E -

>>15977
How droll.

Well I've tried for A in the past but never really felt the need to go beyond the explanation I had came to through individual research of many things scientific, so of course it is amateur in explanation at best. It must be that in lazy... Anyway, because of this, I would like to see something similar and A sounds like it. So iffin you're willing to hunker down and nerd out on this idea more than I was willing to type, please do. Oh and links to re final product.

>>16025
Necrobump from the 7th circle of hell.
The Astrology essay will be published in "The Colored Lens" ezine this winter.

>>16454
I think the link is
http://www.amazon.com/The-Colored-Lens-Winter-ebook/dp/B006O1QPMG/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1
and I have to admit my original essay was pretty trite, the editors were a massive help with suggestions and edits that make it something I'd be hella pround of if I'd thought of those thinngs myself.

>>16454
I was excited when I read the word 'published.' Then I saw the word ezine, and my excitement flagged. Then I went to the website, and my apathy was restored. Three cheers for maintaining the status quo. Hip hip, nngh.

B is too easy. I've written something similar before. The basic premise went something like this:

omnipotence = ability to do anything, but this dosen't include things like 'make colourless green ideas sleep furiously' -- obviously an omnipotent being can only do things that can be done.

omnipresence = everywhereness -- however no-one would argue that an omnipotent being is in narnia, for example -- clearly an omnipotent being can only be in places that can been in

omniscience = all knowingness -- but an omnipresent being would, by virtue of being everywhere, neccessarily know everything.

The conclusion was that there clearly is an omnipotent omnipresent omnipotent being, and it is the universe and the totality of existence.

Anyway, enough of my shite: I think A could be good if done properly, would have to be very excellent to not be shit, if you know what I mean. C too, but you look like you're already descending into hippie talk, you might believe in it a bit much. If you can bring yourself to go through with it, a proper analysis of A could be worthwhile. I was reading 'The Body Electric' -- a really intelligent discussion of how electromagnetism effects the human body, and he discussed a little the affect, somewhat studied, with some research supporting, of how the magnetic field of the planet and the sun affect us as people -- I personally believe that there is certainly some likelihood that the position of the start at our birth affects they way we turn out, just as everything else in our environment affects us, albeit in increasingly diminutive ways, until you get to astrology, somewhere near the bottom of our influences.

Also, try modafinil sometime. I think you might enjoy it.

>>16458
Not to rain on your parade, but...

1. To an omnipotent being, anything can be done. It transcends the laws of reason because it dictates the laws of reason, therefore it CAN make colorless green ideas sleep furiously because it can eliminate any contradiction by virtue of its omnipotence.

2. Why can't an omnipotent being be in Narnia?

3. A rock is somewhere, but I can guarantee you the rock has no clue as to where it is. Presence does not impart knowledge.

I hope you didn't score very highly on that essay.

>>16463
It wasn't actually, like, marked or anything.

1. I disagree; 'omnipotent' is a word therefore it is of the realm of words. It is not enough to describe it in terms that try and set it outside of the rules of language. Well, certainly you can say that--you just did. But what you said did not have any meaning.

2. Maybe my example wasn't obvious enough -- would you say an omnipotent being can dksdgksdfjg? Or sakdkfd? By describing it as 'omnipotent' we are tying it indelibly to the realm of words and meaning, and no hand-waving statements can change that.

Similarly it makes no sense to say that a thing can exist in narnia, because narnia is not a place that exists itself. Would you say an omnipresent being was 'in' nowhere? You can see the trap I'm sure -- if you say 'no' then it is not everywhere. If you say yes it is nowhere. Either way, it is not omnipresent in the sense of 'being in all places that I can put in a sentence'. A thing can only be where a thing can be.

3. By that argument then you are saying a thing does not know itself simply by being itself--that the knowledge must be seated somewhere other than in the thing that is known. In that case, what is doing the 'knowing' when something is both omnipresent and omniscient? It must necessarily know itself, otherwise it breaks its own rules.

>>16486
Oops, I put in the numbers wrong :/

>>16486
1. The word omnipotent is in the realm of worlds, but an omnipotent being is not. It is by definition unlimited. There are no rules confining it. Omnipotence exists outside of any system and cannot be limited by your understanding of pre-existing systems. You are assigning limitations of a system to something that exists outside of the system.

2. An omnipotent being can anything. That's the definition of omnipotence. An omnipresent being can anywhere, including nowhere. If you say this is impossible and nonsensical, then you haven't read your Hegel, Sartre, or Eastern Philosophy.

3. The thing that is 'knowing' the universe is you. You are only verifying your own existence.

>>16488

1. Then 'omnipotent' should be in quotes. This is what I like about Islam, and Judaism--they clearly state that the name of god is unknowable, unspeakable. At least that is logically congruent. Giving a thing a label binds it to that label.

So just to make it clear: you would argue that an omnipotent being can skfkjdj? Even though that string of letters does not refer to anything at all, you would still argue that an omnipotent being can 'do' it?

3. So the thing that knows everything must know itself--and then it must know that part of itself that is knowing itself--and then it must know the part of itself that is knowing the part of itself that knows itself. I don't think you've read your Hofstadter my friend.

>>16527
1. That which is, isn't always the way you think it should be.

2. An omnipotent being can do meaningless things. Even a human can do meaningless things. The statement "an omnipotent being can x" is true no matter what you fill in for x.

3. Finally, some true statements! Excepting that I haven't read Hofstadter. But you don't seem to have realized that you haven't established anything as omniscient. I fear you may be confusing the phrase "the thing that is 'knowing' the universe is you" with "you know everything that there is to know in the universe."

>>16531
Mmm, okay we clearly aren't getting anywhere. I suppose I'm too reductionist and you too metaphysical. Maybe we should leave it at that.

Having said that,
1. if I choose to describe that thing in words, then it must be the way I 'think' it to be. How else do we think, but in words?

2. 'do meaningless things' is a figure of speech, it does not mean the same as 'to perform an action denoted by a string of letters that do not form a word'. Certainly a person can do meaningless things. That does not mean a person can sdfkjsdf.

3. I'm not trying to establish anything as omniscient. I'm trying to establish that a thing cannot be omniscient.

>>16534
1. Read your Sapir-whorf. Words are ideas. These ideas can be expressed in words. We can think in pictures. We can think tactilely. We can also think in pure idea.

2. Can you say that a person can't sdfkjsdf if you don't know what it means?

3.
>an omnipresent being would, by virtue of being everywhere, neccessarily know everything.
>The conclusion was that there clearly is an omnipotent omnipresent omnipotent being, and it is the universe
According to your own logic, the universe is omniscient.
Establishing that a thing cannot be omniscient when you have already established the universe as omniscient is self-contradictory. I'm curious as to why you have now decided to seek self-contradiction.

well, I'd still sdfkjsdf your mom.

Would you date a Maxwell demon?

>>16547
No, wait, I mean the demon of Laplace; The one of Maxwell is a bore.

>>16548
Laplace's demon is dead and buried. Maxwell's, however, we have successfully summoned with magnetic refrigeration.