Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
Ah bravo Günther, now I am depressing :( I don't succeed in finding my Steinhart book. I don't either find the book on the net, and I begin to doubt it is a book by the same Steinhart. I have some doubt that my Steinhart has Eric as first name. I remember only that the book was taking

Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-12 Thread John M
-l...@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 4:57:17 AM Subject: Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5 Ah bravo Günther, now I am depressing :( I don't succeed in finding my Steinhart book. I don't either find the book on the net, and I begin to doubt it is a book by the same

Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks for the references. Best, Bruno On 09 Jan 2009, at 21:26, Günther Greindl wrote: Hello, My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I specialized my self in

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Jan 2009, at 02:26, Kim Jones wrote: On 10/01/2009, at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I admire too. Kim is courageous. Well, for the tenacity we will see :) Gee thanks Doctor! I'll try not disappoint you. At the moment I am devoting an egregious amount of time to searching for

Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-11 Thread Günther Greindl
Which one did you have? Was it good? (I only know his papers) Cheers, Günther Bruno Marchal wrote: Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks for the references. Best, Bruno On 09 Jan 2009, at 21:26, Günther

Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-10 Thread Spudboy100
Steinhardt is supposed to get his book Infinite Flesh published sometime soon. His premise is similar to Philosopher, John Leslie, save that Steinhardt see clones of ourselves being re-born in alternate universes, though the each incarnation is improved over the previous. Leslie is more

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-10 Thread John Mikes
Brent, there are misunderstood phenomena and epistemologically underdeveloped explanations over the past 10,000 years - plus conclusion (upon conlusions)^n - quantizations with and without zero (14th c. AD) to develop in our conventional scientific view the figment Bruno puts into - called The

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi John, I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences. It is as you wish, but it is my way to question the humans, through UDA. Then the

Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread Günther Greindl
Hello, My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a branch of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology experimentally

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread John Mikes
Brent wrote: ...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the influence of the rest of the world is non-local (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity... EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point. How can one use such artifact as

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread Günther Greindl
John, Brent, John said: EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point. How can one use such artifact as 'evidence' that shows...? Aspect Et Al tested it ages ago, see for instance here: http://www-ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf Brent said: But the EPR

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread Kim Jones
On 10/01/2009, at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I admire too. Kim is courageous. Well, for the tenacity we will see :) Gee thanks Doctor! I'll try not disappoint you. At the moment I am devoting an egregious amount of time to searching for employment as my ability to sit and cogitate

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread Brent Meeker
John Mikes wrote: Brent wrote: ...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the influence of the rest of the world is non-local (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity... EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point. How

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-08 Thread John Mikes
Dear Bruno, I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences. Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and probabilistics. * Bruno quotes in

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-08 Thread Brent Meeker
John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences. Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 03 Jan 2009, at 12:59, Kim Jones wrote: Bruno, In this step, one of me experiences (or actually does not experience) the delay prior to reconstitution. In Step 2, it was proven to me that I cannot know that any extra time (other than the 4 minutes necessary transmission interval) has

Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-03 Thread Kim Jones
Bruno, In this step, one of me experiences (or actually does not experience) the delay prior to reconstitution. In Step 2, it was proven to me that I cannot know that any extra time (other than the 4 minutes necessary transmission interval) has elapsed between my annihilation and