Brent,
I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the
(noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'.
While the nouns (IMO) are not adequately identified the adverbs refer to
the applied system of correspondence.
E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Las Vegas has no function either.
Yes it does, Las Vegas functions to make money and give people pleasure,
the pyramids gave nobody pleasure at the time they were built except
perhaps for the Pharaoh; and they failed
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:03:33 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Las Vegas has no function either.
Yes it does, Las Vegas functions to make money and give people pleasure,
the pyramids gave nobody pleasure at
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 2:27:18 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:40 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:14:17 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM
, 11:37:36
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
?
The idea that someone considers the sum total of human thought irrelevant
What on earth? are you talking about? The scribblings of Hume and Leibniz
, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 00:40:00
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:14:17 PM UTC
.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-04, 10:28:05
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 03 Sep 2012, at 18:22, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
1) what is responsible
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Let's see, average survival of a Las Vegas hotel is what, 30 years? Then
they blow them up.
Yes, after that time a Las Vegas hotel no longer serves a function. The
Egyptian pyramids are quite different in that respect,
function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-03, 11:06:47
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
I don't hold to Popper's criterion.
There's got
, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-09-03, 11:06:47
*Subject:* Re: There is no such thing as cause
.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-04, 08:28:48
Subject: Re: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
?
In 1) you left out
causality exist in the world of the mind, not in the external world.
In a block universe where the universe is a mathematical manifold,
where time is embedded, and thus has nothing but a local meaning,
causality also has no meaning, except for the living being that go
along a line of maximum
: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
I don't hold to Popper's criterion.
There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable.
For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down.
?
Falsifiable means can be falsified. here the gravity
On 03 Sep 2012, at 21:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t
work,
it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle
down doesn't work.
I do agree with this. The leftist idea of
On 03 Sep 2012, at 18:22, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
1) what is responsible for our existence
2) so big as to be beyond nameability
Then there is a God in comp...
Is it fair to say that you substitute (= use) the G O D word in a
: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-04, 10:28:05
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 03 Sep 2012, at 18:22, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
1) what is responsible for our existence
2) so big
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-03, 15:29:14
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work,
it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle
down doesn't work
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
The idea that someone considers the sum total of human thought
irrelevant
What on earth are you talking about? The scribblings of Hume and Leibniz
were not the sum total of human thought even 300 years ago when
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-09-03, 15:29:14
*Subject:* Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t
work,
it lowers
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:37:37 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The idea that someone considers the sum total of human thought
irrelevant
What on earth are you talking about? The
First to Bruno's response to
*(R):3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimately doesn''t work,
it lowers every body's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down
doesn't work.*
**
*I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot
work for many reasons. But
On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote:
*//*
It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a *leftist attempt to
distributing richness*. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay
their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the life
of the country.
seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well.
Richard
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
First to Bruno's response to
(R):3) It's also probably why
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the life
of the country.
seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well.
Richard
OK, let us confiscate all capital and distribute it evenly to every
one. Then
Don't be silly.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the life
of the country.
seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as
On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the
life
of the country.
seem to be exporting jobs
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:14:17 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth
Hi meekerdb
I don't hold to Popper's criterion.
There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable.
For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down.
You can't turn off the gravity to falsify it, at least in that situation.
And any one-time event isn't falsifiable. Death, for
On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
I don't hold to Popper's criterion.
There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable.
For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down.
?
Falsifiable means can be falsified. here the gravity can be
falsfied: you
Bruno wrote:
*... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
1) what is responsible for our existence
2) so big as to be beyond nameability
Then there is a God in comp...*
Is it fair to say that you substitute (= use) the *G O D* word in a sense
paraphrasable (by me) into an imaginary
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things
that are not falsifiable.
Popper didn't say everything is falsifiable, he said if it's not
falsifiable then it's pointless to subject your valuable
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work,
it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle
down doesn't work.
I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many
reasons. But
On Monday, September 3, 2012 1:38:03 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough
rcl...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
I don't hold to Popper's criterion. There's got to be a lot of things
that are not falsifiable.
Popper didn't say everything is
33 matches
Mail list logo
