I went to the German Green Party page once and they have a comment section. But they have a "Schmuddelecke" for idiots and racists like this Anonymous Coward. Maybe/. should filter the real clowns out.
Many orders of magnitude to go before we sleep...
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 2
I'm always amused by math/physics people who think they've "fathomed the mind of God". I'm not particularly religious, but it's quite obvious that if--according to the Bible/Torah/whathaveyou--God is an omnipresent being, then, by definition, an omnipresent being doesn't use human math or physics. Why not? Well, if you're simultaneously all nodes and each node, you don't need to add, subtract, multiply etc. nodes. You simply "know"--in a simultaneous way. There is no "here and there" for God, and "here and there" is the logical bedrock upon which all human senses and theories lie. When math and physics get beyond this primitive stage of generalizing and remote sensing vis-a-vis here and there, and begin to create a "simultaneous math", then I'll listen. There obviously must be "Eselbruecken" (crutches, crib sheets) to simultaneous math as it would undoubtedly be virtually incomprehensible to normal thinking. I'm fairly sure it exists, since many things beg it, such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. So does meaningful progress on gravity theory, as well as many quantum phenomena that seem to defy point-to-point communication with simultaneousness. Wake me up when we get there....
Everything done in the free market system has at its base an undervalued resource with a very low and very stable price. Marxists screamed for years about the undervalued "worker", and now when we say $1.50/gallon of gas is "too much", we've obviously cut the odometer cable to reality: THERE'S LESS AND LESS OIL EACH DAY! OF COURSE THE PRICE WILL (NOW OR LATER) GO UP!!!.And of course all the people who value-add to oil will sooner or later not be able to hit their price points, and inflation will soar. But with the Internet and IT in general, there is no cheaply-had base resource with which we can play games. IT work is expensive. There are no Mexican crop pickers or cheap Arab oil in the computer business. And the Internet gives only advertisements or subscriptions (if you're not an on-line store) as possible revenue sources--and of course, both are proving to be failures. An historian (whose name I forget) was interviewed on CSPAN about her new book. She is famous as a researcher. She was asked how much of her book's material came from the Internet. Some, she replied, but the majority--especially the good stuff--came from conventional (and pricey) sources. She went on to say that she was supported by grants, and that book sales would not come close to covering the cost of the book. I got a few things from her: 1) the Internet is hit-and-miss, 2) there is no real market on the free Internet for serious information value-adding, 3) Information is not and never will be a cheap base resource upon which to stack big money-making value-adding. This leaves the Internet's only contribution to the business-to-consumer market as the electronic version of the shopping mall. There it will probably fly, even well. But there's probably not much outside of the e-store that will work capitalistically-speaking. (Yet again) I have spoken....
...by Beck, Boehme, Dziadzka, Kunitz, Mangnus, and Verworner (second edition). Wish we'd use it, because it's cover to cover Linux kernel and OS in general.
I am not German but I play one when we choose up sides and play war here in the neighborhood.... Geek might be Fachidiot, which usually means idiot savant, but is rarely used in the medical way, but instead used to describe someone who is hard after some narrow field of study or work--to the exclusion of all else. Actually, I'm curious about Computerkultur in Germany. I know they don't have the stark Dilbert v. Pointy-haired Boss dynamic as much as we Amis do. Anyone out there can enlighten me....
Too bad...My suggestion was Klaus-Dieter Von dem Ast. Klaus-Dieter is a nerdy German name--possibly given by FDP-voting parents and Von dem Ast is a play on the literal translation "from the branch", as such creatures hang out on tree branches. But "Von dem X" is also in the form of an old royalty title, as the nobility were always "From X" or "From the X" instead of a name that suggested a trade. But such obvious ironic hilarity goes right by most Germans. Now that I've explained it, most English-speakers are rolling on the ground laughing. But the Germans? Noooo....
In his book "The First Three Minutes" Steven Weinberg describes all the subatomic goings-on of a theoretical birth of the universe. At the end of the book he goes nihilist/atheist, which suprised me somewhat.
There's a New Yorker cartoon I'm going to draw someday where a little kid is knealing at his/her bed saying bedtime prayers: "And God, you're my FAVORITE metaphor!"
So, if God is "real" or "just a metaphor", it would seem we need to ascribe all the majesty of science (our composite empirically defined understandings) to this real or metaphoric "being" called God. But hard-core Existentialism refutes such anthropomorphizing, even towards a metaphor god.
An existentialist, on the other hand, would incur the full weight of consciousness, and in no way externalize, i.e., no God. I guess existentialists truly leave open the "no reality" clause. (Au-haue!)
Now, if you want to be an absurdist existentialist (AE), you might tackle Meaninglessness hard and hold on for dear life. An AE would refute all perceived or "proven" patterns with either its statistical meaninglessness in the face of so much more non-pattern, or argue that pattern doesn't really lead to meaning of any sort.
I find hard-core AE to be a good intellectual workout. Sort of like doing number theory proofs when you're only an accountant. After all, when you look at modern theatre such as Simon Gray, Harold Pinter, E. O'Neal (sp?), Edward Albee, they all seem to be hard on the trail of meaninglessness. Hard meaninglessness work makes you, well, just plain more objective. It weeds out favoritisms and sentimentalities. (Flabby romantics usually break down and blubber after the first few windsprints.)
But why fool with meaninglessness? Why suffer through "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe?"? Because reality demands that we get it right! Get it wrong with a car (a small subset of reality) and you've hit a tree at 70 mph, and you're probably dead. Get it wrong with the reality of meaning, well, let's not even think about it.
Having said all of that, I reject that the brain is a self-referential instantiator or whatever the gene priest called it. After a vigorous existential meaningless workout, I head over to Zen, which says Consciousness is the whole point. Higher and higher consciousness--by anything, anyhow. So with that in mind (ha!), the universe has created ways for it to perceive itself. That's the real genetic personality of the universe, if you ask me. Matter has organized itself into phenomena which perceive. And that realization gives me all the mandate I need to keep on fighting Microsoft! Or whatever.. . . . . . .
Slashdot Mirror
I went to the German Green Party page once and they have a comment section. But they have a "Schmuddelecke" for idiots and racists like this Anonymous Coward. Maybe /. should filter the real clowns out.
I'm always amused by math/physics people who think they've "fathomed the mind of God". I'm not particularly religious, but it's quite obvious that if--according to the Bible/Torah/whathaveyou--God is an omnipresent being, then, by definition, an omnipresent being doesn't use human math or physics. Why not? Well, if you're simultaneously all nodes and each node, you don't need to add, subtract, multiply etc. nodes. You simply "know"--in a simultaneous way. There is no "here and there" for God, and "here and there" is the logical bedrock upon which all human senses and theories lie. When math and physics get beyond this primitive stage of generalizing and remote sensing vis-a-vis here and there, and begin to create a "simultaneous math", then I'll listen. There obviously must be "Eselbruecken" (crutches, crib sheets) to simultaneous math as it would undoubtedly be virtually incomprehensible to normal thinking. I'm fairly sure it exists, since many things beg it, such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. So does meaningful progress on gravity theory, as well as many quantum phenomena that seem to defy point-to-point communication with simultaneousness. Wake me up when we get there....
Everything done in the free market system has at its base an undervalued resource with a very low and very stable price. Marxists screamed for years about the undervalued "worker", and now when we say $1.50/gallon of gas is "too much", we've obviously cut the odometer cable to reality: THERE'S LESS AND LESS OIL EACH DAY! OF COURSE THE PRICE WILL (NOW OR LATER) GO UP!!!.And of course all the people who value-add to oil will sooner or later not be able to hit their price points, and inflation will soar. But with the Internet and IT in general, there is no cheaply-had base resource with which we can play games. IT work is expensive. There are no Mexican crop pickers or cheap Arab oil in the computer business. And the Internet gives only advertisements or subscriptions (if you're not an on-line store) as possible revenue sources--and of course, both are proving to be failures. An historian (whose name I forget) was interviewed on CSPAN about her new book. She is famous as a researcher. She was asked how much of her book's material came from the Internet. Some, she replied, but the majority--especially the good stuff--came from conventional (and pricey) sources. She went on to say that she was supported by grants, and that book sales would not come close to covering the cost of the book. I got a few things from her: 1) the Internet is hit-and-miss, 2) there is no real market on the free Internet for serious information value-adding, 3) Information is not and never will be a cheap base resource upon which to stack big money-making value-adding. This leaves the Internet's only contribution to the business-to-consumer market as the electronic version of the shopping mall. There it will probably fly, even well. But there's probably not much outside of the e-store that will work capitalistically-speaking. (Yet again) I have spoken....
Aber Sepp, das ist ja wunderbar!
...by Beck, Boehme, Dziadzka, Kunitz, Mangnus, and Verworner (second edition). Wish we'd use it, because it's cover to cover Linux kernel and OS in general.
I am not German but I play one when we choose up sides and play war here in the neighborhood.... Geek might be Fachidiot, which usually means idiot savant, but is rarely used in the medical way, but instead used to describe someone who is hard after some narrow field of study or work--to the exclusion of all else. Actually, I'm curious about Computerkultur in Germany. I know they don't have the stark Dilbert v. Pointy-haired Boss dynamic as much as we Amis do. Anyone out there can enlighten me....
Too bad...My suggestion was Klaus-Dieter Von dem Ast. Klaus-Dieter is a nerdy German name--possibly given by FDP-voting parents and Von dem Ast is a play on the literal translation "from the branch", as such creatures hang out on tree branches. But "Von dem X" is also in the form of an old royalty title, as the nobility were always "From X" or "From the X" instead of a name that suggested a trade. But such obvious ironic hilarity goes right by most Germans. Now that I've explained it, most English-speakers are rolling on the ground laughing. But the Germans? Noooo....
In his book "The First Three Minutes" Steven Weinberg describes all the subatomic goings-on of a theoretical birth of the universe. At the end of the book he goes nihilist/atheist, which suprised me somewhat.
There's a New Yorker cartoon I'm going to draw someday where a little kid is knealing at his/her bed saying bedtime prayers: "And God, you're my FAVORITE metaphor!"
So, if God is "real" or "just a metaphor", it would seem we need to ascribe all the majesty of science (our composite empirically defined understandings) to this real or metaphoric "being" called God. But hard-core Existentialism refutes such anthropomorphizing, even towards a metaphor god.
An existentialist, on the other hand, would incur the full weight of consciousness, and in no way externalize, i.e., no God. I guess existentialists truly leave open the "no reality" clause. (Au-haue!)
Now, if you want to be an absurdist existentialist (AE), you might tackle Meaninglessness hard and hold on for dear life. An AE would refute all perceived or "proven" patterns with either its statistical meaninglessness in the face of so much more non-pattern, or argue that pattern doesn't really lead to meaning of any sort.
I find hard-core AE to be a good intellectual workout. Sort of like doing number theory proofs when you're only an accountant. After all, when you look at modern theatre such as Simon Gray, Harold Pinter, E. O'Neal (sp?), Edward Albee, they all seem to be hard on the trail of meaninglessness. Hard meaninglessness work makes you, well, just plain more objective. It weeds out favoritisms and sentimentalities. (Flabby romantics usually break down and blubber after the first few windsprints.)
But why fool with meaninglessness? Why suffer through "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe?"? Because reality demands that we get it right! Get it wrong with a car (a small subset of reality) and you've hit a tree at 70 mph, and you're probably dead. Get it wrong with the reality of meaning, well, let's not even think about it.
Having said all of that, I reject that the brain is a self-referential instantiator or whatever the gene priest called it. After a vigorous existential meaningless workout, I head over to Zen, which says Consciousness is the whole point. Higher and higher consciousness--by anything, anyhow. So with that in mind (ha!), the universe has created ways for it to perceive itself. That's the real genetic personality of the universe, if you ask me. Matter has organized itself into phenomena which perceive. And that realization gives me all the mandate I need to keep on fighting Microsoft! Or whatever.. . . . . . .