Re: Rethink Genetic Engineering in the Light of the Quran

1. There is no wrong religion 2. Adam-story that of Eve, or Korányi? 3. Or else?? The Bible is flexible. Let:S FLEX IT. Lov-ya SAMIyA!! jOHN On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: > In case anybody on this list is still interested,

Re: From Atheism to Islam

you 'pick' a vocabulary from a limited choice of the English-called variations for testimony. I admire the broadness of information of the list-participants - which is not like consenting. Created the World? Well, IS THERE a World at all? Logically flawlessly? Well, who's logic? And So On. John Mikes pu

Re: From Atheism to Islam

). I wonder if I come close to YOUR definitions? John Mikes On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 2/20/2017 7:33 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrot

Re: From Atheism to Islam

Stathis asked: *Is agnosticism about God different from agnosticism about other entities such as fairies and elves?* My reply is ab astounding * " N O " * I wold add to te fairies and elves the forces, the energy, the matter and all facets of a universe-built world we came up with in our

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

quot; has no meaning). We talk in human terms/ideas/concepts/logic.I left it open to the BEYOND. I agree ith your 'natural' world-image. JM On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 29 Dec 2016, at 08:09, Torgny Tholerus wrote: > > >

Re: The Weirdening

lished law gives them the power to arrange for MY exit. I would transcribe your 'the world getting weirder' into DETECTING more weirdness as we get older (= widen our fact-based horizon). Whatever 'weird' may mean. John Mikes On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Kim Jones <kimjo...@ozemail.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

Brent I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr more than one reason: 1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be. 1,A: is God a PERSON? (Or: many persons?) 1.B a Force - a Complexity - a System (etc.) or the like? 1,C Did He/She/It

Re: Cpies and Doppelgangers

Brent: what an idea the non-light version of the elemtary "LIGHT"? (a dark photon, eh? Like perhaps the nonexistence for existence? or non-math Platonism - all qualitative?) Needs a real scientific mind to think about it. Of course Hawking was such a mind and his brain-child is an inside-out

Re: Self-explaining Game of Life?

t there is something made up of > something when there might plausibly be only a statistics on number's > (sharable) dreams. > > Bruno > > > > > > > >> Evgenii >> >> Am 14.10.2016 um 21:08 schrieb John Mikes: >> >>> Evgenii, >>> >>>

Re: Self-explaining Game of Life?

OK, Evgenii, I am game. Do you have any closer(?) idea what *ALIVE* may mean? (and watch out, the next question maybe about *"ORGANISM") .* I would not go that deeply as to question a (pure???) religious concept. Mit vorzüglicher Anerkennung - (for 'best regards') John Mikes On S

Re: Self-explaining Game of Life?

ced change' L I F E ? How induced? The question is exciting, I would learn more about it. John Mikes On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote: > I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture. His world view is actually > similar to the Game of Life, wel

Re: Conversations Between Trees

out the Entirety and build out of that fraction our entire world as an 'experienced fact-based reality;. I think we agreed on such ideas many times. Regards John Mikes On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hello John, > > > On 20 Sep 2016,

Re: Conversations Between Trees

Dear Bruno, we are still in the anthropocentric/anthropomorphic failure to equate EVERYTHING with our humanbased experience. Organisms without brain-tissue do not exercise brain-functions as we THINK they do occur in our 'head' (guts?) and do not develop similar thoughts to us - the ways we try to

Re: ​Computationalism​

-base (convolutedness). Math etc. is in this ballpark. I have a linguistic version of the Latin origin "to compute": to put (things) together as by *" C O M " *and *think* about them in such way hard *" P U T A R E " * which may include* quantitative *as well as qua

Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

Leave the Milky Way for Andromeda? reminds me of the Hungarian joke (heard around 1930): Guy goes to God and begs: Oh my God, in who's eyes a second seem like a million years, could you give me a million bucks? And God replies: OK, just wait a second. JM On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:53 PM, spudboy100

Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

results. The WORLD may have absolutely different problems (to solve, or live with) amd we have no access even to guess about them. Agnosticism gives a wider horizon to consider than a 'know-it-all' stupidity. The difference is: we cannot even guess. John Mikes On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:15 PM

Re: numeracy

Brent: excellent comix and very very true. Explain America? ... Would you include geometry into math? e.g. trigonometry? We had all that in the 1930s in high school, including algebra and integrals/differentials. Of course that all beside 8 years of Latin (incl. old-Roman studies) 7 years

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

diatribe is not meaningful for you? and I selected only SOME from the 7 items you used. JM On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:41 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Would you care to tell how you defi

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

restricted, we cannot even 'imagine' the varieties the infinite may have. Not to deny. Thanks for entertaining my words John Mikes On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:35 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com&

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

JKC wrote: -- Atoms are more fundamental than molecules but molecules have properties than atoms don't have, and molecules are more fundamental than life but life has properties that molecules don't have; in the same way consciousness needs intelligent behavior and

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:35 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> JKC: why do you think your ??? is T H E FLOOR? there may be innumerable >> lower levels... we just don't have the brains to think further. >> >> > "???" is n

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

JKC: why do you think your ??? is T H E FLOOR? there may be innumerable lower levels... we just don't have the brains to think further. Q: what is the T O P ? John M On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:31 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 Jason Resch

Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

y adjusted to the present capabilities of our mental functioning. The 'Entirety' allows counter-arguments and counter-evidences, - maybe - invalidating our present views. Regards John Mikes On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, May 27, 2016 a

Re: New prime number found

big number. JM On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > It's to correct your misreading. 2^74207281 concludes ...436352 so > 2^74207281-1 > concludes ...436351 and does not end in zero. > > Brent > > On 1/22/201

Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

mind-level). The rest is unknowable for now. Outside of the fairy tale. But it is good to read self-assured peoples' "know-it-all" fairytales. Gives us confidence in the human ingenuity. Restpectfully John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc., agnostic ret. scientist (38 patents) orig. profession: macromol

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

le time (if any) to improve. Thanks for taking me seriously John Mikes On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Samiya Illias <samiyaill...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fourth State of Water > http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.167802 > > http://www.gizmag.com/fou

Re: Non-locality and MWI

now is that Everett called MWI a bunch of IDENTICAL universes. In my agnostic view "MY" MWI consists of possibly no two identical universes, ours being one pretty simpleminded system - we know it only from the inside. We have no access to the others. John Mikes Ph.D. (chem-phys-math 1948) On Tue

Re: Bektashi Alevi

s as well (what I do not include in my train of thoughts). I never received an answer to my skepticism about 2+2=4 in *ANY* relations. Maybe I am not scientific enough - so be it. (Science = doubt). Just a short remark John Mikes On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

out substance. I.O.W.: to allow more to 'exist' than our knowables. JOhn Mikes On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 20 Apr 2016, at 00:12, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

Re: Aharanov-Bohm non-locality is an artifact of invoking classical potentials

ons result in knowledge adjusted to our present capabilities of the mind. That we try to order into usability. JM On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:39 PM, smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > > On 20-04-2016 21:16, John Mikes wrote: > >> Dear Saibal, >> >> what makes you

Re: Aharanov-Bohm non-locality is an artifact of invoking classical potentials

to the capabilities of the human mind (at THAT time) APPLYING human logic (math?) and the content earlier deposited on the subjects. John Mikes On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:08 PM, smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > The real world is quantum-mechanical, no classical. At the macroscopic > le

Re: Counterfactual Definiteness

QM-related readings and am too old already to start learning. I accept my ignorance and try to live with it as long as I can. John Mikes On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 16 Apr 2016, at 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 16/04/2016 12

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

In addition to that: I doubt whether Bruno would deny life from an infertile person (animal - plant) althouth there is NO reproduction there. I am not sure about the role of 'universal numbers' in that. Pack of cigarettes as epitome of *life*? I am a non-smoker, but alive (I think). Now comes the

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

> for. > > Presently, I cannot explain the phenomenon any further, I simply take it > on faith. The reason I shared it was because you were asking what life > meant. > > Do you have a definition for life? > > Samiya > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:39 PM, John Mikes

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

Brent, as I recall the 21 g was "the weight of life" - not sleep. And not ALL outlets were sealed for the weighings. To Samiya: "NAFS is a physical object" means it is part of the observable physical measurements we carry today, or 1500 years ago? is it composed of the 'atoms' of our present

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

m at present. I am seeking a reply (correction, addition, negative reply, etc.) which then I can use to the betterment of my thinking. John Mikes We have but a ti On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 3/27/2016 8:15 AM, John Clark w

Re: God

more beautiful ones (??). Then some people (e.g. agnostics) may say: they MUST be from supernatural sources. I would not disclose my authorship either. It is not my goal to put 'úncertainty' into your faith, I appreciate faithfulness. John Mikes On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias <

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

(did you notice Brent was on the list)? > > > > > On 3/22/2016 1:14 PM, John Mikes wrote: > > Nope, Sir, he was a Roman Catholic ONLY. > But you forgot Satan (Belzebub etc.) and I am sure some more as well. I > missed Wotan in the list and several more who were ad

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

ypocritical? I understand that >> only sincere faith and gratitude are acceptable. >> >> Samiya >> >> On 22-Mar-2016, at 2:47 am, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks, very kind, although you still did not improve my way to 'believe' >> -

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 3/21/2016 2:47 PM, John Mikes wrote: > >> I had a good friend - almost ordained into Catholic priesthood - who said: >> it represents so little effort with so much benefit at stake to believe, >> that it is really not w

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

or them, nor > shall they enter the garden until the camel pass through the eye of the > needle > <http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/05/until-camel-passes-through-eye-of-needle.html>; > and thus do We reward the guilty. > > > Samiya > > On Mon, Mar 21

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

deluded them > the life (of) the world." So today We forget them as they forgot (the) > meeting (of) this Day of theirs, and [what] (as) they used to reject Our > Verses. > http://islamawakened.com/quran/7/51/ > > And it will be said, "Today We forget you as you forgo

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

ional???) rejection and forgetfulness. 'Just as' points to equals. JM On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Samiya Illias <samiyaill...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:17 AM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Excuse me, Samiya, do you have a distinctio

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

I failed to connect your 'veses' to my questions. John Mikes On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Samiya Illias <samiyaill...@gmail.com> wrote: > John M, > > The following verses address some of your questions: > > *Present Creation* > Do not see those who disbelieved that t

Re: Humanity's best Go player was just beten by a computer

Just as fair as a running match between an athlete on foor and another one on a motorcycle. (Or say: on rollers...) On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:29 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:48 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ​>

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

Excuse me, Samiya, do you have a distinction WHAT to call LIFE? What life? human only, or "ANY"? including plant, microbial, inorganic, etc.? Do the diverse kinds of such diversified life-listings have different Gods? Do a rose struggle to get into the ROSE-HEAVEN? (or into the same, where we may

Re: Humanity's best Go player was just beten by a computer

JKC: what I would call "FAIR" in the GO-game would be to allow the human(s) the use of the (partner) computer's database and computing wisdom in their game to make them equal. Then it would show if the machine had more imaginative power than the human to play 'GO'. Would that serve an advantag to

Re: Code: The Origin of Life

John Mikes On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Samiya Illias <samiyaill...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please see: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/origin-of-life-video/ > PZ Myers - Perry Marshall debate: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/pz-myers/ > > > Samiya > > -- > You rec

Re: Some remarks on the mathematical structure of the multiverse

isition - by a SOUL substitute partnered with the BODY. Agnostically yours John Mikes On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 01 Mar 2016, at 04:59, Brent Meeker wrote: > > Bruno, what do you think of this paper? > > Brent > > >

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 2/16/2016 12:38 PM, John Mikes wrote: > > > * (JM):Physical sciences - so far - never explained the MENTAL activity > assigned to brains (guts?) (Brent:) No, but they explained a lack of mental > activity in the brain d

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

ing "where" is that mentality (center?) - it may not be * *a localizable (or even temporarily traceable) locus. * *We know so little!* *John Mikes* On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 2/15/2016 12:38 PM, John Mikes wrote: > &

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

ond our present physiological - physical data. John Mikes On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:09 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> Giuseppe Peano >>> ​ di

Re: Gravitational Waves Detected By LIGO!

n explanations about 'mass','time' etc. Now I joined the line of the self-expressing posters (vs Russell's wisdom). John Mikes On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote: > The best definition I've heard, which I ascribe to Vic Stenger, is > t

Re: LIGO

What difference does it make (to us) if something happens 50 or 650 million lightyears away? - No matter if _NOW_ or _THEN-in the deepest past_ . Iwould be less benevolent and call those "rumors' rather fantasy (even if supported by some human mathemaital considerations...) John M On Tue, Feb 9,

Re: Old Testament, New Testament & Quran: text analysis

Telmo, I think you left out the main question: WHERE FROM did those texts generate (criticized by you only as for their technical content (different cultures and linguistic backgrounds). As for the "general problem of AI"? did we ever come to a conclusion how to identify "INTELLIGENCE"? I am

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

umans. Terrifying! And there is Hell. say what you wish. I enjoy your 'faith-dictated posts, keep them coming, please. John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc. ret. nat. scientist On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Samiya Illias <samiyaill...@gmail.com> wrote: > John Clark, I can see that you are concerned

Re: Political correctness run amuck

A remark to Dr. Dawkins: JKC wrote in the above e-mail: "...the fact that neither muslims nor women nor feminists nor radical feminists are examples of races NECSS was unable to specify what race the song was making fun of" When a child (1922-38) in Central Europe, I did encounter many times

Re: Native Hawaiian Religious Imbeciles

I don't think it makes much sense to search the origin of the supernatural fables in a world of minuscule - even natural - knowledge. Did the Spaniards have better support for their (religious?) actions than the Aztecs? Or the Jews? Or anyone in any religion? (Religion is regarded by the common

Re: Native Hawaiian Religious Imbeciles

Telmo: and what is the difference between interfering with a superstition FOR a *mountain* and interfering with a superstition FOR removing an unwanted parasite from a womb that might evolve into a human baby? Or ... I could list long lines of similar (dualistic???) superstitions humanity widely

Re: Debate questions.

ep it? Because of this, smartness will not count, and for the > same reason, we are likely heading for a 2nd US civil war, because there is > no opportunity for compromise. > > > > -Original Message- > From: John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> > To: everything-list <

Re: Debate questions.

Mitch, don't be naive: you will not find moneys assigned to HRC for prez. Bill is smarter than that. Even smarter than you. Besides: the questions will emerge when the 2-party debate comes up. On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 9:28 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com>

Re: Microsoft releasing quantum computing simulator

Brent Meeker via googlegroups.com Nov 13 (3 days ago) to István: ihol a cikk, ha eddig nem láttad volna. - J Forwarded Message FYI -- "The simulator is 30 qubits, which requires 32 gigabytes of memory. That means it can

Re: Virgin Birth

About the biological makeup of reproducing Brent Maker wrote: *> >Biological theory says that sexual reproduction should halve the> >fitness of the organism as compared with asexual (or parthenogenetic)> >reproduction, so asexual reproduction should be the norm (as it is in> >bacteria).* *>>

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

Russell, please: what is your take on "INTELLIGENT"? John Mikes On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:23:47PM -0800, Pierz wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:39

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

I read it all, did not find what PA and RA are standing for. Can you explain in brief? Thanks John M On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 02 Nov 2015, at 18:30, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 11/1/2015 11:09 PM, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

. Axioms I consider artificial rules made up to make (scientific?) conclusions valid. Maybe I am all wrong on this list. John Mikes On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > PA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms > RA = https:/

Re: Fwd: Responsibility and Personhood

u, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 03:28:22PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: > > Jason, Russell, Stathis, Brent > > > > I am not a Platonian, not a physicist and not a believer, just an > agnostic

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

Beautiful! Not very flattering to acceptors of the Theory of Everything though: you have to forget EVERYTHING to begin with. Then make up the WORLD from that fraction you experienced and format it into a Total. The hack with the rest... JM On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Pierz

Fwd: Responsibility and Personhood

Jason, Russell, Stathis, Brent I am not a Platonian, not a physicist and not a believer, just an agnostic (in my OWN sense of the term). I don't believe that an algorithm *"DOES"*, or *"ACTS" * so it cannot be 'held responsible'. We, the People do all this. *Russell's* 'sense of agency' requires

Re: A scary theory about IS

ote: > > >> >> On 9/23/2015 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> On 22 Sep 2015, at 23:55, John Mikes wrote: >>> >>> Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active first 50 >>>> years of my li

Re: Human-amoeba etc.

eba and a human (mind? I don't know about 'soul' mentioned here) are so vastly different that no straight comparison seems realistic. John Mikes On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com> wrote: > I disagree with most of the theorising about this scenario, which see

Re: A scary theory about IS

cut-throat?) Competition as life? thanks, but no thanks. . Do you mean cooperative and collaborating goodwilling people dead? On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 21 Sep 2015, at 22:49, John Mikes wrote: > > Bruno wrote. > *That is

Re: Some questions on ontology of dreams

Interesting set-up. Goes around the notion that our 'environment' is a subjective composition upon whatever we (humans etc.) can compose as a result of OUR (partial) views collected from Nature (whatever we call so). Without such composite there is no 'human' identified. The details my learned

Re: A scary theory about IS

.be> wrote: > > On 19 Sep 2015, at 21:16, John Mikes wrote: > > Bruno, > even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic system in > the US, > leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the > population. > I am not talking Mar

Re: A scary theory about IS

Brent, you wrote: *...You also need such an organization to say who owns what and who has violated a contract and who has committed murder and who has committed fraud, etc.Brent...* would you please write your OWN* Bible*? a* "Noch Nie Dagewesene"*? (one that so far never existed here-around)

Re: A scary theory about IS

production is not even paying for susistence of the workers. Global is not practical.) JM On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote: > > Bruno: > could you please define* "free market"* (syste

Re: A scary theory about IS

ol. Free travel? we see it in EU. And so on. John Mikes On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote: > > Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary > witness > during my a

Re: Cryonics in the NYT

Then came the adjustments to the 'understandable' formats etc. etc. All that I place in the several millennia before we talk about religion(s) at all. Anyway: I am not a religious student. John Mikes On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Samiya Illias <samiyaill...@gmail.com> wrote: > Where

Re: Cryonics in the NYT

Samiya,* "forever"* is NOT a timespan, it is the *infinite* (maybe without an end, or without a beginning?) so your 'to live forever' may mean: IT IS OVER WITHIN THE INSTANT IT STARTED. (Or: it may indeed mean a duration without an end, as you suggest). THE 'HARD WIRED WITHIN' is natural in an

Re: Could we live forever?

What prompts the question in my mind: what is 'forever'? Time is a relative coordinate we apply under our own universe - based circumstances together with space (motion?). In human reasoning (!). *Forever *brings to mind first: in a *timelessly* momentary fashion, definitely not the

Re: What day is it?

Hi! I vote for Sunday (Saturday?) when I don't have to work. Good dreams JM On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:41 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > ​> ​ >> You will undergo the following experiment: >> 1. During

Re: Gödel's Philosophy

e THINK we know about Her based on the portion we (think we) observed and formulated a "human" reason upon it. According to such formulation the imagined 'Nature" (part) does fit into such *human reason*, what I would not translate into *"Nature I S reasonable"*. John

Re: A scary theory about IS

into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the wealthy. It is called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead, injured casualties of wars) of the system are called heros. Just to vent off John Mikes On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 31 Aug

Re: What day is it?

Q #3 is irrelevant, after Q #2. The answer is "I DUNNO" unless you detect indications for a better one. JM On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > You will undergo the following experiment: > > 1. During the weekend you will be put to sleep with a drug and not

Re: The Mental Being

Sorry for my inaccurate English (the 5th I learned) - I wanted to express deterioration, not total annihilation. John On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 5:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/17/2015 1:52 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent, I really hate to contrast you, I appreciate your mind

Re: The Mental Being

, although not too hopeful.) JM On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 5:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/16/2015 12:52 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: did it slip your mind that your friend, the prez started the Arab Awakening by stabbing Mubarak in the back by his letter and supporting

Re: The Mental Being

Brent: did it slip your mind that your friend, the prez started the Arab Awakening by stabbing Mubarak in the back by his letter and supporting the US-enemy Morsi (The first DEMOCRATICALLY(?) elected Egyptian prez and his Brotherhood!!!) together with his then Foreign Sec'y Hillary, giving

Re: FPI possible continuations

we cannot know for sure. (Please, consider the English ambiguity in this last sentence: A. We cannot know for sure WHAT reality is, - or - B. I cannot mix up time and the other items with reality. ) John Mikes On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Vast Methane releases in Arctic Ocean

that the crime of the people of the Messenger Noah and Messenger Lot are being or will be repeated, and then a Great Flood will occur, as it did in Noah's time perhaps. Samiya On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:44 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Samiya, do the 'Messengers' teach about

Re: Vast Methane releases in Arctic Ocean

Dear Samiya, do the 'Messengers' teach about Arctic Melt, or methane accumulation? IS IT RELEVANT FOR HUMANITY? jm On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Arctic melt and its implications:

Re: A curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity

I think JC resoinded to Brent: *​I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity. Do you? ​* I wonder if 'immensity' means - B I G - ? in which case I cannot refrain from thinking about the* infinite SMALL* as well. Just like I may think for 'eternal' as being momentary and

Re: Mission of the Messengers

Samiya, tha 'Satan' fable bothers me. Now we should 'believe' not only a 'God', but also a 'Satan' with destructive tendencies against humanity? I do not understand your *'...God saved humanity from extinction by annihilating the criminals and their corruptions...'* *D*oes that mean that there

Re: Enlightenment

here. That does not imply a belief in some Hereafter, those 'factors' may be anything (Zookeepers..- Huris ... Spirits... or just inhabitants of another universe. ). On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:32 AM, John Mikes jami

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

influencing our (known/knowable) world as the basis of MY agnosticism. Beyond that I try to comply with the World as we humans may know it by now). JM On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jun 2015, at 22:11, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: to describe what

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

that nature precedes logically mathematics.* I have not included logically and may write: Q.e.D. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Jun 2015, at 21:53, John Mikes wrote: Brent concluded ingeniously: *They have a theory for why THIS might be so no matter

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

Brent concluded ingeniously: *They have a theory for why THIS might be so no matter what THIS is. You just have to find the right mathematics to describe it and miracle of miracles the mathematics is obeyed!Brent* May I step a bit further: by careful observations humanity (or some 'higher'

Re: A mathematical description of the level IV Multiverse

Thanks, Brian, that was beautiful. (especially that little 2-liner: * Therefore, perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal in math. Perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal anywhere.* ...considering an infinite complexity - Nature (mostly still unknown to us) with ingredients

Enlightenment

for your own vocabulary in explaining meanings, Have a 'good' day (in any sense - ha ha). John Mikes -- 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

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

Brent concluded: *2+2=4. Then we discovered that these rules implied a lot of things we hadn't thought of. But they aren't out there, they're in our language.* This is 'MY' agnosticism talking: why do you think all the novelties are in our language, not out there? Our mind (whatever it may

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

You wrote: *(Brent):* *But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable physics. The two are not separable.* *(Bruno):* *Exactly, that is why we can derive physics from the self-referentially correct machine theory.* *...* The entire train of sophistication is based on 'human

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >