>
> >> That is why I limit myself for the TOE to natural numbers and their
> >> addition and multiplication.
> >> The reason is that it is enough, by comp, and nobody (except perhaps
> >> some philosophers) have any problem with that.
>
> > Yes. A couple of questions from a philosophical point of
On 28 Feb 2011, at 21:37, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2011, at 00:25, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2011, at 17:37, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
The easy way is to assume inconsiste
I look forward to taking a look. I read his previous attempt at this,
about 3 years ago, and it looked like an interesting approach, albeit
embryonic (there were bits that didn't sound right, for instance).
Cheers
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 04:28:57AM -0800, ronaldheld wrote:
> I see you beat me to
Dear Bruno,
Thanks a lot for your answers. I am not sure though if I
agree/understand them. Well, I have to think it over.
Your position somewhat reminds me that of Erwin Schrödinger in Mind and
Matter. A few quotes from Chapter 4: The Arithmetical Paradox: The
Oneness of Mind.
"The reason
I see you beat me to posting this.
Ronald
On Mar 1, 12:55 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.5339v1.pdf
>
> CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE
> QUANTUM
> Don N. Page
> Theoretical Physics Institute
> Department of Physics, University of Alberta
>
5 matches
Mail list logo
