On 04 May 2012, at 17:48, John Clark wrote:
> If the nothing of a vacuum is really full of potentials,
If you insist on the strictest definition of "nothing" which is not
even the potential of producing anything, then even God Himself
could not produce something from nothing; and this lin
A crazy thoughts about structure of Electron.
=.
Electron isn’t a point.
Electron has a geometrical form.
Electron’s geometrical form isn’t static, isn’t firm.
Electron’s geometrical form can be changed by his own inner spin.
Electron’s own inner spin can be described with three ( 3 ) formulas:
Pla
On May 4, 8:00 pm, Pierz wrote:
> Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago that the properties of the
> members of a set need not be properties of the set itself. I.e.,
> everything in the universe may have a cause but the universe - the set
> of all things - need not. We can argue about whether the
Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago that the properties of the
members of a set need not be properties of the set itself. I.e.,
everything in the universe may have a cause but the universe - the set
of all things - need not. We can argue about whether the ontological
nature of the "set of everyth
On 5/4/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 4, 4:42 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/4/2012 12:39 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I see the development into more understanding (did I say: better? No)
of the belief miraculous that governed human thinking earlier.
"Understanding" is one of those words o
On May 4, 4:42 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/4/2012 12:39 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>
>
> > I see the development into more understanding (did I say: better? No)
> > of the belief miraculous that governed human thinking earlier.
>
> "Understanding" is one of those words often misunderstood. It is used
On 5/4/2012 12:39 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I see the development into more understanding (did I say: better? No)
of the belief miraculous that governed human thinking earlier.
"Understanding" is one of those words often misunderstood. It is used to refer both to a
feeling of familiarity and emp
On May 4, 3:39 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> Craig:
> you seem to be firmly anchored in a reductionist conventional view of the
> "know-it-all" model of yesterday.
I think that I am instead, comfortably camped out in a "make sense of
it all" model of tomorrow which embraces and rejects both
reductionis
Craig:
you seem to be firmly anchored in a reductionist conventional view of the
"know-it-all" model of yesterday. Which is OK with me, as YOUR opinion. I
consider - in my agnostic limitations - those 'factors' (rather: relations)
we did not encounter SO FAR and give an extended view to the model.
On May 4, 11:48 am, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Why would focusing on one issue be a distraction from the other?
>
> Because Human Beings do not have infinite time to deal with, so time spent
> focusing on issues that Krauss correctly describes as sterile (
On Thu, May 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Why would focusing on one issue be a distraction from the other?
Because Human Beings do not have infinite time to deal with, so time spent
focusing on issues that Krauss correctly describes as sterile (not leading
to new ideas) is time not spent focu
On 03 May 2012, at 23:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/3/2012 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote:
Lawrence M Krauss, author of the excellent book "Why is there
something rather than nothing?" recently wrote a article in
Scientific American, here is one quote I like"
It may be that even an eternal multiver
12 matches
Mail list logo
