[MD] The MOQ difference

Mon Oct 11 11:34:40 PDT 2010

Okay, 1 straight question arises, You do not have to answer it, i will not
hold it against you.

Is the bible the highest pattern of value?(in your expirience)-is it a
pattern of value?

If it is , for you, i will still have respect for you,but we will not
discuss religion itself, i will always remain my position as
agnoticus.

Pff, Krimels kreed, we use the word credo, i will never make it my
credo,"shit happens" or "chaos rules", i tend to derive my credo's from
reality itself.From the books , the works, science, art.

The word randomness gaught my attention, i think its better to stay carefull
with words like that, before you know it,
we will be using words as notingness,wholeness, randomness,ending up in
sillyness, like with Ham's homebrew-crap.
Hamptiness?...djeezz.Loch ness? valueless?

Can you pay attention to the first question?
greetz, Adrie

2010/10/11 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>

> Well fine, Adrie.  If you insist...
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Hawking, quote on fine tuning,..
> >
> > Along with Thomas Hertog at CERN, in 2006 Hawking proposed a theory of
> > "top-down cosmology," which says that the universe had no unique initial
> > state, and therefore it is inappropriate for physicists to attempt to
> > formulate a theory that predicts the universe's current configuration
> from
> > one particular initial state.[20]
>
>
>
> John:  Ok, very interesting, yes.  My problem?  The same I have always with
> authoritative expertise.  I'm sure the man himself would be thoughtful and
> careful in his formulation, offering his theories as just those - theories.
> But so often the expert's theories became the body politic's dogma.
> Hawking's ideas are interesting in contributing to a certain dialogue.
>  They
> are not interesting  when they bring the dialogue to a close.  Like there
> is
> no philosophy anymore because it's all been figured out by the experts who
> are most quoted on tv, and we have no need for it.  Thanks.  We don't need
> to think, all we need to do is believe what they say on the discover
> history
> channel.  Or in my ma's case, 3abn - the adventist broadcasting network.
> Lord save us.
>
>
>
> >   [[[[ Top-down cosmology posits that in
> > some sense, the present "selects" the past from a superposition of many
> > possible histories.
>
>
> Which makes no difference at all, since all it tells us is what we already
> know - this is the universe we're stuck with.  What possible pragmatic
> reality can "unrealized choices" offer?  What possible difference can such
> speculations make to me?  A man living in the realizable cosmos and asking
> simple questions?  Lemme know about this one I'm in.  Unrealized
> possibilites sounds like angels and pins to my ears.
>
> I don't care about possible histories.  I want to know about real ones.  I
> want the real story, not the blind alleys.
>
>
> In doing so, the theory suggests a possible resolution
> > of the fine-tuning question: It is inevitable that we find our universe's
> > present physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those
> > past histories that led to the present conditions. ]]]]]]In this way,
> >
>
>
>  I've heard tautologies before.  I know what the solipsistic cosmos looks
> like.  I've had it described to me many times.  I ain't buyin'.  Here's
> why.  It's facile.  Reality is the way it is because it just is... I admit
> it has a certain attraction to it, in its kindergarten way.  But
> personally,
> I like my metaphysical formulation with just a bit more meat.   For of
> course, one could reason that in a cosmos of infinite choice, and this (who
> we are) obvious outcome, then we only need postulate infinity going
> backwards, with just the slightest chance (probability rules!) and that
> postulated probability becomes well nigh inevitable.  I've heard it before.
> I remember Krimel's Kreed.  I know what the metaphysics of arising
> randomness gets you.  For some people it's like a security blanket,
> protecting their tender little psyche from the cold.  For others, a
> straitjacket, a prison, a downward spiraling hell of no return.
>
> shivers.
>
> I'm for sunnier climes, me.  Give Steven H. my regards.
>
>
>
>
> > top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find
> > ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking an
> > ensemble of multiple universes.
> >
> >
>
> I'm still quite fond of the biocentrism cosmology, which ties many of these
> loose ends together and makes sense in a practical and empirically sound
> way
> - that deep down, matter is tied to life - the whole universe is in fact,
> based upon a life principle or directional force.  Space and time are
> animal
> constructs - meaningful in narrative relations.    Value really is the
> whole
> story.
>
>
> >
> > the fine-tuning question, Answer by Hawking stephen.
> > TOTAL HARMONY WITH THE ANTROPIC PRINCIPLE, (not entropic)
> >
> > ISOLATED BETWEEN HOOKS
> >
> >
> >
> > Adrie, one has no obligation to accept it , but if you think of it , the
> > briljance in the line is just incredible.
> > and i have to give him credit for his black hole evaporation work.
> >
> > Greetz, Adrie
> >
>
>
> Well, I've been wheeling my ma around.  I admire him for his snazzy chair.
> And I'm glad he agrees with the total harmony with the anthropic principle.
> I also agree completely.  I just hope they keep the story straight, is all.
>
>
> John
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>

-- 
parser