Firefox does not likely report any click, but if you look up in the preferences there is something like: block reported attacks, forgeries. Now, to block them the browser must either download a blacklist or upload the site who one is about to visit to a central server to have it checked. I guess it's the second one. There is potential for abuse even if it would mean risking the end of mozilla foundation and a fork in a matter of months.
Google has funded the mozilla foundation for years, it is likely that they have become tied to them. So it's not FF vs Chrome, it's FF and then Chrome.
Which might explain the problems in FF leadership better than "They went nuts all of a sudden".
FF has the edge with extensions. IE with the OEM installation, Chrome with the speed and google brand. FF is forfeiting extensions, that's suicide, if we suppose they are completely independent from google. My bet is they are not.
Sure go ahead. You're already taken into account if you're not inspired by $deity, remember? That of course can be a simple trick, "poisoning the well" as they say. But it's there and kinda shows an attention to detail that would be useful with many atheist arguments.
And if you are inspired by $deity, one more saint is not bad at all.
the hierarchy bit is taken care of in mt 23 "And do not call anyone on earth âfather,â(TM) for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."
the authority bit is philosophically obvious, like "can I change files at will? - sure, if you are root."
The "sincerely taken action" bit does not hold against the disciple who defended jesus by cutting an ear.
Moral judgment and the others I dunno maybe you should quote verses to make your point, just like the other guy satan did in the desert, better than nothing.
The trick is: the resources needed to effect change in a political entity grow exponentially with the number of people that such entity represent, for obvious reasons (it becomes harder to find common answers and to prioritize problems).
So even the EP is difficult to control by the sovereign citizens, not to mention government and EC.
(you are not sovereign when you don't have a piece of land to return to, when you don't agree to the system of those in power, but that's my personal opinion)
Criticism to a system can be directed to the properties of the system, or to its implementation. In the second case you are right and we can stop believing in math too, because people use numbers to rob you of your belongings (aka finance tricks), or science because of the not so good effects of an atomic bomb. It's ok for me.
If you go back to the system, instead: Mt 10:14: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet
Now, if you somehow manage to re-translate "listen" into "believe" and "shake the dust off your feet" into "torture them", AND if you find some new scraps of testament where that Jesus guy tortures somebody, setting an example (because the books are not enough when dealing with somebody, real or fictional, that didn't leave one written line of text behind: tradition of those closer to the Jesus guy counts IMHO), you have a point.
If not, I think this applies:
âoeWatch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheepâ(TM)s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. (...) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (...) âoeMany will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?â(TM) Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â(TM)
Note that believing or not, is not the problem. Not listening is. And, proclaiming yourself minister of god doesn't make you one, not even after performing miracles, which the inquisitors didn't even bother with IIRC. So when I hear about "atheists" needing signs, effects of a god in the universe, as prerequisite for belief, (instead of simply saying: whatever you show me can't be tied necessarily to an inaccessible hypothetical creator), I hear potential followers of the first guy who figures out sufficiently advanced methods to deceive them.
There can many things that can make you not believe in each religion, no problem for me, the problem is when a mutilated view is criticized, since it's not a matter of discussion but politics.
Besides, the problem is to stop drugs or what? The DEA finds $randomguy acquiring suspect substances, it has all the rights to SUSPECT. So, go through his pc phone and bug him. He has eventually to give that substance to some manufacturer, NAIL the manufacturer, nail the big fish instead of going to the worldwide headlines for this. BAH.
Copyright doesn't protect the little guy, yes. Copyright doesn't restrict much the amount of pirated material people swap, yes.
But that's not what the current laws on copyright are designed to prevent, they want to make it hard to compete with established media companies and rights holders in producing and distributing stuff.
The battle is about controlling the distribution channels, to decide what people will like. It is about criminalizing as many people as possible to justify examining every single packet out your network card.
Proof? proof is that you can't put a site which distribute links, while youtube and megaupload can distribute CONTENT.
If there is a bunch of popular sites instead of a world wide web, propaganda operations can easily make some topics hot and popular.
All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Art has always been at the service of power.
open source != free for a reason... If they license the patents involved together with the source code in a FOSS compatible way, good. If they won't try to pull an android and divide users into the group with the latest and greatest implementation (chrome users) and the others, great. I should not be criticizing them ahead of time, so let's see.
> I have said that there is no reason to think that one does.
That is a matter of personal tastes. I run into "sacred scriptures" allegedly inspired by that dimension, I check out what they say in view of my conclusions about life. YMMV.
>...it would be a capital mistake to conclude that it must be without evidence
Yes it would. It would be a mistake also with evidence because there is no 100% sure evidence, everything is filtered by the simulation itself. "Note how very simple it would be for you to communicate with your cellular automaton creatures" is different from "prove them you are the programmer, share your reality with them"
It would also be a mistake in methodology that yields the right answer but it did for them, it might not work for us. So we don't disagree much in the end
You keep using "larger universe" which is an odd choice of words. "A product of" is better.
> Another straw man: You persist in failing to recognize that the term Universe does not refer to than that our particular space-time in any of my responses
I defined reality explicitly without mentioning space-time, and once used space time incorrectl and told you so.
> surely you see the problem Yes the problem is that without knowing what the programmer wants to achieve, what the "gnashing of teeth" means we don't know if he's acting wisely. Apply an openly intervening programmer to our reality and think if you would hate him more than an invisible one. It proves nothing of course.
> No, the real existential Universe -- there is only one, for you, for me, for the cellular automaton For the IMPLEMENTATION of the cellular automaton, not his point of view. If I define a banal cellular automaton f so f(t) is t, there is no implementation. Ideas are abstract. I used POV of a cellular automata for a reason, because "god -> us" maps to "us -> the automata world" from their POV, while "god -> god" maps to "us -> the pc running the simulations".
> It isn't an argument that disproves god, it is an argument that reduces some of the assertions about god to absurdity. In particular, the proposal that God is necessary because of causality
meta-causality maybe, but in which faith? I thought Christian believed in a god , and then derived from that belief properties like being first cause. Anyway in an infinite universe in both time directions, which we haven't excluded yet, there is no need for prime cause so the argument as you formulated it suffer from assertions as you say.
As for your interpretation of my thought (which simply was, infinite regress makes assertions in the transcendent domain which are not necessarily valid or even make sense).
>"Space-time and mass-energy require a cause, an answer to the question "why".... No, the question why is metaphysical, You can ask "why the universe follow this rules and not others?" and it stays a valid question even after proving, I repeat it again, that the universe is eternal and that any other system of rules is impossible logically. The existence of the "why" doesn't prove anything. The "why" plus the empiric evidence of closed systems dependent on other systems transcendent to them, make the hypothesis of a transcendent dimension valid. Not provable by definition. The concept of God is not even the saSpace-time and mass-energy require a cause, an answer to the question "why". The cause cannot exist within space-time. The answer to the question "Why is there a space-time continuum?" is thus: There is a transcendent space complementary to our space-time continuum in the Universe. God is a self-sufficient sentient being that exists within this complement, which is then necessarily sufficiently complex (from the point of view of information theory) that it can support sentience and temporally ordered action (like our own, although it may accomplish the details differently) and therein, as an act of will enabled by the structure of the domain, created our space-time continuum. me problem.
> "The cause cannot exist within space-time. The answer to the question "Why is there a space-time continuum?" is thus: There is a transcendent space complementary to our space-time continuum in the Universe...."
No, if you want to make it complementary you have first to consider the union of him, reality, and the possibly empty set of spiritual things (that I included in reality because they can be indirectly experienced). The you can say that the transcendent is complementary in this union to reality. But it is a definition with no whatsoever value.
> "God is a self-sufficient sentient being that exists within this complement, which is then necessarily sufficiently complex (from the point of view of information theory) that it can support sentience and temporally ordered action (like our own, although it may accomplish the details differently) and therein, as an act of will enabled by the structure of the domain, created our space-time continuum."
This is a matter for religions. Believe what meta property of god you want, meta-existing, meta-absent. The complex, loving, one properties are not necessarily defined though.
then you define a different infinite regress the immanent causal chain, I was not referring to that, but to what i wrote about above, the creator of the creator, sorry for the confusion but you should have read the meta-meta prefix.
"The whole point of my argument is that if God did exist, It could easily "propose itself" to us. Indeed, if Jesus were real and magic the way he is portrayed in the NT, he could pop into my living room at this very moment and say, "Hey, rgb, look I'm real and I'm magic."
You have a pretty low threshold for believing. You're a religious nut in the making. Everything you experience is in the same level of reality of yours. Whatever prodigy is a phenomenon, and since you don't know all the laws of the universe and never will because nothing proves they are always the same, you cannot distinguish god from
You admit you use sudo instead of logging as root. Wise move. Nobody believes it, but wise move.
Re:Plugins are tied to version in FF, but not Chro
on
Firefox 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Updating to v.8 also popped up a dialog to disable extensions... Wha...? If you are dealing with a user, do not meddle with his settings unless the extension doesn't work (and providing a compatibility layer for old extensions would have been the right thing to do) If you are dealing with a luser, expect his choice to result in calls of help.
What did Firefox gain from all of this? losing extensions? Does firefox team realise that the extension ecosystem is the main thing that sets firefox apart?
If you go on in concentrating only on performance, like chrome and all the others, websites will then deliver more pointless if not harmful scripts and effects in the pages. What will have the user gained then?
> I'm also quite curious to why you are so eager to cut off the "meta" question (intended to reduce your argument to absurdity -- oh, wait, could that be the reason?).
Are you aware of infinite regress being used as an argument for disproving god?
> The point is that one level up is just as undefined as ten, or an infinite number. That's why infinite regress does not work as an argument. My observation is that you can't "go" even one level up and stay logically consistent. Since the problem start at level one why should I consider the others?
>Proposing God with no evidence that God exists is just as silly....as proposing ourselves to a self-aware automaton. Yet it might work
Wiktionary for dimension first defines it as
A single aspect of a given thing. >> Because every time one tells something about unknowable things he must be aware of it. >There is an uncountable infinity of possible unknowable things, so in fact, one cannot possibly be aware of it. my "it" was referring to "tells something" not about the unknowable things. I'm repeating the same concept all the time: every time one speculates about the transcendent domain one must be aware that no concepts are necessarily defined there.
> Most unclear in the context of your discussion. Possible, yet Wiktionary for dimension first defines it as "a single aspect of a given thing".
>It isn't possible to logically prove anything useful. Sure, also because logic does not necessarily apply there. I didn't talk about proof for the transcendent. I have proof for the existence of a world, this one, that is transcendent for another (the abstraction defined by the POV of cellular automata), and not transcendent yet unreachable for the immanent implementations of it (the implementations of cellular auomata worlds) So in some cases a transcendent and unreachable world is prime cause for another. It tells nothing about our situation but it nullify the atheist theorem that: a transcendent creator cannot be proved (which is true) therefore it doesn't exist (true as the mere reformulation of the definition of transcendent) then, with a semantic trick, using this conclusion as if the transcendent creator cannot meta-exist. Since it meta exists for a cellular automata it COULD meta exist for us too.
> even mathematicians no longer believe that mathematical conclusions can in any meaningful sense be considered unconditionally "true" It follows from being based on axioms, too.
>>>Right, so you're simply arguing that the Universe -- everything with objective existence -- is larger than space time >>Nope. Real is what is in space time. Unreal, meta or not, is outside. >What is in space-time is (probably) real, but reality might well be larger. In serious physical theory, see e.g. string theory or supersymmetry, plus the impossibility of excluding the possible existence of disjoint spacetime continua that are at right angles to our own but do not physically couple to it.
I indeed arbitrarily limited reality to space-time. But the definition of reality which I had already explicitly defined is "everything that can be directly or indirectly experienced", keep using that one. A larger reality than space time still is reality for the purpose of our argument. Disjoint continua are theoretical details of reality, they differ from the transcendent because we can say: if they exist they may have this or that property so that they "satisfy our equations". So they are intellectually tractable. I wasn't arguing about details, that's matter for science or math.
> Unreal is "outside" is also not correct, because the Universal set (the real existential one, not abstract mathematical ones) has no complement other than the empty set
The real existential universe from the POV of a cellular automaton has no complement other than an empty set, It's the definition for a closed system. We were discussing those, for a reason.
>Not at all, but you didn't define it previously. By the way, transcendent and transcendental are the same as complement and complementary. So it doesn't really matter what you (or I) said here, the meaning is the same.
Transcendental has more connotations so I avoid it. Irrelevant to our discussions.
>What is that meaning? Would that be "unknowable"? It would. Unknowable by definition.
Transcendent implies by definition the impossibility of knowing and that is the point that let me start objecting in the first place.
So why are we speculating about the details of something unknowable, by definition? Because every time one tells something about unknowable things he must be aware of it.
> As for claiming that color perception lives in a "different dimension" -- in an abstract sense sure.
> In a concrete sense, piffle. If you read again you will notice what words I used.
Unless and until you can prove this statement in some mathematically and empirically consistent way. Personally I would have used taste -- the salt dimension, sweet dimension, umami dimension. So, do they form a linear vector space? Is there a basis? Are these flavors orthogonal?
Try the various kinds of sensor cells as the basis, for a start. Before that, try reading and discarding positions that are explicitly excluded by the wording.
> Piffle. You're just using "dimension" in that way so you can...
No it was equivalent to domain, not a dimension in the physical sense, I'd violate what I have been criticizing up to this point.
> No, no, no. You don't get the point. One cannot ever answer the super-ultimate why question in a way that could be considered knowledge.
Because it may be external. And being external, the concept of "a reason" which depends on time (that sorts out cause and effect) is not applicable, so we don't know if there's a why, and speculating about what the possibly present why is belongs to philosophy and religions. That's a special case of the objection I keep raising to your posts.
But I didn't say the ultimate answer, I said the last answer. In absence of the ultimate answer the last answer is obviously internal and is "this happens by convention, according to this set of rules we are distilling".
> You can assert God is the reason for everything, but that is meaningless, because there is no evidence...
In fact I'd formulate it as: it is impossible to prove or disprove that reality is an abstraction for a transcendent "creator". (meta-creator is the right word as creation is undefined).
It is also impossible to prove or disprove the invisible pink unicorn, but since this world and the abstractions defined by the point of view of cellular automata define a situation in which our reality is the ultimate reason for an abstraction, yet that abstraction is a closed system that can't prove our reality, which for atheist would automatically disprove it, discussing a transcendent creator makes more sense than discussing the invisible pink unicorn. The form of the transcendent creator is irrelevant, the FSM is ok.
> suggesting that God is the reason for everything, and because if God is the reason for everything, what is the reason for God? What is the reason for that reason?
Again the same mistake. if god "meta-is" the "meta-reason", under the assumption that it needs a meta meta reason itself, what meta-meta-is it?
Response: undefined by definition.
The assumption marks the difference between: "What type of fuel should I put in my car?" and "If my car needs blood sacrifices, what blood type should be best?"
A causal chain can only be explored in time, and even there one has to carefully distinguish between a high level semantic "cause" -- I was sad today "because somebody broke my dolly" and microscopic causality and deterministic causal chains. The only answer to the question "Why does the Universe exist" is "Given that the Universe exists, why not?"
I was thinking more like "let's build up internal trading markets in lands where the tobin tax does not apply, we will be taxed only the I/O from that market, we will be able to keep doing real time speculation".
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox does not likely report any click, but if you look up in the preferences there is something like: block reported attacks, forgeries.
Now, to block them the browser must either download a blacklist or upload the site who one is about to visit to a central server to have it checked. I guess it's the second one. There is potential for abuse even if it would mean risking the end of mozilla foundation and a fork in a matter of months.
Google has funded the mozilla foundation for years, it is likely that they have become tied to them. So it's not FF vs Chrome, it's FF and then Chrome.
Which might explain the problems in FF leadership better than "They went nuts all of a sudden".
FF has the edge with extensions. IE with the OEM installation, Chrome with the speed and google brand.
FF is forfeiting extensions, that's suicide, if we suppose they are completely independent from google. My bet is they are not.
Don't confuse the master and the inmate that gets his ration in a bigger bowl than yours.
Waaaay bigger, ok ok. But sometimes even deserved.
The inmate reasons about the bowl size, the master plays with bowl sizes so that inmate keep fighting over them instead of starting a revolt.
Sure go ahead. You're already taken into account if you're not inspired by $deity, remember? That of course can be a simple trick, "poisoning the well" as they say. But it's there and kinda shows an attention to detail that would be useful with many atheist arguments.
And if you are inspired by $deity, one more saint is not bad at all.
the hierarchy bit is taken care of in mt 23
"And do not call anyone on earth âfather,â(TM) for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."
the authority bit is philosophically obvious, like "can I change files at will? - sure, if you are root."
The "sincerely taken action" bit does not hold against the disciple who defended jesus by cutting an ear.
Moral judgment and the others I dunno maybe you should quote verses to make your point, just like the other guy satan did in the desert, better than nothing.
The trick is: the resources needed to effect change in a political entity grow exponentially with the number of people that such entity represent, for obvious reasons (it becomes harder to find common answers and to prioritize problems).
So even the EP is difficult to control by the sovereign citizens, not to mention government and EC.
(you are not sovereign when you don't have a piece of land to return to, when you don't agree to the system of those in power, but that's my personal opinion)
Criticism to a system can be directed to the properties of the system, or to its implementation. In the second case you are right and we can stop believing in math too, because people use numbers to rob you of your belongings (aka finance tricks), or science because of the not so good effects of an atomic bomb. It's ok for me.
If you go back to the system, instead:
Mt 10:14: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet
Now, if you somehow manage to re-translate "listen" into "believe" and "shake the dust off your feet" into "torture them", AND if you find some new scraps of testament where that Jesus guy tortures somebody, setting an example (because the books are not enough when dealing with somebody, real or fictional, that didn't leave one written line of text behind: tradition of those closer to the Jesus guy counts IMHO), you have a point.
If not, I think this applies:
âoeWatch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheepâ(TM)s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. (...) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
(...) âoeMany will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?â(TM) Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â(TM)
Note that believing or not, is not the problem. Not listening is.
And, proclaiming yourself minister of god doesn't make you one, not even after performing miracles, which the inquisitors didn't even bother with IIRC. So when I hear about "atheists" needing signs, effects of a god in the universe, as prerequisite for belief, (instead of simply saying: whatever you show me can't be tied necessarily to an inaccessible hypothetical creator), I hear potential followers of the first guy who figures out sufficiently advanced methods to deceive them.
There can many things that can make you not believe in each religion, no problem for me, the problem is when a mutilated view is criticized, since it's not a matter of discussion but politics.
> you can sacrifice one man for the salvation of all mankind
Not "you", "a god";
not "one man", "his son", that is himself;
apart this freaking major problem, it was a witty post.
Besides, the problem is to stop drugs or what? The DEA finds $randomguy acquiring suspect substances, it has all the rights to SUSPECT. So, go through his pc phone and bug him. He has eventually to give that substance to some manufacturer, NAIL the manufacturer, nail the big fish instead of going to the worldwide headlines for this. BAH.
a tool needs somebody able to wield it, free software authors have that tool but not the means to enforce copyright by themselves.
and we've always been at war with eastasia.
Copyright doesn't protect the little guy, yes.
Copyright doesn't restrict much the amount of pirated material people swap, yes.
But that's not what the current laws on copyright are designed to prevent, they want to make it hard to compete with established media companies and rights holders in producing and distributing stuff.
The battle is about controlling the distribution channels, to decide what people will like. It is about criminalizing as many people as possible to justify examining every single packet out your network card.
Proof? proof is that you can't put a site which distribute links, while youtube and megaupload can distribute CONTENT.
If there is a bunch of popular sites instead of a world wide web, propaganda operations can easily make some topics hot and popular.
All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Art has always been at the service of power.
I was going to answer "satan" but in fact I had missed a few recursion steps.
open source != free for a reason...
If they license the patents involved together with the source code in a FOSS compatible way, good.
If they won't try to pull an android and divide users into the group with the latest and greatest implementation (chrome users) and the others, great.
I should not be criticizing them ahead of time, so let's see.
The Borg Gates would have been more apt.
This was the first post
but it slipped down here.
> I have said that there is no reason to think that one does.
That is a matter of personal tastes. I run into "sacred scriptures" allegedly inspired by that dimension, I check out what they say in view of my conclusions about life. YMMV.
> ...it would be a capital mistake to conclude that it must be without evidence
Yes it would. It would be a mistake also with evidence because there is no 100% sure evidence, everything is filtered by the simulation itself. "Note how very simple it would be for you to communicate with your cellular automaton creatures" is different from "prove them you are the programmer, share your reality with them"
It would also be a mistake in methodology that yields the right answer but it did for them, it might not work for us. So we don't disagree much in the end
You keep using "larger universe" which is an odd choice of words. "A product of" is better.
> Another straw man: You persist in failing to recognize that the term Universe does not refer to than that our particular space-time in any of my responses
I defined reality explicitly without mentioning space-time, and once used space time incorrectl and told you so.
> surely you see the problem
Yes the problem is that without knowing what the programmer wants to achieve, what the "gnashing of teeth" means we don't know if he's acting wisely. Apply an openly intervening programmer to our reality and think if you would hate him more than an invisible one. It proves nothing of course.
> No, the real existential Universe -- there is only one, for you, for me, for the cellular automaton
For the IMPLEMENTATION of the cellular automaton, not his point of view. If I define a banal cellular automaton f so f(t) is t, there is no implementation. Ideas are abstract. I used POV of a cellular automata for a reason, because "god -> us" maps to "us -> the automata world" from their POV, while "god -> god" maps to "us -> the pc running the simulations".
Borked the edit, "the concept of god is not even part of the problem" or something like that, then followed the rest of what you said.
> It isn't an argument that disproves god, it is an argument that reduces some of the assertions about god to absurdity. In particular, the proposal that God is necessary because of causality
meta-causality maybe, but in which faith? I thought Christian believed in a god , and then derived from that belief properties like being first cause. Anyway in an infinite universe in both time directions, which we haven't excluded yet, there is no need for prime cause so the argument as you formulated it suffer from assertions as you say.
As for your interpretation of my thought (which simply was, infinite regress makes assertions in the transcendent domain which are not necessarily valid or even make sense).
>"Space-time and mass-energy require a cause, an answer to the question "why"....
No, the question why is metaphysical, You can ask "why the universe follow this rules and not others?" and it stays a valid question even after proving, I repeat it again, that the universe is eternal and that any other system of rules is impossible logically.
The existence of the "why" doesn't prove anything. The "why" plus the empiric evidence of closed systems dependent on other systems transcendent to them, make the hypothesis of a transcendent dimension valid. Not provable by definition. The concept of God is not even the saSpace-time and mass-energy require a cause, an answer to the question "why". The cause cannot exist within space-time. The answer to the question "Why is there a space-time continuum?" is thus: There is a transcendent space complementary to our space-time continuum in the Universe. God is a self-sufficient sentient being that exists within this complement, which is then necessarily sufficiently complex (from the point of view of information theory) that it can support sentience and temporally ordered action (like our own, although it may accomplish the details differently) and therein, as an act of will enabled by the structure of the domain, created our space-time continuum.
me problem.
> "The cause cannot exist within space-time. The answer to the question "Why is there a space-time continuum?" is thus: There is a transcendent space complementary to our space-time continuum in the Universe...."
No, if you want to make it complementary you have first to consider the union of him, reality, and the possibly empty set of spiritual things (that I included in reality because they can be indirectly experienced).
The you can say that the transcendent is complementary in this union to reality. But it is a definition with no whatsoever value.
> "God is a self-sufficient sentient being that exists within this complement, which is then necessarily sufficiently complex (from the point of view of information theory) that it can support sentience and temporally ordered action (like our own, although it may accomplish the details differently) and therein, as an act of will enabled by the structure of the domain, created our space-time continuum."
This is a matter for religions. Believe what meta property of god you want, meta-existing, meta-absent. The complex, loving, one properties are not necessarily defined though.
then you define a different infinite regress the immanent causal chain, I was not referring to that, but to what i wrote about above, the creator of the creator, sorry for the confusion but you should have read the meta-meta prefix.
"The whole point of my argument is that if God did exist, It could easily "propose itself" to us. Indeed, if Jesus were real and magic the way he is portrayed in the NT, he could pop into my living room at this very moment and say, "Hey, rgb, look I'm real and I'm magic."
You have a pretty low threshold for believing. You're a religious nut in the making.
Everything you experience is in the same level of reality of yours. Whatever prodigy is a phenomenon, and since you don't know all the laws of the universe and never will because nothing proves they are always the same, you cannot distinguish god from
You admit you use sudo instead of logging as root. Wise move. Nobody believes it, but wise move.
Updating to v.8 also popped up a dialog to disable extensions...
Wha...?
If you are dealing with a user, do not meddle with his settings unless the extension doesn't work (and providing a compatibility layer for old extensions would have been the right thing to do)
If you are dealing with a luser, expect his choice to result in calls of help.
What did Firefox gain from all of this? losing extensions? Does firefox team realise that the extension ecosystem is the main thing that sets firefox apart?
If you go on in concentrating only on performance, like chrome and all the others, websites will then deliver more pointless if not harmful scripts and effects in the pages. What will have the user gained then?
> I'm also quite curious to why you are so eager to cut off the "meta" question (intended to reduce your argument to absurdity -- oh, wait, could that be the reason?).
Are you aware of infinite regress being used as an argument for disproving god?
> The point is that one level up is just as undefined as ten, or an infinite number.
That's why infinite regress does not work as an argument.
My observation is that you can't "go" even one level up and stay logically consistent. Since the problem start at level one why should I consider the others?
>Proposing God with no evidence that God exists is just as silly.. ..as proposing ourselves to a self-aware automaton. Yet it might work
Wiktionary for dimension first defines it as
A single aspect of a given thing.
>> Because every time one tells something about unknowable things he must be aware of it.
>There is an uncountable infinity of possible unknowable things, so in fact, one cannot possibly be aware of it.
my "it" was referring to "tells something" not about the unknowable things. I'm repeating the same concept all the time: every time one speculates about the transcendent domain one must be aware that no concepts are necessarily defined there.
> Most unclear in the context of your discussion.
Possible, yet Wiktionary for dimension first defines it as "a single aspect of a given thing".
>It isn't possible to logically prove anything useful.
Sure, also because logic does not necessarily apply there. I didn't talk about proof for the transcendent. I have proof for the existence of a world, this one, that is transcendent for another (the abstraction defined by the POV of cellular automata), and not transcendent yet unreachable for the immanent implementations of it (the implementations of cellular auomata worlds)
So in some cases a transcendent and unreachable world is prime cause for another. It tells nothing about our situation but it nullify the atheist theorem that: a transcendent creator cannot be proved (which is true) therefore it doesn't exist (true as the mere reformulation of the definition of transcendent) then, with a semantic trick, using this conclusion as if the transcendent creator cannot meta-exist. Since it meta exists for a cellular automata it COULD meta exist for us too.
> even mathematicians no longer believe that mathematical conclusions can in any meaningful sense be considered unconditionally "true"
It follows from being based on axioms, too.
>>>Right, so you're simply arguing that the Universe -- everything with objective existence -- is larger than space time
>>Nope. Real is what is in space time. Unreal, meta or not, is outside.
>What is in space-time is (probably) real, but reality might well be larger. In serious physical theory, see e.g. string theory or supersymmetry, plus the impossibility of excluding the possible existence of disjoint spacetime continua that are at right angles to our own but do not physically couple to it.
I indeed arbitrarily limited reality to space-time. But the definition of reality which I had already explicitly defined is "everything that can be directly or indirectly experienced", keep using that one. A larger reality than space time still is reality for the purpose of our argument. Disjoint continua are theoretical details of reality, they differ from the transcendent because we can say: if they exist they may have this or that property so that they "satisfy our equations". So they are intellectually tractable.
I wasn't arguing about details, that's matter for science or math.
> Unreal is "outside" is also not correct, because the Universal set (the real existential one, not abstract mathematical ones) has no complement other than the empty set
The real existential universe from the POV of a cellular automaton has no complement other than an empty set, It's the definition for a closed system. We were discussing those, for a reason.
>Not at all, but you didn't define it previously. By the way, transcendent and transcendental are the same as complement and complementary. So it doesn't really matter what you (or I) said here, the meaning is the same.
Transcendental has more connotations so I avoid it. Irrelevant to our discussions.
>What is that meaning? Would that be "unknowable"? It would. Unknowable by definition.
Transcendent implies by definition the impossibility of knowing and that is the point that let me start objecting in the first place.
So why are we speculating about the details of something unknowable, by definition?
Because every time one tells something about unknowable things he must be aware of it.
> As for claiming that color perception lives in a "different dimension" -- in an abstract sense sure.
> In a concrete sense, piffle.
If you read again you will notice what words I used.
Unless and until you can prove this statement in some mathematically and empirically consistent way. Personally I would have used taste -- the salt dimension, sweet dimension, umami dimension. So, do they form a linear vector space? Is there a basis? Are these flavors orthogonal?
Try the various kinds of sensor cells as the basis, for a start. Before that, try reading and discarding positions that are explicitly excluded by the wording.
> Piffle. You're just using "dimension" in that way so you can...
No it was equivalent to domain, not a dimension in the physical sense, I'd violate what I have been criticizing up to this point.
> No, no, no. You don't get the point. One cannot ever answer the super-ultimate why question in a way that could be considered knowledge.
Because it may be external. And being external, the concept of "a reason" which depends on time (that sorts out cause and effect)
is not applicable, so we don't know if there's a why, and speculating about what the possibly present why is belongs to philosophy and religions. That's a special case of the objection I keep raising to your posts.
But I didn't say the ultimate answer, I said the last answer. In absence of the ultimate answer the last answer is obviously internal and is "this happens by convention, according to this set of rules we are distilling".
> You can assert God is the reason for everything, but that is meaningless, because there is no evidence...
In fact I'd formulate it as: it is impossible to prove or disprove that reality is an abstraction for a transcendent "creator". (meta-creator is the right word as creation is undefined).
It is also impossible to prove or disprove the invisible pink unicorn, but since this world and the abstractions defined by the point of view of cellular automata define a situation in which our reality is the ultimate reason for an abstraction, yet that abstraction is a closed system that can't prove our reality, which for atheist would automatically disprove it, discussing a transcendent creator makes more sense than discussing the invisible pink unicorn. The form of the transcendent creator is irrelevant, the FSM is ok.
> suggesting that God is the reason for everything, and because if God is the reason for everything, what is the reason for God? What is the reason for that reason?
Again the same mistake.
if god "meta-is" the "meta-reason", under the assumption that it needs a meta meta reason itself, what meta-meta-is it?
Response: undefined by definition.
The assumption marks the difference between:
"What type of fuel should I put in my car?" and
"If my car needs blood sacrifices, what blood type should be best?"
A causal chain can only be explored in time, and even there one has to carefully distinguish between a high level semantic "cause" -- I was sad today "because somebody broke my dolly" and microscopic causality and deterministic causal chains. The only answer to the question "Why does the Universe exist" is "Given that the Universe exists, why not?"
> If
I was thinking more like "let's build up internal trading markets in lands where the tobin tax does not apply, we will be taxed only the I/O from that market, we will be able to keep doing real time speculation".