Richard, it is still possible. You need to click the [ ... ] box to
expand the text. I find the new gmail interface quite annoying myself.
Jason
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Bruno, Please excuse my bottom posting but my gmail acct prevents me from
> interleaving
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:27:24 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Apr 2013, at 00:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 13, 2013 6:47:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Apr 2013, at 21:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
With comp, matter relies on the num
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:39:06 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
> > Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than
>> the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of
>> families wou
On 15/04/2013, at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> But of course that is not the case, as comp might be false, logically.
> Indeed, it can be shown refutable, and if the evidences were that physics is
> Newtonian, I would say that comp would be quite doubtful.
Why?
--
You received this mess
On 4/14/2013 6:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/13/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
...
What knowledge do you think has come from philosophy?
You are aware that by asking this question you are already doing philosophy?
Some of my favorites:
On 14 Apr 2013, at 01:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 7:47:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even
remotely as flaky as mo
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than
> the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of
> families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by
> coincidence and confirm
On 14 Apr 2013, at 00:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 6:47:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Apr 2013, at 21:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
With comp, matter relies on the numbers law, or Turing equivalent.
Matter also relies on geometry, which comp cannot provide.
But Bruno, if comp only produces what is already known to science, how do
we know that comp is responsible? String theory has this problem
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:13, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> Could you explain by example how
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2013/9282.html
New research has questioned the reliability of neuroscience studies, saying
> that conclusions could be misleading due to small sample sizes.
> A team led by academics from the University of Bristol reviewed 48
> articles on neuroscience meta-analysis
On 13 Apr 2013, at 16:13, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Rather then just the Liege study, let us look to November, when Dr.
Sam Parnia, releases his research on the AWARE project. He has a
partial sumary of this study in his new book, Erasing Death (US) or
The Lazarus Effect (UK). Same book d
Hi Bruno,
Unless we can explain how the *some first person plural indeterminacy* obtains,
it does not give a satisfactory explanation of 'shared experience'. It
seems to me that you are right, in so far as, the necessity of such, but I
argue that that alone is insufficient. You might want somethin
On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:21, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I have tried to study the UDA but lack sufficient understanding to
see how the UDA could compute an infinite number of paths or
universes as in the diffraction example I discussed.
I will remind this in later explanations. Dovetailing is a t
On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Is 10^122 or 10^1000 large enough?
Richard
I think that 10^1000 is large enough to make the Ramanujan limited sum
(limited to 10^1000) as large as (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + ... +
10^1000).
I'm afraid that to get the -1/12, you need to go
On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:
But Bruno,
because of the measure problem, MWI must also be probabilistic,
otherwise it does not agree with experiment.
The universal wave evolves deterministically, but *we* are in the
superposed and differentiating branches, so we feel like
On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:13, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
Could you explain by example how comp could be verified.?
This is more or less planned for the FOAR list.
In a nutshell, using some image, comp says that the "big truth (about
consciousness and matter)" is in your head. With "you" =
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 7:56:35 AM UTC-4, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> One of the great mysteries of liberalism
> is the contradiction in its political stance
> concerning rich corporations.
>
> On the one hand, it rejects the attempts of conservatives
> to lower corporate taxes.
>
Liberals see
Roger,
Most corporations do not pay any taxes at all
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> One of the great mysteries of liberalism
> is the contradiction in its political stance
> concerning rich corporations.
>
> On the one hand, it rejects the attempts of conservatives
> t
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/13/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Unless we question causality itself. Which we should. This is why
> Science is not the only way to pursue knowledge and Philosophy is
> necessary.
>
>
> Causality isn't even an important concept in f
One of the great mysteries of liberalism
is the contradiction in its political stance
concerning rich corporations.
On the one hand, it rejects the attempts of conservatives
to lower corporate taxes. But on the other hand, it
will bail out rich corporations such as General Motors
to prevent their
20 matches
Mail list logo
