thing-list
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 8:11 am
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift wrote:
> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here)
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:11:30 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > > wrote:
>>
>> > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a
>>> failure of theoretical physics,
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 5:58:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > wrote:
>
> > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a
>> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
>>
>
> And I think the above
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:11:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > > wrote:
>>
>> > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a
>>> failure of theoretical physics,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift
> wrote:
>
> > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a
>> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
>>
>
> And I think the above demonstrates a lack of
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift wrote:
> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a
> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
>
And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the
possibility that reality may be structured in
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXCwUsuvKo>
>
> John K Clark
>
"Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demo
Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXCwUsuvKo>
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 emai
o the indubitable.
>>
>> Now, I do think that there are no evidences for a primary physical universe.
>> And there are evidence that it does not exist: mainly that it can be proven
>> that that it is incompatible with Mechanism, for which we do have evidences,
>> like the evid
ink that there are no evidences for a primary physical
>> universe. And there are evidence that it does not exist: mainly that it can
>> be proven that that it is incompatible with Mechanism, for which we do have
>> evidences, like the evidence for evolution, molecular biology, or
> Now, I do think that there are no evidences for a primary physical universe.
> And there are evidence that it does not exist: mainly that it can be proven
> that that it is incompatible with Mechanism, for which we do have evidences,
> like the evidence for evolution
hat there are no evidences for a primary physical
> universe. And there are evidence that it does not exist: mainly that it can
> be proven that that it is incompatible with Mechanism, for which we do have
> evidences, like the evidence for evolution, molecular biology, or the
> computab
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/3/2019 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3 May 2019, at 14:06, Quentin Anciaux >>>> <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>&g
rchal wrote:
>
>
> On 3 May 2019, at 14:06, Quentin Anciaux >
> wrote:
>
> Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?
>
> But the problem of evil is not that simple.
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> But note that just the second theorem of Gödel pro
wrote:
Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?
But the problem of evil is not that simple.
Indeed.
But note that just the second theorem of Gödel provides a clue.
With provable(p) written []p
consistent(p) = ~provable(~p) = <>p
f = false, t = true
consistent = ~
> On 3 May 2019, at 20:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/3/2019 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 May 2019, at 14:06, Quentin Anciaux >> <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>
with the statement the
Fischer-Griess Monster group is important. It is important for a quantum
error correction code. Its connection to moonshine, say with the
Brunier-Kent-Ono partition theorem etc, that the monster is associated with
all realizable number theoretic computations. Quantum
لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ذَٰلِكَ الدِّينُ
الْقَيِّمُ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
So direct your face toward the law, inclining to truth. [Adhere to] the
fitrah (separation) of Allah upon which He has created separated [all]
humans. No change should there be in the creation
On 5/3/2019 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 3 May 2019, at 14:06, Quentin Anciaux <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?
But the problem of evil is not that simple.
Indeed.
But note that just the second theorem
, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a
physics class, for example.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat>
/Does all computati
On 5/3/2019 6:06 AM, John Clark wrote:
/> Remembering God through prayer, and Praising God by repeatedly
declaring that God is free from all imperfection, helps us to/[...]
The religious believe that repeatedly declaring that God is sooo big
and sooo strong and sooo super n
praise or our insults affect God in any way? Do
you even realise how great the Creator of all this must be? Do you
think God would need any appreciation from us? Rather, it is we who
need to appreciate God!
God created the entire creation and He governs it flawlessly according
to His Laws
> On 3 May 2019, at 14:06, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?
>
> But the problem of evil is not that simple.
Indeed.
But note that just the second theorem of Gödel provides a clue.
With provable(p) written []p
consistent
eat the Creator of all this must be?
After Gödel, we understand that we have no idea how the arithmetical is. It is
beyond all effective theories. It requires axiom if infinities, and an infinity
of them, to get a bit of light on it.
> Do you think God would need any appreci
ore flattery. Even ignoring the obvious logical
contradiction, if that was a person's primary motivation (as it is for
Trump for example) it would be considered very small minded, but for a
omnipotent omniscient being it's utterly ridiculous.
> > *Do you even realise how great the Creator
rote:
>>
>>
>>
>> By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics
>> class, for example.
>> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
>>
>> *Does all computation generate heat?*
>>
>> (Should be a simp
, then life
again, and then unto Him ye will return. He it is Who created for you all
that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as
seven heavens. And He is knower of all things. And when thy Lord said unto
the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy
Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?
But the problem of evil is not that simple.
Le ven. 3 mai 2019 à 12:46, smitra a écrit :
> What's the point of creating criminals and then to torture those
> criminals for eternity in hell?
>
> On 03-05-2019 04:41, S
how great the Creator of all this must be? Do you
think God would need any appreciation from us? Rather, it is we who
need to appreciate God!
God created the entire creation and He governs it flawlessly according
to His Laws. The entire creation submits to His Laws, except some
criminals
Considering how vast we have come to realise the Universe to be, do you
honestly think our praise or our insults affect God in any way? Do you even
realise how great the Creator of all this must be? Do you think God would
need any appreciation from us? Rather, it is we who need to appreciate God
> On 2 May 2019, at 13:59, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:54 AM 'Brent Meeker'
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Islam is a religion based almost entirely on threats.
>
> True, but in all fairness Christianity i
mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class,
>> for example.
>> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat>
>>
>> Does all computation generate heat?
>>
>> (Should be a simple enough question, I think.)
>
> Hmm… Not t
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:54 AM 'Brent Meeker' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> *Islam is a religion based almost entirely on threats.*
>
True, but in all fairness Christianity is also based on threats. It
preaches that faith (believing in something when there is
uffering severe, and We shall most certainly requite them
>> according to the worst of their deeds!
>> [Al-Quran 41:27, Translator: Muhammad Asad]
>>
>> Erasing data generates heat?!!!
>> Pondering over the above quoted ayat along with the ayaat that inform us
>
ayaat that inform
us that all words and deeds are being recorded, and that Allah never
does any injustice to anyone, I wonder ...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emai
!
[Al-Quran 41:27 <https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/41/27/>, Translator:
Muhammad Asad]
Erasing data generates heat?!!!
Pondering over the above quoted ayat along with the ayaat that inform us
that all words and deeds are being recorded, and that Allah never does any
injustice to anyone, I
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:30:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 May 2019, at 10:56, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics
> class, for example.
> - https://en.wikipedia.or
This is the most random affirmation that someone can make in a discussion
about consciousness. It is so random that it is useless to say that qualia
do exist. And qualia are observer-absolutes, since when I see red, I see
red. You cannot come to me and tell me that I see blue. On the other
I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a
physics class, for example.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat>
/Does all computation generate heat?/
/
/
(Should be a simple enough question, I think.)
- @philipthrift
--
Y
> On 1 May 2019, at 10:56, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class,
> for example.
> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat>
>
> Does
ipedia.org/wiki/Heat
/Does all computation generate heat?/
/
/
(Should be a simple enough question, I think.)
- @philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fro
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
>
> *Does all computation generate heat?*
>
> (Should be a simple enough question, I think.)
>
> - @philipthrift
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubsc
By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class,
for example.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
*Does all computation generate heat?*
(Should be a simple enough question, I think.)
- @philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are
Great discussion. Thanks for posting it. Much of it above my head. But I
take solace in the observation that it's above the head of the participants
as well! AG
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:30:04 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> Scott Aaronson has an interesting blog entry on quantum
sonian or Heraclitean than I thought, and more
Parmenidien and Hindouist or buddhist (some school), and I think now that
enlightenment = (Löbian => Universal).
Only the differentiation of consciousness create time, but consciousness can
live in an undifferentiated highly dissociative st
No interpretation is really physics. These are more in a way metaphysics.
They are not consistent with each other and yet they are commensurate with
quantum mechanics. This means they are auxiliary. They generally can be
lumped into two categories, those that are ψ-epistemic and those that are
t up a large-scale
> interference experiment on our own brains, or any other conscious
> entities?"
>
> I think the idea that consciousness depends on full participation in the
> arrow of time -- namely, the irreversible formation of memories -- is
> something that need t
Scott Aaronson has an interesting blog entry on quantum interpretations:
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3628
He seems somewhat conflicted over which interpretation to believe.
"Anyway, as I said, MWI is the best interpretation if we leave ourselves
out of the picture. what would
On 4/3/2015 6:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 April 2015 at 04:13, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Switzerland is a special case. Their army is structured in a weird way. All
men up
to a certain age are technically in the army and are actually obliged
On 3 April 2015 at 04:13, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Switzerland is a special case. Their army is structured in a weird way.
All men up to a certain age are technically in the army and are actually
obliged to have a weapon and keep it in their home. We are talking about
fantasising. There are undoubtedly such people in all
societies - my point is that enabling them to easily buy Uzis is probably a
bad idea if you want to avoid these rampages.
Home 3D-printed guns are at the prototype level at the moment. Both the
designs and 3D printing technology will keep
likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than
a terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston
Marathon bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting
a gun.
Because all those guns make you safer...
Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs
, all by accidentally
shooting
a gun.
Because all those guns make you safer...
Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop
people from obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this
technology will only improve from now on.
So how does every other
, 2015 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!
From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists
, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.
Because all those guns make you safer...
Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people
from obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this
technology will only improve from now
And, by the way, all the Cuban sponsored terrorism is an itellectual
product of the aggresive secularistic fanaticism incubated in the western
universities, with a marxist of post-marxist background (it is the same).
This is the fanaticism from which bot of you are victims.
There is also a great
All these movements are in the orbit of Cuba and Venezuela as well as with
ties with islamism. The basque terrorists in the 70s trained together with
the Palestinian terrorists LPO (in the valley of the Becca) and with
argelian communists.
Please be informed.
In the other side nobody says
We have here a case of selective memory. Brevik was indeed a Nazi (no surprise
there) but you do notice that all his victims were Norwegian socialists? His
motive was revenge against his fellow countrymen, not Muslims living in Norway,
which he could have easily attacked. It's impossible
wrote:
So how does every other country in the world manage to have less
guns per person than the USA? Magic?
For one thing they're poorer. The number of households with a gun
is far smaller than the number of guns.
What, all other countries are poorer than the US?
Of course
On 4/1/2015 5:48 PM, LizR wrote:
By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun lovers always say -
but anyone can get hold of one if they really want to!
I'd say ...really want to! is a big loophole in that assertion.
Unless - gasp - most people don't actually want to!
On 2 April 2015 at 13:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/1/2015 5:48 PM, LizR wrote:
By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun lovers
always say - but anyone can get hold of one if they really want to!
I'd say ...really want to! is a big loophole in that
?
For one thing they're poorer. The number of households with a gun is far
smaller
than the number of guns.
What, all other countries are poorer than the US?
Of course not. I'm just pointing out one of the factors. Some, like Switzerland, are
richer...and have a higher percentage of households
On 4/1/2015 8:30 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 April 2015 at 13:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/1/2015 5:48 PM, LizR wrote:
By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun
lovers always
say - but anyone can get hold of
, LizR wrote:
So how does every other country in the world manage to have less
guns per
person than the USA? Magic?
For one thing they're poorer. The number of households with a gun is
far
smaller than the number of guns.
What, all other countries
own manually operated
rifles or shotguns up to .303 calibre
2) Other people could own guns, but they must be kept at
a licensed shooting range at all times. Possibly a handgun may have
been allowed under those circumstances.
3) Handguns could not be owned at all, unless made inoperable by
having
?
For one thing they're poorer. The number of households with a gun
is far
smaller than the number of guns.
What, all other countries are poorer than the US?
Of course not. I'm just pointing out one of the factors. Some, like
Switzerland
the number of guns.
What, all other countries are poorer than the US?
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr
From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!
In his long rambling manifesto he spoke -- much like you do in fact Mitch
the USA? Magic?
For one thing they're poorer. The number of households with a gun is
far smaller than the number of guns.
What, all other countries are poorer than the US?
Of course not. I'm just pointing out one of the factors. Some, like
Switzerland, are richer...and have a higher
By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun lovers
always say - but anyone can get hold of one if they really want to!
Unless - gasp - most people don't actually want to! (Or can't, but that
does seem unlikely). I've never wanted one myself, nor have I known anyone
who's
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:53 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!
All these movements are in the orbit of Cuba
a
terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston
Marathon
bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.
Because all those guns make you safer...
Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people from
. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon
bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.
Because all those guns make you safer...
Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people
from obtaining them. It's already
be killed by a toddler than
a terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston
Marathon bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting
a gun.
Because all those guns make you safer...
Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop
five, all by accidentally shooting
a gun.
Because all those guns make you safer...
Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people
from obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this
technology will only improve from now on.
So how does every other
, this isn't rocket science...
In 2013, it was more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler
than a
terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston
Marathon
bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting a
gun
Regarding the subject of terrorism here is an eye opening article that
quantifies it and gives a different perspective on it than is usually presented
in the military industrial complex owned mass media.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s
I hope that isn't an April Fool!
Well, this isn't rocket science...
In 2013, it was more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a
terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon
bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting a gun
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' wrote:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html
“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” How
many times have you heard that one?
Once.
Why don’t we see
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' wrote:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all
Eh You asked me to explain my position better. If you say that you already
knew that, That is fantastic.
My answer is against the ones that think that something is better than
something other based on some simple factors. And use it to discard as
flawed the process that consider all the factors
To whom was this a reply?
Brent
On 3/19/2015 11:55 AM, LizR wrote:
As far as I know evolutionary advantage means favouring the replication of a specific
trait (or the genes underlying it) over competing traits. The simplistic reasoning of
an ignorant is the reasoning of Charles Darwin and
good or bad for what circunstances and for what unit of evolution in what
amount of time? . If I say sexual reproduction is bad, because, mitosis is
a delicate process that may fail and produce many problems. cloning is
better because it is simpler. therefore natural selection do it wrong
As far as I know evolutionary advantage means favouring the replication
of a specific trait (or the genes underlying it) over competing traits. The
simplistic reasoning of an ignorant is the reasoning of Charles Darwin
and Richard Dawkins - that evolution acts on the individual in the first
case,
that is not scientific, but something in the
tradition of the idealistic rationalism in the Hegelian sense: All that I
imagine that is rational must be real and true. This point of view is
closed to learning new knowledge and thus, anti-scientific
2015-03-19 19:55 GMT+01:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
, Mar 19, 2015 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: Looks like this isn't a spandrell after all
By the way number 2: The theory of evolution is the most biased name for
natural selection. Theory of tradition would have been a better name by far.
Since practically 100% of the traits are inherited from
of that are present in a pervasive process
extended in space and time such is natural selections is an engineer
(leftist) point of view that is not scientific, but something in the
tradition of the idealistic rationalism in the Hegelian sense: All that I
imagine that is rational must be real and true
By the way number 2: The theory of evolution is the most biased name for
natural selection. Theory of tradition would have been a better name by
far. Since practically 100% of the traits are inherited from generation to
generation
Theory of evolution is not only biased, but ideologically biased
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:08:05PM +1300, LizR wrote:
Damn it, I've often cited this as an example of unintelligent design and
now the creationists get the last laugh. Oh well that's science!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-purpose-of-our-eyes-strange-wiring-is-unveiled
The
Damn it, I've often cited this as an example of unintelligent design and
now the creationists get the last laugh. Oh well that's science!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-purpose-of-our-eyes-strange-wiring-is-unveiled
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Yeah, I wondered about noctural animals. Also, they say: This is a
long-standing puzzle, even more so since the same structure, of neurons
before light detectors, exists in all vertebrates, showing evolutionary
stability.
Which also strikes me as suspect since it could just be not worth
correcting
On 3/18/2015 5:08 PM, LizR wrote:
Damn it, I've often cited this as an example of unintelligent design and now the
creationists get the last laugh. Oh well that's science!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-purpose-of-our-eyes-strange-wiring-is-unveiled
I don't think you need to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LelNYqVEOZQ
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
On 9 November 2014 06:34, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah weird. I know what I think it is but it's too different worldview for
the same language. Not being mystical. that said harry potter is a personal
friend and I've been on platform 8 1/2
9 and 3/4 I think
I've been there too, on King's
. Science is
about putting your personal prejudices, beliefs and convictions to one side as
the topic is examined from a variety of viewpoints. You do argument all the
time because it is the only way you have ever learnt to do thinking amongst a
group of people. You see a dialectic process as a kind
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.
So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't
agree with what you wrote above.
you seek to find a logical contradiction as a
participating in the argument none
of whom ever admit that this is really what is happening. That's not
science. Science is about putting your personal prejudices, beliefs and
convictions to one side as the topic is examined from a variety of
viewpoints. You do argument all the time because
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't care to engage John anymore
No NO, anything but that!
I'm bored of this business.
Then goodby, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are
On 1 Nov 2014, at 1:22 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.
So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't
agree with what you wrote above.
you seek to find a logical contradiction as a
on the way out.
John K Clark
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 PGC multiplecit
201 - 300 of 1074 matches
Mail list logo
