Subject:	[novaroma] Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
From:	Lykaion1@--------
Date:	Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:11:42 EDT

Salvete,

I am very sorry for my tardiness in responding.

This will be a very long post, for I will try to respond to several
replies without cluttering up the list with several posts. Also, my
capitalizing of some words is for emphasis, and is not 'shouting'.

I will start by addressing some science issues first, and then move on
to the question of actual infinites. I will then summarize my reasons for
believing the universe to be finite and created by God, and then give
objections to that view, and answers.

When Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift, which was the first evidence
that the universe was exanding, many within the scientific community were
disturbed. They liked the old idea of the universe as an eternal celestial
machine, with no beginning nor end. The picture of a universe having a
beginning disrupted this elegant view of things for them. To some, it seemed
to smack of divine intervention, and so it had to be opposed. First there
was the atheist Fred Hoyle, who tried to oppose this "big bang" theory with
his own "steady state" theory. This steady state theory is now discarded as
more evidence for the big bang has firmly established it as fact.

So another view of the universe as oscillating was presented. This view
allowed for the big bang to take place, while retaining the eternality of the
pre-big bang cosmology.
The universe would simply expand and contract back into it's initial
singularity {a big crunch} infinitely, in a series of expansions and
contractions with no beginning nor end.
Vado presents this view as well. But the oscillating universe theory is also
now generally discarded. The scientific reasons involve mass and
thermodynamics.

1. There would be no known mechanism for expaning and contracting the
universe endlessly with 100% efficiency; Perpetual motion machines are
impossible according to the second law of themodynamics. This is a problem
that must be faced, though to be fair, perhaps there is some unknown means by
which the energy levels can be "reshuffled" to allow the universe to be such
a machine.

2. In order for the universe to stop expanding, there must be a certain
amount of mass which would account for the necessary gravitational pull to
halt the expansion. But the cosmologists do not have the mass needed for
this. Even taking into account the hypothetical "dark matter", they can only
account for approx. 35 percent of the mass needed just to halt the expansion.
And an even greater amount of mass would be needed to reverse the expansion.


3. The two reasons above led the cosmologists to drop the oscillating
theory. But even if the universe was oscillating, it could not be an
infinite cycle because of the problems with the actual infinite discussed
already. I will return to the actual infinite later.

With the steady state theory and oscillating theory dropped, a new way
had to be thought of to avoid the uncomfortable possible implications of the
big bang. Enter the "no boundry universe", popularized by Hawking in the
late 1980s in his book, A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME. Hawking says he thinks
previous attempts to avoid the big bang were motivated by the feeling that a
beginning of time implies a creator. He admits that if the universe began to
exist, one could identify the big bang as the instant at which God created
the universe.
But to avoid this possibility, Hawking attempts to eliminate the initial
singularity altogether, by intorducing quantum physics into the earliest
stage of the universe, prior to 10 neg 43rd power seconds after the big bang.
To do this, he must use imaginary numbers for the time variable, such as the
square root of negative one. Since any real number squared always equals a
positive number, there can be no square root of negative 1. This is why such
numbers are called imaginary.
By introducing imaginary numbers for the time variable, the singularity
is eliminated, but so is the difference between space and time in the
equations describing the universe. This is strange, since both the General
and Special Theories of Relativity distinguish space from time by having
their variables use different signs in the equation. In Hawkings model, the
difference vanishes because he is using imaginary numbers for the time
variable. So, in Hawkings model, the past is finite, but boundless, and
since space is no longer distinguished from imaginary time, it is not proper
to regard any point on this universe' "surface" as actually earlier than any
other, just as it would be improper to regard a point on a basketball as
earlier than any other point. "There would be no singularities at which the
laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have
to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundry conditions for
space-time. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected
by anything outside itself. It would just BE."

Hawking seems to take his model of the universe as a realistic and
accurate description of the way the universe is, or else he would not feel
that he has eliminated 'the need for a creator.' But can it be taken as
such? His use of "imaginary time" is itself an obstacle. It is a physcially
unintelligble term. If this is supposed to be a realistic model of the
universe, then Hawking should explain just what "imaginary time" is. If he
does not, it is a meaningless set of words, like "imaginary volume of a box",
or an "imaginary number of people in a subway car". Hawking says imaginary
time is a "well-defined mathematical concept". But that is not the issue.
The issue is whether this mathematical concept corresponds to physical
reality. Just because something can be defined mathematically is no reason
to think it physical reality corresponds to it. Only by experience or
reasoning can we distinguish between a mathematical solution and it's alleged
physical correlate. A "well defined mathematical concept" may actually be a
metaphysical impossibility and the only way to determine this is to get away
from the math and to see what experience or scientific experiment tells us
what reality is like. We have no comprehension of what it would be for time
to be "imaginary" in the mathematical sense. It is only a mathematical
artifice.
Sir Arthur Eddington said that readers of his work who found it hard to
understand curved space-time could evade the difficulty by using imaginary
numbers. But he himself admitted that this is not useful to use to speculate
this because imaginary time is only an illustrative tool, which has no
correspondece to physical reality.
Imaginary numbers are used in mathematics as devices which help in the
computation of some equations, BUT one must always CONVERT BACK into real
numbers at the end in order to have some physicaly meaningful result.
Hawking himself admits this: "As far as everyday quantum mechanics is
concerned, we may regard our use of imaginary time...as a merely mathematical
device {or trick} to calculate answers about real space time". But Hawking
in his model simply does not take the final step of re-converting back into
real numbers. When this is done...the singularity Hawking wants to avoid
reappears! Hawking says, "Only if we could picture the universe in terms of
imaginary time would there be no singularites....When one goes back to the
real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be
singularities".
There is another problem with his use of imaginary time. It makes time
a spatial dimension, when space and time are essentially different. Space is
ordered by a relation of INBETWEENNESS. For points a, b, and c on a spatial
line, b is in between c. Time, on the other hand, is ordered in addition by
a unique relation of 'earlier than/later than'. For two moments, t1 and t2,
t1 is earlier than t2. It is "before and after". Time without these
relations would NOT be time at all. So time cannot be a dimension of space.
And more, time is ordered by the relations "past" and "future" with repect to
the present. This is not at all similar to the relations of points in space.
Space and time are essentially different. If we claim time is a dimension
of space, we would not even be able to say that Lucius Cornelius Sulla was
born before he became dictator of Rome, since to say this is to assert a
temporal relation between the two events!
These problems apply to all quantum gravitational models of the
universe,since all of them have real space-time originate in a quantum
mechanical region involving imaginary time. If these are intended as mere
mathematical exercises, there is no problem. But they cannot be called
realistic models of the actual universe.

Phil says, "The current thinking is that our Universe is only one of an
infinite number of universes, and that each universe has a different set of
physical laws."

The above statement is not quite accurate. The "multiverse" is an idea,
held by some cosmologists, not by all, and is siezed upon mostly by
sensationalist publications as a theory, when in fact, it is not.
It is a fact that our universe is exquisitely "tuned" to allow the
emergence of carbon life {such as we humans}. For example, if the force of
gravity were just a wee bit stronger or weaker than it is, life would have
been impossible. There are long lists of these constants which delineate
precisely what the universe must be like in order to have life. Now, this
"anthropic principle" has excited many scientists, {could this mean that life
was intended to arise?} while others have not been blown over. I admit this
has never really thrilled me, because {a} if the universe WERE different, we
would not be here to lament the fact, and {b} for all we know, there may be
some "built in" law which makes this kind of universe the only one which can
actually exist. But, the anthropic principle has bothered others, who then
invent ways of "explaining" the anthropic constants by positing infinite
universes. Let's take an analogy: Suppose Nova Roma had one million
citizens, and each citizen was issued a raffle ticket. The prize is a
genuine Roman statue of Scipio, sculpted in the Republican era. Each ticket
has a number, from 1 to 1,000,000. The tickets are put in a huge barrel and
the barrel is spun around for two weeks, to ensure a good shaking. The
consul draws a winning ticket. Now each citizen stands only a one in a
million chance of winning the prize. But regardless of this, ONE of them
WILL win. Now suppose there are an infinity of universes. While the odds of
one single universe having the precise constants for containing life is
small, chances are, with so many universes, one or a few WILL actually beat
the odds and have these necessary constants.
But do these other universes actually exist? Pysicist and science
writer James Trefil makes an important point to remember when considering
these imaginary universes. "...parallel universe theories have one point in
common: all of them say it is impossible for any sort of communication to
take place between one universe and the next. So even if there is a parallel
universe out there, we'll never know about it!" {The Edge of the Unknown, pp
115} None of these imagined universes has been shown to exist, nor can they
be shown to exist. That would seem to be a big enough problem. But the
speculation does not end there. The parallel universe idea is rife with
unproven speculations. If a star collapses into a black hole, and IF the
trend towards the singularity is somehow reversed by quantum processes such
as inflation, and IF it is "shunted sideways" {borrowing a phrase from John
Gribbon} then MAYBE other universes are born, and MAYBE this process alters
the laws of physics for this new baby universe, IF particles pass through a
wormhole {another unproven entity} so that given billions of black holes, we
could have billions of different universes each with their own unique natural
laws or variations of such. So IF all this happens, our own universe is one
in MAYBE an infinite set of universes, and just happens to be one with the
anthropic constants. Just like the raffle. A universe may be bucking the
odds to be anthropic, but at least one of them WILL be.
Can these universe be shown to exist? No. So can we then know if black
holes are in fact "gateways" to other universes? No. And if we cannot, can
we then know if these unknown posited universes in fact have different laws
of nature, instead of having the same constants as our own? Of course not.
In multiple universe thinking, we step away from actual science and enter the
world of the imagination. Billions of universes are posited in order to
explain away the universe we have! {Ockham's Razor anyone?} Suppose there
are other universes. How do we know that their natural laws, their
constants, are different from our own? We cannot. And yet this idea was put
forward in part to avoid or eplain away the anthropic coincidences. This
undemonstrated idea can be used to "explain away" anything. For example, you
could have a 'theory' in which gravity randomly repels and attracts (ie the
sign of G changes at random every year) and then 'explain' the fact that, as
far as we can tell, G has always been positive by suggesting that we just
happen to live in a universe where these 'random' choices have always been
+, unlike the 2^15bn other
universes. It also leaves open the question of this multiverse exists at
all. Furthermore, if you hold that all logically possible universes exist
(as suggested by Max Tegmark) the existence of a universe created by a
timeless omnipotent god {which is not logically impossible} is a corollary.
But at the end of the day, we must remember that these universes are not
detectable, which means they are not falsifiable, and are therefore NOT a
scientific theory. Inflationary cosmology stands or falls on it's own
without the multiverse idea. God too, is not a scientific theory. It is a
metaphysical one. But if you, Phil, are going to invoke the multiverse as
scientific, you bear the burdon of proof of showing us the factuality of
these imagined universes, and the mechanisims by which they are born and
differentiate.

Labienus and I have more in common in our views than first seemed, but I
think we are still talking at cross purposes somewhat. What he would call an
infinity of points along a line between points A and B, I call a potential
infinite, because each successive point can be potentially divided, while
there is still only a finite distance between A and B.
But do actual infinites exist? I do not think so. It would seem they
cannot. But to show why, let's imagine for a moment that they DO exist, and
look at the consequences.
Marcus Cassius Julianus writes his autobiography so slowly that it
takes him a whole year to write about one single day in his life. If he
lives an actually infinite number of days, he would supposedly be able to
finish his autobiography, because the set of all the days in his life can be
put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set of all his years. But does
this make sense? It would seem the longer he lives, the further behind he
would get.
Another example: Imagine a library with an actually infinite number of
books, and this library has an actual infinite number of blue books and an
actual infinite number of red books. Does it make sense to say that there
are as many red books in the library as there are red and blue books put
together? Of course not. What is more, if all the red books were to vanish
it would not change the total holdings of the library! Let us also imagine
the books have an actually infinte number of pages. Each book would then
have as many pages as the entire collection would have together. A person
reading one book would read as many pages as one who reads 5 or 6 or ALL the
other books.
One more example: Suppose the past of a solar system is actually
infinite. For each yearly orbit of the planet around the sun, there are
twelve orbits of the moon around the planet. No matter how far back one
goes, the number of lunar orbits would be twelve times the number of the
planetary orbits. But, if they have been orbiting for an actual infinity,
the paradox results. The number of lunar orbits would be equal to the number
of planet orbits. This is absurd. How could it be if the lnar orbits occur
twelve times more frequently than the planetary orbits?
Something has gone wrong, and that is the introduction of an actual
infinite into our world. The above examples show the unreasonable
consequences which would follow if actual infinites exist. It does not seem
at all reasonable to assume that the number of points on a line one inch long
is equal to the number of points on a line fifty billion miles long.
Now some people may protest that infinite set theory exists in mathematics.
But here we run into the same problem advocates of the "no boundry" cosmology
run into. The mere presence of a theory in mathematics {infinte sets or
"imaginary time"} says nothing by itself about anything in the real world of
things. I am not a mathematician and I am not a geometrician. But Euclidian
geometry is founded upon the axion that through a given point not on a
straight line, exactly one line can be drawn parallel to the straight line.
But two other internally consistent geometries of space, the Lobachevskian
and the Riemannian replace this axiom by saying that either more than one
line or no line could be drawn. But it does not follow from the mere
presence of these geometries of space that actual sopace in the real world
fits all three. We simply cannot jump from the mathematical to the real
without further evidence and argument.

I want to summarize now and then answer some objections.

1. The universe does not have an infinite past, which means it had a
beginning. This is born out by the following facts:

{a} The expansion of the universe {big bang}
{b} The Second Law of Thermodynamics {entropy is increasing and the universe
will eventually die an entropical death} If the universe had no beginning,
this enropical death should have already happened an infinity of time ago}
{c} Actual infinites do not exist. Assuming they do lead to absurd
consequences of thought.

2. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, and temporal sequences of events
have a cause.

3. Alternative scenarios to evade the implications of this fail.

{a} The oscillating universe fails for several reasons. One, we cannot
account for the mass needed for the universe to recontract. Cosmologists
today are mostly divided into two camps, those who think the expanison is
potentially infinite {the open universe} and those who think the expansion
will halt, neither expanding nor recontracting {the flat universe}
Two, the oscillating universe would be a perpetual motion machine, violating
the second law of thermodynamics. Three, even if we imagine that entropy does
not apply to universal expanison and recontraction, the sequence of
expansions and contractions prior to the arising of our universe cannot be
infinite, for the reasons already given.
{b} The "no boundry" universe proposed by Hawking and others with
varuiations cannot be accepted as it relies on the metaphysically incoherent
and physically unintelligible concept of "imaginary time". It ignores the
essential difference between space and time, and so temporal relations
between events are meaningless. It would not make sense even to assert that
Caesar was killed after he was born. The no-boundry universe is a
mathematical construct only. There is absolutely no reason to think it is an
accurate description of the real universe.
{c} The "multiple universe" idea, or "multiverse" also fails as a scientific
alternative. If these imagined other universes exist, can we observe them or
at least detect them? If the answer is yes, then they are part of our
universe. If the answer is no, then they are not falsifiable and are not
part of any scientific theory. And the answer is no. We cannot in principle
observe or detect these imagined universes. We cannot observe the imagined
mechanism by which they come into being. And we cannot verify the claim that
the laws of nature are "shuffled" so each universe has it's own unique set of
laws. Because of this, the multiverse is a figment of mathematical
imagination, and is not a scientific theory.

Since the universe began to exist, the universe is not a necessary being.
And since anything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence, and
since all temporal sequences of events have a cause, we are entitled to say
that the universe has a cause of it's existence. We may use the word 'God'
to designate this cause.

OBJECTION: "If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause, and that
cause must in turn have a cause, and so forth and so on. So you have an
infinite regression of causes!"

ANSWER: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, and all temporal sequences of
events have a cause. But God, not being the universe or a part of it {as the
pantheists say} is timeless, existing outside of time, and is not a temporal
being. God is also not a temporal sequence of events. God can then be
called the uncaused first cause.

OBJECTION: If the universe began to exist, then that was also the beginning
of time. Words like "before" and "after" are temporal terms. The beginning
of the universe was the beginning of time. So it is incoherent to seek a
prior cause of the universe. That is saying something exists before time!

ANSWER: This claim is unwarranted, however, for we have a number of options
available: (i) The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not
temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of
creating is simultaneous with the universe's beginning to exist; (ii) The
Creator may be conceived to exist in a metaphysical time of which physical
time is but a sensible measure and so to exist temporally prior to the
inception of physical time; or (iii) The Creator may be conceived to exist
timelessly and to cause tenselessly the origin of the universe at the Big
Bang singularity. My own personal preference is that God is timeless and so
my own choice is number three. But the others are still possibilities.

OBJECTION: Creation of the universe out of nothing makes no sense. As
Sextus Apollonius Draco says, "My common sense tells me *something* cannot
evolve from *nothing*. That is why I don't believe in the concept of
"nothing". If that really existed (what a paradox - nothing that would
actually *exist*!), you couldn't name it, observe it or simply be in it.
Nothing would be something were cause, effect, space and time do not apply.
It's a totally wicked concept to me :).

ANSWER: Is the idea of creation out of nothing meaningless? If so, we could
not be discussing it right now. We may not understand how the creator
brought this universe into being out of nothing, but it is even more
incomprehensible to say it all came out of nothing with no cause whatsoever.
God may fail as a scientific explanation and instead only be a metaphysical
explanation. But it is a possible explanation nonetheless. And why prefer no
explanation to a possible explanation?

OBJECTION: Creation out of nothing violates the first law of thermodynamics
which says the total matter/energy of a closed system neither increases nor
decreases.

ANSWER: In pondering a response to this objection, I formulated a statement
which I, in my modesty, have named after myself: The Lupinian Principle!
The Lupinian Principle is a very basic metaphysical statement, and is as
follows:

"All natural law assumes the existence of those natural entities or systems
whose behavior they describe".

This is really a basic and common-sense statement. Natural law, such as the
First Law of Thermodynamics, is different from human law. Human law
describes how people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT behave. Natural law however,
describes how objects or systems do in fact behave. What the Lupinian
Principle means is that if nothing existed, there would be no natural law.
Since natural law describes how things behave, natural law would not be if
there were nothing for it to describe. Imagine nothing existing at all.
There would be no Law of Gravity, for there would be no objects to exert
gravitational attraction on each other. There would be no Laws of Motion if
there were nothing to move. If there were no universe at all, there would be
no natural law to describe the behavior of the universe and its component
parts such as atoms and planets. Natural law then, can be described as an
attribute of the universe. It has no existence apart from the universe.

So, creation ex nihilo, the creation by God of the universe from nothing,
does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, because the universe, AND
it's natural law came into existence SIMULTANEOUSLY. The First Law of
Thermodynamics did not exist "prior" to the universe, because it, and all
other natural laws, do not exist APART from it.
Natural law operates because the universe exists. And now that the universe
exists, it's laws apply.

OBJECTION: Your views are possibly correct. But they are not testable
either. They are no more scientific than ours.

ANSWER: I did not claim that the God idea is scientific. Since God is not
testable or observable in a laboratory, the God hypothesis is not a
scientific one.

OBJECTION: Then on what grounds do you choose your explanation over the
others?

ANSWER: Because it is a more satisfying one. It is not testable in a lab,
true. It is a metaphysical explanation, not a scientific explanation.
Nevertheless, it has things to commend it:

1. It offers a reason why the universe began. The God Hypothesis may not be
scientific, but the fact the universe had a beginning is. And can anyone
really prefer no explanation to a possible explanation?

2. It violates no natural laws, and is not logically impossible.

3. It is simpler. Why should I prefer to posit a trillion or more
unobservable universes brought about by equally unobservable and unprovable
mechanisms, and having an equally unprovable and unobservable variations of
natural laws?
And all this to explain away the only universe we KNOW exists??? Applying
Ockham's Razor, the God Hypothesis is much simpler and more elegant.

4. It does suffer from having such dubious consequences as saying my birth
is really simultaneous to my death! The "no-boundry" proposal purports to be
a scientific description of the universe. So it leaves itself open to the
challenge of being proved scientifically. Can you prove it? Can you show us
what "imaginary time" really is in the real world, apart from mathematics?

5. Because there are no good reasons to adopt the alternative views
discussed. Can you give reasons why the alternatives here should be
preferred? Besides a bias against the God hypothesis I mean? After all,
these alternatives were imagined precisely to avoid the God idea. So can you
demonstrate scientifically why these are better? I choose the metaphysical
God hypothesis because the alternatives, which are claimed to be scientific,
explain away rather than explain, require a heck of a lot of assumptions, and
are in the end no more demonstrable than the God hypothesis is.

This summarizes why I think the origin of the universe points towards God,
though admittedly without proving God's existence beyond all doubt.

Gaius Lupinius Festus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Poll - List Reply feature
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 01:13:22 -0000

I commend Lucius Cornelius for his single-minded devotion to this
issue, and will be interested to see the results of this poll.
However,
I must caution that because votes must be submitted via the Web, we
will miss the opinions of those who do not have Web access.

Additionally, past polls in this list have involved the opinions of
only a small percentage of our number, in part because the issue is
of
compelling interest to only a relative few.

Anyone wishing to make suggestions regarding my administration of
this
list is welcome to do so in private e-mail, where I assure you your
views will receive attention.

Patricia Cassia
Curatrix Sermonem (list moderator), Nova Roma

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {no longer quite so long}
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:49:41 -0500

Salvete

First, while I am enjoying this conversation, I can certainly understand
the opinion that it is off-topic and should be moved off-list. If you
are annoyed by this thread, please let the curatrix sermonem, Patricia
Cassia, know so that she may instruct Festus and the rest of us to go
elsewhere.

And now, a response to Festus.

The thrust of your argument is that an infinite universe violates the
logic that we can bring to bear upon it, therefore it is more reasonable
to believe in a finite universe than an infinite one.

Now, you go further and state that this offers substantiation to the
idea of a causeless Creator, which is by implication infinite. You also
imply that this Creator is beyond the bounds of natural law, which only
exists within the context of the universe. This neatly allows the
infinite Creator to sidestep the argument that you put forth to deny the
infinite universe.

However, it also opens the door for a different problem. An omnipotent
being unbounded by natural law and, therefore, capable of producing a
sustained and valid paradox, could quite easily have *created* an
*infinite* universe. And so, by your own logic, it is not necessarily
more reasonable to believe in a finite universe.

The point here is that no logic you can bring to bear will deny or
confirm the existence of either the infinite or the divine. Whatever
theory you choose to accept will be a matter of preference.

A side point: I do feel that a line segment 50 feet long has the same
number of points as a line segment 5 feet long. Points are infinitely
small, and therefore each has an infinite number of points. Is this
paradoxical? Perhaps. It is my preference to accept the presence of
such a paradox.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: - List Reply feature (Contra Sulla)
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:32:03 EDT

Salvete,

I have been reluctant to speak on this issue. Firstly because it is a small
and silly matter - the issue is about pressing one button rather than other
when replying to Email, for pity's sake.

Secondly I've had no strong feeling one way or the other. I took almost no
notice of the change until Lucius Cornelius Sulla's several daily postings
about it. If I MUST choose I'd say the new setting makes our general
communication safer. List traffic issues aside, the new setting does allow
one to think before making a post. Here are some benefits that come to mind:

1. Setting the list for personal reply eliminates the problem of embarrassing
personal messages being sent to the entire list. Many of us, including
magistrates and Consuls, have accidentally done this in the past, and it has
caused hard feelings and misunderstandings.

2. The "reply to person" setting also helps eliminate other list errors, such
as multiple sendings, and sending off half-finished messages. Better such
accidents be made to one person than to everyone.

3. The personal reply setting does make a convenient "brake" for angry
postings. If this list has had one problem greater than any other, it's
people speaking out in anger before taking the time to consider their choice
of wording or topics. If we can have a 9 day "grace period" for those who
resign, why not allow posters to the list a few seconds' grace for words best
not sent?

The current reply setting is not some new invention of P. Cassia's. It's a
major choice that Egroups offers, one that is chosen by many list moderators
to help deal with some of the traffic/bad postings problems that can crop up.

It is interesting that while there are several tangible reasons why the
"reply to person" setting can be useful for improving the list, there have
been no arguments (other than convenience and general resistance to change)
for any benefit to the group from the reply-to-all option. That makes it a
rational choice for the magistrate responsible for maintaining the list.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: - List Reply feature (Contra Sulla) (Contra Cassius)
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 1 Oct 2000 19:34:31 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: <cassius622@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 7:32 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: - List Reply feature (Contra Sulla)


> Salvete,
>
> I have been reluctant to speak on this issue. Firstly because it is a
small
> and silly matter - the issue is about pressing one button rather than
other
> when replying to Email, for pity's sake.
>
> Secondly I've had no strong feeling one way or the other. I took almost no
> notice of the change until Lucius Cornelius Sulla's several daily postings
> about it. If I MUST choose I'd say the new setting makes our general
> communication safer. List traffic issues aside, the new setting does allow
> one to think before making a post. Here are some benefits that come to
mind:

Ave,

Cassius I think you might want to check the archieves.....I have posted at
most 3 times about this..however, other citizens have responded just as
much. I know you are so busy. But, Cassius you really want to state the
facts on this more clearly. I am not the only person who has posted a few
times on this issue.

Thank you for listening.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: - List Reply feature
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:39:47 EDT

In a message dated 10/1/00 7:35:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@-------- writes:

<< Ave,

Cassius I think you might want to check the archieves.....I have posted at
most 3 times about this..however, other citizens have responded just as
much. I know you are so busy. But, Cassius you really want to state the
facts on this more clearly. I am not the only person who has posted a few
times on this issue.

Thank you for listening.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


Salve,

Then this makes four, doesn't it? ;)

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	[novaroma] a problem with the reply poll
From:	"Lucius Pompeius Octavianus" <octavianuslucius@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 02:59:02 -0000

L. Pompeius Octavianus omnibus novoromanis S.P.D.:

I just voted for the reply poll, but It happened to me the following :
I chose the first option, however my vote went to the second choice.
Since the screen says that I can change my vote, I thought I could
work it out by voting again. But unfortunately this second time added
a new vote also to the second choice. It never happened to me before
with previous polls. So two votes went to the choice I do not like.
Below I printed the screen.

Valete bene


Which Reply feature do you prefer, when you respond to messages
posted in the NovaRoma main list?
Replies go directly to the Nova Roma list.
Replies go directly to the original poster. (Not the list).


Your vote is shown above. You can change your vote until the poll is
concluded.

Responses:
Choices Votes % 21 replies
Replies go directly to the Nova Roma list. 12 57.14%
Replies go directly to the original poster. (Not the list). 9
42.86%

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: a problem with the reply poll
From:	"Lucius Pompeius Octavianus" <octavianuslucius@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 04:04:17 -0000

Sorry. I was wrong. It happended that someone else also voted at the
very exact moment I did. Never imagined such simultaneity.

Curate ut valeatis


--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Pompeius Octavianus"
<octav--------sluc----------------> wrote:
> L. Pompeius Octavianus omnibus novoromanis S.P.D.:
>
> I just voted for the reply poll, but It happened to me the
following :
> I chose the first option, however my vote went to the second
choice.
> Since the screen says that I can change my vote, I thought I could
> work it out by voting again. But unfortunately this second time
added
> a new vote also to the second choice. It never happened to me
before
> with previous polls. So two votes went to the choice I do not like.
> Below I printed the screen.
>
> Valete bene
>
>
> Which Reply feature do you prefer, when you respond to messages
> posted in the NovaRoma main list?
> Replies go directly to the Nova Roma list.
> Replies go directly to the original poster. (Not the list).
>
>
> Your vote is shown above. You can change your vote until the poll
is
> concluded.
>
> Responses:
> Choices Votes % 21 replies
> Replies go directly to the Nova Roma list. 12 57.14%
> Replies go directly to the original poster. (Not the list). 9
> 42.86%

Subject:	[novaroma] Poll results for novaroma
From:	novaroma@--------
Date:	2 Oct 2000 11:19:00 -0000

The following novaroma poll is now closed. Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: When the senate takes a vote on some
issue, should the individual senators
be identified with how he or she voted?

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- Yes, 28 votes, 63.64%
- No, 16 votes, 36.36%

INDIVIDUAL VOTES
- Yes
- nr_cicero@--------
- jrsibley@--------
- octavianuslucius@--------
- gwmetz@--------
- SPQR_HQ@--------
- bvm3@--------
- molentje@--------
- nykla@--------
- FIOCRU@--------
- andy.pearson@--------
- Lykaion1@--------
- aurelianus@--------
- DrususCornelius@--------
- comptess@--------
- Piscinus@--------
- quintus-sertorius@--------
- JDujaleSmith@--------
- haase@--------
- cassius622@--------
- kyrene@--------
- William_Dowie@--------
- dennis@--------
- Pwyancey@--------
- minerva2900@--------
- MUZICWITCH@--------
- egroups@--------
- tjalens.h@--------
- strt794@--------
- No
- cornelius_scriptor@--------
- machiavelli@--------
- danat2000@--------
- mithridates@--------
- amgunn@--------
- JSmithCSA@--------
- 3s@--------
- alexious@--------
- gmvick32@--------
- marcustrajanvalerius@--------
- razenna@--------
- yquere@--------
- sdolzg@--------
- diana_h@--------
- nicola@--------
- iadams@--------


For more information about this group, please visit
http://www.egroups.com/group/novaroma

For help with eGroups, please visit
http://www.egroups.com/help






-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/8/_/61050/_/970485541/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 07:31:29 EDT

Salve,

This thread has been going on for quite some time and the posts are
getting longer and longer, but have yet to reveal any conceiveable
connection to things Roman. I wonder that our moderatrix has not
intervened.

In my rarely humble opinion, this whole topic started out on a weak
foundation and has progressed to being downright boring. PLEASE consider
taking it to some more appropriate venue - - the Velikovsky list perhaps?

If this seems a trifle brusque, it may be that I'm up too late, but I
cannot see what this has to do with Nova Roma.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.


On 10/1/00 7:11 PM Lykaion1@-------- (Lykaion1@--------) wrote:

[a *very* long post which is not repeated here!]

utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!

(May barbarians invade your personal space!)

Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN: Antonius Gryllus Graecus is back!
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:56:47 +0100

Salvete omnes

I'm back to Rome! I've missed you a LOT!
I've been spending my holidays at Ibiza, one of the Spenish Blearic Islands,
and one with a long history. The Phoenicians were there since the 9th
century BC. Then the Carthaginians followed by the 4th century BC. The name
Ibiza comes from Ibshm, which in Punic language means Isle of Bes. Bes was a
Punic God of fertility, the main deity of the island together with Tanhit.
Of course, with the fall of Carthage the island became subject to Roman rule
as "allies". Only by the time of Vespasian the laws of the insland changed
abruptly and lost their Punic flavour.
In Ibiza you can visit the museums and the punic/roman necropolis. My
advice: go there! You will really feel why the ancient Mediterranean was so
great, and if you are as mad as I am, you will feel that little has changed.
The diversity of people, styles, habits; the noises and sights of the port
will surely remind you of the travellers and merchants who went there in
ancient times, bringing their goods and their Gods.
In the end... You will miss Rome and will become eager to leave the old
ruins and come back to ressurrected Rome, to our Nova Roma. I think that
Pontifex Maximus Marcus Cassius Iulianus once described such a feeling...
It's true.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:55:19 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sergi,

> In my rarely humble opinion, this whole topic started out on a weak
> foundation and has progressed to being downright boring. PLEASE consider
> taking it to some more appropriate venue - - the Velikovsky list perhaps?

I'm not interested in the thread either, but it's easy enough to skip.
The subject line has remained constant, and all of the posts are easily
recognizable. Some of our friends here obviously find it interesting
and relevant; with that in mind, it's a very small thing for you and I
to have to press 'D' an extra ten times a day.

Vale, Octavius.

---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
http://www.graveyards.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 08:38:14 EDT

Salve,

In principle, I agree, Marcus Octavius, but considering that much more
relevant debates here about forms of government and about international
relations have been squashed outright, I'm curious as to why this topic
drones on and on.

Maybe I'm just becoming a curmudgeon.

Vale,

L. Serg. Aust. Obst.


On 10/2/00 6:55 AM Marcus Octavius Germanicus (haase@--------) wrote:

>
>Salve Luci Sergi,
>
>> In my rarely humble opinion, this whole topic started out on a weak
>> foundation and has progressed to being downright boring. PLEASE consider
>> taking it to some more appropriate venue - - the Velikovsky list perhaps?
>
>I'm not interested in the thread either, but it's easy enough to skip.
>The subject line has remained constant, and all of the posts are easily
>recognizable. Some of our friends here obviously find it interesting
>and relevant; with that in mind, it's a very small thing for you and I
>to have to press 'D' an extra ten times a day.
>
>Vale, Octavius.
>
>---
>M. Octavius Germanicus
>Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
>Microsoft delenda est!
>http://www.graveyards.com/
>


certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/8/_/61050/_/970490304/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 14:00:22 -0000

I have asked privately that this thread either be moved in a more
Roman direction or taken off-list. In general, I'd suggest that list-
related concerns be expressed privately to the poster (via this
convenient "reply to sender" feature, perhaps!) or to me. This will
keep the list clear for Roman-related discussion.

Patricia Cassia

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
From:	marcusaemiliusscaurus@--------
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:53:50 -0000

I agree that this topic is not very Roman. However, I disagree on
most of the other points. The novaroma mailing list is for anythin
that concerns Nova Roma, or so I see it. And this topic has
certainly prompted a lot of people to put in their own thoughts.

Velikovsky mailing list? Never heard of it! I, for one, would
be disappointed if this topic moved to a list I am not a part of.

In any case, did not the nations of antiquity philosophise?
Both the Senecas philosophised, even if they did not always
act upon their preachings!

My apologies to you if this topic does not interest you,
but I think that the gain out of it is more than what you lose
by having to delete a few mails.

Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:23:04 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, marcusaemiliusscaurus@h... wrote:
> I agree that this topic is not very Roman.

How about making it Roman?

What do we know about how the Romans thought about these issues? We
know that some upper-class Romans were fascinated with philosophy and
spent much time debating these issues. Did any of the debate reach
average Citizens? Women? What should one read if one wanted to know
more about Romans' views on such cosmic topics?

Those of you with an interest in these issues might consider forming
a Philosophy Sodalitas, assuming one can get philosophers to agree
long enough to organize...

Patricia Cassia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Caesar and the Universe pt3 {shorter}
From:	"Jeroen Meuleman" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:58:34 +0200

Salvete omnes,

Feste, in essence your ideas come down to the fact that you do not believe
in infinity, and that you believe in the divine. I am familiar with many of
your scientific examples, but I need to ask you something. It appears to me
that you think cause and effect exist, but to a certain degree only (not ad
infinitum). But in my opinion, a believer in cause and effect must be
consequent and face the irreal seeming consequence of believing this - there
is no cause and effect "to a certain degree". It's like saying that you do
accept the number 0 as representing nothing, but only to a certain degree.
It's all or nothing. Furthermore I agree with Labienus' objections of "the
infinite God".

As far as God goes, your reasoning is quite impressive, but I do have some
objections against believing in God. Of course I don't know what sort of God
you believe in. So I'm breaking this down to several points.

THEISM
-----------
1. Who or what created God? If He has always existed and escapes the
physical laws known to us, why is He possible to do this?
2. If God is omnipotent (a possible answer to #1), and thus omniscient and
omnipresent, why did He do what He has done? What are His plans? How did He
develop His views? There is no one who can have taught him this, since he is
alone. If He was alone in the beginning, what sparked His fantasy to create
everything?
3. If God is indeed omnipotent regardless of objection #2, why doesn't he
help the suffering? If he can't help us, then he is not omnipotent and
therefore not God. If he won't help us, he is bad will and therefore not God
either (not the God who inspires us to do good things anyway).
4. If God has a master plan (possible answer to #3), and if that is the
reason why there is suffering, all because of fate, then why do serial
killers still burn in hell? If it was their fate to burn in hell, and God
won't/can't stop this, then he is either not God, or a slave of fate,
introducing a concept above God. And who or what created fate??
5. By what means are God's intelligence, feelings and concepts defined? They
are not in correlation with any other thing known to us (since he was the
first), and if they are undefinable, no one can interpret them and therefore
tell God exists or that He has a Message.

DEISM
---------
same as with Theism, plus these:
1. If He indeed created it all, but has gone away *somewhere* (wherever that
may be), you could just as well say that he has never existed in the first
place, which is a far easier and more logical assumption.
2. Arguments for deism remind me of the zen tale of the invisible cat.
Someone asked someone else if he could percept the invisible, inaudible and
inperceptible cat. He answered no. "Well," said the other, "so it's there."

PANTHEISM
-----------------
same as with Theism, plus this one:
1. If God is all and, all is God, why do evil people exist? That would mean
that a part of God is evil. According to the christian doctrines this is
impossible.
2. Even if it's not the christian or personal God we're dealing with here,
it doesn't matter whether you name it God or Universe (or Omniverse, for
those who believe in the Multiverse) anymore - in that case it's all the
same; so Hawking's "imaginary pre-bigbang state" would be the same as "God".

--**--

The problem is, mi Feste, that although multiverses and things calculated
with imaginary numbers are indeed unprovable, *but* are mathematically
correct (in contrast to God). A few decades ago scientists refused to accept
the theory of a black hole simply because it was "unelegant" and "dumb" -
they thought the universe would never allow such a thing to happen. Yet it
does. It appears that everything that is mathematically and physically
possible, happens somewhere, although chances may be slim. But the universe
is big :).

Valete!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Wind Dragon, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
There are no bad guys. Just disturbed guys.
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
--**--
----- Original Message -----
From: <Lykaion1@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->; <religioromana@-------->
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 2:11 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}


> Salvete,
>
> I am very sorry for my tardiness in responding.
>
> This will be a very long post, for I will try to respond to several
> replies without cluttering up the list with several posts. Also, my
> capitalizing of some words is for emphasis, and is not 'shouting'.
>
> I will start by addressing some science issues first, and then move
on
> to the question of actual infinites. I will then summarize my reasons for
> believing the universe to be finite and created by God, and then give
> objections to that view, and answers.
>
> When Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift, which was the first
evidence
> that the universe was exanding, many within the scientific community were
> disturbed. They liked the old idea of the universe as an eternal
celestial
> machine, with no beginning nor end. The picture of a universe having a
> beginning disrupted this elegant view of things for them. To some, it
seemed
> to smack of divine intervention, and so it had to be opposed. First there
> was the atheist Fred Hoyle, who tried to oppose this "big bang" theory
with
> his own "steady state" theory. This steady state theory is now discarded
as
> more evidence for the big bang has firmly established it as fact.
>
> So another view of the universe as oscillating was presented. This
view
> allowed for the big bang to take place, while retaining the eternality of
the
> pre-big bang cosmology.
> The universe would simply expand and contract back into it's initial
> singularity {a big crunch} infinitely, in a series of expansions and
> contractions with no beginning nor end.
> Vado presents this view as well. But the oscillating universe theory is
also
> now generally discarded. The scientific reasons involve mass and
> thermodynamics.
>
> 1. There would be no known mechanism for expaning and contracting the
> universe endlessly with 100% efficiency; Perpetual motion machines are
> impossible according to the second law of themodynamics. This is a
problem
> that must be faced, though to be fair, perhaps there is some unknown means
by
> which the energy levels can be "reshuffled" to allow the universe to be
such
> a machine.
>
> 2. In order for the universe to stop expanding, there must be a certain
> amount of mass which would account for the necessary gravitational pull to
> halt the expansion. But the cosmologists do not have the mass needed for
> this. Even taking into account the hypothetical "dark matter", they can
only
> account for approx. 35 percent of the mass needed just to halt the
expansion.
> And an even greater amount of mass would be needed to reverse the
expansion.
>
>
> 3. The two reasons above led the cosmologists to drop the oscillating
> theory. But even if the universe was oscillating, it could not be an
> infinite cycle because of the problems with the actual infinite discussed
> already. I will return to the actual infinite later.
>
> With the steady state theory and oscillating theory dropped, a new
way
> had to be thought of to avoid the uncomfortable possible implications of
the
> big bang. Enter the "no boundry universe", popularized by Hawking in the
> late 1980s in his book, A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME. Hawking says he thinks
> previous attempts to avoid the big bang were motivated by the feeling that
a
> beginning of time implies a creator. He admits that if the universe began
to
> exist, one could identify the big bang as the instant at which God created
> the universe.
> But to avoid this possibility, Hawking attempts to eliminate the
initial
> singularity altogether, by intorducing quantum physics into the earliest
> stage of the universe, prior to 10 neg 43rd power seconds after the big
bang.
> To do this, he must use imaginary numbers for the time variable, such as
the
> square root of negative one. Since any real number squared always equals
a
> positive number, there can be no square root of negative 1. This is why
such
> numbers are called imaginary.
> By introducing imaginary numbers for the time variable, the
singularity
> is eliminated, but so is the difference between space and time in the
> equations describing the universe. This is strange, since both the
General
> and Special Theories of Relativity distinguish space from time by having
> their variables use different signs in the equation. In Hawkings model,
the
> difference vanishes because he is using imaginary numbers for the time
> variable. So, in Hawkings model, the past is finite, but boundless, and
> since space is no longer distinguished from imaginary time, it is not
proper
> to regard any point on this universe' "surface" as actually earlier than
any
> other, just as it would be improper to regard a point on a basketball as
> earlier than any other point. "There would be no singularities at which
the
> laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would
have
> to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundry conditions for
> space-time. The universe would be completely self-contained and not
affected
> by anything outside itself. It would just BE."
>
> Hawking seems to take his model of the universe as a realistic and
> accurate description of the way the universe is, or else he would not feel
> that he has eliminated 'the need for a creator.' But can it be taken as
> such? His use of "imaginary time" is itself an obstacle. It is a
physcially
> unintelligble term. If this is supposed to be a realistic model of the
> universe, then Hawking should explain just what "imaginary time" is. If
he
> does not, it is a meaningless set of words, like "imaginary volume of a
box",
> or an "imaginary number of people in a subway car". Hawking says
imaginary
> time is a "well-defined mathematical concept". But that is not the issue.
> The issue is whether this mathematical concept corresponds to physical
> reality. Just because something can be defined mathematically is no
reason
> to think it physical reality corresponds to it. Only by experience or
> reasoning can we distinguish between a mathematical solution and it's
alleged
> physical correlate. A "well defined mathematical concept" may actually be
a
> metaphysical impossibility and the only way to determine this is to get
away
> from the math and to see what experience or scientific experiment tells us
> what reality is like. We have no comprehension of what it would be for
time
> to be "imaginary" in the mathematical sense. It is only a mathematical
> artifice.
> Sir Arthur Eddington said that readers of his work who found it hard
to
> understand curved space-time could evade the difficulty by using imaginary
> numbers. But he himself admitted that this is not useful to use to
speculate
> this because imaginary time is only an illustrative tool, which has no
> correspondece to physical reality.
> Imaginary numbers are used in mathematics as devices which help in
the
> computation of some equations, BUT one must always CONVERT BACK into real
> numbers at the end in order to have some physicaly meaningful result.
> Hawking himself admits this: "As far as everyday quantum mechanics is
> concerned, we may regard our use of imaginary time...as a merely
mathematical
> device {or trick} to calculate answers about real space time". But
Hawking
> in his model simply does not take the final step of re-converting back
into
> real numbers. When this is done...the singularity Hawking wants to avoid
> reappears! Hawking says, "Only if we could picture the universe in terms
of
> imaginary time would there be no singularites....When one goes back to the
> real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be
> singularities".
> There is another problem with his use of imaginary time. It makes
time
> a spatial dimension, when space and time are essentially different. Space
is
> ordered by a relation of INBETWEENNESS. For points a, b, and c on a
spatial
> line, b is in between c. Time, on the other hand, is ordered in addition
by
> a unique relation of 'earlier than/later than'. For two moments, t1 and
t2,
> t1 is earlier than t2. It is "before and after". Time without these
> relations would NOT be time at all. So time cannot be a dimension of
space.
> And more, time is ordered by the relations "past" and "future" with repect
to
> the present. This is not at all similar to the relations of points in
space.
> Space and time are essentially different. If we claim time is a
dimension
> of space, we would not even be able to say that Lucius Cornelius Sulla was
> born before he became dictator of Rome, since to say this is to assert a
> temporal relation between the two events!
> These problems apply to all quantum gravitational models of the
> universe,since all of them have real space-time originate in a quantum
> mechanical region involving imaginary time. If these are intended as mere
> mathematical exercises, there is no problem. But they cannot be called
> realistic models of the actual universe.
>
> Phil says, "The current thinking is that our Universe is only one of
an
> infinite number of universes, and that each universe has a different set
of
> physical laws."
>
> The above statement is not quite accurate. The "multiverse" is an
idea,
> held by some cosmologists, not by all, and is siezed upon mostly by
> sensationalist publications as a theory, when in fact, it is not.
> It is a fact that our universe is exquisitely "tuned" to allow the
> emergence of carbon life {such as we humans}. For example, if the force
of
> gravity were just a wee bit stronger or weaker than it is, life would have
> been impossible. There are long lists of these constants which delineate
> precisely what the universe must be like in order to have life. Now, this
> "anthropic principle" has excited many scientists, {could this mean that
life
> was intended to arise?} while others have not been blown over. I admit
this
> has never really thrilled me, because {a} if the universe WERE different,
we
> would not be here to lament the fact, and {b} for all we know, there may
be
> some "built in" law which makes this kind of universe the only one which
can
> actually exist. But, the anthropic principle has bothered others, who
then
> invent ways of "explaining" the anthropic constants by positing infinite
> universes. Let's take an analogy: Suppose Nova Roma had one million
> citizens, and each citizen was issued a raffle ticket. The prize is a
> genuine Roman statue of Scipio, sculpted in the Republican era. Each
ticket
> has a number, from 1 to 1,000,000. The tickets are put in a huge barrel
and
> the barrel is spun around for two weeks, to ensure a good shaking. The
> consul draws a winning ticket. Now each citizen stands only a one in a
> million chance of winning the prize. But regardless of this, ONE of them
> WILL win. Now suppose there are an infinity of universes. While the odds
of
> one single universe having the precise constants for containing life is
> small, chances are, with so many universes, one or a few WILL actually
beat
> the odds and have these necessary constants.
> But do these other universes actually exist? Pysicist and science
> writer James Trefil makes an important point to remember when considering
> these imaginary universes. "...parallel universe theories have one point
in
> common: all of them say it is impossible for any sort of communication to
> take place between one universe and the next. So even if there is a
parallel
> universe out there, we'll never know about it!" {The Edge of the Unknown,
pp
> 115} None of these imagined universes has been shown to exist, nor can
they
> be shown to exist. That would seem to be a big enough problem. But the
> speculation does not end there. The parallel universe idea is rife with
> unproven speculations. If a star collapses into a black hole, and IF the
> trend towards the singularity is somehow reversed by quantum processes
such
> as inflation, and IF it is "shunted sideways" {borrowing a phrase from
John
> Gribbon} then MAYBE other universes are born, and MAYBE this process
alters
> the laws of physics for this new baby universe, IF particles pass through
a
> wormhole {another unproven entity} so that given billions of black holes,
we
> could have billions of different universes each with their own unique
natural
> laws or variations of such. So IF all this happens, our own universe is
one
> in MAYBE an infinite set of universes, and just happens to be one with the
> anthropic constants. Just like the raffle. A universe may be bucking the
> odds to be anthropic, but at least one of them WILL be.
> Can these universe be shown to exist? No. So can we then know if black
> holes are in fact "gateways" to other universes? No. And if we cannot,
can
> we then know if these unknown posited universes in fact have different
laws
> of nature, instead of having the same constants as our own? Of course
not.
> In multiple universe thinking, we step away from actual science and enter
the
> world of the imagination. Billions of universes are posited in order to
> explain away the universe we have! {Ockham's Razor anyone?} Suppose
there
> are other universes. How do we know that their natural laws, their
> constants, are different from our own? We cannot. And yet this idea was
put
> forward in part to avoid or eplain away the anthropic coincidences. This
> undemonstrated idea can be used to "explain away" anything. For example,
you
> could have a 'theory' in which gravity randomly repels and attracts (ie
the
> sign of G changes at random every year) and then 'explain' the fact that,
as
> far as we can tell, G has always been positive by suggesting that we just
> happen to live in a universe where these 'random' choices have always
been
> +, unlike the 2^15bn other
> universes. It also leaves open the question of this multiverse exists at
> all. Furthermore, if you hold that all logically possible universes
exist
> (as suggested by Max Tegmark) the existence of a universe created by a
> timeless omnipotent god {which is not logically impossible} is a
corollary.
> But at the end of the day, we must remember that these universes are not
> detectable, which means they are not falsifiable, and are therefore NOT a
> scientific theory. Inflationary cosmology stands or falls on it's own
> without the multiverse idea. God too, is not a scientific theory. It is
a
> metaphysical one. But if you, Phil, are going to invoke the multiverse as
> scientific, you bear the burdon of proof of showing us the factuality of
> these imagined universes, and the mechanisims by which they are born and
> differentiate.
>
> Labienus and I have more in common in our views than first seemed,
but I
> think we are still talking at cross purposes somewhat. What he would call
an
> infinity of points along a line between points A and B, I call a potential
> infinite, because each successive point can be potentially divided, while
> there is still only a finite distance between A and B.
> But do actual infinites exist? I do not think so. It would seem
they
> cannot. But to show why, let's imagine for a moment that they DO exist,
and
> look at the consequences.
> Marcus Cassius Julianus writes his autobiography so slowly that it
> takes him a whole year to write about one single day in his life. If he
> lives an actually infinite number of days, he would supposedly be able to
> finish his autobiography, because the set of all the days in his life can
be
> put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set of all his years. But
does
> this make sense? It would seem the longer he lives, the further behind he
> would get.
> Another example: Imagine a library with an actually infinite number
of
> books, and this library has an actual infinite number of blue books and an
> actual infinite number of red books. Does it make sense to say that there
> are as many red books in the library as there are red and blue books put
> together? Of course not. What is more, if all the red books were to
vanish
> it would not change the total holdings of the library! Let us also
imagine
> the books have an actually infinte number of pages. Each book would then
> have as many pages as the entire collection would have together. A person
> reading one book would read as many pages as one who reads 5 or 6 or ALL
the
> other books.
> One more example: Suppose the past of a solar system is actually
> infinite. For each yearly orbit of the planet around the sun, there are
> twelve orbits of the moon around the planet. No matter how far back one
> goes, the number of lunar orbits would be twelve times the number of the
> planetary orbits. But, if they have been orbiting for an actual infinity,
> the paradox results. The number of lunar orbits would be equal to the
number
> of planet orbits. This is absurd. How could it be if the lnar orbits
occur
> twelve times more frequently than the planetary orbits?
> Something has gone wrong, and that is the introduction of an actual
> infinite into our world. The above examples show the unreasonable
> consequences which would follow if actual infinites exist. It does not
seem
> at all reasonable to assume that the number of points on a line one inch
long
> is equal to the number of points on a line fifty billion miles long.
> Now some people may protest that infinite set theory exists in
mathematics.
> But here we run into the same problem advocates of the "no boundry"
cosmology
> run into. The mere presence of a theory in mathematics {infinte sets or
> "imaginary time"} says nothing by itself about anything in the real world
of
> things. I am not a mathematician and I am not a geometrician. But
Euclidian
> geometry is founded upon the axion that through a given point not on a
> straight line, exactly one line can be drawn parallel to the straight
line.
> But two other internally consistent geometries of space, the Lobachevskian
> and the Riemannian replace this axiom by saying that either more than one
> line or no line could be drawn. But it does not follow from the mere
> presence of these geometries of space that actual sopace in the real world
> fits all three. We simply cannot jump from the mathematical to the real
> without further evidence and argument.
>
> I want to summarize now and then answer some objections.
>
> 1. The universe does not have an infinite past, which means it had a
> beginning. This is born out by the following facts:
>
> {a} The expansion of the universe {big bang}
> {b} The Second Law of Thermodynamics {entropy is increasing and the
universe
> will eventually die an entropical death} If the universe had no
beginning,
> this enropical death should have already happened an infinity of time ago}
> {c} Actual infinites do not exist. Assuming they do lead to absurd
> consequences of thought.
>
> 2. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, and temporal sequences of events
> have a cause.
>
> 3. Alternative scenarios to evade the implications of this fail.
>
> {a} The oscillating universe fails for several reasons. One, we cannot
> account for the mass needed for the universe to recontract. Cosmologists
> today are mostly divided into two camps, those who think the expanison is
> potentially infinite {the open universe} and those who think the expansion
> will halt, neither expanding nor recontracting {the flat universe}
> Two, the oscillating universe would be a perpetual motion machine,
violating
> the second law of thermodynamics. Three, even if we imagine that entropy
does
> not apply to universal expanison and recontraction, the sequence of
> expansions and contractions prior to the arising of our universe cannot be
> infinite, for the reasons already given.
> {b} The "no boundry" universe proposed by Hawking and others with
> varuiations cannot be accepted as it relies on the metaphysically
incoherent
> and physically unintelligible concept of "imaginary time". It ignores the
> essential difference between space and time, and so temporal relations
> between events are meaningless. It would not make sense even to assert
that
> Caesar was killed after he was born. The no-boundry universe is a
> mathematical construct only. There is absolutely no reason to think it is
an
> accurate description of the real universe.
> {c} The "multiple universe" idea, or "multiverse" also fails as a
scientific
> alternative. If these imagined other universes exist, can we observe them
or
> at least detect them? If the answer is yes, then they are part of our
> universe. If the answer is no, then they are not falsifiable and are not
> part of any scientific theory. And the answer is no. We cannot in
principle
> observe or detect these imagined universes. We cannot observe the
imagined
> mechanism by which they come into being. And we cannot verify the claim
that
> the laws of nature are "shuffled" so each universe has it's own unique set
of
> laws. Because of this, the multiverse is a figment of mathematical
> imagination, and is not a scientific theory.
>
> Since the universe began to exist, the universe is not a necessary being.
> And since anything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence, and
> since all temporal sequences of events have a cause, we are entitled to
say
> that the universe has a cause of it's existence. We may use the word
'God'
> to designate this cause.
>
> OBJECTION: "If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause, and
that
> cause must in turn have a cause, and so forth and so on. So you have an
> infinite regression of causes!"
>
> ANSWER: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, and all temporal sequences
of
> events have a cause. But God, not being the universe or a part of it {as
the
> pantheists say} is timeless, existing outside of time, and is not a
temporal
> being. God is also not a temporal sequence of events. God can then be
> called the uncaused first cause.
>
> OBJECTION: If the universe began to exist, then that was also the
beginning
> of time. Words like "before" and "after" are temporal terms. The
beginning
> of the universe was the beginning of time. So it is incoherent to seek a
> prior cause of the universe. That is saying something exists before time!
>
> ANSWER: This claim is unwarranted, however, for we have a number of
options
> available: (i) The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not
> temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of
> creating is simultaneous with the universe's beginning to exist; (ii) The
> Creator may be conceived to exist in a metaphysical time of which physical
> time is but a sensible measure and so to exist temporally prior to the
> inception of physical time; or (iii) The Creator may be conceived to exist
> timelessly and to cause tenselessly the origin of the universe at the Big
> Bang singularity. My own personal preference is that God is timeless and
so
> my own choice is number three. But the others are still possibilities.
>
> OBJECTION: Creation of the universe out of nothing makes no sense. As
> Sextus Apollonius Draco says, "My common sense tells me *something* cannot
> evolve from *nothing*. That is why I don't believe in the concept of
> "nothing". If that really existed (what a paradox - nothing that would
> actually *exist*!), you couldn't name it, observe it or simply be in it.
> Nothing would be something were cause, effect, space and time do not
apply.
> It's a totally wicked concept to me :).
>
> ANSWER: Is the idea of creation out of nothing meaningless? If so, we
could
> not be discussing it right now. We may not understand how the creator
> brought this universe into being out of nothing, but it is even more
> incomprehensible to say it all came out of nothing with no cause
whatsoever.
> God may fail as a scientific explanation and instead only be a
metaphysical
> explanation. But it is a possible explanation nonetheless. And why prefer
no
> explanation to a possible explanation?
>
> OBJECTION: Creation out of nothing violates the first law of
thermodynamics
> which says the total matter/energy of a closed system neither increases
nor
> decreases.
>
> ANSWER: In pondering a response to this objection, I formulated a
statement
> which I, in my modesty, have named after myself: The Lupinian Principle!
> The Lupinian Principle is a very basic metaphysical statement, and is as
> follows:
>
> "All natural law assumes the existence of those natural entities or
systems
> whose behavior they describe".
>
> This is really a basic and common-sense statement. Natural law, such as
the
> First Law of Thermodynamics, is different from human law. Human law
> describes how people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT behave. Natural law however,
> describes how objects or systems do in fact behave. What the Lupinian
> Principle means is that if nothing existed, there would be no natural law.
> Since natural law describes how things behave, natural law would not be if
> there were nothing for it to describe. Imagine nothing existing at all.
> There would be no Law of Gravity, for there would be no objects to exert
> gravitational attraction on each other. There would be no Laws of Motion
if
> there were nothing to move. If there were no universe at all, there would
be
> no natural law to describe the behavior of the universe and its component
> parts such as atoms and planets. Natural law then, can be described as an
> attribute of the universe. It has no existence apart from the universe.
>
> So, creation ex nihilo, the creation by God of the universe from nothing,
> does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, because the universe,
AND
> it's natural law came into existence SIMULTANEOUSLY. The First Law of
> Thermodynamics did not exist "prior" to the universe, because it, and all
> other natural laws, do not exist APART from it.
> Natural law operates because the universe exists. And now that the
universe
> exists, it's laws apply.
>
> OBJECTION: Your views are possibly correct. But they are not testable
> either. They are no more scientific than ours.
>
> ANSWER: I did not claim that the God idea is scientific. Since God is
not
> testable or observable in a laboratory, the God hypothesis is not a
> scientific one.
>
> OBJECTION: Then on what grounds do you choose your explanation over the
> others?
>
> ANSWER: Because it is a more satisfying one. It is not testable in a
lab,
> true. It is a metaphysical explanation, not a scientific explanation.
> Nevertheless, it has things to commend it:
>
> 1. It offers a reason why the universe began. The God Hypothesis may not
be
> scientific, but the fact the universe had a beginning is. And can anyone
> really prefer no explanation to a possible explanation?
>
> 2. It violates no natural laws, and is not logically impossible.
>
> 3. It is simpler. Why should I prefer to posit a trillion or more
> unobservable universes brought about by equally unobservable and
unprovable
> mechanisms, and having an equally unprovable and unobservable variations
of
> natural laws?
> And all this to explain away the only universe we KNOW exists??? Applying
> Ockham's Razor, the God Hypothesis is much simpler and more elegant.
>
> 4. It does suffer from having such dubious consequences as saying my
birth
> is really simultaneous to my death! The "no-boundry" proposal purports to
be
> a scientific description of the universe. So it leaves itself open to the
> challenge of being proved scientifically. Can you prove it? Can you show
us
> what "imaginary time" really is in the real world, apart from mathematics?
>
> 5. Because there are no good reasons to adopt the alternative views
> discussed. Can you give reasons why the alternatives here should be
> preferred? Besides a bias against the God hypothesis I mean? After all,
> these alternatives were imagined precisely to avoid the God idea. So can
you
> demonstrate scientifically why these are better? I choose the
metaphysical
> God hypothesis because the alternatives, which are claimed to be
scientific,
> explain away rather than explain, require a heck of a lot of assumptions,
and
> are in the end no more demonstrable than the God hypothesis is.
>
> This summarizes why I think the origin of the universe points towards God,
> though admittedly without proving God's existence beyond all doubt.
>
> Gaius Lupinius Festus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: List Reply Feature (contra Sulla)
From:	"Nicolaus Moravius" <n_moravius@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 13:45:33 GMT

Peregrini and Citizens of Nova Roma!

With fffffingers ttttrembling wwith iiiindignation I peck away at my
keyboard in the attempt to express the strength of my disagreement with M.
Cassius Iulianus' defence of this present reply feature menace to our
respublica.

This is no "small and silly matter" as he alleges, but a fundamental issue
of civil rights - of the freedom of citizens not to choose.

When I hit the 'reply' button, I expect my e-mail to the people I intend it
to go to, not where the system program says it must. I have a right to want
my computer to do what I mean, and not what I say.

I have never used the 'reply all' button in my life - in fact, I didn't even
know there was one, until P. Cassia pointed it out (I suspect her of having
planted it there secretly).

That you, and I, and all of us must now have to search for a button next to
the the 'reply' button, against our cherished and long-established
traditions, is an injstice unparalleled in the history of Nova Roma.

To have to do so purely on the tyrannical whim of a Curatrix Sermonem who,
as Sulla has pointed out, is slow to respond to each one of the many posts
to this list which all say exactly the same thing, is outrageous. Something
must be done.

It is no good Cassius claiming that most people don't care or have better
things to think about: the Silent Majority is plainly too terrified to speak
out (or they're using the wrong button).

Arise, then, Quirites, and throw off the yoke of despotism! Citizens - to
the polls!

As all right-thinking people agree, the simple Yes/No poll is the most
completely scientific, fair and impartial way known to man, of Letting The
People Decide. I therefore propose the following poll be set up:

Q: I don't see why I should have to use the 'reply all' button when I want
my reply to go to all. (YES/NO)

Delenda est 'Responde Omnibus!'

Vado
(Oh, b*gger - I just sent this to Cassius privately):-(

LET A REPLY TO ONE BE A REPLY TO ALL!
LONG LIVE LIBERTY!
DOWN WITH THE UNSUFFERABLE BURDEN OF CONSCIOUS CHOICE!

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: List Reply Feature (contra Sulla)
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:41:55 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Nicolae Moravi,

> When I hit the 'reply' button, I expect my e-mail to the people I intend it
> to go to, not where the system program says it must. I have a right to want
> my computer to do what I mean, and not what I say.

Unfortunately, the instruction sets of Intel, Motorola, and most other
common microprocessors in common usage today lack the DWIM opcode. This
situation has long been known, but still these chip manufacturers refuse
to recognize it, forcing us programmers to use absurdly primitive
operations like MOV and ADD instead.

Microsoft once tried a DWIM user interface called "Bob". The results
were, well, about what one could expect from *that* bunch, and since
then they've been trying to purge "Bob" from our collective memory.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
http://www.graveyards.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:03:04 -0600

Salvete Omnes et Patricia Cassia:

Well, if we start a Philosophy Sodalitas, we should be focusing on Roman
and other ancient Philosophy, such as Stoicism, Sophism, Epicurianism,
etc.....I would LOVE to have such a Sodalitas, and this conversation
still wouldn't be appropriate to that Sodalitas. If there was truly a
desire for a philosophy sodalitas, I would certainly participate, but I
would bore you all to tears with attention to philosophical rigor.

For now I would recommend seeing if the soon-to-be-voted-on Sodalitas
Musarum would be willing to institute a new Collegia within their
organization.

Actually, philosophers are frequently excellent organizers. Done
correctly, philosophy is a very beautiful art form. Doing it badly is
what has given philosophy its bad reputation today.

Philosophy by and large was a much more acceptable practice in the
ancient world than it is today. Philosophers would frequently open
schools -- much like Plato's Academy, originally named because Plato's
students would congregate in the same spot of forest outside the walls of
the Acropolis in a grove you can still visit today. Even in Rome this
was true, though most philosophy in Rome was Greek or of Greek origin.
Even Stoicism, the closest Rome comes to a nationally adopted philosophy,
originated with the Greeks.

Participation in an organized philosophy school tended to be the parvenue
of the patrician class, though the average citizen certainly may have
attended public lectures. As for women......patrician women certainly
could and did read philosophy, and probably discussed it at dinner
parties. However, as far as I know, philosophy schools were closed to
women. I may be wrong.

The pre-Socratics especially would be an excellent point of reference for
this conversation. So would the Epicureans. The Epicureans developed an
atomistic view of the world which divided that which is into bodies and
space, each infinite in quantity. Space includes the absolute void,
without which movement is impossible. "Bodies" are physically indivisible
particles, or atoms (hence, an atomistic view of the world). It goes
deeper and deeper.....Epicureanism was never very popular in the Roman
world, as they liked their philosophy to be a little more practical.

To explore this thread from a Roman point of view, I'd start with a
reading of the epicurean philosopher Lucretius' On The Nature of Things.

That said, this post is certainly interesting from a modern physicists
point of view, and those such as Cicero certainly debated issues such as
the nature of the divine and the nature of the natural world. Modern
philosophers after Kierkegaard aren't worrying much about the nature of
the universe, they've changed focus to analytic philosophy (which hops us
over to the language vs. thought debate), but the scholastic philosophers
would love this discussion. However, when I say this is off-topic,
that's because it is indeed drawing in the points of view of philosophers
and physicists who came after Rome, and from a knowledge of the universe
that wasn't known to the Romans. That's the only reason I would like to
see it taken private.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia



"pjane@--------" wrote:

> --- In novaroma@--------, marcusaemiliusscaurus@h... wrote:
> > I agree that this topic is not very Roman.
>
> How about making it Roman?
>
> What do we know about how the Romans thought about these issues? We
> know that some upper-class Romans were fascinated with philosophy and
> spent much time debating these issues. Did any of the debate reach
> average Citizens? Women? What should one read if one wanted to know
> more about Romans' views on such cosmic topics?
>
> Those of you with an interest in these issues might consider forming
> a Philosophy Sodalitas, assuming one can get philosophers to agree
> long enough to organize...
>
> Patricia Cassia

Subject:	[novaroma] Roman philosophy
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:50:08 -0000

Sorry, Livia, I didn't mean to trash philosophers with my
lighthearted comment. Unfortunately, my experience of them has
probably come from amateurs or dilettantes, people who enjoy an
argument rather than people who take seriously the unanswerable
questions of the world.

(Also from a very unpleasant exposure to philosophy in college. Laura
Maria and others attending Boston U., don't worry - the professor who
perpetrated this is now dead.)

I'm not sure I'm ready to read the ancients without help. Can anyone
come up with recommended reading for the person who wishes to explore
the world of philosophy from a Roman point of view, but does not have
extensive experience in that world?

Patricia Cassia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Philosophy (Was Caesar and the Univ.)
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:57:48 GMT

Salvete Livia et ali:

You raise an interesting point, with regard to the possibility of entailing
philosophy within the Musarum.

The idea was entertained in the drawing up of the Musarum collegium.

It was mutually decided, however, that Philosophy in itself is a large and
multifaceted topic, and that it would best be the pursuit of a separate
group or sodalitas, in future.

Bene valete,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo


>From: <gmvick32@-------->
>Reply-To: gmvick32@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
>Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:03:04 -0600
>
>Salvete Omnes et Patricia Cassia:
>
>Well, if we start a Philosophy Sodalitas, we should be focusing on Roman
>and other ancient Philosophy, such as Stoicism, Sophism, Epicurianism,
>etc.....I would LOVE to have such a Sodalitas, and this conversation
>still wouldn't be appropriate to that Sodalitas. If there was truly a
>desire for a philosophy sodalitas, I would certainly participate, but I
>would bore you all to tears with attention to philosophical rigor.
>
>For now I would recommend seeing if the soon-to-be-voted-on Sodalitas
>Musarum would be willing to institute a new Collegia within their
>organization.
>
>Actually, philosophers are frequently excellent organizers. Done
>correctly, philosophy is a very beautiful art form. Doing it badly is
>what has given philosophy its bad reputation today.
>
>Philosophy by and large was a much more acceptable practice in the
>ancient world than it is today. Philosophers would frequently open
>schools -- much like Plato's Academy, originally named because Plato's
>students would congregate in the same spot of forest outside the walls of
>the Acropolis in a grove you can still visit today. Even in Rome this
>was true, though most philosophy in Rome was Greek or of Greek origin.
>Even Stoicism, the closest Rome comes to a nationally adopted philosophy,
>originated with the Greeks.
>
>Participation in an organized philosophy school tended to be the parvenue
>of the patrician class, though the average citizen certainly may have
>attended public lectures. As for women......patrician women certainly
>could and did read philosophy, and probably discussed it at dinner
>parties. However, as far as I know, philosophy schools were closed to
>women. I may be wrong.
>
>The pre-Socratics especially would be an excellent point of reference for
>this conversation. So would the Epicureans. The Epicureans developed an
>atomistic view of the world which divided that which is into bodies and
>space, each infinite in quantity. Space includes the absolute void,
>without which movement is impossible. "Bodies" are physically indivisible
>particles, or atoms (hence, an atomistic view of the world). It goes
>deeper and deeper.....Epicureanism was never very popular in the Roman
>world, as they liked their philosophy to be a little more practical.
>
>To explore this thread from a Roman point of view, I'd start with a
>reading of the epicurean philosopher Lucretius' On The Nature of Things.
>
>That said, this post is certainly interesting from a modern physicists
>point of view, and those such as Cicero certainly debated issues such as
>the nature of the divine and the nature of the natural world. Modern
>philosophers after Kierkegaard aren't worrying much about the nature of
>the universe, they've changed focus to analytic philosophy (which hops us
>over to the language vs. thought debate), but the scholastic philosophers
>would love this discussion. However, when I say this is off-topic,
>that's because it is indeed drawing in the points of view of philosophers
>and physicists who came after Rome, and from a knowledge of the universe
>that wasn't known to the Romans. That's the only reason I would like to
>see it taken private.
>
>Livia Cornelia Aurelia
>
>
>
>"pjane@--------" wrote:
>
> > --- In novaroma@--------, marcusaemiliusscaurus@h... wrote:
> > > I agree that this topic is not very Roman.
> >
> > How about making it Roman?
> >
> > What do we know about how the Romans thought about these issues? We
> > know that some upper-class Romans were fascinated with philosophy and
> > spent much time debating these issues. Did any of the debate reach
> > average Citizens? Women? What should one read if one wanted to know
> > more about Romans' views on such cosmic topics?
> >
> > Those of you with an interest in these issues might consider forming
> > a Philosophy Sodalitas, assuming one can get philosophers to agree
> > long enough to organize...
> >
> > Patricia Cassia
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
From:	Lykaion1@--------
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:57:47 EDT

Epicureans, Stoics, Platonists, the Peripatetics. All very interesting, and
worth study.

However, given NR is allegedly a micronation of the 21st century, the
confinement of discussions in a philosophy sodalitas to ancient thought is
too limiting. Were NR just a historical study club, that would be
appropriate. But is NR's interest only antiquarian?

Good luck with the idea. I'll pass on this one.

GLF

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:13:05 -0700

Ave, I dont think ancient philosophy is too limiting. It would be like
saying having a Sodalias on Roman Era of Xtianity or Judiasm is too limiting
and in the same breath saying the Religio is too limiting since it focuses
on the Past Religio Romana. Or all of our exisiting Sodalias since they all
focus on the past, such as the Sodalias Militarium and Enginerring, and
Sodalias of Cooking.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: <Lykaion1@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}


> Epicureans, Stoics, Platonists, the Peripatetics. All very interesting,
and
> worth study.
>
> However, given NR is allegedly a micronation of the 21st century, the
> confinement of discussions in a philosophy sodalitas to ancient thought is
> too limiting. Were NR just a historical study club, that would be
> appropriate. But is NR's interest only antiquarian?
>
> Good luck with the idea. I'll pass on this one.
>
> GLF
>
>
>
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Roman philosophy
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:21:55 -0500

Salve Patricia Cassia

> I'm not sure I'm ready to read the ancients without help. Can anyone
> come up with recommended reading for the person who wishes to explore
> the world of philosophy from a Roman point of view, but does not have
> extensive experience in that world?

I imagine everyone (well, everyone who likes this sort of thing, that
is) has their own favorites. I'd suggest the Meditations of Marcus
Aurelius (the Penguin translation makes for fairly easy reading), the
letters of Seneca (there are a number of collections, again the Penguin
version is good), and the Enchiridon of Epcitetus (more recently
released and only slightly reinterpreted as "The 7 Habits of Highly
Successful People"). Of course, I have a very heavy Stoic bias. "On
the Nature of Things" is the major Epicurean work, and is also
excellent, both as a poem and a philosophical treatise.

If you want an example of a conversation such as Festus has recently
started, Cicero's "On the Nature of the Gods" is perfect. However, it's
not particularly easy reading.

"The Defense" of Apuleius isn't a philosophical treatise, but it does
give some insights into the life of a philosopher. It's also extremely
entertaining.

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Roman philosophy
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:27:24 -0600

You didn't offend me, good lady Cassia. :)

I will tell you, 90% of the "philosophers" in the world are amateurs and
dilettantes. So, I share your experience and am saddened it left you
with a bad impression.

I can certainly recommend a few good books to amuse and enlighten you in
a kind and gentle way.

1. Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made
Lighter by Donald Palmer Organized chronologically. Comes with
cartoons.

2. Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers, by S.E. Frost Jr.
Arranged by topic. Drier survey than #1.

3. The bestselling novel, "Sophie's World", by Jostein Gaarder.
Excellent conversational exploration of philosophy as explained to a
child by an adult.

Any of these would be good generalist reading and leave you a little more
at ease with the topics.

Vale,
Livia Cornelia Aurelia



"pjane@--------" wrote:

> Sorry, Livia, I didn't mean to trash philosophers with my
> lighthearted comment. Unfortunately, my experience of them has
> probably come from amateurs or dilettantes, people who enjoy an
> argument rather than people who take seriously the unanswerable
> questions of the world.
>
> (Also from a very unpleasant exposure to philosophy in college. Laura
> Maria and others attending Boston U., don't worry - the professor who
> perpetrated this is now dead.)
>
> I'm not sure I'm ready to read the ancients without help. Can anyone
> come up with recommended reading for the person who wishes to explore
> the world of philosophy from a Roman point of view, but does not have
> extensive experience in that world?
>
> Patricia Cassia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:35:57 -0600

Feste??? Nova Roma's focus is undeniably "antiquarian". There is certainly
room to stretch the boundaries a bit....but we're united by our interest in
Roman studies.

>From the Declaration of Nova Roma:
"The express purpose of our nation is to promote international understanding and
cooperation through the preservation of our common Classical foundation, and to
breathe new life and honor into all Western Civilization through the restoration
of ancient Piety, Virtue, and Civilitas."

>From the Constitution:
"We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate
the best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland
and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary functions of Nova Roma
shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined
as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal
of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields
as religion,
culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy."

Vale,
Livia Cornelia Aurelia



Lykaion1@-------- wrote:

> Epicureans, Stoics, Platonists, the Peripatetics. All very interesting, and
> worth study.
>
> However, given NR is allegedly a micronation of the 21st century, the
> confinement of discussions in a philosophy sodalitas to ancient thought is
> too limiting. Were NR just a historical study club, that would be
> appropriate. But is NR's interest only antiquarian?
>
> Good luck with the idea. I'll pass on this one.
>
> GLF

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Philosophy (Was Caesar and the Univ.)
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:40:22 -0600

Salve, Pompeia:

I see....I wasn't aware of the discussion. I think, however, that it would
have been better inside the Musarum than separate. One of the modern ills that
has damaged philosophy is its separation from related subjects. In fact,
philosophy is the underpinning of all the areas covered in the Musarum.
Poetry, literature, the social and natural sciences, astronomy, sacred studies,
even architecture....were all written about from a philosophical point of view
by philosophers.

Oh well. :)

Livia


Pompeia Cornelia wrote:

> Salvete Livia et ali:
>
> You raise an interesting point, with regard to the possibility of entailing
> philosophy within the Musarum.
>
> The idea was entertained in the drawing up of the Musarum collegium.
>
> It was mutually decided, however, that Philosophy in itself is a large and
> multifaceted topic, and that it would best be the pursuit of a separate
> group or sodalitas, in future.
>
> Bene valete,
> Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
>
> >From: <gmvick32@-------->
> >Reply-To: gmvick32@--------
> >To: novaroma@--------
> >Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
> >Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:03:04 -0600
> >
> >Salvete Omnes et Patricia Cassia:
> >
> >Well, if we start a Philosophy Sodalitas, we should be focusing on Roman
> >and other ancient Philosophy, such as Stoicism, Sophism, Epicurianism,
> >etc.....I would LOVE to have such a Sodalitas, and this conversation
> >still wouldn't be appropriate to that Sodalitas. If there was truly a
> >desire for a philosophy sodalitas, I would certainly participate, but I
> >would bore you all to tears with attention to philosophical rigor.
> >
> >For now I would recommend seeing if the soon-to-be-voted-on Sodalitas
> >Musarum would be willing to institute a new Collegia within their
> >organization.
> >
> >Actually, philosophers are frequently excellent organizers. Done
> >correctly, philosophy is a very beautiful art form. Doing it badly is
> >what has given philosophy its bad reputation today.
> >
> >Philosophy by and large was a much more acceptable practice in the
> >ancient world than it is today. Philosophers would frequently open
> >schools -- much like Plato's Academy, originally named because Plato's
> >students would congregate in the same spot of forest outside the walls of
> >the Acropolis in a grove you can still visit today. Even in Rome this
> >was true, though most philosophy in Rome was Greek or of Greek origin.
> >Even Stoicism, the closest Rome comes to a nationally adopted philosophy,
> >originated with the Greeks.
> >
> >Participation in an organized philosophy school tended to be the parvenue
> >of the patrician class, though the average citizen certainly may have
> >attended public lectures. As for women......patrician women certainly
> >could and did read philosophy, and probably discussed it at dinner
> >parties. However, as far as I know, philosophy schools were closed to
> >women. I may be wrong.
> >
> >The pre-Socratics especially would be an excellent point of reference for
> >this conversation. So would the Epicureans. The Epicureans developed an
> >atomistic view of the world which divided that which is into bodies and
> >space, each infinite in quantity. Space includes the absolute void,
> >without which movement is impossible. "Bodies" are physically indivisible
> >particles, or atoms (hence, an atomistic view of the world). It goes
> >deeper and deeper.....Epicureanism was never very popular in the Roman
> >world, as they liked their philosophy to be a little more practical.
> >
> >To explore this thread from a Roman point of view, I'd start with a
> >reading of the epicurean philosopher Lucretius' On The Nature of Things.
> >
> >That said, this post is certainly interesting from a modern physicists
> >point of view, and those such as Cicero certainly debated issues such as
> >the nature of the divine and the nature of the natural world. Modern
> >philosophers after Kierkegaard aren't worrying much about the nature of
> >the universe, they've changed focus to analytic philosophy (which hops us
> >over to the language vs. thought debate), but the scholastic philosophers
> >would love this discussion. However, when I say this is off-topic,
> >that's because it is indeed drawing in the points of view of philosophers
> >and physicists who came after Rome, and from a knowledge of the universe
> >that wasn't known to the Romans. That's the only reason I would like to
> >see it taken private.
> >
> >Livia Cornelia Aurelia
> >
> >
> >
> >"pjane@--------" wrote:
> >
> > > --- In novaroma@--------, marcusaemiliusscaurus@h... wrote:
> > > > I agree that this topic is not very Roman.
> > >
> > > How about making it Roman?
> > >
> > > What do we know about how the Romans thought about these issues? We
> > > know that some upper-class Romans were fascinated with philosophy and
> > > spent much time debating these issues. Did any of the debate reach
> > > average Citizens? Women? What should one read if one wanted to know
> > > more about Romans' views on such cosmic topics?
> > >
> > > Those of you with an interest in these issues might consider forming
> > > a Philosophy Sodalitas, assuming one can get philosophers to agree
> > > long enough to organize...
> > >
> > > Patricia Cassia
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.

Subject:	[novaroma] Re Roman philosophy
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:52:03 -0600

Salve, Patricia Cassia

Following on that....the new Sharon Lebell translation of
Epictetus's
Enchiridon is VERY readable (ISBN 0-06-251-322-2). My
favorite translation
of the Enchiridon is the White translation, which is only
slightly more
academic. Both of them are very friendly ways to introduce
yourself to
philosophy.

To me Epictetus is an easier start that either Aurelius or
Seneca. But
then, the Enchiridon is practically my Bible.

Livia



Fortunatus wrote:

> Salve Patricia Cassia
>
> > I'm not sure I'm ready to read the ancients without
help. Can anyone
> > come up with recommended reading for the person who
wishes to explore
> > the world of philosophy from a Roman point of view, but
does not have
> > extensive experience in that world?
>
> I imagine everyone (well, everyone who likes this sort of
thing, that
> is) has their own favorites. I'd suggest the Meditations
of Marcus
> Aurelius (the Penguin translation makes for fairly easy
reading), the
> letters of Seneca (there are a number of collections,
again the Penguin
> version is good), and the Enchiridon of Epcitetus (more
recently
> released and only slightly reinterpreted as "The 7 Habits
of Highly
> Successful People"). Of course, I have a very heavy Stoic
bias. "On
> the Nature of Things" is the major Epicurean work, and is
also
> excellent, both as a poem and a philosophical treatise.
>
> If you want an example of a conversation such as Festus
has recently
> started, Cicero's "On the Nature of the Gods" is perfect.
However, it's
> not particularly easy reading.
>
> "The Defense" of Apuleius isn't a philosophical treatise,
but it does
> give some insights into the life of a philosopher. It's
also extremely
> entertaining.
>
> Vale
> T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	[Fwd: Re: [novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}]
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:43:11 -0600

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3
{long}
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:35:57 -0600
From: gmvick32@--------
Reply-To: gmvick32@--------
To: Lykaion1@--------
CC: novaroma@--------
References: <f8.33ec607.270a5edb@-------->

Feste??? Nova Roma's focus is undeniably "antiquarian".
There is certainly
room to stretch the boundaries a bit....but we're united by
our interest in
Roman studies.

>From the Declaration of Nova Roma:
"The express purpose of our nation is to promote
international understanding and
cooperation through the preservation of our common Classical
foundation, and to
breathe new life and honor into all Western Civilization
through the restoration
of ancient Piety, Virtue, and Civilitas."

>From the Constitution:
"We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those
who would recreate
the best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma shall be
the temporal homeland
and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary
functions of Nova Roma
shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman
civilization, defined
as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753
BCE to the removal
of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and
encompassing such fields
as religion,
culture, politics, art, literature, language, and
philosophy."

Vale,
Livia Cornelia Aurelia



Lykaion1@-------- wrote:

> Epicureans, Stoics, Platonists, the Peripatetics. All very interesting, and
> worth study.
>
> However, given NR is allegedly a micronation of the 21st century, the
> confinement of discussions in a philosophy sodalitas to ancient thought is
> too limiting. Were NR just a historical study club, that would be
> appropriate. But is NR's interest only antiquarian?
>
> Good luck with the idea. I'll pass on this one.
>
> GLF

Subject:	[Fwd: Re: [novaroma] Philosophy (Was Caesar and the Univ.)]
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:54:22 -0600

Ok....I'm TRYING the Reply All feature and it's not working
for me...


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Philosophy (Was Caesar and the
Univ.)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:40:22 -0600
From: gmvick32@--------
Reply-To: gmvick32@--------
To: Pompeia Cornelia <scriba_forum@-------->
CC: novaroma@--------
References: <F118KAaVpshfHWF2RIh0000c6a3@-------->

Salve, Pompeia:

I see....I wasn't aware of the discussion. I think,
however, that it would
have been better inside the Musarum than separate. One of
the modern ills that
has damaged philosophy is its separation from related
subjects. In fact,
philosophy is the underpinning of all the areas covered in
the Musarum.
Poetry, literature, the social and natural sciences,
astronomy, sacred studies,
even architecture....were all written about from a
philosophical point of view
by philosophers.

Oh well. :)

Livia


Pompeia Cornelia wrote:

> Salvete Livia et ali:
>
> You raise an interesting point, with regard to the possibility of entailing
> philosophy within the Musarum.
>
> The idea was entertained in the drawing up of the Musarum collegium.
>
> It was mutually decided, however, that Philosophy in itself is a large and
> multifaceted topic, and that it would best be the pursuit of a separate
> group or sodalitas, in future.
>
> Bene valete,
> Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
>
> >From: <gmvick32@-------->
> >Reply-To: gmvick32@--------
> >To: novaroma@--------
> >Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Caesar and the Universe pt3 {long}
> >Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:03:04 -0600
> >
> >Salvete Omnes et Patricia Cassia:
> >
> >Well, if we start a Philosophy Sodalitas, we should be focusing on Roman
> >and other ancient Philosophy, such as Stoicism, Sophism, Epicurianism,
> >etc.....I would LOVE to have such a Sodalitas, and this conversation
> >still wouldn't be appropriate to that Sodalitas. If there was truly a
> >desire for a philosophy sodalitas, I would certainly participate, but I
> >would bore you all to tears with attention to philosophical rigor.
> >
> >For now I would recommend seeing if the soon-to-be-voted-on Sodalitas
> >Musarum would be willing to institute a new Collegia within their
> >organization.
> >
> >Actually, philosophers are frequently excellent organizers. Done
> >correctly, philosophy is a very beautiful art form. Doing it badly is
> >what has given philosophy its bad reputation today.
> >
> >Philosophy by and large was a much more acceptable practice in the
> >ancient world than it is today. Philosophers would frequently open
> >schools -- much like Plato's Academy, originally named because Plato's
> >students would congregate in the same spot of forest outside the walls of
> >the Acropolis in a grove you can still visit today. Even in Rome this
> >was true, though most philosophy in Rome was Greek or of Greek origin.
> >Even Stoicism, the closest Rome comes to a nationally adopted philosophy,
> >originated with the Greeks.
> >
> >Participation in an organized philosophy school tended to be the parvenue
> >of the patrician class, though the average citizen certainly may have
> >attended public lectures. As for women......patrician women certainly
> >could and did read philosophy, and probably discussed it at dinner
> >parties. However, as far as I know, philosophy schools were closed to
> >women. I may be wrong.
> >
> >The pre-Socratics especially would be an excellent point of reference for
> >this conversation. So would the Epicureans. The Epicureans developed an
> >atomistic view of the world which divided that which is into bodies and
> >space, each infinite in quantity. Space includes the absolute void,
> >without which movement is impossible. "Bodies" are physically indivisible
> >particles, or atoms (hence, an atomistic view of the world). It goes
> >deeper and deeper.....Epicureanism was never very popular in the Roman
> >world, as they liked their philosophy to be a little more practical.
> >
> >To explore this thread from a Roman point of view, I'd start with a
> >reading of the epicurean philosopher Lucretius' On The Nature of Things.
> >
> >That said, this post is certainly interesting from a modern physicists
> >point of view, and those such as Cicero certainly debated issues such as
> >the nature of the divine and the nature of the natural world. Modern
> >philosophers after Kierkegaard aren't worrying much about the nature of
> >the universe, they've changed focus to analytic philosophy (which hops us
> >over to the language vs. thought debate), but the scholastic philosophers
> >would love this discussion. However, when I say this is off-topic,
> >that's because it is indeed drawing in the points of view of philosophers
> >and physicists who came after Rome, and from a knowledge of the universe
> >that wasn't known to the Romans. That's the only reason I would like to
> >see it taken private.
> >
> >Livia Cornelia Aurelia
> >
> >
> >
> >"pjane@--------" wrote:
> >
> > > --- In novaroma@--------, marcusaemiliusscaurus@h... wrote:
> > > > I agree that this topic is not very Roman.
> > >
> > > How about making it Roman?
> > >
> > > What do we know about how the Romans thought about these issues? We
> > > know that some upper-class Romans were fascinated with philosophy and
> > > spent much time debating these issues. Did any of the debate reach
> > > average Citizens? Women? What should one read if one wanted to know
> > > more about Romans' views on such cosmic topics?
> > >
> > > Those of you with an interest in these issues might consider forming
> > > a Philosophy Sodalitas, assuming one can get philosophers to agree
> > > long enough to organize...
> > >
> > > Patricia Cassia
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Roman philosophy
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:49:34 -0600

Salve, Patricia Cassia

Following on that....the new Sharon Lebell translation of Epictetus's
Enchiridon is VERY readable (ISBN 0-06-251-322-2). My favorite translation
of the Enchiridon is the White translation, which is only slightly more
academic. Both of them are very friendly ways to introduce yourself to
philosophy.

To me Epictetus is an easier start that either Aurelius or Seneca. But
then, the Enchiridon is practically my Bible.

Livia



Fortunatus wrote:

> Salve Patricia Cassia
>
> > I'm not sure I'm ready to read the ancients without help. Can anyone
> > come up with recommended reading for the person who wishes to explore
> > the world of philosophy from a Roman point of view, but does not have
> > extensive experience in that world?
>
> I imagine everyone (well, everyone who likes this sort of thing, that
> is) has their own favorites. I'd suggest the Meditations of Marcus
> Aurelius (the Penguin translation makes for fairly easy reading), the
> letters of Seneca (there are a number of collections, again the Penguin
> version is good), and the Enchiridon of Epcitetus (more recently
> released and only slightly reinterpreted as "The 7 Habits of Highly
> Successful People"). Of course, I have a very heavy Stoic bias. "On
> the Nature of Things" is the major Epicurean work, and is also
> excellent, both as a poem and a philosophical treatise.
>
> If you want an example of a conversation such as Festus has recently
> started, Cicero's "On the Nature of the Gods" is perfect. However, it's
> not particularly easy reading.
>
> "The Defense" of Apuleius isn't a philosophical treatise, but it does
> give some insights into the life of a philosopher. It's also extremely
> entertaining.
>
> Vale
> T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	[novaroma] Apologies
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:20:59 -0600

My apologies if I'm flooding the list with multiple
copies.....I'm TRYING to use the Reply All feature and
getting seemingly odd results on my end. Argh.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia