On 14 November 2014 12:58, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
No Liz, you don't want me to engage with what you say: you want me to
agree with it.
Or disagree politely and sensibly, showing that you have understood what
I've said and giving a clear explanation of why it's wrong.
On 13 Nov 2014, at 10:07, Samiya Illias wrote:
What is your thoughts on The Electrical Universe theory:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/
I don't see much of a theory there. Anyway, if we are machine, then
electricity must be explained from something non-physical. The book by
Stenger
Liz, never mind. I know you only mean to state what you think is correct.
If I may add a word of caution, please don't form or state opinions about God.
Perhaps, some day, you will be blessed with faith, and then regret having said
such things about God and religion which you do not
On 14 Nov 2014, at 08:46, LizR wrote:
In case anyone isn't acquainte with the library of Babel, it
contains all possible books of a particular length (I think it's
around 400 pages) which use a certain number of characters, say 30.
If we assume there are, say, 2000 characters per page, we
On 14 Nov 2014, at 00:03, John Mikes wrote:
Liz, I stopped 'trying' - I found the best one: the agnostic
belief = I dunno.
In science, we never know. It is a pseudo-religion or a pseudo-science
to believe that we know something in a scientific way. Science leads
to evolvable collection
On 14-Nov-2014, at 3:49 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 00:03, John Mikes wrote:
Liz, I stopped 'trying' - I found the best one: the agnostic belief = I
dunno.
In science, we never know. It is a pseudo-religion or a pseudo-science to
believe that
On 14 Nov 2014, at 11:18, Samiya Illias wrote:
Liz, never mind. I know you only mean to state what you think is
correct.
If I may add a word of caution, please don't form or state opinions
about God. Perhaps, some day, you will be blessed with faith, and
then regret having said such
On 14-Nov-2014, at 4:03 am, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz, I stopped 'trying' - I found the best one: the agnostic belief = I
dunno.
We don't, indeed. My belief consists of the existence (potentiality?) of vast
amount of 'knowables' we have no acces to. Maybe not even the
On 14-Nov-2014, at 4:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 11:18, Samiya Illias wrote:
Liz, never mind. I know you only mean to state what you think is correct.
If I may add a word of caution, please don't form or state opinions about
God. Perhaps, some
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information instantly
or at least so much faster than the speed of light that time delay cannot
be detected.
That is incorrect. It's true that somethings can travel
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than the
speed of light.
However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI requires the creation
of two particles
for every one particle. That doubles the energy requirement.
Considering the total number of particles created in
On 14 Nov 2014, at 12:21, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 14-Nov-2014, at 3:49 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 00:03, John Mikes wrote:
Liz, I stopped 'trying' - I found the best one: the agnostic
belief = I dunno.
In science, we never know. It is a
On 14 Nov 2014, at 13:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 14-Nov-2014, at 4:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 11:18, Samiya Illias wrote:
Liz, never mind. I know you only mean to state what you think is
correct.
If I may add a word of caution, please don't form
On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
wrote:
It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information
instantly or at least so much faster than the speed of light that
time delay cannot be detected.
That
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than the
speed of light. However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI
requires the creation of two particles for every one particle. That doubles
the energy
On 14 Nov 2014, at 17:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist
yann...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information
instantly or at least so much faster than the speed of
In other words you do not know
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:33 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than
the speed of light. However, even in single particle
I make fun of everyone equally, except for myself, who I make more fun of
than others. I don't wish to offend anyone (but I am also suspicious of
religious people who become easily offended, as thought their beliefs are
so fragile they can't stand scrutiny (even in humorous form). However I
don't
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words you do not know
That is correct, I do not know the laws of physics are in other universes,
but there is believe they have always been identical to the laws in our
home universe.
John K Clark
--
You
Correction: I should have said NO reason to believe.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:44 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
wrote:
In other words you do not know
That is correct, I do not know the laws of physics are in
On 13 November 2014 18:57, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There appears to be a discrepancy between entropy as it is ascribed to
black holes and entropy in the form of configurations of mass-energy far
from thermodynamic equilibrium. Black hole entropy appears to be a
fundamental feature of
On Friday, November 14, 2014 9:30:00 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On 13 November 2014 18:57, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
There appears to be a discrepancy between entropy as it is ascribed to
black holes and entropy in the form of configurations of mass-energy far
from
Along these lines of thought, the universe splitting or differentiation in
MWI is said to be irreversible
even though the equation of QM are time reversible. That might account for
the arrow of time.
Of course wave collapse is also irreversible and is similar to MWI to that
extent.
On Fri, Nov
On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:10:09 PM UTC, Peter Sas wrote:
Does anybody know this paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X
And is it any good?
IMHO it's two time bollocks
even if this was a legitimate solution for universe from nothing or
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +1300, LizR wrote:
In case anyone isn't acquainte with the library of Babel, it contains all
possible books of a particular length (I think it's around 400 pages) which
use a certain number of characters, say 30. If we assume there are, say,
2000 characters
On Friday, November 14, 2014 8:44:46 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
In other words you do not know
That is correct, I do not know the laws of physics are in other
universes, but there is believe they
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than the
speed of light. However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI
requires the creation
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than
the
speed of
On Friday, November 14, 2014 6:55:09 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 17:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
It has been proven that entangled BECs
On 11/14/2014 1:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
On 13 November 2014 18:57, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
There appears to be a discrepancy between entropy as it is ascribed
to black holes and entropy in the form of
configurations of mass-energy far from
On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:16:58 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 14, 2014 6:55:09 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 17:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 07:55:04PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Thinking on this, I begin to see more clearly the MW picture of
the singlet state. The explanation is not that obvious.
Let me proceed by giving an argument which seems to imply that even
in the many-world, there is a remnant
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
But QM equations are time reversible, The differentiation of the universe
is not
Your point being?
--
Prof Russell Standish Phone
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
But QM equations are time reversible, The differentiation of the universe
is not
Your point being?
Differentiation may not be unitary
--
On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than
the
On Friday, November 7, 2014 2:53:28 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 11/6/2014 5:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 7 November 2014 12:32, Bruce Kellett bhke...@optusnet.com.au
javascript:
mailto:bhke...@optusnet.com.au javascript: wrote:
I have not seen your arguments for
On 15 November 2014 11:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
But QM equations are time reversible,
True, or so I've been told. I believe the Wheeler-deWitt equation doesn't
include time at all.
The differentiation of the universe is not
It is in principle, otherwise we would
On 11/14/2014 6:12 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 November 2014 11:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:
But QM equations are time reversible,
True, or so I've been told. I believe the Wheeler-deWitt equation doesn't include time
at all.
The differentiation
On 15 November 2014 11:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/14/2014 1:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
On 13 November 2014 18:57, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There appears to be a discrepancy between entropy as it is ascribed
to black holes and entropy in the form of
On 15 November 2014 11:09, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +1300, LizR wrote:
In case anyone isn't acquainte with the library of Babel, it contains all
possible books of a particular length (I think it's around 400 pages)
which
use a
On 11/14/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 November 2014 11:09, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +1300, LizR wrote:
In case anyone isn't acquainte with the library of Babel, it contains all
possible books
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 13:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 14-Nov-2014, at 4:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 11:18, Samiya Illias wrote:
Liz, never mind. I know you only mean to state what
If the knowledge is unseen and unverifiable, but also not subject to
scientific refutation, how can one evaluate it?
--
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
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 11:04 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If the knowledge is unseen and unverifiable, but also not subject to
scientific refutation, how can one evaluate it?
Evaluate what it says of the seen and verifiable (natural phenomenon) for
factual accuracy, till you're sure
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-kYtkG8INML8/VGb5Cu0WdhI/B-M/v1flmzdgt1E/s1600/miracle.gif
I've read it and considered it and I think it's bollocks... though there
are some interesting ideas in there, e.g. that in information-theoretic
terms nothingness can be described as an
On 11/14/2014 4:33 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 14-Nov-2014, at 4:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 11:18, Samiya Illias wrote:
Liz, never mind. I know you only mean to state what you think is correct.
If I may add a word of
On 15-Nov-2014, at 12:02 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/14/2014 4:33 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 14-Nov-2014, at 4:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 11:18, Samiya Illias wrote:
Liz, never mind. I know you only mean to state what you
Hi Russell, thanks for your answer... I will definitely give your book a
closer reading in the near future, if I can get my poor philosopher's head
to understand the mathematics :)
I hope you don't mind answering some questions in advance. You wrote:
Exactly. The source of the symmetry
On 15 November 2014 16:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And since the books are limited to 400 pages the catalogue must consist of
different volumes, one for each book catalogued.
Yes, Russell got that right (and Borges got it wrong). But I think the idea
is that each book is unique,
Organised religion in its entirety is a veiled threat.
--
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
50 matches
Mail list logo
