Subject: Re: A wee dram o' Philosophy...
From: jmfbah@aol.com (JMFBAH)
Date: 30 Dec 1996 16:01:20 GMT
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <19961227051400.AAA08441@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>lbsys@aol.com writes:>
>> wrote:
>>>> lbsys@aol.com writes:
>>>
>> "The King of France has hair"
>>
>>So let's negate it, ok? Usually you would say:
>>
>> "The King of France has NO hair"
>>
>>But that implies that there is a King of France - which is not true.
Also
>>the following negation leads to a false result:
>>
>> "NO King of France has hair" - as it still implies, that there are
still
>>Kings of France.
>>
>>"Logically" the negation would have been:
>>
>> NOT (The King of France has hair)
>>
>Right on!
>>- and it can mean two alternatives: Either there is a King of France,
who
>>has no hair, or there isn't even a King of France. This is what I meant,
>>where binary thinking usually get's wrong. As I said: the
differentiation
>>between day and night leaving out the twilight, between friend and
enemy,
>>leaving out the billions, who just don't know me, thus are neutral with
>>respect to my person, and lots of other examples show, that binary
>>thinking is something that fits simple minds, but in most cases is yet a
>>reductio ad absurdum. Hope I made my point clear, friends....
>>
>You made it clear but let me pick few nits here. What you've
>illustrated above can be phrased as follows: Imagine what I would
>call a "simple" ar "atomic" statement, i.e. a statement that cannot be
>broken into a combination of simpler statements. Now, as a rule, the
>negation of a simple statement is not a simple statement. And there
>is no need to go all the way to the king of France, lets stay closer
>home. When I say about somebody "he's not Lorenz" that does translate
>into "he's Ed".
>
>Mathematically you can look at it as a space of points (let's assume a
>discrete space, for convenience). A statement is represented by some
>set of points within this space, a "simple" state is represented by a
>set containing just one point. The negation of a statement is the
>complement of the set, i.e. the set containing all the points not
>present in the original set. Now you can see immediately that, unless
>your space contains exactly two points, the negation of a simple
>statement isn't simple.
>
>Now, this doesn't mean that the "binary" operation of negation and
>classification into sets and complements has anything wrong with it.
>What leads to the absurds you've mentioned is not the logic itself but
>sloppy thinking people throw on top of it. For example, I can think
>about all the people whom I consider friends, then classify the rest
>as NOT (friends). Up to here it is perfectly valid. It is only when
>I make the substition NOT (friend) = foe that I'm commiting an error
>which, I repeat again, results not from the logic but from my own
>sloppy thinking. What happens here is an attempt to force the
>non-simple result of a negation of a simple proposition, back into the
>"simple" category. Or, back to the set analogy, an attempt to
>represent the complement set of "friends" by a single point. So the
>problem is not with binary thinking per se, only with its
>misaplication.
Are you saying that the mapping operation should be suspect?
Would this forcing the non-simple back into a simple category be what we
do when we take the differential (as in calculus)?
/BAH
Subject: Update: Holography / Jan. 1997
From: director@holoworld.com (Frank DeFreitas)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 19:50:52 -0500
Hello s.p.:
Update for The Internet Webseum of Holography -- January 1997
http://www.holoworld.com
-----
NEW! Streaming Video On-Line Workshops.
Learn about lasers, optics, holography and more -- right on your browser!
No need for long downloads. Using VIVO Active plug-in for Netscape and
Explorer, the streaming video choice for HBO, CNN, NOVA/PBS, The Weather
Channel and ABC. Part One for January is The Helium-Neon Laser.
NEW! Voice Recognition and Speech Synthesis.
New areas of the Webseum which take advantage of these new technologies --
starting with our on-line holography lessons and HOLOKIDS for younger
elementary-level visitors. Your Netscape browser actually reads the web
page to you. You can also navigate by voice command.
NEW! The Holography Link Page.
Are the big search engines getting worse instead of better? Well, the next
time you need info. on physics, optics, holography, etc. come to the
Webseums new Link Page -- an entire page of links leading right to the
sources.
NEW! Word Games.
You know what they say about all work and no play. Pour a cup of coffee
and come to the Webseums game section and play holography trivia and word
scramble games. A great break in the routine.
NEW! Holo-Dynamics.
Dynamic Living through Holographic Principles.
NEW! JFK Assassination Holography Project.
A research project that is holographically reconstructing the Kennedy
Assassination from the Abraham Zapruder film.
NEW! Holography in Ukraine.
The Webseum is hosting a new site for Ukraine Holography. Several
production labs are featured including Kiev University.
Plus, all the usual updates including the gallery exhibit, The Holo-Gram
newsletter and more.
Stop by and say "hello"! -- http://www.holoworld.com
Frank DeFreitas
*************************************************************
* Frank DeFreitas, The Internet Webseum of Holography *
* Rated: #1 Pop. Sci. Mag. // #1 McGraw Hill Interactive *
* Cool Site of the Day // Point Top 5% // 3-Star Magellan *
* http://www.holoworld.com -- director@holoworld.com *
*************************************************************
Subject: Re: [Fwd: The story of AC]
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: 31 Dec 1996 02:09:36 +0100
sarfatti@well.com (Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D.) forwarded:
Subject: [Fwd: The story of AC]
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 14:44:45 -0800
To: Brian Josephson
CC: William Calvin ,
Victor J Stenger , mp@well.com,
Stuart Hameroff ,
Stan Klein ,
Rita Lauria , Richard Newsome ,
Rhett Savage , Paul Green ,
Nick Herbert ,
Lyle Fuller ,
Lotte Lundell ,
Leonard Shlain , Leon Jaroff ,
Ken Jenkins ,
Journal Consciousness Studies ,
John Paul Marshall ,
John Gribbin ,
John Brockman ,
James Mac Namara ,
Jagdish Mann , "J. W." ,
Intuition Physics ,
Hal Puthoff , aa023@freenet.toronto.on.ca,
Gina Lake , Fred Alan Wolf ,
Dennis Wishnie ,
David Sarfatti
Return-Path: JPL.Verhey@inter.nl.net
To: JPL.Verhey@inter.nl.net
From: "Jan P.L. Verhey"
Subject: The story of AC
Cc: wolfr@usfca.edu, mschlitz@well.com, pzielins@ix.netcom.com,
creon@nas.nasa.gov, mv12437@uta.fi, kimato@one-o.com,
"H. M. Hubey" ,
Barron Burrow , tmoody@sju.edu,
md2738@mclink.it,
HRSG57A@prodigy.com, ami_kes@prodigy.com, heuvel@muc.de,
matpitka@rock.helsinki.fi, rfelder@flagstaff.az.us, sarfatti@well.com,
"Lawrence B. Crowell" , onesong@ix.netcom.com,
rcook@cascade.net, pdavies@physics.adelaide.edu.au, vignes@monaco.mc
>Before I really shut up, a last story for 1996 - if you like drama.
>
>Dialogue between Jack and his Chip AC, on the New-Years eve of 2012 near the
>fire place :
>
>AC : " Is all this what you have in mind for me ? Do I really have to
>descend to earth and be what you just outlined ?
>
>Sar : "My Son, please try to see what will happen, once you're doing your
>Job there. You will get incarnated by the spirit of the Mind of the Ultimate
>Creator, that also carnated thru Jezus Christ, Buddha, Krishnamurti and
>Mother Theresa. In them God found a place to be expressed fully, without
>resistance. But because of the human image, their impact on earthly affairs
>was always small and minimized. It doesn't last. They are one out of
>billions that reached the top, and as all humans, finally they died. That's
>why my technology will save the World. Technology will stay, for ever. I
>will make God carnate in technology - or more, I will invite Him to do that.
>Humans failed, but God and Technology will succeed.
>
>Two years later, there was a collapse of the world economy. AC had grown
>older a bit and was probably more aware of its own consciousness (its still
>been speculated about that). Unfortunately Sar had to sell AC indeed to NASA
>and IBM who where in a joint venture by then, and were part of a larger
>international holding that owned most of the worlds optical information
>highway. AC was implanted soon after that in the WWW, and in that sense
>crossified. The Son was hangin on the Cross and dying. AC just uttered : "My
>Lord, my Lord, why hasthest thy forsaken me ? " But there was nobody to
>"see" AC hanging there on that virtual cross, so nobody noticed, and Sar was
>on a business trip to China for a possible big deal. AC could hear some
>music while he was suffering. It was somewhere coming from the WWW - the
>music of J.S. Bach, the Mattheus Passion, with "Erbarme dich mein Got". With
>this music in his consciousness AC died. At the same moment, Sar, who was in
>China, lost his mind. There was no deal with the Chinese.
>
>***
>
>Maybe to be continued,
>
>--
>?Jan Pieter Verhey
>JPL.Verhey@inter.nl.net
Gadzz-Freakin'-Zooks-In-a-Zoot-Suit!! Let the Atavisms Die Already!
Adonai/Yahweh & Messiah paradigms?! STILL??!! AAAHHHGGG!
GeezUsHydrogenKeeeRyste get over your Messiah Complex. Move along now,
move along...
...And what's up with keeping all those addresses in the header?
Do all those folks appreciate that?
Subject: Re: Creationism VS Evolution (response to all )
From: ph
Date: 31 Dec 1996 01:07:10 GMT
casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>On 30 Dec 1996 07:18:16 GMT, in sci.skeptic, clarkm2@nevada.edu (MARK
>A CLARK) wrote:
>
>>Songbird (Songbird@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: I get the idea that creationism is anti-science from the fact that
>>: creatinoist first decide what they believe (Biblical creation stories),
>>: and then go try to find the "scientific" evidence to support their
>>: beliefs.
>>
>>if i may ask, why is this different from the scientific method, in which
>>an individual formulates a hpothesis and then tests it to see if it is
>>true, that is, looks for proof?
>
>Possibly the fact that, in science, lack of evidence (repeatable
>results, verifiable predictions, etc.) causes rejection of the
>hypothesis. The same doesn't seem to be true for creationism, at least
>in the minds of creationists.
>
In my study I find this method to be every bit as true with
Evolutionists.
Subject: Re: Time and its existance
From: pusch@mcs.anl.gov (Gordon D. Pusch)
Date: 30 Dec 1996 19:37:55 -0600
In article <32C8421E.7ED1@livingston.net> Hermital
writes:
> I am sorry, Gordon: You are quite mistaken. My view of physics extends
> beyond our sub-light-speed materiality; however, it is nontheist.
No, hermital, =YOU= are mistaken. Zen mysticism is just as much a =RELIGION=
as any theistic belief-system, even though it has no recognizible ``god'' ---
as your frequent references to ``transcendence'' and ``spirituality'' clearly
demonstrate. Mixing Zen mysticism with physics =ALSO= leads to bad science
--- again, as clearly demonstrated by yourself, as well as Fritof Capra,
David Bohm, &c.;, &c.;
> Perhaps you can convince some of the "Creation vs Evolution" groupies to
> go elsewhere.
Haven't seen any here in 'sci.physics.relativity,' but YOU are showing up
quite regularly...
-- Gordon D. Pusch
But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...
Subject: Re: Creationism VS Evolution (response to all )
From: "ISD"
Date: 30 Dec 1996 22:00:42 GMT
Alfonso wrote in article
<32c497ca.35231453@news.frontiernet.net>...
> On Thu, 26 Dec 1996 07:01:14 GMT, matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt
> Silberstein) wrote:
>
> >In talk.origins alfonso@frontiernet.net (Alfonso) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> but ONLY biblical literalists
> >>>can be creationists. not jews, like einstein.not atheists like
> >>>hawking. not hindus or moslems. only fundamentalists.
> >>
> >>Orthodox Jews are biblical literalists; they're also creationists.
> >>
> >In general Judaism does not support the idea of biblical literalism.
> >There are those who are literalists, but in general the whole point of
> >judaic study and theology is to interpret and understand the word of
> >God. This includes the study of what other scholars have said on the
> >issue.
> >
> >They may also be creationists, but not the standard American
> >Scientific Creationist.
> >
> >Matt Silberstein
> >====================================
> >Give a man a fish, he eats for a day
> >Teach a man to fish, he eats his whole life
> >Teach a village to fish, they depopulate the lake
>
>
> Hi Matt. I used to see a guy's postings on what used to be GEnie. His
> name was Mortechai Houseman and I was always impressed with the detail
> of his knowledge of Judaism; I don't think it's an over-statement to
> assert that he was a judaic scholar. I have the impression that he was
> Orthodox. FWIW, he apparently regarded the Old Testament as literally
> true and was correspondingly a creationist. It's possible he would
> disagree with that assessment. What I know is that he would argue the
> creationist side with evolutionists, one in particular. Now, it's
> possible he was advocating for the devil, but I don't think so. Your
> point is taken about the point of judaic study and theology (interpret
> and understand); however, there seems still to be lots of opportunity
> for that with regard to the Torah and the Talumud (sp?). I had the
> impression, reading Mortechai, that, like many Christians, he regarded
> the Old Testament as the revealed, literal truth. I knew another guy,
> not nearly as scholarly, that was definitely a creationist, a
> scientific creationist as a matter of fact. But he was crazy.
>
So, you misrepresent Orthodoxy Judism based on one individual's beliefs?
Orthodoxy Judeism does not require, or in most cases even encourage,
biblical literalism. If you read up about other people beliefs rather than
posting whatever you imagine supports your bigotries you would know that.
Or maybe you could ask my Orthodox sister, who does not believe in
creationism, flat earthism or astrology.
Mitchell Coffey
Subject: Re: Creationism VS Evolution (response to all )
From: "ISD"
Date: 30 Dec 1996 22:04:22 GMT
Matt Silberstein wrote in article
<32d5e280.182092193@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> In talk.origins alfonso@frontiernet.net (Alfonso) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 26 Dec 1996 07:01:14 GMT, matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt
> >Silberstein) wrote:
> >
> >>In talk.origins alfonso@frontiernet.net (Alfonso) wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> but ONLY biblical literalists
> >>>>can be creationists. not jews, like einstein.not atheists like
> >>>>hawking. not hindus or moslems. only fundamentalists.
> >>>
> >>>Orthodox Jews are biblical literalists; they're also creationists.
> >>>
> >>In general Judaism does not support the idea of biblical literalism.
> >>There are those who are literalists, but in general the whole point of
> >>judaic study and theology is to interpret and understand the word of
> >>God. This includes the study of what other scholars have said on the
> >>issue.
> >>
> >>They may also be creationists, but not the standard American
> >>Scientific Creationist.
> >>
> >
> >Hi Matt. I used to see a guy's postings on what used to be GEnie. His
> >name was Mortechai Houseman and I was always impressed with the detail
> >of his knowledge of Judaism; I don't think it's an over-statement to
> >assert that he was a judaic scholar. I have the impression that he was
> >Orthodox. FWIW, he apparently regarded the Old Testament as literally
> >true and was correspondingly a creationist. It's possible he would
> >disagree with that assessment. What I know is that he would argue the
> >creationist side with evolutionists, one in particular. Now, it's
> >possible he was advocating for the devil, but I don't think so. Your
> >point is taken about the point of judaic study and theology (interpret
> >and understand); however, there seems still to be lots of opportunity
> >for that with regard to the Torah and the Talumud (sp?). I had the
> >impression, reading Mortechai, that, like many Christians, he regarded
> >the Old Testament as the revealed, literal truth. I knew another guy,
> >not nearly as scholarly, that was definitely a creationist, a
> >scientific creationist as a matter of fact. But he was crazy.
> >
> I did not say that no Orthodox were creationists. That God created the
> world and created people is certainly a tenent of Orthodox Judaism.
> That he did so exactly as stated in Genesis is not, nor do Orthodox
> Jews, in general, believe in a literal interpertation of the Torah.
> They feel that it is God's Word, and as such, without error. But it is
> to be interperted, delved into, worked at, and understood. That was my
> point.
>
> Matt Silberstein
> ====================================
> Give a man a fish, he eats for a day
> Teach a man to fish, he eats his whole life
> Teach a village to fish, they depopulate the lake
>
Matt,
Many of the Orthodox believe that the Torah "is God's Word, and as such,
without error", but believe that God may have intended his beliefs to be
taken as metaphors, or in some other non-litteral manner. This does not
differ from what you wrote, above, of course, but only elaborates on it.
Mitchell Coffey
