On 20 Jan 2015, at 23:19, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I use God in the sense of the platonist, who introduced the field
of inquiry theology.
Not that it matters much what some guy who lived 2500 years ago
thought but Plato didn't
On 21 Jan 2015, at 01:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ex(x+x=4) just means there is number
OK.
as defined by Peano's axioms that provably satisfies the expression.
Not at all. That means that PA believes Ex(x+x=4).
?? But you use []p to equally mean
On 21 Jan 2015, at 01:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2015 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The only problem with using god for definition of god (large or
small) is that it's circular. You repeatedly write things like
above, My belief in God is trivial. All machine introspecting are
On 20 Jan 2015, at 23:58, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
Then it is a good thing that computer science did not listen to you
Kim, regarding the concept of abstraction and abstract
classes {e.g. templates for concrete entities fully implementing
the abstracted methods and
On 20 Jan 2015, at 12:31 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
All I know about is ideas and ideas are information and I would say that
information is physical, but you would call it abstract and non-physical, in
contrast I can say virtually nothing about the sun itself but you
On 20 Jan 2015, at 02:31, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The question is not if God exists or not. But if
God = the physical universe?
God = a mathematical structure? Which one?
God = a dream by a universal machine?
God = a sum
On 19 Jan 2015, at 19:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2015 6:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A super powerful mind (or person) simulating some reality could
of course cause the simulation to deviate from its physical laws.
But in a simulation, not in reality.
So you do (bad) theology. You talk
On 19 Jan 2015, at 19:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2015 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My belief in God is trivial. All machine introspecting are
confronted to it, and from outside, in the metatheory, we can see
that they can confused it (correctly, or not) with truth.
The problem of the
On 19 Jan 2015, at 19:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2015 7:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 01:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:32, LizR wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at
least having an
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
stop using that ridiculous and meaningless art term abstract. [...]
Nothing is abstract.
So you're saying that the word abstract should be removed from the
English language because it will never be needed?!
John K
On 19 Jan 2015, at 20:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2015 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 04:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Because 2+2=4, and
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how
the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:20
On 21 Jan 2015, at 4:56 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
stop using that ridiculous and meaningless art term abstract. [...]
Nothing is abstract.
So you're saying that the word abstract should be
On 1/20/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ex(x+x=4) just means there is number
OK.
as defined by Peano's axioms that provably satisfies the expression.
Not at all. That means that PA believes Ex(x+x=4).
?? But you use []p to equally mean provable p and believes p, so what does it
On 1/20/2015 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The only problem with using god for definition of god (large or small) is that it's
circular. You repeatedly write things like above, My belief in God is trivial. All
machine introspecting are confronted to it, and from outside, in the metatheory, we
Then it is a good thing that computer science did not listen to you Kim,
regarding the concept of abstraction and abstract classes {e.g. templates
for concrete entities fully implementing the abstracted methods and properties}
being -- in your opinion -- useless.Abstraction is one of the
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I use God in the sense of the platonist, who introduced the field of
inquiry theology.
Not that it matters much what some guy who lived 2500 years ago thought but
Plato didn't believe in God he believed in The Gods, more
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I use God in the sense of the platonist, who introduced the field of
inquiry theology.
Not that it matters much what some guy who lived 2500 years ago thought but
Plato didn't believe in God he believed in The Gods, more
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
So you're saying that the word abstract should be removed from the
English language because it will never be needed?!
It's not a word that should be used, no. [...]. Platonists have no need
for such a term [...] I believe
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The question is not if God exists or not. But if
God = the physical universe?
God = a mathematical structure? Which one?
God = a dream by a universal machine?
God = a sum on all dreams by all universal machines?
God =
On 18 Jan 2015, at 00:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Clearly one cannot
On 18 Jan 2015, at 08:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:12
On 19 Jan 2015, at 01:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:32, LizR wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least
having an idea of, what God is. Personally I don't disbelieve in
God, I merely find the idea
On 19 Jan 2015, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/17/2015
On 19 Jan 2015, at 07:41, Kim Jones wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 4:40 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
That you consider mod 4 to be a qualifier is just a convention of
language. If we were talking about time what's six hours after
1900: answer 0100, because there the
On 19 Jan 2015, at 04:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Because 2+2=4, and there's nothing you (or anyone/anything) can do
to change that.
Sure there is.
On 19 Jan 2015, at 08:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch
On 19 Jan 2015, at 02:17, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The question is not if God exists or not. But if
God = the physical universe?
God = a mathematical structure? Which one?
God = a dream by a universal machine?
God = a sum
On 18 Jan 2015, at 19:14, meekerdb wrote:
But why should I assume arithmetical realism,
Because 2+2=4, and there's nothing you (or anyone/anything) can do
to change that.
Sure there is. 2+2=0 in mod 4 arithmetic - which is good for
describing some things.
But this works only
On 18 Jan 2015, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2015, at 19:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify
myself as an atheist. I realized that atheists believe to
On 19 Jan 2015, at 01:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:32, LizR wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least
having an idea of, what God is. Personally I don't disbelieve in
God, I merely find the idea
2015-01-19 16:06 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 01:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:32, LizR wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least having
an idea of, what God is.
On 19 Jan 2015, at 16:37, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-01-19 16:06 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 01:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:32, LizR wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing,
On 1/19/2015 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 04:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Because 2+2=4, and
On 1/19/2015 6:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A super powerful mind (or person) simulating some reality could of course cause the
simulation to deviate from its physical laws.
But in a simulation, not in reality.
So you do (bad) theology. You talk like if we knew already what reality is. But
On 1/19/2015 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My belief in God is trivial. All machine introspecting are confronted to it, and from
outside, in the metatheory, we can see that they can confused it (correctly, or not)
with truth.
The problem of the aristotelians is that they often take for
On 1/19/2015 7:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 01:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:32, LizR wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least having an idea of,
what God is. Personally I don't
On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Because 2+2=4, and there's nothing you (or anyone/anything) can do to
change that.
Sure there is. 2+2=0 in
On 19 Jan 2015, at 2:51 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But my serious point is that arithmetic is a model of countable things we
invented and it's not some magic that controls what exists.
Brent
Magic? Hmmyou wish..still having trouble with the comp reversal,
you
On 1/18/2015 10:55 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
at 5:45 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Kim: Which is the Turing Universal system that doesn't show some kind of relationship
with arithmetic? Why do you feel that that reality would have to be magical
if we notice important relations with
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Because 2+2=4, and there's nothing you (or anyone/anything) can do to
On 19 Jan 2015, at 4:40 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
That you consider mod 4 to be a qualifier is just a convention of
language. If we were talking about time what's six hours after 1900: answer
0100, because there the convention is mod 24. But my serious point is that
at 5:45 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Kim: Which is the Turing Universal system that doesn't show some kind of
relationship with arithmetic? Why do you feel that that reality would have
to be magical if we notice important relations with arithmetical values?
You can notice
On 1/18/2015 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb
On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Because 2+2=4, and there's nothing you (or anyone/anything) can do to
change that.
Sure there is. 2+2=0 in mod 4 arithmetic - which is good for describing
some things.
I hope
On 1/18/2015 9:28 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 2:51 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But my serious point is that arithmetic is a model of countable things we
invented and it's not some magic that controls what exists.
Brent
Magic? Hmmyou wish..still having
Thank you for those kind words! :-)
On 17 January 2015 at 13:21, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 17 Jan 2015, at 6:59 am, LizR via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Of course I do believe in Daleks
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, meekerdb
On 1/18/2015 9:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/18/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The question is not if God exists or not. But if
God = the physical universe?
God = a mathematical structure? Which one?
God = a dream by a universal machine?
God = a sum on all dreams by all universal machines?
God =
On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:32, LizR wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least
having an idea of, what God is. Personally I don't disbelieve in
God, I merely find the idea highly unlikely and don't find that it
contributes anything to discussions such as why is
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 17 Jan 2015, at 02:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2015 8:31 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:18 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify
myself as an atheist. I realized that
On 15 Jan 2015, at 19:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself
as an atheist. I realized that atheists believe to much in the
christian God, paradoxically enough.
By your logic one cannot disbelieve
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:49 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Krauss kind of irritates me, too. His book title A universe from
nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing is basically false
advertising, IMHO.
Considering the fact that Krauss
On 1/18/2015 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 10:32, LizR wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least having an idea of,
what God is. Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find the idea highly
unlikely and don't find that it contributes
On 1/18/2015 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2015, at 19:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself as an atheist. I
realized that atheists believe to much in the christian God, paradoxically
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2015 8:31 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:18 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least having
an idea of, what God is.
I would go further and say one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or
at least having an idea of what reality is, for unless
The only thing about Larry Krauss that I like is his sketching out a conjecture
for faster than light travel.
-Original Message-
From: 'Roger' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 12:17 am
On 1/17/2015 2:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2015 8:31 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:18 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Roger,
If you focus a speed-of-light Coulomb force wave to a point, you produce a
point particle that has no property except charge. If you have a charge, you
have a source of Coulomb force. This is the tronnie. Its charge is either
plus or minus e. Three tronnies can combine to make a
On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least having an
idea of,
what God is.
I would go further and say one cannot disbelieve in
On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least having
an idea of, what God is.
I would go
On 1/17/2015 2:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2015 8:31 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:18 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/17/2015 4:08 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
In Russell's Theory of Nothing he says that the informational content of
the
universe was entirely present at whatever juncture we call the
meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2015 4:08 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
In Russell's Theory of Nothing he says that the informational
content of the universe was entirely present at whatever
On 1/17/2015 9:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Which is fine if you want to dissemble.
Why do you take the Abrahamic God to be the canonical definition?
Not canonical. There's no one with the authority to issue canon law on the meaning of
English.
There are 7 billion people on this Earth
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
In Russell's Theory of Nothing he says that the informational content of
the universe was entirely present at whatever juncture we call the BB.
And early in Big Bang when the cosmic fireball was at the Planck
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:12:20 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
The only thing about Larry Krauss that I like is his sketching out a
conjecture for faster than light travel.
Agreed. Krauss kind of irritates me, too. His book title A universe from
nothing: Why there is
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
early in Big Bang when the cosmic fireball was at the Planck
Temperature of 1.41*10^32 degrees Kelvin how does Russell propose the
information was encoded?
High temperature means there are lots of states energetically
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb
On 1/17/2015 9:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 16-Jan-2015, at 12:13 pm, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:05 pm, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
Like Russell, I tend to feel (or believe, if you prefer) that this One or
what the physicalists call the beginning also includes observers.
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least having an
idea of, what God is. Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find
the idea highly unlikely and don't find that it contributes anything to
discussions such as why is there something rather than nothing? So I am
Wat about a scientific search for God. God defined as the Person that altered
the universe, created, or programmed it, or a part, there of. Its a kind of
Deism, but what if prayer is non-useful in contacting this fellow or gal?
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To:
On 17 Jan 2015, at 6:59 am, LizR via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Of course I do believe in Daleks...)
Jesus, you design a difficult bloody crossword! I thought I knew my Dr WHO...
Kim
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 1/15/2015 8:31 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:18 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself as an atheist. I
realized that atheists
On 17 Jan 2015, at 12:46 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2015 8:31 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:18 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself
Liz,
Hi. I totally agree that if we're talking about the S vs. N question
(I like your shortening of it), we can't assume that pre-quantum fields,
the laws of mathematics, etc. are there. That's what Lawrence Krauss did
in his latest book and was criticized for by philosophers. But, I
John,
Thanks for the posting. I still have trouble conceiving of point
particles with physical dimensions of zero. Wouldn't they be not there?
But, all these ideas of getting something from nothing are on the right
track, I think. And, at least you've made some testable predictions.
On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself as an atheist. I
realized that atheists believe to much in the christian God, paradoxically enough.
By your logic one cannot disbelieve in anything because to do so you have to
On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:18 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself as an
atheist. I realized that atheists believe to much in the christian God,
paradoxically enough.
By your
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:18 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2015 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the reason why I stopped, a long time ago, to qualify myself as an
atheist. I realized that atheists
On 16 Jan 2015, at 5:05 pm, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
Like Russell, I tend to feel (or believe, if you prefer) that this One or
what the physicalists call the beginning also includes observers. I can
conceive of the possibility that observers were present right from the
On 14 Jan 2015, at 01:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/13/2015 2:03 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is better phrased as why does anything exist?
But that question is logically equivalent to why doesn't nothing
exist?, and the
On 1/13/2015 2:03 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is better phrased as why does anything exist?
But that question is logically equivalent to why doesn't nothing exist?, and the
answer is that if
The question is better phrased as why does anything exist? That avoids 50
shades of nothing, or whatever it is you're worried about.
So far the only coherent suggestion is that some things must logically
exist, or at least be true, like 1+1=2, and that everything else can be
leveraged from that.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is better phrased as why does anything exist?
But that question is logically equivalent to why doesn't nothing exist?,
and the answer is that if it did't then nothing exists and so something
does. Logic says something
Roger and Everyone,
I absolutely agree. And I have been working on a model which explains how our
Universe works including how our Universe of 100 to 400 billion galaxies could
have been created from empty space. My model is explained in detail in my new
book, Tronnies – The Source of
On 12 January 2015 at 17:23, 'Roger' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Everyone,
I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our
ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc., and stop talking
about religion so much. It'd be nice
On 13 January 2015 at 15:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Liz,
I have attached copies of pages 172 – 175 explaining what was happening
before there was a Universe Number 1. Before there was a first universe
there were entrons, electrons and positrons. Prior to the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Empty space still, in some sense, contains the laws of physics.[...] the
question that we're attempting to answer is, how can *anything* have
come to exist?
Well, there is *NOTHING *and then there is *nothing. * Some on
On 13 January 2015 at 12:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Liz,
As far as I know you are the only one in this chat group that has a copy
of my book, *Tronnies – The Source of the Coulomb Force* which explains
how our Universe was created from nothing without the need for any
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
