161488303349

Madelaine McMasters wrote: ROB34466IIIa wrote: none ... :robotfrustrated: PS Usually I' m unable to with people arguing like : " I have a suit. I have a suitcase. The suit fits in the suitcase.I fit in my suit, so I must fit in my suitcase. Rob, given enough time and a good serrated bread knife, I believe I could make that chain of reasoning work. jejejjejeje (: yes that method can work good as well sometimes

ROB34466IIIa wrote: none ... :robotfrustrated: PS Usually I' m unable to with people arguing like : " I have a suit. I have a suitcase. The suit fits in the suitcase.I fit in my suit, so I must fit in my suitcase. there is sufficient information in your example to prove your conclusion either way. that you do have a suit is uncontestable by the simple statement: "I have a suit.", similarly that you do actually have a suitcase. The proof is obtained by hopping into the suitcase. when the suitcase is sufficiently large then the conclusion "so I must fit in my suitcase" is provably true. when the suitcase is too small then the conclusion is provably false. as far as that suitcase goes anyways to make it similar to my examples then rephrase: "do i have a suit when i have a suitcase?" we can't answer this question just be observing the suitcase. we need more information + when we enter into the field of philosophy, which we often do when we are confronted by an absence of information, then yes it does get murky. it gets even more murky when we enter into theological debate. the Time thingy thought exercise is actual a counter-example to the Creationist Conjecture: ""well No because of the speck", even if there was somehow a Conciousness in the Beginning as the creationists presume when discussing the "speck" a creationist will simply state that God created it. that is disputable by the rules governing this/our material universe as we curently understand them

which part of "well No" did you not understand ps. or is it that you are simply unable to reason in the fields of philosophy or theology

in the bolded part i was showing the counter example to Something <- Something. Your argument seems to conclude that it can't be Something <- Null by the rule of substitution. a conclusion i tend to agree with i actual did mean Time in using <- and not Space in the context of this thread "How did the universe come into existence?" the supposition is that there was a Beginning. if so then that is a reference to a point in time. If we discount time then there was no beginning + so what would happen if we could travel back in time to the beginning of this universe as we know and understand it? a universe made of matter (possibly anti-matter as well) in which there are sentient beings with conciousness to make it easier to visualise suppose that as we travelled back the universe got smaller and smaller, compressing in on itself. suppose further that we stopped at an arbitrary point and travelled forward and observed it getting bigger - expanding. just to check that compression is occurring. so we then reverse and go way back to the seconds before the beginning what would we see? a tiny speck of densely compressed matter (possibly conciousness as well) in an emptiness. suppose further that the last pieces of matter to get compressed is our own matter. (we are assuming here for the moment that the whole thing doesn't explode under the pressure) ok. is two possible outcomes: a) our conciousness gets sucked into it as well as the final act, or b) it does not if a) then what would we see after the final act? most likely the end of a universe. another universe, or maybe even the same ( a copy) universe if we then went back in time to that beginning and we observed exactly the same things in the same order as previously if b) is the more interesting i think in this part of the discussion. our conciousness does not get sucked in and the speck just keeps on getting smaller and smaller as we progress backwards in time towards infinity suppose we stopped. there is this tiny speck of matter and our conciousness. is not a Null state because we are in it and so is the speck. if we stay stationary then nothing observable happens. by our observation the universe doesn't begin until we move foward in time in this scenario, does the act of moving make us God? or at least lead us to believe that we are God? the answer is No because of the speck. we could however come to believe that we are God when in the vast backward infinity of Time we came to believe that the speck was our own creation + Suppose however, it did blow up in some backward point in Time and our conciousness survived. would we think then we are God? as we were there before that beginning, and knowing that if we move forward then by our observation, it didn't blow up and won't blow up until we move backward again well No again because of the speck. but if we did this for a seemingly infinite number of times then can see how we might come to believe it + as others have said in this thread, these kinds of thought exercises can do your head in. and if we really want to do our heads in then consider: "In the beginning God created the heaven and earth. the earth was without form. the Spirit of God moved ..." (:

thanks (: you don't owe me any apology either. i was using the term Null quite loosely in my attempt to understand Phil's reference to Nothing in his discussions. in doing this though i end up leading you down the garden path which wasn't my intention + the simplest dictionary explanation of Null is: an absence of information, as contrasted with zero or blank or nil, about a value we can prove zero, blank and nil by the rules of construction that govern these things. we cannot prove something by its absence by these same rules. like: "see that space, is proof that there are oranges." can take it a bit further even: "see that empty apple box, is proof that there are apples." these conclusions are invalid by these rules however, if we could do this by a rule then we could also prove the easter bunny by the same rule. same God and anything else. and the magicapple by making a magicapple box we cannot prove the easter bunny because of the absence of information. same God. so God is Null in this sense. we cannot disprove God either for exactly the same reason. is no information available to reach that conclusion by the same rule. God is not zero, or blank or nil either. we can assign these properties to God and the easter bunny, or equate them even, but we are being axiomatic when we do. axiomatic in this sense meaning we believe that this is the case. which is not the same thing as proof by the rule of construction we can though certainly conjecture or postulate, guess at even, pretty much anything in the absence of information. something we actual do in the face of the unknown so that we may go boldy forth and all that

Charolotte Caxton wrote: 16 wrote: the orange exercise is a fun exercise as well. attempting to show that something could exist by its absence. another fun exercise is: if we could prove Null unequivocally then would we not also prove God at the same time? in this context God being a word to describe a Something Else than can enable Something to come from Nothing? If we could prove Null unequivocally then would we not also prove God at the same time? No. Proving that nothing can be true in no way even hints at or suggests that there is a God. The fact that we can understand that there can exist nothingness does nothing towards the understanding of a Something Else that can enable Something to come from Nothing. In believing in a nothingness as being a possibility, but now we are all observing a something, then we could imagine the concept of something arising from nothing, but if there were nothing then there would be no thing to enable the somethingness, so again my answer would unequivocally be no. again my bad. sorry. i do again i am positing that if Null could be proven. which is not the same as simply accepting, which is axiomatic. is generally accepted that a theory is provable by a rule of construction according to the respective discipline. an axiom is not. if an axiom was provable then it would not be an axiom. it would be a theory in the general case so if Null could be proven by a rule of construction then we would have accomplished the seemingly impossible, at least by all currently known means. and if we could discover this rule of construction then we would have a tool that might then lead us to be being able to prove or disprove unequivocally the existence or otherwise of other null things. like God for instance if we categorise God as Null. which some people do the interesting thing in these exercises is the rule of construction. what that might entail and what if any axioms in turn that this might entail. so my reference to Something Else and Plurality. whether these are valid in the quest for this particular elusive rule of construction (if such a thing even exists) is debatable, yes + ps. i am more inclined to the: infinity... <- Something <- Something <- Something <- ...infinity but if it was Something <- Null then how did this happens if it did

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: 16 wrote: is interesting concept - nothingness our measurements show that what we can observe has a begining and an end. from this we reason that the universe did have a beginning. when we conjecture that before the beginning there was Null - the state of absolute nothingness - then we create a paradox. the Null state is unprovable by any known method of measurement. so we treat it as an axiom. as a btw, in a semantic debate it can be shown that the state of nothingness itself cannot exist as when we assign a property value then it becomes something which opens up: if we say that it cannot be Null, as Null is unprovable then: a) what was it before the beginning? or b) was there even a beginning as we normally understand the concept? if we say that it was Null, even if we can't prove it, then we are being axiomatic as a starting premise i am more inclined to b). what we do know is that things evolve. from this we can postulate that the universe in its current form evolved from a previous form and will one day evolve into another form. ad infinitum. if only because of the Null argumentation That's the problem when discussing what I've called "nothingness" (you used a better word - "Null"). Even calling it a state/condition/circumstance/condition/whatever of nothingness is meaningless because that turns it into a something, which negates the very idea of absolute nothingness. Even using a word for it (nothingness or Null) turns it into a something. Imagining it without it being a state of reality in time and space is impossible for us. That's why I've suggested considering it rather than imagining it, because we can't possibly imagine it. I see no reason to decide that something isn't true, just because it's unprovable. I see no reason to say that Null can't have been. As an aside, I like to think that Null exists (although the word "exists" gives it the property of existing, which is not what I mean). I like to think that outside the expanding universe is singularity - Null - absolute nothingness. Not the singularity that cosmologists talk about as being at the centre of black holes - one singularity to each black hole. I like the word "singularity" to describe Null, so it's just "singularity" and not " the singularity" or " a singularity" - just "singularity". Maybe the very centre of black holes touch singularity too - or maybe they don't. The evolving universe doesn't deal with the thread's question - "How did the universe come into existance?". The evolving universe is all about after it came into existance. I think nothingness is like a basket of oranges. You remove all the oranges and you have null oranges. When you say the basket is full of no oranges, that does not make the nothingness something, the word is just a way to describe something that isn't. Calling nothingness something does not make it something, it does not revoke its null state. So I agree, nothingness can be and I can imagine it. I have something stuck in my head that I don't know how true it is, but sounds kinda relevant to me. I think I was told that cold is the absence of heat. If that were true, could we say nothingness is the absence of somethingness? the orange exercise is a fun exercise as well. attempting to show that something could exist by its absence. another fun exercise is: if we could prove Null unequivocally then would we not also prove God at the same time? in this context God being a word to describe a Something Else than can enable Something to come from Nothing?

Phil Deakins wrote: 16 wrote: is interesting concept - nothingness our measurements show that what we can observe has a beginning and an end. from this we reason that the universe did have a beginning. when we conjecture that before the beginning there was Null - the state of absolute nothingness - then we create a paradox. the Null state is unprovable by any known method of measurement. so we treat it as an axiom. as a btw, in a semantic debate it can be shown that the state of nothingness itself cannot exist as when we assign a property value then it becomes something which opens up: if we say that it cannot be Null, as Null is unprovable then: a) what was it before the beginning? or b) was there even a beginning as we normally understand the concept? if we say that it was Null, even if we can't prove it, then we are being axiomatic as a starting premise i am more inclined to b). what we do know is that things evolve. from this we can postulate that the universe in its current form evolved from a previous form and will one day evolve into another form. ad infinitum. if only because of the Null argumentation That's the problem when discussing what I've called "nothingness" (you used a better word - "Null"). Even calling it a state/condition/circumstance/condition/whatever of nothingness is meaningless because that turns it into a something, which negates the very idea of absolute nothingness. Even using a word for it (nothingness or Null) turns it into a something. Imagining it without it being a state of reality in time and space is impossible for us. That's why I've suggested considering it rather than imagining it, because we can't possibly imagine it. I see no reason to decide that something isn't true, just because it's unprovable. I see no reason to say that Null can't have been. As an aside, I like to think that Null exists (although the word "exists" gives it the property of existing, which is not what I mean). I like to think that outside the expanding universe is singularity - Null - absolute nothingness. Not the singularity that cosmologists talk about as being at the centre of black holes - one singularity to each black hole. I like the word "singularity" to describe Null, so it's just "singularity" and not " the singularity" or " a singularity" - just "singularity". Maybe the very centre of black holes touch singularity too - or maybe they don't. The evolving universe doesn't deal with the thread's question - "How did the universe come into existance?". The evolving universe is all about after it came into existance. yes, evolve was the wrong word. not precise enough in this context. so i will try to restate i think we can conclude that inline with the rules of observation and measurement, the universe in its current material form had a Beginning. what is open is what was there before this particular beginning? my inclination is that there was Something, and Something before that, and before that, ad infinitum. Something cannot come from Nothing all by itself if Something did come out of Null - the nothingness - then there was Something Else beyond/outside of the Null that enabled this - a paradox in itself. Something Else immeasurable from within the Null itself. immeasurable also in any Something that came out of the Null. as all measurements of and within this Something can only lead back to the Null and not beyond. so if we did accept that there was no Something before the Beginning then there must have been Something Else. which is Something in itself interestingly the acknowledgement of Something Else in this context can indicate a plurality state. wherein Something Else can operate on/in or modify, a Null state (if such a thing is possible) and not be observable or measurable. if it were measurable then would not the state be singular by defintion? + yes we can certainly accept Null as a valid reference. is axiomatic is all

Phil Deakins wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: I don't see how the only conclusion can be that something must have created it. It can be one conclusion, but not the only one. Consider nothing at all - no 'anywhere' and no 'when' - no space, no matter, and no time for anything to exist in - absolute nothingness. Then something exists. How come? How did something come into existance? I can see no other conclusion but that existance itself, as we understand it (space, time, matter), was created by something/one. I can see that there might be, or have been, some other form of existance that we don't know about, that brought about the universe we do know about, but, to us, existance itself (the universe) is matter, space for the matter to be in, and time for the matter and space to exist in. That's the universe, which is all we know about, and that *had* to come about by something happening; i.e. something or some entity doing something that brought it about when there was absolutely no existance/universe at all. Something had to have happened, and something (or someone), in some form of existance, had to have caused it. is interesting concept - nothingness our measurements show that what we can observe has a begining and an end. from this we reason that the universe did have a beginning. when we conjecture that before the beginning there was Null - the state of absolute nothingness - then we create a paradox. the Null state is unprovable by any known method of measurement. so we treat it as an axiom. as a btw, in a semantic debate it can be shown that the state of nothingness itself cannot exist as when we assign a property value then it becomes something which opens up: if we say that it cannot be Null, as Null is unprovable then: a) what was it before the beginning? or b) was there even a beginning as we normally understand the concept? if we say that it was Null, even if we can't prove it, then we are being axiomatic as a starting premise i am more inclined to b). what we do know is that things evolve. from this we can postulate that the universe in its current form evolved from a previous form and will one day evolve into another form. ad infinitum. if only because of the Null argumentation

Madelaine McMasters wrote: ... given an infinite number of possibilities (which the multiverse theory posits) it's not hard to imagine that complete randomness could create what appears to be exquisite planning. ... this is actual a good thought. from it we can postulate that only things that are in themselves self-ordering survive andt things that are not, do not. survive in the sense that they can be measured by other self-ordering things

seriously, you are absolutely right. is silly to provide a function in the viewer and then also provide a method via LSL, and/or leave holes, so that the purpose of the function can be circumvented stuff that only half works kinda sorta is not good. not when it can leave an impression on the user that it does work as they would reasonably expect it too. i think that with this particular privacy viewer option then it should either totally work in all circumstances or it should be removed from the viewer

on nalates urriah's blog the transcript of the meeting has been broken down linden say that the way in which viewer info is transmitted is a hax. a vector hole they do not check for currently. the vector could be used to pass all kinds of info about a user's computer to other users in SL. not that any of the TPVs do this but it is possible. so they are closing the hole, which will break the viewer tags linden are saying that it is ok to transmit info about your computer to others if you choose to and is an opt-in option and not auto-transmitted without explicit permission. just can't use this vector anymore to do it

me no. i was just talking about chickens (:

i do realise that you like to post stuff to lighten the mood when things get a bit a heavy sometimes. and is ok that you do (: indirectly though you do raise a good point in doing this i wanted to think about these images for a few days. they are quite disturbing from an activists pov what are these people afraid of? why do they react in the way they do? can they not see that even a single determined penniless citizen can bring the most powerful corporation to its knees in a criminal court where justice cannot be bought at any price? why do they not seem to want this power returned to their own hands? why do they scream out against the power of the State and Big Money, the axis of the evil empire as they understand it, and simultaneously call on the State to decide the most important thing for them? why do they not see the implications of this bill not only for themselves but also for the evil empire or anyone else who does them harm? not only on the interwebz but in every other facet of society. is it that they just haven't thought about? or is it simply fear and they do not believe in themselves? i understand fear. its effects and the rage that can sometimes emanate from this. its core is the actual and perceived sense of powerlessness. it baffles me when people cower before it and not embrace something that truly empowers them and can actually help to put their fears behind them. while we continue to rely on the State to make fundamental decisions for us, at its own discretion, then we have little hope of ever creating a truly free society its ok to argue for the State to do this. there is nothing wrong or bad in doing so. just please do not equate this with Freedom. Protection, certainly. Freedom, no

then i would be happy to provide insufficient quality in a helpful way so that i might receive undue compensation

the chicken came first. then it built a shell around itself

do we get paid for unhelping? or is this unvoluntary?

Knowl Paine wrote: If these schools are so great; why aren't all schools Ivy League? Could it be that two separate curriculums are being taught to the people? One for the Administrators and the other for the servants? servant is way to high. i think the intention is serf

we have one somewheres. his name is Torley. i think he has been locked in a cupboard or stuffed in a rabbit hole (:

i think is two other things that this is aimed at other than the online status one is derending mesh clothing on another avatar. once the deformer is officially released and the need for alpha textures is not required. can easy lead to snapshots of naked avatars with names over their heads being taken by a TPV. at the moment this can usually only happen if you choose to be naked, baked textures and that. can wear baked underwear under your mesh clothes but that probably defeat the point of mesh clothing in general going forward other thing is the new experience permissions coming soon as part of the realms tools. we don't quite know what they are all about yet. but for instance autoattach or autoteleport may have a permission that works as intended in official linden viewer and a TPV may find ways around this that provides a different experience for people on the sim using the TPV from them using linden official. eg. the ability to deny a autoteleport on a game arena

Peggy Paperdoll wrote: SOPA and PIPA allows what is a civil action to move into the criminal area of law. What's more it does not require a court to make the determination whether or not the IP violation is criminal or civil.......the accuser says it criminal then it goes from there. That is not how the laws in this country work (maybe you should use Google a little more and look up the Constitution of the Unites States. the SOPA bill seeks to restore a right that has been extinguished in the USA. the natural justice and common law right of a citizen to criminally prosecute another citizen who has done them harm when the State decides not to do so the right was extinguished after a succession of US Court rulings that confirmed that the State could reserve to itself the right to prosecute a case in its own name. when this has been tested on constitutional grounds the Court has ruled that Congress has the sole authority to determine who can prosecute in the name of the State, and that the State has the sole authority to determine who it will criminally prosecute the US Constitution does not prevent a citizen from being criminally prosecuted by another citizen. the will of Congress does. private criminal prosecutions did used to happen in the USA before the State reserved this power to itself where i live we retain this right. should the State decide not to prosecute then we have the right to prosecute the matter ourselves in the courts. so justice is served to all. you are absolutely correct about one thing. i me myself get to decide if the harm done to me is criminal or not. no one else. i make that decision. if the State wont help me when i am being harmed then i will go an independent Judiciary and ask the Judge to help me, as is my right. the same right every other citizen where i live has and same every citizen who lives in countries that have a justice system inherited from english common law and natural justice in the USA, access to criminal justice is by State consent. you don't get to make that decision. the State makes it for you + please don't take this the wrong way but i find it quite strange that me, an avowed center-left democratic socialist, is defending this position quite often against avowed libertarians and others on the center-right. it used to be a core tenet of libertarianism and the center-right that every citizen must have the unfettered right to pursue Liberty, Freedom and Justice. is kinda surreal to find that this seems to no longer be the case

jwenting wrote: Didn't help I guess I never even got to the start island, the client crashed right after character creation and when I logged back in I was somewhere random on the mainland. welcome to Sl jwenting (: it gets even more random the more times you log. after a time you nott ever want to leave. just like the rest of us (:

Anaiya Arnold wrote: Yes, a failure to respond because you are in hospital or on holiday can see you alienated from your property rights, just because it happens to be IP. Did you not claim that IP is entitled to the same protection as other property? What other property must you be constantly prepared to vigilently defend, dare nto leave unattended for a period of time, for fear of losing your rights to it legally? Not through theft, but to be deprived of undisturbed enjoyment of it with the full blessing of the law? you dont seem to know much about lawmaking and the justice system given this assertion. am going to show you what i mean by this. am going to use logical reasoning to make it easier for you to understand me "what about the person who goes to hospital, is not able to respond to a claim, and on recovery finds that their site has been shut down because another person has claimed rights to content on their site. a claim which is fraudulent" this is the circumstance from which you have jumped to your conclusion that a time limit will deny this person justice and alienate them from their rights as an exercise in reasoning this is incomplete. as a formal logic exercise your conclusion is invalid by counter-example: "a person puts content, for which they do not have a license to distribute, on their site and makes it available to others. they then go to the same hospital for the same reason and are too not in a position to respond. the legal owner of the content delivers to the last known address a formal complaint. they wait for a response" what is the conclusion regarding a time limit in this circumstance? + so how do we reconcile them? first we understand that it is not a circumstance. it is a set of circumstances. had you recognised this then you would not have reached the conclusion you did knowing that it is a set of circumstances we apply natural justice. that is the convention. had you known this also, then again you would have not reached your conclusion. but you did reach your conclusion so you are either unaware of the convention or you do not know how to apply it in the first circumstance there is potential for harm. this circumstance may happen or it may not. for it to happen another person must make the fraudulent claim in the counter-example, the second circumstance, real and actual harm has already occurred. the infringing comtent is on the site in a natural justice system, which the USA is, real and actual harm has precedence over the potential for harm. so we apply a time limit so that justice is served to all circumstances in the set in the first circumstance if the potential for harm is realised then the site owner can prove that they are either the owner or a licensee of the content. they can then obtain remedial relief. rights are restored. justice is served in the second circumstance, rights are restored and justice is served when the time limit expires without a time limit then: justice is served to the first circumstance in the set the second circumstance is denied access to natural justice by law

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Other than welcome centers, go to some of the places in the editor pick destinations. Lots of newbs go to check them out when they first venture out of the welcome area. ^^ that another good place is the realms portal park. is lots of new people there looking to earn money because they think they have to buy stuff

my bad refutation [by the defendant] and non-acceptance [by the plaintiff]. not responding to a complaint is grounds for non-acceptance and relief can be sought on that basis + understanding. is not my understanding that is the problem. is my typing. i already had some messages like "cn u pls stp use ur puta leik a gdm fone ffs n cn u pls turn ur f spelchk on ty". so i am going to try to be better at that starting now. my grammar is still chit though seems like. i am up to 300 posts. when i get to like 3000 then i will be a gdm expert i hope (: + good faith. if we all acted in good faith then we would not need any laws at all yes + analogy. i got the point you were trying to make the first time. it is just that i started laughing and i let it go. when you came back with it the second time i went wut !!!. is plenty of other examples you could have used to make your point + advocacy. i advocate that people must respect the copyrights and licenses on other peoples stuff. i advocate that hosting sites are responsible for content stored on their servers when they make that content available to their users. further, the host must take reasonable precautions to prevent their users from uploading content intended for viewing or distribution to others where the uploading user is not permitted to do so by the license. when infringing content is found on their servers, by whatever means, then it must be removed as soon as is practically possible some people say making hosts do this is impractical. is not impractical for iTunes to do. is also not impractical for 100s of 1000s of other hosts to do because they are actually doing this now. if it is not impractical for them then on what basis is it impractical for anyone else? money? time? resources? i can't be bothered? the interwebz as we know it is doomed? none of these are good enough reasons to override the property rights of others i also advocate for a provision that specifically exempts certain types of critical activities from the definition of host. interwebz backbone and ISP services, oversight, domain and search engines, etc. companies and organisations are not exempt in themselves. only the hosting component of the exempted activities. example: google search is exempt. google ads is not. search is critical. ads are not + sopa. i support representative democracy and an independent judiciary. i have faith in the legislative processes that this entails. processes that have evolved from centuries of practice. is not a perfect system but like most people say, is better than all the others for changes to be made to the law then a bill is required. no bill - no change. what that bill may evolve into by the time it is voted on, if it is, is a product of these processes. if sopa is all that is on offer at the time then i will go with it, advocate for the provisions i believe should be in it, and trust in the representative democratic process + bad. the legislative committee process deals with badly-written bills. the legislature body determines what is legally good or bad in making law. the judiciary determines what is bad in law after it has been made. bad as in unconstitutional in the case of the USA. i am happy to accept the outcomes. if in my opinion the outcome is bad then i will continue to advocate for change + ps. i am not a USA citizen. however, what happens in the USA fundamentally affects the interwebz. it also impacts on secondlife. i have a vital interest in both