referee, philosopher players, and everyone else is the tennis ball. Great tennis requires no audience, no referee, not even a tennis ball.
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.current-events.usa,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ Subject: Re: John Parker's Starting Capital. (WAS:CEO wages up 24%. Worker wages go south.) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 14:49:35 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > First of all, Buddy, making money isn't the goal, making the most > money that can be made is the goal.....anything less than the max is a > loss. That's your goal eh? If you were the only human on this planet, would you be spending all your waking hours at the mint? Or are you just trying to get on the high score board? For bragging rights? Because you don't feel like A Man (TM) unless you can eat the most hotdogs in a minute, throw the most balls into a hoop, and display the biggest taxidermied carcass over your fireplace? -------- "Winning isn't everything... winning and gloating and rubbing their noses in it, THAT'S everything."
3.6.97 15:52 It's called crypto-monarchy. 3.6.97 16:08 Censoring production with lawsuits. 3.6.97 16:27 Why does this happen? 17.6.97 To waste time effectively. From: "W. Bagger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Where will the GDP go? Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:05:13 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Ed Ellers wrote: >> "Even if they didn't immigrate and we ship tons of currency to other >> countries, all it does is cause deflation here and inflation over >> there." > You don't want to see deflation here. Trust me. "Trust me" is another way of saying, "I don't have a fucking clue what I'm talking about. I just heard it from somebody else." A lack of currency just means sellers will have to lower prices until they again sell enough to cover their employees. Short-sighted idiots only see themselves lowering prices. Loss of profits! Oh no! Did they notice that everyone else lowered prices too? Lower earnings + lower prices... what do you get? Not a bit of change in purchasing power. So what really happens if we ship currency overseas? Other countries become more able to buy up U.S. "assets". Is this bad? Only if you think value exists in inanimate objects and not in the people that actually do stuff with those objects - only under capitalism. ---------- Folfanga. Fourth world of the Folfanga system. Estimated journey time, three weeks. There to meet with a small slug. Of the genus A-Rth-Urp- Hil-Ipdenu. I believe that you had decided to call it a brainless prat.
From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Where will the GDP go? Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:42:34 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Steve Conover, Sr. wrote: > >"The grandchildren will also inherit the flip side of the debt, so they > >will be paying themselves off." > >You can't generalize that way. Not everyone holds a share of that debt; > >some of it is held by foreigners, for example. So if and when the debt is > >paid off it will be a transfer from those who don't to those who do. > (a) What if we could convince those foreigners to immigrate? > (b) What if we continue to roll the debt over, as any growing > entity can do safely as long as it continues to grow? Even if they didn't immigrate and we ship tons of currency to other countries, all it does is cause deflation here and inflation over there. The movement of numbers does nothing but keep bean counters distracted and give everyone else ulcers. Like trading a handful of gold for the emperor's new clothes, a bag of Montana air for a bag of Texas air, it doesn't really matter who gets what. All that matters is that both parties think they are actually doing something useful, and have managed to waste their time quite effectively. -------- The light of his faith quite put out, and his affections made desolate, he had clung with all the force of his nature to his work and his money; and like all objects to which a man devotes himself, they had fashioned him into correspondence with themselves... For joy is the best of wine, and Silas's guineas were a golden wine of that sort.
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Where will the GDP go? Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 16:27:12 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Steve Conover, Sr. wrote: > So it's an oversimplification, if not a cart-before-horse > assertion, to imply that a "decent wage" is the solution to the > growth problem. > The solution is more complex: entrepreneurs who understand how > markets grow: cut the price so more buyers can afford it, > combined with the creation of more buyers who can afford the > better price. Entrepreneurs who understand this are the ones who > win big; those who don't are the ones who lose, and deserve to. Blah blah blah. Get a clue dimwit. No a decent wage isn't going to solve anyone's problems except those getting the better wage. And there are many ways to get increased sales. Either brainwash consumers to buy your product with marketing, or figure out what it is your consumers want with consumer democracy. There are many ways to increase worker productivity. The hope of higher wages is among them. BUT. But consider how many volunteers are willing to work for various political causes for free. WHY does this happen? Because they actually believe in what they are doing and have the power to change things. Can we say free speech and democracy in the workplace? -------- There's only one zoo where we can see unreasonable humans: the media.
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Where will the GDP go? Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 16:08:28 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. William F. Hummel wrote: > Invention is not production. Sure, occasionally inventors come up with > something that has real value and market potential. But new products are > only a drop in the bucket in the big picture. Most of what is bought in > the market is existing products, e.g. houses, autos, furniture, food, and > clothing. But the ACT if invention IS production. The production of knowledge. Like the ACT of manufacturing is the production of something tangible. But does an assembly line worker get a kick back everytime someone uses any of the cars he's ever made in his lifetime? No. He gets paid only for the amount of time he spent building that car. So why isn't the production of inventions, art, writing, etc rewarded in the same way as the production of more tanglible objects, instead of censoring production with lawsuits? The answer is that we don't really believe in free speech. Actually, the real answer is that inventors and writers ARE compensated like assembly line workers, and that patents and copyrights which were once meant to protect the individual are now held by corporate bureaucracies. -------- If there's self-censorship in the press, we'll never know there's self-censorship in the press.
From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Where will the GDP go? Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 15:52:26 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. jim blair wrote: > Increasingly, the "owners of the means of production" ARE "the people". I > read that now about 45% of all adults own stocks, mostly through mutual > funds. And I think that does not even count those who "own" stock by > their retirement programs. Ironic isn't it? "Owning" the means of of production, yet unable to control them. Who does control them? Why, the handlers of mutual funds of course. Who makes all the decisions? Board members who purposely obscure every decision behind legalese in order to get proxy voting power. It's called crypto-monarchy. -------- If communication defines poverty, then poverty is the lack of control over communication.

|HOME| CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu [email/index]

Click Here! |count|
|11/13|