To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: God
On 23 April 2015 at 08:19, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai. I
LizR wrote:
More light!
Indeed.
I was always of the opinion that dark energy /might/ be a figment, or it
might not be as advertised, because it's possible that supernovae
operated differently in the early universe in a manner that
systematically skews the results (e.g. as the proportion of
On 4/23/2015 2:03 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Conceit is a human foible, and is often an attribute of experts.
But at least as often an attribute of commentators:
The missed distinction between supernova families doesn’t mean there’s no dark energy,
the enigmatic force that’s
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion
of God
And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist
aristotelian is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by far the WORST
physicist who
. And they have the same belief in creation.
And the word God means a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous
impersonal blob
You attribute me things that I have never said.
that doesn't answer prayers and in fact doesn't do much of anything
at all, nevertheless according to Bruno God exists
On 22 Apr 2015, at 18:30, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's
notion of God
And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist
aristotelian is somebody who thinks
from AOL Mobile Mail
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 05:40 PM
Subject: Re: God
div id=AOLMsgPart_2_f98a885f-2035-4f2a-8365-c428537df214
div dir=ltr
div class=aolmail_gmail_extra
On 23 April 2015 at 12:54, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I have noted this before regarding Lord Russell's Teapot orbiting Jupiter.
For the last 40 years or so we have had the science to orbit a teapot, as
well as two probes around Jupiter--this should
in your
strange
non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over
definitions
so I'll accept any meaning of the word God you give me as long as
it's
clear and you use it consistently.
God is by definition the ultimate reality
meaning of the word God you give me as long as it's
clear and you use it consistently.
God is by definition the ultimate reality or the ultimate truth which
explains why you are here and now, and conscious,.
That is 100% inconsistent with what you said in your post just a few hours
ago
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai.
I've been on the Extropian lost longer than you and I don't recall a purge
by Natasha or by anybody else. And I know who Ray Kurzweil
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you've mis-parsed what Bruno is saying. He isn't saying that God
is conscious, he's saying God is whatever explains why *we're* conscious.
Bruno also says that mathematics begat our physical world and he might or
might not be right
On 23 April 2015 at 13:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Well I have at least a partial chain of explanation which is not very
controversial:
conscious-language-social-evolution-biology-chemistry-physics
The last 6 items are fairly uncontroversial, although I'm not 100% sure
about
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your strange
non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over definitions
so I'll accept any meaning of the word God you give me as long as it's
clear and you
On 23 April 2015 at 14:04, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you've mis-parsed what Bruno is saying. He isn't saying that
God is conscious, he's saying God is whatever explains why *we're*
conscious.
Bruno also says
On 4/22/2015 7:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 13:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
Well I have at least a partial chain of explanation which is not very
controversial:
conscious-language-social-evolution-biology-chemistry-physics
The last
was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their
definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut
off one head the theist will confabulate a new one for their religious
belief. People say science cannot kill religion. But I say that science has
killed
On 23 April 2015 at 08:06, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dennis:
*God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the
gaps of understanding ...*
I don't need to disprove something that has not been proven - or at
least described as possible. BTW: nothing can
GMT+02:00 Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com:
I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My
point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their
definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut
off one head the theist
I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My
point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their
definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut
off one head the theist will confabulate a new one for their religious
On 23 April 2015 at 08:19, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai. I was
almost booted from there for outing Nancy More as the list moderator who
did the booting back in the day. I usually was
Dennis:
*God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the
gaps of understanding ...*
I don't need to disprove something that has not been proven - or at
least described as possible. BTW: nothing can be 'proven' except for
ignorance.
To keep pace with the unfathomable
, stuff, not
arguments. Kind of like here, except now if I fear that people will ally
themselves with the elites, who now lean into some sort of neocommunism, that I
do bitch back. Of God, it is less important to me if He functions as promised,
more, I am concerned is how we sapiens are doing? When
.
They have the same notion of the creator, and the same notion of
creation. And
they have the same belief in creation.
Yep Bruce was correct, we are entering the realm of the Humpty-Dumpty
dictionary.
Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion of
God
On 23 April 2015 at 08:50, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My
point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their
definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut
.
And they have the same belief in creation.
And the word God means a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous
impersonal blob
You attribute me things that I have never said.
that doesn't answer prayers and in fact doesn't do much of anything at
all, nevertheless according to Bruno God exists
was correct, we are entering the realm of the Humpty-
Dumpty dictionary.
Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's
notion of God
And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist
aristotelian is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by far the
WORST physicist
-Dumpty
dictionary.
Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion of
God
And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist
aristotelian is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by far the WORST
physicist who ever lived and even in the field of philosophy
In order to participate in a forum like this you need to accept that
certain shorthands are commonly used. For example Aristotelian just means
anyone who assumes primary materialism, not someone who thinks everything
Aristotle said was true - similarly a Platonist is someone who thinks the
world
and Christian mean
almost the same thing with atheism being just a very minor variation
of Christianity.
They have the same notion of the creator, and the same notion of
creation. And they have the same belief in creation.
And the word God means a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous
they are not used with any
rational consistency. And then Bruno uses common words in very uncommon
ways; I still don't know what the word God means in Brunospeak. And don't
get me started on personal pronouns!
For example Aristotelian just means anyone who assumes primary
materialism
OK so now I know
correspondence is hard to follow, but esotericism is par for the course in
philosophy anyway...
God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the gaps
of understanding
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com
assumption (and yes, yes doctor is indeed convenient shorthand
for a specific well defined concept that is only used on this list and a
few other places).
I'm not so sure about God but I'm willing to let that one slide, at least
for a while, in the hope that all will become clear eventually - as it has
of personal identity in
the yes doctor assumption (and yes, yes doctor is indeed convenient
shorthand for a specific well defined concept that is only used on this
list and a few other places).
I'm not so sure about God but I'm willing to let that one slide, at
least for a while, in the hope
On 22 April 2015 at 14:35, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
Lol, don't make me write a webcrawler that looks for LizR
I wouldn't dream of making you do anything (although my ninja assassins
remain on standby at all timesbut, no pressure)
But if you do, you may get some
on this
list and a few other places).
I'm not so sure about God but I'm willing to let that one slide, at
least for a while, in the hope that all will become clear eventually - as
it has with the other concepts.
For example Aristotelian just means anyone who assumes primary
materialism
OK so
, yes doctor is indeed convenient
shorthand for a specific well defined concept that is only used on this
list and a few other places).
I'm not so sure about God but I'm willing to let that one slide, at
least for a while, in the hope that all will become clear eventually - as
it has
doctor assumption (and yes, yes doctor is indeed convenient
shorthand for a specific well defined concept that is only used on this
list and a few other places).
I'm not so sure about God but I'm willing to let that one slide, at
least for a while, in the hope that all will become clear
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
What are the other forums that people on everything list go to? How deep
does the rabbit hole go?
I've been posting to the Extropian List since the mid 1990s, at one time it
was more active than this list, it's not as active as
Awesome! Thanks!
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','do.infinit...@gmail.com'); wrote:
What are the other forums that people on everything list go to? How deep
does the
On 27 Oct 2014, at 21:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/27/2014 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What remains amazing is the negative amplitude of probability, but
then that is what I show being still possible thanks to the
presence of an arithmetical quantization in arithmetic, at the
place
On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the
egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well as all
the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and the Hindu gods...
Is this true? And do
with
Zurek's Quantum Darwinism http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082v1.pdf
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:57 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the
egomanical, despotic god of Abraham
...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the
egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well
as all the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and the Hindu gods
On 27 Oct 2014, at 10:57, LizR wrote:
On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the
egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well
as all the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods
/0903.5082v1.pdf
I will try to find the time to read that paper.
Bruno
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:57 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the
egomanical, despotic
On 10/27/2014 2:57 AM, LizR wrote:
On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the
egomanical,
despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily? As well as all the gods
On 10/27/2014 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What remains amazing is the negative amplitude of probability, but then that is what I
show being still possible thanks to the presence of an arithmetical quantization in
arithmetic, at the place we need the probabilities.
I don't recall you having
Hi Brent,
I recall reading a few papers that discussed this question. I think that
one can only obtain Hermiticity http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hermitian
with complex valued amplitudes. Self-adjointness does not obtain very
easily
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:08 PM, meekerdb
On 28 October 2014 08:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/27/2014 2:57 AM, LizR wrote:
On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD? And doesn't the
egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist
of whether God exists. The
interesting thing about it, for this list, is that God is
implicitly the god of theism, and is not one's reason for
existence or the unprovable truths of arithmetic.
How do you know that? How could you know that.
I read the interview. For example
D.G.: I'm
, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/7/2014 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:
Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is
interested in the question of whether God exists. The
interesting thing about it, for this list, is that God
interview of a philosopher who is interested in
the
question of whether God exists. The interesting thing about it, for
this
list, is that God is implicitly the god of theism, and is not one's
reason for existence or the unprovable truths of arithmetic.
How do you know
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I have nothing but contempt for the idea that my time could be better
spent reading Plotinus than reading a modern book about cosmology.
But cosmology does not address the problem of consciousness,
And neither does
On 23 Oct 2014, at 04:52, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I can accept that it is rational to disbelieve in fairy-tale
notion of god,
There are 2 choices, you can have:
1) A fairy-tale notion of god that is entertaining
Liz: I should object to the subject. How can Islm be GENERALIZED with their
differences among their own shades?
IS happily chops off Islamic heads if their sentiments diverge. Shia-s
Sunnis are warring for 15 centuries and I would not
volunteer counting the diverse shade-differences ('shady'?)
JM
On 21 Oct 2014, at 17:51, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
It is believing that God does not exist which is not rational.
So believing that a china teapot in orbit around the planet
Uranus does not exist is not rational.
I
On 22 Oct 2014, at 00:06, LizR wrote:
On 22 October 2014 02:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote:
Hi Richard
I'm only on page 2 of your
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I can accept that it is rational to disbelieve in fairy-tale notion of
god,
There are 2 choices, you can have:
1) A fairy-tale notion of god that is entertaining but silly.
2) A notion for God that lets you preserve
On 10/20/2014 3:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 07:10, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Does your philosophical point about the teapot, originally something from
Bertrand
Russell if I remember, become
For myself, it all depends on the sauce J
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 6:22 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
Never mind, I'm pasta
On 20 Oct 2014, at 19:37, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You can believe that God exist, just because it is an old friend
of yours.
Yes, and the reason for that is that for many the most important
thing about a belief is not its truth
On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote:
Hi Richard
I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear
to be positing that a mathematical universe might have a physical
On 21 Oct 2014, at 02:29, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to
exist,
is that atheists defend/support/reinforce the same
idea/conception of god that the literalist or fundamentalist
abrahamic religions use.
Atheists can't say there is no God without defining what they
mean by God,
Yeah, they tend to be rational like that.
and invariably they choose some variant
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
It is believing that God does not exist which is not rational.
So believing that a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
does not exist is not rational.
I think you allude to the fairy tale notion of God
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if you are happy, it might not be completely irrational to believe, of
put some credence in the belief of your parents
As I said, for many the most important thing about a belief is NOT its
truth. And you're certainly
On 22 October 2014 02:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Oct 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote:
On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote:
Hi Richard
I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear to
On 20 October 2014 12:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2014 4:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 20 October 2014 08:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/19/2014 7:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have read many of them. No serious theology would use God as an
explanation
Treat God as the ultimate space alien (not my idea!) and then interview him if
you get a chance. Might be quite interesting.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 19, 2014 7:06 pm
Subject: Re
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:06, LizR wrote:
On 20 October 2014 03:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Oct 2014, at 21:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/17/2014 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's close to Plotinus outer God (that the called the ONE). I
am OK. But that is false
On 20 Oct 2014, at 06:57, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Liz,
I am not sure that you can call the underpinning physical. But you
certainly have a good point.
According to one string theory, what seems to exist before the
creation of the universe are dimensions and flux, and symmetries and
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote:
Hi Richard
I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear
to be positing that a mathematical universe might have a physical
underpinning. If so, this rather defangs the MUH,
OK.
which obtains its importance from being logically
On 19 Oct 2014, at 22:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/19/2014 8:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I don't recall Bruno ever csaying if you don't believe in something
then you believe in it.
What he's said is that atheists defend/support/reinforce the same
idea/conception of god that the literalist
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You can believe that God exist, just because it is an old friend of
yours.
Yes, and the reason for that is that for many the most important thing
about a belief is not its truth. All else being equal people would prefer
of the room due to random thermal vibrations also irrational?
John K Clark
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 20, 2014 1:37 pm
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
On Sun, Oct 19
/conception of
god that the literalist or fundamentalist abrahamic religions use.
Atheists can't say there is no God without defining what they mean by God,
Yeah, they tend to be rational like that.
and invariably they choose some variant of an omniscient omnipotent creator who
answers
On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote:
Hi Richard
I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear to be
positing that a mathematical universe might have a physical underpinning.
If so, this rather defangs
On 21 October 2014 07:10, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Does your philosophical point about the teapot, originally something from
Bertrand Russell if I remember, become a empty comparison, when we live in
a time when setting a teapot in orbit around
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to exist, but
since it's physically possible, it's irrational to believe that it
definitely doesn't exist (though not
On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to exist,
but since it's physically possible, it's
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
On 21 October 2014 13:03, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
it's rational to believe that the teapot is very unlikely to exist
Let me sprinkle some cheese on that
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
That's a saucy comment!
On 21 October 2014 13:31, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
:* Monday, October 20, 2014 5:32 PM
*Subject:* Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
That's a saucy comment!
On 21 October 2014 13:31, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
--
*From:* LizR lizj...@gmail.com
Okay I was trying to follow that one up, but everything I come up with is lesser
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
OK, that would be even grater.
On 21 October
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2014 5:42 PM
*Subject:* Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter
OK, that would be even grater.
On 21 October 2014 13:40, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Let me sprinkle some
Likewise, the most interesting aspects of string theory are outside the
purview of explanations that can be tested in any even vaguely obvious
direct, empirical manner. and they may form the basis of MUH.
http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
Thanks, I shall attempt to read it. (Interesting if String theory is the
basis of the MUH rather than the other way around!)
On 19 October 2014 20:24, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Likewise, the most interesting aspects of string theory are outside the
purview of explanations that
On 18 Oct 2014, at 13:02, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Then by the ONE, I mean God, in the greek sense of whatever
is needed to have a reality and consciousness.
Richard: If MWI can be derived from comp and if the MWI is
deterministic, then IMO there is no need for consciousness.
I claim
On 18 Oct 2014, at 16:36, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Oct 2014, at 02:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014
On 18 Oct 2014, at 21:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/17/2014 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's close to Plotinus outer God (that the called the ONE). I
am OK. But that is false for the Inner God.
For mystics and rationalist theologian, it is not completely false
to believe
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Oct 2014, at 13:02, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Then by the ONE, I mean God, in the greek sense of whatever is
needed to have a reality and consciousness.
Richard: If MWI can be derived from comp
. But assuming the quantum nothingness is
assuming too much, and could only be in need to be assumed (that is,
primitive) if computationalism is false.
And whatever misgivings you may have about science failing to fully
explain some subtlety remember that the God theory can explain
I don't recall Bruno ever csaying if you don't believe in something then
you believe in it.
What he's said is that atheists defend/support/reinforce the same
idea/conception of god that the literalist or fundamentalist abrahamic
religions use.
Atheists can't say there is no God without defining
On 18 Oct 2014, at 07:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Oct 2014, at 13:23, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Aha! Now what of Boltzmann Brains and how this topic is
undervalued by the intellects here.
The UD is more general than the Boltzman
to
believe in anything implies that you do believe in it.
Precisely: atheists does not fail to believe in God: they believe that
the notion of God has no sense, but they use only the christian God to make
their point.
And to believe that something does not exist, you need a precise version
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
thereby explaining a variety of scientific problems and refuting your
absolute statement on what any god theory can/cannot explain.
Then give bafflegab a rest for just one second and provide one clear
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The point that Krauss fails to address is precisely that - why there is
something rather than nothing.
Have you actually read the book? It sure doesn't sound like you did.
Going from almost nothing (the quantum vacuum, say) to
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Read Plotinus.
No.
John K Clark
--
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
301 - 400 of 1261 matches
Mail list logo
