On 03 May 2012, at 23:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/3/2012 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote:
Lawrence M Krauss, author of the excellent book Why is there
something rather than nothing? recently wrote a article in
Scientific American, here is one quote I like
It may be that even an eternal multiverse
On Thu, May 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would focusing on one issue be a distraction from the other?
Because Human Beings do not have infinite time to deal with, so time spent
focusing on issues that Krauss correctly describes as sterile (not leading
to new ideas)
On May 4, 11:48 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would focusing on one issue be a distraction from the other?
Because Human Beings do not have infinite time to deal with, so time spent
focusing on issues that
Craig:
you seem to be firmly anchored in a reductionist conventional view of the
know-it-all model of yesterday. Which is OK with me, as YOUR opinion. I
consider - in my agnostic limitations - those 'factors' (rather: relations)
we did not encounter SO FAR and give an extended view to the model.
On May 4, 3:39 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig:
you seem to be firmly anchored in a reductionist conventional view of the
know-it-all model of yesterday.
I think that I am instead, comfortably camped out in a make sense of
it all model of tomorrow which embraces and rejects both
On 5/4/2012 12:39 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I see the development into more understanding (did I say: better? No)
of the belief miraculous that governed human thinking earlier.
Understanding is one of those words often misunderstood. It is used to refer both to a
feeling of familiarity and
On May 4, 4:42 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/4/2012 12:39 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I see the development into more understanding (did I say: better? No)
of the belief miraculous that governed human thinking earlier.
Understanding is one of those words often misunderstood.
On 5/4/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 4, 4:42 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/4/2012 12:39 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I see the development into more understanding (did I say: better? No)
of the belief miraculous that governed human thinking earlier.
Understanding is
Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago that the properties of the
members of a set need not be properties of the set itself. I.e.,
everything in the universe may have a cause but the universe - the set
of all things - need not. We can argue about whether the ontological
nature of the set of
On May 4, 8:00 pm, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago that the properties of the
members of a set need not be properties of the set itself. I.e.,
everything in the universe may have a cause but the universe - the set
of all things - need not. We can argue
A crazy thoughts about structure of Electron.
=.
Electron isn’t a point.
Electron has a geometrical form.
Electron’s geometrical form isn’t static, isn’t firm.
Electron’s geometrical form can be changed by his own inner spin.
Electron’s own inner spin can be described with three ( 3 ) formulas:
11 matches
Mail list logo
