On 23 Jul 2014, at 01:05, LizR wrote:
On 22 July 2014 23:19, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jul 2014, at 11:14, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I agree that it does not make any sense.
But complain to David Deusch who introduced the multiverse within
the universe.
We now have two
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There should be an Everett style multiverse embedded in the string
landscape universe.
Perhaps but that's not the only way it could happen, string theory could be
wrong and Everett still be right. Everett pointed out that
David,
As I try to see if we disagree, or if it is just a problem of
vocabulary, I will make comment which might, or not be like I am
nitpicking, and that *might* be the case, and then I apologize.
On 23 Jul 2014, at 15:38, David Nyman wrote:
Recent discussions, mainly with Brent and
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
I don't think the ability to say I know (or believe) I am awake has
anything to do with intelligence.
If so then it MUST be a byproduct of intelligence because otherwise it
would not have evolved, and yet it did at
The funny thing about this is that Sean says it has increased my own personal credence in
the correctness of the Everett approach to quantum mechanics from “pretty high” to
“extremely high indeed.”
Yet his penultimate paragraph is essentially a statement of Fuchs Qbism:
We like this
This may clarify (or provoke) discussion of Moscow vs. Washington. It's interesting that
Carroll and Sebens use FPI and Sean says it increases his confidence in Everett's MWI.
But in his penultimate paragraph he essentially lays out an endorsement of Fuchs QBism,
which is generally seen as
On 24 July 2014 18:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This may clarify (or provoke) discussion of Moscow vs. Washington. It's
interesting that Carroll and Sebens use FPI and Sean says it increases his
confidence in Everett's MWI. But in his penultimate paragraph he
essentially lays out
I did read Hoffstader years ago. An organ is not totally alike a social insect
colony. The electrons are moved at upper Newtonian, rather then via neurons,
saavy? You don't have your liver trailing down the street after you.
Why does that make it a poor analogy? Is there something essential
On 7/24/2014 11:09 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 July 2014 18:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This may clarify (or provoke) discussion of Moscow vs. Washington. It's
interesting
that Carroll and Sebens use FPI and Sean says it increases his
HI Jesse, David,
On 23 Jul 2014, at 18:49, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Had some trouble following your post (in part because I don't know
all the acronyms), but are you talking about the basic problem of
deciding which computations a particular physical process can be
said to implement or
On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/23/2014 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Intelligence is more simple. It is, I think the natural state of
the virgin universal machine.
What's a UTM with no program?
A Gift of God.
It is a universal machine virgin of any program. A computer
On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/23/2014 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/22/2014 12:08 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 Jul 2014, at 2:55 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
What part of your brain is more evolved than a
On 23 Jul 2014, at 21:59, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 July 2014 18:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You miss, and perhaps David's too (?), the fact that above a
threshold of relative complexity, the lower level is not relevant
for the description of the higher level. It would be
On 7/24/2014 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/23/2014 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/22/2014 12:08 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 Jul 2014, at 2:55 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On 25 July 2014 02:38, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There should be an Everett style multiverse embedded in the string
landscape universe.
Perhaps but that's not the only way it could happen, string theory could
be
Cultural determism is incompatible with natural selection. That was
plainly demonstrated by Symons in his book The evolution of human
sexuality ,but it is common sense among evolutionists of any kind.
Suppose that human culture determines human behaviour. Then suppose a
mutant that use culture
On 25 July 2014 10:21, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Cultural determism is incompatible with natural selection.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is cultural determinism? (Or what would it
be, if there was such a thing?)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Oh, OK, WIkipedia! (oops!)
*Cultural determinism* is the belief that the culture in which we are
raised determines who we are at emotional and behavioral levels. This
supports the theory that environmental influences dominate who we are
instead of biologically inherited traits.
That sounds a bit
Too much time lost with people that make his imaginary victimization
the justification for anything. I attract no girls? that´s because
religion. Am I mean and not very intelligent? Tha´ts because
capitalism. Do I have a ugly looking face? That is because the Church.
And too much diversity
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
And too much diversity syrup makes me vomit
Seems you choose to do much of your vomiting on this list; is there some reason
you feel so compelled to share your vomit?
--
You received this message because you
And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by 'cultural selection' - which
is natural.
Brent
On 7/24/2014 3:42 PM, LizR wrote:
Oh, OK, WIkipedia! (oops!)
*Cultural determinism*is the belief that the culture in which we are raised determines
who we are at emotional and
On 25 July 2014 11:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by 'cultural
selection' - which is natural.
What is 'cultural selection' ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: Atheist
On 25 July 2014 11:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by
On 25 July 2014 12:48, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
--
*From:* LizR lizj...@gmail.com
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:49 PM
*Subject:* Re: Atheist
On 25 July 2014
On 7/24/2014 4:49 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 July 2014 11:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by 'cultural
selection' -
which is natural.
What is 'cultural selection' ?
I think there are two
On 25 July 2014 13:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/24/2014 4:49 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 July 2014 11:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by 'cultural
selection' - which is natural.
What is 'cultural
26 matches
Mail list logo