On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several others (eg.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: Inside Black Holes of
'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those
Brent,
I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your interpretation
that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an open mind.
And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who is
presumably your friend says via an email.
Again I challenge you to
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would nominate the
strings of string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer,
why would suppose in advance
On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your interpretation that proves
1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an open mind.
It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in the absence of
matter
I imagine this is he:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll
That took a good 5 seconds!
On the subject of a BH not containing matter, surely that depends on
whether there really *is* a singularity inside it? If it's a genuine
singularity, as GR suggests, then any original matter that
Brent,
That's just your interpretation and you apparently ARE UNABLE to find any
authoritative sites to confirm it. Yes, of course the mass interior to a BH
collapses into the singularity but that doesn't mean it vanishes from the
black hole.
Looking at Carroll's Wiki Bio it seems that a lot
On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the
very universe itself had not been discovered, they hadn't found Dark Matter
or Dark Energy; even Einstein didn't know about that.
Dark matter was
On 27 Jan 2014, at 02:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed
to be responsible for my or our existence.
Sounds like physics to me.
Yes. if you
On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed
to be responsible for my or our
2014-01-27 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the
very universe itself had not been discovered, they hadn't found Dark Matter
or Dark Energy; even Einstein didn't know
On 27 Jan 2014, at 04:00, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, so your notion of God is whatever is fundamentally responsible
for existence - hence primitivematerialism makes matter
(energy etc) play the
On 27 Jan 2014, at 05:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is
On 27 Jan 2014, at 05:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 7:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, so your notion of God is whatever is fundamentally
responsible for existence - hence primitive materialism makes
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the
On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
book is really informative about Einstein's religion.
Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein himself
had to say about God:
it was,
On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people on this
planet once used: the word Life refers to some organic matter filled with
elan vital.
Fine. Organic matter is matter that operates according to the
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Refer to my discourse on solving the hard problem.
Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse that clearly
and unambiguously explains exactly what the hard problem is. Exactly
what is it that you expect
On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of
that book is really informative about Einstein's religion.
Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non personal God.
So you believe this non personal thing that has no purpose or goal and can
not be understood as having any attribute as anthropomorphic as
intelligence or
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 19:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!
I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship
On 1/27/2014 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 19:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!
I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship
On 1/27/2014 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 02:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be responsible
for my or our existence.
On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non personal God.
So you believe this non personal thing that has no purpose or goal and can
not
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 19:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
GREEK
Brent,
Just put the origin of your GR BH solution at the singularity and most all
is explained.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people on this
planet once used: the word Life refers to some organic matter filled
On 1/27/2014 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is
being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never
denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be
On 27 January 2014 23:47, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-01-27 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the
very universe itself had not been discovered, they
I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes
floating around the web.
On 28 January 2014 05:18, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of
On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and don't care
about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: Wow, I can't believe we built the pyramids - yeah,
we just threw human death and suffering at them until they were built.
On 1/27/2014 12:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I use the exact same
On 28 January 2014 06:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
book is really informative about Einstein's
On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist,
physicalist) theology for granted.
I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst
On 1/27/2014 1:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist,
On 28 January 2014 11:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 1:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote:
You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist,
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
existence of
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
existence of
Liz,
One point not really correct. Penzias and Wilson had no idea what they had
discovered until someone told them. They were pretty much routine engineers
not first caliber physicists...
Edgar
On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:51:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 27 January 2014 23:47, Quentin
Brent,
Please at least keep the record straight instead of making snide comments
about me.
I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect outside
the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and nothing
can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a
On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and
On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Please at least keep the record straight instead of making snide comments about
me.
I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect outside the event
horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and nothing can go
On 28 January 2014 14:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you
On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't
rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all
encompassing purpose or a goal to existence
On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect
outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and
nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole?
Your answer was that when mass
On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect
outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and
nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole?
Your answer was that when mass
On 28 January 2014 16:17, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
I'd
Liz wrote Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM:
*The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s (I think?) and a
primordial explosion was theorised by Lemaitre, but until the discovery of
the microwave background in the '60s that was only one of several competing
theories put forward to
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2014 09:33, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare
them. I
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare
them.
I use the exact same definition that BILLIONS of people on this planet use:
the word God refers to an intelligent conscious being who created the
universe.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!
I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship that I see around here is just
nuts and stifles original thought . The idea that we can solve today's
cutting edge scientific
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:02 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare
them.
I use the exact same definition that BILLIONS of people on this planet
use:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 21:24, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You attack the straw man, again.
Billions of people believe in this straw man ,
On 25 Jan 2014, at 21:35, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz, Bruno and John,
Liz is spot on here. Almost all of the interminable arguments about
God are simply because different unstated definitions are being used.
God is a matter of definition not of empirical discovery.
You can't be sure of
On 25 Jan 2014, at 20:53, LizR wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare
them. I imagine they're rather different.
I did. Very often. I did again in my preceding post to John Clark.
And John did it also. For John, like for many fundamentalist atheists,
On 25 Jan 2014, at 20:00, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You attack the straw man, again.
Billions of people believe in this straw man , and that is exactly
why using the word God is totally irresponsible if you're not
talking
On 27 January 2014 00:19, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 20:53, LizR wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare them.
I imagine they're rather different.
I did. Very often. I did again in my preceding post to John Clark.
And John
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be responsible for
my or our existence.
Sounds like physics to me.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be
responsible for my or our existence.
Sounds like physics to
On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, so your notion of God is whatever is fundamentally responsible for
existence - hence primitive materialism makes matter (energy etc) play the
part of God, in that sense. I can see that - an
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is
On 1/26/2014 7:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, so your notion of God is whatever is fundamentally responsible for
existence
- hence primitive materialism makes
On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality
On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM,
On 24 Jan 2014, at 21:35, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I said almost. I defined free-will not really by an inability,
but by the knowledge of that inability.
It doesn't matter, even with that definition your statement below
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You attack the straw man, again.
Billions of people believe in this straw man , and that is exactly why
using the word God is totally irresponsible if you're not talking about a
intelligent conscious being who created the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You attack the straw man, again.
Billions of people believe in this straw man , and that is exactly why
using the word God is totally
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare them.
I imagine they're rather different.
Lots of things escape definitions. Transcendental attribute by definition:
beyond (trans) what we can reach, climb to
Liz, Bruno and John,
Liz is spot on here. Almost all of the interminable arguments about God are
simply because different unstated definitions are being used.
God is a matter of definition not of empirical discovery. The only rational
definition of God (if anyone needs one) is the universe
On 26 January 2014 09:33, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare
them. I imagine they're rather different.
Lots of things escape definitions.
On 23 Jan 2014, at 21:43, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:18 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
You do the same error with free will than with God. You
decide to take the most gibberish sense of the word to critize the
idea, instead of using the less gibberish sense, to focus
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I said almost. I defined free-will not really by an inability, but by
the knowledge of that inability.
It doesn't matter, even with that definition your statement below is still
utterly ridiculous:
I don't see how the
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:35:18PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
True. As I said there is a small subset of the human race called
philosophers who are in love with the word G-O-D but not with the concept
of God, therefore they redefine the word accordingly.
Hence if a christian asks me whether
On 25 January 2014 11:07, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:35:18PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
True. As I said there is a small subset of the human race called
philosophers who are in love with the word G-O-D but not with the
concept
of God,
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/24/2014 2:07 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:35:18PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
True. As I said there is a small subset of the human race called
philosophers who are in love with the word G-O-D
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:35:18PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
True. As I said there is a small subset of the human race called
philosophers who are in love with the word G-O-D but not with the
concept
of God,
On 23 Jan 2014, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2014 2:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 01:41, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:53:33PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some competence, I guess you mean.
Without competence, and giving time to the
On 23 Jan 2014, at 06:03, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:12:50AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A set (of natural numbers) is creative if
1) it is RE (and thus is some w_k)
2) its complement (N - w_k) is productive, and this means that for
all w_y included in, we can
On 23 Jan 2014, at 06:18, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 08:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You do the same error with free will than with God. You decide
to take the most gibberish sense of the word to critize the idea,
instead of using the less gibberish sense, to focus on
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Free Will is the inability to predict your own actions even in a
stable environment.
Yes, that's (almost) my definition.
It can't be unless you've recently changed your definition. You said on May
11, 2010:
I don't
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:18 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
You do the same error with free will than with God. You decide to
take the most gibberish sense of the word to critize the idea, instead of
using the less gibberish sense, to focus on what we really try to talk and
share about.
On 23 Jan 2014, at 19:14, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Free Will is the inability to predict your own actions even in
a stable environment.
Yes, that's (almost) my definition.
It can't be unless you've recently changed your
On 22 Jan 2014, at 01:41, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:53:33PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some competence, I guess you mean.
Without competence, and giving time to the creature, any universal
machine do have an open-ended creativity. Well, certainly in the
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think Bruno gave a good definition of 'free will' as unpredictability
(even by oneself).
Bruno's definition? For well over 20 years I have been insisting here and
elsewhere that there are only 2 definitions of Free Will
On 1/22/2014 2:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 01:41, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:53:33PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some competence, I guess you mean.
Without competence, and giving time to the creature, any universal
machine do have an
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:58:32AM -0500, John Clark wrote:
Bruno's definition? For well over 20 years I have been insisting here and
elsewhere that there are only 2 definitions of Free Will that are not
gibberish, and they are almost never used:
1) Free Will is the inability to predict
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:12:50AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A set (of natural numbers) is creative if
1) it is RE (and thus is some w_k)
2) its complement (N - w_k) is productive, and this means that for
all w_y included in, we can recursively (mechanically) find an
element in it, not
On 23 January 2014 08:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You do the same error with free will than with God. You decide to take
the most gibberish sense of the word to critize the idea, instead of using
the less gibberish sense, to focus on what we really try to talk and share
about.
On 23 January 2014 05:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno's definition? For well over 20 years I have been insisting here and
elsewhere that there are only 2 definitions of Free Will that are not
gibberish, and they are almost never used:
1) Free Will is the inability to predict
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules
confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1/20/2014 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:50, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 22:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
The point about
On 20 Jan 2014, at 23:40, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:33:31PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:39, Russell Standish wrote:
The point about acting randomly is that clearly you are not
optimising
your utility. You a choosing something other than the
On 20 Jan 2014, at 23:54, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:35:13AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:14, Russell Standish wrote:
Well yes, that is certainly arguable, and I'm indeed somewhat
critical
of the notion myself. But is not my concept - it is the
: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 2:27 pm
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules
confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 1/20/2014 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014
On 21 Jan 2014, at 01:05, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:28:03AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:24, Russell Standish wrote:
Re the creativity question - it is still an open problem, ISTM.
I think this is solved. Creativity = Universality. (Turing
On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:50, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/21 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:11, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Brent, as much as I like the idea of quantum effects being true,
and the Hameroff-Penrose thesis that microtubules are da' bomb,
There is a
101 - 200 of 315 matches
Mail list logo
