On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
One told me: I see in my diary that I predicted (in Helsinki) that I
would be at both places, but I see now that this was wrong
I predicted? In such a situation that would only be a half truth, it
would be much more
2013/12/11 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
We always feel that we are a single person
Yes but the copy that walked out of the duplicating chamber with you (or
perhaps you are the copy and he is the original, no
In john mind, if you can encounter (only in principle) your doppelganger,
then probability lose meaning (comp though experiment), if you can't (MWI)
then probability make sense... yeah... totally logical !
And for comp I said only in principle... because you could reconstruct the
second one 100
On 12 December 2013 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
In forking MWI worlds, your ID is constantly changing as it depends on
various quantum states.
Your detailed nature is never duplicated. Every fork is a change from your
previous state.
If comp supports MWI, why
On 11 Dec 2013, at 18:10, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
We always feel that we are a single person
Yes but the copy that walked out of the duplicating chamber with you
(or perhaps you are the copy and he is the original,
On 11 Dec 2013, at 17:19, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Then you can't say that you will survive anything. We die at each
instant
OK, but then you can't say that survival is important, or that the
word means much of
On 12/12/2013 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 December 2013 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
In forking MWI worlds, your ID is constantly changing as it depends on
various
quantum states.
Your detailed nature is never duplicated. Every
On Dec 12, 2013, at 11:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2013 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 December 2013 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
In forking MWI worlds, your ID is constantly changing as it depends
on various quantum states.
Your detailed
On 12/12/2013 12:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 12, 2013, at 11:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2013 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 December 2013 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
In
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
In Everett it's always obvious who I'm talking about when I use the
personal pronoun you, it's the only other fellow in the room with me; but
in Bruno's thought experiment there is a man standing to the right of the
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2013 12:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 12, 2013, at 11:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2013 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 December 2013 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Any time John Clark pretends that he does not understand or believe in
first-person indeterminancy, refer him to his own post where he admitts to
understanding it and believing in it:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/5PR1FXp_CSU/PnuTSn_82PwJ
John Clark: So yes, subjectively the
On 12 December 2013 22:36, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 December 2013 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
In forking MWI worlds, your ID is constantly changing as it depends on
various quantum states.
Your detailed nature is never duplicated. Every fork is a change
On 13 December 2013 06:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2013 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 December 2013 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
In forking MWI worlds, your ID is constantly changing as it depends on
various quantum states.
Your detailed
On 13 December 2013 10:27, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
In Everett it's always obvious who I'm talking about when I use the
personal pronoun you, it's the only other fellow in the room with me; but
in Bruno's
On 12/12/2013 2:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 December 2013 06:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/12/2013 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 December 2013 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
In
On 13 December 2013 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2013 2:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 December 2013 06:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2013 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 December 2013 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
In
On 12/12/2013 4:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 December 2013 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/12/2013 2:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 December 2013 06:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2013 1:36
On 13 December 2013 14:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The result was lack of frequency dispersion for gamma rays. So it was
assuming some interaction between photons and the discrete units of
spacetime. That seems pretty tight.
Assuming the interpretation is correct, at least.
On 12/12/2013 5:12 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 December 2013 14:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
The result was lack of frequency dispersion for gamma rays. So it was
assuming some
interaction between photons and the discrete units of spacetime. That
Thanks, I will have a go at understanding those.
--
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
Having had a go at following the first paper, I will have to give in and
just accept that lack of dispersion indicates lack of quantum foam.
It seems ironic that quantum theory is supposed to explain what happens at
small scales compared to relativity, but now we have what looks like an
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2013 2:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2013 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Dec 2013, at 22:53, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8,
On 10 Dec 2013, at 18:03, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
You're avoiding my question. Why don't you also reject the MWI?
If I am reluctant to answer your question it is because I've already
done so many times in the past, but if you
On 10 Dec 2013, at 20:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2013 12:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Do you agree that in Helsinki we have:
Probability(I will feel to be a unique guy in an unique city) =
1 (assuming comp and all the default assumptions) ?
It has the same problem. It is just moved
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:03 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
You're avoiding my question. Why don't you also reject the MWI?
If I am reluctant to answer your question it is because I've already done
so many times
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Then you can't say that you will survive anything. We die at each instant
OK, but then you can't say that survival is important, or that the word
means much of anything at all.
and comp is made trivial,
'Comp is not
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
We always feel that we are a single person
Yes but the copy that walked out of the duplicating chamber with you (or
perhaps you are the copy and he is the original, no way to tell and no
reason to care) also feels like
On 12/11/2013 12:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2013 2:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2013 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Dec 2013, at
On 12 December 2013 08:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't disagree with any of that. But by providing a with an id prior to
the fork and then testing after the fork you are effectively modeling a
soul that is not duplicated but rather belongs to one of the copies and
not the
Liz,
In forking MWI worlds, your ID is constantly changing as it depends on
various quantum states.
Your detailed nature is never duplicated. Every fork is a change from your
previous state.
If comp supports MWI, why should your ID ever stay the same
since you are constantly forking with or
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 10:24 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Comp is the belief (hope, assumption, theory) that you can survive when
saying yes to a doctor who proposed to you a digital computer brain
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/11/2013 12:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2013 2:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 09 Dec 2013, at 18:45, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I mean what everybody mean by computationalism in the cognitive
science
Bullshit. Comp differs from computationalism in that comp
includes all the silly (and
On 09 Dec 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/9/2013 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Dec 2013, at 22:53, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Telmo Menezes
you must also reject the MWI, because you live
Who is you? Telmo's
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2013 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Dec 2013, at 22:53, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo Menezes
you must also reject the MWI, because you
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
You're avoiding my question. Why don't you also reject the MWI?
If I am reluctant to answer your question it is because I've already done
so many times in the past, but if you insist I will do so again. The Many
World's
On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Comp is computationalism, and I pretend (at the least) to
derive the consequences from it. So, if you want to act like a
scientist, just accept the definition given, and show a flaw in the
derivation. The very fact that you don't act
On 12/10/2013 12:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Do you agree that in Helsinki we have:
Probability(I will feel to be a unique guy in an unique city) = 1 (assuming comp and
all the default assumptions) ?
It has the same problem. It is just moved from you to I. What does I refer to. I
can
On 12/10/2013 9:03 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
You're avoiding my question. Why don't you also reject the MWI?
If I am reluctant to answer your question it is because I've already done so many
On 12/10/2013 2:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2013 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Dec 2013, at 22:53, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo Menezes
On 08 Dec 2013, at 21:34, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote Dec.06 to John Clark:
What about comp-immortality? have you an argument which makes you
sure that your consciousness is not related to your computations in
arithmetic? That would be a case you seem to know better than us.
Excuse
On 08 Dec 2013, at 22:53, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Telmo Menezes
you must also reject the MWI, because you live
Who is you? Telmo's post was only 63 words long but the pronoun
you was
used 8 times, that's almost 13%.
On 09 Dec 2013, at 05:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/8/2013 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No, it's a simple matter of using different words for different
things and not muddling the distinction. The Abrahamic religions
make a positive virtue of faith:
Whoever wants to be a Christian should
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You are the one making systematically a confusion between the 1-view and
the 3-view.
For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that, but
John Clark would maintain that there is not a single person on
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:45 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You are the one making systematically a confusion between the 1-view
and the 3-view.
For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark
On 12/9/2013 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Dec 2013, at 22:53, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo Menezes
you must also reject the MWI, because you live
Who is you? Telmo's post was only 63 words long but the pronoun
On 12/9/2013 1:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Dec 2013, at 05:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/8/2013 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No, it's a simple matter of using different words for different things and not
muddling the distinction. The Abrahamic religions make a positive virtue of faith:
Hi John,
I am not sure I understand. You ask me the question I was implicitly asking
to John C., it seems to me. I am not proving the non existence of something
(comp-I), but its existence (in the comp theory).
Bruno
*My apologies! I am frequently perplexed by the position-lined discussion
On 07 Dec 2013, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/7/2013 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It looks like some atheists are condescending with the people. They
act like thinking that the people are so stupid that they should be
allowed to believe in Santa Klaus. But that attitude keep such
On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/7/2013 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch
On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/7/2013 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But we know already that the universe, whatever it is, cannot
entirely understand itself, notably because no machine can ever
completely understand itself.
That depends on it being digital and infinite.
On 07 Dec 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/7/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/5/2013 1:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13,
On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/7/2013 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Dec 2013, at 09:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 11:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is subjective is the appreciation, or not, of the term
theology, and that is subjective indeed, but it could
@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Dec 7, 2013 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 07 Dec 2013, at 17:37, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Comp-I = Comp-Immortality.
I know what a bull is and I know what shit is so I know what
bullshit
On 07 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/7/2013 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5,
2013/12/8 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/7/2013 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
On 08 Dec 2013, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/8 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/7/2013 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 5, 2013, at
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/7/2013 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Comp is the belief (hope, assumption, theory) that you can survive when
saying yes to a doctor who proposed to you a digital computer brain
transplant.
If that were all comp meant I would have no problem with it, but I
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 5:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Comp is the belief (hope, assumption, theory) that you can survive when
saying yes to a doctor who proposed to you a digital computer brain
As I've shown numerous times now, what you assert below is plain lies.
While I can agree sometimes with things you say, I cannot let such obvious
lies pass through. Quentin
Le 8 déc. 2013 17:24, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bruno Marchal
Telmo Menezes
you must also reject the MWI, because you live
Who is you? Telmo's post was only 63 words long but the pronoun you was
used 8 times, that's almost 13%. When it is necessary to hide behind
personal pronouns when a philosophical idea regarding duplicating machines
and personal
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
what you assert below is plain lies. While I can agree sometimes with
things you say, I cannot let such obvious lies pass through.
But you've just let such obvious lies pass through. You haven't
specifically challenged
2013/12/8 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
what you assert below is plain lies. While I can agree sometimes with
things you say, I cannot let such obvious lies pass through.
But you've just let such obvious lies pass
Bruno wrote Dec.06 to John Clark:
*What about comp-immortality? have you an argument which makes you sure
that your consciousness is not related to your computations in arithmetic?
That would be a case you seem to know better than us*.
Excuse mewhat kind of 'argument' do you require to
On 08 Dec 2013, at 17:24, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Comp is the belief (hope, assumption, theory) that you can survive
when saying yes to a doctor who proposed to you a digital computer
brain transplant.
If that were
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo Menezes
you must also reject the MWI, because you live
Who is you? Telmo's post was only 63 words long but the pronoun you was
used 8 times, that's almost 13%. When it is necessary to hide behind
personal
On 12/8/2013 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No, it's a simple matter of using different words for different things and not muddling
the distinction. The Abrahamic religions make a positive virtue of faith:
Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of
his Reason.
---
On 12/6/2013 11:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is subjective is the appreciation, or not, of the term theology, and that is
subjective indeed, but it could also be related to strategy. My difference with
Quentin is on that point. But I have already hidden the wording theology for a long
On 06 Dec 2013, at 18:21, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/6 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com
On 06 Dec 2013, at 18:22, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/6 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com
Jason, please see: http://can-you-answer.com/
particularly: http://can-you-answer.com/CanBahaisAnswer/canBaAns.htm
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/6 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Quentin Anciaux
On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
A religion is based on dogma,
On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:50, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Can you refute comp-I?
No I can not because of the IHA principle.
Comp-I = Comp-Immortality.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are
On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/5/2013 1:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and
On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
A
On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is no science. There are only field of inquiries, and
humans having a scientific attitude. Scientific attitude is field
independent. Research can be refrained only by abuse of authority.
Genuine
On 06 Dec 2013, at 21:31, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well John not you nor I are believers in QI but there seem to be
plenty on this list.
I neither believe nor disbelieve in quantum immortality, I am not
ashamed to
On 06 Dec 2013, at 23:04, Quentin Anciaux wrote (to PGC)
So your world discovery quoted above is already too dogmatic; even
to a Wiki-Taoist.
Are you saying we can't ? Yes, one hypothesis of science, is that
the world is understandable... if it is not, all of what you're
saying is
On 07 Dec 2013, at 09:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 11:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is subjective is the appreciation, or not, of the term
theology, and that is subjective indeed, but it could also be
related to strategy. My difference with Quentin is on that point.
But I have
2013/12/6 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
Science comes from latin and means knowledge... if some wants to use
science as a cover for something else, that doesn't redefine what it is...
science is an attitude towards pursuit of knowledge...
Thank you. The victims of sectarianism in the
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Comp-I = Comp-Immortality.
I know what a bull is and I know what shit is so I know what bullshit is. I
know what immortality is but I don't know what comp is so I don't know what
comp-Immortality is.
John K Clark
--
You received
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
What about comp-immortality?
That's what I'd like to know, what the hell is comp-immortality? How does
it differ from regular run of the mill immortality? Your homemade words
acronyms and phrases are getting out of hand.
have you an
On 12/7/2013 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It looks like some atheists are condescending with the people. They act like thinking
that the people are so stupid that they should be allowed to believe in Santa Klaus. But
that attitude keep such beliefs strongly in the hand of the authoritative
On 12/7/2013 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38
On 12/7/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/5/2013 1:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I repeat the cult of
On 12/7/2013 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On 12/7/2013 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But we know already that the universe, whatever it is, cannot entirely understand
itself, notably because no machine can ever completely understand itself.
That depends on it being digital and infinite.
Brent
--
You received this message because
On 12/7/2013 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Dec 2013, at 09:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 11:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is subjective is the appreciation, or not, of the term theology, and that is
subjective indeed, but it could also be related to strategy. My difference with
On 07 Dec 2013, at 17:37, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Comp-I = Comp-Immortality.
I know what a bull is and I know what shit is so I know what
bullshit is. I know what immortality is but I don't know what comp
is so I don't know what
, or a Neanderthal,
perhaps? No, is an acceptable answer, but I am always interested in crap like
that.
Sincerely,
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Dec 7, 2013 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: How can a grown
On 07 Dec 2013, at 17:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
What about comp-immortality?
That's what I'd like to know, what the hell is comp-immortality?
How does it differ from regular run of the mill immortality? Your
homemade words acronyms
On 05 Dec 2013, at 18:30, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I repeat my question, why add useless wheels within wheels that
explain nothing to otherwise nice theories?
To take into account the discovery already made by
On 05 Dec 2013, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Alberto G. Corona
agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
you can not live without a form of religion
Speak for yourself, I've been living without religion since i was 12.
Without fairy tales. Nice for you. But religion
On 05 Dec 2013, at 18:36, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I believe in science.
That is my religion.
Yes. Religion is no more than the idea that science put some light on
*something* beyond ourself.
As Einstein said : religion without science is blind, science without
religion is lame.
Bruno
On 05 Dec 2013, at 18:38, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
A religion is based on dogma,
That is your dogma. Religion is based on experience and dialog for the
founder of science and modern theology, which is forbidden since
about 1500 years.
Bruno
science is not, hence science is not a
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:11, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 04 Dec 2013, at 16:24, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Alberto,
I agree with you that religion cannot be avoided in this sense.
Here's a funny example:
The Leipzig
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.
Some religions may be, that
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:15, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a
religion.
Some religions may be, that
401 - 500 of 621 matches
Mail list logo
