Hi George:
That is something along the lines of what I was looking for. One problem
with my current effort is the length of time for me to become sufficiently
familiar with alternate threads as I called them to be able to fairly
represent them in a FAQ .
My suggestion is that we cooperate as
Dear Juergen:
In reply:
>>Where does all the randomness come from?
>>
>>Many physicists would be content with a statistical theory of everything
>>(TOE) based on simple probabilistic physical laws allowing for stochastic
>>predictions such as "We do not know where this particular electron will
>
Hi George,
I make the foolish promise to give you my
proof. Here is Leibniz semantics for modal
logic. It is a preamble.
Don't hesitate to tell me if it is too difficult
or too easy, or too technical ...
I suppose you know a little bit of classical logic.
If you don't, just tell me. As a matter o
The following post was returned to me I'll try to send it again
Marchal wrote:
>
> But perhaps there is something more I should ask you before. You said
> in response to some post of me, in some preceeding dialog:
> <<>>
>
> Well, I know you are not stuck in third person (like Schmidhub
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 09:39:10PM -0500, Jacques Mallah wrote:
> First, it's nice to see that you accept my resolution of the "paradox".
> But I have a hard time believing that your point was, in fact, the
> above. You brought forth an attack on anthropic reasoning, calling it
> parado
Where does all the randomness come from?
Many physicists would be content with a statistical theory of everything
(TOE) based on simple probabilistic physical laws allowing for stochastic
predictions such as "We do not know where this particular electron will
be in the next nanosecond, but with p
6 matches
Mail list logo
