On 3 Jul 2014, at 9:09 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
Yes, primary belief, though necessarily incorrigible in the first
instance, is nonetheless vulnerable in the second instance to
correction or reinterpretation. Just as well, really.
But is it? If primary belief (your belief
I also like Baker, who stared in a couple of fantasy flicks like Sinbad, and
whatever, Pertwee was always a serious guy, and it was great, as a yank, to
watch UNIFIL (Uk soldiers) fight with FN_FAL rifles, Sterling sten guns, and
such. I remember reading that the writers were going for a sort
It's always a judgement call, and there have been a fair amount of
pundits,basically, saying, Let them kill each other. This is ok by me as its
something they have done for over 13 centuries. Having said this, we all have a
dog in this race (except Chris) who needs to be concerned about
On 01 Jul 2014, at 14:00, David Nyman wrote:
Whatever its independent merits or demerits, and its inherent
complexity, ISTM that comp gets closer to a way of posing questions
that might in the end yield more satisfying and complete answers. As
it happens, in so doing it rehabilitates earlier
On 01 Jul 2014, at 20:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 5:00 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Some recent discussions have centred on the (putative) features of
hierarchical-reductionist ontologies, and whether comp (whatever its
intrinsic merits or deficiencies) should be considered as just
another
On 02 Jul 2014, at 23:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/2/2014 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The classical theory of knowledge, already present in ancien
epistemology is the modal KT theory, or KT4.
K is [](A - B) - ([]A - []B). It is equivalent with ([]A [](A
- B)) - []B. It is a belief in the
On 3 July 2014 10:02, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Yes, primary belief, though necessarily incorrigible in the first
instance, is nonetheless vulnerable in the second instance to
correction or reinterpretation. Just as well, really.
But is it?
Only in the primary sense of
On 03 Jul 2014, at 01:09, David Nyman wrote:
On 2 July 2014 22:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Since the primary truth of what I
see is simply what I see (i.e. it is incorrigible) it can't be
subject
to Gettier's paradox. I can't be right about what I see for the
wrong
reasons
On 03 Jul 2014, at 11:02, Kim Jones wrote:
On 3 Jul 2014, at 9:09 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
Yes, primary belief, though necessarily incorrigible in the first
instance, is nonetheless vulnerable in the second instance to
correction or reinterpretation. Just as well, really.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:42 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: American Intelligence
It's always a judgement call, and there have been a fair amount of
pundits,basically, saying,
On 3 July 2014 14:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And perhaps most interestingly,
its central motivation originates in, and simultaneously strikes at
the heart of, the tacit assumption of its rivals that perception and
cognition are (somehow) second-order relational phenomena
On 7/3/2014 2:02 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 3 Jul 2014, at 9:09 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
Yes, primary belief, though necessarily incorrigible in the first
instance, is nonetheless vulnerable in the second instance to
correction or reinterpretation. Just as well, really.
But is
On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard
The
On 7/3/2014 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only a pseudo-scientist would say that the science progresses have put any threat on the
non literal reading of any sacred texts.
Wouldn't that depend on what the non-literal reading is? I think what you mean is that
there is always some non-literal
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I think that the presence of such teapot is highly implausible. But I
can't be sure.
I don't believe that for one second, I think you are sure there is not a
china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus; although please
What? I don't understand. Were my questions not clear?
--
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
Is there any war you think the US ever should fight? Chris it was like
the old war resisters back in the day, when the US was out of
Indochina, for the so called anti-war folks, the genocide by the Khmer
rouge was a non issue. They were merely against the US military, and
nobody else's. Are
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
Spudboy is mixed up. The Khmer were Cambodians and never attacked us/US
even though we bombed them.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Is there any war you think the US ever should fight? Chris it was like the
old war
On 7/3/2014 11:05 AM, John Clark wrote:
I know, but a little thing like being self-contradictory would never
stop a good
theologian
Lol. Good humor.
I wish it were a joke, just last month in a HBO documentary Pastor Peter LaRuffa
educated the world with these words
From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence
Is there any war you think the US ever should fight? Chris it was like
I am waiting to read in the bible that the sum of positive integers from
one to infinity is a negative fraction of the first integer.
In other words, the bible is more believable than mathematics.
Richard
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/3/2014 11:05
From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence
Spudboy is mixed up. The Khmer were Cambodians and never attacked us/US even
though we bombed them.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I predict that the H-guy will see Helsinki, unless you destroy him
immediately after duplication
That is indeed the case in the step 3 protocol.
Fine, then currently nobody is seeing Helsinki.
in which case the
2014-07-03 21:51 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I predict that the H-guy will see Helsinki, unless you destroy him
immediately after duplication
That is indeed the case in the step 3 protocol.
Fine,
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 02:30:22PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It seems that the measure of the reals and the quantum measure and the comp
measure are three different things.
Richard
They are three different measures, but all satisfy the measure axioms.
What I was trying to get at was
Hi Bruno,
Is the measure idempotent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence?
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different
From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sound good, I will go look for a brain, and you can begin your search
for a heart, Mr. Tin man.
Oh I have a heart, brainless one... it is you who are heartless and are
demanding we all
This is very interesting! If it's true it means that any worlds where the
Nazis won WW2 are googolplexes of lightyears away and moving away from us
at far greater than lightspeed, rather than merely separated from us by a
lack of quantum entanglement - which has to be a good thing, IMHO.
Many of
Oops I think I should have read Telmo's post before making mine. Apparently
there is a potential smoking gun to show that de Brglie/Bohm dunnit.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
On 4 July 2014 07:10, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:13 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The yes doctor thing says that if H-guy is destroyed in the process of
being scanned prior to transmission, then he will see
Then who will see?
Two copies of
Thanks, I will watch it when I get 17 minutes to spare, have access to a
PC, and won't disturb anyone else in the process (or give away that I'm not
working to my colleagues... :-).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
I have a diploma, which many people think is as good as a brain...
--
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
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This is very interesting! If it's true it means that any worlds where the
Nazis won WW2 are googolplexes of lightyears away and moving away from us
at far greater than lightspeed, rather than merely separated from us by a
lack of
The Russians were also silent about the US illegal military excursions.
The two nations cooperated at the highest levels and all scientific levels.
I was a participant.
Regarding the Khmer Rouge, they actively fought the Vietnamese and lost,
ie.:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
I have a diploma, which many people think is as good as a brain...
Or even better than a brain… brains can become such troublesome things you
know. Brains can cause people to think!
On 3 July 2014 05:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably fail
to believe that it does. I don't have proof that there is no teapot
On 3 July 2014 23:32, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I also like Baker,
Tom I assume rather than Colin (who played Dr Who number 6 - and is a very
nice guy, by the way).
who starred in a couple of fantasy flicks like Sinbad, and whatever,
Pertwee
On 7/3/2014 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 July 2014 05:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably fail to
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 7:04 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence
The Russians were also silent about the US illegal military
On 4 Jul 2014, at 11:31 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Another bloviating blustering belligerent bellicose bunch of bollocks from Mr
Clark follows:
For the moment forget what your third grade English teacher may have said
and answer the following question:
For the moment maybe switch
OK, that isn't the definition of atheist I have come across but if you are
only using it in the weak sense of I don't positively believe in any god
or gods then that's fine. Here for comparison purposes are the definitions
from Wiktionary. I generally assume that definitions 1 or 3 are the most
42 matches
Mail list logo
