Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-12 Thread John M
Bruno, sorry for taking it jokingly (ref: Steinhart): Latest research revealed that  Shakespeare's oeuvre was not written by William Shakespeare, but by quite another man named William Shakespeare. John   From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To:

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-03 Thread John M
gadget - maybe even on a binary bases - we use with that limited software-input in 2006? a Turing machine? John M - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:09 PM Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-04 Thread John M
as how it may be pertinent to my thinking. John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:08 AM Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7 In conscience et mécanisme

Re: ZUSE

2006-11-05 Thread John M
announcement of Jürgen Schm , I just ask for the 'other part': what should we call "a computer"?'Anything' doing Comp? (meaning: whatever is doing it)?Will the conference be limited to that technically embryonic gadget - maybe even on a binary bases - we use with that limited software-input in 2006

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-06 Thread John M
Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Cc: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:36 AM Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7 Le 05-nov.-06, à 00:47, John M a écrit : Bruno, although I did

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-06 Thread John M
Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this topic to Marc: I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the IS ? * I agree that 'existence' is more than a definitional question. Any suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition? (Not Descartes' s I think

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-07 Thread John M
I hope this will go through.. Colin wrote --- Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this topic to Marc: I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the IS ? * I agree that 'existence' is

test- saved

2006-11-07 Thread John M
test, disregard --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL

test-2

2006-11-07 Thread John M
copied new address --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-07 Thread John M
Colin, I just remembered in a recent post to another list that ~15 years ago - thinking of what many think as 'consckiousness', I boiled down to 'acknowledgement and response to information', (which I identified rather as perceived difference and not the meaningles 'bit'), with the notion

Re: listposting problem

2006-11-08 Thread John M
This is a testing of my mail. Over the p[ast week I received back every attempt in various modes to get a post into (my?) list-mail. I receive others all right, not what I try to post. Yhis 'reply' is to a monsterp-post of Brent all erased ut kept the reply-form and using it for posting.

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-09 Thread John M
See below, please John - Original Message - From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7 Addition to my lost and found 1st post in

Re: Natural Order Belief

2006-11-16 Thread John M
Bruno: a beautiful position statement. Very sage and humane. Thanks John PS: unfortunately the overwhelming majority of humankind is within some kind of religious belief system and this makes a very lucrative political stock to crooks (oops: politicians, as contrasted to 'statesmen). Some

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-19 Thread John M
See please interspaced remarks (JM) as well. General addition I would start with: In our present views, based on the limited capabilities of the mind-brain activity we can only muster for the time being... (Our mental event-horizon reaches only so far) John - Original Message - From:

Re: Natural Order Belief

2006-11-22 Thread John M
Stathis, no need to argue with me about my 'funny' supposition (just for the fun of it) - HOWEVER: 1. absolutely certain you can be in whatever is in your mind (i.e.in your belief system) because that is what you call it so. Colin's (weak?) solipsism assignes the world -(all of its input-

Re: Natural Order Belief

2006-11-23 Thread John M
Stathis: thanks for the psichiatry class. You brought in a new questionmark: crazy. As George Levy has proven, we all are crazy - my contention was: in that case such (general) craziness is the norm, eo ipso we all are normal. Is normalcy composed of delusions? Then why the (p)scientific

Re: Natural Order Belief

2006-12-15 Thread John M
) interpretation(s), that is arithmetical truth (resp. set theoretical truth). I will recall the theory in my reply to Tom Caylor. Bruno Le 20-nov.-06, à 18:03, John M a écrit : Bruno: How far Occident? Quetzealcoatle was not much better. Orientals? did they care

unsubscribe

2006-12-18 Thread John M
I unsubdscribe from the 'everything-list' [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Mikes --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com

Re: The Meaning of Life

2006-12-31 Thread John M
'inanimate'). John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:59 PM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life Tom Caylor writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal

Re: The Meaning of Life

2006-12-31 Thread John M
Hal, so yhou look at it... (at what?) - anyway from the standpoint of the 'physical' model. Can you come closer totell what you are 'looking at'? Happy 2007! John M - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 1:57 PM

Re: computer pain

2007-01-02 Thread John M
intelligent. ... But a real slave is, I would say by definition, not willing to be slave. If the question of 'slavery or death' arises, an intelligent and life-loving person would accept (willing?) slavery. Spartacus did not. I survived a commi regime. We seem too narrowly labeling a slave. John

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-04 Thread John M
--- James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 03-janv.-07, à 16:36, Stathis Papaioannou wrote (in more than one posts) : Maudlin starts off with the assumption that a recording being conscious is obviously absurd, hence the need for the conscious machine to

RE: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-06 Thread John M
to destructing the 'original' design. In a world-dynamism. Complexly. John M Mark Peaty writes: Brent: 'However, all that is needed for the arguments that appear on this list is to recreate a rough, functioning copy of the body plus a detailed reproduction of memory and a brain that functioned

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-07 Thread John M
infinite wisdom, infinite love, eternity etc. John M -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.7/618 - Release Date: 1/6/2007 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-07 Thread John M
excellent points, which I'm happy to reply to .. John M wrote: --- James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JR: ... Make it easier -- a coma patient, inert for decades, re-wakes alone in a room, registers its situation and in an instant - dies. Would that moment qualify

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-08 Thread John M
Interleaving in bold John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:55 AM Subject: RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief) Tom Caylor writes: ---SKIP Stathis Papaioannou:

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2007-01-10 Thread John M
Brent: I wonder if I can make a readable sense of this rather convoluted mix of posts? I suggest the original should be at hand, I copy only the parts I reflect to. My previous post quoted remarks go by a plain JM, the present (new) inclusions as JMnow paragraphs. John M

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-10 Thread John M
Stathis: wise words. (I find your Elvis - Jesus parable exaggerated). Values, like ethics or morale is culture related - mostly anti-natural. The natural way of life is eat the prey, animal and/or plant, kick out a competitor from your territory, once the lion killed the weaker male: eat his

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-10 Thread John M
? I know it 'has' a fabric, but otherwise I consider it an organizational aid for our universe to understand its details in our physically-based reductionist view. John M Jan 10 - Original Message - From: James N Rose To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-11 Thread John M
that they are immune from test. This is where they fail in their epistemological duty. You mean the epistemological duty YOU impose? They simply claim to be immune from YOUR test, they have their own 'test' and 'evidence'. That was my point. John M PS I hate to be i nvolved in arguments

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-12 Thread John M
- Evil. With best regards your voodoo expert John - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:39 PM Subject: Re: Evil ? John M wrote: Brent, sorry if I irritated you - that is felt in your response

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-13 Thread John M
. I skip the rest of the 'rock-physics'. Regards John M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:24 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Stathis Papaioannou wrote: John Mikes writes

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-13 Thread John M
Subject: Re: Evil ? John M wrote: Brent, sorry if I irritated you - that is felt in your response. -- You remarked: ( Upon your: ...an unbiased sample, of the available evidence? is showing. - Who is unbiased? ) You don't have

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-13 Thread John M
Stathis: I will not go that far, nor draw 'magnificent' conclusion about conscious rocks (I am not talking about the unconscious hysteria of the rhytmic crowd-noise of teenage immaturity - call them rolling or non-rolloing STONES), - I just try to call the state of being conscious an effective

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-13 Thread John M
Brent, interleaving John --- Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John M wrote: Dear Stathis: my answer to your quewstion: Of course not! There is a belief systems I like and there are the others I don't. I just maintain a (maybe misplaced?) humbleness that I am not the judge

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-01-17 Thread John M
. As John M often says, an atheist already has some notion of God such as to be able to believe it does not exist. Now most atheist are already believer in believing religiously in Primary Matter (a metaphysical entity). I'am agnostic in both sense. I do not believe in God, nor do I believe

Re: Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated.

2007-01-20 Thread John M
Jamie, since BHs are figments of Hawkins' et al. imagination for 'something there must be', we can 'imagine' that something so as to bounce back those photons (you believe in) INSIDE once they got in and this is the reason why the darn blob is black. Imagination should not be constrained to

Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-01-20 Thread John M
Dear Jason, what William wrote is the best we, humans in 2007AD can find out for the subject matter. Before 1922 (Hubble's redshift) of course the best was different. Before...and so on. Considering the best of 2325AD...??? Your applause is similarly dated. Is Mother Nature (or call her as you

Re: Rép : The Meaning of Life

2007-01-23 Thread John M
Or of comp, or of multiple universes, or of. (the list is almost unlimitable). Proving is tricky. In many cases SOME accept the backwards argument from phenomena assigned to an originating assumption that is now deemed proven by it. Some don't. It depends on evidence in one's personal

Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-01-26 Thread John M
Stathis: your concluding sentence is But my brain just won't let me think this way. * Have you been carried away? Who is your brain to make decisions upon you? (maybe you mean only that the mechanism of your brain, the main tool YOU use in mental activity, is not predesigned for such action?)

Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-01-26 Thread John M
Stathis: interesting. See my additional question after your reply John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:03 AM Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds John Mikes writes: Stathis: your

Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-01-27 Thread John M
Stathis, maybe it is a postulate that (in my mind) what you write does not make sense? A Cc generated/operated by tissue - partially transferred to parts unknown without (the?) tissue and still functions? I am a simpleminded primitive peasant, cannot condone that you, a 'thinking' person (no

Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-01-29 Thread John M
Hal, a decade ago I 'read' your text easier than now: you firmed up your vocabulary - gradually out of my understanding. Sorry. * You seem to accept 'observer moments' and their interaction - even postulate one variable needed. How long is an OM? a million years (cosmology) or a msec? Even if

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread John M
computerized machine-identity (Oops, no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life

Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-06 Thread John M
Hal and list: I do not think anybody fully understands what other listers write, even if one thinks so. Or is it only my handicap? John M - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM Subject: Re: ASSA

Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

2007-02-07 Thread John M
there was some effort to write a FAQ for the list. Perhaps we should give it another try. Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote: Hal and list: I do not think anybody fully understands what other listers write, even if one thinks so. Or is it only my handicap? John M

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-07 Thread John M
By who's logic? John M - Original Message - From: Torgny Tholerus To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error Brent Meeker skrev: Torgny Tholerus wrote: Mark Peaty skrev

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-07 Thread John M
to our universe. For this I violate my scepticism against the Big Bang fable - and consider our universe from BB to dissipation, the entire history, as evolution. I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions. I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions. John M and let me join Angelica

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-07 Thread John M
?) belief just to tickle out arguments which I did not consider earlier. But that is my dirty way. I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-08 Thread John M
for it. With the religious marvels: I look at them with awe, cannot state it is impossible because 'they' start out beyond reason and say what they please. The sorry thing is, when a crowd takes it too seriously and kill, blow up, beat or burn live human beings in that 'belief'. Same, if for money. John M

Re: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki

2007-02-09 Thread John M
- Original Message - From: Jason Resch To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:57 PM Subject: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki John M mentioned in a recent post that many on the Everything List may have conflicting or poor understandings

Re: Texas, Georgia legislators: Copernicus and Darwin a Jewish conspiracy

2007-02-18 Thread John M
to 'mend' the ozone hole and recover the pollution-killed marine life in many seas. Backward! Start the teleportation. John M - Original Message - From: Stephen Paul King To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Texas, Georgia

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

2007-02-19 Thread John M
for surprizes? John M --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-24 Thread John M
remarks. ( Theists etc. just wanted to ride that horse in the past. ) The wording that emerges in talks about metaphysics is a mixture of the ancient denigration and the up-to-date ideas. Is it still fruitful to argue about a past misnomer? John M PS. about 'cause' and 'positivists': if we

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-02-25 Thread John M
- Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:35 PM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument (Brent wrote): The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole complicated

Re: Believing in Divine Destiny

2007-02-27 Thread John M
Stathis, you argued 'my points' in your usual eloquence. What you missed IMO: the 'seeming rationality' of the pro-Q'ran argument is in the rationality (?) of the faithful mindset. It starts from premises as 'truth' what you would question. I find your position reasonable and OK for our

Re: Believing in Divine Destiny

2007-02-28 Thread John M
oxygen, to burn - at least in THIS universe.) John M Original Message - From: Saibal Mitra To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:08 AM Subject: Re: Believing in Divine Destiny The only connection I can think of is as follows. For any

Re: Believing ...

2007-02-28 Thread John M
identifying what constitutes a 'different belief system', but 'system' must be more than just shades of individual differentiation in the details. John M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:32 PM

Re: Believing ...

2007-03-01 Thread John M
: Believing ... John M wrote: Brent, as usual, you have hard replies. Just one exception: I do not mean 'each and individual mindset' as the term 'belief system', but this is hard to explain. Most scientifically educated westerners - or many religious faithfuls can argue

Re: Quick Quantum Question.

2007-03-03 Thread John M
Breent your distortion of my words may come from my mindset of a non-IndoEuropean mothertongue - in English. I wrote: ...by building further levels on unfounded assumptions - no matter how fit they may be to a theory we favor... you wrote: You imply that our theories are just a matter of

Re: Quick Quantum Question.

2007-03-04 Thread John M
point: what is 'science' and which one? compendium of explanations? Quatizing the qualia? (to be facetious: digitalizing the analog?) John M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:00 AM Subject: Re: Quick

Re: JOINING post

2007-03-05 Thread John M
in a narrative, but by no means in the conventionally outlined scientific method. John M --- 明迪 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear John Mikes. I am sorry for the late response. I will reply only to 1 part of your letter: 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know. If we do

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-08 Thread John M
Stathis: your starting the argument: IF the M-W-I(dea) is valid, it it seems to imply...which is a bit shaky (what if not?) - the law-like is a breakable compromise between confro nting arguments. Do I read some denigration of the White Rabbit? (coming from a wide interpretation of all

Re: JOINING post

2007-03-08 Thread John M
, but slightly disagree with (1) statement. Mindaugas Indriunas On 3/5/07, John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Mindaugas Indriunas, what I meant consists of the worldview that we can use in our speculations only our present cognitive inventory of our existing mind. No information

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-10 Thread John M
conclusions upon assumptions. No hard feelings, it is MY opinion, and I am absolutely no missionary. John M - Original Message - From: Quentin Anciaux To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:03 PM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-11 Thread John M
, and assumption, if I must). * I would be happy to see an expansion of what kind of assumption Bruno was mentioning in the last sentence. John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-11 Thread John M
. John - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:45 AM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question. Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit : I don't deny

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-12 Thread John M
Thanks, Russell, 4 Poles may play bridge. John - Original Message - From: Russell Standish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:19 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: In the

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread John M
Thanks for a clear mind, Bruno. But isn't it obvious? We can know about what we don't know ONLY if we do know 'about it'. Copernicus did not know that he does not know radioactivity. Aristotle did not denigrate the linearity of QM because he did not know these items. My 'firm' knowledge of my

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-15 Thread John M
it scale-oriented, an infinitesimally close in 1000 orders of magnitude smaller scale can be 'miles' away. (No 'real' miles implied) - Best regards John M - Original Message - From: Torgny Tholerus To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:58 AM

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-15 Thread John M
to THAT time. This is the 'reducing': to visualize this part as the total and utter the Aristotelian maxim. One can not extrapolate 'total ensemble' characteristics from studying the so called parts we discovered so far. We can think only within our already acquired knowledge. John M

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread John M
it as free thinking. * Bruno, I looked at your 'knots' (my head still spins from them) and agree to their topological - math view, no need of a material input. Which one was Alexander's? Best wishes John M http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread John M
grasp. What nature would that 3rd pole present in the strong force? (I ask this question, because I did not read about the 3-pole distinction of it). Cheers John M On 3/12/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-17 Thread John M
. Not a primitive John M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:03 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Tom Caylor wrote: On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote

Re: JOINING post

2007-03-17 Thread John M
to find the world produced by an even simpler rule, that eventually produces the initial state of our world. Mindaugas Indriunas On 3/8/07, John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel a misunderstanding here: origination point IMO is part of the item to be originated, the pertinent

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-17 Thread John M
on hold my regret for the greatgrandkids for now. Regards John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:02 AM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument Le 17-mars-07, à 00:11, Brent

Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

2007-03-18 Thread John M
again and again something already known. Experiencing the regularity of...(and I refuse the convert the experienced thing into 'regularity' as a 1st.). Regards John M - Original Message - From: Jason To: Everything List Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:25 PM Subject

Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

2007-03-19 Thread John M
order. Random? ditto. Chaos? what we cannot (today) assign to already discovered - YES - order. I give some credence to our ignorance (epistemically still undiscovered parts). We choose our 'models' to be studied/observed according to our knowledge of order. John M - Original Message

Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

2007-03-19 Thread John M
sense as well. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:54 AM Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter? On 3/19/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote

Re: Believing ...

2007-03-20 Thread John M
is not sure but does not deny the existence FOR SURE. The difference, as I feel, between I don't know and I no that no - as I take Bruno's emphasis. (And I try to use only my own common sense logic). With StP's #2 I agreed above. John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal

Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

2007-03-20 Thread John M
to the alarm clock, or from unconsciousness. There are different 'levels' to be included into that noumenon. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does

Re: String theory and Cellular Automata

2007-03-20 Thread John M
of going through (the) other concepts... They are all deductions from the (as you put it) primitive material world view, and its closed model, called physics. At the end of my 'skipped' series you may find 'numbers', I may wish to go further (but cannot?) Regards John M - Original Message

Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

2007-03-21 Thread John M
Stathis and Brent: ineresting and hard-to-object sentiments. Would it not make sense to write instead of we are (thing-wise) - the term less static, rather process-wise: We do (in whatever action)? John M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list

Re: Believing ...

2007-03-21 Thread John M
call my 'plenitude' a 'god', outside (not above) OUR mother-nature AND unidentified to the limit of minimum information. Not sitting as an old man on cloud. John M : Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Re: Believing ...

2007-03-23 Thread John M
Bruno, those 'idealistic' definitions from Leibnitz and Descartes are not experienced in - - what is called usually as science. Look at the Laws of physics, does engineering doubt them? The statements of 'logic', arithmetic, etc. etc. are all believed as FIRM laws. Now that is what I call

Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

2007-03-28 Thread John M
Stathis: let me keep only your reply-part and ask my question(s): - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:34 PM Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter? On 3/25/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL

Re: Speaking about Mathematicalism

2007-04-07 Thread John M
a dreamed-up) alternative developed sufficiently into a hopeful replacement for the many millennia evolved 'physical view' of our reductionist conventional science. Even the new ways start from there if not in veritable sci-fi. John M - Original Message - From: 1Z

Re: Speaking about Mathematicalism

2007-04-09 Thread John M
speculative conditional fantasy. Of course only into my 'narrative'. But IMO advancement needs a free unrestricted mind and includes fantastic ideas. Right or wrong. And of course I am not certain myself. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list

Re: Speaking about Mathematicalism

2007-04-09 Thread John M
?) better arguments. So are my questions. Best regards John M - Original Message - From: Quentin Anciaux To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:48 PM Subject: Re: Speaking about Mathematicalism Hello, While Peter did not answer your question

Re: Speaking about Mathematicalism

2007-04-11 Thread John M
Dear Bruno, allow me to interleave below as [JM]: remarks. John - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:13 AM Subject: Re: Speaking about Mathematicalism Le 09-avr.-07, à 16:40, John M a écrit

Re: Speaking about Mathematicalism

2007-04-11 Thread John M
Bruno, addendum to my post before. You wrote: BM: But ok, you are just arguing for the non-comp assumption. [JM]: No, I just speak about 'another type' comp, a non-digital contraption that handles meaning, function, without the crutches of the (hypothetical? at least unidentified) numbers -

Re: RSSA / ASSA / Single Mind Theory

2007-04-19 Thread John M
Jason: your idea sounds sound. I wonder if it is not a variation of the situation according to which in facto there is only ONE outcome under given circumstances of the actual OM, but we have the creativity of imagining more than just the one that occurs? I formulated this when I did not like

RE: OMs are events

2005-07-31 Thread John M
to all: since I missed hundreds of posts in this list - now extremely proliferous and sweeping through subjects making backtracking a bore, do we have an agreement on WHAT do we call an EVENT? Also: To OBSERVE? In my lay common sense I am inclined to call a step in a change an event, and the

RE: Clarification of Terms (was RE: What We Can Know About the World)

2005-08-01 Thread John M
of human, of course. But that comes from my generalization trend of terms beyond our human only pretension. To Searle's book-title: it implies that we already HAVE discovered what the 'mind' is. Well, we did not. At least not to the satisfaction of the advanced thinking community. John M

RE: Clarification of Terms (was RE: What We Can Know About the World)

2005-08-01 Thread John M
--- Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell writes John M. wrote To Russell's 4 coordinates of (any?) event: how come the occurrence (event!) of a 'good idea' in my mind - (mind: not a thing, not a place, not time-restricted) should have t,x,y,z coordinates? [Russell

Re: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

2005-08-03 Thread John M
The discussion 'Brent vs Colin' is exciting. I am still confused about the and lines, I assume the latter is Colin's saying while both the and the unmarked text (*** - *** below) comes from Brent. My apologies, if I missed the boat. I want to reply to issues anyway, not persons. Will quote

subjective reality

2005-08-07 Thread John M
'reality'. John M (the bartender, talking into the patrons' discussion)

RE: subjective reality

2005-08-08 Thread John M
Lee and Bruno, I will interject a few remarks John M --- Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno writes Le 07-août-05, à 21:24, John M a écrit : Reality is supposed to be something independent from our personal manipulations Strictly speaking I do not agree. Some satellites

Re: subjective reality

2005-08-09 Thread John M
as subjectivised. There is a fine line separating solipsism from craziness and to 'verify' the existence of an uninterpreted reality would go beyond our lifetimes - unless we resort to beliefs of convenience. John M --- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 08-août-05, à 17:49, Lee Corbin a écrit

subjective reality

2005-08-15 Thread John M
(The original went only to Bruno's addressw) To: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Bruno, your postulate of testability is falling into

  1   2   3   4   >