Free-willing (or is it -weeling? :) friends,
Harry,
When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that there
is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if this
list
is infinitely long it still means that certain possibilities will be OFF
Free-willing (or is it -weeling? :) friends,
Hi,
I assume you meant -wheeling.
Harry,
When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that there
is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if
this list
is infinitely long it still means
2009/11/27 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar:
Free-willing (or is it -weeling? :) friends,
Hi,
I assume you meant -wheeling.
Yes
Harry,
When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that there
is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if
Ah Michel
Selecting, at the other extreme, one particle per shot will yield,
after a proportionately larger number of shots, the very same fringe
pattern, and that's what actually happens in experiments.
Yes. But you did not go far enough, if I catch your mildly dismissive drift-
that is, in
Michel Jullian wrote:
Well, we don't need to wait that longer. We already know that certain
phenomena are simply not contained within the framework of classical
mechanics, due to its stochastic nature.
So, for computers or machines to be able to achieve conscience, they'll
have to be built in
Michel Jullian wrote:
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM
that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an
improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future.
Michel
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM
that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an
improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But
it doesn't
Michel
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that
it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an
improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it
doesn't
Mauro
By incommensurable I mean the residual that's always present in every
calculation, measurement, modeling or simulation of a physical process.
Okay - I am with you there. What you seem to be describing is the difference
between true randomness and a stochastic process - which itself is a
Mauro
By incommensurable I mean the residual that's always present in
every
calculation, measurement, modeling or simulation of a physical process.
Okay - I am with you there. What you seem to be describing is the
difference
between true randomness and a stochastic process - which itself
2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar:
Yes. The problem with all these approaches will always fortunately be
human free will
Then there is no problem is there?
Michel
2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar:
Yes. The problem with all these approaches will always fortunately be
human free will
Then there is no problem is there?
Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I meant problem in the sense that the
outcomes of the future experiments in human
No, no, all I meant is that since there doesn't seem to exist such a
thing as free will in physical systems --fortunately for physicists!--
there is no problem. Unless we humans are not bound by the rules
obeyed by the rest of the universe, which remains to be proved.
Michel
2009/11/25 Mauro
No, no, all I meant is that since there doesn't seem to exist such a
thing as free will in physical systems --fortunately for physicists!--
there is no problem. Unless we humans are not bound by the rules
obeyed by the rest of the universe, which remains to be proved.
Oh well. Let's put it
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM
that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an
improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But
it doesn't leave room
- Original Message
From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 6:02:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
was or could be in the future
- Original Message
From: Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, November 26, 2009 12:27:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
- Original Message
From: Michel Jullian
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, November
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre5aj3d3-us-italy-galileo-find/
Apparently body parts and teeth from Galileo were cut from his corpse by
scientists during a burial ceremony held after his death in 1642. End of
story? Don't count on that.
DNA from teeth and hair can be extracted, multiplied and
You know, as a writer, I'm tempted to take that final line as a
challenge. The only question, do i make the shroud be actually stains
of christ, or some other dude?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Jones sez:
...
Of course, there is *zero assurance* that the “clone of a genius” will
follow in the footsteps of the progenitor...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_(film)
Speaking of cloning, don't forget Sir Lawrence of Olivier
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
Jones Beene wrote:
BTW -- the implications of cloned DNA from the Shroud of Turin has
already been explored in (poorly written) fiction.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
In their book The Second Messiah: Templars, the Turin Shroud and the
Great Secret of Freemasonry,
Of course, there is *zero assurance* that the clone of a genius will
follow in the footsteps of the progenitor, and likewise rise to the same
level of accomplishment
I dare to make a prediction: if human cloning is achieved and done(and we
all know it will be, in some not so distant future)
yeah, i see that from the wikipedia link in another reply. Very
interesting. That could make a better plot. A subgroup of the
illuminati (who are actually the templars, don't ya know) attempt to
clone one of their previous grandmasters, only it turns out that the
shroud actually WAS the image of
This brings up the nature vs nurture debate - BUT - also let's update the
scenario in a modern techno-context ... IOW don't overlook that fact that we
are approaching a future where, due to artificial intelligence and expert
systems, it might be possible to maximize both nature and nurture - at
Hey, I like it. Throw in that they also clone his wife Mary Magdeline and
use her to extort Jesus for control of the earth. The Sufi's clone Mohammed
and together he and Jesus rescue Mary and destroy the Illuminati forever.
Terry
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Alexander Hollins
actually if it was the shroud jesus was buried in, it WOULD have
the tears of mary on it somewhere, as well as skin cells where she
grabbed it, twisting it in her hands, her grief so much that she loses
all sense of those around her.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Terry Blanton
In fiction:
The Bad:
http://tinyurl.com/yl2z5aj
The Ugly:
http://www.armageddonbooks.com/clone.html
Not sure, but probably not good:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Jesus-Thief/J-R-Lankford/e/978097186941
7
In film (all ugly) The site name sez it all:
I was going to say, we've enough evidence of twins , seperated at
birth, brought up in very different environments, being very similar
to each other as adults.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
This brings up the nature vs nurture debate - BUT - also let's
Alexander Hollins wrote:
I was going to say, we've enough evidence of twins , seperated at
birth, brought up in very different environments, being very similar
to each other as adults.
I've heard that twins share a numer of startling coincidences in their
lives. Like naming their pets the
29 matches
Mail list logo
