h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Cheers, Noggin. It was but a half-formed thought. I guess that, Jordan-like, we ought to run through the possibilities.

Assume two domains have:

1. Unshared and inconsistent rules.

2. Mostly unshared rules, where the shared ones are necessarily consistent with both domains.

3. Consistent rules over both domains but unshared applications.

4. Completely shared and consistent rules except for a few that apply only in one domain.

5. Ditto except a subset of the rules are exclusive to each domain.

6. Some shared applications but inconsistent rules. (supernatural?)

Now I've forgotten the nature of the question. I wonder what all or any of the above would imply. Bet I've missed something out.

toxx

Something to get my teeth into.

I'll have to think about these and get back to you.

But one or two easy bits and a cuople (cuople? I think my fingers are in a different domain to my brain ) of thoughts/questions.

If the rules in each domain are completely unshared, then the two domains lead separate existences, and this case can be ignored.

What do you mean by applications?

By inconsistent rules in (6), do you mean internally inconsistent, or inconsistent between the domains?

Although I've presented the idea of a boundary in terms of physical space for ease of visualisation, it could be regarded as a boundary in any n dimensional phase space/logical space. Did Wittgenstein take the idea of logical space in the Tractatus from Poincare's mathematical idea of phase space developed a couple of decades earlier?

Noggin

I think when people say things like "I don't believe in gods because I don't believe in the supernatural," or some variation on that, they are really saying that they don't believe in gods because the concept goes against their intuitions on the world.

That would certainly be my position. I think the trick is to work out why it goes against my intuitions. For myself, largely because it all seems too convenient.

Annie-Laurie, that site you provided didn't exactly seem all that credible. I've had a look around a few sites from various sources, and the quotes from the 'Secret Conversations of Hitler' seem to be real enough, but I think you'll need to provide a better source for Hitler saying he was a pagan. Potentially it could just be him saying he was against the established churches and their teachings. Many people (ignorantly) use "pagan" and indeed "heathen" that way.

I still feel 'Mein Kampf' would be the stronger source, although its possible he may have changed his view(s) on gods after writing it. He seems more focused on social darwinism and most of all personal power, and periphery views are much more subject to change than those at the core of a person. I think if Hitler had been a man to stand by principles then he would've brought back Kaiser Wilhelm.

By the way, I might call you Della by accident, that name has gotten itself linked to your writing style in my mind. If I do its nothing to do with the personal squabble which, incidentally, would do much better staying on the personal spaces of those involved.

there is nothin i want to be true for a reason, i mean think about it, if all u lived for was in the end pointless than what would be the point of living. so i have been thought to look forward to something at the end of ma life, otherwise why should i b alive.

If life is not an end in itself, why should immortality be an end in itself?

Noggin

<>

Yes well, Bouncy, if Della only told lies about people on their personal spaces then what you call a 'squabble' probably would stay there.

I was backing Jez up awhile ago, because this isn't the first time she has asked Della to respond to her. The last time I remember was when Della said something totally untrue about Jez - on this very thread - and when Jez asked Della to either retract her statement or show her proof of it (a link to a posting) Della did nothing. About the same time Della also told a few whoppers about me and I got the same treatment Jez did when I asked Della to back up her statements with links to postings where I had actually said what she had accused me of saying.

Now she has changed her name to try and get people to forget that she recently made a death threat to another researcher (she didn't like being called Death Threat Della) and she is giving people a hard time about it here if they still call her Della.

It's not a *personal squabble*, Bouncy. It's simply that wherever Della is people tend to respond to her in a similar manner.

Jez has now asked Della twice to either retract something she said (which Jez found offensive) or show some proof to back up her statement. Della has not replied.

Anyhoodle, there are often two or three separate conversations happening on this thread at any given time. If you don't like this bit then you are free to ignore it like toxx and Noggin are and carry on discussing something you find more interesting.



az

hi cyberangel,

You've suddenly stopped using capital letters and are slipping into txtspeak!

<>

Who decides what is pointless and why?

az

Dear h2g2 members

Have no fear - I shall now only post to the reincarnated Annie when she libels me or mine - since it is pretty obvious that no-one on this thread took her comments about Hitler being /a/ pagan (as opposed to Hitler saying he was pagan (actual german word not given but probably meaning non-Abrahamaic)) I shall let her libel drop - after all, if she can get away with the stuff she has posted under her previous name of Della the Cat Woman, she will certainly be allowed to get away with mere libel against a minority religious group now that she has begun to call herself Annie Laurie.

Jez

Haveing seen his pic!
I'm trying to work out if noggin and I had the same man or coalman

Well Noggin. Assuming no punning intent between 'mortality' and 'end'; then why indeed? Whence the question? I think the answer to the question as put hinges on the extent to which immortality might involve factors not encountered during mortal life. If it's just more of the same, then it's difficult to justify assigning radically different attributes.

Regarding our earlier conversation: by 'applications' I hope I mean the same as you do by your A,B,C etc. More on that after some thinking time.

toxx

"she will certainly be allowed to get away with mere libel against a minority religious group now that she has begun to call herself Annie Laurie."

If Hitler ever did call himself pagan (case unproven) the liklihood is that he meant (s you pointed out) 'someone who is not Jewish/Christian/Muslim'.

The question is: given that there are actual pagans in the world, is the presumed usage Hitler may have made of the word, and which is commonly in use by many people, still deemed legitimate? If anyone is inclined to say yes, I would point out that the Christian usage of both the word pagan and the word heathen were derogatory (and still is, mostly). If someone says that that is no longer the usage of the word, I would point out that the "interim" meaning of someone not believing in an Abrahamic faith is no longer the usage either.

Either way, could we avoid offending on religious grounds simply through sloppy phrasing? Wonderful!

toxx

I'm inclined to take 'applications' as being an integral part of the rules. ie any given rule contains its application.

The rules can contain variables.

In a sense this leaves three variations on a theme of some shared rules, and some rules applicable in either one domain or the other, but not both.

Noggin

OK, Noggin. Checked out your piccy. I have a bit more hair and a bit less beard - plus a pair of specs.

Why "not both" and would 'both' shatter part of your world view, or is "not both" somehow necessarily the case? If contingent, on what? I think I came into this a bit late. However, I see the logic if not the topic! What are the three remaining variations and why only three. Does this depend on some assumptions?

Do you really need your A,B,C in addition to the rules, or is that merely for clarification. What are the implications of this incestuous relation between rule and application. If applications are different in different domains, then the rules are gonna hafta be different for seriously question-begging reasons!

toxx

Not both simply because if *all* the rules are applicable in both domains, then we only have one domain.

I think your question is "What are the rules operating on in a world consisting only of rules?"

Noggin

But suppose just *one* rule is applicable in just one of the domains. Alternatively, suppose *one* rule is applicable in both domains but not consistent with the remaining rules in one/both of them.

What is then to be said?

toxx

Well, I guess I ask what the rules are operating on. I have assumed that there are what I call 'applications' to be operated on. Elucidation and examples from your thinking will be given respectful consideration.

toxx

Suppose there is one extra entity in one of the domains to which none of the rules apply. Wouldn't this be a counterexample to what you say even though it fits your stipulation as it stands? Would the domain with the extra entity contain something supernatural?

In other words, don't the domains become seperate because of differing sets of entities as well as different rules? The insertion of one tiny difference in one entity seems a bit trivial to make the domains separate. Maybe this, if you accept it, sneaks gods in via the back door!

toxx

<<>I suppose a "bad Christian" would be someone who the speaker considers a Christian, but doesn't think follows the rules of Christianity properly.<<>>

<<>

Whichever rules the speaker thinks apply. Basicly, I assume that the speaker has some preconcieved notion of what a Christion should be. A "bad Christian" would be someone the speaker considers a christian but who does not really conform well to those notions.

<>

Well, perhaps we can call it supernatural if it seems to follow either no rules or rules so complex that we cannot understand them.

<>

Seems like there's really just one set of rules--with subrules that depend on which set is involved.

Maybe that's what you're saying and I'm too hot/tired to understand it.