On Mar 12, 12:49 am, Danny Mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit :
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's
UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this
question I'll define God as an
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:33, John M a écrit :
Still: human thinking.
You should subscribe to some alien list, if you are annoyed by us being
human.
You can answer human thinking to any (human) post. So this does not
convey any information, unless you explain what in our human nature
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain
it. What's wrong with that?
Because, assuming comp, neither matter nor mind (including perception)
can be break up into simpler parts to be explained. That is what
OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently. You could say
that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it
exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; or you could say
that it can be reduced to an electron + proton because these two
Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease:
The last part: If we accept Bruno's we are god
I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is
that, assuming comp, the first person inherits God' unanmeability.
So the first person has some god attribute. you cannot infer
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as
done
by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned
energy
with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math
Sorry, Danny, for my convoluted style. Also, for having missed you
'original' explanation of (your) God. I try to concentrate on SOME of the
texts, it is getting too much indeed, to memorize week long postings of
many.contributors..
You wrote:
Thanks, Russell, 4 Poles may play bridge.
John
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
In the
Tom Caylor wrote:
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
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
/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
Dear John,
I feel I understand your view and distinction of origination point
and origination.
Origination is entailment of origination point. Origination
point is part of our world (the item to be originated). Is that
correct?
Now, my opinion is that there is no origination of the origination
11 matches
Mail list logo
