Re: Rudy Giuliani's law license has been suspended

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 4:36 PM wrote: *> Who did the best with unemployment in cold hard reality? I suspect over > the last several decades it went like this *[...] You don't need to "suspect", you don't need to hear anecdotes from your dentist's nephew's friend, you can look up the cold hard

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:01 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> > What is your assumption that the conservation of angular momentum will >> continue to hold throughout the night based on?* > > > > Largely on symmetry. But the only way you know something is symmetrical is by making measurements, but

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 3:12:31 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > > On 6/27/2021 5:00 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > I am talking about properties of objects - atoms, ducks, worlds.. > > > But the regularities of nature are in the theories. The explain how a > duck flies, but they don't explain why

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:35:32 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > > Why should you think that symmetry requires maintenance? Unless you take a > medieval religious view and hold that God is necessary in order to hold the > universe in order -- to hold the heavens in place. I think Galileo and >

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:10 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:35:32 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > >> >> Why should you think that symmetry requires maintenance? Unless you take >> a medieval religious view and hold that God is necessary in order to hold >> the universe in order

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:24 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> As the universe expands, galaxies and so on vanish over our Hubble > horizon. We can never communicate with them again, but that does not mean > that they cease to exist * I agree, but that is the very reason some people reject Everett's

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:54 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:30:43 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > >> >> Why should we ever be led to consider the set of all logically possible >> worlds? >> > > Because why does this particular world exist instead of some other? > It would seem

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 4:36:47 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > > On 6/26/2021 9:15 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 7:43 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > > *> While the anthropic principle might be used to explain why the laws >> have been stable in the past (because this stability

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 2:24:08 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:54 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > > And what is the difference between a possible world that exists and a >> possible world that doesn't, anyway? What does it mean "to exist"? I see no >> difference between

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 7:36:38 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:20 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > >> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 1:54:29 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: >> >>> >>> How do you know that? Or is it just an arbitrary assumption? If it is >>> just an assumption, your initial

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 11:51 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 2:34 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:35 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:11 AM Tomas Pales >>> wrote: >>> On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 1:01:14 AM UTC+2 Bruce

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 11:59 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 2:30 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:30 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:06 AM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> I don't fear it suddenly changing, but it's valid to

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

The de Sitter vacuum is not eternally stable. In fact the disagreement between the Hubble parameter of expansion may point to the prospect the vacuum is a phantom energy vacuum and the observable universe is heading towards a big rip in a few trillion years. The dS vacuum may be even less

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 7:24 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:54 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > >> On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:30:43 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: >> >>> >>> Why should we ever be led to consider the set of all logically possible >>> worlds? >>> >> >> Because why does this

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:13 AM Jason Resch wrote: >>And there is no reason to suppose that such worlds exist. >> > > *> There is: how do quantum computers work unless the wave function, and > all its superpositional states, are "really real"?* > Forget Quantum Computers, I can't even

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 12:10 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 6/27/2021 6:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 8:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/27/2021

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:30:43 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > > Why should we ever be led to consider the set of all logically possible > worlds? > Because why does this particular world exist instead of some other? And what is the difference between a possible world that exists and a possible

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/28/2021 3:29 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 11:53:29 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: On 6/28/2021 4:54 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: Because why does this particular world exist instead of some other? And what is the difference between a possible world that exists

Re: Rudy Giuliani's law license has been suspended

On 6/28/2021 4:31 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: The GDP was much smaller even in proportion to the popular size. Plus, there is no taking account of the decline in GDP from 1929-1933. I don't care aboutrepublican or democrat, I just care about results. Then why do you vote for

Re: Rudy Giuliani's law license has been suspended

My point is that from a contemporary, a depression starting from the Oct 29 Stock Market Crash until June 1930 when Smoot Hawley became law, and the economic picture collapsed into the Great Depression, there was a enormous decline in both jobs and economic growth.  It like falling into a vast

Re: Rudy Giuliani's law license has been suspended

Let's look at inflation in 6 months and see what the public thinks of Joe's policies, like with inflation? We had very low unemployment after Obama and during Donny, before the Plague. My observation is once said by a economics professor of mine who stated, "People vote with their feet." So,

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/28/2021 8:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 12:10 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 6/27/2021 6:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 8:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 11:53:29 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > > On 6/28/2021 4:54 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > Because why does this particular world exist instead of some other? And > what is the difference between a possible world that exists and a possible > world that doesn't, anyway? What

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 1:13 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 7:24 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> >> There is no well-defined theory of eternal inflation, so other worlds >> from this source are purely speculative. >> > > Inflation, in its simplest and most general forms is eternal.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/28/2021 3:33 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:02:04 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: Are you saying it would entail a logical contradiction for a unicorn to exist on this planet?  I don't think "logical possibility" means what you think it means. It would be a

Re: Rudy Giuliani's law license has been suspended

The GDP was much smaller even in proportion to the popular size. Plus, there is no taking account of the decline in GDP from 1929-1933. I don't care about republican or democrat, I just care about results. Going from begging to full employment was not a masterstroke of the New Deal, John, but

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:55:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > Just like it would be a contradiction if natural laws were unstable where > they are stable. > Sure, that would be a contradiction. > Ain't it wonderful what you can prove with logic. > I just proved some trivial stuff. --

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/28/2021 9:27 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:13 AM Jason Resch > wrote: >>And there is no reason to suppose that such worlds exist. /> There is: how do quantum computers work unless the wave function, and all its

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:02:04 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > Are you saying it would entail a logical contradiction for a unicorn to > exist on this planet? I don't think "logical possibility" means what you > think it means. > It would be a contradiction if a unicorn existed where it

Re: Rudy Giuliani's law license has been suspended

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 7:32 PM wrote: *> I am saying what your statistic reflects is millions or men in the > military, plus million working in wartime factories.* > And what I am saying is that however you try to explain it away the fact remains that under FDR the economy grew at an

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/28/2021 4:54 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:30:43 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: Why should we ever be led to consider the set of all logically possible worlds? Because why does this particular world exist instead of some other? And what is the difference

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/28/2021 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: There is no well-defined theory of eternal inflation, so other worlds from this source are purely speculative. Inflation, in its simplest and most general forms is eternal. You need to work to make a version that's not eternal. Eternal

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:12 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 4:36:47 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > >> On 6/26/2021 9:15 AM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 7:43 AM Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> *> While the anthropic principle

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:16 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 6/28/2021 9:27 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:13 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > >>And there is no reason to suppose that such worlds exist. >>> >> >> *> There is:

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 6/28/2021 6:45 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 2:24:08 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:54 PM Tomas Pales wrote: And what is the difference between a possible world that exists and a possible world that doesn't, anyway? What does

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:48 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 11:51 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 2:34 PM Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:35 PM Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:11 AM Tomas Pales wrote: