On 10 Jul 2012, at 21:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.07.2012 09:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
The whole of the human sciences is perverted since theology get out
of the academy. Philosophy is often just a religious reaction to
institutionalized religion. God id dead, said
On 10 Jul 2012, at 21:35, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.07.2012 18:03 John Clark said the following:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
I do not not understand in this respect your analogy with chess.
You may know all the rules of chess but that does not
On 10 Jul 2012, at 19:49, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
There is something deeply religious in many scientifics in his quest
to expand their Truth. And there is also something very
philosophical indeed. But they ignore both. They ignore their
beliefs and their positivistic metaphisics, born in
On 10 Jul 2012, at 20:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
Say that it is not so!
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428428/higgs-boson-may-be-an-imposter-say-particle/?ref=rss
--
Given the complexity of the experimental device, we can be sure that e
have to wait before having any reasonnable
On 10 Jul 2012, at 22:28, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen, a 'belief system' may be reassuring.
I spent a lifetime in active RD exercising conventional science,
till I lost by belief in many figments of it. It came gradually like
one's losing a religious faith: trying to THINK 'outside the box'
On 10 Jul 2012, at 23:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi John,
What I have been doing is exploring the soft underbelly of
physics, those sets of truths that are just assumed to be true.
For example, I have become convinced that a lot of the difficulties
in physics are due to its
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
[...]
Also, we could say that the discovery of the Higgs boson, if confirmed, is
disappointing, as it only confirms the theory, and so we learn nothing (to
think in the Deustch's manner).
This is wrong.
Of course in
2012/7/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Why would you not expect a theory-of-everything to include the behavior of
people? Note that 'govern' does not imply 'predictable'.
A phisicinst theory of everithing , despite the popular belief, does not
govern the behaviour of the people. No longer
On 11 Jul 2012, at 10:12, Noon Silk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
[...]
Also, we could say that the discovery of the Higgs boson, if
confirmed, is
disappointing, as it only confirms the theory, and so we learn
nothing (to
think in the
So the world of the mind in which we live, is a second reality different
form the phenomena governed by physical laws. it has been shaped to permit
our bodies to survive in the first world of phenomena, by natural
selection, but is in this second world of shared conscience created from
the mind
On 11 July 2012 09:55, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Even the phisical TOE is part of this second world. there are no countries,
no cars, no persons, no electrons outside of the world of the mind.
Outside of the mind there is only mathematics. And this math has been
On 11 July 2012 09:55, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
but is in this second world of shared conscience created from the mind
where we find any meaning.
Alberto, do you mean conscience in the sense of the inner ethical or
moral sense, or sentience per se, i.e. consciousness?
On 7/11/2012 4:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jul 2012, at 20:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
Say that it is not so!
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428428/higgs-boson-may-be-an-imposter-say-particle/?ref=rss
--
Given the complexity of the experimental device, we can be sure that e
On 7/11/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jul 2012, at 23:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi John,
What I have been doing is exploring the soft underbelly of
physics, those sets of truths that are just assumed to be true. For
example, I have become convinced that a lot of the
On 7/11/2012 4:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/7/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Why would you not expect a theory-of-everything to include the
behavior of people? Note that 'govern' does not imply 'predictable'.
A phisicinst theory of everithing
Citeren Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net:
On 7/11/2012 4:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jul 2012, at 20:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
Say that it is not so!
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428428/higgs-boson-may-be-an-imposter-say-particle/?ref=rss
--
Given the complexity of
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
I understand but the question in principle still remains. Who play the
chess, I or the M-theory?
There is no logical reason to think those two ways of explaining the same
phenomenon are incompatible. It's true that the reason a
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is
determined by physical law
Does that mean you CAN imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is
NOT determined by physical law??!!
John K Clark
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
In Germany theology still belongs to universities. What I like is that
you will find as a department of theoretical theology as well as a
department of practical theology.
I disagree, I don't like it. You are assuming
A new particle has certainly been found and in the unlikely event it is not
the Higgs the response of most physicists would not be oh, no but pure
delight because then it is something unexpected and even more exotic than
the Higgs helping us find new knowledge. If 15 years from now the LHC finds
On 7/11/2012 1:50 PM, John Clark wrote:
A new particle has certainly been found and in the unlikely event it
is not the Higgs the response of most physicists would not be oh, no
but pure delight because then it is something unexpected and even more
exotic than the Higgs helping us find new
On 11 Jul 2012, at 16:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/11/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jul 2012, at 23:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi John,
What I have been doing is exploring the soft underbelly of
physics, those sets of truths that are just assumed to be true.
For
On 7/11/2012 1:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If the boson of Higgs exists, by law, it *must* be retrievable from addition and
multiplication
If comp is true and the argument that everything (arithmetical) is realized
holds.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 7/11/2012 1:12 AM, Noon Silk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
[...]
Also, we could say that the discovery of the Higgs boson, if confirmed, is
disappointing, as it only confirms the theory, and so we learn nothing (to
think in the
On 7/11/2012 1:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/7/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Why would you not expect a theory-of-everything to include the behavior of people?
Note that 'govern' does not imply 'predictable'.
A phisicinst theory of everithing
On 7/11/2012 6:23 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 11 July 2012 09:55, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
mailto:agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Even the phisical TOE is part of this second world. there are no countries,
no cars,
no persons, no electrons outside of the world of the mind.
On 11 Jul 2012, at 19:36, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
In Germany theology still belongs to universities. What I like is
that you will find as a department of theoretical theology as well
as a department of practical
On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
In your work you seem to posit that numbers have minds (thus they can dream) and
that their ideas are passive and yet can reproduce all phenomena that would be explained
as being the result of physical acts in materialism. You argue that this
On 7/11/2012 7:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/11/2012 4:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/7/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Why would you not expect a theory-of-everything to include the behavior of people?
Note that 'govern' does not imply
On 11 Jul 2012, at 15:23, David Nyman wrote:
On 11 July 2012 09:55, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Even the phisical TOE is part of this second world. there are no
countries, no cars, no persons, no electrons outside of the world
of the mind. Outside of the mind there is
On 11 Jul 2012, at 22:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2012 6:23 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 11 July 2012 09:55, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Even the phisical TOE is part of this second world. there are no
countries, no cars, no persons, no electrons outside of the world
of
On 7/11/2012 10:36 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
mailto:use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
In Germany theology still belongs to universities. What I like is that
you will
find as a department of theoretical theology as well as a
sorry. It is consciousness instead of conscience.yes.
2012/7/11 David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com
On 11 July 2012 09:55, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
but is in this second world of shared conscience created from the mind
where we find any meaning.
Alberto, do you mean
On 7/11/2012 11:14 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/11/2012 1:50 PM, John Clark wrote:
A new particle has certainly been found and in the unlikely event it is not the Higgs
the response of most physicists would not be oh, no but pure delight because then it
is something unexpected and even more
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
*Esse is not percipi*. With comp. Esse is more is a solution to a
diophantine polynomial equation.
*St.:You have merely replaced the Atoms of the materialists with the
Numbers of
On 7/11/2012 2:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2012, at 22:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2012 6:23 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 11 July 2012 09:55, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
mailto:agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Even the phisical TOE is part of this second world. there are no
Stephen:
Well it´s not cooperation between computer programs, but cooperation of
entities in the abstract level. This can be described mathematically or
simulated in a computer program. In both cases, it starts with a game with
its rules goals wins and loses is created.
If the game is simple
On 11 July 2012 21:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
*But it isn't uniquely characterized by that. I don't even know what
irreducibly synthetic means. I know what synthetic means; it means
made (synthesized) of something else, it means artificial, not natural??
But in any case the
On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
In your work you seem to posit that numbers have minds (thus they can
dream) and that their ideas are passive and yet can reproduce all
phenomena that would be explained as being the result of physical
acts in
On 7/11/2012 3:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Stephen:
Well it愀 not cooperation between computer programs, but cooperation of entities in the
abstract level. This can be described mathematically or simulated in a computer program.
In both cases, it starts with a game with its rules goals
40 matches
Mail list logo
