On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:26 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following statements is
true?
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0
the 10^(10^(10^100))th
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Jan 2015, at 13:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Rex,
Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been thinking
about, along these lines (I believe).
It is interesting that there are a number of models
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:21 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
John Clark wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it entirely
with evolutionary usefulness - does that change anything?
I think it might. For example, suppose we all
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:49 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
the man who invented the condom transcend Darwinism.
I disagree. We are all still all the product of Darwinist processes. We
are all at
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following statements
is true?
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following statements is
true?
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal
Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
John Clark wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs
about the mathematical nature of the universe.
The purpose of brains is to
Hi John,
I just have a simple question then. Do you know you're conscious?
Cheers!
Telmo.
Brent, Telmo and all others 'consciousness' anchored members:
It is an easy cop-out to say the c term is too complicated to be
identified.
If we want to use it we better knowWHAT we wnt to use. My
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
John Clark wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:
jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following
statements is
On 20 Jan 2015, at 23:19, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I use God in the sense of the platonist, who introduced the field
of inquiry theology.
Not that it matters much what some guy who lived 2500 years ago
thought but Plato didn't
On 21 Jan 2015, at 01:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ex(x+x=4) just means there is number
OK.
as defined by Peano's axioms that provably satisfies the expression.
Not at all. That means that PA believes Ex(x+x=4).
?? But you use []p to equally mean
On 20 Jan 2015, at 18:18, David Nyman wrote:
On 20 January 2015 at 17:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
At this point, I'm somewhat persuaded that this broader sense of
truth, in approximately Descartes' sense, is in fact highly
relevant to what is special and, so to speak,
On 20 Jan 2015, at 16:28, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
We need not transcend Darwinism. Darwin doesn't explain the entire
universe, but much of it rather successfully, perhaps as Lee Smolin
indicates, stars, galaxies, black holes, etc as well? My interest
and guess is that QI,
On 21 Jan 2015, at 01:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2015 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The only problem with using god for definition of god (large or
small) is that it's circular. You repeatedly write things like
above, My belief in God is trivial. All machine introspecting are
On 22 Jan 2015, at 6:07 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2015 10:09 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
But the laws surely are not random. Laws cannot be random. Look, the
universe is a setup job. Either we are simulated and the limitation to our
minds is intentional or we are
On 20 Jan 2015, at 13:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Rex,
Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been
thinking about, along these lines (I believe).
It is interesting that there are a number of models of reality that
are prima facie as plausible as any other but are more
On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken
to it's logical conclusion, supports a Kantian division of reality
into
On 20 Jan 2015, at 21:43, Kim Jones wrote:
On 20 Jan 2015, at 11:43 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we
are not what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal
because time itself is a dream.
On 22 Jan 2015, at 00:53, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2015 at 06:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Jan 2015, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With the definition you gave in a preceding post, and with which I
agree, everyone believe in some
2015-01-22 16:37 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 19:46, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In the end... if you cannot doubt god because of the way you define it...
then not only you're not atheist (seems obvious)... but you're not agnostic
either, you're what is called a
On 22 January 2015 at 08:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Because with sufficiently big infinity in both mind and matter, you can a
priori singularize the experience and the body in a way such that
duplication is no more possible, and there is no more FPI, and we can use
the old
On 22 Jan 2015, at 02:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you believe that one and only one of the following statements is
true?
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0
the
On 21 Jan 2015, at 21:56, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
In the end... if you cannot doubt god because of the way you
define it... then not only you're not atheist (seems obvious).. but
you're not agnostic either, you're what is called a
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So one of them is true, but can you (or anyone in this universe) prove:
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0 ?
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 1 ?
the
On 1/22/2015 3:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
My main thought was to
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:28 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So one of them is true, but can you (or anyone in this universe) prove:
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0 ?
On 1/22/2015 4:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it
entirely with
On 1/22/2015 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
False beliefs are detrimental to survival. E.g. if a society believed that winter would
not come again, they might not store food away for those harder times. If another
society didn't believe in GR, they wouldn't have been able to make GPS satellites
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 3:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 19:46, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In the end... if you cannot doubt god because of the way you define
it... then not only you're not atheist (seems obvious)... but you're
not agnostic either, you're what is called a believer...
No problem with this. Actually, it is because
On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it entirely
with evolutionary
On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015
On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely
On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48
On 1/22/2015 7:45 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-01-22 16:37 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 19:46, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In the end... if you cannot doubt god because of the way you define it...
then not
only you're not
On 1/22/2015 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In 1910, Henri Ford already asked why to use non renewable oil and not renewable hemp?
And the answer was that it was a lot cheaper to use oil from the ground.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 1/22/2015 8:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 02:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following
On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it entirely
with
evolutionary usefulness - does that change anything?
I think it might. For
On 1/22/2015 1:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 3:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 23 Jan 2015, at 4:06 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 06:06, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't
mean that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If
the pi proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi
can be shown outside the
On 22 Jan 2015, at 07:48, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John Clark wrote:
On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following
statements is true?
the 10^(10^(10^100))th
On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of truth and replace it
entirely with evolutionary usefulness - does that change anything?
I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same
On 22 Jan 2015, at 05:58, Rex Allen wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true
beliefs about the mathematical nature of the universe.
But Gödel + Church + Kleene + Post + Turing +
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:12 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
wrote:
We know that the overwhelmingly vast majority of muslims do not turn
psychotic in the face of cartoons.
And we know that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who turn
psychotic in the face of cartoons are
Tronnies may explain the need for π’s precission.
Coulomb’s Law requires that all charged particles be point particles or made
from point particles. Tronnies are point particles with a charge of plus e or
minus e. Their charge of e means the tronnies are the source of the Coulomb
force
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:48 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Do you believe that *one and only one* of the following
statements is true?
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 1
On 1/22/2015 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to it's logical
conclusion,
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote
Do we know that? Do we know that such a digit exists?
It follows from the axioms that there is a certain definite digit.
They show you how to generate terms in a sequence and if you add up enough
of them you'd get the
On 1/22/2015 9:44 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 4:06 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2015 6:57
53 matches
Mail list logo
