Is anyone familiar with this, at
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ ?
It's a collaborative effort to develop and organize
philosophical theories in a kind of organic, constantly
improving structure.
While reading the archives of this list, I've been blown
away by how much good material there is in there
Alastair Malcolm wrote:
Christopher,
I have found your recent posts to everything-list very interesting, and the
ideas presented overlap to a degree with my own, but there is one question
that I have, if I may, which I mention below.
From: Christopher Maloney [EMAIL PROTECTED
This reply is a little stale, but here goes anyway:
Marchal wrote:
George Levy wrote:
In a message dated 99-06-30 11:20:07 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Precisely: Maudlin and me have proved that:
NOT compORNOT sup-phys
i.e. computationalism and
Alastair Malcolm wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Higgo James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As for flying rabbits, one appeared on my ceiling as I was reading your
post, but as it was only there for 10E-43 seconds, I did not notice it.
The
odds against it remaining there for two
Jerry Clark wrote:
Such 'Life' evolution raises an interesting question: These SAS's would ...
Sooner or later a physicists would hear about
this new development and the realisation would be made that their universe
*is* a Life simulation.
Would it? This is a questions I've thought
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You all seem to assign to measure a soul-like quality as if measure had any
value, as if it is good to maximize measure, as if measure has an
objective, and absolute existence.. like the Ether.
I believe that in fact, the probability of observing an event LINKED
Higgo James wrote:
Well said, but I'm not sure your definition of 'I' holds. There are
infinitely many 'Chris Maloneys' born in a hospital of the same name of
parents of the same name... etc etc etc who are in no way connected with
you. Besides, these identifiers are all social naming
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just want to be more explicit in my characterization of the guardian
angels, the fatalisitic slobs and the narcissistic gods.
George,
I don't know how you justify dividing the ETs into such neat
categories, based on the MWI and the feasability of QS. That is
Hi all -- it's been a long time since I've participated in this group.
I've been lurking for a few days, and am very pleased with the quality
of the posts that I've read! It's good to see that this discussion
continues!
Some comments below.
Tim May wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 03:40
9 matches
Mail list logo
