On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:35, Peter Sas wrote:
Hi Brent,
On my account, beings (i.e. all things that are) lack intrinsic
qualities because they are defined through their differences from
each other.
I guess you love category theory, which is mathematics based on that
idea. It is also a
On 25 Oct 2014, at 20:54, David Nyman wrote:
On 21 October 2014 17:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 00:56, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 October 2014 17:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2014, at 15:26, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 October 2014
On 24 Oct 2014, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:10 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
They are non-computable by a Turing machine - which is already
assumed to have unlimited tape and time. It is likely that in the
real world almost all integers are not
On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:13, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Like Quentin explained to you more than once, your reference
problem, if it was a valid argument against the FPI, would be valid
also about Everett QM,
Like I
And now in physics we have this-
http://stardrive.org/stardrive/index.php/news2/science/14152-when-parallel-worlds-collide-quantum-mechanics-is-born
MWI worlds interact
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 24 Oct 2014, at 22:02, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I believe it's you who has not integrated the consequences of
consciousness not having a location. So it is meaningless to ask
what city will you be in?, all that can
On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2014 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Oct 2014, at 17:17, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/8/2014 5:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, meekerdb
On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2014 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Jesse,
Sorry for replying late.
On 27 Jul 2014, at 18:27, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM, David Nyman
da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 23 July 2014 17:49, Jesse Mazer
Hi Brent,
Thanks for your comments, which are very useful, even if the more technical
comments are beyond me (I have to study up on that). Thanks for the tip
about category theory, I vaguely heard about it... I know it is a rival to
set theory when it comes to founding math (insofar that is
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Yes, if you used a arbitrarily large number of electrons you could get
a arbitrarily large number of digits, and you could do the same thing with a
arbitrarily large number of dice. But if physics works by Real
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Like I explained to you more than once, Everett was interested in
predictions but you are interested in consciousness,
That is not relevant for the point you made.
Like hell it isn't! Everett was talking about
2014-10-26 18:58 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Like I explained to you more than once, Everett was interested in
predictions but you are interested in consciousness,
That is not relevant for the point
Just go reread the thread Re: For John Clark october 2013... or read the
last 5 years of John Clark Bullshit... for someone who don't give a damn
about comp, that someone spent years of his own life answering bullshit
about it... (but like he said... who's he ? you ? the great spaghetti
monster
Yeah Bruce,
Things could be much different then what Krauss conceives of today. Why not a
closed timelike curve within an open universe, or an open universe within a
CTC?? I always ask myself, how this can benefit our species? If its just a fact
that is too big and indifferent to our
Brent, these guys are SO smart! They even knew how to convert infinity
into a definitely lucrative career with awards and stuff.
You know I am a layman - even forgot the 'stuff' of my Ph.D. and D.Sc. and
am proudly agnostic.
Of 'infinity' I lately wrote: I accept the adjective (and adverb?)
On 26 October 2014 14:00, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Brent, I am quite familiar with Eric Steinhardt Paterson University, NJ.
He deals philosophically as a philosopher does, with the idea of
immortality, and identity.
This one's UK specific (though I signed from NZ). The USA could do with one
too IMHO.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70539
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
Mind you as some people like to point out, we know GR is wrong...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Bruce Kellett
the claims about the zero net energy of the universe made by people such
as Hawking and Krauss in popular presentations are wrong. The interesting
question is why undoubtedly clever people such as Krauss and Hawking would
make such fallacious
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Bruce Kellett
he [Krauss] appears to have overlooked the simple fact that in a closed
universe, light cannot go right round and back to the starting point before
the universe re-contracts to zero size.
You appear to have overlooked the simple fact that in a
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
! Liz, that is the $64,000 question, what value is knowledge? With Steinhart,
I am sure he knew well about MW I and Hugh Everett's theory. The philosopher
who decades ago, I came up with what is called modal reasoning, is the guy who
actually came up with this
On 27 Oct 2014, at 9:30 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This one's UK specific (though I signed from NZ). The USA could do with one
too IMHO.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70539
It asks for your street address. NEVER sign anything over the Net that asks for
your
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Since when is general relativity, wrong? What news did I miss?
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 05:32 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Pure serious great from a theoretical physicist point of view until their
series get disapproved by improved equipment. So, vast, and improved sky
survey, might prove or disprove countless theories. All of the series and
interpretations of theoretical physicist
Hm. Sorry about that. You can always make one up.
On 27 October 2014 15:09, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 27 Oct 2014, at 9:30 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This one's UK specific (though I signed from NZ). The USA could do with
one too IMHO.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
If there is more that a very small amount of dark energy, then a beam of
light can never get right round the universe (the universe does not
re-contract in that case
OK.
it expands for ever even though closed). So you can
On 10/26/2014 3:30 PM, LizR wrote:
This one's UK specific (though I signed from NZ). The USA could do with one too
IMHO.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70539
Actually most states in the U.S. do have laws which define fraud so as to include such
activities. But the result is just
27 matches
Mail list logo