On 4/9/2013 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.04.2013 11:38 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Weinberg said the followin
Actually, this idea is not as wacky as you're suggesting. Laurent Nottale
suggested something like this with his Fractal Spacetime theory,
essentially explaining standard QM geometrically as a projection from a higher
dimension Hausdorf space (fractal dimension).
His ideas haven't gained traction,
Colin's Wackier Version:
Because the space they operate in, at the scale in which the decay operates,
there are far more dimensions than 3. They decay deterministically in >>3D and
it appears, to us, to be random because of the collapse of the spatial
dimensions to 3, where we humble observers
On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 7:54:27 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> It is hard to answer this question precisely, because the large,
> radioactive nuclei are very complex structures, for which exact solutions
> of
> Schroedinger's equation cannot be obtained. Rather these things are
> usu
It is hard to answer this question precisely, because the large,
radioactive nuclei are very complex structures, for which exact solutions of
Schroedinger's equation cannot be obtained. Rather these things are
usually studied via Hartree-Fock approximations.
However, in loose visual terms, you can
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:44 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>
>> > Nature/Science have no magical powers to verify if experiments were
>> > performed correctly.
>
>
> Like anything else they are not perfect and are subject to error from time
> to ti
On 08.04.2013 11:38 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Weinberg said the following:
Ok, here's my modified version of Fig 11
On Monday, April 8, 2013 5:38:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> > On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following:
> >> On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> >>> On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Weinberg said the following:
> Ok,
On 05 Apr 2013, at 11:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/4/2013 3:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jason Resch
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Telmo Menezes >
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM,
On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Weinberg said the following:
Ok, here's my modified version of Fig 11
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/3
On 05 Apr 2013, at 21:39, John Mikes wrote:
I think I side with Craig: NDE is not "N" enough, is not "D" because
the 'observer' (gossiper?) came "back" and not "E" - rather a
compendium
of hearsay (s)he stored previously about "D"-like phenomena.
When a (human or other) complexity dissolves
On 05 Apr 2013, at 16:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 9:41:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Apr 2013, at 00:07, Craig Weinberg wrote (to Jason)
There are algorithms for implementing anything that does not
involve infinities.
Why do you think so? What algorithm
On 06 Apr 2013, at 01:51, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You already are aware of the relevant aspects of your brain
function, and aware of them in a way which is a million times more
detailed than any fMRI could ever be.
No, you bet on them. You are not aware of your brain, in any direct
way. S
On 05 Apr 2013, at 16:30, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 05 Apr 2013, at 00:07, Craig Weinberg wrote (to Jason)
There are algorithms for implementing anything that does not
involve infinities.
Why do you think so? What algorithm implement
On 06 Apr 2013, at 06:38, Richard Ruquist wrote:
There is no hell
Ah?
In which theory? You derive this from CY?
In which theology? What is your definition of hell?
Bruno
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 3:39:52 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrot
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Nature/Science have no magical powers to verify if experiments were
> performed correctly.
Like anything else they are not perfect and are subject to error from time
to time, but I can't think of any other human institution that has a bette
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:13 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> > What I'm trying to say is that I believe you do not distinguish:
>> A) Science the method of inquiry
>> from
>> B) Science the human institution
>
>
>
> And I am saying is you do not understand th
If any particle were truly identical to another, then they could not decay
at different rates. While we see this as "random" (aka spontaneous to our
eyes), there is nothing to say that the duration of the life of the
particle is not influenced by intentional dispositions. Particles may
represen
On Thursday, April 4, 2013 12:55:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
> There are, of course, undiscovered scientific facts. If scientists did not
>>> believe that they would give up science. But Craig is not saying that there
>>
Materialism is the philosophy that chaos
is prevented in the universe without
overall governance.
Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/9/2013
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe
20 matches
Mail list logo