On 09 May 2012, at 02:25, Pierz wrote:
There is an interesting point here, although probably not what you
intended. What you say is true, you cannot trace it all the way
back to absolute nothing, because there is no reverse physical
process that transforms something into nothing (at
On 09 May 2012, at 02:36, Pierz wrote:
The problem is that physicists have not yet succeed in marrying QM
and GR, which is needed to get a quantum theory of space-time. You
can bet on strings or on loop gravity though, or on the Dewitt-
Wheeler equation, which, actually make physical
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
You must have misread me. I am anything but sure nothing must have come
before.
Yes, probably I did.
Indeed, my whole point is that something from nothing - genuine nothing -
is a nonsense. You can't bridge the hgap between
On 09 May 2012, at 12:36, R AM wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
You must have misread me. I am anything but sure nothing must have
come before.
Yes, probably I did.
Indeed, my whole point is that something from nothing - genuine
nothing - is a
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The empty set is the absence of elements (nothing) in that set. It is the
set { }.
The empty set is not nothing. For example, the set is { { } } is not
empty. It contains as element the empty set.
Just to be precise.
On 09 May 2012, at 13:19, R AM wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The empty set is the absence of elements (nothing) in that set. It
is the set { }.
The empty set is not nothing. For example, the set is { { } } is not
empty. It contains as
PM, Bruno Marchal
Yes.
Nothing, in set theory, would be more like an empty *collection* of
sets, or an empty universe (a model of set theory), except that in first
order logic we forbid empty models (so that AxP(x) - ExP(x) remains valid,
to simplify life (proofs)).
nothing could also be
On 09 May 2012, at 17:09, R AM wrote:
PM, Bruno Marchal
Yes.
Nothing, in set theory, would be more like an empty *collection*
of sets, or an empty universe (a model of set theory), except that
in first order logic we forbid empty models (so that AxP(x) -
ExP(x) remains valid, to
Ricardo: I hate to become a nothingologist, but if you REMOVE things to
make NOTHING you still have the remnanat (empty space, hole, potential of
'it' having been there or whatever) from WHERE you removed it. IMO in
Nothing there is not even a where identified.
Forgive me the 'light' reply,
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 May 2012, at 17:09, R AM wrote:
nothing could also be obtained by removing the curly brackets from the
empty set {}.
N... Some bit of blank remains. If it was written on hemp, you could
smoke it. That's not
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Ricardo: I hate to become a nothingologist, but if you REMOVE things to
make NOTHING you still have the remnanat (empty space, hole, potential of
'it' having been there or whatever) from WHERE you removed it. IMO in
Nothing
On 07 May 2012, at 19:42, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not an engineer.
I know, that's part of the problem.
I think it's part of the solution. As the saying goes, if all you
have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
It's
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As for the remark about nothingness having only one way of being and there
being a lot more ways of existing, it's cute, but it's sophistry. Non-being
is not a countable way of being.
I agree.
Hi Bruno, what do you
On May 7, 5:22 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2012 2:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 3:44 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The 'laws' of logic are just
On 08 May 2012, at 11:49, R AM wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
As for the remark about nothingness having only one way of being
and there being a lot more ways of existing, it's cute, but it's
sophistry. Non-being is not a countable way of
On 5/7/2012 9:16 AM, R AM wrote:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Stephen,
- If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a
property, then nothing cannot have any limitations, including
John:
who told you that anything evolved? especially: from nothing? that is our
human stupidity presuming a world according to our figments. We think in
our terms, i.e. if something seems to be, it had to 'evolve'. (I almost
wrote: 'be created'!)
We 'think' there is something. Do we have the
Ricardo:
good text! I may add to it:
Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody. (The ancient joke of Odysseus
towards Polyphemos: 'Nobody' has hurt me).
Just one thing: if it contains (includes) EMPTY SPACE, it includes space,
it is not nothing. And please, do not forget about my adage in the
On 5/8/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Ricardo:
good text! I may add to it:
Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody. (The ancient joke of Odysseus towards
Polyphemos: 'Nobody' has hurt me).
Just one thing: if it contains (includes) EMPTY SPACE, it includes space, it is not
nothing. And
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Some people claim that something cannot come from nothing. I think they
are hanging a property on it.
Hi Ricardo,
Yes and some other people claim that something can indeed come out of
nothing - so long as that
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
There are many ways something can exist, but just one of nothing
existing. Therefore, nothing is less likely :-)
EXCELLENT! I wish I'd said that; Picasso said good
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:46 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Ricardo:
good text! I may add to it:
Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody. (The ancient joke of Odysseus
towards Polyphemos: 'Nobody' has hurt me).
Just one thing: if it contains (includes) EMPTY SPACE, it includes
There is an interesting point here, although probably not what you intended.
What you say is true, you cannot trace it all the way back to absolute
nothing, because there is no reverse physical process that transforms
something into nothing (at least, not into absolute nothing). Or
The problem is that physicists have not yet succeed in marrying QM and GR,
which is needed to get a quantum theory of space-time. You can bet on strings
or on loop gravity though, or on the Dewitt-Wheeler equation, which, actually
make physical time vanishing completely from the big picture.
On May 8, 8:36 pm, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah OK fine, so maybe I'm one turtle too high! Let's just say arithemetic
then. Why does it exist? Because.
Try it this way instead: Why does existence have causality? To make
more sense.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Stephen,
- If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a property,
then nothing cannot have any limitations, including the limitation of
generating something. Therefore, something may come from
Therefore, we should envision the state of nothing co-existing with the
possibility of something existing, which is rather bizarre.
Does Nothingness exist? Can Nothingness non-exist? At what point are
we playing games with words and at what point are we being meaningful?
I think a
The question, Why is there anything at all? used to do my head in when I was
a kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head-exploding moment sometimes
thinking about it. Russell's answer to me remains the most satisfying, even
though in a sense it is a non-answer, a simple ackowledgement
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
The question in my mind as a wondering child was never 'How did the
nothing that must have come before the universe produce the universe?' It
was my mind chasing the chain of causation of things and realizing that,
whatever
The combination of MWI and string physics may suggest a reason why quantum
physics must exist and it has to do with the string landscape plus the
acceptance on your part of some of the (outrageous) claims of string
theory. I say that the most outrageous claim of string theory is that the
On May 7, 9:42 am, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Krauss's argument may satisfy the cosmologist's desire to see the cause of
the universe reduced to something extremely simple, but it does not satisfy
the wondering child or philosopher who is thunderstruck by the strangeness of
there being
On 5/7/2012 6:42 AM, Pierz wrote:
The question, Why is there anything at all? used to do my head in when I was
a kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head-exploding moment sometimes thinking
about it. Russell's answer to me remains the most satisfying, even though in a sense it
is a
On Sun, May 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not an engineer.
I know, that's part of the problem.
I think it's part of the solution. As the saying goes, if all you have
is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
It's far easier to get a reputation as a good
On 5/7/2012 8:30 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The combination of MWI and string physics may suggest a reason why quantum physics must
exist and it has to do with the string landscape plus the acceptance on your part of
some of the (outrageous) claims of string theory. I say that the most
On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't issue
contradictory statements.
You have to have logic to begin with to conceive of the desirability
of avoiding contradiction. Something has to put the 'contra' into
On May 7, 1:42 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not an engineer.
I know, that's part of the problem.
I think it's part of the solution. As the saying goes, if all you have
is a hammer, everything looks like
John,
On the subject of engineering blunders, here is the most catastrophic
engineering blunder humanity has ever faced. It could make North America
uninhabitable.
On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't issue
contradictory statements.
You have to have logic to begin with to conceive of the desirability
of avoiding
On 07 May 2012, at 15:42, Pierz wrote:
The question, Why is there anything at all? used to do my head in
when I was a kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head-
exploding moment sometimes thinking about it. Russell's answer to me
remains the most satisfying, even though in a sense
On May 7, 3:44 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't
issue
contradictory statements.
You have to have logic
On 5/7/2012 2:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 3:44 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't issue
contradictory
On 05 May 2012, at 13:49, ronaldheld wrote:
Does nothing mean zero or the empty set in this thread?
There are as many notions of nothing/everything that there are notion
of things.
Nothing can be interpreted in many ways, differently for each theory
candidate to be a theory of
On Sat, May 5, 2012 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it so hard to understand a word?
Yes, the word nothing keeps evolving. Until about a hundred years ago
nothing just meant a vacuum, space empty of any matter; then a few years
later the meaning was expanded to include lacking any
Some thoughts about nothing:
- If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a property,
then nothing cannot have any limitations, including the limitation of
generating something. Therefore, something may come from nothing.
- Given that something exists, it is possible that
On Sat, May 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
That depends on what you mean by nothing.
1) Lack of matter, a vacuum.
2) Lack of matter and energy
3) Lack of matter and energy and space
4) Lack of matter and energy and space and time.
5) Lack of even the
On Sun, May 6, 2012 ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
There are many ways something can exist, but just one of nothing
existing. Therefore, nothing is less likely :-)
EXCELLENT! I wish I'd said that; Picasso said good artists borrow but
great artists steal, so no doubt some day I will indeed say
On 5/6/2012 1:06 PM, R AM wrote:
Some thoughts about nothing:
Hi Ricardo,
I like these thoughts (as they imply questions!)!
- If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a
property, then nothing cannot have any limitations, including the
limitation of generating
On May 6, 1:06 pm, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
Some thoughts about nothing:
- If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a property,
then nothing cannot have any limitations, including the limitation of
generating something. Therefore, something may come from nothing.
On May 6, 1:33 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
That depends on what you mean by nothing.
1) Lack of matter, a vacuum.
2) Lack of matter and energy
3) Lack of matter and energy and space
4) Lack of
On 06.05.2012 20:04 Stephen P. King said the following:
...
[Side note: This is where we start to see that our words can be such to
sometimes have only other words as referents and sometimes have actual
objects (not words) as referents. (I wish we could get a semiotic theory
expert to join us!
On 5/6/2012 3:25 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.05.2012 20:04 Stephen P. King said the following:
...
[Side note: This is where we start to see that our words can be such to
sometimes have only other words as referents and sometimes have actual
objects (not words) as referents. (I wish we
On 04 May 2012, at 17:48, John Clark wrote:
If the nothing of a vacuum is really full of potentials,
If you insist on the strictest definition of nothing which is not
even the potential of producing anything, then even God Himself
could not produce something from nothing; and this line
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
So you agree that it is impossible to have something come from nothing.
That depends on what you mean by nothing.
1) Lack of matter, a vacuum.
2) Lack of matter and energy
3) Lack of matter and energy and space
4) Lack
Is it so hard to understand a word?
* - N O T H I N G - *is not a set of anything, no potential, no vacuum,
no borders or characteristics just nothin'.
There is 'nothing' in it means an it - measureable and sizable.
Folks-talk refers usually to a lack of a material content.
I agree with Bruno:
On May 5, 1:51 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
So you agree that it is impossible to have something come from nothing.
That depends on what you mean by nothing.
1) Lack of matter, a vacuum.
2) Lack of
On 03 May 2012, at 23:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/3/2012 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote:
Lawrence M Krauss, author of the excellent book Why is there
something rather than nothing? recently wrote a article in
Scientific American, here is one quote I like
It may be that even an eternal multiverse
On Thu, May 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would focusing on one issue be a distraction from the other?
Because Human Beings do not have infinite time to deal with, so time spent
focusing on issues that Krauss correctly describes as sterile (not leading
to new ideas)
On May 4, 11:48 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would focusing on one issue be a distraction from the other?
Because Human Beings do not have infinite time to deal with, so time spent
focusing on issues that
Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago that the properties of the
members of a set need not be properties of the set itself. I.e.,
everything in the universe may have a cause but the universe - the set
of all things - need not. We can argue about whether the ontological
nature of the set of
On May 4, 8:00 pm, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago that the properties of the
members of a set need not be properties of the set itself. I.e.,
everything in the universe may have a cause but the universe - the set
of all things - need not. We can argue
On May 3, 4:25 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Lawrence M Krauss, author of the excellent book Why is there something
rather than nothing? recently wrote a article in Scientific American, here
is one quote I like
It may be that even an eternal multiverse in which all universes and
On 5/3/2012 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote:
Lawrence M Krauss, author of the excellent book Why is there something rather than
nothing? recently wrote a article in Scientific American, here is one quote I like
It may be that even an eternal multiverse in which all universes and laws of nature
On 25 Sep 2011, at 08:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2011 6:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I said explicitly that exist means to be in the ontology of some
model, and so it is always relative to that model (and similarly
for nonexistent).
Bruno's shown how the physical world is part of the
On 26 Sep 2011, at 01:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of
molecules.
I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the
incredible theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow (molecules
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of
On 9/26/2011 7:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2011 7:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb
On 9/24/2011 6:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I said explicitly that exist means to be in the ontology of some model,
and so it
is always relative to that model (and similarly for nonexistent).
Bruno's shown how the physical world is part of the same model that includes
the integers.
I
Jason,
Do you believe there exist an infinite number of integers? If so I ask you
why should these very large numbers exist if they require a physical basis?
There are numbers we cannot physically coceive of by virtue of their size and
the finite size of the observable universe. If
Bruno,
Hi.
Roger: When you say Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons, this was
the very point I was making. I don't think there can exist mathematical
truths in some platonic realm somewhere. They're in the mind, which is a
physical thing,
This is something you assume. It is
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Roger Granet roger...@yahoo.com wrote:
Jason,
Do you believe there exist an infinite number of integers? If so I ask
you why should these very large numbers exist if they require a physical
basis? There are numbers we cannot physically coceive of by virtue
On 24 Sep 2011, at 20:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that
when Euler's number is raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result
is
On 25 Sep 2011, at 09:05, Roger Granet wrote:
Bruno,
Hi.
Roger: When you say Mathematical truth is in the mind of
persons, this was the very point I was making. I don't think
there can exist mathematical truths in some platonic realm
somewhere. They're in the mind, which is a
On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules.
I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible theory of
chemistry the SWE equation allow (molecules and the electronic shape of atoms is really
what
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules.
I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible
theory of chemistry the SWE
On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of
molecules.
I find quite
Bruno,
Hi. My responses are:
Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons. And assuming we are machine,
mathematical truth is in the mind of numbers relatively to numbers. Of course
we have to assume all elementary arithmetical truth, like 17 is prime. Do
you doubt them?
Roger: When
On Sep 24, 2011, at 1:12 AM, Roger Granet roger...@yahoo.com wrote:
Bruno,
Hi. My responses are:
Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons. And assuming we are
machine, mathematical truth is in the mind of numbers relatively to
numbers. Of course we have to assume all elementary
On 23 Sep 2011, at 19:13, Pzomby wrote:
On Sep 23, 8:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 23 Sep 2011, at 07:37, Roger Granet wrote:
Bruno,
Hi. Yes, I am pretty much a materialist/physicalist.
So, you cannot defend the idea that the brain (or whatever
On 24 Sep 2011, at 08:12, Roger Granet wrote:
Bruno,
Hi. My responses are:
Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons. And assuming we are
machine, mathematical truth is in the mind of numbers relatively to
numbers. Of course we have to assume all elementary arithmetical
truth,
On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when Euler's number is
raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result is 1? Pi has a value which no human has
determined, as determinig it requires infinite time and memory. If only those
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when
Euler's number is raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result is 1?
Pi has a value which no human has determined,
On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when Euler's number is
raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result is 1? Pi
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that
On 9/24/2011 1:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 1:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 22 Sep 2011, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/22/2011 10:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think what Bruno calls the 323 principle is questionable.
Can I deduce from this that UDA1-7 is understood. This shows
already that either the universe is little or physics is
(already) a branch of
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Roger,
Your theory is still physicalism in disguise. You can't explain
consciousness from that.
I will ask you what
On Sep 23, 8:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 23 Sep 2011, at 07:37, Roger Granet wrote:
Bruno,
Hi. Yes, I am pretty much a materialist/physicalist.
So, you cannot defend the idea that the brain (or whatever responsible
for our consciousness) is
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/21/2011 9:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/21/2011 6:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
When you aren't thinking about what your mother looks like, she
On 9/21/2011 11:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/21/2011 9:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 9/22/2011 1:18 AM, Roger Granet wrote:
Everyone,
Hi. My comments on all of today's comments :) happy on this
thread are below:
o In regard to Jon's below comment:
Pearce later concludes that if, in all, there is 0, i.e no (net)
properties whatsoever, then there just isn't
On 9/22/2011 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/21/2011 11:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/22/2011 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
[SPK]
Sure, let us consider this similarity to Leibniz' per-established
harmony idea. Could you sketch your thoughts on the similarity that you
see? I have my own
On 21 Sep 2011, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2011 9:20 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
The Mandelbrot set has a definition which we can use to explore
it's properties. Would you say the set was non-existent before
Mandelbrot found it? If we have to define something for it to
exist, then
On 22 Sep 2011, at 08:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2011 11:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 9/21/2011 9:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 9/21/2011
On 9/22/2011 10:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think what Bruno calls the 323 principle is questionable.
Can I deduce from this that UDA1-7 is understood. This shows already that either the
universe is little or physics is (already) a branch of computer science (even if there
is a physical
Hi everyone,
I would like to reply to various people's comments since my post so
far. I'll try to be as clear as I can, though words aren't well cut
out for metaphysics, as you probably are aware.
I think we all want to know what principles and axioms we must accept
as primitives to construct a
On Sep 21, 3:04 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
110
1000100
1001000
101
110
The 1 digit could
On Sep 21, 12:20 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to jump in here..
The Mandelbrot set has a definition which we can use to explore it's
properties.
In this kind of context, I think it is useful to make the distinction
that the Mandlebrot 'set' IS a definition.
Would
601 - 700 of 798 matches
Mail list logo
