Electron’s fine structure constant.
=.
It is interesting to understand the Sommerfeld formula:
a= e^2 / h*c, where {a} is fine structure constant: 1/137
Feynman expressed (a ) quantity as
‘ by the god given damnation to all physicists ‘.
But the fine structure constant is not
On 08 May 2012, at 20:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
To me the logic of
On 08 May 2012, at 20:17, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
...
Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and
fragmentation of Christianity.
When Christianity was strong and
On 08 May 2012, at 21:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
...
Sure science grew out of
On 08 May 2012, at 21:46, John Mikes wrote:
Ricardo:
good text! I may add to it:
Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody. (The ancient joke of
Odysseus towards Polyphemos: 'Nobody' has hurt me).
Just one thing: if it contains (includes) EMPTY SPACE, it includes
space, it is not nothing.
On 09 May 2012, at 02:25, Pierz wrote:
There is an interesting point here, although probably not what you
intended. What you say is true, you cannot trace it all the way
back to absolute nothing, because there is no reverse physical
process that transforms something into nothing (at
On 09 May 2012, at 02:36, Pierz wrote:
The problem is that physicists have not yet succeed in marrying QM
and GR, which is needed to get a quantum theory of space-time. You
can bet on strings or on loop gravity though, or on the Dewitt-
Wheeler equation, which, actually make physical
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
You must have misread me. I am anything but sure nothing must have come
before.
Yes, probably I did.
Indeed, my whole point is that something from nothing - genuine nothing -
is a nonsense. You can't bridge the hgap between
On 09 May 2012, at 12:36, R AM wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
You must have misread me. I am anything but sure nothing must have
come before.
Yes, probably I did.
Indeed, my whole point is that something from nothing - genuine
nothing - is a
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The empty set is the absence of elements (nothing) in that set. It is the
set { }.
The empty set is not nothing. For example, the set is { { } } is not
empty. It contains as element the empty set.
Just to be precise.
On May 9, 5:30 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/8/2012 4:24 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:52 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis: what's your definition? - JM
On 09 May 2012, at 13:19, R AM wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The empty set is the absence of elements (nothing) in that set. It
is the set { }.
The empty set is not nothing. For example, the set is { { } } is not
empty. It contains as
PM, Bruno Marchal
Yes.
Nothing, in set theory, would be more like an empty *collection* of
sets, or an empty universe (a model of set theory), except that in first
order logic we forbid empty models (so that AxP(x) - ExP(x) remains valid,
to simplify life (proofs)).
nothing could also be
Hi Richard,
It seems to me, as the author vaguely admit implicitly in the
conclusion that this is just a very nice argument for Everett many-
worlds. It is weird that they don't make it explicit.
I read it very quickly, though. It looks very nice, but
philosophically it oscillates between
Matter and Form: when they are paradoxical.
=.
Wood is itself a matter.
Wood is itself a form, a geometrical form.
A cupboard made of wood is a real whole of form and matter.
Geometrical form and matter are 'grown together' in it.
No form exist without matter.
Nor can there be matter
On 5/9/2012 2:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/8/2012 4:24 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:52 AM, John Mikesjami...@gmail.com
mailto:jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis: what's your
On 09 May 2012, at 17:09, R AM wrote:
PM, Bruno Marchal
Yes.
Nothing, in set theory, would be more like an empty *collection*
of sets, or an empty universe (a model of set theory), except that
in first order logic we forbid empty models (so that AxP(x) -
ExP(x) remains valid, to
On 5/9/2012 11:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 2:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/8/2012 4:24 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 09.05.2012 08:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 08 May 2012, at 21:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm,
On 08.05.2012 21:48 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/8/2012 11:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
For the development of science, it is necessary to have a believe that
equations discovered by a human mind could be used for the whole
history of Universe. At that time, this belief came from
Ricardo: I hate to become a nothingologist, but if you REMOVE things to
make NOTHING you still have the remnanat (empty space, hole, potential of
'it' having been there or whatever) from WHERE you removed it. IMO in
Nothing there is not even a where identified.
Forgive me the 'light' reply,
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 May 2012, at 17:09, R AM wrote:
nothing could also be obtained by removing the curly brackets from the
empty set {}.
N... Some bit of blank remains. If it was written on hemp, you could
smoke it. That's not
On 5/9/2012 12:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 11:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 2:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Ricardo: I hate to become a nothingologist, but if you REMOVE things to
make NOTHING you still have the remnanat (empty space, hole, potential of
'it' having been there or whatever) from WHERE you removed it. IMO in
Nothing
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
My definition: free will is when you're not sure you're going to do
something until you've done it.
My own take on free will is that it is mostly a social construct, so that
we can be blamed (and blame others)
On 5/9/2012 1:04 PM, R AM wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
My definition: free will is when you're not sure you're going to do
something until you've done it.
My own take on free will is that it is mostly
On 5/9/2012 1:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 12:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 11:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 1:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 12:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 11:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb
2012/5/9 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 1:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 12:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 11:43 AM,
On 5/9/2012 2:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Maybe we need to number these:
(1)...an external agent directly injected chemicals or electrical signals
into your
brain thereby causing a choice actually made by the external agent.
To which you answered Yes (that's unfree).
On 5/9/2012 2:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
So:
1- If someone is threatening me via my senses (via a weapons he holds, on some forces he
acts upon me... I still have free will, I've still the ability to choose, some choices
are more dangerous, I'm coerced to choose what the agressor wants,
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 2:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Maybe we need to number these:
(1)...an external agent directly injected chemicals or electrical
signals into your brain thereby causing a choice actually made by the
external agent.
To which you
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 2:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
So:
1- If someone is threatening me via my senses (via a weapons he holds, on
some forces he acts upon me... I still have free will, I've still the
ability to choose, some choices are more dangerous, I'm
On 5/9/2012 3:34 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/5/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 5/9/2012 2:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
So:
1- If someone is threatening me via my senses (via a weapons he holds,
on some
forces he acts upon
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:22 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My definition: free will is when you're not sure you're going to do
something until you've done it.
So if carefully weigh my options and decide on one it's not free will? I'd
say free will is making any choice that is
On 5/9/2012 4:40 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:22 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My definition: free will is when you're not sure you're going to do
something until you've done it.
So if carefully weigh my options and decide on one it's not free will?
36 matches
Mail list logo
