*Subject:* Re: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)
Chris,
Hi. It sounds like you might be in computing since you mentioned some
terms like reposited (I've never heard of that in bio!)? If so, you are
very well educated in biology. Nice job! Your knowledge of the complexity
Chris,
Hi. It is kind of an interesting job in that I can keep up with the
latest stuff and I do find the idea of organizing scientific information
very interesting. But, it can be a little boring sometimes, too. But, I
guess most people would say that about their jobs, though.
Chris,
Hi. It's good that they have new studies confirming this stuff, but
the looping of DNA into 3D structures inside the nucleus has been known
for awhile. I think they're even starting to map these interactions just
like the human genome project. One of the methods they use is to
Mindey,
Hi. I basically agree with you especially about the ball/sphere part
and have posted similar ideas here and elsewhere in the past. The whole
something/nothing/empty-set thing has been discussed here extensively for
probably at least 15 years and was last discussed about 3-4
What you're describing sounds a little bit like cellular automata, which
start with a single cell (maybe the existent entity called nothing?) and
a rule and out of that comes emergent stuff possibly like our universe.
But, anyways I once again agree with what you're saying that the emergent
Roger: It's possible that what we see as existing is a simulation in some
other computer.
And thus in arithmetic, which can be proved to emulate all computers, on
all programs, on all input. This is standard knowledge for logicians, but
not always well known by non-logicians. It is
The starting question is this: are you OK with the idea that we would not
see any difference from our first person point of view with an artificial
digital brain (copying the brain at some level of description). Putting him
roughly: do you accept the idea that the brain is a sort of
Roger: It's possible that what we see as existing is a simulation in some
other computer. But, even if we are a simulation, the simulation that is
us exists as does the computer and the code we're a simulation in. My
thinking is aimed at trying to figure out there are existent
But, what is outside the head is a circle, with a circumference and a
diameter.
This is ambiguous.Are you talkng about the platonic perfect circle? Or
about a circle physically realized, like with a pen and a compass?
Roger: A physically realized circle.
I doubt this exist. And
Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't mean
that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If the pi
proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown
outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence for the existence of the
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 2:49:12 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 23:48, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Roger: Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th
decimal point of pi, the pi proposition and therefore the process of
calculating its
Roger: Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th
decimal point of pi, the pi proposition and therefore the process of
calculating its 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point and being confident that
if you do the process that that number is either 0-9 are all located inside
Jason et al.,
Overall, I can never disprove that mathematical constructs don't exist
outside the head somewhere just like I can't prove my view that what we've
previously considered to be the absolute lack-of-all is itself an
existent entity just because no one can never or directly
touring,
that'd be great! Some younger people, though, have never even heard of
them or other bands from the 60s-80s.
Roger
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:01:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:02 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript
beyond the cosmological horizon
and the interiors of black holes but so far only theory about multiple
universes. Anyways, let's keep working at it!
Roger
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 6:56:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:48 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List
everyth
Chris,
Mostly I agree with everything you said. Specifically:
By corollary and by symmetry this same optic of doubt can shine upon the
notion of a real physical entity underlying the stuff we call real. What is
real about a proton, electron, photon…etc.?
Roger: I agree. Proton,
On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 2:52:34 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:48 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote:
On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 12:27:06 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:11 PM, 'Roger' via
Roger,
I have a question for you.
Do you believe the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of Pi has a certain
definite value, which is either 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9?
If so, would you still believe this if you knew that this number is too
difficult to ever compute by anyone in this
On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 12:27:06 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:11 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote:
Roger,
I have a question for you.
Do you believe the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of Pi has a certain
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:12:20 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
The only thing about Larry Krauss that I like is his sketching out a
conjecture for faster than light travel.
Agreed. Krauss kind of irritates me, too. His book title A universe from
nothing: Why there is
, January 12, 2015 at 5:13:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 12 January 2015 at 17:23, 'Roger' via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote:
Everyone,
I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our
ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc
John,
Thanks for the posting. I still have trouble conceiving of point
particles with physical dimensions of zero. Wouldn't they be not there?
But, all these ideas of getting something from nothing are on the right
track, I think. And, at least you've made some testable predictions.
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 5:28:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2015, at 08:05, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
I have to admit I have a hard time going with the idea of Platonism or
mathematical constructs existing somewhere that no one can see or test. I
sure
I have to admit I have a hard time going with the idea of Platonism or
mathematical constructs existing somewhere that no one can see or test. I
sure can't rule it out, but I'd like to be able to know where it is.
Where? You seem to assume a sort of geometry at the start, but with
Bruno,
Hi.
I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our
ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc.,
And if there is one. Normally, we already have debated that if there is no
magic operating in the brain (another way to assume computationalism,
Chris and Brent,
On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 1:42:43 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
Roger: It seems to me, too, that there are problems with zero dimensions,
or point particles. I've never understood why physicists don't question
the idea of a zero-dimensional point
Chris,
Hey Roger ~ sorry for the belatedness of my reply
Roger: No problem. I know there were a lot of other passionate
discussions going on here lately!
-
I really like your idea of imagining your mind growing to infinite size,
but I agree it sounds pretty hard. I'm
Everyone,
I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our
ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc., and stop talking
about religion so much. It'd be nice if we could all also provide
constructive criticism if we disagree, instead of insults. If this
Everyone,
I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our
ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc., and stop talking
about religion so much. It'd be nice if we could all also provide
constructive criticism if we disagree, instead of insults. If this
Chris,
1.It sure is hard to visualize the absolute lack-of-all, I agree.
What I try to do is to shut my eyes and try to imagine the universe and
all its volume collapsing down to just my body and then just my mindscape.
Then, I push that darkness of the mindscape off to the side
If only through the we which think about that nothing.
Is anything possible at all without an observer?
-Chris
Roger: If we're talking about the situation where there's only the
absolute lack-of-all or the empty set, I think the only place the
perspective/observer is coming from is
Chris,
Hi. I admit that something and nothing may be more of a comedy gold
mine than I first wrote. It's nothing to sneeze at! :-) Although, I wonder
if people who aren't interested in this stuff (e.g. almost everyone) would
find it funny?
It sounds like we're pretty much in
...@googlegroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *meekerdb
*Sent:* Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
theory to dialectics?
On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word exists has
theory to dialectics?
On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word exists has no use because everything exists, it seems
important to know why everything exists. How is it that a thing can
exist? What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is contained
question of Why is there something rather than nothing?.
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 12:17:37 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:36 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote:
propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:54:42 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:56 AM, 'Roger' via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote:
I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping or relationship
present defining what is contained within
Peter,
Hi. I used to post here a long time ago, but thought I'd try it again.
I agree with your post that to answer the question Why is there something
rather than nothing?, we have to start with the supposed absolute
lack-of-all and can't presuppose the laws of math, etc. I also
Peter,
Hi. I've read parts of a few of your blog posts and found them very
interesting and highly recommend them to others.
To build on this thread of Why is there something rather than
nothing?, I'd like to throw out some related ideas. I used to post here
more often with this, but
38 matches
Mail list logo
