On 1 Sep, 05:18, Rex Allen wrote:
> That these rules generate rational beliefs is a leap of faith, and can
> neither be refuted nor proven.
apart from noting the survival value of
rationality over irrationality
> If the underlying process *didn’t* cause us to present and believe
> rational ar
On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under
> the rug,
Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists
front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem.
--
You received this message because you are s
on 18.09.2010 01:38 1Z said the following:
On 17 Sep, 18:52, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nymanwrote:
...
The next citation by Robert B. Laughlin (Nobel laureate in
physics) could be of interest here:
http://blog.rudnyi.
On 18 Sep, 16:11, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> on 18.09.2010 01:38 1Z said the following:
>
>
>
> > On 17 Sep, 18:52, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> >> on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
>
> >>> On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nyman wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >> The next citation by Robert B. Laughlin (Nobe
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and H2O is
in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements of reality, too
I am not sure if I understand your answer. Say we have H2 and O2 at room
temperature
On 17 Sep 2010, at 19:52, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nyman wrote:
...
Whatever composite categories we might be tempted to have recourse
to - you know: molecules, cells, bodies, planets, ideas,
explanations, theories, the wh
On 18 Sep 2010, at 14:34, 1Z wrote:
On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under
the rug,
Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists
front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem.
Indeed. Sin
On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >> By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and H2O is
> >> in chemical bonds in H2O.
>
> > such bonds can be considered basic elements of reality, too
>
> I am not sure if I
On 18 Sep, 18:21, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2010, at 14:34, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under
> >> the rug,
>
> > Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists
> > front of the 'ha
On 18 Sep 2010, at 19:43, 1Z wrote:
On 18 Sep, 18:21, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Sep 2010, at 14:34, 1Z wrote:
On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under
the rug,
Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists
on 18.09.2010 19:02 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 17 Sep 2010, at 19:52, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
This is why attempts to describe free atoms in Newtonian terms
always result in nonsense statements such as their being neither
here nor there but simultaneously everywhere.
IMO, this
on 18.09.2010 19:40 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
H2O is in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements of reality, too
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and H2O is
in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements of reality, too
I am not sure if I understand your answe
on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
H2O is in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements of re
Hi Peter and Friends,
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 1Z
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 8:16 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: A superposition in QM is just due to a choice of basis?
On 28 Aug, 20:29, "
Bruno:
thanks for the "I think" in your text below - also: I cannot argue
against your negative assessement about atheism - who IMO require a 'God" to
deny. You know my shortcomings to equate physics with other domains of *hearsay
belief systems*, like *theology* (as *religion* mainly). What I mea
On 9/18/2010 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
H2O is in chemical bonds in H2O.
suc
Friends,
that reminds me of my 1/2 c profession in - more or less - chemistry with a
conclusion that averted the brainwashing received in college (and applied in
my successful R&D work as long as it lasted) that the chemical 'formulae' of
compounds describe 'ingredients'.
You mentioned H2O - which
On 18 Sep, 19:32, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> on 18.09.2010 19:40 1Z said the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> >> on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
>
> >> ...
>
> By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
> H2O is in chemical b
on 19.09.2010 01:52 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 19:32, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 19:40 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyiwrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O
and H2O
on 18.09.2010 23:35 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference b
21 matches
Mail list logo
