Hi Bill Vajk ,
You resonded :
" Sure they do ,
but they're so lazy they never ever do anything . "


As I said , No _ Genuine _ gods or daemons exist .

Instead they're puppets , pseudo daemons ,
because infinite nature is pulling all the stings .

Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi Wordsmith ,
You say :
" One gives it bias by the mere designation . "


If everything is biased then nothing is biased .

But everything is not biased ,
pure nature , devoid of artificial notions has no biases .

So the statement "Pure nature has no bias" is itself unbiased?
Your exemption smacks of a theological proclamation.

W

In article ,
says...


Hi there Mr. Humanist ,
You say :
" Please note that I'm just screwing around
here on the internet - I don't take myself very seriously
and don't intend to offend . "


I too am just wasting time . It's the story of my life .
I just enjoy playing with the keyboard :
http://www.PicDiary.COM/misc/piano.jpg

You say :
" Hmm ... It occurred to me that your definition of
' pure nature ' seems the same as Keynes definition of
prime mover , and ' objective truth of reality ' .
( A definition of God which seemed unorthodox to me . )
The only difference seems to be the value you assign to it ,
reverence or lack thereof .
You don't respect your dumb ' worthless '
pure nature ( god ) ... "


Pure nature is a " Worthless God " ? I never said that .

" Mindless Nature " is the absolute antitheses of any god .

In fact it's a proof that absolutely no gods exist .
( Or daemons for that matter . )

, ,
/( )`
\ \__ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
____( (_ / \______
,' ,----' | \
`--{__________) \/

( Drawn by )

You say :
" Keynes respects his omnipotent ( = the sum of all action )
omniscient ( = objective truth ) totality ( = god ) .
Sorry about that digression but it caught my interest . "


Thanks for that cogent synopsis , I appreciate it .
I'm sure that pseudo gods exist ,
Maybe that's what Keynes is talking about .

But if he thinks infinite nature is genuinely sentient ,
Then I must disagree . No computer has infinite precision .

Re my " Mindless nature " notion , You note :
" On this topic
we've had consistent difficulty communicating . "


That's par for the course . Isn't it ?
Usenet is just one endless word game .

You say :
" Whether the attribute is expressed
in positive or negative terms doesn't change the fact that
you're qualifying reality . "


No I'm not . That'd be impossible to do .
All I'm doing is saying , with solid conviction ,
What pure nature is not , i.e. :
Infinite nature is _ Never _ intrinsically random .

You say :
" You're asserting that ' Artificial ' notions have
no relation whatsoever with reality ...
Essentially , you're asserting that notions don't exist . "


I said that all notions are biased . Artificial .
And I said that genuine free will does not exist .

I did not say " All notions are absolutely incorrect . "
Nor did I say " No notions exist . "

You ask :
" But if we pick the other side of the paradox .
( i.e. That concocted notions must have an origin . )
How do you explain the manifestation of
notions in sentient beings such as ourselves ? "


Just like virtually everything else in the universe ,
We consume energy . And we do it communally .

But what's so special about that ?
The temperature ? Big deal .

But , Being the complete fools that we are :
We think that we're genuine gods ...
With genuine free will .

You ask :
" What kind of godly power do we have that
we could create patterns where there are none ,
or that we could produce emergent ' order '
where there is undefined / nondescript ? "


We have to think , Otherwise we couldn't consume as we do .

But that doesn't make us genuine gods
Because we're still part of nature's static timescape .

Consider the universe's apparent progression :
Form the infinite heat of the big bang
To the infinite cold of the big freeze .

We seem to be moving through a _ Heatscape _ too .
( For more on " The Big Freeze " see :
)

You say :
" The consequence of a mindless universe scenario
isn't " absolute meaninglessness "
but rather that meaning
( sentient observation ) is relative . "


Pure nature , of which we are a part ,
is perfectly meaningless .

There is no genuine meaning ... All meaning is biased .
Artificial . Fabricated . Fake .

You write :
" IMHO ' Meanings ' are
relations we extract out of complexity ,
later selectively applied to symbols and tokens . "


That's right . They're pseudo truths . Fabrications .

You say :
" The resulting imperfect and artificial
notions / language necessarily fall short of
grasping / describing
the complete ( [ infinitely ] complex ) picture ,
but at some point
the very manifestation of such ' relative ' meaning
implies a relation of some kind
with the ' mindless pure nature '
or ' God almighty ' , whichever you prefer . "


Is our pseudo meaning " Related " to infinite nature ?

Yes , But it's an infinitely tiny piece of it .

Thanks for the clarifications

If pseudo meaning = relative meaning
then the situation "justifies" consumption
In a godless mindless universe
God is an opportunity - a race

whether the outcome is fated or not
Whether reality corresponds to a block time model or not,
the phenomenon of traversal of that "block time" is something we
experience
This traversal defines "dynamism" regardless of the "reality space
bounded by a block time definition"

Hi Wordsmith ,
You say :
" So the statement ' Pure nature has no bias '
is itself unbiased ?
Your exemption smacks of a theological proclamation . "


How could infinite nature have an opinion ?

I'm not the pope dude . And I don't write public policy .

And I don't try to force my ideas on anyone .

It's just what I think ...
And it's what a lot of famous cosmologists think .

Chill dude , have a smoke with a friend :
http://www.233linda.com/images/pictures/cigarette.jpg
http://www.hayleycassatt.com/images/.../cigarette.jpg

Hi humanist ,
You attempt to summarize :
" If pseudo meaning = relative meaning
then the situation ' justifies ' consumption . "


What ? We just consume . It's a " Given " .
Few ever pause to understand it ...
Much less " Justify " it .

We've got to raise the global GDP ,
Increase the population .

No rhyme nor reason is ever provided .

We foolishly think it's meaningful ,
when in fact it's just infinite nature yanking our chains .

You continue :
" In a godless mindless universe
God is an opportunity - a race . "


I say there are no genuine daemons ,
because infinite nature controls everything .
( And pure nature is static and mindless . )

You go on :
" Whether the outcome is fated or not ... "


The future is fixed . Static . Spatial . A timescape .
I'm quite sure of that .

You say :
" Whether reality corresponds to a block time model or not ,
the phenomenon of traversal of
that ' block time ' is something we experience . "


We never fully see genuine reality ,
We can only " See " pseudo realities :
Pseudo randomness and pseudo free will .

You write :
" This traversal defines ' dynamism ' regardless of the
' reality space bounded by a block time definition ' . "


The word " Reality " should always be qualified .

There are " Pseudo Realities " ,
and then there's " The Genuine Reality " :
Pure nature . Infinite in breadth and complexity .

Likewise ,
You should qualify the word " Dynamism " ,
Because it's a _ Pseudo _ dynamism .

In article 6Ra8b.419938$o%2.190955@sccrnsc02,
Bill Vajk wrote:
Jeff Relf wrote:

In fact it's a proof that absolutely no gods exist .
( Or daemons for that matter . )



Sure they do, but they're so lazy they never ever do anything.

I wrote a daemon and it worked.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi Wordsmith ,
You say :
" So the statement ' Pure nature has no bias '
is itself unbiased ?
Your exemption smacks of a theological proclamation . "


How could infinite nature have an opinion ?

It doesn't. You do.

I'm not the pope dude . And I don't write public policy .

I'll put that in my file.

And I don't try to force my ideas on anyone .

Nor do I.

It's just what I think ...

And what I've written is just what *I* think. Does that annoy you?

And it's what a lot of famous cosmologists think .

I'm glad *someone* out there is thinking.

Wordsmith

PS Tobacco smoking is a nasty habit.

Hi Wordsmith ,
You say :
" Tobacco smoking is a nasty habit . "


Really ? Breathing is a nasty habit too ...

Doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing it .

Hi ,
You say :
" I wrote a daemon and it worked . "


Does no one else and nothing else deserves the credit ?

Pure nature , with it's infinite complexity ,
not only created the daemon , but also controls it .

Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi Wordsmith ,
You say :
" Tobacco smoking is a nasty habit . "

Just between us, Jeff, I've occasionally smoked other things. *sly wink*

W