> Here, you created a loop in the concept of class so that if I am in
> a certain class I live in certain areas and if I live in those
> areas I must in the said class. This is my problem with the term
> "class".

No I didn't, because I didn't say you *must* be of a certain class if you live
in a certain area, only that you are likely to be, because people in the same
class tend to flock together for a variety of reasons.

> Harlem recently experienced a dramatic drop in crime rate.
>
> http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20050228/200/1335

> Would you say it is because people in Harlem are now in a different
> class? (Obviously they are NOT living in a different place!)

This appears to be because the crime rate has dropped throughout NY, not just in
Harlem. There may still be proportionally more crime in poorer areas. But yes,
it's possible that the class structure can change over time without people
changing location. Hopefully the first world has become a lot more middle class
than it was in Victorian times, for example, though probably at the expense of
the third world.

Charles

>Slide 5
>
>Response to the argument (against time as ORDER)
>
>A change of position in space is from the point of view of the subject;
>but a change of position in time cannot depend on the point of view of
>the subject. It depends on the order of time itself. If X is past, it is
>past for all subjects.

I'm pretty sure this isn't true. According to the theory of special
relativity, subjects who are outside one anothers' light cones can see
events occur in  the opposite order to one another.

Charles



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I was not comparing Holland and the US. I am not denying that
> Holland is liberal in some ways, like the drug laws, and I'll agree
> that's good. But that's besides the point. I am just critisizing
> one or two things which are bad about the justice system in Holland
> and that is not to deny there are good things too. And yes, I agree
> that while I critisize the fact that certain basis rights of
> suspects are severely lacking, at the same time it is the case that
> in general the Dutch are too weak on crime. No argument there.
> Criminals are not effectively dealt with in Holland, which is one
> of the reasons why the crime rate is among the highest in Europe
> (e.g. twice that of Austria) here and higher than in the US for all
> crimes except murder. But again, that is another issue.
>
> The idea that the US is nearly a police state now is very common,
> and obviously there is some truth in that. In fact that is
> precisely my point. Just as I am worried about the increased use of
> police state tactics in Holland (e.g. random searches on the
> street, random identification obligations - two things the
> Americans would never accept), I am equally worried about that same
> thing in the US. However, when Dutch people, or other Europeans,
> say that the US is nearly a police state, they usually also imply
> and think naively their own country is not. That is a bad mistake.
>
> In the US there is a much stronger tradition of rule of law than in
> Europe, the UK excepted until recently. Therefore, if the rule of
> law is at risk in the US there is protest and it is published. The
> fact is that in Holland and elsewhere it is about as bad as in the
> US, but nobody complains about it and people are not aware of it. I
> have given you an example where things are worse in Holland than in
> the US, namely the fact that in the US you can usually get off on
> bail until trial if suspected of a violent crime, whereas in
> Holland you can't. There will also be things where the justice
> system in Holland is better, but again don't fall into the trap
> that because the US police state aspects are much published and the
> ones in your country are not, that therefore your country does much
> better in that regard.

Henry

We are agreement on that, western 'democracies' in general are beginning tolook
more and more like police states. I just read that in Massachusetts a new law
makes untested swine flu vaccinations mandatory, imposing a $1000 a day fine and
people refusing and possibly facing various criminal charges, including possibly
losing your children. Fact is that no more people die from this Mexican flu than
they do every year from the 'regular' flu. (normally about 15.000 people per
year die from the regular flu in the United States alone) In fact the statistic
show that even the regular yearly flu shots have a barely measureable effect.
This is all about money, nothing else. And this is another thing that bothers
me, that, at the same time, democratic governments are starting to look like
representatives of the business world, rather than representatives of the
general population. The current financial crisis is a good example. Rather than
help out the people who can't pay their loans or mortgage, we let them default,
auction off their houses below value taking the little capital these people may
have had to start over with away from them; people are still hounded by debt
collectors years later; and then we turn around and give the bank the money they
lost in the process and we do so with tax money. Obviously if we had given the
money to the people, helping them out for a few years to pay the part of their
debt they can't pay, then everyone would have been better off and it probably
wouldn't cost half as much and it would save a large amount of lives being
seriously disrupted for years.

As a prominent English politician recently said, 'people have to get used to
living in the 'post-democratic' era'. Yes that's right, they even have a word
for it now. I doubt very much that we've seen the worst of it.

People in Europe are not un aware of this by the way, and there is plenty of
protest, in many different ways, it just doesn't all show up on the news. In
this sense Europe can be a little opaque in the sense that protests etc in
France end up on French websites and in French, same with the German and the
Dutch. And very often we speak only one or two of those languages, so we don't
always know what our neighbors are doing, but that doesn't mean we're not doing
it. I think, in Europe, we have a much more general tradition of not taking
politicians at their word anyway. We never expected that much from them, so we
are less disappointed or surprised when these things happen. We do see a lot of
new political parties in Europe and they are getting considerable numbers of
votes. These are often painted as extremists in the news media (which some are,
but many really are not), which is what the international news media pick up;
but in many cases that is (probably intentional) misrepresentation. These things
take time of course, but politics and voting habits in Europe are changing
quickly, even if this is not yet apparent in the main stream media.

Speaking generally, I do not believe that America really has a stronger
tradition of liberty than much of Europe (excepting perhaps France and Spain).
If you remember, the statue of liberty was a gift to the US from the French, the
original can still be seen in Paris. The 'motto' of the French republic is still
'freedom, brotherhood and equality'. America was founded on these same
principles in a time when they were popular in Europe as well; and many European
countries get their current constitutions and systems of government, with many
similarities to the US system, from that period as well. Our constitutions are
very similar to the of the US; and we are, more and more ignoring them, just
like the US is. Basically, I think, we are all pretty much in the same boat.



Regards
Rudi

jbose1952, if it is not too much trouble, can you provide the link to the
lecture? (I understand French, so...)
Thanks either way!

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Alan Forrester <
alan_forrester2@...> wrote:

>
>
> > Here is a truly interesting argument concerning the nature of time from
>
> > Francis Wolff of the Ecole Superieure de Paris. I think the argument has
> > some important implications for the Fabric of Reality as depicted by
> > Deutsch.
>
> What do you think the implications are?
>
> Alan
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

2009/8/31 Stephen Paul King <stephenk1@...>:
>>> Don't give up so fast. For citations about Guantanamo you might
>>> want to try here:
>>>
>>> www.cageprisoners.com
>>>
>>> Guanatamo continues to remind us of the brutality and illegality of
>>> the invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan did not attack the US on
>>> 9/11, and no Security Council resolution authorized the US to go to
>>> war. Hence, NATO military action within Afghanistan continues to be
>>> a willful and malicious act of illegal aggression that the
>>> Nuremberg Charter called the "supreme international crime."
>>
>> While agreeing with the post cited below, I would also add that surely
>> Iraq didn't attack the USA on "9/11" either? So surely in both cases,
>> military action was illegal aggression?
>
> Hi ,
>
> Why is it that even here, among erudite people, there seems to be more
regurgitation of slogans and less interest in the historical facts. AFAIK,
Iraq's government was in violation of its cease-fire treaty with the US
> (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm )
>
> and other signatories and in violation of many UN santions
>
> (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html ).
>
> What law was violated such that illegality obtained?

The right to decide whether its own resolutions have been violated and
what to do about it lies with the UN Security Council, not with a
rogue member of the Council.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

> > It is intervention by the state, in a limited way and humaner form
> > of revenge,
> > that defuses these otherwise inevitable social disasters.
> >
> > No doubt appropriate education could and ultimately will (if we're
> > lucky)
> > make these feelings of revenge go away; but think centuries, if not
> > millenia.
>
>I don't know how to predict the number of years. This sounds more like
>generic pessimism than an actual prediction. Is it?
>
>Do you have a rational, detailed procedure, which comes up with an
>actual specific number?

Revenge will not go away unless genetic manipulation goes so far as
to create humans who aren't human anymore. Revenge is one of those
basic human emotions. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with
sweet revenge? People today are moral hypocrites in that they pretend
to be civilized in the sense of not having the barbarious customs of
our forefathers. Like we don't execute people anymore on the public
square. And we don't have gladiator fights anymore. But it is all
pretense. We pretend we are above that, and yet we haven't changed,
as can be seen from the modern versions for those old and wicked
entertainments, such as excessively bloody movies and war images on
CNN. But the difference between us and our forefathers is our
forefathers accepted humanity as it is, and had no need for false
moral sentiments. I think they were right, and I don't think there is
anything wrong with a little bit of revenge against criminals, though
I do not like the fact that so many people laugh about such things as
videos circling the internet where an innocent pedestrian is run over by a car.

2009/8/31 Bill Taylor <W.Taylor@...>:
> -> That's OK, but sometimes it seems that punishment is driven by
> -> a desire for retribution,
>
> That is undoubtedly true. Of course, no state will ever admit it in so many
> words that that is the case, because it sounds so uncivilised.  But human
> nature being what it is, that will be the case for an awfully long time yet.
>
> -> and that should not be the business of the state.
>
> Again, human nature being what it is, it IS indeed the business of the state.
>
> Without it, there will be vigilantism and actions of private revenge galore.
> If the element of revenge is completely omitted by the state, one will end
> up with a society like medieval Iceland, or more recent Sicily,
> where the whole society is destroyed by ongoing acts of revenge,
> in tit-for-tat style.  C19 Appalachia is another example.  Endless feuds.
>
> It is intervention by the state, in a limited way and humaner form of revenge,
> that defuses these otherwise inevitable social disasters.

I don't agree with that. If people are racist, should the state take
it upon itself to persecute ethnic minorities, to prevent worse
persecution by vigilante groups?


--
Stathis Papaioannou

Hi Alan,

As I tried to summarize, if as Deutsch contends, all moments in all universes
exist equally, then time disappears. Time requires becoming but nothing is in a
state of becoming in a multiverse of moments.

To save the concept of time, I would like to suggest that perhaps all elementary
particles only exist as shadow particles until they are touched by consciousnes.
Then consciousness floats above them and brings forth a world. Another
speculation: Perhaps it is the fore of the present (shades of Bohm) that brings
forth a world and consciousness is simply tuned into that force of the present.

-Phil L.

--- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Alan Forrester <alan_forrester2@...>
wrote:
>
> > Here is a truly interesting argument concerning the nature of time from
>
> > Francis Wolff of the Ecole Superieure de Paris. I think the argument has
> > some important implications for the Fabric of Reality as depicted by
> > Deutsch.
>
> What do you think the implications are?
>
> Alan
>

On 29/08/2009 22:31, "Charles Goodwin" <charlesrobertgoodwin@...>
wrote:

>> > I don't think Occam's razor is really about counting [Elliot Temple]
>
> Occam's razor is generally stated "entities should not be multiplied
> unnecessarily," which is often restated as, when you have two theories that
> make the same predictions, prefer the simpler one. Or, to put it at greater
> length, an explanation should make as few assumptions as possible, and not
> include any that make no difference to the observable predictions of the
> theory.
>
> So it's really about algorithmic complexity. No one has said it's purely about
> counting; counting is merely, often, a reasonable way of expressing the
> simplicity or otherwise of a theory - it's a form of shorthand that, in
> effect, doesn't "multiply entities unnecessarily" when explaining something.
>
>> > One can always redefine or recategorize things so the *count* comes
>> > out differently without changing anything substantial (and therefore
>> > without being wrong. and there is no reason the description/count to
>> > be said first is privileged).
>> >
>> > Charles has just demonstrated this. We can count MWI as adding one
>> > new entity rather than trillions. When the only thing to guide us
>> > is counting, there's no way to say whose right. [ET]
>
> I've demonstrated that saying the MWI introduces trillions of entities is
> incorrect; that that isn't how the MWI is formulated. This isn't merely a
> difference of words, it's a statement about how the theory is actually
> formulated versus how it is sometimes mistakenly formulated. It isn't being
> "guided by counting", it's merely using it as part of a broader statement
> about various things (e.g. algorithmic complexity) without cluttering the
> argument unnecessarily.
>
>> > If Occam's Razor is really is about counting, then I think it's
>> > mistaken.
>> >
>> > Here are some versions not about counting:
>> >
>> > - Look for simpler, clearer explanations
>> >
>> > - Look for explanations where the whole thing relates to the problem
>> > being solved -- nothing is tacked on arbitrarily
>> >
>> > - Look for explanations that are highly adapted to the problem being
>> > solved [ET]
>
> I'm afraid you appear to be attacking a straw man.

Charles/Elliot: our emails keep crossing, adding to the confusion!
Charles thinks Elliot is attacking a straw-man; but Deutsch himself prefers
a version of Occam¹s Razor that avoids counting entia,  in favour of
assessing the least-complicated explanation. See FoR, pages 78, 96.

BTW: William of Ockham¹s original text reads: Numquam ponenda est pluralitas
sine necessitate [Plurality must never be posited without necessity], which
echoes earlier philosophers on the general ideas of a parsimonious Nature
(as in the powerful notion of LEAST ACTION!) We can quibble about the
precise interpretations, but the gist is clear. Whether we can agree or not
about what needs to be ³counted² (or ³posited as a plurality²) or whether we
prefer the Deutsch challenge of assessing the relative complexities of
several explanations, the spirit of Occam serves as a useful guide but not
as an apodictive Law. With Charles willing to treat ³counting entia² as a
sort of metaphor for ³assessing [algorithmic] complexity,² he and Elliot
seem to be reconciled. One is reminded of Einstein¹s reported adage (many
variants): Keep it simple but never over-simplify. We should also note that
explanations are essentially non-algorithmic, social, natural-language,
two-way discourses. I read Deutsch, but I also view his lecture videos and
react positively to his good-humour, sincerity, balance and his handling of
audience queries.

Some of these Deutschian explanatory assets seem missing from our exchanges.
Humour, especially!

I¹ve been listening to John Polkinghorne¹s audiobook version of his Quantum
Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Highly recommended! He covers with
Deutschian aplomb several alternatives to the Copenhagen wave-collapse (he¹s
no fan of Bohr the philosopher), not without some sympathy for MWI and the
future of Quantum Computing. Nevertheless (I paraphrase), he refers to the
MWI¹s ONTOLOGICAL PROLIFIGACY (a stand-up comic¹s phrase to savour!) and
jokes that ³Occam must be turning in his grave!² Polkinghorne cites Feynman
that you must accept the twin-slit experiment AS IS! That, they conclude, is
the ultimate Quantum Mystery. There¹s no denying its weirdness but our
macro-brains are not designed for grasping Planck-sized realities, e.g.,
that an electron is ³neither here nor there² but spread all over, until some
³determinating observation.² It¹s not quite fair to dismiss this as
³Calculate and Shut-up.² Non-philosopher physicists (e.g., Dirac,
Polkinghorne (a Dirac student!), Weinberg, Feynman) are (were) busy and
PRODUCTIVE, and willing to leave the metaphysics in the appropriate
hands/minds.

Summary: Occam ³Latin² Razor need not be invoked pro or con to assess the
MWI. Deutsch¹s variation is helpful. I find MWI slightly LESS complicated
than wave-collapse or hidden-variables.

Stan Kelly-Bootle





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Stephen,

It seems that the definitive answer to the question of the legality of
the war on Iraq might be found here:

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

-Phil L.


--- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Paul King"
<stephenk1@...> wrote:
>
>
> What law was violated such that illegality obtained?
>
> Onward,
>
> Stephen
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Sybil,

I believe this is the link you requested:

http://www.diffusion.ens.fr/index.php?res=conf&idconf=706
<http://www.diffusion.ens.fr/index.php?res=conf&idconf=706>

-Phil L.

--- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Sybil de Clark <sgdclark@...>
wrote:
>
> jbose1952, if it is not too much trouble, can you provide the link to
the
> lecture? (I understand French, so...)
> Thanks either way!
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Alan Forrester <
> alan_forrester2@... wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > Here is a truly interesting argument concerning the nature of time
from
> >
> > > Francis Wolff of the Ecole Superieure de Paris. I think the
argument has
> > > some important implications for the Fabric of Reality as depicted
by
> > > Deutsch.
> >
> > What do you think the implications are?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sep 1, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Henry Sturman wrote:

>
>>> It is intervention by the state, in a limited way and humaner form
>>> of revenge,
>>> that defuses these otherwise inevitable social disasters.
>>>
>>> No doubt appropriate education could and ultimately will (if we're
>>> lucky)
>>> make these feelings of revenge go away; but think centuries, if not
>>> millenia.
>>
>> I don't know how to predict the number of years. This sounds more
>> like
>> generic pessimism than an actual prediction. Is it?
>>
>> Do you have a rational, detailed procedure, which comes up with an
>> actual specific number?
>
> Revenge will not go away unless genetic manipulation goes so far as
> to create humans who aren't human anymore. Revenge is one of those
> basic human emotions.

That is a strong claim. You're saying there are genes controlling
revenge, and other basic emotions such as happiness. Right?

How did you discover that? Do you have an explanation of the
mechanisms the genes use to create and control emotions?

> And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with sweet revenge?

Revenge hurts people. That's what's wrong with it.

Also, fighting with people is not a rational approach to resolving
disputes.

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/

Hi Phil,

     Thank you for this link. As I dive into reading I have a question: Does
the fact that the UN hierarchy had a vested interest, viz the OilForFood
program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme ) and the
trading with the Saddam regime by member nations of the UN Security Council
(http://www.heritage.org/research/iraq/wm217.cfm ,
http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1095057.html ), change the tenor of the
question of the legality or illegality of the action?

     I am interested in this issue from a historical perspective not as an
apologist for any political camp. To try to put things back into the
Fabric's tradition one might ask: given the many possible paths that could
have been, why did Reality select this one? Or better, why are we stuck in
this thread where facts can be so readily ignored? ;)

Kindest regards,

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbose1952" <jbose1952@...>
To: <Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Gitmo


> Hi Stephen,
>
> It seems that the definitive answer to the question of the legality of
> the war on Iraq might be found here:
>
> http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm
>
> -Phil L.

On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:27 PM, jbose1952 wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> It seems that the definitive answer to the question of the legality of
> the war on Iraq might be found here:
>
> http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

That's not definitive. They chose to find a long list of anti-war
views and only 2 pro-war views. They are not trying to be fair and
balanced.

If you want to discuss that page, please tell us which is the *single
best article* there. I only want to consider the strongest argument.

One they left out is an argument by Christopher Hitchens. It's from a
debate. Among other things, it considers the four criteria, under
international law, for a country to lose its sovereignty. Saddam's
Iraq violated them all.

First two parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAja9Q1gWsk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0xKGAfP-ss&feature=related

The person who uploaded it youtube thinks Hitchens lost the debate.
That means this debate has appeal to people who are on both sides,
unlike the website linked above. That's a good sign about it.

Is Hitchens correct? Or mistaken? Why?

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/

> As I tried to summarize, if as Deutsch contends, all moments in all
> universes exist equally, then time disappears. Time requires
> becoming but nothing is in a state of becoming in a multiverse of
> moments.

I think that unless you're going to reject most of modern science, you have
to accept that our normal, everyday feelings about time are in a sense
mistaken. This was true in Newtonian physics, it was true in relativity and
it's true in quantum theory. All these theories involve a form of block
universe (or block multiverse), and "becoming" is merely how we experience
that. The "timelinke slices" of relativity and the "multiversal moments" of
qnautum theory are linekd together by a set of rules, the laws of nature -
the moments/slices are related to one another (deterministically, in fact) -
and these rules give the effect that we experience as becoming.

> To save the concept of time, I would like to suggest that perhaps
all elementary particles only exist as shadow particles until they are
touched by consciousnes. Then consciousness floats above them and brings
forth a world. Another speculation: Perhaps it is the fore of the present
(shades of Bohm) that brings forth a world and consciousness is simply tuned
into that force of the present.

This isn't necesssary. To save the concept of time one first needs to know
what it is - but ideas of time as "becoming" melt away when examined
closely, requiring an infinite regress that is made unnecessary by the
physical theories mentioned above. Everything you need to know about how we
do and (more to the poiint) don't experience time is in figures 11.1 to 11.5
in FOR.

Charles

> As I tried to summarize, if as Deutsch contends, all moments in all
> universes exist equally, then time disappears. Time requires
> becoming but nothing is in a state of becoming in a multiverse of
> moments.

Which is just as well because that idea makes no sense as explained in the
chapter on time in FoR. If you say only the present exists then what are we to
make of the claim you made five minutes ago that that present moment existed?
And if they all exist and becoming is required to make things happen in the
right order then that means they won't happen in the right order because they
will all exist at once. But becoming isn't required for things to seem to happen
in a particular order, all that has to happen is that there is some system at
time t2 which has records of another system at t1 but not vice versa and so t2
is later than t1. So, for example, my brain and many other systems contain
information about what I did last week, but none of the systems that I had
access to last week had records of today, and that's why today is later than
last week.

> To save the concept of time, I would like to suggest that perhaps all
elementary
> particles only exist as shadow particles until they are touched by
consciousnes.
> Then consciousness floats above them and brings forth a world. Another
> speculation: Perhaps it is the fore of the present (shades of Bohm) that
brings
> forth a world and consciousness is simply tuned into that force of the
present.

This makes even less sense than the idea of becoming. Consciousness requires
complex information processing that takes place in matter. So before
consciousness can exist there has to exist a world that supports complex
information processing and seeing as consciousness has to evolve by natural
selection it can't come into existence at the same time as complex information
processing it has to come into existence a long time after that.

Alan

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Henry Sturman<henry@...> wrote:
>
>
>> > It is intervention by the state, in a limited way and humaner form
>> > of revenge,
>> > that defuses these otherwise inevitable social disasters.
>> >
>> > No doubt appropriate education could and ultimately will (if we're
>> > lucky)
>> > make these feelings of revenge go away; but think centuries, if not
>> > millenia.
>>
>>I don't know how to predict the number of years. This sounds more like
>>generic pessimism than an actual prediction. Is it?
>>
>>Do you have a rational, detailed procedure, which comes up with an
>>actual specific number?
>
> Revenge will not go away unless genetic manipulation goes so far as
> to create humans who aren't human anymore. Revenge is one of those
> basic human emotions. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with
> sweet revenge? People today are moral hypocrites in that they pretend
> to be civilized in the sense of not having the barbarious customs of
> our forefathers. Like we don't execute people anymore on the public
> square. And we don't have gladiator fights anymore. But it is all
> pretense. We pretend we are above that, and yet we haven't changed,
> as can be seen from the modern versions for those old and wicked
> entertainments, such as excessively bloody movies and war images on
> CNN. But the difference between us and our forefathers is our
> forefathers accepted humanity as it is, and had no need for false
> moral sentiments. I think they were right, and I don't think there is
> anything wrong with a little bit of revenge against criminals, though
> I do not like the fact that so many people laugh about such things as
> videos circling the internet where an innocent pedestrian is run over by a
> car.

Up to the end you did not specify that revenge, which you describe as
an essential/genetic part of being human, is okay against *criminals*.
What's wrong with sweet revenge against non-criminals?

Babak

--- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Alan Forrester <alan_forrester2@...>
wrote:
>
> > As I tried to summarize, if as Deutsch contends, all moments in all
> > universes exist equally, then time disappears. Time requires
> > becoming but nothing is in a state of becoming in a multiverse of
> > moments.
>
> Which is just as well because that idea makes no sense as explained
> in the chapter on time in FoR. If you say only the present exists
> then what are we to make of the claim you made five minutes ago
> that that present moment existed? And if they all exist and
> becoming is required to make things happen in the right order then
> that means they won't happen in the right order because they will
> all exist at once. But becoming isn't required for things to seem
> to happen in a particular order, all that has to happen is that
> there is some system at time t2 which has records of another system
> at t1 but not vice versa and so t2 is later than t1. So, for
> example, my brain and many other systems contain information about
> what I did last week, but none of the systems that I had access to
> last week had records of today, and that's why today is later than
> last week.
>
> > To save the concept of time, I would like to suggest that perhaps all
elementary
> > particles only exist as shadow particles until they are touched by
consciousnes.
> > Then consciousness floats above them and brings forth a world. Another
> > speculation: Perhaps it is the fore of the present (shades of Bohm) that
brings
> > forth a world and consciousness is simply tuned into that force of the
present.
>
> This makes even less sense than the idea of becoming. Consciousness
> requires complex information processing that takes place in matter.
> So before consciousness can exist there has to exist a world that
> supports complex information processing and seeing as consciousness
> has to evolve by natural selection it can't come into existence at
> the same time as complex information processing it has to come into
> existence a long time after that.

Hi Alan,

You are quite right. Becoming is not required to make things happen in the right
order; however, it is required to capture our intuited notion of time. If the
entire multiverse exists equally, then there is no change and no passage through
time. To make sense of time entities must arise from the shadow world, pass
through the present, and then return to the shadow world.

At least that is Wolff's argument as I understand it.

If we accept this, it is not too large a leap from a purely material world to a
dualistic one in which consciousness is in touch with the present. Or so it
seems to me. Not sure what that would mean in terms of information processing.

-Phil L.

--- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Charles Goodwin
<charlesrobertgoodwin@...> wrote:
>
> > As I tried to summarize, if as Deutsch contends, all moments in all
> > universes exist equally, then time disappears. Time requires
> > becoming but nothing is in a state of becoming in a multiverse of
> > moments.
>
> I think that unless you're going to reject most of modern science, you have
> to accept that our normal, everyday feelings about time are in a sense
> mistaken. This was true in Newtonian physics, it was true in relativity and
> it's true in quantum theory. All these theories involve a form of block
> universe (or block multiverse), and "becoming" is merely how we experience
> that. The "timelinke slices" of relativity and the "multiversal moments" of
> qnautum theory are linekd together by a set of rules, the laws of nature -
> the moments/slices are related to one another (deterministically, in fact) -
> and these rules give the effect that we experience as becoming.
>
> > To save the concept of time, I would like to suggest that perhaps
> all elementary particles only exist as shadow particles until they are
> touched by consciousnes. Then consciousness floats above them and brings
> forth a world. Another speculation: Perhaps it is the fore of the present
> (shades of Bohm) that brings forth a world and consciousness is simply tuned
> into that force of the present.
>
> This isn't necesssary. To save the concept of time one first needs to know
> what it is - but ideas of time as "becoming" melt away when examined
> closely, requiring an infinite regress that is made unnecessary by the
> physical theories mentioned above. Everything you need to know about how we
> do and (more to the poiint) don't experience time is in figures 11.1 to 11.5
> in FOR.


Hi Charles,

By re-reading chapter 11, I see that Deutsch does understand the problem, but
when he is begging the question when he says near 11.3 that "we do not
experience time flowing, or passing. What we experience are differences between
our present perceptions and our present memories of past perceptions." In fact,
I am well aware of a memory of a past perception, but it seems to me that the
way I as a conscious being experience the flow of time is something more. Time,
in fact, may require sensations be present before it's flow can be felt, but
that is not the same as suggesting that the flow of time is just memory of
sensations.

Interesting.

-Phil L.

2009/9/2 Stephen Paul King <stephenk1@...>:
> Hi Phil,
>
>    Thank you for this link. As I dive into reading I have a question: Does
> the fact that the UN hierarchy had a vested interest, viz the OilForFood
> program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme ) and the
> trading with the Saddam regime by member nations of the UN Security Council
> (http://www.heritage.org/research/iraq/wm217.cfm ,
> http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1095057.html ), change the tenor of the
> question of the legality or illegality of the action?

It's odd that you would argue other countries were biased against
invasion, with the implication that the US decided to spend the
trillions and kill thousands through purely altruistic motives.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

--- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:27 PM, jbose1952 wrote:
>
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > It seems that the definitive answer to the question of the legality of
> > the war on Iraq might be found here:
> >
> > http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm
>
> That's not definitive. They chose to find a long list of anti-war
> views and only 2 pro-war views. They are not trying to be fair and
> balanced.
>
> If you want to discuss that page, please tell us which is the *single
> best article* there. I only want to consider the strongest argument.
>
> One they left out is an argument by Christopher Hitchens. It's from a
> debate. Among other things, it considers the four criteria, under
> international law, for a country to lose its sovereignty. Saddam's
> Iraq violated them all.
>
> First two parts:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAja9Q1gWsk
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0xKGAfP-ss&feature=related
>
> The person who uploaded it youtube thinks Hitchens lost the debate.
> That means this debate has appeal to people who are on both sides,
> unlike the website linked above. That's a good sign about it.
>
> Is Hitchens correct? Or mistaken? Why?


Hi Elliot,

Let's see now. Hitchens claims that the war was both just and necessary because
Iraq had participated in regular aggressions or occupations of territory,
violated the letter and spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, violated
the Genocide Convention, and played host to international terrorists.

Sounds like plausible arguments to me. However, even if the situation is a
little better now, it probably won't stay fixed. After all Hussein was
originally installed by the US to fix things way back when, and probably we can
expect that eventually another puppet government will appear to fix things for
awhile.

It sometimes seems to me that these wars are planned by madmen who are doing
nothing more than amusing themselves.

What I do find amusing, however, is that the state appears to be slightly losing
its grip on the populace. Now they have to really work at making these antics
appear legal. When Hussein was first installed, no one questioned it.

-Phil L.

-> You're saying there are genes controlling revenge,

It would seem so, if large numbers of sociobiologists, and scriptwriters
for nature documentaries are to be taken seriously.

Limited, tit-for-tat revenge seems to be inbuilt into the make-up of
many animals, particularly mammals.  It seems likely that it would be
the same for humans.

Of course, very long-term, unlimited, culture-driven revenge that sees
clan feuds form, is a very specifically human effect, and unlikely to be
directly (i.e. biologically) selected for.

It's the kind of thing that's exceptionally difficult to get hard,
measurable evidence for, there being so many confounding factors,
but the plausibility is high.

-- Bio-mathematical Bill

--- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Paul King" <stephenk1@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Phil,
>
>     Thank you for this link. As I dive into reading I have a question: Does
> the fact that the UN hierarchy had a vested interest, viz the OilForFood
> program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme ) and the
> trading with the Saddam regime by member nations of the UN Security Council
> (http://www.heritage.org/research/iraq/wm217.cfm ,
> http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1095057.html ), change the tenor of the
> question of the legality or illegality of the action?
>
>     I am interested in this issue from a historical perspective not as an
> apologist for any political camp. To try to put things back into the
> Fabric's tradition one might ask: given the many possible paths that could
> have been, why did Reality select this one? Or better, why are we stuck in
> this thread where facts can be so readily ignored? ;)

Hi Stephen,

Because as I understand the FoR, it is our memory that links moments into
threads, the question we need to ask is why are we hallucinating this slightly
absurd thread rather than a more logical different one. Many leftist historians
attribute the disaster to the collapse of the German working class, which in
turn created a situation in which Stalin was able to consolidate his power...

I'm not sure what sense historical explanation has in a world thread that is
linked together solely by the memories that we happen to mutually share. I speak
here from a metaphysical point of view with tongue in cheek.

As to legality, it is an interesting concept, but one of the main functions of
the justice system is to sanctify the actions of the hegemonic powers. However,
some rules of consistency and logic need to be applied. I am wondering if one of
the reasons they are having so much trouble with some of their legal arguments
is because we are living in a somewhat absurd thread.

-Phil L.

> > Revenge will not go away unless genetic manipulation goes so far as
> > to create humans who aren't human anymore. Revenge is one of those
> > basic human emotions.
>
>That is a strong claim. You're saying there are genes controlling
>revenge, and other basic emotions such as happiness. Right?

Well, I don't know if control is the right word. The relation is very
indirect, so there isn't any direct control from genes to emotions
similar to how a person might control a car by moving its steering
wheel. Basically our emotions are tied up with the choices we make
and our culture and the things that we encounter in life. But genes
do determine our basic nature to a large extent. If you have the
genes of a bird you will tend to grow up making a nest and singing
bird songs. And if you have the genes of a human you will tend to
grow up speaking, walking, thinking, loving, hating, being happy,
being unhappy, sometimes having compassion, sometimes wanting
revenge, and doing and feeling all sorts of things that humans tend
to do and feel. That said, there are also great differences between
people because of differences in genes, upbringing, culture,
individual decisions, the ideas you accept, etc.

Anyway, my theory that many/most people will always feel a need for
revenge at times is simply based on the fact that revenge is so
universal. Yes, the degree of revenge people want does depend on
culture and upbringing etc., but I don't know of any time or culture
where the need for revenge is completely lacking. Also, note there is
a difference between wanting revenge and getting it. In some
societies revenge happens often, while in others it doesn't. That
doesnt' mean in the latter society people don't have a need for
revenge, it may mean that they have learned to contain their need,
just as some people contain their need for sex while that doesn't
have to mean they have lost their sex drive. So certainly a society
where revenge almost never happens is possible, but a society where
people don't have feelings of revenge is not.

So, certain human emotions are so universal over times and cultures,
that it appears to me to be the best theory that these emotions are
fundamentally part of humanity, and thus our potential and urge for
them must be encoded in our genes as all our potentials and basic
urges are encoded in our genes (though how we act on those potentials
and urges depends on our upbringing, culture and choices). Among
those basic emotions are happiness, unhappiness, anger, shame and
feelings of revenge.

>How did you discover that? Do you have an explanation of the
>mechanisms the genes use to create and control emotions?

No. One does not need to know the mechanism to observe that humans
grow up to be humans and birds to be birds and cows to be cows and
that what determines what you grow up to be is the question of
whether the fertilised egg you once were contained human genes, bird
genes or cow genes.

> > And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with sweet revenge?
>
>Revenge hurts people. That's what's wrong with it.

But hurting bad people is exactly the point of revenge. Just as we
like it if good people are happy, we like it if bad people suffer (at
least if they are very bad, and if the suffering is in proportion to
their crime). People who have had a loved one killed by a criminal
always do like it if the criminal is caught and punished. Not only
because he can't do it again while in jail or dead, but also because
they like the very fact that he is punished/suffering/paying a price.
It's usually the people who have not had a loved one killed who
object. So the moral is: As long as you encounter no harm you may
think revenge is silly and wrong, but when great harm comes your way
in 99% of cases you will find out that you want revenge and you want
it badly. This is what I mean when I say that revenge is one of those
basic fundamental human emotions.

>Also, fighting with people is not a rational approach to resolving
>disputes.

First, I don't know that punishing criminals is a matter of resolving
a dispute. If proven guilty, or if there is a confession, then I
would say the dispute is thereby resolved by a court and not by
fighting. And then if the criminal is punished people are free to
view that fact as satisfying their feelings of revenge, regardless of
the fact whether the courts claim revenge is or is not one of the
reasons they punish. The same reasoning might be used if private
individuals take it upon themselves to do the judging and punishing
instead of an organised system of justice.

Second, whether revenge is rational depends on how you define
rational. If it's rational to want to be happy, and revenge makes you
happy, then revenge is rational. Perhaps you are mixing up the words
rational and moral. This often happens, e.g. when Hitler is called
irrational. He was mostly (at least in the beginning) quite rational,
evidenced by his succes in achieving his goals such as conquering
most of Europe, it's just that his goals were very immoral.

--- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Alan Forrester <alan_forrester2@...>
wrote:
>
> > As I tried to summarize, if as Deutsch contends, all moments in all
> > universes exist equally, then time disappears. Time requires
> > becoming but nothing is in a state of becoming in a multiverse of
> > moments.
>
> Which is just as well because that idea makes no sense as explained
> in the chapter on time in FoR. If you say only the present exists
> then what are we to make of the claim you made five minutes ago
> that that present moment existed?

We would have to refine the claim that only the present exists
into the claim that only an ever-changing presetn exists (not the claim that a
single static snapshot exists).

> And if they all exist and becoming is required to make things
> happen in the right order then that means they won't happen in the
> right order because they will all exist at once.


If becoming is required to make one happen at a time, then one
will happen at a time and you will get order "for free".

> But becoming isn't required for things to seem to happen in a
> particular order, all that has to happen is that there is some
> system at time t2 which has records of another system at t1 but not
> vice versa and so t2 is later than t1. So, for example, my brain
> and many other systems contain information about what I did last
> week, but none of the systems that I had access to last week had
> records of today, and that's why today is later than last week.

It contains true and false information. I could write a book
where Napoleon wins Waterloo, but that would not be  a record.
A record is accurate informaiton about an event that was
ultimately caused by that event. You can get records out
of causality and history, but you can't get causality and history out of records
-- rather, you can't get them out of information, because
you need them to distinguish false information from records proper.

> > To save the concept of time, I would like to suggest that perhaps all
elementary
> > particles only exist as shadow particles until they are touched by
consciousnes.
> > Then consciousness floats above them and brings forth a world. Another
> > speculation: Perhaps it is the fore of the present (shades of Bohm) that
brings
> > forth a world and consciousness is simply tuned into that force of the
present.
>
> This makes even less sense than the idea of becoming. Consciousness
> requires complex information processing that takes place in matter.
> So before consciousness can exist there has to exist a world that
> supports complex information processing and seeing as consciousness
> has to evolve by natural selection it can't come into existence at
> the same time as complex information processing it has to come into
> existence a long time after that.


IIRC, Julian Barbour appeals to consciousness as having some mysterious role as
well.

--- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, "jbose1952" <jbose1952@...> wrote:
> As I tried to summarize, if as Deutsch contends, all moments in all universes
exist equally, then time disappears. Time requires becoming but nothing is in a
state of becoming in a multiverse of moments.

If you,  jbose1952, as an individual, do experience time
then there seems to be at least something that is in a state
of becoming...

All the best,

Victor

On Sep 1, 2009, at 7:43 PM, Bill Taylor wrote:

> -> You're saying there are genes controlling revenge,
>
> It would seem so, if large numbers of sociobiologists, and
> scriptwriters
> for nature documentaries are to be taken seriously.
>
> Limited, tit-for-tat revenge seems to be inbuilt into the make-up of
> many animals, particularly mammals.  It seems likely that it would be
> the same for humans.
>
> Of course, very long-term, unlimited, culture-driven revenge that sees
> clan feuds form, is a very specifically human effect, and unlikely
> to be
> directly (i.e. biologically) selected for.
>
> It's the kind of thing that's exceptionally difficult to get hard,
> measurable evidence for, there being so many confounding factors,
> but the plausibility is high.

So, do you have an explanation of the mechanism by which genes do this?

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/

> You are quite right. Becoming is not required to make things happen in the
right

> order; however, it is required to capture our intuited notion of time. If the
> entire multiverse exists equally, then there is no change and no passage
through
> time. To make sense of time entities must arise from the shadow world, pass
> through the present, and then return to the shadow world.

The truth makes more sense than your intuition. And there is change in the
multiverse. One system changes relative to another. So when the reading on my
alarm clock is 3am then I'm in bed and when it reaches 7am I am not in bed so
different clock reading correspond to different states and my bed/non-bed status
changes relative to the clock readings. Your theory doesn't make sense as
explained in FoR and my previous post.

Alan

> It's odd that you would argue other countries were biased against
> invasion, with the implication that the US decided to spend the
> trillions and kill thousands through purely altruistic motives.

FYI the last estimates I've found - a few weeks ago now - was

US$ 684 billion
4,321 US soldiers
100,000+ Iraqi civilians

Charles

I'm not sure what sense historical explanation has in a world thread
that is linked together solely by the memories that we happen to mutually
share. I speak here from a metaphysical point of view with tongue in cheek.

Just as well. But just in case you're in any doubt, the links between
moments (in any theory, but specifically the MWI here) are what is called
the laws of physics, however they may arise. In FOR (IIRC) the link is that
a moment at time t is linked to all the moments at t+1 (in suitable units,
e.g. Planck times) by their similarity as measured in terms of quantum
states. This gives rise to branching in the multiverse model when more than
one "snapshot" at t+1 is equally similar to one at t (using this criterion)
and merging of branches if the opposite is true.

Charles