On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called A
Universe From
Nothing. That the universe came from nothing is suggested by calculations
of the total
energy of the universe. Theories of the origin of the
Hi,
I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a
quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the
same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics.
Onward!
Stephen
On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 25, 2:05 am,
On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a
quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce
the same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics.
I think I agree. I comment Craig below.
Hi Brent,
On 1/25/2012 2:05 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/24/2012 8:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Brent,
On 1/24/2012 9:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi John,
1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model
that attempts to weave
John Mikes wrote:
1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang,
Well, we have excellent empirical evidence that the observable universe is
expanding, and a straightforward extrapolation into the past indicates that
13.75 billion years ago everything we can see was concentrated at just one
point.
Dear Bruno,
I still think that we can synchronize our ideas!
On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a
quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't
On 1/25/2012 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble over the math.
We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the same slide into sophistry that has
happened in physics.
On 23.01.2012 01:26 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:16:23PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.01.2012 05:59 Russell Standish said the following:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:03:41PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
and since information is measured by order,
On 24.01.2012 13:49 Craig Weinberg said the following:
If you are instead saying that they are inversely proportional then
I would agree in general - information can be considered negentropy.
Sorry, I thought you were saying that they are directly proportional
measures (Brent and Evgenii seem
On 24.01.2012 22:56 meekerdb said the following:
In thinking about how to answer this I came across an excellent paper
by Roman Frigg and Charlotte Werndl
http://www.romanfrigg.org/writings/EntropyGuide.pdf which explicates
the relation more comprehensively than I could and which also gives
On 1/25/2012 11:47 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.01.2012 01:26 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:16:23PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.01.2012 05:59 Russell Standish said the following:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:03:41PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
On 1/25/2012 11:01 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I still think that we can synchronize our ideas!
On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble over
On Jan 25, 1:10 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree too. That is why it is clearer to put *all* our assumptions on
the table. Physical theories of the origin, making it appearing from
physical nothingness, makes sense only in, usually mathematical,
theories of nothingness. It
On 1/25/2012 7:41 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/25/2012 4:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Sounds like the sophistry you accuse physcists of. While
'everything' may be as uninformative a 'nothing', they seem pretty
distinct to me.
Exactly how is this distinction made? Is it merely semantics for
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net Wrote:
A constant that Einstein himself called the greatest mistake of
his life. The problem is that one can add an arbitrary number of such
scalar field terms to one's field
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
My chasing you with an ax would be no different than colon cancer or
heart disease chasing you. You would not project criminality on the cancer
Yes exactly, I want any cancer in my body to die and I want the guy
chasing me with
As I continue to ponder the UDA, I keep coming back to a niggling
doubt that an arithmetical ontology can ever really give a
satisfactory explanation of qualia. It seems to me that imputing
qualia to calculations (indeed consciousness at all, thought that may
be the same thing) adds something that
Hi John,
On 1/25/2012 11:57 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net
Wrote:
A constant that Einstein himself called the
18 matches
Mail list logo
