On 11 Jul 2014, at 21:58, John Mikes wrote:
Liz, you missed my words about 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Fighting
AGAINST something reqires SOME concept of the enemy, so an atheist
'requires' SOME concept of 'a' (any) god as a target.
This is very well said.
- MY - agnostic, however, does
Brent,
You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about
something I'm interested in finding out more about.
On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:42 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 July 2014
On 11 Jul 2014, at 19:41, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If the MWI is correct, the electron spin question is equivalent to
the teleporter question.
No it is not and I've given my reasons why it is not over and over
and over and over
On 11 Jul 2014, at 23:57, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Thanks for your response, Bruno. Now, I ask the subjective question,
which may not like the truth, or your truth.
The truth is the same for everyone (by the platonist definition of
truth). But we never know it *as such*,
On 11 Jul 2014, at 22:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2014 11:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2014, at 09:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 11 July 2014 00:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
As I understand the MGA it assumes physicalism and then purports
to show
that computation still
On 12 July 2014 05:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If the MWI is correct, the electron spin question is equivalent to the
teleporter question.
No it is not and I've given my reasons why it is not over and over and
On 12 July 2014 07:58, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz, you missed my words about 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Fighting AGAINST
something reqires SOME concept of the enemy, so an atheist 'requires' SOME
concept of 'a' (any) god as a target.
Yes, I agree. Or at the very least they have a
On 12 July 2014 06:50, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Russell Brand: After last night I can only enjoy football matches where
a nation is forced to reexamine its entire
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 1:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 July 2014 06:50, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Russell Brand: After last night I can only enjoy football
Dear John,
In our last exchange, you had mentioned that a fetus does not know anything,
and I had wondered whether it was so. Just now I came across this verse (Quran
16:79)
English-Pickthall translation
__
And Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:12 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Desalinization works commercially, or does it?
What you need to make a desalination plant successful is exactly the same
thing you need to cure world poverty in general, lots and lots of
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:12 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Desalinization works commercially, or does it?
What you need to
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If there are two (and there are) why didn't Bruno Marchal ask what
cities John Clark will see from *a* 1p?
That is the 3p view *on* the future 1-views.
The? why not *a* future 1-view
Because as you just agree above, there
On 11 Jul 2014, at 01:43, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Emil L. Post 1936 Finite Combinatory Processes. Formulation 1. -
from the concluding paragraph:
The writer expects the present formulation to turn out to be
logically equivalent to recursiveness in the sense of the Gödel-
Church
Le 12 juil. 2014 19:34, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If there are two (and there are) why didn't Bruno Marchal ask
what cities John Clark will see from *a* 1p?
That is the 3p view *on* the future 1-views.
The?
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 1:33 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
naturally, you are entitled to your opinions
Thanks, and you are entitled to my opinions too.
however they do not seem to be supported by statistics,
Take a look at this:
Important typo error in my reply to John (Mikes):
On 12 Jul 2014, at 10:08, Bruno Marchal wrote, notably in reply to
John M when he wrote:
Please add to every one of my sentences in ( - ) I dunno.
Instead of:
That is wise, but by asking more than arithmetic (the reality, not
the
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 10:57 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 1:33 PM, 'Chris de
On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
Brent,
You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about something I'm
interested in finding out more about.
On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb
On 7/12/2014 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2014, at 22:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2014 11:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2014, at 09:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 11 July 2014 00:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
As I understand the MGA it assumes physicalism and
On 7/12/2014 4:23 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 July 2014 07:58, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
mailto:jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz, you missed my words about 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Fighting AGAINST
something
reqires SOME concept of the enemy, so an atheist 'requires' SOME concept of
'a'
2014-07-12 21:17 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
Brent,
You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about
something I'm interested in finding out more about.
On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 July
2014-07-12 21:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 7/12/2014 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2014, at 22:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2014 11:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2014, at 09:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 11 July 2014 00:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
2014-07-12 21:34 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 7/12/2014 4:23 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 July 2014 07:58, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz, you missed my words about 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Fighting AGAINST
something reqires SOME concept of the enemy, so an atheist
Quentin, I appreciate your sequencing:
*maths = physics = consciousness = human maths*
except for the obvious question that arose in my (agnostic) mind:
what OTHER maths can we, humans think of with our (human) minds that
would not qualify as human maths? Even - as I believe - Bruno leaves
2014-07-12 22:01 GMT+02:00 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Quentin, I appreciate your sequencing:
*maths = physics = consciousness = human maths*
except for the obvious question that arose in my (agnostic) mind:
what OTHER maths can we, humans think of with our (human) minds that
would
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:18 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Brent's circular ontology [was: Is Consciousness Computable?]
On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
Thanks, Bruno, for your thoughtful response. - However: you wrote
*...This might mean that you are not aware of the discovery of Gödel and
Tarski which show the transcendence and independence of the arithmetical
reality with respect to us (and provably so with the computationalist
hypothesis)...*
John K trhanks for your crusade for desalination, a topic FOR which I
worked the 1st 40 years of my career (1947-87) both in matrerial
development and technology studies. Unfortunately BIG Money prefers profit
and not the deveopment of long-term introductory branches.
One of the most promising
I don't see people rushing into uranium and thorium power, nor, do I see fusion
coming along in two decades. For spaceflight, yes, for commercial power, we
just don't seem to be lucky with the physics of the universe. Perhaps new
discoveries about stellar formation might finally boost things
You pretend that atheists have some dictatorial power.
In the US, it seems to be getting this way. 40 or 50 years ago the reverse used
to be true. In public schools, public meetings, there was an attempt to enforce
Christianity as a state religion. Now, in the US, the reverse is true.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:43 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
I don't see people rushing into uranium and thorium power, nor, do
I saw that webpage, but it didn't quote anything, nor give any form of
justification.
Brent gave one, that perhaps was peak power at the end of ascent,
but it still doesn't sound quite right to me. Once an aeroplane is
airborne and landing gear is retracted, maximum thrust is no longer
needed.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 02:01:38AM +0200, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Either both are the same computation and goes through the same state
computing the same thing or they're not and don't go through the same
state. An infinity of computations goes through the same state on partial
run, up
On 7/12/2014 12:52 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-12 21:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 7/12/2014 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2014, at 22:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2014 11:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 July 2014 07:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
Brent,
You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about
something I'm interested in finding out more about.
On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2
On 13 July 2014 08:27, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Or… perhaps it could it be like the mythical snake eating its tail.
By, invoking retro-causality
Brent isn't invoking retro-causality, but circular explanation. As he was
at pains to
On 7/12/2014 4:00 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
You pretend that atheists have some dictatorial power.
In the US, it seems to be getting this way. 40 or 50 years ago the reverse used to be
true. In public schools, public meetings, there was an attempt to enforce Christianity
On 7/12/2014 4:37 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:43 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: How will air travel work in a green solar
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 7:53 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Brent's circular ontology [was: Is Consciousness Computable?]
On 13 July 2014 08:27, 'Chris de
On 7/12/2014 5:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I saw that webpage, but it didn't quote anything, nor give any form of
justification.
Brent gave one, that perhaps was peak power at the end of ascent,
but it still doesn't sound quite right to me. Once an aeroplane is
airborne and landing gear is
On 7/12/2014 7:51 PM, LizR wrote:
Sorry, as yet I don't see how it can work. It isn't a virtuous circle (which is
generally taken to mean something like compound interest working on something which was
generated, originally, by some other process) - it's a vicious circle, i.e. one that
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 8:27 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On 7/12/2014 4:37 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via
On 7/12/2014 7:51 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 July 2014 07:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
Brent,
You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about
something I'm
interested in finding out
On 13 July 2014 15:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If you can explain what axiomatic means, I think you'll find it on the
circle. For example, it might mean whatever seems necessarily true to
human beings, which could be explained in terms of physics, biology, and
evolution (c.f.
On 7/12/2014 9:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 July 2014 15:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If you can explain what axiomatic means, I think you'll find it on the circle.
For example, it might mean whatever seems necessarily true to human beings, which
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/36
--
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
47 matches
Mail list logo
