• Salmon on the Thorns update

    From David Dalton@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 10 02:04:14 2021
    XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism, alt.agnosticism
    XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism

    On Mar 10, 2021, David Dalton wrote
    (in article<0001HW.25F88E09015CE4077000077AC38F@news.eternal-september.org>):

    Tonight I updated my Salmon on the Thorns webpage
    for the first time since November 7,

    Ha, just after I posted that it seems that nfld.com has
    gone down. I hope that will be fixed soon by an
    automatic reboot but it could be that it won’t be
    fixed until Compusult staff get to work in seven hours.
    Also it may be related to Internet access problems
    locally today/tonight, though I thought those were
    restricted to Rogers. In any case, if you try accessing
    it and it doesn’t work, try again probably after
    8 a.m. EST (1300 UTC) March 10, 2021.

    --
    David Dalton dalton@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page) https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
    "I will stare at the sun until its light doesn’t blind me
    I will walk into the fire until its heat doesn’t burn me" (S. McLachlan)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Dalton@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 10 01:48:01 2021
    XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism, alt.agnosticism
    XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism

    Tonight I updated my Salmon on the Thorns webpage
    for the first time since November 7, to reflect the fact
    that in my latest attempt Gaia (the conscious planet
    Earth) is the local chair/moderator of my workings,
    God could override this but there is no conflict between
    Gaia and God, and God is leaving this local matter
    mainly to Gaia. But God is still my top deity and
    indeed is also Gaia’s top deity. I consider Gaia
    to be a deity to me but others (especially atheists) may
    prefer to use a different term, and if they choose to
    address Gaia they do not have to consider it prayer if
    they don’t consider Gaia to be a deity to them.

    And while I am fairly confident that I have a match
    to my definition of Gaia (the conscious planet Earth)
    due to my blue rose vision pre-dawn on Sept. 6, 1991
    and due to my perineum click (short period mula
    bandha) divination, which web searches indicate
    is probably Earth-linked, I am less confident that
    I have a match to my definition of God (the ruler
    of the region all/everything). Perhaps this lack
    of confidence is somewhat on topic? :-)

    I have crossposted this partly since alt.atheism is
    being flooded with spam lately, and partly since
    my newsreader Hogwasher is having strange
    problems with alt.atheism perhaps due to the
    newsgroup article database being corrupted somehow.
    The problem (multiple copies of headers) has
    persisted even when I deleted the group and
    added it again. Hogwasher support has not
    responded to a query yet. But anyway, if anyone
    from alt.atheism is following up, perhaps leave
    also talk.atheism in the Newsgroups line so
    I will be sure to see your followup (though I know
    that is no longer possible on google groups).

    --
    David Dalton dalton@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page) https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
    "I will stare at the sun until its light doesn’t blind me
    I will walk into the fire until its heat doesn’t burn me" (S. McLachlan)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Dalton@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 10 02:09:17 2021
    XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism, alt.agnosticism
    XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism

    On Mar 10, 2021, David Dalton wrote
    (in article<0001HW.25F891D6015DC80D7000077AC38F@news.eternal-september.org>):

    On Mar 10, 2021, David Dalton wrote
    (in article<0001HW.25F88E09015CE4077000077AC38F@news.eternal-september.org>):

    Tonight I updated my Salmon on the Thorns webpage
    for the first time since November 7,

    Ha, just after I posted that it seems that nfld.com has
    gone down. I hope that will be fixed soon by an
    automatic reboot but it could be that it won’t be
    fixed until Compusult staff get to work in seven hours.
    Also it may be related to Internet access problems
    locally today/tonight, though I thought those were
    restricted to Rogers. In any case, if you try accessing
    it and it doesn’t work, try again probably after
    8 a.m. EST (1300 UTC) March 10, 2021.

    It is back up, I guess it was fixed by an automatic
    reboot.

    --
    David Dalton dalton@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page) https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
    "I will stare at the sun until its light doesn’t blind me
    I will walk into the fire until its heat doesn’t burn me" (S. McLachlan)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob Casanova@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 10 09:53:03 2021
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com>:

    What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
    Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
    religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
    the group essentially died.

    Tonight I updated my Salmon on the Thorns webpage
    for the first time since November 7, to reflect the fact
    that in my latest attempt Gaia (the conscious planet
    Earth) is the local chair/moderator of my workings,
    God could override this but there is no conflict between
    Gaia and God, and God is leaving this local matter
    mainly to Gaia. But God is still my top deity and
    indeed is also Gaias top deity. I consider Gaia
    to be a deity to me but others (especially atheists) may
    prefer to use a different term, and if they choose to
    address Gaia they do not have to consider it prayer if
    they dont consider Gaia to be a deity to them.

    And while I am fairly confident that I have a match
    to my definition of Gaia (the conscious planet Earth)
    due to my blue rose vision pre-dawn on Sept. 6, 1991
    and due to my perineum click (short period mula
    bandha) divination, which web searches indicate
    is probably Earth-linked, I am less confident that
    I have a match to my definition of God (the ruler
    of the region all/everything). Perhaps this lack
    of confidence is somewhat on topic? :-)

    I have crossposted this partly since alt.atheism is
    being flooded with spam lately, and partly since
    my newsreader Hogwasher is having strange
    problems with alt.atheism perhaps due to the
    newsgroup article database being corrupted somehow.
    The problem (multiple copies of headers) has
    persisted even when I deleted the group and
    added it again. Hogwasher support has not
    responded to a query yet. But anyway, if anyone
    from alt.atheism is following up, perhaps leave
    also talk.atheism in the Newsgroups line so
    I will be sure to see your followup (though I know
    that is no longer possible on google groups).
    --

    Bob C.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

    - Isaac Asimov

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Dalton@21:1/5 to Bob Casanova on Wed Mar 10 16:29:16 2021
    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<p5uh4gh7pglmm5c1r41v5h7benh6e3e0p1@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
    Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
    religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
    the group essentially died.

    Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
    my four components (global new age onset magickal
    workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
    that they are working, but probably as usual in the
    last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
    for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
    they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
    in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
    the paranormal.

    --
    David Dalton dalton@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page) https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
    "I will stare at the sun until its light doesn’t blind me
    I will walk into the fire until its heat doesn’t burn me" (S. McLachlan)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Dalton@21:1/5 to Bob Casanova on Wed Mar 10 18:22:10 2021
    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<fudi4g5fggb4j5m9afl54hf68fv6jgrt1v@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<p5uh4gh7pglmm5c1r41v5h7benh6e3e0p1@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
    Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
    religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
    the group essentially died.

    Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
    my four components (global new age onset magickal
    workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
    that they are working, but probably as usual in the
    last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
    for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
    they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
    in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
    the paranormal.

    Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
    "paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
    even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
    lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

    But there can be scientific skepticism of magick as well
    as of paranormal phenomena, surely?

    --
    David Dalton dalton@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page) https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
    "I will stare at the sun until its light doesn’t blind me
    I will walk into the fire until its heat doesn’t burn me" (S. McLachlan)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob Casanova@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 10 14:28:17 2021
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com>:

    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<p5uh4gh7pglmm5c1r41v5h7benh6e3e0p1@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
    Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
    religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
    the group essentially died.

    Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
    my four components (global new age onset magickal
    workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
    that they are working, but probably as usual in the
    last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
    for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
    they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
    in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
    the paranormal.

    Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
    "paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
    even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
    lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

    Be sure to demonstrate either to the appropriate objective
    observers when you succeed. *Then* come back and we can
    discuss it.

    Have a nice day.
    --

    Bob C.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

    - Isaac Asimov

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob Casanova@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 10 15:49:44 2021
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:22:10 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com>:

    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<fudi4g5fggb4j5m9afl54hf68fv6jgrt1v@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<p5uh4gh7pglmm5c1r41v5h7benh6e3e0p1@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
    Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
    religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
    the group essentially died.

    Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
    my four components (global new age onset magickal
    workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
    that they are working, but probably as usual in the
    last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
    for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
    they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
    in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
    the paranormal.

    Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
    "paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
    even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
    lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

    But there can be scientific skepticism of magick as well
    as of paranormal phenomena, surely?

    Sure. There can also be scientific skepticism of Hollow
    Earth or Flat Rarth, which have as much objective evidence
    in support as either paranormal abilities or magic(k). And
    like magic(k), they're off-topic here (although like
    religion, both have been posted here).

    Again (from the paragraph you snipped unmarked), *when*
    you've demonstrated either paranormal abilities or magic(k)
    to a group of OBJECTIVE observers, *then* come back and we
    can discuss it. Until then, I'm through with this thread.

    And again, have a nice day.
    --

    Bob C.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

    - Isaac Asimov

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Dalton@21:1/5 to R Kym Horsell on Wed Mar 10 20:12:14 2021
    On Mar 10, 2021, R Kym Horsell wrote
    (in article <s2bjve$10bk$1@gioia.aioe.org>):

    Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:22:10 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<fudi4g5fggb4j5m9afl54hf68fv6jgrt1v@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<p5uh4gh7pglmm5c1r41v5h7benh6e3e0p1@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic? Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
    the group essentially died.

    Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
    my four components (global new age onset magickal
    workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
    that they are working, but probably as usual in the
    last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
    for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
    they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
    in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
    the paranormal.

    Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
    "paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
    even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
    lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

    But there can be scientific skepticism of magick as well
    as of paranormal phenomena, surely?

    Sure. There can also be scientific skepticism of Hollow
    Earth or Flat Rarth, which have as much objective evidence
    in support as either paranormal abilities or magic(k). And
    like magic(k), they're off-topic here (although like
    religion, both have been posted here).

    Again (from the paragraph you snipped unmarked), *when*
    you've demonstrated either paranormal abilities or magic(k)
    to a group of OBJECTIVE observers, *then* come back and we
    can discuss it. Until then, I'm through with this thread.

    And again, have a nice day.

    There was a growing body of work on how "magic" works.
    IOW it exists. :)
    Human perception if flawed in various ways and certain
    procedures hack perception and traditional magicians
    have learned to take advantage of the bugs.
    One of the bugs involves interpretation of sensory inputs
    lagging so far behind the events that the brain has to fill
    in up to 1/2 a second of reality with pretend reality.
    If you're at bat and think you see the pitcher throw the ball
    and have time to swing the bat to meet it you have fallen for
    that particular perceptual trap.

    On top of that there is another growing body of work
    in QP which I've made some very mintor contribution to
    involving "probability amplification". Already some magical
    lore seemed to parallel what was later "proven" to be the
    case in quantum physics. I.e. some magic has the concept
    of "contagion" -- if 2 objects were ever in contact they can
    influence each other even when separated. In QP they call it
    "entanglement".

    Probability amplification involves manipulating a quantum
    system in superposition (i.e. "closed box") so that when
    the system is measured it is more likely to actualise
    into a given state. A simple example in QC is the Grover
    search algorithm. I found another algorithm that is
    sub-optimal but amplifies probabilities of almost
    arbitrary wave functions.

    If anything is magic that must surely be pretty close.
    Some physicists have called it the "Santa Clause" effect
    and I have written some things under the name "Aladdin's Lamp".

    I could say something about how scientific skepticism is
    possibly on the way out now there are stronger AI's that
    don't worry as much about non-monotone logics, but I have to
    leave at least *something* for later.

    Interesting, thanks.

    DRD

    --
    David Dalton dalton@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page) https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
    "I will stare at the sun until its light doesn’t blind me
    I will walk into the fire until its heat doesn’t burn me" (S. McLachlan)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From R Kym Horsell@21:1/5 to Bob Casanova on Wed Mar 10 23:15:59 2021
    Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:22:10 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com>:

    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<fudi4g5fggb4j5m9afl54hf68fv6jgrt1v@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<p5uh4gh7pglmm5c1r41v5h7benh6e3e0p1@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
    Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
    religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
    the group essentially died.

    Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
    my four components (global new age onset magickal
    workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
    that they are working, but probably as usual in the
    last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
    for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
    they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
    in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
    the paranormal.

    Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
    "paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
    even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
    lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

    But there can be scientific skepticism of magick as well
    as of paranormal phenomena, surely?

    Sure. There can also be scientific skepticism of Hollow
    Earth or Flat Rarth, which have as much objective evidence
    in support as either paranormal abilities or magic(k). And
    like magic(k), they're off-topic here (although like
    religion, both have been posted here).

    Again (from the paragraph you snipped unmarked), *when*
    you've demonstrated either paranormal abilities or magic(k)
    to a group of OBJECTIVE observers, *then* come back and we
    can discuss it. Until then, I'm through with this thread.

    And again, have a nice day.

    There was a growing body of work on how "magic" works.
    IOW it exists. :)
    Human perception if flawed in various ways and certain
    procedures hack perception and traditional magicians
    have learned to take advantage of the bugs.
    One of the bugs involves interpretation of sensory inputs
    lagging so far behind the events that the brain has to fill
    in up to 1/2 a second of reality with pretend reality.
    If you're at bat and think you see the pitcher throw the ball
    and have time to swing the bat to meet it you have fallen for
    that particular perceptual trap.

    On top of that there is another growing body of work
    in QP which I've made some very mintor contribution to
    involving "probability amplification". Already some magical
    lore seemed to parallel what was later "proven" to be the
    case in quantum physics. I.e. some magic has the concept
    of "contagion" -- if 2 objects were ever in contact they can
    influence each other even when separated. In QP they call it
    "entanglement".

    Probability amplification involves manipulating a quantum
    system in superposition (i.e. "closed box") so that when
    the system is measured it is more likely to actualise
    into a given state. A simple example in QC is the Grover
    search algorithm. I found another algorithm that is
    sub-optimal but amplifies probabilities of almost
    arbitrary wave functions.

    If anything is magic that must surely be pretty close.
    Some physicists have called it the "Santa Clause" effect
    and I have written some things under the name "Aladdin's Lamp".

    I could say something about how scientific skepticism is
    possibly on the way out now there are stronger AI's that
    don't worry as much about non-monotone logics, but I have to
    leave at least *something* for later.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From R Kym Horsell@21:1/5 to David Dalton on Thu Mar 11 00:34:18 2021
    David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com> wrote:
    ...
    Interesting, thanks.
    DRD

    The world as (incompletely! :) described by quantum physics
    is pretty magical. It's everyday that things pop in and out of
    existence, walk through walls, appear at times and places where
    they are supposedly "forbidden", a property of one thing is transferred to another seemingly incompatible object and made to stick, or even
    disembodied properties removed from an object and shuffled around
    from place to place.

    It doesnt matter this applies to a sub sub microscropic arena
    because various processes amplify it and make it visible "all the time".

    It's the mundane world we think we understood from classical
    natural science, geometry and reasoning -- if a puppy goes behind a
    screen and doesn't seem to leave from either side so we assume it's
    still there -- that is the amazing one and needs explaining! :)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phase3@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 2 00:46:53 2021
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 20:12:14 -0330, David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com>
    wrote:

    On Mar 10, 2021, R Kym Horsell wrote
    (in article <s2bjve$10bk$1@gioia.aioe.org>):

    Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:22:10 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<fudi4g5fggb4j5m9afl54hf68fv6jgrt1v@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:29:16 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    On Mar 10, 2021, Bob Casanova wrote
    (in article<p5uh4gh7pglmm5c1r41v5h7benh6e3e0p1@4ax.com>):

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:48:01 -0330, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com>:

    What made you think that this is on-topic for sci.skeptic?
    Sci.skeptic is about claims of the paranormal, *not* about
    religion, and this post looks like a prime example of why
    the group essentially died.

    Well, the web page, in its Recent Changes subpage, outlines
    my four components (global new age onset magickal
    workings) and I hope there will be evidence soon
    that they are working, but probably as usual in the
    last number of years there will be a lack of evidence
    for them and some evidence against them. So anyway
    they are not strictly religion though I do invoke Gaia
    in my latest attempt, but have elements of magick and
    the paranormal.

    Apparently you have the mistaken impression that the term
    "paranormal" is somehow related to "magic(k)". It's not,
    even though both refer to apparently nonexistent (due to
    lack of objective evidence) phenomena.

    But there can be scientific skepticism of magick as well
    as of paranormal phenomena, surely?

    Sure. There can also be scientific skepticism of Hollow
    Earth or Flat Rarth, which have as much objective evidence
    in support as either paranormal abilities or magic(k). And
    like magic(k), they're off-topic here (although like
    religion, both have been posted here).

    Again (from the paragraph you snipped unmarked), *when*
    you've demonstrated either paranormal abilities or magic(k)
    to a group of OBJECTIVE observers, *then* come back and we
    can discuss it. Until then, I'm through with this thread.

    And again, have a nice day.

    There was a growing body of work on how "magic" works.
    IOW it exists. :)
    Human perception if flawed in various ways and certain
    procedures hack perception and traditional magicians
    have learned to take advantage of the bugs.
    One of the bugs involves interpretation of sensory inputs
    lagging so far behind the events that the brain has to fill
    in up to 1/2 a second of reality with pretend reality.
    If you're at bat and think you see the pitcher throw the ball
    and have time to swing the bat to meet it you have fallen for
    that particular perceptual trap.

    On top of that there is another growing body of work
    in QP which I've made some very mintor contribution to
    involving "probability amplification". Already some magical
    lore seemed to parallel what was later "proven" to be the
    case in quantum physics. I.e. some magic has the concept
    of "contagion" -- if 2 objects were ever in contact they can
    influence each other even when separated. In QP they call it
    "entanglement".

    Probability amplification involves manipulating a quantum
    system in superposition (i.e. "closed box") so that when
    the system is measured it is more likely to actualise
    into a given state. A simple example in QC is the Grover
    search algorithm. I found another algorithm that is
    sub-optimal but amplifies probabilities of almost
    arbitrary wave functions.

    If anything is magic that must surely be pretty close.
    Some physicists have called it the "Santa Clause" effect
    and I have written some things under the name "Aladdin's Lamp".

    I could say something about how scientific skepticism is
    possibly on the way out now there are stronger AI's that
    don't worry as much about non-monotone logics, but I have to
    leave at least *something* for later.

    Interesting, thanks.

    Hmm ... so AI is going to support theology ?

    Interesting, thanks.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From R Kym Horsell@21:1/5 to p3@3spiracy.net on Fri Apr 2 06:58:12 2021
    Phase3 <p3@3spiracy.net> wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 20:12:14 -0330, David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com>
    ...

    Hmm ... so AI is going to support theology ?
    Interesting, thanks.

    Why not. Even atheistic philosophers agree there's a chance
    the univrese is a construct and we're all here to help some
    higher civilization work out a town planning problem.

    If it involves reasoning with rules whether there are observations
    to play with or not, AI could provide tools that can keep track
    of all the details are what is beleived to possibly be true
    and give us a day-by-day update on what is most likely true,
    rather than having to continue to pretense we know some things
    are absolutely true and others are absolutely false and we
    can tell the difference.

    I'm thinking AI tools could generate a leap in thinking with
    essentially a higher-order kind of bookkeeping that compilers
    provided with their handling of register and other machine resource
    allocations to free up programmers to actually solve the problems
    at hand rather than spending hours of thinking time figuring
    how to ask the machinery their question.

    I would love to write more but there's a college ball game on the tivvy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From R Kym Horsell@21:1/5 to p3@3spiracy.net on Sat Apr 3 04:10:36 2021
    Phase3 <p3@3spiracy.net> wrote:
    On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 06:58:12 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
    <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
    Phase3 <p3@3spiracy.net> wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 20:12:14 -0330, David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com>
    ...
    Hmm ... so AI is going to support theology ?
    Interesting, thanks.
    Why not. Even atheistic philosophers agree there's a chance
    the univrese is a construct and we're all here to help some
    higher civilization work out a town planning problem.
    Who constructed the constructors ? If THEY could
    "just come to be" then so can anything else.

    So you're saying a program (e.g. our universe)
    can't be written because it involves an infinite regress? :)

    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phase3@21:1/5 to kym@kymhorsell.com on Fri Apr 2 23:26:55 2021
    On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 06:58:12 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
    <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:

    Phase3 <p3@3spiracy.net> wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 20:12:14 -0330, David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com>
    ...

    Hmm ... so AI is going to support theology ?
    Interesting, thanks.

    Why not. Even atheistic philosophers agree there's a chance
    the univrese is a construct and we're all here to help some
    higher civilization work out a town planning problem.

    Who constructed the constructors ? If THEY could
    "just come to be" then so can anything else.


    If it involves reasoning with rules whether there are observations
    to play with or not, AI could provide tools that can keep track
    of all the details are what is beleived to possibly be true
    and give us a day-by-day update on what is most likely true,
    rather than having to continue to pretense we know some things
    are absolutely true and others are absolutely false and we
    can tell the difference.

    "AI", as we know it now, is easily biased - even
    unconsciously - by the data used to educate
    the system and the way the system is designed
    to derive its "truths".

    In short, an electronic theist is, at best, no more
    reliable than the wetware versions.

    Of course since it's electronic it will be deemed by
    many to be "better" somehow - the "white coat
    authority" thing. "Hi, I'm not a doctor but I dress
    like one in this commercial - and I know you'll
    believe me when I say that Oxycontin is the
    solution to all your ills ...."


    I'm thinking AI tools could generate a leap in thinking with
    essentially a higher-order kind of bookkeeping that compilers
    provided with their handling of register and other machine resource >allocations to free up programmers to actually solve the problems
    at hand rather than spending hours of thinking time figuring
    how to ask the machinery their question.


    Much MUCH later, "AI" may finally evolve far enough to
    offer useful practical and philosphical perspectives.
    As of now it has no "existence", no link or stake in the
    real universe, no sort of consciousness. Biologicals are
    born "connected" - we are of, we FEEL, reality.

    Of course, such an "AI" is no longer "artificial" .....

    I would love to write more but there's a college ball game on the tivvy.

    Well, priorities :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phase3@21:1/5 to kym@kymhorsell.com on Sat Apr 3 23:04:55 2021
    On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 04:10:36 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
    <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:

    Phase3 <p3@3spiracy.net> wrote:
    On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 06:58:12 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
    <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
    Phase3 <p3@3spiracy.net> wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 20:12:14 -0330, David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com>
    ...
    Hmm ... so AI is going to support theology ?
    Interesting, thanks.
    Why not. Even atheistic philosophers agree there's a chance
    the univrese is a construct and we're all here to help some
    higher civilization work out a town planning problem.
    Who constructed the constructors ? If THEY could
    "just come to be" then so can anything else.

    So you're saying a program (e.g. our universe)
    can't be written because it involves an infinite regress? :)

    That actually may be the case - and don't forget
    the Incompleteness theorum. There will always be
    a flaw, a hole, something that cannot be processed
    which will spread its influence to everything else.

    And so far as "creators" or "programmers" go then
    yes, infinite regress becomes a HUGE issue.

    Or do you plan to say "Turtles all the way down" ?

    So forget the Easy Way Out, really Deep Shit is
    involved here.

    Now a programmer-LESS universe, a massively
    parallel machine made of superstrings, might have
    a slightly better chance. There would still be the
    uncomputable, but the problem of programmer of
    the programmer of the programmer goes away.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From none) (albert@21:1/5 to p3@3spiracy.net on Wed Jun 23 12:06:59 2021
    In article <s8ei6gtovagj55f1kosa6qbrbfhl71to0v@4ax.com>,
    Phase3 <p3@3spiracy.net> wrote:
    <SNIP>

    That actually may be the case - and don't forget
    the Incompleteness theorum. There will always be
    a flaw, a hole, something that cannot be processed
    which will spread its influence to everything else.

    Goedel is not applicable to this universe, because
    actual infinity is a fiction, not a physical reality.
    The universe is vulnerable to the weak completeness theorem.
    It says that the universe doesn't contain enough facilities
    to predict its own future, which is almost obvious, even
    before quantum mechanics.

    Groetjes Albert
    --
    "in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
    alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
    die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
    albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)