Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view that
the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in
On 12/29/2013 11:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
On 12/29/2013 11:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, it is clear that your here is not the same as mine because you are not here.
However it is quite clear that you absolutely must be doing something in
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 8:14 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I use Platonism, where God == Truth.
I know what truth means as an attribute of a sentence. But I
don't know what Truth means?
On 29 Dec 2013, at 21:05, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote
Are faster-than-light influences involved?
No.
That means you think things are local.
2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is
alive or dead?
On 29 Dec 2013, at 21:29, LizR wrote:
Not quite, violations of Bell's inequality can also be explained by
time symmetry (Huw Price and John Bell, private communications).
+ very special initial boundary conditions, which leads to a selection
principle in the MW. It is a bit like in Bohm,
On 29 Dec 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
violations of Bell's inequality can also be explained by time
symmetry (Huw Price and John Bell, private communications).
I have no idea what that private communication is, but I do
On 29 Dec 2013, at 21:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good
start!
But decoherence also falsifies MW.
Non collapse = many-worlds, to me.
On 29 Dec 2013, at 22:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 23:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/28/2013
On 29 Dec 2013, at 23:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013
On 30 Dec 2013, at 00:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Richard,
It is true I entered university aged 15 and earned my BS in math and
physics with honors and a minor in philosophy aged 18. I never
claimed to be a genius though.
:-)
Good for you. But you have often the tone of a truth knower,
On 30 Dec 2013, at 00:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 3:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/28/2013
On 30 Dec 2013, at 01:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer,
Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred
religious dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to
burned at the stake! Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're
just theories!
Jason,
That's a totally off the wall answer. When the two shake hands it's not
just photons that are interacting, it's the electrons, protons and neutrons
of the matter of their hands which don't travel at the speed of light.
Goodness gracious!
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 10:24:34
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:42:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 15:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are
machines,
Who wrote this?
*any* ideally correct machines
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:33, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Far from it, really;-) I assure you, I wish you no burning at any
stakes, whether literal or figurative. You are perfectly entitled to
be as incorrect as you wish, especially in an area as solidly
established as relativistic physics.
Stephen, Jason, Liz,
The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of time.
Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and the
computations compute clock time.
The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything.
The fact that
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 13:02, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer,
Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred
religious dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree
Bruno,
Give me a link to the FOAR list and I'll check it out... I can't find it on
Google groups
Thanks,
Edgar
On Monday, December 30, 2013 4:30:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013
On 30 December 2013 22:40, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
Give me a link to the FOAR list and I'll check it out... I can't find it
on Google groups
http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
it stands for Fabric of Alternative Reality - (the title comes from the
book by David
Dear John,
On 30 Dec 2013, at 03:11, John Mikes wrote:
We 'use' practical conclusions - yet should not draw final and
universal ones on a totality we don't know. Call it Scientific
humility.
I partially agree/disagree here.
We cannot draw final conclusion.
I do agree with this, as we
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are
connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
change between them. does not explain anything. I have read
On 30 December 2013 22:30, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen, Jason, Liz,
The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of
time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and
the computations compute clock time.
The computations
On 30 Dec 2013, at 03:59, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 3:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Everett's idea is more properly a theory. It explains the phenomenon
of collapse without supposing it is the other ideas of
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your
On 30 Dec 2013, at 05:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013
On 30 Dec 2013, at 06:28, Jason Resch wrote:
In the space of all possible movies, the ones that are watchable or
meaningful to human viewers would all be highly compressible. The
ones that are random snow, despite containing more information,
would not make interesting movies. So maybe
On 30 Dec 2013, at 08:25, LizR wrote:
I admit I have difficulty understanding how Bruno's UD runs inside
arithmetic
Don't push me too much as I really want to explain this to you :)
It is not completely obvious, especially if we want be 100% rigorous.
There are not so much textbook
I have to admit I'm starting to derive a weird kind of enjoyment from this
debate. Liz and frequentflyer: you guys are my heroes. Though anodyne
means pain-relieving, which is not how I would describe Roger's theories.
I would choose the word jejune instead.
Edgar, ole buddy ole pal. You're
On 30 Dec 2013, at 08:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 9:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 6:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
That is the only way to make progress. Propose theories, and
falsify them. Ockham says
On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 11:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got
On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:02, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers and physical realities?
Gibve me the axioms. I know the dominical categories (of Turing
morphism), but just to get the definition
On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 11:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, it is clear that your here is not the same as mine because
you are not here. However it is quite clear
On Monday, December 30, 2013 10:18:59 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Pierz,
If block time is actual and something actually exists in past times then
the energy must actually exist there and be real also. Thus a new universe
of energy is being created at every new moment of time. Energy
Edgar,
On 30 Dec 2013, at 10:45, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 22:40, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
Give me a link to the FOAR list and I'll check it out... I can't
find it on Google groups
http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
it stands for Fabric of Alternative
On 30 Dec 2013, at 10:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen, Jason, Liz,
The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds
of time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the
computations, and the computations compute clock time.
The computations MUST take place in
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a Final Theory I'm
starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and
separate issue from previous discussions.
1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental reality, we
know external reality
On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a Final Theory
I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an
important and separate issue from previous discussions.
1, it is impossible to directly know the
2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a Final Theory I'm
starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and
separate issue from previous discussions.
1,
On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a Final Theory
I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an
On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are
connected
to each other in a way that makes there
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category
ofcomputer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That
On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably) quantum. But
notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N qubits it takes 2^N complex
numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only retrieve N bits of information from it
To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
But i the realm of reality, i.e. sensible experience, Edgar is right here.
2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto
On 12/30/2013 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 11:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, it is clear that your here is not the same as mine because
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably)
quantum. But notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N
qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
But i the realm of reality,
And where may one find this realm of realms?
On 12/30/2013 3:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a Final Theory I'm starting a new
topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and separate issue from previous
discussions.
1, it is impossible to directly know the external
On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably)
quantum. But
notice
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is
On 31 December 2013 08:20, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew
Edgar,
Have you written any peer-reviewed papers on your ideas? Most scientific
popularisations are written to explain a theory that has been worked out
mathematically (like David Deutsch's Fabric Of Reality) or which are the
product of long (and intense) discussions amongst scientists and
On 31 December 2013 00:00, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to admit I'm starting to derive a weird kind of enjoyment from this
debate. Liz and frequentflyer: you guys are my heroes. Though anodyne
means pain-relieving, which is not how I would describe Roger's theories.
I would choose
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?
Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the anthropocentrism and
religiosity and one obtains a nice any one thing is made from
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If an influence can go backward in time as well as forward then it can
effectively have FTL influence,
We already know for a fact that faster than light influences exist, and
this has nothing to do with any theory, it was
On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
That means you think things are realistic, and that means I know for a
fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from experiment
that Bell's inequality is violated, and that means that locality or realism
2013/12/30 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
But i the realm
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants
are connected to each other
Dear Brent,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants
are
Dear LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi LizR,
Round and round we
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb
On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
That means you think things are realistic, and that means I know for a
fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from experiment
Dear Liz,
as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and Membranes)
I know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review
approval on NEW ideas that do not fit into the conventional scientific
fabric of college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space for
Hi Brent,
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that
somethings happen at random and they led to here.
No, the one we happen to find ourselves in may be arbitrary, but not
random per se. The universe
On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist
in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and
they led to here.
No, the one we happen to find ourselves in
:-) Those realms can be avoided, especially if one is flexible with where
one... but off-topic. PGC
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/12/30 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 08:20, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona
agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to
On 31 December 2013 10:38, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Liz,
as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and Membranes)
I know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review
approval on NEW ideas that do not fit into the conventional scientific
On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that
somethings happen at random and they led to here.
Yeah, it's the WAP.
Seems quite
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that
somethings happen at
John, and Liz,
Yes John is correct here. Without a current academic affiliation it's well
nigh impossible to be accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal...
Sad but true...
Edgar
On Monday, December 30, 2013 4:38:40 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:
Dear Liz,
as a former ed-in-chief of a
Liz,
You claim my theory of time is Newtonian but that just demonstrates your
complete lack of understanding of the theory...
Edgar
On Monday, December 30, 2013 5:02:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:38, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Dear Liz,
as a former
On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to
exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings
happen
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:07 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that
somethings happen at
Dear Edgar: allow me not to copy your post the 8th time, just marking the
#s of your par-s into my short remarks.
#1
As long as we don't know ALL of the (external?) complexity-stuff we
cannot claim 'knowledge' of any 'reality', only quote the so far received
part and that, too, as adjusted into
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to exist in. I don't see that as any
On 12/30/2013 2:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb
Law (-∞) :: Presence +∞
Logic (-3) :: Imagination +3
Matter (-2) :: Mind +2
Energy (-1) :: Impulse +1
Information (-0) :: Entropy +0
(More complicated version:
http://multisenserealism.com/thesis/8-matter-energy/schemas-and-frames/colorball-diagram-explained/)
--
You received this message
On 31 December 2013 11:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
You claim my theory of time is Newtonian but that just demonstrates your
complete lack of understanding of the theory...
It's just the simplest way to describe it. A common present moment is
exactly how Newton envsiaged
Hi John,
as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and Membranes) I
know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review approval
on NEW ideas that do not fit into the conventional scientific fabric of
college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space for
On 31 December 2013 00:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
For immaterial Newtonian-like point. If not we can't hardly breath. Our
bodies do have volume. OK?
This reminds me of one of the stories in Italo Calvino's Cosmicomics -
it starts in the Big Bang. There were 27 of us living
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
That means you think things are realistic, and that means I know for
...yrtemmys emit rO
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
Even if this connection between entanglement and wormholes holds up, I
don't think it automatically means quantum physics is nonlocal and we must
discard the many-worlds claim to preserve locality. Keep in mind that in
general relativity nothing can actually pass from one end of an
Einstein-Rosen
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:40:02 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
On 31 December 2013 00:00, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I have to admit I'm starting to derive a weird kind of enjoyment from
this debate. Liz and frequentflyer: you guys are my heroes. Though
anodyne means
On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
On 31 December 2013 09:43, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?
Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the
Hi LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:19 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 09:43, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
fundamental level mean? Does there have to
On 31 December 2013 15:37, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus
and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that way of
thinking fails. Look at Superstrings, no empirical evidence of
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap131229.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group,
Hi LizR,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 15:37, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus
and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
