Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-03 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:53 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/2/2013 4:39 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: think it's more feasible to try to reverse-engineer the morphogenetic algorithms encoded in the DNA. We would still not understand the creation, but would have a greater chance

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-03 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/2/2013 4:12 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:56 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/2/2013 3:32 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I'm simply pointing out that you may be under the influence of

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-03 Thread meekerdb
On 5/2/2013 11:47 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Western puritanism also rejects murder. Not at all. It just regulates when murder is acceptable and when it's not. Other cultures (for example, buddhists) reject murder much more strongly. You're confusing homicide and murder. Murder IS the kind of

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-03 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/2/2013 11:47 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Western puritanism also rejects murder. Not at all. It just regulates when murder is acceptable and when it's not. Other cultures (for example, buddhists) reject murder much more

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 03 May 2013, at 03:49, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent, I agree 99.99% with you here! I only differ in saying that the copy process is not exact and thus is equivalent to a write. They are transcriptase reverse enzymes, so a case can be made for writing. There would be no

Re: Numbers

2013-05-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 May 2013, at 18:03, John Mikes wrote: Bruno asked: are you OK with this? - NO, I am not OK: as I follow, 0 is NOT a number, it does not change a number. 0 * 1000 = 0. Well, I have to say you are the first to refuse to 0 the number status, with the notable exception of the

Re: Numbers

2013-05-03 Thread John Mikes
Never argue with a logician! I try to insert some re-remarks into ''-induced lines below John On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 May 2013, at 18:03, John Mikes wrote: Bruno asked:* are you OK with this?* - NO, I am not OK: as I follow, 0 is NOT a

Re: In the beginning was the cosmic mind (which I call God) , who had a thought, which is the universe.

2013-05-03 Thread lennartn
Religion is a parasite on spirituality. And a dangerous one! LN On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:15:48 -0400, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: In the beginning was the cosmic mind (which I call God) , I think that's being rather impolite. It's true