Brent Meeker writes:
> You mean like this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm
That reference has an interesting take on prayer:
"In hearing our prayer God does not change His will or action in our regard,
but simply puts into effect what He had eternally decreed in view of our prayer.
Le 17-nov.-06, à 20:35, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> Historically the "theo" was referring to gods, by the greek
>> intellectuals. From their writing you can see that "gods" could refer
>> to "concepts" as well as images to figure out abstract recurring
>> patterns i
Stathis,
I enjoy your (Brent, Bruno, etc.) religion-class.
What you quoted about prayer, is in the ballpark of what I say always,
except for the addition: 'does what was to be done anyway'. IOW: he doesn't
care.
Why do the religions (almost all of them) depict a god after the worst human
char
I had a thought about an alternative way of expressing the UDA
(universal dovetailer argument).
Computationalism is the statement that "I am a computation". To use
the RITSIAR acronym, computations are real in the sense I am real. But
the Church-Turing thesis gives a particular model of a computa
> Since it makes no difference in any observable respect whether we are
living in a computer simulation running on a bare substrate, as one that
is incidently computated as part of a universal dovetailer, or an
infinite chain of dovetailers, we really can make use of Laplace's ripost
to Napoleon
Russell Standish writes:
> I had a thought about an alternative way of expressing the UDA
> (universal dovetailer argument).
>
> Computationalism is the statement that "I am a computation". To use
> the RITSIAR acronym, computations are real in the sense I am real. But
> the Church-Turing thesi
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 02:36:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> But if a physical universe is needed to run the UD, without a physical
> universe
> there is no UD. It's a circular argument unless you have some other argument
> showing a computation can run without physical hardware.
>
Hi Russel,
Are you assuming non-well founded sets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-well-founded_set_theory
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: UDA revisited
>
> On Sun, No
8 matches
Mail list logo
