Re: To observe is to......EC

Le 10-nov.-06, à 05:53, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon really hard to relate to. I thought you were referring to Alonzo Church's original book on lambda

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Brent Meeker writes: This cannot be explained away by faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of simultaneously believing x and not-x. Seems like

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Johnathan Corgan writes: That's because for hundreds, if not thousands, of years their theologians have had to explain why their God is invisible, unnoticable, incompehensible, and undetectable. So a null experimental outcome, like the recent studies of the efficacy of healing

Re: To observe is to......EC

Le 10-nov.-06, ࠰5:53, Colin Geoffrey Hales a 飲it : The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon really hard to relate to. I thought you were referring to Alonzo Church's original book on lambda

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 00:30 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm Great article! I initially thought that it was written by some poor, honest Christian genuinely struggling with the logical consequences of his beliefs. But then such a person

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: This cannot be explained away by faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Peter Jones writes: Most people would not say yes doctor to a process that recorded their brain on a tape a left it in a filing cabinet. Yet, that is all you can get out of the timeless world of Plato's heaven (programme vs process). Why? Plato's heaven is full of

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you