On 26 Jan 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote:
On 25 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if p is true (in this world, say) then it's true in all worlds that
p is true in at least one world.
You need just use a conditional (if). The word asked was if.
OK?
OK. I think I
On 26 Jan 2014, at 13:13, ronaldheld wrote:
Without hijacking this massive thread, I am asking if it is worth
buying this book, if you are not a believer in the platonic
universe, UDA,etc?
I would certainly not recommend it if you are interested in cooking
pizza.
Nor even in the UDA,
On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the
very universe itself had not been discovered, they hadn't found Dark Matter
or Dark Energy; even Einstein didn't know about that.
Dark matter was
On 26 Jan 2014, at 20:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
To combine my responses to several of your posts...
I sort of agree with your notion of multiple realities but I would
argue these are not the fundamental reality and we must assume a
more fundamental reality with the same laws of
Thanks for the explanation, Richard.
Bruno
On 26 Jan 2014, at 23:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 14:05, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 26 Jan 2014, at 23:26, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
You and Bruno have often complained that my postings lack rigor...
For a nice formal representation of Heraclitean streams click here
and read the bit about hypersets. BTW, this is a concept almost
identical to what Lou
On 27 Jan 2014, at 01:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Like I have written previously, I am past the point of buying the
idea that there is a Reality out there independent of us that we
passively come to experience. I am tired of explanations that ask us
to believe that change is an
On 27 Jan 2014, at 02:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed
to be responsible for my or our existence.
Sounds like physics to me.
Yes. if you
On 27 Jan 2014, at 02:55, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 January 2014 13:39, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear LizR,
By that standard we would still be living in caves
Teehee. Have
On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:25, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form are the place to start...
I am not sure. I can appreciate what he did, and what Kauffman did
from it, but my experience is that to begin with Spencer Brown makes
the study of logic more
On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed
to be responsible for my or our
2014-01-27 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the
very universe itself had not been discovered, they hadn't found Dark Matter
or Dark Energy; even Einstein didn't know
On 27 Jan 2014, at 04:00, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, so your notion of God is whatever is fundamentally responsible
for existence - hence primitivematerialism makes matter
(energy etc) play the
On 27 Jan 2014, at 05:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is
On 27 Jan 2014, at 05:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 7:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, so your notion of God is whatever is fundamentally
responsible for existence - hence primitive materialism makes
On 27 Jan 2014, at 05:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear LizR,
George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form are the place to start...
I'll add that to my reading list.
But on which end? :-)
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or
understand, or
whatever you think the
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the
2014-01-24 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
You are a bit non serious here. I have never concluded anything of that
kind from computationalism.
Marijuana is good because it is a better medication than the most common
one for at least 2000 diseases, according to experts in the field, but this
Dear Bruno,
I think that where we differ is in how we think of numbers: I see them as
merely representational, Parmenidean, you see them as more. The Heraclitean
aspect is far more than p for me.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at
Dear Bruno,
No, time is observer dependent as well as observers supply the measures.
Recall that I see time as a local measure of change. Change itself is not
observer dependent, it flows eternally as the potential to Be of Becoming.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal
On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the
On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:21, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I think that where we differ is in how we think of numbers: I see
them as merely representational, Parmenidean, you see them as more.
But numbers can be used to represent things, like an address, but they
are not
On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:24, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, time is observer dependent as well as observers supply the
measures.
Sorry, I don't understand.
Recall that I see time as a local measure of change.
As long as you don't give me what you assume and what you
Brent and Liz,
It seems to me that the whole notion of the elephant being in two places at
the SAME TIME presupposes a common present moment. Surely Liz and SA didn't
mean that? That would be agreeing with Edgar's present moment of p-time!
Remember that this elephant is in different moments of
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb
On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:12, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Yes, some day a computer might be able to figure out that the set of
rationals is not equipollent to the set of real numbers.
A Lôbian machine like ZF can do that already.
I saw somewhere that using an automated theorem prover, one of
``
On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:28:47 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:09:40 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
The effect of the gravity gradient you keep mentioning is well known NOT
to account for the dark matter effect. The fact that it
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, time is observer dependent as well as observers supply the
measures. Recall that I see time as a local measure of change. Change
itself is not observer dependent, it flows eternally as
Jesse,
First this doesn't have anything to do with present moment theory, only
with standard physics.
2nd, hopefully it's just a matter of you using different semantics than me
as to what is meant by absolute and relative. I'll explain once more.
In the case of time dilation effects caused by
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Hi Jesse,
Sorry if I misunderstood you and for the dismissive comment I
apparently misread your comments...
As for your other comments in this post. The slowing of the clock in a
gravity well is an absolute
Comp works whether you are conscious or unconscious, if it works at all.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:16, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014-01-24 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
You are a bit non serious here. I have never
Yes, some day a computer might be able to figure out that the set of
rationals is not equipollent to the set of real numbers. I saw somewhere
that using an automated theorem prover, one of Godel's incompleteness
theorems was proved by a computer.
The question I raised initially was this: will
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:09:40 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
The effect of the gravity gradient you keep mentioning is well known NOT
to account for the dark matter effect. The fact that it doesn't is why dark
matter was postulated in the first place. So I don't see that
Ghibbsa,
I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and
see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to me.
I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable that might
produce it OR that it would account well for dark matter.
In any
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
book is really informative about Einstein's religion.
Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein himself
had to say about God:
it was,
On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR
Some basic.questions. When you say PA, do you mean the set of all theorems
entailed by the axioms of Peano arithmetic? Does this include the true
(relative to PA of course) wffs that are not provable from PA alone?
How can it be that PA+con(I) can prove its own consistency because it is
On Jan 27, 2014, at 1:24 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
As many as are possible.
So if it is possible that they all exist, how is that different from
block time?
Jason
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
FWIW, under the usual definitions, the rationals are enumerable and so are
a smaller set than the reals. I'd suppose that if people can figure that
out with our nifty fleshy brains, then a well-designed computer brain
could, too.
-Gabe
On Friday, January 24, 2014 1:23:40 AM UTC-6, Brian
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
First this doesn't have anything to do with present moment theory, only
with standard physics.
2nd, hopefully it's just a matter of you using different semantics than me
as to what is meant by absolute and
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people on this
planet once used: the word Life refers to some organic matter filled with
elan vital.
Fine. Organic matter is matter that operates according to the
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Refer to my discourse on solving the hard problem.
Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse that clearly
and unambiguously explains exactly what the hard problem is. Exactly
what is it that you expect
On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of
that book is really informative about Einstein's religion.
Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what
On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and
see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to me.
I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable that
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non personal God.
So you believe this non personal thing that has no purpose or goal and can
not be understood as having any attribute as anthropomorphic as
intelligence or
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 19:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!
I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship
On 1/27/2014 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 19:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!
I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship
On 1/27/2014 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 02:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be responsible
for my or our existence.
On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true
statements lacking proof.
Yes.
There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of whose
falsehood is impossible;
A proof is a FINITE
On 1/27/2014 5:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
I don't think my statement is confused. Your response is ambiguous because it doesn't
specify frames of reference correctly.
The object's clock DOES tick slower according to the external observer's clock, but
obviously not by the object's
You could always just add it and its negation to the list of axioms (though
not at the same time, of course) and see where that leads, if anywhere.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:55 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non personal God.
So you believe this non personal thing that has no purpose or goal and can
not
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 19:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
GREEK
Brent,
Just put the origin of your GR BH solution at the singularity and most all
is explained.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people on this
planet once used: the word Life refers to some organic matter filled
On 1/27/2014 7:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
First this doesn't have anything to do with present moment theory, only with standard
physics.
2nd, hopefully it's just a matter of you using different semantics than me as to what is
meant by absolute and relative. I'll explain once more.
On 1/26/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:
Watching Memento gives some idea of what's really going on, by showing what life would
be like after a partial breakdown of how the brain fools us into thinking we have
continuous existence. It isn't too much of a stretch from imagining living in 5 minute
On 1/27/2014 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is
being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never
denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be
On 27 January 2014 23:47, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-01-27 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the
very universe itself had not been discovered, they
I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes
floating around the web.
On 28 January 2014 05:18, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:34:04 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and
see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to
On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and don't care
about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: Wow, I can't believe we built the pyramids - yeah,
we just threw human death and suffering at them until they were built.
On 1/27/2014 12:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I use the exact same
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But that doesn't answer the
On 28 January 2014 06:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
book is really informative about Einstein's
On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist,
physicalist) theology for granted.
I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst
On Monday, January 27, 2014 6:15:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:18:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 15:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:41:30 AM UTC-5,
On 1/27/2014 1:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist,
On 27 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 05:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:25, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
George Spencer-Brown's Laws of
On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from
the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If something
can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary.
Could you
On 28 January 2014 01:21, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
I think that where we differ is in how we think of numbers: I see them
as merely representational
What do they represent?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 28 January 2014 09:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:
Watching Memento gives some idea of what's really going on, by showing
what life would be like after a partial breakdown of how the brain fools us
into thinking we have continuous existence. It
On 28 January 2014 11:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 1:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote:
You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist,
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
existence of
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
existence of
On 27 January 2014 06:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote:
On 25 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if p is true (in this world, say) then it's true in all worlds that p is
true in at least one world.
You need just use
On 1/27/2014 2:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/26/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:
Watching Memento gives some idea of what's really going on, by showing
what life
would be like after a partial breakdown
Liz,
One point not really correct. Penzias and Wilson had no idea what they had
discovered until someone told them. They were pretty much routine engineers
not first caliber physicists...
Edgar
On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:51:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 27 January 2014 23:47, Quentin
Brent,
Please at least keep the record straight instead of making snide comments
about me.
I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect outside
the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and nothing
can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a
Hi Folks,
Check out this paper by Kevin Knuth. In it he shows how one can obtain
space-time (and its Lorentz symmetry in the limit) from interactions
between observers and some basic relational algebra.
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Knuth_fqxi13knuthessayfinal.pdf
This is, IMHO,
Very interesting, and (like spin foams and CDT and LQG) a possible way to
get to emergent space-time from something more basic.
But why do you say it's an alternative to the block universe? I didn't see
anything in there to suggest that.
On 28 January 2014 13:51, Stephen Paul King
On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and
On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Please at least keep the record straight instead of making snide comments about
me.
I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect outside the event
horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and nothing can go
On 28 January 2014 14:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you
On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't
rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all
encompassing purpose or a goal to existence
On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect
outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and
nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole?
Your answer was that when mass
On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect
outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and
nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole?
Your answer was that when mass
On 28 January 2014 16:17, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
I'd
Liz wrote Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM:
*The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s (I think?) and a
primordial explosion was theorised by Lemaitre, but until the discovery of
the microwave background in the '60s that was only one of several competing
theories put forward to
93 matches
Mail list logo
