On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are the only one defining free will in terms of an absence of
causality. I see clearly that causality arises out of feeling and free
will.
It isn't the absence of causality, it isn't the presence of causality.
On Apr 22, 10:22 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are the only one defining free will in terms of an absence of
causality. I see clearly that causality arises out of feeling and free
will.
It
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It isn't the absence of causality, it isn't the presence of causality.
What does that leave?
The creation of causality.
But are decisions that a person makes freely caused or uncaused?
By this reasoning nothing
Silly Subject: so far nobody could tell *H O W* * *a
*brain*(tissue-comp?) could
*MIND *a*nything? (*react, maybe. )
I still wait for a refusal to my statement that there may not be any FREE
will in a partially known environment with unknown factors yet influencing
(all?) the occurrences? In
On 4/22/2012 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are the only one defining free will in terms of an absence of
causality. I see clearly that causality arises out of feeling and free
will.
It isn't the absence of
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
1.
One postulate of SRT takes vacuum as reference frame.
Another postulate of SRT takes inertial reference frame (s).
No, none of the postulates take the vacuum as a
No, none of the postulates take the vacuum as a reference frame,
which doesn't make sense since a vacuum doesn't have a measurable
rest frame (there are no landmarks in a vacuum that could be used
to measure the velocity of the vacuum relative to anything else).
One postulate does talk about
#
If we measure the speed of quantum of light in vacuum from
different inertial frames the result will be the *same* - constant.
Why?
Because all different inertial frames ( stars and planets of billion
s and billions galaxies ) exist in infinite motionless, stationary,
fixed (rest) reference
8 matches
Mail list logo
