2013/2/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It simpler to generalize the notion of God so
Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie not really.
Cheers
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely a dominant
FUNCTION? The blind exercise of function doesn't seem to me to include the
global
On 03 Feb 2013, at 19:58, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 01 Feb 2013, at 17:10, Jason Resch wrote:
Very nice post Bruno. I found your points convincing and
informative.
Thanks Jason. I appreciate.
I really don't know
Alice in Quantumland
=.
The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd
from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd.
/ QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
page. 10. by R. Feynman /
‘
I doubt that meaning, existence, creation, purpose makes sense when
applied to the mathematical nature of the external reality. I think that
these concepts only makes sense when though by a mind. So either we reject
these concepts when thinking about the universe (and this makes reasoning
almost
On 04 Feb 2013, at 01:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 3, 2013 9:37:42 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
Dear Roger,
Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is
non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up
thru quantum mechanics. Only 4
On 03 Feb 2013, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically
all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question
like is God a person can be an open problem.
But you have a
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Your concept is incomplete, because geometry is what Plato called forms,
which he gave the Greek name of ideas. So you have a thought without a thinker.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04,
On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:22, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Brain – Consciousness , Consciousness – Brain.
=.
Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ?
#
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may
not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather
consciousness that
Hi Bruno Marchal
Again you are miscontruing Plato's idea or form, which is potential, as matter,
which is actual.
Not only that, but matter must be created by a creator in Platonism. So
altogether
we have form, matter, and creator.
According to this, quanta are not physical states, they are
Hi Roger,
On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Brunio,
I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any
consequence of an emulation,
or how it can be proven or not that comp works, since no comparison
can be made.
If comp is true, then we can explain why we
On 04 Feb 2013, at 18:02, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Sorry, I keep forgetting about the UTM.
But isn't your view a circular argument, since you
employ UTM as a mind in showing that comp is mind-like ?
I assume comp. I never try to convince anyone that comp is true. It is
my
Hi Bruno Marchal
Indeed, Plato, just as Leibniz did, considered
the idea of matter more real than matter itself.\
Both considered matter, however, somewhat differently.
While Plato called it an illusion, Leibniz and Kant called
it (as perceived) phenomenological, presumably because an
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Brunio,
I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any
consequence of an emulation,
or how it can be proven or not that comp works, since
On 04 Feb 2013, at 18:18, John Mikes wrote:
Here is another one about intelligence:
My definition goes back to the original Latin words: to READ between
- lines, or words that is. To understand (reflect?) on the unspoken.
A reason why I am not enthusiastic about AI - a machine (not Lob's
Hi,
ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is
to make it meaningless.
On 2/5/2013 6:23 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie not really.
Cheers
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
So does
On 04 Feb 2013, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/4/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Feb 2013, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi John Mikes
It says
The Fabric of Eternity is the author's personal view of the
Universe that allows for science and theology to explore the
wonders of
Hi Jason Resch
God is a word, and the meanings of words are established by use.
So the word God can mean whatever you intend it to mean.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 22:12:54
Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A
Hi Bruno,
The definitons of simulation and emulation I can find both use the word
imitation.
Can you explain what you mean as being the difference between the two ?
Simulation - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster
...www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simulation
a : the imitative
Hi Telmo Menezes
Garbage in, garbage out.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 17:19:36
Subject: Re: Again, why the triad is necessary-- 1p, 2p,and 3p as types of
knowledge
Hi Roger,
1p/3p is a label for a very
On 04 Feb 2013, at 23:21, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes
On 2/5/2013 7:47 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Brunio,
I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any
consequence of an emulation,
or how it can
Hi meekerdb
There's nothing wrong with science as science.
But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.
Two completely different worlds.
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04, 13:48:50
Subject: Re: Topical
On 05 Feb 2013, at 08:16, Kim Jones wrote:
http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.
It is full of sense, but a bit trivial, and then he uses implicitly
comp, but fail to generalize its
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:50:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2013, at 01:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 3, 2013 9:37:42 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
Dear Roger,
Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is
non-physical and
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 2/3/13, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/3/2013
On 05 Feb 2013, at 00:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I think that Roger said nothing agains Jews. simply, ethnic
personal tastes are not a topic for this group.
I agree.
Things happened like that:
Clough: I am Lutheran,
Clark: Luther is anti-Semite,
Clough: I love jews
Of course, to say I
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Feb 2013, at 08:16, Kim Jones wrote:
http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.
It is full of sense, but a bit
I think that it is possible to understand the universe
using usual common logical thought.
We need only understand in which zoo (reference frame )
physicists found higgs-boson and 1000 its elementary brothers.
socratus
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Hi Bruno Marchal
If comp is assumed, then we need not worry about consequences of emulation,
it's a given that it works.
Then what is the purpose of this discussion ?
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-05, 07:32:01
Hi Kim Jones
I thought that black holes destroy rather than create.
That only life can create.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Kim Jones
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-02-05, 02:16:59
Subject: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success
Hi Kim Jones
Life seems to be the only thing in the universe that has purpose--
which is, or course, to create more life.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Kim Jones
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-05, 02:59:01
Subject: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success
Hi Stephen P. King
Anything that has a purpose is teleological.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-05, 07:53:22
Subject: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success
Hi,
ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
To say that nature is absurd is to say that our current
understanding of nature --materialism-- is wrong.
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-02-05, 06:43:51
Subject: Science is a religion by
On 05 Feb 2013, at 16:44, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
If comp is assumed, then we need not worry about consequences of
emulation,
it's a given that it works.
Then what is the purpose of this discussion ?
To get a theory of everything. To figure out why and how physical
Perhaps I have misinterpreted what I hear on the news,
maybe I'm just paranoid, but...
The president has said that the internet is a RIGHT,
so everyone must have it, which means to
him of course that the govt must supply the country with
wi-fi. I suspect that that will put internet suppliers
I hate to refresh an old-old topic, but...
what is really your context of a machine?
(In the usual verbiage it points to some 'construct of definite parts with
definite functions' or the like.)
I doubt that 'your' universal machine can be inventoried in KNOWN parts
only. Or; that it may have a
On 05 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
snip
I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so
in that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about
what I could call an
On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
There's nothing wrong with science as science.
But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.
Two completely different worlds.
That's indeed a point where string atheists agree with string
christian. Let us try to
On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:50:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2013, at 01:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 3, 2013 9:37:42 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
Dear Roger,
Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are
Hi Bruno Marchal
Before you can arrive at a TOE you need to be
able to define what everything means.
Your responses indicate that everything to you
means the world of mechanism. No ?
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-05,
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:59:09 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Quentin,
I agree with you, if that's what religion is.
But it is not generally like that.
Instead, you are talking about a cult.
The distinction is questionable. I would say that all religions begin as
cults and that
On 05 Feb 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Again you are miscontruing Plato's idea or form, which is potential,
as matter, which is actual.
Not only that, but matter must be created by a creator in Platonism.
So altogether
we have form, matter, and creator.
According
2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
There's nothing wrong with science as science.
But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.
Two completely different worlds.
That's indeed a point where string atheists
On 05 Feb 2013, at 13:47, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Brunio,
I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any
consequence of an emulation,
or how
On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:14, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno,
The definitons of simulation and emulation I can find both use the
word imitation.
Can you explain what you mean as being the difference between the
two ?
A computer can simulate a storm. It can also simulate another
computer. In
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:22:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Perhaps I have misinterpreted what I hear on the news,
maybe I'm just paranoid, but...
The president has said that the internet is a RIGHT,
so everyone must have it, which means to
him of course that the govt must
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:53:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi,
ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is
to make it meaningless.
Yeah, I don't see how noting that the 3p mechanism of probabilistic
replication implies any 1p significance.
On 05 Feb 2013, at 17:38, John Mikes wrote:
I hate to refresh an old-old topic, but...
what is really your context of a machine?
(In the usual verbiage it points to some 'construct of definite
parts with definite functions' or the like.)
That's a good idea. I use the term machine for
On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:03, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Before you can arrive at a TOE you need to be
able to define what everything means.
I distinguish the ontological everything (all the natural numbers),
from the everything epistemological or better imo, theological,
which
On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
There's nothing wrong with science as science.
But a problem arises when you apply the results to theology.
Two completely different
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:41:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we fix the TOE as arithmetic.
If arithmetic has no theory of itself, can it really be said to provide a
TOE? Isn't it just like physics in the sense of 'Give me one free miracle
(energy or numbers) and I'll tell
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:51:10 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:
On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
There's nothing wrong with science as science.
2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
There's nothing wrong with science as science.
But a problem arises when you apply the
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Unpopular religions are denounced as cults.
A religion is just a cult with good PR.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
In the interest of helping to bring things back on track and reducing
irritation, I'll no longer be the first responder on Roger's threads.
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:58:17 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Roger,
Why you persist again and again into initiate discussions that have
Roger is on another list, the Mind/Brain forum which allows anything
to be discussed and even allows personal attacks. He should just stay
there unless he has something constructive to say. BTW every post he
makes to this list also goes to Mind/Brain
Richard
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Craig
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 , Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
I define intelligence as the ability to make choices or selctions
completely on one's own.
Such as roulette wheels.
Adding free will to the requirements, it rules out computers
Because free will is gibberish and computers are
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:wrote:
Unpopular religions are denounced as cults.
A religion is just a cult with good PR.
It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether
2013/2/5 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
Hi,
ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to
make it meaningless.
That´s it.
But to insist into make the question in 3p may force the introduction of
an implicit 1p that contemplate the 3p, that is, a
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:27:27 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
2013/2/5 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net javascript:
Hi,
ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to
make it meaningless.
That´s it.
But to insist into make the question in
On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
but there is a self reference when we try to imagine how the brain or a
computer process geometry, and we imagine them embedded in the space and
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2013, at 23:21, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal
On 2/5/2013 6:04 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
Yes (weakly). Occam's razor. If I'm the
Sorry for appearing thick, but I missed the garbage in bit. :)
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 08:17:09AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
Garbage in, garbage out.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-04,
On 2/5/2013 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:53:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi,
ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p
sense is
to make it meaningless.
Yeah, I don't see how noting that the 3p mechanism of
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment
Not true, there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark
sees Washington and
On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/2/5 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
Hi,
ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p
sense is to make it meaningless.
That´s it.
But to insist into make the question in
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:00:17 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
javascript:wrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I question whether it is possible to ask whether your fellow human beings
have minds without resorting to sophistry. I say that not because I am
incapable of questioning naive reasoning, but because it does not
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 8:02:41 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I question whether it is possible to ask whether your fellow human
beings
have minds without resorting to sophistry. I say that not
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe if there was a computer which was not specifically designed to deceive
our senses... which would mean that it was one which occurred naturally and
did not include anything which was ever designed or programmed by
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:13:40 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Maybe if there was a computer which was not specifically designed to
deceive
our senses... which would mean that it was one which
On 2/5/2013 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/2/5 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 05 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
There's nothing wrong with science as science.
But a
On 2/5/2013 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
You've agreed there is a single definite result (even in MW) after making
some
measurement.
Yes.
You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment
Not true, there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Unpopular religions are denounced as cults.
A religion is just a cult with good PR.
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:13:40 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
Maybe if there was a computer which was not specifically designed to
deceive
our senses...
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 10:00:05 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Unpopular religions are denounced as
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:05:30 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:13:40 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
Maybe if there was a
It is impossible using particle accelerators to understand
god-particles and the ultimate truth of nature as physicists hope.
=.
To create particle accelerators is needed reference frame of vacuum.
(!)
It means that physicists take vacuum as a reflector of the real (!)
structure of nature: the
82 matches
Mail list logo
