On 9/20/2013 8:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
The way to completely avoid Landauer's limit is to make all operations reversible, never
lose any information so that the whole calculation could be reversed. Then there's no
entropy dumped to the environment and Landauer's limit doesn't apply.
On 20 Sep 2013, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2013 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Sep 2013, at 19:31, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal
marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A computation is a process.
I can agree with this, unless you meant a physical
On 20 Sep 2013, at 21:00, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical,
Yes, Landauer is a major proponents of that idea. If that is true,
then computationalism is false.
Bullshit.
I gave you
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And the, what is the meaning of computation is physical?
Which word didn't you understand?
It looks to me that this consists in single out some universal system and
declare that only running it makes things real.[...] What does
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 11:47 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it worse than that. Doesn't the
smartphone (or cel phone) radiate
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:
A computation always takes a nonzero amount of energy to perform,
theoretically you can make the energy used be as close to zero
: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:12, chris peck wrote:
Hi John
Exactly, Newton and Darwin and Einstein didn't need Popper to
tell them how to get knowledge out of nature, and absolutely no
change in how science was done happened in 1934, the year Popper's
On 19 Sep 2013, at 19:31, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
A computation is a process.
I can agree with this, unless you meant a physical process, OK.
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical,
Yes, Landauer is a major
On 20 Sep 2013, at 00:10, LizR wrote:
On 20 September 2013 05:31, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
A computation is a process.
I can agree with this, unless you meant a physical process, OK.
As Rolf Landauer
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical, all computations must
use energy and generate heat. And what's the difference between a physical
process and a non-physical process anyway?
I thought it was only erasing the results
On 9/20/2013 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Sep 2013, at 19:31, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A computation is a process.
I can agree with this, unless you meant a physical process,
On 9/20/2013 10:38 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical, all computations
must use
energy and generate heat. And what's the difference between a physical
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
its at the core of Popper's view that theories should aim to be productive
Wow, theories should be productive, only a super genius could figure that
out!
in making falsifiable predictions and you are only regurgitating that
of it) matters in this equation.
-Chris
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As Rolf Landauer
On 20 Sep 2013, at 11:46, chris peck wrote:
Hi Bruno
Im not all that wrapped by Popper's method possibly because I have a
background in the soft sciences where I think it is much harder to
devise falsifiable statements. Other minds being unobservable and
all that...
I like Popper's
times in 54 years.
Size (or rather the lack of it) matters in this equation.
-Chris
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Thu
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical,
Yes, Landauer is a major proponents of that idea. If that is true, then
computationalism is false.
Bullshit.
With comp, a physical process is the result of the first
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical, all computations must use
energy and generate heat
: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Chris,
An article in Nature last year presents a calculation of the theoretical
minimum energy required to erase a bit - independent of the computer:
Antoine Bérut, Artak Arakelyan, Artyom Petrosyan
On 9/20/2013 1:22 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
A computation always takes a nonzero amount of energy to perform, theoretically you
can make the energy used be as close to zero as you like, but the less energy you use
the slower the calculation.
How does that square with the increased (well
From: L.W. Sterritt lannysterr...@comcast.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: L.W. Sterritt lannysterr...@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Chris,
It's the Landauer argument relating energy
@googlegroups.com
Cc: L.W. Sterritt lannysterr...@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Chris,
It's the Landauer argument relating energy to information, as Frank wrote.
There is a summary article in the same issue of Nature:
Philip
meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/20/2013 1:22 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
A computation always takes a nonzero amount of energy to perform,
theoretically you can make
On 9/20/2013 4:40 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Current software is very energy efficient -- and on so many levels. I worked developing
code used in the Windows Smartphone and it was during that time that I had to first
think hard about the energy efficiency dimension in computing -- as measured
Chris, Brent and meekerdb,
While we have been considering optimizing the efficiency of circuitry and
software, we neglected that while talking on the smartphone, 1/2 of the total
power budget goes to radiation from the smartphone antenna - about 2 Watts as I
remember. That will drain a
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
A computation always takes a nonzero amount of energy to perform,
theoretically you can make the energy used be as close to zero as you like,
but the less energy you use the slower the calculation.
How does
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 5:25 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/20/2013 4:40 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Current
T
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of L.W. Sterritt
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 8:09 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: L.W. Sterritt
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Chris, Brent and meekerdb,
While
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of L.W. Sterritt
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 8:09 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: L.W. Sterritt
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Chris, Brent and meekerdb,
While we have been considering optimizing the efficiency
Chris,
I get an empty message here.
Bruno
On 18 Sep 2013, at 17:57, chris peck wrote:
--- Original Message ---
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 18 Sep 2013
On 18 Sep 2013, at 19:32, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Name a number relation that does not involve a computation or
some other process!
It is difference between a number j used as a name for a program,
like in the arithmetical relation
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A computation is a process.
I can agree with this, unless you meant a physical process, OK.
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical, all computations must use
energy and generate heat. And what's the
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:12, chris peck wrote:
Hi John
Exactly, Newton and Darwin and Einstein didn't need Popper to
tell them how to get knowledge out of nature, and absolutely no
change in how science was done happened in 1934, the year
On 20 September 2013 05:31, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A computation is a process.
I can agree with this, unless you meant a physical process, OK.
As Rolf Landauer said Computation is physical, all
.
All the best.
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:10:17 +1200
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 20 September 2013 05:31, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 17 Sep 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So you are suggesting that a thing like broken glass is made of
numbers
I was just saying that things are not made up of things. A
broken glass is NOT made of number. That
trivially the class
of phenomena that the machine can recognize, and build correct
theories about.
Note the (slight) paradox here.
Bruno
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:39:10 -0400
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
--- Original Message ---
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:12, chris peck wrote:
Hi John
Exactly, Newton and Darwin and Einstein didn't need
thought...thus the current criticism of String Theory.
All the best
--- Original Message ---
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:12, chris peck wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:12 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
You say that this demarcation principle has had no influence in science.
Within Psychology however, for better or worse, Psychoanalysis is now
perceived as a faintly absurd artifact of history. No one gets hot under
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Name a number relation that does not involve a computation or some other
process!
It is difference between a number j used as a name for a program, like in
the arithmetical relation phi_j(k) = r,
A arithmetical relation is a
On 9/18/2013 10:24 AM, John Clark wrote:
Should other theories (quantum loop gravity) which potentially offer more
scope
for falsifiability receive a greater proportion of the available resources.
So far quantum loop gravity is no better at making testable predictions than string
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So you are suggesting that a thing like broken glass is made of numbers
I was just saying that things are not made up of things. A broken
glass is NOT made of number. That has no meaning at all. What happens is
that
to suggest otherwise.
All the best.
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:39:10 -0400
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So you are suggesting that a thing like broken
On 15 Sep 2013, at 18:02, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Me:
Feynman predicted in 1948 that the magnetic moment of an electron
can't be exactly 1 in Dirac units as had been thought because it is
effected by an infinite (and I
On 15 Sep 2013, at 18:29, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As long as you suggest that there are things made of things, you
are staying in the Aristotelian frame. Other can suggest that there
are no such things at all, just natural numbers
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Feynman showed that virtual particles must exist, particles that can
violate the law of conservation of mass-energy, at least for a short time.
Feynman showed that when a particle moves from point X to point Y it can do
so by any
On 13 Sep 2013, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Science, or at least theoretical physics, is all about
explaining physical laws in terms of other more general laws.
Either this process goes on forever like a infinitely
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Me:
Feynman predicted in 1948 that the magnetic moment of an electron can't
be exactly 1 in Dirac units as had been thought because it is effected by
an infinite (and I do mean infinite and not just astronomical) number
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As long as you suggest that there are things made of things, you are
staying in the Aristotelian frame. Other can suggest that there are no such
things at all, just natural numbers relative computations,
So you are suggesting that
On 12 Sep 2013, at 22:02, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Feynman was very bad in philosophy. Even in the philosophy of QM,
he has avoided all questions, and only put in footnote some remarks
showing that he did not believe in
On 12 Sep 2013, at 21:25, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Feyerabend was correct on this (at least).
I ask myself why in the 21'th century would any educated man agree
with a certified jackass like Feyerabend who said the church
On 13 Sep 2013, at 03:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/12/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The difference is the following. Some say there is a broken glass,
but forbid you to ask why there is a broken glass?. That is what
some materialist, and all physicalist are doing for the notion of
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Science, or at least theoretical physics, is all about explaining
physical laws in terms of other more general laws. Either this process goes
on forever like a infinitely nested Russian doll, or it does not go on
Hi John,
Roulette wheels are technically deterministic. I know with your cuckoo
clocks or roulette wheels aphorism you're trying to make things as simple
as possible, but that is potentially confusing.
Terren
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep
Every AI scientist, category theorist or semioticist, and cognitive
psychologist just tries to redo the work of Aristotle or Spinoza with
different names and in a donwgraded way, to fit the fashion prejudices and
the needs of this time, that includes extreme reductionist scientifists
like you.
In a conference Dennet said that a country with religious soldiers would be
defeated by a country ruled by engineers and economists . the audience
were well trained and educated atheists, but they couldn´t avoid to laugh
loudly at the end of the phrase.
The problem with Dennet and in general
On 11 Sep 2013, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/11/2013 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Sep 2013, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/10/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Today we know that science proves nothing about reality, but it
can refute theories, and it can provides evidences for
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
In a conference Dennet said that a country with religious soldiers would
be defeated by a country ruled by engineers and economists.
There is certainly some truth in that. Religion can make otherwise sane
people
On 11 Sep 2013, at 21:25, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
My point was just that the verdict against Galileo was rational,
or Popperian.
I don't believe that Karl Popper was as deep a thinker as many on
this list do, but I
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Feyerabend was correct on this (at least).
I ask myself why in the 21'th century would any educated man agree with a
certified jackass like Feyerabend who said the church at the time of
Galileo was much more faithful to
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Feynman was very bad in philosophy. Even in the philosophy of QM, he has
avoided all questions, and only put in footnote some remarks showing that
he did not believe in the wave collapse. He added often: don't try to
2013/9/12 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
In a conference Dennet said that a country with religious soldiers would
be defeated by a country ruled by engineers and economists.
There is certainly some truth in
On 9/12/2013 3:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
In a conference Dennet said that a country with religious soldiers would be defeated by
a country ruled by engineers and economists . the audience were well trained and
educated atheists, but they couldn´t avoid to laugh loudly at the end of the
On 9/12/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The difference is the following. Some say there is a broken glass, but forbid you to ask
why there is a broken glass?. That is what some materialist, and all physicalist are
doing for the notion of physical universe. They say that we cannot find an
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:18 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/12/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The difference is the following. Some say there is a broken glass, but
forbid you to ask why there is a broken glass?. That is what some
materialist, and all physicalist are
On 9/12/2013 6:42 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:18 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/12/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The difference is the following. Some say there is a broken glass, but
forbid you
to
On 10 Sep 2013, at 17:35, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its
overal philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo.
OK so let me get this straight, you agree that
On 10 Sep 2013, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/10/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Today we know that science proves nothing about reality, but it can
refute theories, and it can provides evidences for theories, but
not automatically the truth.
Scientific theories are certainly not
I don't see how reporting on something that people have known for
thousands of years is new or unexpected.
It's new because most white, educated reading audiences at that time didn't
hang out with Huichol shamans. It's like saying 'why would anyone listen to
Elvis Presley sing 'Hound Dog'
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
Given the way John has framed the task any contribution made by xyz will
end up not being a contribution in philosophy. Take Charles Pierce who
pretty much founded semiotics and made contributions in fields as diverse
On 9/11/2013 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Sep 2013, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/10/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Today we know that science proves nothing about reality, but it can refute theories,
and it can provides evidences for theories, but not automatically the truth.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Einstein read Kant, and loved Spinoza, and admit his influence in his own
research.
He may have read and loved detective stories too. Einstein was interested
in things other than science, like politics, and those thinkers may have
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
My point was just that the verdict against Galileo was rational, or
Popperian.
I don't believe that Karl Popper was as deep a thinker as many on this list
do, but I don't think he was as big a fool as THAT!
Aristotle
On 9/11/2013 11:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But when you make an empirical observation you are interacting with reality if there's
any reality at all
There may be an underlyng reality behind. Matter and their phenomena can be a derived
reality
Math - compution - time - mind - geometry -
On 9/11/2013 11:26 AM, John Clark wrote:
Philosophy is NOT worthless, it's philosophers that are worthless because, despite the
similar sounding words, philosophers haven't done any philosophy in 200 years.
Since philosophy can be useful it's reasonable that some people try to specialize in
But when you make an empirical observation you are interacting with
reality if there's any reality at all
There may be an underlyng reality behind. Matter and their phenomena can be
a derived reality
Math - compution - time - mind - geometry - space - matter and
phenomena
2013/9/11 meekerdb
on this detail? It might be more
than three but it definitely isn't less. And you can trust in me completely to
back you up on that to anyone who says different.
All the best.
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:28:16 -0400
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything
On 09 Sep 2013, at 20:42, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal
philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo.
OK so let me get this straight, you agree that the
.
--
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:28:16 -0400
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
it seems to me that John has just
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 11:58:37AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Alberto,
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think that there are real progress that can be even
.
--
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:28:16 -0400
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
it seems to me that John has just misunderstood
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:26:02PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
wrote:
However a darwinian process is a natural process. In a block universe,
I think that the whole business of putting numbers to fitness and so on
either is flawed or alternatively if the parameter is accurate, it is
useless.
In the long term anything could happen. I can have 10 children in a flawed
society that enter in decadence and war. And maybe I support the ideas
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that the whole business of putting numbers to fitness and so on
either is flawed or alternatively if the parameter is accurate, it is
useless.
Snow leopards are much more likely to go extinct than E. Coli
It was zero. but the evolutiometrist said me a few decades ago that my
fitness was certainly 10.
That is why I said that either this measure is flawed or alternatively, if
it is accurate (like this), it is useless (as a durable parameter to
predict something)
2013/9/10 Telmo Menezes
In this case in that flawed society the fitness of the 99% of the people
with 10 children was 0.
THat is because the environment may change a lot. Men have been on the
verge of extinction. The last time was about 70.000 years ago, where a few
thounsands survived. What a extraterrestrial
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case in that flawed society the fitness of the 99% of the people
with 10 children was 0.
THat is because the environment may change a lot. Men have been on the
verge of extinction. The last time was about
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
chris Lol.
A good mockig of the reductionist obsession with the details and
despising the big picture. For sure you have work hard to certify
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote:
chris Lol.
A good mockig of the reductionist obsession with the details and despising
the big picture. For sure you have work hard to certify that John has asked
that three times and not more nor less.
And now,
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal
philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo.
OK so let me get this straight, you agree that the church at the time
of Galileo was much more
On 9/10/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Today we know that science proves nothing about reality, but it can refute theories, and
it can provides evidences for theories, but not automatically the truth.
Scientific theories are certainly not automatically the truth. But to say science proves
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true + discovered in the last 2
centuries by philosopher who is not scientist by John Clark's arbitrary
standards? Ok. Aldous Huxley, writer and philosophical mystic,
As usual, I see a microcosm of science in this thread. From Bruno's
perspective, the power of reason is in its ability to see through its own
bias to find questions, problems, and shades of grey. From John Clark's
perspective, reason is about black and white evidence which provides
answers and
On 9/10/2013 3:38 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It was zero. but the evolutiometrist said me a few decades ago that my fitness was
certainly 10.
That is why I said that either this measure is flawed or alternatively, if it is
accurate (like this), it is useless (as a durable parameter to
...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 10, 2013 1:50 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
As usual, I see a microcosm of science in this thread. From Bruno's
perspective, the power of reason is in its ability to see through its own bias
to find
True. Statistics are useful for a short period of time. But evolutionary
biology has nothing to do with short periods of time
2013/9/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 9/10/2013 3:38 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It was zero. but the evolutiometrist said me a few decades ago that my
: Sun, Sep 8, 2013 2:16 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 08 Sep 2013, at 00:52, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Yet, there's lots of scientists in public forums like this, who embrace logical
positivism. I am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have
experienced
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:18 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true + discovered in the last 2
centuries by philosopher who is not scientist by John
: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: multiplecit...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:18 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
deep, clear
301 - 400 of 451 matches
Mail list logo
