On 21/04/2016 3:26 pm, smitra wrote:
On 20-04-2016 07:36, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 20/04/2016 3:21 pm, smitra wrote:
On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote:
The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the
measurements are made. If the choice for
On 4/20/2016 10:34 PM, smitra wrote:
On 20-04-2016 07:49, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/19/2016 10:21 PM, smitra wrote:
On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote:
The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the
measurements are made. If the choice
On 20-04-2016 07:49, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/19/2016 10:21 PM, smitra wrote:
On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote:
The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the
measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the
polarizers w
On 20-04-2016 07:36, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 20/04/2016 3:21 pm, smitra wrote:
On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote:
The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the
measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the
polarizers we
On 21/04/2016 1:34 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
So, the fact that these simulated results were supposed to have
come from an entangled singlet pair has not been used anywhere in
your simulation. It ha
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi Samya,
>
> I already told you that Soufism is, in Islam, and from the theological
> point of view, the closer to the machine's theology, which is not
> astonishing given that they are closer to Neoplatonism too (and I have
> explained
Dear Saibal,
what makes you think that we can deduct (know??) anything rightfully about
the REAL WORLD into our feable human mind? You may LIKE more the QM than
the classical versions, but that is no verification.
We obtain(ed) SOME input about the 'WORLD' and deposited it adjusted to the
capabil
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:21 AM, smitra wrote:
>
>
> Invoking FAPP is precisely where your argument goes wrong.
After looking up the meaning of that unfamiliar technical term I would
have to agree.
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fapp
John K Clark
--
You received
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > logically, it is conceivable to have structure containing themselves,
>>
>>
> >>
>> Fine, but it is not logical to have something that is not part of itself
>> be part of itself; like a place that is not part of the multiverse you ca
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>
> So, the fact that these simulated results were supposed to have come from
> an entangled singlet pair has not been used anywhere in your simulation. It
> has only ever been used to link the copies of Alice and Bob, the statistics
> that the
Do you have any essays floating about, that you have written concerning machine
theology (Lobian machines I am guessing)?
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list
Sent: Wed, Apr 20, 2016 3:21 am
Subject: Bektashi Alevi
Hi Samya,
I already told you that Soufism
Hi Samya,
I already told you that Soufism is, in Islam, and from the theological
point of view, the closer to the machine's theology, which is not
astonishing given that they are closer to Neoplatonism too (and I have
explained that the mathematical theology of the universal machine is
c
12 matches
Mail list logo
