Point take, Jason. I am interested in using scientific theory and praxis to
benefit the species. I always have the practical in mind, even in the purest of
intellectual pursuits.
Mitch
As Max Tegmark said, we don't need to observe parallel universes to accept
them. If they are a prediction
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:18 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo: reasonable thinking. My wife Maria (almost as old as I am) had long
ago her own ideas abou the zookeeper syndrom: we are kept here safe for
SOME purpose *They* know, *We* don't. When we finished our usefulness it
is
Thanks Liz.
This seems potentially addictive, I will have to tread carefully.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:19 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I will post the solution ... but not quite yet.
In the meantime I have revised a few clues I wasn't happy with, so maybe
that will help.
I can
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 4:29 PM, George gl...@quantics.net wrote:
http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/1-4020-3016-9 As I have explained
in previous posts, it is my opinion that Loschmidt was wrong in thinking
that a Maxwellian gas column could power a perpetual motion machine of the
Second
John,
Experimental results at several high-energy colliders suggest that at some
point in the big bang the universe was a quark-gluon plasma, which despite
it's high energy, is a BEC where all the particles share the same wave
function- so they say. It seems to me that if all particles in the
On 29 Nov 2014, at 11:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Richard,
On 28 Nov 2014, at 19:19, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It occurred to me that if consciousness is entirely classical- no
quantum effects- then perhaps
On Saturday, November 29, 2014 7:03:53 AM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
On 29 Nov 2014, at 10:08 am, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
It may just be herding instinct or projection on my part,
but it seems that my chickens are more intelligent
as a group than
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Experimental results at several high-energy colliders suggest that at
some point in the big bang the universe was a quark-gluon plasma, which
despite it's high energy, is a BEC where all the particles share the same
Telmo: - funny.
First I would appreciate a hint from you about mathematical realism (???)
in fairly reasonable terms about where numbers come from and how they
format The World. Bruno said it is 'deeper' than waht he could explain to
me. I took his word - am not an argue-boy.
Secondly: MY
On Saturday, November 29, 2014 5:57:38 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:01 PM, zib...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I was talking about your root idea that Evolution cannot detect
consciousness
It can't and neither can we.
(because we can't, I think you said)
On 11/30/2014 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Telmo: - funny.
First I would appreciate a hint from you about mathematical realism (???) in fairly
reasonable terms about where numbers come from and how they format The World. Bruno
said it is 'deeper' than waht he could explain to me. I took his word
On Saturday, November 29, 2014 7:38:54 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM, spudboy100 wrote:
The word purposeless is purposeless unless there is a referent.
Purposeless for who? Maybe the universe finds me to be purposeless but I
don't care any more than the
On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound
systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the
universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same
rate). And that
For some reason a lot of religious people attempt to argue that Darwin was
wrong, just as a lot of people seem to have always wanted to show that
Einstein was wrong. There appears to be something about these targets that
attracts a certain type of person, even though there might be better
pickings
OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were
provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed
them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)
I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to
the
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:22:19 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:16:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 27 November 2014 at 04:51, spudboy100 via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com
mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 14:48, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:22:19 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:16:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 27 November 2014 at 04:51, spudboy100 via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 1 December 2014 at 14:48, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
I acknowledge that most people here have me on ignore or appear to.
Acknowledged and respected. I would really appreciate views/corrections to
this point however. Therefore would it be possible for anyone who does not
have me on ignore to
On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were
provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed
them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)
I suppose if
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:07:17 AM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were
provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed
them, I don't
I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could
become correlated.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
Richard
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:07 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could
become correlated.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see
them. What I would say is
I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
Richard
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:25 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
I
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:30:05 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
Richard
I read and we even exchanged about it. But there are
That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
and I are talking about.
It is a form of cosmic entanglement.
However, if you recall I extrapolated from GP's paper that black holes
must be intelligent to be monogamus.
And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave
On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
and I are talking about.
It is a form of cosmic entanglement.
how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific
idea or a catch-all
Zibby,
They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put
their careers at risk.
It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in
print.
What they can publish is the math behind the limited conclusion.
David Deutsch is the exception.
Zappy
On Sun,
Zibbsey wrote:
I should think we'll need an origin-of-life answer to scientific standards
before we can start finalizing on the assumptions underpinning all that.
Darwin was in my opinion the greatest scientist who ever lived because he
provided a elegant answer to the question of how we got
On Monday, December 1, 2014 5:05:43 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
Zibby,
They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put
their careers at risk.
It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in
print.
What they can publish is the math behind the
29 matches
Mail list logo
