Re: [Fractint] FOTD 08-08-02 (Odd Mandelbrot [5])
Morgan Owens wrote: <much snippage>
I agree completely, [that the science-religion conflict is off-topic on this list] so why do you keep [broaching the topic here] especially when you said you'd stop?
IMO, the non-problem lies not so much in the fact that I keep posting off-topic letters, but rather in the nature of fractals themselves, which invite and almost demand philosophical (and yes, mystical) speculation. This, in large part, is what makes fractals so fascinating to both skeptics and the less skeptical. Check the original FOTD for August 8, which started this thread. In that letter I mentioned the four-dimensional nature of the Julibrot, which I often mention, and pointed out that the world we live in has only three dimensions, with no place for a four-dimensional object. I mentioned nothing about religion or the philosophy of science. As I recall, someone else posted a justified and IMO on-topic reply speculating about the nature of numbers and mathematics, and the mini-debate progressed from there. I have no idea where or how the topic of the conflict between science and religion entered the discussion.
So I take it you waited a while so that people who might want to see your reply would've had time to subscribe before you posted it?
Most of the delay in my replies is due to the time difference between New Zealand and the east coast of the USA. And yes, I did post the notice to this list so that those who might want to see my reply would know where to find it. My message might even have resulted in a few additional subscribers to the under- manned philofractal list, where posting a letter is often like talking to oneself.
I have a suggestion. I'm suggesting it here 'cos it could impact on the other readers of this list. Start yourself a weblog. Then you can post whatever you like whenever you like...
I've been thinking of doing things like this for years. It's a nice idea, but I don't see how I could find the time. As a final remark, I wonder why no one ever complains about the really off-topic things I write, such as the weather report and activities of the cats. All the off-topic complaints seem to come when I connect fractals to metaphysical things such as spiritual reality, a connection which is only slightly if at all off-topic. To me, fractals are spiritual (non-material) realities and their existence lends credence to the claims of other spiritual realities, such as the claims of religion. I cannot honestly ignore the fact that fractals lead in this direction. Jim (still controversial) M.
Jim,
As a final remark, I wonder why no one ever complains about the really off-topic things I write, such as the weather report and activities of the cats.
Because they make you seem like a real human being who lives some place with real cats and not just an account that keeps posting off-topic metaphysical stuff. :-) I may disagree with your meta-physics (and physics, biology, ...) but I won't gripe about it being off-topic. And, lets face it, topicality is off-topic! Besides if Tim Wegner lets you get away with it, it is OK by me, especially since the bulk of what gets posted here is FOTD and reactions. The list owes you a lot. Thanks. Mike
Second (that emotion). D. Freed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Traynor" <lmtraynor@sympatico.ca> To: <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [Fractint] FOTD 08-08-02 (Odd Mandelbrot [5])
Jim,
As a final remark, I wonder why no one ever complains about the really off-topic things I write, such as the weather report and activities of the cats.
Because they make you seem like a real human being who lives some place with real cats and not just an account that keeps posting off-topic metaphysical stuff. :-)
I may disagree with your meta-physics (and physics, biology, ...) but I won't gripe about it being off-topic.
And, lets face it, topicality is off-topic!
Besides if Tim Wegner lets you get away with it, it is OK by me, especially since the bulk of what gets posted here is FOTD and reactions. The list owes you a lot. Thanks.
Mike
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
Besides, some of us think that Jim is really just a virtual identity of the cats. On 13 Aug 02, at 19:03, Mike Traynor wrote:
Jim,
As a final remark, I wonder why no one ever complains about the really off-topic things I write, such as the weather report and activities of the cats.
Because they make you seem like a real human being who lives some place with real cats and not just an account that keeps posting off-topic metaphysical stuff. :-)
I may disagree with your meta-physics (and physics, biology, ...) but I won't gripe about it being off-topic.
And, lets face it, topicality is off-topic!
Besides if Tim Wegner lets you get away with it, it is OK by me, especially since the bulk of what gets posted here is FOTD and reactions. The list owes you a lot. Thanks.
Mike
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:07:34 -1000, David Jones wrote:
Besides, some of us think that Jim is really just a virtual identity of the cats.
You mean a fractal manifestation? :-) John -- John Lewis, jlewis@clara.net on 08/14/2002
-- --You mean a fractal manifestation? -- --:-) --John You mean a fractal Jim? JiJiiJimiJiimJJiJJiimJimmJJimmiJJiimmJmJJiJ
Mike Traynor wrote:
Because they make you seem like a real human being who lives some place with real cats and not just an account that keeps posting off-topic metaphysical stuff. :-)
Or at least a really GOOD AI program... :-\
Besides if Tim Wegner lets you get away with it, it is OK by me, especially since the bulk of what gets posted here is FOTD and reactions. The list owes you a lot. Thanks.
I very much agree!!
I may disagree with your meta-physics (and physics, biology, ...)
I very much agree! ;-)
And, lets face it, topicality is off-topic!
Actually, in many forums, topicality is always on-topic. But I suppose in a moderated forum, it's Moderator's Call. -- |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________|
At 03:48 14/08/2002, Jim Muth wrote:
Morgan Owens wrote:
Check the original FOTD for August 8, which started this thread. In that letter I mentioned the four-dimensional nature of the Julibrot, which I often mention, and pointed out that the world we live in has only three dimensions, with no place for a four-dimensional object. I mentioned nothing about religion or the philosophy of science. As I recall, someone else posted a justified and IMO on-topic reply speculating about the nature of numbers and mathematics, and the mini-debate progressed from there. I have no idea where or how the topic of the conflict between science and religion entered the discussion.
Yes, I was the one who first posted the reply. S. Africanus then said something about mathematicians taking over cosmology and inventing black holes. John Wilson said that it was probably a topic for the philofractal list, I said that you tended to denigrate anything not mystical enough for you - in light of something you'd posted when I was posting some philosophical material. (You do realise that the only one you spoke in favour of was the most general-audience science popularisation of the lot? I'm afraid it was a troll.) You next suggested I had a problem with mysticism (I don't, really. I just have problems with how you present it.) Kathy Roth noted that many scientists are also religious, which I agreed with (though it was a bit of a veer); and it does tend to work against your frequent polarisations of the detbate. You were the first to explicitly mention a science/religion conflict, with an editorial insertion into my post that showed you misunderstood what I had written. This is often the case with your editorial insertions; it's almost as if you don't want to answer to what someone said, but only to what you wished they had said. Bloody irritating, that.
So I take it you waited a while so that people who might want to see your reply would've had time to subscribe before you posted it?
Most of the delay in my replies is due to the time difference between New Zealand and the east coast of the USA.
Can someone on the philofractal list compare the posting times of the post and the advertisement for the Fractint post? Morgan L. Owens " MT-1{ Axiom f angle 4 f=fg g=gf } "
Morgan L. Owens wrote:
Can someone on the philofractal list compare the posting times of the post and the advertisement for the Fractint post?
Yes. ;-} P.N.L. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.fractalus.com/cgi-bin/theway?ring=fractals&id=43&go
As a final remark, I wonder why no one ever complains about the really off-topic things I write, such as the weather report and activities of the cats.
I really do like all your writings, Jim! Please go on with your weather report and stories about your pets. Mary
participants (10)
-
bmc1 -
David Jones -
geoff stanton -
Jim Muth -
John Lewis -
M J Benkers -
Mike Traynor -
Morgan L. Owens -
Paul N. Lee -
Programmer Dude