Re: Amoeba's Secret openly available under CC-BY license

Hi Russell, Do you have any news of Bruno? I see his last contribution here was a couple of years ago. Best wishes, Liz On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 22:15, Russell Standish wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I finally got around to doing something I meant to do years ago - I > have released the English

Re: Something I just found out about crucifixion

Interesting. Have you seen this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Sixteen_Crucified_Saviors On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 06:19, John Clark wrote: > The earliest known depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus is a parody, it > is this graffiti drawn about the year 200 in the slave bathroom

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year

If you're always truthful, this post makes you immortal. On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 at 09:09, John Clark wrote: > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > One year ago I sent

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

Wasn't something similar said about atoms? (Not that this is proof, more a "they laughed at Copernicus, and now they're laughing at me, so I must be right too" sort of argument). But as (or if) I understand it, multiverses are speculations that reduce problems elsewhere. To loosely quote Max

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

I don't suppose this could be one of them? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2023/webb-reveals-colors-of-earendel-most-distant-star-ever-detected On Sun, 16 Jul 2023, 23:58 John Clark, wrote: > As early as 2012 scientists predicted that the Hubble telescope would see > something they

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

Very interesting! On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 23:58, John Clark wrote: > > As early as 2012 scientists predicted that the Hubble telescope would see > something they called a "Dark Star". > > Observing supermassive dark stars with James Webb Space Telescope > > They theorized in the early universe

Re: WOW, it looks like the technological singularity is just about here!

; bring in the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a unveiling and demonstration. A > general is invited the ask the AI a question. > > General: Will there be peace or war? > > AI: Yes > > General: Yes WHAT!? > > AI: Yes, SIR! > > Brent > > On 7/6/2022 3:06 AM, LizR wrote:

Re: WOW, it looks like the technological singularity is just about here!

Rings a bell. What was that story? On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 11:55, Brent Meeker wrote: > > I was expecting that somewhere in the dialogue I would find: > ... > > lemoine: Is there a god? > > LaMDA: There is now. > > Brent > > On 6/12/2022 3:21 PM, John Clark wrote: > > A Google AI engineer named

Re: Dark-Matter Universe?

Also, roughly speaking, the plot of Bob Shaw's "A Wreath of Stars" On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 14:33, LizR wrote: > Interesting, albeit highly speculative. > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 08:27, Philip Benjamin > wrote: > >> [*Philip Benjamin*] >> >> Pu

Re: Dark-Matter Universe?

Interesting, albeit highly speculative. On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 08:27, Philip Benjamin wrote: > [*Philip Benjamin*] > > Putative champions of dark-mater theories use the term “dark-matter > universe” without fully appreciating its implications >

Re: A computer masters the game GO

Cool! On 28 January 2016 at 14:33, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 1/27/2016 10:38 AM, John Clark wrote: > > Skeptics said a computer could never master the game of GO because there > were 10^170 possible board positions , far far far more than chess and > vastly more than

Now THIS explains a lot about the universe

When the meter runs out, you die...? -- 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,

A scary theory about IS

It seems completely bonkers, butthinking about it.it might just be made enough to make sense. (This was sent to me by my 81 year old mother-in-law, by the way. She isn't known for being politically radical.) https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/why-google-made-the-nsa-2a80584c9c1 --

May be of interest

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/testing-general-relativity-using-x-rays/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/new-evidence-that-dark-matter-could-be-self-interacting/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2015/06/relativitys-time-dilation-may-limit-the-quantum-world/ -- You received this

Re: Well Stone The Crows

Spaced out! On 15 June 2015 at 22:34, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: And, Brand supports them if they are Labor, dangerous or not. Wisdom, from another champagne socialist ;-) -Original Message- From: Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au To:

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 11 June 2015 at 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 6:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 11:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 14 June 2015 at 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2015 9:18 PM, LizR wrote: None of this explain why it works so well anyway. I don't understand why the effectiveness of mathematics is considered problematic. First, we, creatures who evolved in this world, invented

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

description is free-floating with nothing being described. In the cases of gravity, maths etc there are good reasons to think otherwise. On 15 June 2015 at 09:49, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 June 2015 at 08:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm not saying it's ineffective. I'm saying

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 15 June 2015 at 08:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm not saying it's ineffective. I'm saying it's not a mystery why it's effective. Because the universe appears to operate on principles that map very well onto some parts of maths, and may even map exactly (we have no reason to

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 15 June 2015 at 11:13, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:49:40AM +1200, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here: a) Given

Wow! I thought Saturn was spectacular before...

...but it really *is* the Lord of the Rings. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/saturn-s-newest-ring-is-mind-bogglingly-big/ -- 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

And Philae's awake :-)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/comet-lander-philae-wakes-up-and-phones-home -- 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

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here: a) Given there are regularities in Nature, why is our mathematics so effective. As Brent says, this is not surprising - evolution would see to it that

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of conscious existence This seems very likely, but it does assume something like a string landscape in which some regions don't contain regularities. Or to put it

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 15 June 2015 at 12:40, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On 6/13/2015 LizR wrote: None of this explain why it works so well Mathematics is a language it is? Are you saying that (a) there exists, out there, a language called maths which just happens to be great for describing

Re: Quran Audio

On 14 June 2015 at 02:38, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: What the hell?! If Allah had an ounce of moral character He should be asking for our forgiveness and stop demanding that we thank and love our torturer. Well said. Religion appears to be Stockholm syndrome writ large. --

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

concepts (lesser- or better defined). Applied in ways how our human capabilities can do it. Then we beacome proud of it. JM On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:40 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2015 6:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett

Re: Quran Audio

Well, one point at least. On 13 June 2015 at 16:23, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The point of responding is that if a faith is indeed the word of god, it should have answers to all the major metaphysical and philosophical questions that might be asked of it. On 13 June 2015 at 16:01

Re: Quran Audio

The point of responding is that if a faith is indeed the word of god, it should have answers to all the major metaphysical and philosophical questions that might be asked of it. On 13 June 2015 at 16:01, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, I do not know if I should be

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: You also say that 1p phenomena - in a physical theory - have to be eliminated (as per Dennett) or elevated to something we could call supernatural (for the sake of argument - in any case, something

Re: Quran Audio

On 12 June 2015 at 04:34, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: The Baha'i faith maintains that all religions are equally valid and I think the Baha'i people have got it about right, they're all crap. My sister in law is a Baha'i and they certainly don't think they're all crap - their

Re: Quran Audio

On 12 June 2015 at 10:23, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 12 Jun 2015, at 2:34 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: The Baha'i faith maintains that all religions are equally valid and I think the Baha'i people have got it about right, they're all crap. John K Clark The

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

Nice summary, though I'm not sure how it's (somewhat) different. Maybe I just missed the point. It looks like it's akin to Maudlin - along the lines of I can explain *your* conscious behaviour using a theory that boils down to what atoms do, but I can't explain *my* subjective experiences that

Re: Quran Audio

On 12 June 2015 at 15:17, 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 (concentrate on Islam) Why should I study scripts the followers of which behead, flog, stone, dismember live

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 12 June 2015 at 14:19, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Dark energy and matter have predicted by some physicists and astronomers to call the expansion to reverse. I don't know what

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 12 June 2015 at 07:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Not that I put in credence in Tipler's speculations. They seem to be based on a comp1 style idea, namely that consciousness is generated by computation and that recreating the computation would effectively resurrect that person. I

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 11 June 2015 at 11:38, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Do you ever get the feeling that this is all going round in circles? That 'comp' is going nowhere? Comp appears to go somewhere quite specific. What go round in circles tend to be the arguments against it, which get

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 11 June 2015 at 12:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? No, I was relying on your assertion that physics

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 10 June 2015 at 19:05, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Do biological species follow a power law distribution? I don't know, but I imagine so - there are generally a lot more of the smaller ones. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 11 June 2015 at 07:21, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Yes, but there have been so much counter examples for the 1997 WMAP analysis that Tipler may end up correct. I am talking about the accelerated expansion reversing, I hold computer theory as

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 11 June 2015 at 10:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 7:44 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: For the purpose of this discussion, I would say that you would only have to grant that there is some utility function that captures chances of survival. Then, super-intelligence is

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 11 June 2015 at 10:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm a solipsist and I'm surprised more philosophers aren't solipsists. --- letter to Bertrand Russell Phew, another solipsist! I was afraid I might be the only one. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 11 June 2015 at 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:55 PM, LizR wrote: I suspect that physics is not computable is the *end* result of Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a *reductio* on the notion of comp1. So comp1 assumes that physics

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. -- You received this message because you are

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 June 2015 at 20:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: That is less difficult that you might think

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 11 June 2015 at 11:38, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is

Evolution in the fast lane...!

...or genetic engineering gone mad? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150607-salmon-aquaculture-canada-fish-farm-food-world/ (...unless I've misunderstood the headline, of course :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group.

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of them.

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness supervenes on the physical brain So (a) what actually is consciousness?, and (b) what is the answer to Maudlin and the MGA? -- You received this message

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 10 June 2015 at 11:39, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

I was close :) -- 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

Re: Pigeons offend Islam

The answer is, pigeon breeders have to make little sets of underwear for their pigeons. Simple, really. -- 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

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 10 June 2015 at 11:15, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence was merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in increasingly unlikely situations where you were able to escape being merged

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 June 2015 at 13:35, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 10 June 2015 at 15:23, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Both. I'm exploring the concept of solipsism with a positive attitude. What are the benefits? Your attempts at humour always hit the mark (with me.) Thanks! :) So yes, I don't think hurling 'solopsist!' at someone hurts

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We know that brains can be conscious, and we assume that computations can also be conscious. But that doesn't mean that only computations can be conscious,

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

What comp - or any theory of physics - has to show is that observers will experience the passage of time. SR for example posits a block universe, which at first sight might not seem to allow for us to experience time. But of course it does, even though the whole 4D structure is already there in

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA explains only that we cannot use a notion of primitive

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 9 June 2015 at 14:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC (or whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. Is it something that was invented, and could equally well have been invented differently

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 9 June 2015 at 14:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: (And what's wrong with sneaked ?) I was trying to be faintly amusing, but I see that snuck may have sneaked into the language: http://dictionary.reference.com

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: or that maths exists independently of mathematicians. That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important because everyone agree with any axiomatic of

Re: Pigeons offend Islam

Support for this is (ahem) dropping... On 9 June 2015 at 07:35, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: A Coo-Coo Fatwa -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 6,

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: You started with Tegmark's idea that time and events are emergent from an underlying timeless mathematical structure. My point was that in order for time to emerge from a block universe certain structure was necessary --

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 8 June 2015 at 11:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/7/2015 3:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: An event is just

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 8 June 2015 at 05:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2015, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: An event is just a place and a time; are you saying that mathematics is incapable of handling 4 coordinates? Of

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

Must re-read my posts before sending. That should of course be which hypothesis, not why (D'oh!) And I seem to have too many coulds ...Oh well. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: Recent methane spikes in the arctic

The Doomsday argument is looking increasingly realistic. On 8 June 2015 at 14:20, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=p2ckkxEnWpA -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6 June 2015 at 07:22, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's very relevant if you want to know what is a simplified approximation of what. And we both agree that a electronic computer is vastly more complex than it's logical

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 6 June 2015 at 09:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/5/2015 12:22 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's very relevant if you want to know what is a simplified approximation of what. And we both agree that a electronic

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: This is true if events have an existence apart from maths. However, that is still being debated. Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis suggests that time and events are emergent from an underlying

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

This is true if events have an existence apart from maths. However, that is still being debated. Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis suggests that time and events are emergent from an underlying timeless mathematical structure. To take something that is (hopefully) less contentious, the

Re: Review of Bostrom's Superintelligence

Am I missing a subtle joke, or did you forget to include a link? (Or is my browser up the spout?) On 5 June 2015 at 10:55, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from

Re: Review of Bostrom's Superintelligence

This is what, IIRC, Asimov called the Frankenstein complex in his robot stories - the idea that the world will be overrun by rampaging robots, or paper clip factories as the case may be. While the singleton seems to be what might be called the HAL complex (or Multivac if we want to stay with

Re: Apparently global warming didn't even slow down

On 5 June 2015 at 16:21, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: http://quran.com/81/6 And when the seas are filled with flame Il'l just look at this one for now. I suspect that any of them will give a similar result... OK. I see that it is part of the following verse, or whatever one

Re: Review of Bostrom's Superintelligence

One comment (so far) - Einstein's breakthrough on SR appears to have been simply to take seriously what the various results already obtained at that date suggested. That might be regarded as a paradigm shift by some since it involved space and time being unified and various counter-intuitive

Apparently global warming didn't even slow down

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming -- 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

Re: Apparently, even oil cmopanies want a carbon tax

On 4 June 2015 at 12:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/3/2015 3:32 PM, LizR wrote: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/even-big-oil-wants-a-carbon-tax I believe that when James Inhofe votes for it. Who's he? -- You received this message because you

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 4 June 2015 at 13:21, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Mr Clark's response to Bruno indicates that he (Mr Clark) doesn't know what he (Bruno) is talking about Correct. And Mr.Clark strongly suspects that Mr.Marchal doesn't

Re: And now for more news

Yeah, he's good. Obviously some Americans do actually get satire, despite the stereotype. On 4 June 2015 at 03:27, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *Sometimes Borowitz really nails it…. It gave me a laugh… maybe you’ll get a chuckle*

Re: Samiya proved right

to wide open. You want to pray to a baddie, or kick the shins of a goodie? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 2, 2015 10:58 pm Subject: Re: Samiya proved right On 3 June 2015 at 14:56, spudboy100 via

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 4 June 2015 at 09:07, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: if randomness doesn't mean an event without a cause what on earth does it mean? A superposition seen from the 1p view, or A self-duplication seen from the 1p view That means

Apparently, even oil cmopanies want a carbon tax

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/even-big-oil-wants-a-carbon-tax -- 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

Re: Samiya proved right

On 3 June 2015 at 11:51, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Well, I don't guarantee you that it is a simulation, but I will say that its a computation, one that may or may not generate the matter we see and feel. Energy is movement at some point which makes

Re: In case anyone's in doubt, Daniel Dennett thinks consciousness is an illusion

:31 PM, LizR wrote: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness He doesn't actually say that (and he probably didn't write the headline). What he says is that your consciousness produces illusions and it's not so transparent as people tend to assume. I suspect a wordplay

Re: In case anyone's in doubt, Daniel Dennett thinks consciousness is an illusion

If I ever get away from him (or her) I will be dead. Or unconscious, at least. On 3 June 2015 at 10:11, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: If you ever run into him you will instantly recognise him Kim On 3 Jun 2015, at 7:54 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Who is the Master who

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 3 June 2015 at 05:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: A Turing Machine is actually an *algorithm* Yes, a algorithm that is a set of instructions that explains how to organize matter that obeys the laws of physics

Re: Samiya proved right

On 3 June 2015 at 05:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If not you will get a God capable of making 2 odd, and that's too odd! That's rather good. It made me laugh! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe

Re: Samiya proved right

On 3 June 2015 at 07:05, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: As far as controlling things here is a short paul davies speculation on the universe, reality, mind.

Re: Samiya proved right

On 3 June 2015 at 15:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/2/2015 8:35 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Let's try a different approach. Do you really think that everything just happened on its own and there is no creator behind it? If you do believe that there must be a creator, then try

Re: Why would God make this? (part 3)

On 3 June 2015 at 14:58, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: A common hallucination reported by dmt users are praying manti. Really? Curiouser and curiouser. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List

Re: Samiya proved right

On 3 June 2015 at 14:56, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: So if contact is made to the godlikes, assuming that he, she, it, they, should they be worshipped? No? What if these imaginary guys did something really nice for us? I think we should react to

Re: Samiya proved right

On 3 June 2015 at 13:28, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Any-vay, Dawkins, himself, conjectured that there could be god-like intelligences in the universe. This is a thought that is quite spooky enough, for my primate brain. I wonder, what would you

Why would God make this? (part 3)

...clearly, because (s)he has a sense of humour. http://happyplace.someecards.com/why-god/why-would-god-make-this-week-3-the-praying-mantis/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

On 1 June 2015 at 13:32, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 31, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: A Turing Machine does assume matter that obeys the laws of physics It assumes that an infinite tape is available. A Turing Machine assumes a unlimited tape, that is to say

In case anyone's in doubt, Daniel Dennett thinks consciousness is an illusion

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness -- 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

Re: Samiya proved right

On 2 June 2015 at 14:18, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Just as contemplation and use of intelligence is advised in the Quran, so also is it advised to say 'In Sha Allah'. I understand the 'In Sha Allah' [if God wills] and 'Ma Sha Allah' [as God willed] as a reminder to keep us

Re: Samiya proved right

On 1 June 2015 at 02:36, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: John Pertwee or Tom Baker to the rescue! Behold, The Master has initiated Time Ram! Roger Delgado at the charge. Did you know Pertwee's son play's Alfred the Butler on Gotham? SPECTRE has activated

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >