From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:54 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 02-Jul-2014, at 7:44 am, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
2014-07-02 3:30 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
On 2 July 2014 11:09, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
SMad will likely not work with say, an Iranian guv mint, but it worked ok
with the Sovs. You fear a Pyrrhic victory, I fear capitulation.
Yes,
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
*From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:54 PM
*To:*
On 2 July 2014 17:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
Interesting. How is the energy required to erase a single bit
reducible to statistical
On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:42 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
OK, so how does that work? Like I said, I don't understand it.
Intuitively, saying that A causes B and B causes A doesn't appear to
On 2 Jul 2014, at 12:46 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent:
I don't think that's true. I think differently than I did as a child. As a
child one experiences many more things as new, fresh, surprising.
Liz:
OK, so you disagree with Kim (or my reading of Kim) on that. You're on
Hi all,
I would like to know what people here make of this...
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality
Cheers
Telmo.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion
overarches and encompasses
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:52 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 July 2014 23:05, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how the university can stop the student union from banning
things if they want to,
I
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:46 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Samiya: I don't argue with you (like PGC) I ask a question going
back further than this entire discussion:
you wrote:
*I could say that
Who knows? Perhaps the De Broglie-Bohm enthousiast can get some further
insights from this experiments allowing them to e.g. predict subtle
patterns in interference phenomena that shouldn't be there acording to
orthodox quantum mechanics.
De Broglie-Bohm theory looks to me a bit like the old
It seems to me that double-slit/single-photon experiments
illustrate the approach to quantum equilibrium in great detail.
Richard
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:22 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Who knows? Perhaps the De Broglie-Bohm enthousiast can get some further
insights from this experiments
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following two
statements must be true:
1) If ET exists then ET is a christian.
2) Bruno Marchal is
2014-07-02 17:08 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following two
statements must be true:
On 2 July 2014 01:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Well, I was trying to be short, hence to put it simply. Would you
take issue with the preceding statement that The point, again in
principle at least, is that nothing *above* the level of the basic
ontology need be taken into account
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 2:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:42 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Why in hell do we keep talking about ancient ignoramuses like Plotinus
and the worst physicist who ever lived, Aristotle?
Likewise why mention Galileo or Newton or Maxwell, when they've been
shown to be wrong?
Because unlike
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
*From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 02, 2014 2:00 AM
*To:*
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably
fail to believe that it does. I don't have proof that there is no
teapot orbiting Jupiter, but that doesn't make me epitemologically
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following
two statements must be true:
1) If ET exists then ET is a christian.
2) Bruno
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jun 2014, at 07:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 04:43, John
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
From:everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On
On 01 Jul 2014, at 19:56, John Clark wrote:
omnipotence is self-contradictory.
I know, but a little thing like being self-contradictory would never
stop a good theologian.
Lol. Good humor.
Or we have a big vocabulary problem.
Let me make something clear. By a good theologian, I mean
On 01 Jul 2014, at 22:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In a way, all of fundamental physics posits information theoretic
entities. Particles are nothing more than what satisfies
particle equations. Bruno complains about Aristotle and
primitive matter,
2014-07-02 19:23 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of christianism.
Therefore I repeat what I said before, at least one of the following
two statements must
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm all for sun and wind, but the storage and transmission issue may be a
lot harder to solve in the short term than building LFTRs.
I agree.
And even building LFTRs will probably take ten years for development.
In
You make statements where the difference between science and theology is a
matter of degree:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
You are being a purist.
We all begin with the assumption that an external reality
On 7/2/2014 5:07 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 2 Jul 2014, at 12:46 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
Brent:
I don't think that's true. I think differently than I did as a child. As
a child
one experiences many more things as new, fresh, surprising.
Liz:
On 2 July 2014 18:17, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-02 3:30 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
On 2 July 2014 11:09, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
SMad will likely not work with say, an Iranian guv mint, but it worked
ok with the
Original Message
Interesting video clip, and there's some nice music at the end by the Amygdaloids (nice
pun there!)
17 minutes.
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/01/the_truth_about_free_will_new_answers_to_humanitys_biggest_riddle_partner/
Bill
--
You received this message
On 7/2/2014 8:51 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 2 July 2014 01:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Well, I was trying to be short, hence to put it simply. Would you
take issue with the preceding statement that The point, again in
principle at least, is that nothing *above* the level of the
On 7/2/2014 9:46 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Brent has said things sounding like doesn't matter, whatever works who cares how and
why, to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all ethical/theological
consideration from scientific inquiry.
If you think I said science should
On 3 Jul 2014, at 5:09 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A brain simply hosts a self, best generalised as a mind. This might be the
same as soul, but I'm not really into the supernatural, only a vastly
expanded reality.
Based on assertions about your feelings?
Brent
Yes.
On 7/2/2014 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The classical theory of knowledge, already present in ancien epistemology is the modal
KT theory, or KT4.
K is [](A - B) - ([]A - []B). It is equivalent with ([]A [](A - B)) - []B. It is
a belief in the modus ponens rule.
T is the important thing:
On 7/2/2014 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably fail to believe
that it does. I don't have proof that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter, but
We may need to use nuclear power but there are sensible and stupid ways to
do it, and maybe it's time to try the first of these.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/271-38/24557-nuclear-radiation-releases-continue-in-new-mexico
On 3 July 2014 05:56, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 July 2014 05:56, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm all for sun and wind, but the storage and transmission issue may be
a lot harder to solve in the short term than building LFTRs.
I agree.
And even
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
You make statements where the difference between science and theology is a
matter of
On 2 July 2014 22:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Since the primary truth of what I
see is simply what I see (i.e. it is incorrigible) it can't be subject
to Gettier's paradox. I can't be right about what I see for the wrong
reasons because what I see is constitutively true.
But is
Of course you are happy, but this is more likely that you want the US to be
essentially neutralized. To this point, do you have an example for which you
approve of the US using military force, and lets us leave out WW2. This will be
more telling then mere argument. Name a couple.
US CIA
Yeah, we all deal with the oceans rising because, hey, its a much, bigger,
problem, and then avoid the knock out punch from outside the US. Nice advice,
thanks. Though nowadays, even BHO doesn't like the results of his policies.
You'd better be lecturing him instead of myself.
Of course you
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:16 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
--
*From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:27 AM
Just by historical experience it is better do die on your feet, merely,
because, it seems to afford a greater chance at survival. This reminds me of
the novel Catch-22, by Joseph Heller, where Yossarian's friend has a dialogue
with the Spirit of Ancient Rome, where he states, It is better to
In all these discussions we often simply complex issues, because hey, its a
mailing list. So let me add two other components. One is the ability to degrade
incoming mass attacks (MIRV'd warheads) with missiles, and or, rail guns, and
or lasers. The US developed this missile tech around 1960'
From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: American Intelligence
Yeah, we all deal with the oceans rising because, hey, its a much, bigger,
They're definitely trying to go for a Pertwee vibe, which is fine by me
(Pert is my 4th favourite Doctor from classic Who)
On 2 July 2014 11:17, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
What about the newest guy? Reminds me of Jon Pertwee, minus the fluff
On 3 July 2014 04:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
That is no excuse! The technology at the time was good enough to
demonstrate that a heavy rock does not fall faster than a slightly lighter
rock, and Aristotle was supposed to be a master of logic and should have
realized from pure
On 3 July 2014 05:51, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No I see that Bruno's point is valid if atheism is equated with
physicalism and the negation of the Abrahamic god (as he does here)... But
it is a narrow view... most atheist would agree that they are agnostic on
first cause and
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:27 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
--
*From:* spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 2, 2014
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
come from?
The standard measure on the reals is based on the
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals.
On 3 July 2014 02:17, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I wonder how you bully someone politely :)
I would think you politely ask them to stop what they're doing, in the
process calling attention to them. Assuming they're in a corner of a
college bar or something with other people
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this
Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish
55 matches
Mail list logo
