Thank you Bruno!
You and Russell between you have managed to strike some sparks of
illumination from the rocky inside of my skull. There is no beacon fire
to report but I start to get a glimmering of why you want to *assume*
comp and see where it leads.
It seems that self-reference and
Dear John Mikes, I thought your words 'Origin of (our) universe' are the
same as the word 'origination-point'.
You said: (1)
1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know.
And you also said: (2)
we CANNOT reach to earlier items than the origination-point (whatever it
may be) of our
On 3/6/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A human life must be a compilation of all these including the creation
of internal [synaptic change, etc] structure/record which endow the
ability to *be* the story. But when looking at this as a/n
[infinity^infinity] Many Worlds affair, none of
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/6/07, *Mark Peaty* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A human life must be a compilation of all these including the creation
of internal [synaptic change, etc] structure/record which endow the
ability to *be* the story. But
On Mar 5, 4:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
On Mar 1, 8:17 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the
Creator is a person that we
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote:
You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the
plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the
meaning of possible for now), or God is in charge of (but not IS)
only part of the plenitude.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:46:32PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you know that you are the same person from moment to moment in
ordinary life? The physical processes in your brain create psychological
continuity; that is,
Russell Standish wrote:
Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational
selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my Why
Occams Razor paper. Nobody has shot down the argument yet, in spite
of it being around on this list since 1999, and in spite of it
On 3/7/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational
selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my Why
Occams Razor paper. Nobody has shot down the argument yet, in spite
of it being
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:30:57PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/7/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational
selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my Why
On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's
of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it
provides.
I don't like simply saying That isn't so, but nobody can
On Mar 6, 6:07 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote:
You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the
plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the
meaning of possible for now),
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 10:54:44PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to
any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of
the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk. *Someone* (somebody
bigger that you or I ;) has
*All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in the
equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since calculus is
easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that defining an
instantaneous state requires uncountable information.*
What about the
15 matches
Mail list logo
