Yes, I am God. I create every moment my life. All the qualia that I see I
create on the spot.
On Saturday 7 September 2024 at 23:27:43 UTC+3 Samiya Illias wrote:
> God is the Creator of Existence and Reality.
> God is the Sustainer of all that exists.
>
> You imagine differently.
God is the Creator of Existence and Reality. God is the Sustainer of all that exists. You imagine differently. On 04-Sep-2024, at 3:22 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:@Samiya. You don't understand what God is. God is existence. Everything that exist is God and is tha
@Samiya. You don't understand what God is. God is existence. Everything
that exist is God and is that way precisely because that's how God is.
On Saturday 31 August 2024 at 18:37:19 UTC+3 Samiya Illias wrote:
> @Cosmin
> My God gives life and death, and controls everything.
on hears of the Tao,
> he laughs out loud at the very idea.
> If he didn’t laugh,
> it wouldn’t be the Tao.
>
> On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 12:45:19 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/30/2024 12:48 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything
@Brent, so is the duck-rabbit a duck or a rabbit ?
--
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 view this
san wrote:
>
> I am God. And so are you. We are all one and the same God dreaming
> infinite dreams.
>
>
> These kinds of statements become problematic when expressed publicly. It's
> the same error of institutionalized religions, that make the equivalence
> between possi
@John Clark, People that use the word crackpot have IQ of 2 digits. No
point having any discussion with them. Enjoy!
On Friday 30 August 2024 at 14:04:20 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 3:48 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > Why
@Cosmin My God gives life and death, and controls everything. He makes the Sun rise from the East. Can you make the Sun rise from the West tomorrow? On 31-Aug-2024, at 4:03 PM, PGC wrote:On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 8:45:19 PM UTC+2 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/30/2024 12:48 AM, 'Cosmin
On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 8:45:19 PM UTC+2 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/30/2024 12:48 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> I am God. And so are you. We are all one and the same God dreaming
> infinite dreams. Why is this knowledge not taught in schools ?
My d
Friday, August 30, 2024 at 12:45:19 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/30/2024 12:48 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> > I am God. And so are you. We are all one and the same God dreaming
> > infinite dreams. Why is this knowledge not taught i
On 8/30/2024 12:48 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
I am God. And so are you. We are all one and the same God dreaming
infinite dreams. Why is this knowledge not taught in schools ?
My dreams are finite and rather inconsistent. That's how you can tell
drea
On Friday, August 30, 2024 at 9:48:12 AM UTC+2 Cosmin Visan wrote:
I am God. And so are you. We are all one and the same God dreaming infinite
dreams.
These kinds of statements become problematic when expressed publicly. It's
the same error of institutionalized religions, that mak
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 3:48 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Why is this knowledge not taught in schools ?
>
Because most people are not crackpots, not even in Florida despite the
governor's incessant efforts to increase the number of ignoramuses
I am God. And so are you. We are all one and the same God dreaming infinite
dreams. Why is this knowledge not taught in schools ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving e
Somebody is quoted as saying this means that in three years you'll either be
dead or have a God as a servant.
Q* Did OpenAI Achieve AGI? OpenAI Researchers Warn Board of Q-Star | Caused Sam
Altman to be Fired?
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
htd
--
You r
gh-2023-11-22/#:~:text=Nov%2022%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20Ahead,with%20the%20matter%20told%20Reuters.>
Somebody is quoted as saying this means that in three years you'll either
be dead or have a God as a servant.
Q* Did OpenAI Achieve AGI? OpenAI Researchers Warn Board of Q-Star | Caused
S
Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis
https://youtu.be/z_8PPO-cAlA
--
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
Thanks
El lun., 16 nov. 2020 a las 8:23, Russell Standish ()
escribió:
> Just follow the instructions below.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 06:08:28AM +, chris peck wrote:
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To
Just follow the instructions below.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 06:08:28AM +, chris peck wrote:
>
> --
> 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 e
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:05 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The best I can think of is with the Taoist issue with nothingness. Does
> nothingness exist? If it does exist then it is not really nothing, and if
> it does not exist then there must be something. The c
tion of random.
>
> Yet in direct contradiction to that religious people are constantly
> talking about the logical reasons, the causes, for God's actions. For
> example they believe God made the hurricane hit the city BECAUSE he was
> angry. Why was God angry? God was angr
#x27;s true; the exceptions are
the Soul's actions and God's actions which they think are events without a
cause, which is the very definition of random.
Yet in direct contradiction to that religious people are constantly talking
about the logical reasons, the causes, for God's act
more than the natural numbers (pun intended). The
(primitively) natural world becomes a “supernatural” fantasy too.
Bruno
> On 31 May 2019, at 03:16, Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:
>
> This article discusses the role this god-idea played in the development of
> civilization.
>
This article discusses the role this god-idea played in the development of
civilization.
LC
http://nautil.us/issue/72/quandary/the-worth-of-an-angry-god
The Worth of an Angry GodHow supernatural beliefs allowed societies to bond
and spread.
By Steve Paulson
A god who knows everything, is
Mythbusters: Does God Exist? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5joYY3VrBtM>
John K Clark
--
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
30520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-the-2500-year-war/
Its behind a paywall - please ask me for a PDF if you don't have
access to New Scientist.
Interesting view that the subversion of theology in 300CE that Bruno
Marchal refers to (closure of the academy) can be blamed almost
completely on both
Hi @Russel, Kindly share the PDF. (blogspot link isn't working. Thanks
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 11:28:18 UTC+5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> A really interesting article I just read in New Scientist.
>
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-mult
On 10 Feb 2017, at 21:31, MJH wrote:
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:50:37 UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi people,
I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with
questions already answered.
Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.
If anyone else has a question on t
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:50:37 UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi people,
>
> I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with questions
> already answered.
>
> Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.
>
> If anyone else has a question on this, please ask, or comment
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi people,
>
> I think that this post is pure trolling.
>
Of course, anyone who disagrees with the great Bruno Marchal can't be
sincere and can only be a troll.
> >
> John comes back with questions already answered.
>
Answe
Hi people,
I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with
questions already answered.
Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.
If anyone else has a question on this, please ask, or comment, but in
this present case we are looping.
Does anyone else have a problem
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> from the third person points of view that he can have about himself, or
>>> better himselves.
>>
>>
> >>
>> No idea what that means, none whatsoever.
>
>
> >
> It means that the guy can say to his friend: you can join me at W
On 08 Feb 2017, at 03:11, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique
successor because it's just not true anymore.
> Right, from the third person points of view that he can have
about himself, or b
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
>> >
>> Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique successor because
>> it's just not true anymore.
>
>
> >
> Right, from the third person points of view that he can have about
> himself, or better himselves.
>
No idea wh
On 07 Feb 2017, at 04:09, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> I am right here in Helsinki right now,
> OK.
>> in the future what one and only one city will I see after
the experiment is over?
> That is the question. OK.
Yes
> Not
On 06 Feb 2017, at 20:28, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/6/2017 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel
seeing only one city.
How does computationalism alone guarantee that? It seems that it
relies on a lot of physical assumptions about
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
>> I am right here in Helsinki right now,
>
>
> >
> OK.
>
>>
> >>
>> in the future what one and only one city will I see after the experiment
>> is over?
>
>
> >
> That is the question. OK.
>
Yes
> >
> Notice that
On 2/6/2017 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel
seeing only one city.
How does computationalism alone guarantee that? It seems that it relies
on a lot of physical assumptions about the speed of light and the
physical instantiation
On 04 Feb 2017, at 19:15, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> You were correct when when you said "he is
duplicated", therefore while in H any question of the form "what
will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and the
person
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> You were correct when
>> w
>> hen you said "he is duplicated", therefore while in H any question of
>> the form "what will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and
>> the personal pronoun is ambiguous after that.
>
On 31 Jan 2017, at 00:01, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> You do have agree that the three people are the same H
person. But he is duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the
HM in M.
You were correct when when you said "he is dup
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> You do have agree that the three people are the same H person. But he is
> duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the HM in M.
>
You were correct when
when you said "he is duplicated", therefore while in H any question of
On 30 Jan 2017, at 17:44, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> Where it says things like "in the people duplicating
experiment *YOU* can not predict what one and only one city *YOU*
will see after *YOU* after have been duplicated and thus there ar
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Where it says things like "in the people duplicating experiment **YOU**
>> can not predict what one and only one city **YOU** will see after **YOU**
>> after have been duplicated and thus there are now 2 of **YOU** and *
>> *YOU** s
On 28 Jan 2017, at 23:37, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> And every one of those 700 pages contains personal
pronouns with no clear referent;
> Where?
Where it says things like "in the people duplicating
experiment *YOU* can not pre
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> And every one of those 700 pages contains personal pronouns with no
>> clear referent;
>
>
> >
> Where?
>
Where it says
things like
"in the people duplicating experiment **YOU** can not predict what one and
only one city **Y
you are just joking
I am dead serious. If what you say is true there is absolutely no
need for a company like INTEL.
Then we agree, if the word "God" is redefined to mean a
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob then "God" exists,
It is the creator of reality, in a
these "
universal numbers
" of yours so use them to make some calculations and put INTEL out of
business.
>
> I have no clue if you are just joking
>
I am dead serious. If what you say is true there is absolutely no need for
a company like INTEL.
>> Then we agree,
ate the most.
Let us forbid reason in the field so that we keep the power of the
credules that we can manipulate with terror and wishful thinking.
> It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the
theological assumption of the Materialist.
Theology has no field of study.
&
n if it was by far the most influential and the only
type that Bruno talks about.
Because Plato and Aristotle provides the only known conception or
realities, and ask the first questions. You seems genuinely unable to
understand that you defend all the time the second God of Aristotle,
that
On 22 Jan 2017, at 03:05, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/21/2017 5:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very
bad joke that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing
for nearly two thousand years. And NOTHING comes from Greek
theolog
On 21 Jan 2017, at 01:16, Brent Meeker wrote:
The number machine Nu must be defined by some specific encoding.
The polynomials depend on X and Nu. So what is an X and Nu for
which they have a solution and what enumeration is phi_mu?
The specific encoding is given by the polynomial itself
On Sun., 22 Jan. 2017 at 12:33 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> >
> In Plato-like theology
> [blah blah blah]
>
>
>
>
> It's unreasonable to call Plato an "imbecile". Have you read any of his
> Socratic dialogues? They qualify as brillia
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> You shouldn't be so hard on Greek physics. It's Aristotle and Plato's
> "physics" writings that happened to survive and could be interpreted as
> compatible with Christianity got adopted by the early Church.
>
You're probably right I
On 1/21/2017 5:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very bad
joke that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing for
nearly two thousand years. And
*NOTHING* comes from Greek theology or anybody else's theology either
for that matter
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> In Plato-like theology
> [blah blah blah]
>
Plato was an imbecile and theology has no field of study.
>
> It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the theological
> assumption of the Mate
The number machine Nu must be defined by some specific encoding. The
polynomials depend on X and Nu. So what is an X and Nu for which they
have a solution and what enumeration is phi_mu?
Brent
P.S. I can believe statements are true without believing their referents
exist: "The Mad Hatter is i
On 19 Jan 2017, at 18:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/19/2017 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality, and
maybe just that reality, helps to keep in mind that Primitive-
Matter existence needs an act of faith. Nobody can prove its
On 1/19/2017 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Using God in the sense of whatever is needed to have a reality, and
maybe just that reality, helps to keep in mind that Primitive-Matter
existence needs an act of faith. Nobody can prove its exoistence, and
a materialist assumes that such a
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
I don't think it's obvious that we could detect that a probe hadbeen sent
to a star.
It would be obvious if it was a self replicating von Neumann
On 18 Jan 2017, at 19:04, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the
universe.
That's exactly the problem, the large sense of the word "creator"
is so large it becomes mean
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> I don't think it's obvious that we could detect that a probe had been sent
> to a star.
>
It would be obvious if it was a self replicating von Neumann probe, just
one probe could construct a Dyson Sphere around every star in the Galaxy
pace telescopes
would be great but they're not needed for that. If God or ET
existed it would be obvious to a blind man in a fog bank.
>
Assuming a small universe, but nothing prevents the existence of
Aliens in far away galaxies,
If you
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> God is the creator (in a large sense of the word) of the universe.
>
That's exactly the problem, the large sense of the word "creator" is so
large it becomes meaningless. Your God does not need to be a perso
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Betters
>>
>> pace telescopes
>> would be great but they're not needed for that. If God or ET existed it
>> would be obvious to a blind man in a fog bank.
>>
>
> >
> Assuming a small universe,
On 17 Jan 2017, at 00:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> Aristotle God = Matter
Plato God = something else
People who say that theology does not exist are just taking
Aristotle theology for granted.
I have a dream that one day you w
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Aristotle God = Matter
> Plato God = something else
People who say that theology does not exist are just taking Aristotle
> theology for granted.
I have a dream that one
day
you will write an entire post without refe
their and maybe far
in the past, or God, out their and maybe far in the past (sticking to special
and general relativity), however it's still impressive. New things can and will
be found if we improve our telescopes, etc...
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-
Ok John, but your reply got me thinking.
What if God was powerful enough to create or alter the universe, but was not
all-knowing, all powerful?
On the technology thing, while we're building in the solar system, and looking
at stellar data for this, that, and the other, my point is, mig
On 16 Jan 2017, at 03:17, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote:
> Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as
some kind of super intelligent fellow,
It takes more than being smarter that a human to be God, you've
On 16 Jan 2017, at 00:10, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all
the rest follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever.
That's exactly the problem. You use the word &qu
On 1/15/2017 6:17 PM, John Clark wrote:
If space aliens existed they should be easy to detect, the fact we
haven't heard a peep from them makes me think they don't exist.
Or they are very far away on the scale of the duration of high-tech
civilization times the speed of light. There's a l
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of
> super intelligent fellow,
>
It takes more than being smarter that a human to be God, you've g
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Shemer wrote
"Any sufficiently advanced Extraterrestrial Intelligence is indistinguishable
from God."
Well, let us guess that whatever God is or was, exists as some kind of super
intelligent fellow, who occasionally peaks i
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I use "God" in the sense of the basic reality from which all the rest
> follows, or emerges, or emanates, or is created, whatever.
>
That's exactly the problem. Y
ou use the word "God" in such a ultra gene
On 14 Jan 2017, at 18:10, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
You seem to know so much about that Artifact "GOD"
It is not so much a question of knowing, than sharing some
definitions, and then reason, or read reasoning made by others.
I use "God" in the sense of the basic re
Bruno,
You seem to know so much about that Artifact "GOD" and that other one: our
"subconscious". At least you say so about "HER".
Why do you assign the topic to our Solar system to time the 'full answer'
to at least 2 years (Solar, I suppose, otherwise &
f physics.
> Computer science books does not compute, but still provides
proof that numbers together with addition and multiplication do
compute.
Addition and multiplication are computations, so you're saying
computations compute. Well I can't argue with that.
>
ed by the
agent's brain, and brains are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> >
> Computer science books does not compute, but still provides proof that
> numbers together with addition and multiplication do compute.
Addition and multiplication
are computations,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
>> When it comes to the definition of words the majority rules.
>
>
> >
> The majority agrees with this naïve definition: God is the creator of
> everything.
>
How can a definition of a w
Clark wrote:
> You confess base your thinking on what the majority says,
You're damn right, and I don't confess it I brag about it! When
it comes to the definition of words the majority rules.
The majority agrees with this naïve definition: God is the creator of
everything
here is still
computations which emulates your mind states. Of course, you can say
they are zombie, because you want your god Matter to be present, but
then a religious charlatan could also add that such a Matter will only
work if his/her God gives the permission.
Actually, if that primary matter
nothing is computed.
> >
> with computationalism, Physical computer do not exist primitively, they
> arise as common pattern in the mind of non physical computer.
>
M
aybe "computationalism" means that in Bruno-Speak,
a language known only to you. A
nd maybe "
hat
language.
Not at all. My way of talking is quite standard, in may field crossed.
It is not a question of language anyway. If primary matter exists, the
physical appearance cannot be used to assert the existence of primary
matter. That follows from a reasoning, and we know where and
> understanding.
>
>
> >
> How do you know?
>
From
Induction, something
even more important than deduction and something
Robinson
arithmetic doesn't have.
There are countless examples of matter explaining things and countless
examples of matter understanding t
n, and that will not depend locally from the fact
that the emulation is made by this or that universal system. Globally,
for the lasting aspect of the pain, some physics arise, but the theory
explains why. It is not invoked like a god who could select a
computation as more real than another.
x, y) with P recursive.
If so then I don't believe in it. Yes nouns exist but so do
adjectives, aka information.
> and believer in the zero personal gods theory)
maintain the field in the hands of the clericals
How long do you suppose the Catholic Church would last
hits, unlike pure mathematics physics will continue to do its
thing regardless of what you assume define or classify. If you don't
believe me just wait a fraction of a second.
> >
> It means a Physical reality which would not been able to be explained
> without assuming
27;t believe in it. Yes nouns exist but so do
adjectives, aka information.
>
and believer in the zero personal gods theory)
maintain the field in the hands of the clericals
How long do you suppose the
Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is n
the logic of self-reference. It is the logic of []p &
<>t , with p sigma_1 (that is equivalent with an arithmetic formula
having the shape ExP(x, y) with P recursive.
If so then I don't believe in it. Yes nouns exist but so do
adjectives, aka information.
> and be
On 1/6/2017 5:42 PM, John Clark wrote:
How long do you suppose the
Catholic Church would last if the Pope said "There is no personal God.
God exists but He's an
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob
.
"
?
I would estimate about .9 seconds.
No, that's how
Physical Reality
>
Does "
Primary Physical Reality
" mean a belief that matter is all there is? If so then I don't believe
in it. Yes nouns exist but so do adjectives, aka information.
>
> and believer in the zero personal gods theory)
>
> maintain t
On 04 Jan 2017, at 18:59, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> I say matter is always needed to make a calculation
you keep pointing out this textbook or that textbook in an effort to
prove me wrong.
> because those textbook explain what is
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >>
>> I say matter is always needed to make a calculation you keep pointing
>> out this textbook or that textbook in an effort to prove me wrong.
>
>
> >
> because those textbook explain what is a computation, without assuming
> an
On 03 Jan 2017, at 21:52, John Clark wrote:
I agree, and yet bizarrely whenever I say matter is always needed
to make a calculation you keep pointing out this textbook or that
textbook in an effort to prove me wrong.
because those textbook explain what is a computation, without assumin
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> I said it before I'll say it again, Aristotle was the worse physicists
>> who ever lived. Full stop.
>
>
> >
> It was wrong,
>
Aristotle's physics was more than just wrong, it was stupid, and could
have easily been shown to
On 03 Jan 2017, at 02:01, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> The primary cause may be attached to the word
"God", but we both know that is not the only attachment, so is "a
being who can think".
> That is e
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> The
>>
>> primary cause
>> may be attached to the word "God", but we both know that is not the
>> only attachment, so is "a being who can think".
>>
>
> >
On 27 Dec 2016, at 21:36, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics
is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I
derived formally a quantum logic, and explained informally
1 - 100 of 1321 matches
Mail list logo
