Re: Russell's book + UD*/strings

Le 26-sept.-06, à 16:03, Russell Standish a écrit : I would say also that interpretations could be inconsistent, ? ? ? I guess you are using the word interpretation in some non standard way. It would help us, and you, if you could work on a glossary. but perhaps there is not much

Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

Marc. (to your remark to Bruno: I don't like string theory either, consider it a sweated out reductionist sci-fi which has been worked through by excellent mathematicians so far that by now it looks like the panacea for high science. This is an opinion, I did not study Str-Th to understand

Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

Le 29-sept.-06, à 02:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :[+ comment to John below] Smolin's loop quantum gravity is the physics of the soul which has not yet fallen (!). String theory, or better the string theories landscape (as described by Smolin himself) would describe ... the gate of

Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test

Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: The problem is that cells are defined and understood only through being observed with our phenomenal consciousness. Not only. Cognition and instrumentation are needed too. Yes. But the instruments are observed. All

Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test

[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] COL Yes. Causal chains, no matter how improbable, executed at the tiniest of scales the same ones that make LUCY our literal ancestor. connect us. LZ It depends what you , mean by connect. I am

Re: Russell's book + UD*/strings

On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:46:20AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-sept.-06, à 16:03, Russell Standish a écrit : I would say also that interpretations could be inconsistent, ? ? ? I guess you are using the word interpretation in some non standard way. It would help us, and

Re: The Fourth Hypostase, String Theory, Diophantus and the Monster

Le 27-sept.-06, ࠲0:41, Tom Caylor a 飲it : I've thought of bringing up the Monster group here before, but I didn't think anyone here would be that weird, since I even get weird reactions to my ideas about the Riemann zeta function. I've noticed the connection with the number 26 also. (By

Hypostasis

I assume by hypostase, you mean the word hypostasis, the plural of which is hypostases. My concise Oxford dictionary defines hypostasis as underlying substance, as opposed to attributes which are unsubstantial. Are you claiming a system of logic (eg G or S4Grz1) is a substance? And if so, what