Hi John,
On 21 Feb 2010, at 22:11, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
interesting exchange with Stephen.
I have a sideline-question:
why do you 'refer-to' and repeatedly invoke into your ways of your
advanced thinking the NAME (I did not say: concept) of GOD, a
noumenon so many times and many
On 22 February 2010 07:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
What do you mean by implicit here? What is implicit is that the
subjectivity (1-p), to make sense, has to be referentially correct
relatively to the most probable histories/consistent extensions.
What I mean by implicit is
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:48:28 -0800
From: jackmal...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: problem of size '10
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
--- On Fri, 2/12/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Jack Mallah wrote:
--- On Thu, 2/11/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
MGA is more
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:48:28 -0800
From: jackmal...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: problem of size '10
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
--- On Fri, 2/12/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Jack Mallah wrote:
--- On Thu, 2/11/10, Bruno Marchal
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:42:17 -0800
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: problem of size '10
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:48:28 -0800
From: jackmal...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: problem of size '10
To:
Jesse, how do you access the everything list? I ask because I have not
recieved my own posts in my inbox, nor have others such as Bruno replied. I
use yahoo email. I may need to use a different method to prevent my posts from
getting lost. They do seem to show up on Google groups though.
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:42:17 -0800
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: problem of size '10
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:48:28 -0800
From: jackmal...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: problem of size '10
As long thought, consciousness is only a small part of what the brain
does - maybe even only a small part of "thinking".
Brent
Original Message
The
Brain's Dark Energy ( Preview )
Brain
regions active when our minds wander may hold a key to understanding
neurological
On Feb 22, 8:12 pm, rmiller rmil...@legis.com wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 11:38 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds
Certainly
Bruno, thanks for the 'vocal' approval of my (logical) position.
I could not think of more satisfaction.
John M
On 2/22/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 21 Feb 2010, at 22:11, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
interesting exchange with Stephen.
I have a sideline-question:
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:41:38 -0800
From: jackmal...@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: problem of size '10
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Jesse, how do you access the everything list? I ask because I have not
recieved my own posts in my inbox, nor have others such as Bruno replied. I
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Charles
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 2:20 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds
On Feb 22, 8:12 pm, rmiller rmil...@legis.com wrote:
From:
On Feb 23, 6:08 pm, rmiller rmil...@legis.com wrote:
Huw Price suggests that our view of causality is strongly influenced
by the way we're embedded / oriented in space-time. He points out in
Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point that the laws of physics are
almost entirely time-symmetric, with
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:50 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 February 2010 23:25, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
So we know 1-p directly, while we only infer the existence of 3-p.
However, you seem to start from the assumption that 1-p is in the
weaker subordinate
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:42:54 -0800
Subject: Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds
From: charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Feb 23, 6:08 pm, rmiller rmil...@legis.com wrote:
If we accept what the laws of physics appear to say,
that nature is for the
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Charles
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 11:43 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds
Good point, but among the many fates there is always the
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:07 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com
wrote:
The only rationale for adducing the additional
existence of any 1-p experience in a 3-p world is the raw fact that we
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:50 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 February 2010 23:25, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
So we know 1-p directly, while we only infer the existence of 3-p.
However, you seem to start from the assumption that 1-p is in
On Feb 23, 7:13 pm, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Having read the book a while ago, my memory is that Price offered this idea
as a conceptual argument for how one *might* explain things using the EPR
experiment, but I don't think he ever would have said that this idea makes
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:07 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com
wrote:
The only rationale for adducing the additional
existence of any 1-p experience in a 3-p
On Feb 23, 7:57 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Retro causation solves the EPR problem (i.e. provides a local
explanation of the correlations without hidden variables). See Vic
Stenger's book Timeless Quantum in which he uses this kind of
explanation to good effect. The
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:42:54 -0800
Subject: Re: Many-worlds vs. Many-Minds
From: charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Feb 23, 6:08 pm, rmiller rmil...@legis.com wrote:
If we accept what the laws of physics appear to say,
that
Charles wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:57 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Retro causation solves the EPR problem (i.e. provides a local
explanation of the correlations without hidden variables). See Vic
Stenger's book Timeless Quantum in which he uses this kind of
explanation to good
23 matches
Mail list logo
