It seems not only natural but beneficial that people would do that - on the condition that they do it in a moderate and unzealous way. — flannel jesus

Absolutely! Hurrah for moderation and un-zealotry!

Einstein was way more confident in relativity that a lot of people think he had a right to be — flannel jesus

Well I would certainly hesitate to condemn Einstein in these terms, with as much hindsight as I have. Are there many Einsteins on this site? but I think Einstein was in any case very much concerned with explanations for what we could see already, rather than what was beyond the horizon. Perhaps the 'God does not play dice' comment was a little rash?

I am unsurprised, but nevertheless still baffled, at how far beyond our collective event horizon people are prepared to lay bets and debate the odds.

... we cannot escape the fact that the world we know is
constructed in order (and thus in such a way as to be able) to see itself.
This is indeed amazing.
Not so much in view of what it sees, although this may
appear fantastic enough, but in respect of the fact that it can see at all.
But in order to do so, evidently it must first cut itself up into at least one state which sees, and at least one other state which
is seen. In this severed and mutilated condition, whatever it
sees is only partially itself. We may take it that the world
undoubtedly is itself (i.e. is indistinct from itself), but, in any attempt to see itself as an object, it must, equally undoubtedly, act* so as to make itself distinct from, and therefore false to, itself. In this condition it will always partially elude itself.

George Spencer-Brown, Laws of Form.

There is zero evidence that China gives two shits about environmental sustainability. — Merkwurdichliebe

It doesn't require evidence. At the moment humanity as a whole gives less than a half shit about environmental sustainability. But when 90% have drowned, starved, or died in migratory conflicts, minds will change. There is zero evidence that China is too stupid to appreciate this. On the contrary, they are busy ensuring access to important greening resources such as lithium, and developing solar technologies.
Your naivety is to think that baddies must be stupid.

There is a shortage of energy in some locations. — Agree-to-Disagree

judged by what standard? — Agree-to-Disagree

Answer your own stupid questions in reference to your own ignorant pontifications.

The energy of the sun falls upon the earth and is sufficient to the life thereon, to the extent that excess energy has been stored by life-processes over geological time. Judged by the standard of the energy gradient and temperature range needed for life, there is a shortage of energy at the poles. So the fuck what?

... all of the many current threats to man's survival are traceable to three root causes:

• technological progress
• population increase
• certain errors in the thinking and attitudes of Occidental
culture. Our "values" are wrong.
We believe that all three of these fundamental factors are necessary conditions for the destruction of our world. In other words, we optimistically believe that the correction of any one of them would save us.

Gregory Bateson, Roots of Ecological Crisis. 1970

I'm planning fairly soon on re-reading Steps to an Ecology of Mind and starting a thread if anyone is interested. It may be of interest to know that the politico-socio-psychological aspects of environmentalism have been much discussed since the early 70's and earlier. Obviously some aspects of the text will be out of date, but the methodology and analytical insights should stand up better, and repay careful consideration.

China has not quite finished its industrial revolution. The West is just beginning its green revolution. Just to point out - there is no shortage of energy. The problems of climate change are caused by an excess of energy. There is plenty of available energy, and no need for energy poverty if, instead of bitching about every other region, the supposed world leaders would take the lead in transforming the energy economy. Don't worry, chaps, China will catch up as soon as we have a green technology worth stealing.

I'm not sure what the question is, and I'm even less sure what a Christian is. But here is an answer anyway.

Violence is an enactment of malice. For example, one might break a window of someone's house in order to annoy, threaten, or punish them, or simply careless of such consequences, and such would be an act of violence. But one might break the same window in order to allow the inmates to escape from a fire, and such would be an act of love.

Or if a child wanders into the path of a speeding lorry, a physically forceful intervention, even one that causes some pain or injury in order to save a life would be an act of love and not of violence.

I do not know how to calculate the misery inflicted on the poor worshipers by the exploitation by the temple money-changers compared to the misery they suffered by having their tables overturned and being whipped by Jesus. But to me, to the extent that there is a Christian message, the facts do not matter, the lesson is that violence is a state of mind, that is the opposite of love, and that non-violence does not preclude vigorous and forceful action to prevent harm to others, but does preclude harming others as the motive for action.

Perhaps it is better to shoot a pedophile, or put a millstone round his neck, than to let him abuse children unrestrained. Or perhaps there are other ways to restrain him. One might believe that mercy killing can, in extremis, be an act of love; but usually, alas, I would suspect malicious revenge.

I am back from 'the flat of no internet', where the heat has been drying the paint before I had time to spread it evenly on the wall. And happily @Moliere has done all the hard work for me, so I can waffle a bit on interpretations and applications. But first ...

The bits on time: we get the conclusion I was thinking of, which is interesting to me!, that there are undecidable expressions (now that we have functions that go to infinity).

One thing I'm thinking is you could just posit another space-dimension to accommodate GSB's "cross in a plane", but I'm ok with saying this is space-time instead. — Moliere

GSB tries the extra space dimension himself, with the idea of a tunnel, but it doesn't quite work, because as soon as the boundary is undermined, it becomes 'incontinent'. he still needs time to keep the distinction clear. But if we go back to switches and circuits, everything is understandable. There is a very simple circuit that works as a buzzer or operates an electric bell, and at the heart of it is a switch that operates itself.
This is not the switch one operates to make the buzzer buzz, or the fire alarm ring, but an internal switch, that, as it operates the hammer on the bell, also switches itself off so that the hammer immediately falls back, and switches the circuit on again. The circuit cycles on and off indefinitely. We have electro-mechanical feedback; we have time, because any number of spacial dimensions cannot do the job of the same circuit being on and off - only time as change resolves the contradiction and maintains the continence of the distinction.

But I'll go back a bit, not to all those theorems , that are just extensions of what we already have, but to this:

Indicative space

If So is the pervasive space of e, the value of e is its value to So. If e is the whole expression in So, So takes the value of e and
we can call So the indicative space of e.
In evaluating e we imagine ourselves in So with e and thus surrounded by the unwritten cross which is the boundary to S-1. — P.42

A formal system is always imaginary, but normally, one imagines oneself outside the system commanding, evaluating, operating the system from outside, that is from "S-1". But here, that is ruled out, because outside and inside are the form of the first distinction. 'Value' is always relational, and always 'a difference that makes a difference'. To put it another way, there is no absolute value and no absolute outside, one is always in one's world, that one creates in distinguishing.

everything that will happen in the simulation is already known, given that the simulation world is deterministic. — NotAristotle

Er, not at all. One can have an entirely deterministic and very simple program to find the value of pi that can run forever producing new digits that were unknown until the program was run.
—————————————————————————————
More generally, there is a literal world of difference between a matrix world in which real humans are immersed in a digital world that they believe is real, and a simulated world with simulated humans - There can be no escape from the simulation for simulated persons, if such are possible, and since for them it is their only world, for them it is reality, and the programmer is God.

Whenever one's investigations of the world lead one to the conclusion that one is not in contact with the world, it is wise to doubt the results of one's investigations. Because to be confident of such a conclusion is to deny its validity.

Er, one cannot touch anything? Sorry your words don't reach me.

C8 was a stinker. I had to look at Wayfarer's video link for that rearrange, and then suddenly it was easy. So we are on the same page, but I'm going to be off line next week for a while - daughter has just bought a flat and needs a free decorator. C9 will have to wait... a hint from the video - the guy thinks the last C attribution in C9 proof is a typo.

It's rather separation that is impossible. My gravitational field extends indefinitely, at the speed of light Excuse me, mind your backs, coming through!.

The simplicities of abortion.

If anyone claimed abortion was a good thing worth getting pregnant for, I would think them insane.

However, society is so constituted that children brought up by the state or by charitable institutions are likely traumatised. Children commonly go hungry in poor families, and women are stigmatised and penalised for having children out of wedlock, thereby penalising the children. Education is so underfunded that many adults are functionally illiterate.

Since society does not value the life of a child enough to support it properly, it is the purest hypocrisy to place that burden on women. If society wants to take responsibility for children, then it should actually put its money where its self-righteous, hypocritical, moralising mouth is. Until society can properly protect the born, it has no business legislating for the unborn.

If i cannot touch my coffee, how does it wake me up?

My vague and distant impression is that he didn't drain the swamp, he didn't build the wall or make 'them' pay for it, didn't lock her up, didn't de-rust the rustbelt, transform the economy, or bring back the good old days. Above all, he didn't make America great again, but made it a place where drinking disinfectant is suggested as an anti-viral, and religious fundamentalism is encouraged.

I hope the above tells the careful reader something about myself, or at least about the way I think that I think.
— unenlightened

Really? One-line responses? Hmmm.... — Amity

Yup. Stupid, keeping it simple! :yikes: And look, it works!

What is…

Being
Yes. Being is what is. Being is, and nothing happens.
Awareness
...is the relation of responsibility. X is aware of y, iff x is able to respond to y.
Consciousness
... is the relation of responsibility to awareness.
Thinking
... is the digital processing function of mind.
Time
the dimension in which the nothing happens.
Sensation
... is that aspect of y of which x is aware.
Perception
... is a reification of a process, that is a reification of the happening of nothing.
Mind
... is the nothing.
Body
is some particular being considered as if separate.
Good
... is mind and world in the relation of alignment or mutual reflection.
Happiness
... is the responsive mind as distinct from the thinking mind.
Justice
... is social happiness.
Truth
... is the expression of the proper functioning of thought.


What is interesting me about this exercise is to arrive at definitions that are both faithful to (at least some of) the ways in which they are used in philosophy, and also relate to each other in ways that are somewhat significant of the individual's philosophy. That is, I hope the above tells the careful reader something about myself, or at least about the way I think that I think.

Excellent. Once I had that one, I had little trouble up to C6.

C7, 8, & 9, I'm still struggling with.

I think maybe the main confusion is that for a proof the result is set out at the beginning as the target; you have to take one side and turn it into the other, which in this case was a bit devious. So you already have the answer, but you have to 'show your working', or in this case, understand his working.

Ok. the rest is easy, use J1 to stick another nothing expression inside c1, to produce the next line.

and then use J2 the right way round this time, to take the second and fourth 'a's outside the whole expression using r = a substitution.

and the last step uses p = $\left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, a \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right|$ to eliminate the whole left side, leaving "a". QED.

I think it's the layout that's confusing you, along with the strange fact that we already did this by substitution of a, which was easy. This time we only use J1 or J2.

Go to the bottom of page 31 Where it says,

We repeat this demonstration, and give subsequent demonstrations, with only the key indices to the procedure.

We are going to change the left side, $\left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, a \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right|$ at the top into the right hand side at the bottom via the steps shown, using J1 and J2 and nothing else.
———————————————————————————————
the first step is to put p= $\left. {\overline {\, a \,}}\! \right|$ into the J1 formula. and stick it in front of $\left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, a \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right|$ which we are allowed to do because it sums to the unmarked state, and so changes nothing.
—————————————————————————————————
We now have something that looks like the right hand side of J2 if we set r =$\left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, a \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right|$ You should be able to see what the p and q substitutions are, and the result is what is written. (This is the most difficult line to follow)
———————————————————————————————————
Step 3 uses J1 again to remove the left side of the expression, leaving just the right hand half, which is:

$\left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, a \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right|a \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right|$


That's half way through the proof. With me so far?

Regrettably, this is the kind of article that goes over my head. — FrancisRay

I know how you feel. It looks pretty daunting. But I'm hoping to at least get a feel for how the formal system can apply to living systems. Maybe...

You should get a quote button whenever you select some text in a post. I don't know why you wouldn't, unless you are on a phone and the button is coming up off-screen somewhere. You can do it the hard way: [ quote=aDude] some text [ /quote] without the space after the open brackets, but it's not as good because it doesn't have the post number that can take the reader to the original post.

I'm not following the analogy here for T8 very well. How would the analogy work for the worked example of T8: — Moliere

"a" is a circuit, that operates the cross (switch) it is under. If "a" is live, it switches the circuit it is under off. This is how a cross under a cross cancels out - the inner switch switches the outer switch off and there is no circuit. That is the situation if "a" = unmarked - we ignore it and are left with a switch that has turned off a switch. So no circuit. But if "a" connects, it switches off the switch it is under in both cases, so both switches are turned off. either way the whole is off.

This is more than just an analogy, it is the application which he was working on when he developed the system. I think it's worth trying to get hold of, particularly when it comes to the really difficult section that introduces time. If you are at all familiar with such things, it is quite commonplace for an electrical switch to be electrically operated, for example by means of an electromagnet physically pulling a lever.

In the formalism, a cross is a switch that might or might not be switched off by a circuit 'inside it, and might or might not switch off a switch it is 'inside', if it is on. All crosses are on unless something (an inner cross) turns them off.

Small is Beautiful.

:ok:

when we're done with this book, we can maybe look at
http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/VarelaCSR.pdf
And perhaps it might start to convince @Banno that we are not a cult.

Thanks for that. You have summarised many of the points of interest, that hopefully we will eventually get to. That it seems to make a connection between East and West, and science and non duality is what interests me too, but I want to get there armed with as clear an understanding as possible of the systematic backing for those things you indicate about set theory etc.

Now this is sounding like an esoteric cult. — Banno

Make up your mind whether you think it is too boring or too interesting.

If you can't keep quiet, get involved! Uninformed and self-contradictory criticism sounds like mere prejudicial insult.

I think most people in the West do not really appreciate how far both Russia and China have progressed in a very short time.

we're only a hundred years away from the Qing Dynasty today, and we're still in the middle of the modern era and the kingship era, although in terms of life, there is not much difference between our lives and those of other countries. — guanyun

This. And yet also there is a much longer tradition in China than the European history of maybe 3,000 years. There is much moral wisdom surely in the Confucian and Taoist traditions, as well as a deal of pragmatic good sense? The Chinese ex-patriots I have met have been hard-working, loyal to family, especially their elders, valuing education, law-abiding and honest and respectful in their business dealings. This is just an impression from a few acquaintances, but do not doubt that there is also much cruelty and immorality in the West, especially in politics, for all the fine words that are spoken.

To answer your question; socialism is still a respectable ideology in Europe, but not in the US. But the economic power of working people and trade unions has waned due to automation and outsourcing to developing countries, so socialism is failing us in modern times. Marxism was never more than a minority fantasy here though because, I suppose, Colonial exploitation during the industrial revolution, and slavery in the US took some of the sting out of the transformation of rural peasants into industrial workers until socialism grew the teeth to make real improvements for them. But of course all this is too broad and vague to have much real truth.

:100:

https://news.mit.edu/2022/solar-desalination-system-inexpensive-0214

If you think it through, Global warming is a crisis of too much free energy, rather than not enough, so the problem is the usual one of tidying up and organising - global housework - rather than a shortage of power.

I agree with you these might have a small place in the green energy network and hopefully the efficiency might be improved a little.

If I was king of the world, though, my pet project would be solar powered desalination plants in N Africa, Chile, etc, wherever there is a seaside desert, providing lubrication for natural photosynthesis. Greening the desert looks to be a good way of directly cooling and absorbing CO2, and could eventually become self sustaining by attracting more precipitation. It could even include growing some human food for any starving humans round and about.

What you think of me, many will think of your ideas on actions regarding climate change. — schopenhauer1

People want cheap things. — schopenhauer1

That truism has no force. People also want quality things. Of course, no one wants low quality expensive anything. Of course people don't want suffering. You make a philosophy of platitudes. There is more to life than want.

I thought I was directly discussing climate change- specifically, the general mechanism for the inertia you are seeing. — schopenhauer1

Oh, well in that case, you are wrong. Covid has clearly shown that most people are very willing to make quite radical changes and sacrifices as long as they feel they are doing it to help others in a time of crisis and we are all acting together. So the problem is not that people are just greedy and uncaring.

Hey we all care about something. — schopenhauer1

Of course we do. This thread is about climate change. Anyone else care about that? Or shall we tell a few jokes and shoot the breeze?

How do you expect people to care about anything further than that? — schopenhauer1

I don't expect other people to care. But I care. that's all. I'm just some guy railing about what I care about. Nothing for you to concern yourself about.

"Fuck off, you self-satisfied, ignorant blow hard!"

Mickey Mouse.

Okey dokey. — frank

It really isn't at all okey dokey, pardn'r. It’s a scandal, an outrage, and a looming catastrophe. And you are gaily peddling ignorant bollocks. Your vacuous posts are literally lethal, because people are already dying while your denials and prevarications continue to impede agreement.

Your body is a heat generator. The earth isn't. — frank

It is, as a matter of fact, but the warming comes mostly from the sun; but the insulating effect is comparable, particularly in the way that it takes some time for the insulation to have an effect. Stop defending the indefensible for god's sake! You keep the coat on and the heat gradually builds up. and it works the same when you insulate a planet in such a way that the radiant heat can get in, but the lower energy emitted heat cannot get out.

It wouldn't get any warmer if it stayed the same. — frank

So once you've put your coat on, you don't get any warmer unless you keep putting more coats on?

If anyone was really afraid of him, he'd be dead already. — frank

That's Putinworthy!

Chapter 6. The Primary Algebra.

J1. $\left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, p \,}}\! \right|p \,}}\! \right|$= .

J2. $\left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, pr \,}}\! \right|\left. {\overline {\, qr \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right|$ = $\left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, p \,}}\! \right|\left. {\overline {\, q \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right| r$

T8 & T9 now become J1 &J2 the foundations for some new developments, after a bit more housekeeping.

C1. $\left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, a \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right| = a$

I had to struggle to follow with this one. I found the condensed version clearer, and by going through the steps and noting down the substitutions for each line, I just about got there. Except I don't understand why not use the two substitutions for a, as was done for earlier proofs? Anyone?