Materialism is the philosophy that chaos
is prevented in the universe without
overall governance.
Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/9/2013
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
On Thursday, April 4, 2013 12:55:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
There are, of course, undiscovered scientific facts. If scientists did not
believe that they would give up science. But Craig is not
If any particle were truly identical to another, then they could not decay
at different rates. While we see this as random (aka spontaneous to our
eyes), there is nothing to say that the duration of the life of the
particle is not influenced by intentional dispositions. Particles may
represent
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:13 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that I believe you do not distinguish:
A) Science the method of inquiry
from
B) Science the human institution
And I am saying
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
Nature/Science have no magical powers to verify if experiments were
performed correctly.
Like anything else they are not perfect and are subject to error from time
to time, but I can't think of any other human
On 05 Apr 2013, at 11:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/4/2013 3:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jason Resch
jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Telmo Menezes
On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Weinberg said the following:
Ok, here's my modified version of Fig 11
On 05 Apr 2013, at 21:39, John Mikes wrote:
I think I side with Craig: NDE is not N enough, is not D because
the 'observer' (gossiper?) came back and not E - rather a
compendium
of hearsay (s)he stored previously about D-like phenomena.
When a (human or other) complexity dissolves (=
On 05 Apr 2013, at 16:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 9:41:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Apr 2013, at 00:07, Craig Weinberg wrote (to Jason)
There are algorithms for implementing anything that does not
involve infinities.
Why do you think so? What algorithm
On 06 Apr 2013, at 01:51, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You already are aware of the relevant aspects of your brain
function, and aware of them in a way which is a million times more
detailed than any fMRI could ever be.
No, you bet on them. You are not aware of your brain, in any direct
way.
On 05 Apr 2013, at 16:30, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 05 Apr 2013, at 00:07, Craig Weinberg wrote (to Jason)
There are algorithms for implementing anything that does not
involve infinities.
Why do you think so? What
On 06 Apr 2013, at 06:38, Richard Ruquist wrote:
There is no hell
Ah?
In which theory? You derive this from CY?
In which theology? What is your definition of hell?
Bruno
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2013
On Monday, April 8, 2013 5:38:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Weinberg said the following:
Ok, here's my
On 08.04.2013 11:38 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Weinberg said the following:
Ok, here's my modified version of Fig 11
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:44 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
Nature/Science have no magical powers to verify if experiments were
performed correctly.
Like anything else they are not perfect and are
It is hard to answer this question precisely, because the large,
radioactive nuclei are very complex structures, for which exact solutions of
Schroedinger's equation cannot be obtained. Rather these things are
usually studied via Hartree-Fock approximations.
However, in loose visual terms, you
On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 7:54:27 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
It is hard to answer this question precisely, because the large,
radioactive nuclei are very complex structures, for which exact solutions
of
Schroedinger's equation cannot be obtained. Rather these things are
usually
Colin's Wackier Version:
Because the space they operate in, at the scale in which the decay operates,
there are far more dimensions than 3. They decay deterministically in 3D and
it appears, to us, to be random because of the collapse of the spatial
dimensions to 3, where we humble observers
Actually, this idea is not as wacky as you're suggesting. Laurent Nottale
suggested something like this with his Fractal Spacetime theory,
essentially explaining standard QM geometrically as a projection from a higher
dimension Hausdorf space (fractal dimension).
His ideas haven't gained
On 4/9/2013 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.04.2013 11:38 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Weinberg said the
20 matches
Mail list logo
