On 02 Apr 2014, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only
occur in the context of a sense making experience.
Did I
On 3 April 2014 17:01, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
*From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 02, 2014 5:13 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Climate models
On 4/2/2014 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The original proof of Gleason is not easy, but a more elementary proof (which remains
not that simple) has been found by Cooke, Keane and Moran, and can be found in the (very
good) book by Richard Hugues (you can find a PDF on the net).
Only if you
On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:
On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
smi...@zonnet.nl
It is the belief that the scentists can be
On 3 April 2014 16:56, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that
wavefunction
On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:15, LizR wrote:
As instructed I will have a look at Brent's proofs and see if I
follow them, and agree...
On 2 April 2014 15:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz
On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:20, LizR wrote:
On 3 April 2014 04:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and
there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)].
I cannot parse that sentence, I guess some word are
On 03 Apr 2014, at 01:16, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal
On 03 Apr 2014, at 05:12, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found
On 03 Apr 2014, at 08:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/2/2014 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The original proof of Gleason is not easy, but a more elementary
proof (which remains not that simple) has been found by Cooke,
Keane and Moran, and can be found in the (very good) book by
Richard Hugues
FWIW, on a flight this weekend I read a bit of Amoeba's Secret on my kindle
while the stranger in the seat next to me was reading Tegmark's book. If
plane rides didn't make me fall unconscious almost immediately, that might
have been grounds for an interesting live discussion. :)
On Thursday,
They're trying to find that jet that got lost on the Indian Ocean
somewhere. But most of the objects the satellites zoom in on are just...
trash. Ocean garbage is creating so many false positives, that it impedes
finding a missing plane.
You don't even have to be green to understand that it's not
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
No one is ever going to recover the dispersed Thorium in your garden's
dirt
They could but no one will bother doing anything like
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 11:56 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models
On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:
On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris
This article from Bloomberg delves into some detail on how the unconventional
oil sector is actually based on unreliable numbers -- with reserve estimates
and production curves that have proven to have been wildly overstated -- to the
point of criminal conspiracy to defraud investors (I would
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
Not a single LFTR unit is operating
That's true today but wasn't always the case, the last operating thorium
reactor on this planet, the MSRE at Oak Ridge was shut down in 1969. Of
course after 40 years of doing
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Climate models
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Not a single LFTR unit is
On 4 April 2014 04:46, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.comwrote:
You don't even have to be green to understand that it's not productive
or rational to keep having mountains of redundant material and poison keep
accumulating and multiplying around us. The discussion in the total
On 4 April 2014 08:16, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
This article from Bloomberg delves into some detail on how the
unconventional oil sector is actually based on unreliable numbers -- with
reserve estimates and production curves that have proven to have been
wildly
Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They
Believe Conspiracy Theories
Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of
this fact!
Fortunately, the University of Western Australia was not so timid; so you can read the
original paper here:
http://www.psychology.uwa.edu.au/research/cognitive/?a=2523540
Brent
On 4/3/2014 4:29 PM,
Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe
Conspiracy
Hi Bruno, John, Liz, and everyone:
Bruno:
Your comments helped me to refine my thoughts about my model and the model
itself.
See below.
Thank you.
I believe my model as clarified below has convinced me that Comp to the
degree I may understand it and to the degree it is
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows_2.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
Qur'an Chapter 5, Verse 31: Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the
ground, to show him how to hide his brother's naked corpse. He said: Woe
unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother's naked
corpse? And he became repentant. (Translator: Pickthal)
I'm not sure what that quote is supposed to mean, but the article was about
birds being intelligent in their own right, not acting intelligently
because they're under the control of God.
On 4 April 2014 16:55, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
Qur'an Chapter 5, Verse 31: Then Allah
Whether we consider intelligent beings as ' being intelligent in their own
right' or intelligence as being God-gifted is a matter of faith and
perspective. The subject of your email is Daphne du Maurier was right! Perhaps
the scriptures were also right? Perhaps its time to also consider the
On 4/3/2014 9:16 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
Whether we consider intelligent beings as ' being intelligent in their own right' or
intelligence as being God-gifted is a matter of faith and perspective. The subject of
your email is Daphne du Maurier was right!Perhaps the scriptures were also right?
I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than 'what
it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it. Dr.
Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures in
the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation:
On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than
'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding it.
Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the scriptures
in
On 4/3/2014 9:59 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit,
You mean whether or not it is true when taken literally? Literally it would mean that
there was crow and someone name God gave it intelligence. But that crow would be dead
by now, so we
What is more important? Faith or Honest Faith? How can we honestly believe
in God when we think God doesn't know what He created? I think its a
disservice to God, to religion and to ourselves when we choose to not to
question Faith, and not to examine it. Its not 'to test God', rather its to
test
To see what I mean, please read the book by Dr Maurice Bucaille
https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf
Samiya
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/3/2014 9:59
32 matches
Mail list logo
