Le 06-févr.-07, à 05:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Hal Ruhl writes:
Hi Bruno:
I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
successive states are fully logical
Stathis:
is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY
with a person
who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic
and an excellent
biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he
answered:
I never mix the two
John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different
criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs
about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on
top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the
Stathiws,
no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the futility of arguing
from one belief system (and stressing its solely expanded truth) against a
different truth and evidence carrying OTHER belief system.
BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept
Hal and list:
I do not think anybody fully understands what other listers write, even if
one thinks so.
Or is it only my handicap?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA and
John Mikes wrote:
Stathis:
is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY
with a person
who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout
catholic and an excellent
biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind,
he
Stathis,
maybe I shoot too high, but I was expecting something better from you, at
least referring to what I said.
John
On 2/6/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different
criterion for everyone else's. If
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:23:19PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It *could* be the contrary. In quantum mechanics a case can be given
that it *is* the contrary. It is by taking the full set of (relative
histories) that the quantum phase randomization can eliminate the
quantum aberrant
John,Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent
belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their
beliefs must be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much
kinder to alternative beliefs than I am, but in reality, you *must*
Brent meeker writes:Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and
science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything
else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you
can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may
Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of course to be
right about one thing and wrong about another, and people do keep different
beliefs differently compartmentalized in their head, like your brother-in-law.
However, this is *inconsistent*, and inconsistent is even
Hi Bruno:
At 06:23 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
Le 06-févr.-07, à 05:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Hal Ruhl writes:
Hi Bruno:
I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
Hi John:
Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ for
the list. Perhaps we should give it another try.
Hal Ruhl
At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
Hal and list:
I do not think anybody fully understands what
other listers write, even if one thinks so.
Or is it only my handicap?
John M
Just to clarify - in the metaphor a UD trace that assigns a Hyper
Existence of say 0.2 does so to all states it lands on because the
UD is that type of UD.
Hal Ruhl
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of
course to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and people
do keep different beliefs differently compartmentalized in their head,
like your brother-in-law. However, this is
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 5, 4:37 pm, Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in
that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have
values? If you have values then that mean
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you
really read the modern
On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you
really read
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't
Tom Caylor writes: On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why
do people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be
good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you
Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a
million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel
We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it
isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter.Why do you
say
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker
It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now
will matter.
--- Thomas Nagel
We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true.
Tom
That is, it isn't true that in a million
23 matches
Mail list logo
