On 10 Jul 2013, at 21:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Now the converse, where atheism is taken to mean rejection of all
gods, rather than one, is not meaningless.
You keep using the term rejection. If by rejection you mean
failure to credence that's OK. But
On 10 Jul 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
UDA shows why and we have to extract physics from that (making comp
testable), and how we can do that using the mathematical machine's
theology.
You're really saying we have to extract physics from
On 10 Jul 2013, at 23:05, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I do not exactly agree. since religion is a natural inclination, and
atheists have no organized religion
It depends on which atheist sect you talk about. It is an hard subject
because those sect are secret. I know them as I leave them,
I quote myself:
But the religious instinct in the primitive sense is not about love and
compassion, but the contrary it is about fanaticism and exclusion of these
that are not in agreement.
This is incomplete: the fanaticism and the exclusion is there for well
stablished game theoretical
On 11 Jul 2013, at 14:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I quote myself:
But the religious instinct in the primitive sense is not about love
and compassion, but the contrary it is about fanaticism and
exclusion of these that are not in agreement.
I might believe the contrary. What you say
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have
realized
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential
equations
I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence.
It seems odd that now you're the one complaining that the word God is too
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.com wrote:
This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions,
Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII
characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile
REAL philosophers
On 7/10/2013 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why does atheist put so much energy in defending all the time the roman christian God.
Because they know what they don't believe, yet other people want them to believe in
*something* called God and those people keep adjusting and expanding and
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If we call that new number tau (t). Then Euler's identity becomes:
e^(t * i) = 1
There is no disputing matters of taste but I think the original
equation is more beautiful because it shows a relationship between 5 of the
most
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
I see computationalism as a form of magic.
The only difference is that one works and the other doesn't. Extispicy
(using animal entrails to predict the future) makes use of magic and it
doesn't work at all; Newton used computation to
On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some
familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure on relative
computational continuations, and the logic explains already the
On 7/10/2013 11:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
The same logical that says bad things happen because all things happen also promises all
good things happen as well. As life gains greater control over its environment, the
proportion of good things to bad things will only increase.
I suppose it
On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
atheism is different in America
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
The same logical that says bad things happen because all things happen
also promises all good things happen as well. As life gains greater
control over its environment, the
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If we call that new number tau (t). Then Euler's identity becomes:
e^(t * i) = 1
There is no disputing matters of taste but I think the original
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to see all the constants at once there is an easy
correction: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0
Then it has the additive identity but not the multiplicative identity
and I still prefer Euler's original.
What is the
On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:28, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial
differential equations
I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence.
It seems odd that now you're the
On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:50, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.com wrote:
This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions,
Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence
of ASCII characters should have is what passes for
On 11 Jul 2013, at 17:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why does atheist put so much energy in defending all the time the
roman christian God.
Because they know what they don't believe, yet other people want
them to believe in *something* called God and
1 is in the modified version I provided: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0
Unless you were reading that as e^(t*i) + (-1) = 0
Also, if the more important numbers that can be included, the more
beautiful you find the equation, we can also throw in 2, arguably the next
most important number: e^(2*t*i) - 1 = 0,
On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it
relies on some familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a measure
on relative computational
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then,
in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a equation
describes the future behavior of that thing.
God would be more like the one
On 11 Jul 2013, at 19:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 7/10/2013 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jul 2013, at 20:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of
ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days.
Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more than one
type of
On 7/11/2013 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2013, at 18:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have given the equation. I try to explain this on FOAR but it relies on some
familiarity in logic.
Normally you should know already that physics is given by a
On 7/11/2013 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is no problem with faith.
There is problems only with *bad faith*, whose symptoms are the insults and the
arguments by violence or per authority.
Are you not aware of the couple who has had two children die of easily treated infections
On 7/11/2013 1:07 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence
of ASCII
characters should have is what passes for philosophy these
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
1 is in the modified version I provided: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0
I only see a -1. 1* X is always equal to X but -1*X is never equal to X
unless X=0.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:23 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
1 is in the modified version I provided: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0
I only see a -1. 1* X is always equal to X but -1*X is never equal to X
unless X=0.
On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:07, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a
sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for
philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers
On 11 Jul 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well
then, in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a
equation describes the future behavior
32 matches
Mail list logo
