On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/21/2011 9:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/21/2011 6:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
When you aren't thinking about what your mother looks like, she
On 9/21/2011 11:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/21/2011 9:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 9/22/2011 1:18 AM, Roger Granet wrote:
Everyone,
Hi. My comments on all of today's comments :) happy on this
thread are below:
o In regard to Jon's below comment:
Pearce later concludes that if, in all, there is 0, i.e no (net)
properties whatsoever, then there just isn't
On 9/22/2011 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/21/2011 11:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/22/2011 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
[SPK]
Sure, let us consider this similarity to Leibniz' per-established
harmony idea. Could you sketch your thoughts on the similarity that you
see? I have my own
On 21 Sep 2011, at 23:26, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:08 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Sep 2011, at 04:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I include comparison as a function of counting.
Counting + the full first order logic is not enough for comparison.
Counting + second
On 21 Sep 2011, at 12:41, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 01:14:04PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Exactly why are there not a continuum of OMs? It seems to me if
we parametrize the cardinality of distinct OMs to *all possible*
partitionings of the tangent spaces of
On 21 Sep 2011, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2011 9:20 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
The Mandelbrot set has a definition which we can use to explore
it's properties. Would you say the set was non-existent before
Mandelbrot found it? If we have to define something for it to
exist, then
On 22 Sep 2011, at 08:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2011 11:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 9/21/2011 9:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 9/21/2011
On 9/22/2011 10:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think what Bruno calls the 323 principle is questionable.
Can I deduce from this that UDA1-7 is understood. This shows already that either the
universe is little or physics is (already) a branch of computer science (even if there
is a physical
On 9/22/2011 11:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/22/2011 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
[SPK]
Sure, let us consider this similarity to Leibniz'
per-established harmony
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/22/2011 11:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/22/2011 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
[SPK]
Sure, let us consider this
12 matches
Mail list logo
