On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:37 PM, wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My name is Luiz Felipe, I am 38 years old, Brazilian, graduated
> in engineering and i am crazy about science and philosophy.
>
Welcome to the list Luiz.
>
> Recently, after reading and watching documentaries about general
> relativity and th
On 7/12/2013 3:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because if you agree with "I dunno which city I will see", by deducing it through an
explicit appeal to a level of mechanical substitution, you see that the digital
On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because if you agree with "I dunno which city I will see", by
deducing it through an explicit appeal to a level of mechanical
substitution, you see that the digital third person determinacy is
responsibl
On 12 Jul 2013, at 21:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The god of the materialist is Matter, and I don't believe in it. I
am agnostic. I search.
I think you do believe in matter - you often refer to your coffee,
for example. You just don't believe it is fun
On 12 Jul 2013, at 20:33, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
On 07/10/2013 11:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I use atheists in the (Google) sense of B~g. ~Bg is agnosticism (in
the mundane common sense).
Some atheists seem to oscillate between the two definitions,
opportunistically.
The issue is that
I think you're drawing unwarranted conclusions from the absence of a "flow" of time.
There is no "flow" of space, but that doesn't keep space from being a useful concept. In
GR there is still a time dimension. As Sean Carroll points out there can still be states
corresponding to consciousness
Hi,
My name is Luiz Felipe, I am 38 years old, Brazilian, graduated
in engineering and i am crazy about science and philosophy.
Recently, after reading and watching documentaries about general
relativity and the problem of consciousness, I made
a structured reflectionon on a 4 pages "paper" .
On 7/12/2013 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because if you agree with "I dunno which city I will see", by deducing it through an
explicit appeal to a level of mechanical substitution, you see that the digital third
person determinacy is responsible for indeterminate, from the first person points
On 7/11/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The god of the materialist is Matter, and I don't believe in it. I am agnostic.
I search.
I think you do believe in matter - you often refer to your coffee, for example. You just
don't believe it is fundamental. But that's a very different thing.
On 07/10/2013 11:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I use atheists in the (Google) sense of B~g. ~Bg is agnosticism (in
> the mundane common sense).
>
> Some atheists seem to oscillate between the two definitions,
> opportunistically.
The issue is that both of those require some specific 'g' to be
On 12 Jul 2013, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what
an external purely deterministic system will do,
> In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning
of its parts.
On 7/12/2013 7:03 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The sacrifice of Christ paid our deeds -once and for all- for being worth and
appreciated by other human beings. The belief on that calm our innate desire to demand
the sacrifice of the others for us and the desire to sacrifice ourseves.
I was w
On 7/12/2013 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote:
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 s
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 Jason Resch wrote:
> Perhaps this suits you better then: e^(t*i) = 1 + 0
>
As I say there is no disputing matters of taste, but for me the first time
I saw e^i*PI +1 = 0 the zero came as a complete surprise and that added
greatly to its beauty, but I would never have been
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what an
>> external purely deterministic system will do,
>>
>
> In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning of its
> parts. Yes. We might not know if the machine will
2013/7/11 Bruno Marchal
>
> 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 b
On 11 Jul 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote:
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 sho
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 7/11/2013 7:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM, meekerdb 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
18 matches
Mail list logo
