Craig and Brent:
"Free Will" is not a matter of faith. One does not "believe "IN" it, or
not".
(Of course this is a position in my (agnostic) worldview - my 'belief' ha
ha).
We are part of an infinite complexity with limited capabilities to accept
influence from the infinite factors (if those ARE f
Russell, Bruno, and John: you guys seem to know something about energy.
I asked lots of physicists and philosophers what that 'animal' may be and
the smartest respond was: "capability (sic!) to do work", inviting my
follow-up: what 'capability'? how does it appear, disappear and work? and I
asked N
, not only haphazardous. A
'deterministic' totality, however, is a matter of belief for me -
unjustified as well - because of the partial 'order' we detect in the so
far knowable nature (negating 'random' occurrences that would screw-up any
order, even the limited local
knowledge-base (see the above dates as examples) adjusted by everybody's
PERSONALIZED genetic tool (brain?) and accumulated personal experiential
material. Accordingly no two people have identical image for the 'world'. I
call that after Colin Hales our "mini-solipsism".
I am read
erson departed? Would have been
nice to read about onesself all those ornamental epithetons...
John Mikes
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Future Day: a new global holiday March 1 February 29, 2012
>
> *[+]* <http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/future_day.png>Why
People have too much time on their hand to argue back and forth.
Whatever (theory) we talk about has been born from human mind(s)
consequently only HALF _ TRUE max (if at all).
"I" imagine te doctor, "I" imagine the numbers (there are none in Nature)
"I" imagine controversies and matches, arithemt
Dear Craig,
my first step was to join Quora but it asked for my password what I denied
to disclose to Facebook and other 'social' networks as well (staying
private).
In the quoted excerpt were wise thoughts (time-scale etc.) but it did not
address my main point: whatever we THINK about that 'thing
Craig:
where has that "primordial singularity" come from? and what "expansion"?
I like to use terms beyond hearsay or fantasy. (Of course MY narrative is
fantasy based on hearsay, - B U T
it makes sense in its cosequences, I think.)
John M
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
rative' - not a theory).
I don't see what effect of OUR shrinking might cause a slow-down in
frequency?
John Mikes
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
> Probably. From a friend of mine on Facebook: "Is it possible that the
> notion of the universe expanding is rea
additional info.
And: "universes" (whatever they may be) are not restricted to that ONE
pattern we - sort of - pretend
to know about.
Shouldn't we open up our mind?
John Mikes
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 2:19 PM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 19, 4:52 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
tion': every change occurs within the feasibility of the 'givens' -
some survive, some don't. Occasional snapshots of our science don't even
detect the completely unsuccessful.
'Free Will': cousin of 'random', we, as products of the Infinite Complexity
have
t: nobody CAN have PERFECT info.
We are living in a model of our ad hoc knowledge while the not yet received
"rest of the infinite complexity of the world" also influences our
existence (decisions?) beyond the portion we know of.
As is the rest of his reply.
John Mikes
On Mon, Feb 6,
I got the humor in your post alright, but we had a wise slogan in the old
country;
HUMOR always includes more than half of serious basis, so I responded to
THAT part.
John
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> &
Evgenii, I am not sure if it is your text, or Russell's":
*"**In general, I do not understand what does it mean that information
at zero Kelvin is zero. Let us take a coin and cool it down. Do you mean
that the text on the coin will disappear? Or you mean that no one device
can read this text a
to be read in full.
Maybe you could ask professor Wei Dai... (he showed much civility in the
past when members had difficulties using his list).
John Mikes
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
> I have a filter set in my mail software such that any Everything List
>
David Nyman wrote:
*On 25 January 2012 19:46, meekerdb
<**meeke...@verizon.net*
*> wrote:*
*> Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum.
One
> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny
even
> potential would be to deny that anything c
al logic ONLY.
Just compare "opinions" (scientific that is) of different ages before (and
after) different levels of accepted (and believed!) informational basis
(like Flat Earth, BEFORE electricity, BEFORE Marie Curie, Watson, etc.)
My "worldview" (and my narrative, of cour
ing universes of quite
(unrestricted) qualia and re-absorbing them into the complexity. Tima
and Space are OUR coordinates for THIS universe of ours. Carbon???
Matter? I don't speculate beyond the capabilities of human thinking.
Best to all
Craig
> *John Mikes
> --
> *You receive
can make wonders - and we can explain its meaning ("it must be").
Or a new chapter in our calculations (Like: the zero or the complex numbers
etc.)
Can you "prove" something to "exist"?
I salute John Clark's (" I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.&qu
r knowledge base (of yesterday) and improve on THAT whenever we 'get'
something more to it.
Don't let yourself drag into a narrower vision just to be able to agree,
please. I say openly: I dunno (not Nobel-stuff I admit).
John Mikes
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:44 PM, benjayk
wrote:
&g
are far from the omniscient
level and I expect many novelties to show up - we do not even fantasize
about - today.
Otherwise I appreciate the in part concluding results: our present line of
technology, what I try to enjoy with thanks.
John Mikes
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:40 AM, wrote:
>
are talking about. Also being cloaked in the language of category
> theory, they are difficult to grok for the average scientist who have
> not been exposed to such concepts. Bruno can empathise with this,
> having a similar problem with modal logic.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sun, Nov
Russell,
5 minutes after I "sent" my letter on complexity to you, here is your next
piece explaining that I misunderstood the topic.
Of cours "a theory on complex numbers" is quite different from what I had
in mind.
Sorry
John M
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Sun
e if I missed his idea, or just continued it. Anyway my
'infinite' complexity does not qualify for being subject to "science".
Best for 'your' summer
John Mikes
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 08:04:24AM -0500, spud
Kim,
I join Brent's reasonable reply with "some more".
My opinion about 'LAWS' (in legal sense) is a societal compromise within
the happenings of a cultural setup. Physical "laws"
are observations of happenings explained within the 'latest' knowledge-base
we got. They change as we learn. There is
for us from "here", the flimsy and limited "models" we
formulate for our 'world' we know.
I think it is based to some extent on Robert Rosen's ideas, adding upon
ideas I borrowed from David Bohm.
To your final question:
I am not sure I am 'false'
To Qentin: "DEATH" an excellent vaiation for immoprtality. I always
emphasize that ETERNITY is NOT a "time" indicator, can most likely be
timeless ("POOF" it is over).
To Bruno:
we wrote already about your 2c question "WHO ARE WE?" and you answered
something like "Gods".
That may be a cheap shot,
see, I am perplexed and would like to read what the smarties said.
Best regards
John Mikes (a fan of your mini-solipsism).
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> **
>
> ‘THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY’
> SINGULARITY SUMMIT 2011
> AUGUST 20-21
> RMIT UNIVERSITY
may have. No claim about its connection to
something that MAY BE a (real?) reality(?). If there is one.
I apologize
John Mikes
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Oct 24, 4:27 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> > *I* *interjected some remarks just for keeping order on the
*I* *interjected some remarks just for keeping order on the list*.- *JM
*
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Oct 23, 4:14 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> > *Craig,*
> > **
> > *thanks for your explanation - B U T : let us accept the term Multisense
>
---
Saying "I dunno" is OK. It's the scientific way. Saying "I dunno, so it
must be magic" is not OK.*
*JM: *agree. (see above). Unfortunately conventional science tries to
explain everything within the framework of the so far formulated
'scientif
is Papaioannou wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 2011, at 6:23 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> > > It may well be. I am still at a loss how the physical (electrical) or
> tissue measurements can explain mental effects (incl. consciousness, free
> will, emotions etc. as they occur. The &
. (I am not
talking about our present binary embryonic digital Kraxlwerks - we call our
computers).
Thanks for your thoughts
John M
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 21 Oct 2011, at 22:09, John Mikes wrote:
>
> *Hi Stephen,*
> *it seems you are closi
pinions are free.
Stephen, you have an open mind and some of your stances are acceptable FOR
ME (not that it counts).
I have open questions to think about (anticipation, etc.) and may not be
lucky enough to settle.
Best wishes
John M
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On
Stathis,
you wrote quite a 'study' to Craig. May I extract some sentences for
my reflections?
(I delete the entire discussion here)
John M
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:
> --
am pointing out is that if we are beign
> consisstent we have to drop the presumption of an entity to whom a problem
> is defined, i.e. valuated. This is the problem that I have with all forms of
> Platonism, they assume something that they disallow: an entity to whom
> meaning
Dear Stephen,
as long as we are not omniscient (good condition for impossibillity) there
is no TRUTH. As Bruno formulates his reply:
there is something like "mathematical truth" - but did you ask for such
specififc definition?
Now - about mathematical truth? new funamental inventions in math (even
Craig.
I dislike thought experiments: they are figments to prove one's point
irrespective of other views (I refrain from writing 'truth' or even
'experimental fact' etc.).
However: two people getting 'conjoined' as a SINGLE organism, both having
different perceived reality
(I will salute a better e
al foundations.
Do you have a vocabulary between physical readings and topical meanings?
John Mikes
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 3:40 pm, Terren Suydam wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:
> > >>
e is no proof at all. Only in a restricted limitational view.
Evidence: ditto.
So what do we have? a thinking agnosticism - acknowleged ignorance, but we
use it very skillfully.
Sorry to blunderize the holly Grail of science thinking.
John Mikes
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Craig,
I went through most of your (unmarked) remarks and my mouse forced me
(against my better judgement) to add some of my own.
I wll insert in blue - bold Italics.
John Mikes
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Oct 1, 11:01 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> > On
Jason:
two 'naive' replies to your (excellent in it's riet) post: -* I interject in
bold Italics*
*John M
*
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb wrote:
>
>>
>> "A theory that can explain anything, fails to explain at all."
>>
>>
> A few
x27; and *MAY* get right answers
(predictions) - our technology is ALMOST good. (Some mishaps still occur and
if you state a 'match' to the 16th decimal, go to units in an order of
magnitude 17 places to the right and you have no match even in integers.)
Best regards
John Mikes
On Wed, S
Interesting discourse, indeed. Brent, I would add to:
*"usually believers cannot say what evidence they would accept
that this belief of theirs is wrong."*
**
the *scientific BELIEF (sic!) which is* also a belief, based on
prerequisite evidences BELIEVED to be TRUE. Those precurso
e(s) broke off for a timeless re-dissipation.))
Respectfully
John
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 8/29/2011 6:05 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Stephen and Jason,
> interesting discours, but you use concepts that beg for my questioning.
> Dualism may be
Stephen and Jason,
interesting discours, but you use concepts that beg for my questioning.
Dualism may be an observation based on phenomena we misunderstand and
explain to the level of "present" theories. A violation of the laws of
physics asks: are those "laws' really so true, or only a (statistic
e.
John
*
*
*
*
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:01 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> > Stathis, allow me to barge in before Craig.
> > I am glad you ask - the wrong question,
> > I am not FOR the brain to think, it is a tool w
Animate? Inanimate? "Conceptually" we cannot compare "identity" of *
complexities,* because we compare only as much as we know of and that is
incomplete.
"Zombie" I consider an artifact for a certain (mental?) fantasy-explanation
without basis.
Also 'dynamic' or 'static' is in *our view* streamline
Please, let me interject some remarks - I will use underlined *bold
Italics*inserts in the post
and keep them short
John M
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 19 Aug 2011, at 23:08, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 8/18/2011 11:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug
tion from milliamps etc. to
ideas)
3. what mechanism (if...) is stronger than the neuronal brain to decide e.g.
self destruct?
4. has 'creativity' the same meaning in our vocabularies?
5 - 1000 I save those.
Regards
John
*
*
*
*
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wr
Craig,
you know more about the 'IBM-Synapse' achievement than myself (easy: I know
nothing, did not even thopughtfully decipher the article in all its
details).
I would ask IBM (they may not reply of course) if their machine (chip?) can
solve ANY technical problem barred by unsurmountable difficult
Thanks, Brent, I chose the wrong wording to Stathis.
John
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> **
> On 8/17/2011 9:01 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent wrote about my questioning 'energy':
>
> *"Hmm. It's the 00 component of the stress-energ
late that
within the Plenitude everything is in 'transition' with everything else -
consequently it is inevitable that 'related' aspects "ball together"
occasionally (into a complexity?) violating the total symmetry).
This 'narrative' has no "scienti
ow? i.e. an i*dentification of the term*, I mean).
I could not get a reasonable reply from physicists so far upon many such
questions. All 'cop-out' on paraphernalia I want to exclude.
(You remember: I have a Ph.D. chem-phys-math and 50 yrs in polymer
engineering).
Friendly:
John Mikes
termined by their
> political color, (particularly in the US as there the Republican party
> mostly denies global warming caused by man).
>
>
> Saibal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Citeren Pilar Morales :
>
>
> I agree that math should probably not be ta
After a resounding "NO" the question: "who's math?" I find it absolutely
inevitable to include in the obligatory general school curriculum "a
certain" math, necessary to calculate, to balance a check-book, to file a
tax return, to make (basic) business accounting and the practical 'figuring
out' of
Dear Pilar,
as your fellow "Not-English-Mothertongue" guy. I point to the*incompleteness
* in this language:* "Nothing" - "EXISTS" not.* It isn't. But it is bad
English to write:
* "Why 'is-not' nothing?"* so we have a discussion point. In my
(non-IndoEuropean) mothertongue the question is exact
Brent wrote:
*"No, but some neuron excites some other neuron is all that happens later in
your brain too. So where does it become pain? Is it when those neurons in
your brain connect the afferent signal with the language modes for "pain" or
with memories of injuries or with a vocal cry?"*
We a
terms of
advanced meaning (changing to and extending them beyond our limits of
knowledge in my agnosticism like 'relations' etc.)
John M
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 4:01 PM, benjayk wrote:
>
>
> John Mikes wrote:
> >
> > Dear "benjamin" if this is your name (
Dear "benjamin" if this is your name (benjayk?) if the unsigned text is
yours, of course:
I believe this post is not 'joining' the chorus of the debate. Or is it?
Benjayk wrote:
"*Consciousness is simply a given"*
OK, if you just disclose ANYTHING about it as you formulate that 'given'.
Your(?) log
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 8/6/2011 8:35 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Stasthis,
>>
>> let me barge in with one fundamental - not dispersing my reply into those
>> (many and long) details:
>>
>> As I read your comments/replies
anatory figment "atom" holds water in
a wider sense.
After 1/2 c in productive polymer chemical R&D I wonder if I spent that time
in a (chemical) Alice's Wunderland? Also "information'" is pretty flexible.
It should refer to 'relations'.
Regards
John Mike
; incompletely.
Best regards
John Mikes
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 8/2/2011 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 2, 2:06 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote:
>>>
>>>
7; as we 'learn', - an ongoing process that does not seem to have
reached the ultimate end/completion.
So you are right in considering whatever we new yesterday (my substitution
for today) but not including what we may know tomorrow. Drawing conclusions
upon incomplete inventory does not
Friends:
Lots of *mouse*-traps written in this and
other*posts/preposts/repost/superposts/etc.
*
God? Truth? Reality? even: 'physical world' - goes on and on. Our thoughts
(human)? imagination? experiential vs. experiential (Incl. Kim's French
explanation) are un-finishable qualms online. Bruno in
ftware's native 'hardware analyzer', we're not going to see anything
> because that viewer is only a command line text editor. Nothing looks
> like it has free will when you use that.
>
> On Jul 2, 10:52 am, John Mikes wrote:
> > Deqr Craig,
> >
> >
trial concepts are includable, it is independent of our so
far acquired knowledge and does not restrict the application to the physical
world and so the domains developed by the human mind. I have no theory to
that, am insecure about the deterministic 'happening' - a term that requires
e-coordinates of *our *physical system* inside our universe*. It may also
mean the destruction of ALL outgoing information that could disclose the
(physically perceived?) existence of the universe, a condition I take
important for (my term) singularity.
Regards
John Mikes
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM,
Russell:
"...Life-like phenomena"
implies something 'life-like'. So: LIKE WHAT are those phenomena?
I would not turn to my other side in peace that biologists are negligent. I
ask them:
what do you have in mind when you SAY: l i f e ? (their base line: the
'bio')
It is more than just biochem ch
Dear Rex,
an enjoyable reading, indeed. I send my best to Caenorhabdites elegantes for
their scientific prowess.
Are your numbers correct? Is the brain-"wiring" length indeed 170 trillion
microns long? (I took 1.7 km for a mile).
And for the synapses: I was modest and took only 10 billion neurons
Dear Bruno, would you have an e-mail address where I can contact Ben
Goertzel - an old list acquaintance ?
Thanks
John Mikes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to every
Dear Brent,
let me cut in with your last par:
*"...There is a tendency to talk about "human-equivalent intelligence" or
"human level intelligence" as an ultimate goal. Human intelligence evolved
to enhance certain functions: cooperation, seduction, bargaining,
deduction,... There's no reason to
ather a process, the discontinuation of it also may
be a process with different parameters.
John M
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Isn't all of this a denial of death ? Is it possible to ascribe a meaning
> to the end of consciousness ?
>
> Quentin
>
&g
Brent: I mostly agree (if it is of any value...).
I am FOR an idea of MWI (maybe not as the 'classic' goes: in my view ALL of
them may be potentially different) but appreciate the power of hearsay
(absorbed as FACT) - you may include other sensory/mental domains as well.
What I take exception to
Brent wrote:
*"But it also entails that The World of Warcraft and what I dreamed last
night exist.*
*Brent"*
Of course! they exist as "themselves" - not in context of 'QM or the Bible,
or anything else'. Anything we think of "exists" - at least in our thought
(at that time?) when it occurred. There
TH -* there are
tenets you or me may accept as 'true' in some sense.
I think I already sent you my 'draft' about "Science-Religion" about belief
systems.
Have a good time
John M
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On 09 May
ulated?) hearsay assumptions and their consequences. We 'guess' what we
do not know.
You see, I should keep my mouse shut...
John
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/9/2011 11:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 09 May 2011, at 18:57, meekerdb
Meeker wrote:[On the everything list]
>
> On 5/5/2011 11:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 03:31:50PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
>
>
>
> Russell,
>
>
> this is my personal way of thinking in realization of the continual
>
> epistemi
works many times (sub)-unconsciously, #2 provides many times unformulated
changes to naturally occurring (free?) choices even without our conscious
involvement.
the 'robot-like' free will is not likely in a 'non-robot-like' thinking
person with memory etc.
I submit these id
other you less with my nightmares in the future (but don't count
on it). .
John M
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/29/2011 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
> On 28 Apr 2011, at 21:40, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno, allow
sness the ability to suppress branches in the quantum multiverse
>> (like with the wave collapse), or even less plausible, to suppress the
>> existence of computations in the arithmetical world, which is as impossible
>> as suppressing the existence of a number.
>> So the cho
ice figment and we can live with it for now.
John
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 1:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2011, at 17:26, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent wrote (and thanks for the reply):
>
>
domness' we happen to live in. Some origin - beyond my present
knowledge-based imagination - and some course of the Everything - who knows
where? - at a certain point of which we 'exist' and view the World as well
as our capabilities allow.
John M
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:3
ch other,
the meaning of the words is different. Bruno has a vocabulary, conventional
sciences use another one, my concepts are differently identified, religions
have their own versions, every
one understands arguments within their own vocabulary - the rest is
'stupid'.
Regards
John
n Thu, A
rue randomness (in math): "Take ANY number..." (puzzles).
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 19, 9:39 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> > *Brent wrote:*
> >
> > **
> > *"I would point out that "indeterminism" can have two di
*Brent wrote:*
**
*"I would point out that "indeterminism" can have two different sources.
One is internal, due to the occasional quantum random event that gets
amplified to quasi-classical action. The other, much more common, is the
unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic) external event that
Rex, Evgeniy and List:
Are we speaking about a mysterious 'free will' that is unrelated to the rest
of the world and depends only "how we like it"? In my view our 'likings' and
'not' depend on the concerning experience and genetic built in our mentality
(whatever THAT is composed of) in limitation
te I thought having already insisted on the
> point. I am sorry because it is not completely in the topic:
>
>
> On 07 Apr 2011, at 17:42, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Thanks, Brent, - however:
> I did not restrict myself to physics (lest: 'fundamental') and had a
> sho
t apply to a universal machine which 'knows it all' - but we
indeed have no idea how it works and what it may conclude.
Deduced in my common sense of agnostic ignorance.
John
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/6/2011 2:06 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> The exchange
The exchange between SPK and Bruno is hard to personalize, there is am
unmarked paragraph after a par marked "...
so I was in doubt whether it is Bruno, or Stephen who wrote:
*"His use of the word "causation" is unfortunate but we can forgive
him because there is no correct word for the
es in the life-process (if there is such) with 500 years
changes of tissues, chemical machines (glands, sensors, potentials and
flexibility etc.) bodily coordination and mental compliance in the
physiological processes.
Good game, anyway.
Best regards
John Mikes
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:41 PM,
Bruno and Brent:
"machines" either 'real' numbers' or not, they are humanly devised, even if
we state not to be able to 'understand' them. I want to venture into domains
where our 'human ways cannot apply e.g. (silly even to attempt to give an
examples on whatever we are not capable to knowing) if
all? - (not
only in our simplifying translation?)
Topics may not be in an unlinmited interconnectedness of them all, unless WE
assign our interest and it's known relations into restrictions into
'topical' models.
So please, give me some time to let my mind 'sink into' your
from: John Mikes
to: everything-list@googlegroups.com
date: Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM
subject: Complete *Thepry* of Everything - - *Now* corrected:* "Theory..."
*mailed-by gmail.com <http://mailed-bygmail.com/>
---
('thermo')---XD:
S
(topics, factors, relations and
even 'numbers') is a restricted limitational view in the
'model' representing the present level of our development - of which
conventional sciences form a part.
Comparing e.g. the caveman-views with Greek mythology and with modern
'scientific'
Thanks, David, for a reasonable post.
I admire Evgeniy for his boldness of a frontal attack against conventional
physicality's terms.
I would go a step further (is it a surprise?) like: ontology is rather a
description of a stagnant knowledge (state? even if dynamic) of *a
phase*considered in conve
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
*" Is the "causes" word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say
that a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are
assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of
view of many (a fix
tionality to be discovered?
With my agnosticism (ignorance about the not-yet disclosed parts of the
wholeness) it is hard to agree with any proof, truth, or evidence. The most
I can do is a "potentially possible".
John Mikes
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Andrew Soltau wrote:
> O
*Brent,*
*I agree with most of your statements (whatver value this may have...) Let
me interject below.*
*John M
*
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 3/6/2011 7:16 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
>> It is. In the collapse theory, it has to be the collapser (the other
>>> > theories are too
quot;theos" or "religion" usage, words
can be used
in any meaning we identify them to be used for. And he is pretty precise in
that.
John
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 2/19/2011 9:17 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno,
>
> let me rep
701 - 800 of 1158 matches
Mail list logo
