: No, it's a reason to get rid of scriptures and pay attention to people
and the world.
John M
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:44 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
If this John is me:
to keep my reply short
promises to help
and guide those who WILL faith and submit to God's guidance.
Samiya
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:12 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Samiya:
I was learning about Communism (30s and 50s) and I disliked it because of
unjust cruelty against certain people. (Rakosi, Stalin, Mao
Russell,
I spent more time on this 'Rod' text than on any other in a long while. It
was intriguing that his Bostrom origins etc. were close to my intro-years
(80-01)
in the digit field. I worked 'intuitively' (in a different domain: in
polymers) and was 'creative' - not by *random* invocation,
Samiya:
I was learning about Communism (30s and 50s) and I disliked it because of
unjust cruelty against certain people. (Rakosi, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.)
I was learning about Nazism (40s) and I dislliked it because of unjust
cruelty against certain people. (Hitler, Skin-Heads, Szalasi, etc.)
I
This discussion-post approaches some better reality-case than most of the
others. Reminds me of the Worldview of my wife: we are here by decree of
some ZOOKEEPER as long as 'they' want something we provide (for them).
We do not know them, don't communicate with them. When our 'usefulness' is
So, Bruno, what is that 'illusion-maker'
John M
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jun 2015, at 04:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/1/2015 6:31 PM, LizR wrote:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness
He doesn't actually say that
Samiya, let me be rude, for an exchange:
do you really think (and believe!) that you are a trustable advocate os
God's will and wisdom?
You never even justified your God's existence and activity (plans?) except
for some threats against not believeing what you said. And I repeat:
WHAT YOU SAID
(knowable, or not)
as (my) *response to relations*.
Everybody may feel free to identify *a* consciousness according to
her taste and write accordingly. Including me.
I do not claim a Nobel for my ideas, thank you.
John Mikes
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote
it MY theology.
Scope of 'physical law'?
Looking back some millennia: it is a constantly changing view.
Respectfully
John Mikes
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 31 May 2015, at 04:13, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2015M, Bruno Marchal marc
LizR:
I find it funny if so many thinking minds on this list (and around the
world?) take your
*...You are simply assuming the truth of what you have so far failed to
demonstrate. *
seriously, YET the list continues in this endless self-assured worldview
debate - some times even including views
haphazardous formulation - I could have done better.
John Mikes
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 3:07 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
OOPS. I meant ...randomly means NOT in accordance...
On 5/22/2015 11:15 PM, meekerdb wrote:
And note that in this context randomly means in accordance
many of us can be really trusted with
something so precious and so permanent?
Samiya
On 23-May-2015, at 4:44 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Samiya,
so far I kept out from the 'opposition' and tried to comply within my own
agnosticism.
Now I get tired of all that fairitale
WAtch out, Liz! you are getting close to ask about PRIME NUMBERS, what
may mean a totally different trap!
John M
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:33 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies obviously you did mean finite.
This is very interesting although probably too much for my brain at the
Samiya,
so far I kept out from the 'opposition' and tried to comply within my own
agnosticism.
Now I get tired of all that fairitale-discussion and ask some questions.
LizR asked:
*'Does God give any suggestions as to what we should do? *
I start earlier:* Does God give any suggestions why we
JohnC: WHATEVER YOU CALL R E A L .
JM
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:38 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
Thanks, Colin.
I just wonder why scientific observer? Your parenthetic Observer (
i.e. consciousness, IMO a respondent to relations) has nothing to do with
(our) 'science' based on today's levels of knwoledge.
I appreciate your excempting 'ourselves' (the human observer) from a TOE.
Cheers
John
johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
How come we observe physical laws exempt from random occurrences?
That's easy if the physical laws are statistical. For example a law might
say that under circumstance X outcome Y will happen 80
Colin: wouldn't it fit to call TOE - Theory of Everything WE KNOW
ABOUT? or: Everything in our reach?
I mentioned my agnostic views.
Greetings
John Mikes
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
[image: ]
Perhaps better
All posited (so far) scientific
and
procedures explaining 'chaotic' unknowables of the past?
Regards
John Mikes
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 May 2015, at 03:20, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2015 at 12:01, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM
it 'random', 'chaos', or 'nondeterministic
change' etc. etc.
In many cases we cannot predict what will happen, because our insight is
limited. 'Free will' is a good cop-out, the gods can even punish the
'willer'.
Regards
John Mikes
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Russell Standish li
know how to think about larger cosmic volumes and timeframes.
Regards
John Mikes
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe satellites and weather stations give a lot of samples
dilemmata we may call
free will cases.
Respectfully
John Mikes
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 05:16:43PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Indeterminacy means
leave for them.
Have nice pipe-dreams
John Mikes
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 08:41, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 3:51 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke
LizR:
My 1st impact to the 'global warming' fable' (1960-80) was:
My termperature-records are incomplete about the years 30 million
(billion???) years ago so I cannot formulate an objective opinion. Later on
changed position, because of human industrial
activities contributing to technological
to
get the degree. I may call it adjustment, not necessarily a cave-in.
I still hold you in high esteem. Thanks for your post, I did not give up
yet.
John Mikes
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Colin Hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:21 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
rectangular one) - and continue
to build similars onto every 'point' of the newly established systems as
well.
That would point to the general number theory and it's new branches.
Any lead to such?
John Mikes
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/5/2015 1:26 PM
Quadratic, or not there are two things about voting:
1. The 'pre-WWII' Hungarian system (I am far from suggesting Hungary as a
good political pattern) with 2 lists per party: one of the districts and
one latent national for the leading names in the party.
EVERY VOTE COUNTS: if somebody gets
In our dreams, where we can span those million years of space travel it
would need to reach those stars. Even with super-speed vessels. UNLESS one
is willing to hybernate and automatically been awoken THERE to see what one
really does not want to see. THEN? the same way back and when YOU(!) arrive
the Scripts.
So --- PEACE!
John Mikes
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-05-01 21:32 GMT+02:00 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Dear Samiya,
Bruno may be a 'believer' - even if not entirely formally - but your
question is funny (in my views
Dear Samiya,
Bruno may be a 'believer' - even if not entirely formally - but your
question is funny (in my views):
* Bruno, what is your concept of God? ... *
Accepting a 'God' concept in your (Quran extracted?) terms, such a concept
of the infinite (some call it Supernatural) Creator,
Brent:
I think you mix up emerges with depends on.
A procedure *emerges* from its origination, yet (may) DE*PEND* on
equipment, energy (fuel?) - and a lot of (matterly) happenstance.
The types of consciousness you people talk about indeed DEPEND on the
mattery propagators as well as indicators we
How many people die for the conventional energy production? I would not
believe the statistical figments. Are e.g. all those people included who
died from diseases upon pollution from burning? Can anybody predict what
kind of (Fukushima-type) disasters may occur in the foreseeable future and
their
Evgeniy, I, for one, like your approach on the Hoffmann-Prokosh idea.
In my terms (Ccness = REPLY (reflection?) to RELATIONS definitely points to
the Berkeley wisdom (to accept as existing one must perceive the item, in
concise Latin: *ESSE* (to include into our worldview) *est PERCIPI*.
.
Nor anybody else.
Randomly yours (no random qgnosticism, however)
John Mikes
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:02 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 Apr 2015, at 08:37, meekerdb wrote:
2+2=1 in mod 3 arithmetic. If you change the game you change what can be
proven. You can't keep the old
Stathis:
I am an idealist enough (and an agnostic) to confess to lots and lots of so
far undetected functions (maybe even components -- outside our 'material'
--concept) that contribute to the functioning of a human 'brain'(?) as
developed into by now. Scanning goes for known items, composing is
together, definitely not restricted to the numberical
terms. It may be also to add an animal, or plant to an environment. Real,
or fake.
Since the early 90s I participated on more than a dozen discussion lists,
this one has exciting and lesser exciting posts and posters.
Best regards
John Mikes
On 19 Apr 2015, at 05:13, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 5:57 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
pls. tellme: what should we call 'information'?
Information is a measure of surprise, and it turns out that surprise is not
continuous but comes in lumps. And we understand
my conclusions from that mini-spot we 'live' in.
Thanks for your remarks
John Mikes
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 6:10 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
--
*From:* John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
*To:* everything-list
:06 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 11:57 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo, pls. tellme:
what should we call 'information'?
I agree with John Clark's definition. If you ask for a definition of
surprise, I think that can be formalized too
Who said that our present 'civilization'(?) is a FIRST one? We did not
dicover (leading) precursors, true, but such negative is no positive.
In our scientifically based views our civilization evolved from scratch.
How did e.g. the insect societies evolve? Did termites etc. have the
technology to
Telmo, pls. tellme:
what should we call 'information'? if Brent takes a picture, is it - O N E
- info only, or as many as re composed to be included in his picture? That
would be zillions, depending how you count them.
We are nowhere in identifying the terms we use in communication.
JM
On Sat,
Liz: UK, or Sweden?
Not only have they the different tempers - (Italians would 'react'
differently) but try to be a pauper in Britain, or Sweden yourself and
'love' the system. (English story:
Girly asks - 'Mummy, why is that gentleman lying on the curb?' Mummy: '
Honey, do not get involved in
: do Shiates 'read' the same Quran as Sunnis?
*
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
John, please see my answers below your questions.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:08 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Samiya, please allow me one (two?) little
the line of potential
profets 1500 years ago, only 5 centuries after the previous one, when
humanity MAY live for additional millennia(??) before the final judgement?)
Apologies
John Mikes
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
John wrote: 'Scriptures (all
Liz:
passed on - do you mean survives AS IS? I think whatever is added
incubates into the complexity of the new creature into fitting, not 'as
was' in the mother.
And- I think mitochondria IS a cell within the larger one in symbiotic
life. Chris is most likely right: FROM THE MOTHER only. And it
Apologies: MITOCHONDRIUM - I S - and mitochondria -are. JM
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:14 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz:
passed on - do you mean survives AS IS? I think whatever is added
incubates into the complexity of the new creature into fitting
6, 2015 at 12:11 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
*Brent:*
*your line *
*Communism is not a terrible idea - it works fine for families. *
*i*s a cop-out. The discussion is not about some closely related
peoples' lives, it is about a worldwide socio-economic political system -
and you
than me.
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 4:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/4/2015 6:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi John
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
TELMO:
I did not expect from you to point to the 2 centuries old obsolete and
theoretical
the owners (HA-HA)
Thanks for your thoughts
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
Hi John
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
TELMO:
I did not expect from you to point to the 2 centuries old obsolete and
theoretical exercise
TELMO:
I did not expect from you to point to the 2 centuries old obsolete and
theoretical exercise of Marx-Engels (irrespective of Lenin's intermitted
LATER speculations) as blueprint for a (still?) viable(?) political
system. It never got further than a tyranny of 'leftish-sounding' slogans
by
And how many were massacred by the evil regime of Hirohito in China and the
POW-camps (both genders)? (not to mention his war against the USA in the
Pacific).
The war in VietNam is an ignorance of our historians: Kennedy wanted to
punish any 'commis' in general and ignorantly attacked the
Liz, do not forget that the 'lower' flat ~10% means 1000 times the wealth
of the average family,
the lately surpassed ~20% *2000 times of the AVERAGE possession of US
FAMILIES*.
(Example: a specialty worker with ~$50.000 pay owns a house and chattel -
say $60-70.000
total value and a retirement
Friends,
you ALL are bugged down into 2nd rate argumentation. Russell had the only
straight thought in his 2nd post so far (But his ideas come from Down
Under...).
We are in a fatal struggle facing every advancement (??) we made (and I
speak in the name of the so called 'western civilisation')
it is not nothing.
I need to go further to identify what I cannot identify.
JM
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 28 Mar 2015, at 22:32, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
is an* EMPTY SET *indeed nothingness? Does it not include the * S E T *
recognizing
In one of Samiya's posts there was a remark on women - in the afterlife,
not here -
eliminating the gender differences after death. Here their tasks are family
concerned while over there (???) they participate in the bliss of Heaven
just as do Earthly males. I did not plunge deeply into the
Bruno:
is an* EMPTY SET *indeed nothingness? Does it not include the * S E T *
recognizing that it is EMPTY? nothingness may be the CONTENT of the empty
set.
Just as a singularity, which has borders to end, measures, characteristics
etc.?
Nothingness as empty set should be infinite and include
Brent and Bruno:
your discussion (Not even related to the title of 2 different forms of
entropy at all) lit an insight into my aging mind:
My agnosticism is relative. I 'believe' (=have faith in) certain facets
and exercise my so called agnosticism only upon them, e.g. existence
(whatever that
LizR:
I am not so sure Big Business *has* the interest of their shareholders at
all. It is the OWNER, the slave-driver, with enforcement, some of which
allowed to participate in some profits as 'shareholders', CEOs,
board-members etc.
It is an advanced feudalism, coming from a more advanced form
Bruno wrote:
*The problem is that there are few people serious in logic, in QM and in
philosophy of mind. **And defamation does not help especially in
interdisciplinary field.*
Which logic? (you mentioned the math-one) but I prefer common sense as we
can understand it (IFFF!) these days.
Then
Before I had a chance to read the opinions of all these smart people about
intelligence-related ideas (with inclusion of most of the mental
capbilities the huamn-like 'minds' may produce) and dissecting those
'ideas' in due course,
I started out from ethymology: intelligence ('is?) inter - lego,
a different (scientific???) worldview. Agnosticism in
my view does not restrict, rather free up the ways of gathering
information.
JM
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Mar 2015, at 20:59, John Mikes wrote:
LizR:
Consciousness, in my vocabulary sounds
' - could not resist to
starving.
I accept your denigratory opinion rather than being part of a contemporary
science - cheating/lying (theorizing?) based upon denied ignorance.
Your humble agnostix
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 March 2015 at 10:39, John Mikes
a 'better adoption' to some (still)
incomplete view.
I salute your it's possible.
John M
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2015 at 14:14, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
No kidding the dinosaur and company was extinct in the midst of their
utmost
a point, apart from we don't know everything ?
On 13 March 2015 at 10:20, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz: the only 'nit' I am 'picking' is agnosticism in the sense that we
like to draw conclusions on the partial image of the existence (Nature?)
that so far transpired to us
That sure would mean surviving benefit - where does the term
evolutionary come from and why?
JM
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:30 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 March 2015 at 10:55, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
LizR: evolutionary benefit?? if so, evolution tends to some end
.)
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2015 at 13:52, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
That sure would mean surviving benefit - where does the term
evolutionary come from and why?
Evolution is reasonably well described as the survival of the fittest
Does Graziano's attention D O something? or is it just a
thought-thing?
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 5:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2015 12:17 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent,
do you (or the authors) really think Ccness - as we use the term - a
(deeply) HUMAN
LizR: evolutionary benefit?? if so, evolution tends to some end to
achieve.
are we in the midst of pursuing some aim (goal)? Be YOU (or some smarter
machine) smaart enough to find out what such final product/state/construct
may be and let us jump on it!
My ignorance (oops: agnosticism) only
Brent,
do you (or the authors) really think Ccness - as we use the term - a
(deeply) HUMAN (or 'thinking' animal?) phenomenon? Are we so special?
I came to believe that 'everything' (list, or not) is a wider connectivity
than what we call 'living' (you may include plants as well) and is
phenomena
This and the next post of yours are classic. In the next one you cast doubt
on our space-based worldview - I was waiting for the next step: the
TIME_BASED doubt.
*
Bruno quoted Samiya concluding: *Doubt is the lack of faith!* - and I
could not keep my agnostic mind from reversing this into:
Schoppenhauer?
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or
{ } - the empty set?
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is
such evidence that doesn't answer the
Samiya, I am always cautious not to hurt a fellow lister's feelings. Bruno
is a bit mixed up with religion (uses 'theology', capital G in God, etc.
etc.) so I do not question his 'faith' beyond what he disclosed already (I
hope). I was always polite with your preconditions as well.
Now that you
Spudy, a condition of what??? and WHAT (great!) program??? what would
you call 'electric' (not in 101 physix) with 'pulses(?) and 'gaps(?) in
between?
Mainly: what the hell should we call R E A L ???
Once you enter the agnostic domain (mind you: not SKEPTIC, which is - like
atheism - based on
the FINAL result of such energy-dissipation as the Big
Crunch (infinite entropy?).
Don't take my word for it.
Have a good day
John M
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/23/2015 11:48 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Liz: any idea what - MASS - anad - ENRGY- 'may
Brent: I am no 'skeptic' I just seek some basis WHY to believe?
JM
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/23/2015 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2015 at
Liz: any idea what - MASS - anad - ENRGY- 'may' be? (not from the
equational recourses based on the supposition of their 'existence' in
science!)
JM
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 February 2015 at 09:50, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
This
*Empty space is **the same as nothing.*
No way! if it is a 'definite' space, it has borders and characteristics.
*I don’t understand your comment, “It presupposes the laws of physics.” I
don’t think empty space presupposes the laws of physics and I don’t think
“nothing” presupposes the laws of
FRIENDS - MAINLY BRUNO
(it all came out from the French numbers).
any thoughts why some numerals have specific names, others use composites?
Example: (Fr:) onze, ...seize yet dixset etc. German elf, zwoelf yet
dreizehen...
same in English, Hungarian has composites above 10, Russian Italian etc.
Liz, while you are in the mood...
I have a good maxim for freedom (don't claim absolute inventorship): when
you are 'free' to do anything
without infringing into the freedom of others.
(Under the commis we formulated it differently: freedom means to feel free
to do anything that
had been allowed
On Jan 29 2015 Samiya wrote:
* Why not define God as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and
Everything Else that is or may exist? *
Excellent proposal for a *DEFINING*. Now that carries a question: if you
'define God (Allah?) as the smartest and best Creator and Sustainer, why do
you
Brent, Telmo and all others 'consciousness' anchored members:
It is an easy cop-out to say the c term is too complicated to be
identified.
If we want to use it we better knowWHAT we wnt to use. My definition is
response to relations - another cop-out, because it is hard to identify
RELATION (and
Kim, you wrote a lot of reasonable things except one: agreeable meanings of
terms like 'democracy', anarchy, government, tribal- and set etc.
I denied the habitual application of the 1st one, especially in Buno's term
you mentioned: 1 head, 1 vote, since - as you pointed out - heads are
very
, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2015, at 02:59, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno asked:
*What would you suggest in place of a democracy?*
which is exactly the wrong question.
A question is never wrong. Only answer can be wrong. (With all my respect,
of course).
I did not promise
end up with a 'monster' unfathomable for our ongoing (naiv?)
natural sciences. Do the gut-microbes THINK for us? and so on...
B O D Y
Best regards
John Mikes
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
In paper
Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human
for your reply
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jan 2015, at 22:54, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, allow me NOT to copy your post (and mine!) just picking parts
for reflections. Thanks for recognising my post.
*Prohibition is enough to kill capitalism
to talk common sense.
John M
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Jan 2015, at 22:55, John Mikes wrote:
I published several times on various lists - including this one - my
agnostic? stance about that
*OXYMORON *'democracy' called so because the 'demos
I published several times on various lists - including this one - my
agnostic? stance about that
*OXYMORON *'democracy' called so because the 'demos' (i.e. all of us)
cannot exercise 'kratos'
(governing power) to everyone's satisfaction in the variety we represent
genetically, mentally, in
Life is endless: death, the end of it, is beond life's duration.
I stil+l like the CIRCLE as the e
pitome of infinity. Both as a
model and as a merry-go-round.
JM
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:13 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Well apparently...
http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/infinity.html
Hi, Bruno,
do you have a short (reasonbly WORDED???) explanation for what you call
ENERGY?
I asked this question from several physicists and did not get an answer I
could even follow (not: understand, of course). Math summersaults do not
help.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Bruno Marchal
Bruno: one of your tiny little aberrations:
how did existence changed in your argument into physical existence?
I argued that there is no such difference, since nobody can identify the
term physical in unquestionable format. Just like the Godcreated Earth.
JM
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Bruno
:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:18 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo: reasonable thinking. My wife Maria (almost as old as I am) had
long ago her own ideas abou the zookeeper syndrom: we are kept here safe
for SOME purpose *They* know, *We* don't. When we finished our
usefulness
Telmo: reasonable thinking. My wife Maria (almost as old as I am) had long
ago her own ideas abou the zookeeper syndrom: we are kept here safe for
SOME purpose *They* know, *We* don't. When we finished our usefulness it is
out with us, as long as we are useful (unidentified) for THEM, we live.
Richard:
I enjoyed your chickenfoot reply, YET cannot subscribe for it's expansion
to humans:
GROUPS od humans seem to be more stupid than any level immaginable.;
Well, that much for our kind.
Respectfully
John Mikes
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote
Play with words? OK with me. Just kindly circumscribe a measure of
intelligence (including, of course, a definition of Intelligence you
prefer).
Am I 2.5 times more intelligent *than you*, or are you same *than me*?
I still prefer the 'inter-lego' heritage, to be *mental* enough to READ
between
Or: the MWI of my NARRATIVE; as in the Plenitude's infinite equilibration
(more than symmetry) 'similars' get to close for an equilibrated comfort,
the formed knots(?) expose some complexity (forbidden!) that dissipates as
it forms, YET in the process form a (transitional - complex?) world -
Dear Russell,
I try to be polite and smooth in my communications not only with you. Here
a question emerges in my mind: how diffrent is your perception of the MV
(and the arising of such VERY human connotations) from the concept of 'GOD
in religious minds?
Is the Schroedinger equation stuff
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
John,
Your explanation of communication of apparently 'non-living' bodies is
interesting. Lately, I've been contemplating on a verse (
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=22verse=18) which speaks
of
not
go for the highest hanging fruit?
-Original Message-
From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
Spudy: did anyone ever realize a contact
Spudy: did anyone ever realize a contact with those other universes, so
you can decry a 'possibility' of such?
Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'?
JM
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Sent from
at the
microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter.) *
'Microscopic to what? to our human sizes? to the sub-Planck, or the
galaxy-size extensions?
Again my agnostic views: who knows what worlds do exist in quite
different orders of magnitude from our habituel rulers?
Just tasting words
John
101 - 200 of 1087 matches
Mail list logo
