If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what
physical laws are. For example, if quantum mechanics is just a model,
then its interpretation, for example MWI, in my view, does not make too
much sense.
Evgenii
On 28.04.2012 03:00 meekerdb said the following:
...
> Som
On 28 Apr 2012, at 03:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2012 5:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:
David, IZ, Brent:
do you have some fairly acceptable (for whom?) ID
"Intelligent Design"??
about that darn 'vita'?
That would ease the problem to accept or reject EV. Some people
'ride' the Terrestrial Bio
John,
On 28 Apr 2012, at 02:49, John Mikes wrote:
Evgenii:
are you sure we 'know' the base-line of AI? is (human) mentality
discovered in all its details? is it possible to program ALL details
into a machine?
We seem to be restricted to our insufficient knowledge of the "so
far". All we c
On Apr 28, 3:10 am, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what
> physical laws are.
'Models' are nothing whatsoever except strategies we employ to make
sense of something we are unfamiliar with by tying them metaphorically
to a sense experience th
On Apr 28, 4:29 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Because by construction it eliminates consciousness.
>
> When biologists eliminate the elan vital, by using chemistry instead,
> there is a real progress because they eliminate a spurious linguistic
> gap-type explanation by an explanation from concept
On 4/28/2012 12:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
If we say that everything based on models, the question is then what physical laws are.
For example, if quantum mechanics is just a model, then its interpretation, for example
MWI, in my view, does not make too much sense.
Evgenii
It's a model -
On 4/28/2012 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Apr 2012, at 03:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2012 5:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:
David, IZ, Brent:
do you have some fairly acceptable (for whom?) ID
"Intelligent Design"??
about that darn 'vita'?
That would ease the problem to accept or reject
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Who is it other than you that claims that the proposition that all
> possible things are either random or determined is true
Anyone with half a brain or anyone who has spent 2 minutes thinking what it
means to be random!
> by virtue of it
Evgenii:
MWI is great, I just cannot follow the logic why ALL 'worlds' should be
identical with this one we are doomed to live in (except for playing with
the 'transport' folly). This one is so lousy that ONE is more than enough
of it.
I derived a narrative for (my) Bigbang (one word) with innumera
On Apr 28, 1:49 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Who is it other than you that claims that the proposition that all
> > possible things are either random or determined is true
>
> Anyone with half a brain or anyone who has spent 2 minutes thinkin
Bruno,
I confess to ignorance (not the elegant agnosticism) towards the UM
('you'?).
Are you sure you "know" who you (the UM=you) are?
>From your words it looks to me as a "super-dooper" Occam razor, cutting out
lots of details and concentrates on the 'essence'? (Those "details" however
contribute
On Apr 27, 10:27 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Apr 27, 5:02 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > To say that nothing is no-thing
> > > (the thing that is the absence of things) is completely valid,
>
> > No, it is nonsense.
>
> Just as non-sense is a kind of
12 matches
Mail list logo
