OK I think all that GSB is saying in that paragraph, in simplified terms, is that re-entry doesn't allow us to use the arithmetic to solve for the value of an expression because re-entry creates an infinite sequence which doesn't allow us to substitute the marked or unmarked state for all cases within an expression (given that the expression is infinite). — Moliere

I think that's right.

We see, in such a case, that the theorems of representation no longer hold, since the arithmetical value of e' is not, in every possible case of a, b, uniquely determined. — P 57

Reentry produces kind of fractal/recursive infinity. The last case of P.56 that you had problems with produces an indeterminate value, and this means that when there is reentry, the calculus cannot always reach a determinate answer. Could be flip, or could be flop for example, or could be oscillating. The algebra still works, but the re-entered expression 'f' cannot be substituted by mark and then by no mark and then, 'there is no other case'; now there are other cases.

Perhaps like Christianity, Marxism too has not been tried because it was found difficult.

There is no problem — Ali Hosein

Oh, good.

I assume that blind people live in the same reality as me. And bees likewise.

The reality that you perceive as honey is probably completely different from the reality that the bee perceives as its product. — Ali Hosein

How would you know? You're not even in my reality.

The reality of light for us is completely different from the reality of light for bees, but maybe if we could understand the language of bees! He probably acknowledged with us the fact that there is something, even if the reality is different for both of us. — Ali Hosein

This may be your reality, but my reality is different. In my reality, bees do not talk to me or tell me about their access to light. They are too busy making honey. But i find it it easier and clearer to say that bees and I experience the same reality differently. We both see the same flowers differently, and eat the same honey differently. I have mine on toast.

Reminds me of that G.K. Chesterton quote: — Tom Storm

Chesterton is an old favourite, very human and a great writer. But the Christianity he was talking about is not a system at all. In the hypothetical evolutionary marketplace of social systems, forgiveness, and love cannot compete with rape and pillage. Here is a fable.

An idea arose and became ubiquitous in Europe, beginning in Britain especially, that combined empiricism and rationality in a form that excluded morality and feelings. It was called "science". This philosophy discounted empathy entirely and as it became dominant, state sponsored piracy developed into an industrialised slave trade and worldwide exploitation that led to the industrial revolution as commodities became more and more plentiful. The modern US and Canada are of course off-shoots of this global exploitation that encompassed The americas and the Caribbean, almost the whole of Africa, India, Australia, NewZealand, large parts of the far East, and the subjugation though never the conquest of China. This triumphant system can be be called "Utter Ruthlessness", or "The British Empire" or "The White Man's Burden" and has been adopted by every other country as the only way to survive in a world where it has arisen. The only weakness is that the lack of all feeling allows it to literally destroy the whole of the global environment on which it depends.

What makes anyone think that there is a system that works? What even is the measure or criterion of 'working'? What constitutes failure? Are you and yours the measure of success?

I don’t know if perspective is a concept at all; it’s more that perspective provides a necessary ground for any concept. Certainly in non-dualism there is awareness of states of ‘contentless consciousness’ (nirvikalpa samadhi) but not having realized such states then yes, I am still a dualist. It’s the human condition, I’m afraid. And as such I have to use reasoned argument to point to that which is beyond it. That is all philosophy is good for, as far as I’m concerned. — Wayfarer

I watched the "is reality real?" vid in your notes, and the arguments there were all towards indirect realism, which posits a Kantian objective reality to which we do not have access except via 'constructive' senses. What I was hoping for, but the above comment seems to deny me, is an inversion of that, such that the constructed sensed world is the real, of which the 'objective world is a mere abstraction:— that just because we are participants in the unfolding of the world, we have direct access to it, and the objective world is an impoverished world that 'works' but does not 'care'.

It just wouldn't work with imaginary forgeries would it? Everyone would notice.

Are you joking? this link is wine shop website! — Ali Hosein

A joke, but it got you the attention and a proper answer.

Alas, I find myself stuck again at the same place as last time. I think i understand how re-entry introduces time and square wave oscillation, and sort of how more than one re-entry is required for two oscillating values to cancel out to produce an imaginary value. But then it all becomes incomprehensible circuitry, and I cannot find the reality of the theory or the theory of reality any more.

Halfway down P.65 at "Modulator function" I just stop following. E4 is just too complicated and too big a jump for me, and I cannot recognise its translation into what is looking much like a simplified circuit diagram. I can just about see the translation of the example without re-entry bottom of P.66 and top of P.67. I have been hoping that someone could help me out at this point with the translation of E4, and then its further implementation using imaginary values.

Illusions are real.
Hallucinations are real.
Fantasies are real.
Copies and forgeries are real.
Appearances are real.

What would human life be like if we never had to work? — T Clark

The devil would make some work for idle hands.
Or in modern parlance, ennui leads to mindless violence and destruction, much bombing etc, until there is some work to do clearing up and fixing things. :sad:

The one true religion obviously does not conflict with true science, because the truth cannot be contradictory.

It's all the false religions and all the pseudo science that conflict. :wink:

Its a big long book about one word. The authors arrive at a list of about 16 different definitions in use by "reputable philosophers" not counting its use in phrases like "the meaning of life", mentioned in the op, which they dismiss as meaningless.

I had a peek and that was enough, thank you. — Amity

A sign of wisdom! A book defining a word uses several thousand other words, each requiring a similar book length analysis to establish the meaning of. For the wise, a peek is enough, the very foolish like me have to read the whole book, and complete idiots have to start all over again on the exact same damn word.

You'll have to read the book to find out.

Try telling AI to start a new 'school of art'. What is happening is industrial plagiarism, and industrial forgery. It has an empty feel because it is clever copying and there is nothing creative happening. That does not mean it is possible to tell the difference, though. Plagiarism and forgery have long traditions too and can already be hard to impossible to detect. So it goes. Art has survived printing and photography, it will probably survive this.

the Meaning of Meaning.

Read the book O ye lovers of definition, and despair.

The existence of God. — A Realist

Some people think God is real, and some people think God is unreal, and they are all correct?

something can be real to me but not real to someone else. — A Realist

What everyone else is getting at is that reality is that about which one can be deceived. So in the case where what is real to you is unreal to me, at least one of us is deceived. But if you are suggesting that something can really be real to you and really be unreal to me, then I think you must be confused.

$400 an hour seems like a very reasonable rate for an expert's time.

Do you expect Montana to not use any expert witnesses to support their case? How much money do you think California has spent promoting climate alarmism?

The lawyers for the Montana youth, who first filed their complaint in 2020, intend to bring a dozen expert witnesses to the stand. — Agree-to-Disagree

Now I see how it works! One maverick retired scientist is a honest Joe getting fairly paid, but a dozen is a venal conspiracy. You must be right because everyone disagrees.

Your thoughts remind me of the Tao Te Ching. Also, Zen. — Amity

Yeah, my mind has been infected since almost forever

Creativity. Its source and process seem to involve a letting go. — Amity

Yes indeed, the source is the process of letting go. The idea of freedom becomes confused and confusing because it is a buzz-word that everyone wants to claim, but to the extent that anyone succeeds in claiming it, they are succeeding in enslaving freedom itself. Whatever one holds onto becomes a tether, even the idea of freedom: "Therefore the sage lets go of that, and chooses this."

Anyone who knows anything about Taoist or Zen practice though will not mistake this for a descent into mere chaos. On the contrary, the discipline is very austere, the responsibilities are great. Likewise, it takes a really disciplined and masterful musician to play free jazz.



:100:

Kevin Trenberth — Agree-to-Disagree

Chris Hipkins and Chris Luxon were both asked about climate change at the end of the leaders' debate this week, and neither response was helpful.

Both talked about cutting emissions – and in a personal capacity, recycling – but neither addressed the most important issue staring us in the face, and that is recognising that climate change is here, it is accelerating and getting worse, and it has consequences. We must adapt to the changes, plan for them and build resilience, and we need to do so urgently. — Trenberth et al.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/beyond-recycling-what-to-do-about-climate-change

Since the late 1800s, global average surface temperatures have increased by about 1.1℃, driven by human activities, most notably the burning of fossil fuels which adds greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane) to the atmosphere.

As the atmosphere warms, it can hold more moisture in the form of water vapour, which is also a greenhouse gas. This in turn amplifies the warming caused by our emissions of other greenhouse gases.

Some people mistakenly believe water vapour is a driver of Earth’s current warming. But as I explain below, water vapour is part of Earth’s hydrological cycle and plays an important role in the natural greenhouse effect. Its rise is a consequence of the atmospheric warming caused by our emissions arising especially from burning fossil fuels. — Trenberth

https://theconversation.com/how-rising-water-vapour-in-the-atmosphere-is-amplifying-warming-and-making-extreme-weather-worse-213347

To address climate change threats in New Zealand will require more than mobilising private investment with a focus on renewable energy. It will need a comprehensive and collaborative approach that acknowledges dependencies on shipping and air travel, which continue to depend on fossil fuels.

Here are ten broad areas that must be considered when tackling the specific and sometimes unique challenges New Zealand faces in the years ahead. — Trenberth

https://theconversation.com/meeting-the-long-term-climate-threat-takes-more-than-private-investment-10-ways-nz-can-be-smart-and-strategic-211100

And the ten point plan that follows is quite radical, sensible and doable without waiting for the magic bullet that is only decades away.

Judith Curry is a genuine climate scientist. — Agree-to-Disagree

But in this case, of course, Do not follow the money.

https://www.desmog.com/2023/05/15/judith-curry-denier-montana-climate-trial/

Ambitious. — jorndoe

Pipe dream. a literal pipe dream. Two of them in fact. Hydrogen and fusion. Instead of taking action, fantasise about the magic bullet we will have in ten or twenty years. Maybe.

Instead of

Agriculture reform.
transport system reorganisation
building redesign
development of green energy sources and infrastructure including mass storage, using already available technology.

But , can you not see the graphs going up? That means things are getting better, because nearer to God.

Kierkegaard argues that the personal is fundamentally different from other categories to the point where psychology, as the attempt to generally understand the human condition, must give way to the theological. But his view is sharply at odds with a Stoicism that carefully marks out the borders between the regions. He clearly expects to change what is possible in the world. — Paine

Thanks for that. I think I need to read some Kierkegaard. No one seems to argue with him - perhaps it's the intimidating Big Guy standing at his shoulder. It seems obvious that people are not in general single-minded, and so there is a sense in which that freedom one seeks is the freedom from mental conflict (as illustrated by @petrichor above).

"... expects to change what is possible in the world." This! Evolution does it very slowly and laboriously The disciplined imagination of the architect or the engineer does it in almost no time. If there is a technical meaning to freedom, it must I think be that the future is underdetermined by the past. There is wriggle room. And the wriggle room seems to grow, as life complexifies - like a final frontier.

I guess my question is, do you think your definition of freedom collapses into contradiction. If not, why? In what ways does definiteness not result in constraint? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think I have defined it, except negatively. Even in mechanics this applies; the 'free' wheel is the one that is not tied by belt or gear but can move in- dependently. One cannot from that say what it will do.
There is necessarily restriction implied by the finitude of human beings; lambs gambol in an ecstasy of freedom, but they do not fly.

For humans, I think the limit of individual freedom is the limit of individual responsibility. they are, psychologically, two sides of one coin. To be totally free is to take total responsibility for the world. This is how i would account for morality, while keeping it personal. So it is not my business to tell you what is moral, that would be to usurp your freedom; but in drawing that line I am taking responsibility for you even while you are free to be irresponsible.

I am aware that this is not very clear, but I am at the limits of both my understanding and my ability to communicate. So I will have to leave it there, unsatisfactory though it is. I will go quiet and read along and see if anything gets any clearer.

That source that you're pulling from, that conservative Christian think tank, has received nearly a million dollars from Exxon mobile. Let's follow that money. — flannel jesus

The pot calling the ice cream-maker black. Reminds me of the sexual morality of the Catholic church.

Thanks! My theory is that every thread should have a theme tune, because communication requires and assists a community to come together, and music is the food of love. :wink:

We definitely need to follow the climate change money. — Agree-to-Disagree

So follow it. Try not to keep going in a circle though.

Freedom is when we do what we want to do. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, you said that, and then you said it is when we avoid doing what we don't want to do, and then t
you said it is when we do what we think to do.

I disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanical." Thought is mechanical to the degree that nature as a whole is "mechanical." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why do you think that? I say thought is mechanical because it is binary (true or false) operates with opposites and the nearest it can come to freedom is 'choice'. But choice is just an unresolved conflict. whereas freedom is beyond thought, it is the new.

The idea of self-tyranny or slavery to one’s thoughts and desires is an odd one because one cannot be a slave to himself, both master and slave at the same time. — NOS4A2

It is an odd idea. But the ideas of slave and master are already very odd. But one experiences things, and then finds ways to talk about them. Men put other men in chains and beat them if they do not obey. One learns to obey, because one cannot escape.

One is enslaved by the master, but one is enslaved equally by one's fear of a beating. And if the slave is enslaved by his fear, the master is also enslaved by his desire. The master is addicted to power and luxury, and his fear is that the slaves will revolt and enslave him in turn and beat him. This is the story of unfreedom, of being a slave to desire and fear. This is the life of a well trained dog; this is not freedom for slave or for master. So it seems that no one can be free, while another is a slave - maybe one day...

Here is an interesting article to read :grin: — Agree-to-Disagree

It's not interesting. It doesn't follow the money. The only fact is that the government is spending money on climate research (and presumably on mitigation measures, but the distinction is not made). But there is no explanation of any financial incentive for anyone to persuade the government to act in this way. government is creating research, and government is creating a green industry , and these new industries are creating the crisis? It doesn't make 'follow the money' sense because no one has a money motive for doing it. Why invest in green energy rather than oil? Not a hint of a tint of an answer. No financial motive even suggested for any conspiracy.

Established financial interests can and do conspire to distort science and influence governments Oil industry, tobacco industry, pharmaceuticals, agro chemicals. Where is the financial interest in your conspiracy? There is none, because there is none you have mentioned, and there is none in the feeble article you cited. Because all the industries that might have such interests have been created by the supposed conspiracy they are supposed to have conspired to create.

It's nonsense on stilts, and straight out of the kindergarten playground of unimaginative reflecting of complaints with zero attention to good sense. It has become the tactic of first resort these days.

"The oil industry is cheating."
" No, the green industry is cheating."

The first claim is supported by motive, leaked documentary evidence, campaign funds records etc etc. The second has nothing. not even a suspect to accuse.

How are we free unless our actions are ruled by our thoughts, unless we act for a reason? Surely, completely arbitrary action isn't freedom, right? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you think that anything that is not thought is arbitrary? I would say rather that thought is mechanical, and not free at all. You see I suggested that desire controlled us and you replaced it with fear. and now it is thought. It seems to me that freedom is what you want rid of, what you want to control and fix. But freedom isn't like that; from freedom comes the new, whereas desire and fear and thought are always about the past. Freedom is the unknown, and the unthought. It is creativity.

we might think some circumstances we find in something approaching a "state of nature," for mankind are not good: widespread food insecurity, constant band level warfare, thralldom and slavery for the vanquished, male relatives exerting undue control over their female relatives' romantic relationships, infanticide etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We do think it, and we are ruled by that thinking. But what of freedom?

My suggestion is that freedom is the starting place, and we immediately make rules about it.

The more we know, the more we are able to shape states of affairs such that circumstances we desire obtain. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or we could try shaping our desires to the circumstances.

But personally, I prefer to leave things the shape they are, and not be a slave to circumstance or desire.

Well there's some Orgs spending money, but are they making money? you know like Big Oil, and Big Pharma? Show me the commercial interests distorting the science, not governments responding to a crisis. There's a big difference.

Do I need to make the argument that conspiracies of the poor and powerless are not worth worrying about?