Hi Stephen,
On 05 Aug 2012, at 17:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/5/2012 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define theology
The
On 05 Aug 2012, at 19:18, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/5/2012 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Aug 2012, at 17:19, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
There was a typing error in what I wrote originally. Please
try it again.
On 8/4/2012 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK]
Yes,
On 05 Aug 2012, at 19:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/5/2012 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define theology
The study of
Hi John,
On 05 Aug 2012, at 22:33, John Mikes wrote:
Entertaining exchange on an 'existing' topic - that is denied.
My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs (a -
more?) god(s) to deny. - god is a word still looking to be
identified. As we read most 'denyers' assign
On 8/6/2012 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 05 Aug 2012, at 17:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/5/2012 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal
On 06 Aug 2012, at 12:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/6/2012 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 05 Aug 2012, at 17:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/5/2012 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I remain astonished why atheists defend a so particular conception of God.
And I remain astonished that so many people think the idea of God is
idiotic but still have such a strong emotional attachment to the ASCII
characters
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs (a -
more?) god(s) to deny. - god is a word still looking to be identified.
I disagree. Except for those who fall in love with a word but don't like
what the word
On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I don't think we can
live more than one second without some belief in some God.
I disagree. We live very well just assuming 3-space and time and material bodies and
people (including
On 8/6/2012 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least, nameable. A person has
always has a name.
Why?
Otherwise he is identifiable only by description and then there is no uncertainty about
Bruno-in-Helsinki becoming Bruno-in-Washington or
On 06 Aug 2012, at 16:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I
don't think we can live more than one second without some belief in
some God.
I disagree. We live very well just assuming 3-space and
On 06 Aug 2012, at 16:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/6/2012 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least,
nameable. A person has always has a name.
Why?
Otherwise he is identifiable only by description and then there is
no uncertainty about
On 06 Aug 2012, at 16:10, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I remain astonished why atheists defend a so particular conception
of God.
And I remain astonished that so many people think the idea of God is
idiotic but still have such a
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually thinks
that God is a person, could be a person, or is the complement
(anti) of such, has truly not thought through the implications of such.
[BM
For me, and comp, it is an open problem.
[SPK]
On 8/6/2012 10:29 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
mailto:jami...@gmail.com wrote:
My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs
(a - more?) god(s) to deny. - god is a word still looking to be
identified.
I
On 06.08.2012 19:29 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least,
nameable. A person has always has a name.
[BM]
Why?
Because names are necessary for persistent distinguishability. Let
On 8/6/2012 10:31 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/6/2012 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I
don't think we can live more than one second without some belief in
some God.
I disagree. We live very well just assuming 3-space and time and
On 8/6/2012 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, Christians and I do have one thing in common, we both think that it might be good
if words mean something.
Only an obtuse Christian can believe that only the christian God gives the right meaning
of the word God.
In the English speaking world
On 8/6/2012 10:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Is the translation or encoding a unique mapping? How many possible
ways are available to encode B?
There is an infinity of way to encode B. Some can be just
intensionally equivalent (different codes but same logic), or
extensionally equivalent but
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You might also tell me what is your theory of everything
If I had one I'd be the greatest and most famous scientist who ever lived.
I'm not.
or if you are even interested in that notion.
I would be very interested if a
On 8/6/2012 10:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[BM] ? I can be OK, and the meaning variates with respect of the
universal numbers. But from the 1pov, this just make the measure
problem more difficult.
[SPK]
I am claiming that it is not difficult. It is Impossible. A
measure zero means a zero
On 8/6/2012 10:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] At what level (relative) is the material hypostases?
[BM]
This is ambiguous. The material hypostases (Bp Dt) defines the
(high) level where machines (the person incarnated by the machine) can
make the observations.
But it is preferable to
Perhaps I am wrong, but I have a problem with the concept of artificial
intelligence and hence artificial life-- at least according to my
understanding of what intelligence is.
As I see it, intelligence is the ability to make choices completely on
one's own. Autonomously.
Thus intelligence
On 8/6/2012 1:29 AM, rclough wrote:
Perhaps I am wrong, but I have a problem with the concept of artificial intelligence and
hence artificial life-- at least according to my
understanding of what intelligence is.
As I see it, intelligence is the ability to make choices completely on one's own.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will.html
This is a BFD!
--
Onward!
Stephen
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade.
=.
1.
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/FlatnessProblem.html
2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem
3.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/F/Flatness+Problem
4.
. . . etc.
=…
There are many different spaces: 2 dimension space,
Physics and Tautology.
=.
1
Where did the masses for ‘ big bang ‘ come from ?
These masses came from surrounding space.
2
Where did these masses from surrounding space come from ?
These masses came from ‘big bang’.
===.
Why is he poor ?
Because he is stupid.
Why is he stupid?
Because he is
27 matches
Mail list logo
