ing-l...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 4:57:17 AM
Subject: Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5
Ah bravo Günther, now I am depressing :(
I don't succeed in finding my Steinhart book. I don't either find the
book on the net, and I begin to doubt it is a book by the same
Steinha
Ah bravo Günther, now I am depressing :(
I don't succeed in finding my Steinhart book. I don't either find the
book on the net, and I begin to doubt it is a book by the same
Steinhart. I have some doubt that "my Steinhart" has "Eric" as first
name. I remember only that the book was taking Pytha
Which one did you have? Was it good? (I only know his papers)
Cheers,
Günther
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I
> did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks for the references.
>
> Best,
>
> Bruno
>
>
> On 09 Jan 2009, at 21:26, Günth
On 10 Jan 2009, at 02:26, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 10/01/2009, at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> I admire too. Kim is courageous.
>> Well, for the tenacity we will see :)
>>
>>
>
> Gee thanks Doctor! I'll try not disappoint you. At the moment I am
> devoting an egregious amount of time t
Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I
did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks for the references.
Best,
Bruno
On 09 Jan 2009, at 21:26, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>> My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I
>> specialized my s
Brent,
there are misunderstood phenomena and epistemologically underdeveloped
explanations over the past 10,000 years - plus conclusion (upon
conlusions)^n - quantizations with and without zero (14th c. AD) to develop
in our conventional scientific view the figment Bruno puts into " - " called
"The
Steinhardt is supposed to get his book Infinite Flesh published sometime
soon. His premise is similar to Philosopher, John Leslie, save that Steinhardt
see clones of ourselves being re-born in alternate universes, though the each
incarnation is improved over the previous. Leslie is more linea
John Mikes wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>
> "...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the
> influence of "the rest of the world" is non-local
> (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity..."
>
> EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a poi
On 10/01/2009, at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I admire too. Kim is courageous.
> Well, for the tenacity we will see :)
>
>
Gee thanks Doctor! I'll try not disappoint you. At the moment I am
devoting an egregious amount of time to searching for employment as my
ability to sit and cogit
John, Brent,
John said:
> EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point.
>How can one use such artifact as 'evidence' that "shows..."?
Aspect Et Al tested it ages ago, see for instance here:
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf
Brent said:
> But the
Brent wrote:
"...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the influence of
"the rest of the world" is non-local
(i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity..."
EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point. How can
one use such artifact as
Hello,
> My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I
> specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once
> assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a branch
> of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology experimentally
> re
Hi John,
> I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi
> assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations
> beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences.
It is as you wish, but it is my way to question the humans, through UDA.
Then the nu
John Mikes wrote:
> Dear Bruno,
>
> I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi
> assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations
> beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences.
> Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and prob
Dear Bruno,
I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi assumptions
(thought experiments?) on this list - about situations beyond common sense,
their use as templates for consequences.
Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and probabilistics.
*
Bruno quotes in " -
On 03 Jan 2009, at 12:59, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> In this step, one of me experiences (or actually does not experience)
> the delay prior to reconstitution. In Step 2, it was proven to me that
> I cannot know that any extra time (other than the 4 minutes necessary
> transmission interval
Bruno,
In this step, one of me experiences (or actually does not experience)
the delay prior to reconstitution. In Step 2, it was proven to me that
I cannot know that any extra time (other than the 4 minutes necessary
transmission interval) has elapsed between my annihilation and
reconsti
17 matches
Mail list logo
