Dear John,
Le 12-août-07, à 18:00, John Mikes a écrit :
> Dear Bruno,
> did your scientific emotion just trapped you into showing that your
> theoretical setup makes no sense?
> Angels have NO rational meaning, they are phantsms of a (fairy?)tale
> and if your math-formulation can be applied t
Le 12-août-07, à 18:00, John Mikes a écrit :
>Please, do not tell me that your theories are as well applicable to
faith-items! Next time sopmebody will calculate the enthalpy of the
resurrection.
Frank Tipler calculated the probability of the resurrection in his last book
"The Physics of Christian
Just to clarify - my question to Bruno was serious. He has mentioned
angels before. I thank him for his considered response which I am
still studying.
The part of his post which prompted my question was:
Also, if we are machine (or just lobian), we can indeed contemplate the
consistency of *
Le 13-août-07, à 13:29, Kim Jones a écrit :
> where he appears to serve the option of being machine or some other
> order of being. I must confess that I still don't understand the
> ontology of angels as opposed to machines but I'm sure his reply
> contains the reason
Don't worry, I will t
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal
Skickat: den 13 augusti 2007 16:36
Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ämne: Re: Rép : Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences
>I don't think Church thesis can be grasped
>conceptually without the understandi
On 13/08/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Question to David, and others who could be interested: is the notion
> of enumerable and non enumerable set clear? Can you explain why the set
> of functions from N to N is not enumerable?
Do please remind us. "Off the top of my head", do
On 11/08/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That the 'comp reality' is founded on the number realm, is almost
> trivial. What is not trivial at all, and this is what the UDA shows, is
> that, once you say "yes" to the digital doctor, for some level of
> substitution, then your immateri
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Question to David, and others who could be interested: is the notion
> of enumerable and non enumerable set clear? Can you explain why the set
> of functions from N to N is not enumerable?
>
>
> Let us go slow and deep so that everybody can understand, once and
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:31:51AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > No, I mean all information known by the observer (including, but not
> > exclusively information know by the observer about erself).
>
>
> OK, but then adding "about the universe" is confusing at this stage.
> You interpret
9 matches
Mail list logo
