On May 7, 5:10 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 1:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 4:28 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> >> On 5/7/2012 1:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
> >>> You mean the indivisible uni
On 7 May 2012 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
> Do you want to explain - and I'm well aware that 'revolves around' is
> relative to coordinate frames. But you know that Bellarme was not equating
> relativism of orbital motion with relativism about the virgin birth.
The Cardinal stated ""To assert that t
On 5/7/2012 2:11 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 7 May 2012 20:37, meekerdb wrote:
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous
as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
The Cardinal was perfectly correct in this assertion, of course.
David
Do you want to explain -
On 5/7/2012 2:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 3:44 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdbwrote:
The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't issue
contradictory statements.
You have to have logic to b
On 7 May 2012 20:37, meekerdb wrote:
> "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous
> as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
The Cardinal was perfectly correct in this assertion, of course.
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Go
On 5/7/2012 1:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 4:28 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/7/2012 1:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdbwrote:
so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
You mean the indivisible unity of the three quark proton?
Craig
First, nobody cares if you
On May 7, 3:44 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdb wrote:
>
> >> The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't
> >> issue
> >> contradictory statements.
> > You have to have logic to begin with to conceive
On May 7, 4:28 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 1:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> >> so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
> > You mean the indivisible unity of the three quark proton?
> > Craig
>
> First, nobody cares if you believe it, even if you're
On 5/7/2012 1:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdb wrote:
so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
You mean the indivisible unity of the three quark proton?
Craig
First, nobody cares if you believe it, even if you're a physics graduate student. Second,
it's just a mode
On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
You mean the indivisible unity of the three quark proton?
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-li
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > It's like saying that that apes didn't evolve as hominids did,
> > therefore apes are inherently an evolutionary dead end. Logic and
> > scholasticism are what science is made of. The ideas of empirical
> > test
On 5/7/2012 12:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 20:11 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdb wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Des
Or maybe it's global warming which might make the Earth uninhabitable. Of course in a
sense that's an engineering success, not failure.
There have 2053 nuclear bombs exploded. I'm not sure how many were above ground; about
200 U.S. and probably an equal number of Soviet.
Brent
On 5/7/2012 1
On 07 May 2012, at 15:42, Pierz wrote:
The question, "Why is there anything at all?" used to do my head in
when I was a kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head-
exploding moment sometimes thinking about it. Russell's answer to me
remains the most satisfying, even though in a sense
On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum
mechanics.
Perverse it may be but it's not my business to judge what
On 5/7/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdb wrote:
The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't issue
contradictory statements.
You have to have logic to begin with to conceive of the desirability
of avoiding contradiction. Something has
On 5/7/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's like saying that that apes didn't evolve as hominids did,
therefore apes are inherently an evolutionary dead end. Logic and
scholasticism are what science is made of. The ideas of empirical
testing and skeptical observation are direct outgrowths of
On 07.05.2012 20:11 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdb wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were f
On 07.05.2012 20:01 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 10:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
It must have had its causes, but I note that it coincided with the
reformation and the fragmentation of the Church's power. Science
developed most in England where Henry VIII had divorced the Chur
John,
On the subject of engineering blunders, here is the most catastrophic
engineering blunder humanity has ever faced. It could make North America
uninhabitable.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/fukushima-fuel-pool-is-urgent-national-security-issue-for-america-top-threat-facing-humanity?utm_source=Kurz
On May 7, 1:42 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>>I'm not an engineer.
>
> > >> I know, that's part of the problem.
>
> > > I think it's part of the solution. As the saying goes, if all you have
> > is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>
> It's far eas
On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum
mechanics.
Perverse it may be but it's not my business to judge what quantum mechanics
does in private when nob
On May 7, 1:25 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> The 'laws' of logic are just the rules of language that ensure we don't issue
> contradictory statements.
You have to have logic to begin with to conceive of the desirability
of avoiding contradiction. Something has to put the 'contra' into our
'diction'.
T
On May 7, 2:01 pm, meekerdb wrote:
>
> Logic, grammar, mathematics were developed for a long time before science.
> They are
> necessary for science, but what marks science as a distinct intellectual
> enterprise is
> skeptical observation and empirical testing. The scholastics inbred study of
On May 7, 1:45 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 8:40 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Of course musical criticism is political. A negative review from a
> > prominent critic is supposed to have consequences for the career of
> > the musician. Same for restaurant critics, film critics, etc. Part of
On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdb wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were
dominated by theo
On 5/7/2012 10:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.05.2012 22:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 10:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.05.2012 23:34 meekerdb said the following:
...
I would agree with that. Rome fell for other, more material reasons. But
its fall created a power vac
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum
> mechanics.
>
Perverse it may be but it's not my business to judge what quantum mechanics
does in private when nobody is looking, that's up to quantum mechanics and
the
On 5/7/2012 8:40 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Of course musical criticism is political. A negative review from a
prominent critic is supposed to have consequences for the career of
the musician. Same for restaurant critics, film critics, etc. Part of
being a successful critic is being courted by tho
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdb wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were
dominated by theology.
All of them were still theological thi
On 5/7/2012 8:30 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The combination of MWI and string physics may suggest a reason why quantum physics must
exist and it has to do with the string landscape plus the acceptance on your part of
some of the (outrageous) claims of string theory. I say that the most outrageou
On Sun, May 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>I'm not an engineer.
>>>
>>
>>
> >> I know, that's part of the problem.
>>
>
> > I think it's part of the solution. As the saying goes, if all you have
> is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>
It's far easier to get a reputation as a good philo
On 06.05.2012 22:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 10:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.05.2012 23:34 meekerdb said the following:
...
I would agree with that. Rome fell for other, more material reasons. But
its fall created a power vacuum which was filled by organized
Christianit
On 5/7/2012 6:42 AM, Pierz wrote:
The question, "Why is there anything at all?" used to do my head in when I was
a kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head-exploding moment sometimes thinking
about it. Russell's answer to me remains the most satisfying, even though in a sense it
is a n
On May 7, 9:42 am, Pierz wrote:
> Krauss's argument may satisfy the cosmologist's desire to see the cause of
> the universe reduced to something extremely simple, but it does not satisfy
> the wondering child or philosopher who is thunderstruck by the strangeness of
> there being any existence
On May 6, 10:17 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdb wrote:
>
> >> Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
> >> Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were dominated by
> >> theology.
> > All of them were still th
The combination of MWI and string physics may suggest a reason why quantum
physics must exist and it has to do with the string landscape plus the
acceptance on your part of some of the (outrageous) claims of string
theory. I say that the most outrageous claim of string theory is that the
compactifi
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Pierz wrote:
>
>
> The question in my mind as a wondering child was never 'How did the
> nothing that must have come before the universe produce the universe?' It
> was my mind chasing the chain of causation of things and realizing that,
> whatever that chain look
The question, "Why is there anything at all?" used to do my head in when I was
a kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head-exploding moment sometimes
thinking about it. Russell's answer to me remains the most satisfying, even
though in a sense it is a non-answer, a simple ackowledgement t
Therefore, we should envision the state of "nothing" co-existing with the
>> possibility of "something" existing, which is rather bizarre.
>>
>>
>> Does Nothingness exist? Can Nothingness non-exist? At what point are
>> we playing games with words and at what point are we being meaningful?
>>
>
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Stephen,
> - If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a property,
> then "nothing" cannot have any limitations, including the limitation of
> generating "something". Therefore, "something" may come from "nothing".
>
>
41 matches
Mail list logo
