Bruno and Kim,
enjoyable discours by two math.-ly impaired minds (excuse me Kim!) - I met
several youngsters (up to 70 y.o.) who simply had no 'pitch' to math - yet
were good smart artists, even business(wo)men, parents and technicians (not
so with politicians, they are not what I call 'smart').
Bruno et al.:
I don't feel comfortable with the view reality *OF* something. Reality IMO
is the
unfathomable existence (whatever that may be) and *WE - machines, mind,* you
name it are having access to portions that we interpret (realize?) in ways *we
can.*
This portion (part, view, ensemble,
with 'MJ':
Tnanks for the reply
John
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John,
On 25 Dec 2008, at 14:46, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno et al.:
I don't feel comfortable with the view reality *OF* something. Reality
IMO is the
unfathomable existence (whatever
Dear Bruno,
I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi assumptions
(thought experiments?) on this list - about situations beyond common sense,
their use as templates for consequences.
Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and probabilistics.
*
Bruno quotes in
- physics).
(Anyway this side-line was far from 'random' or 'probabiliyt'
the focus of my post.)
John M
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi
assumptions (thought
/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf
for a refresher.
John M
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
John Mikes wrote:
Brent wrote:
...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the
influence of the rest of the world is non-local
(i.e
Stathis,
common sense, not always applicable to math-related topics
is startled before a task on a REGULAR contraption-type Turing machine
(binary, electrically driven finite hardware etc.) can emulate ALL the
potentials of 11+billion neurons in unrestricted groupings and unlimited
connectivities
meanings?
I wish to look further - especially on this list.
John
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/14 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Stathis,
common sense, not always applicable to math-related topics
is startled before a task
second): the transition of NO TIME into a
'time-system' - expressed in terms of physical quantization applied to the
Big Bang conditions.
I don't want to start an argument on this, I am not ready - it is a
narrative.
Have a good 2009
John Mikes
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Stephen Paul King
Bruno,
thanks for 4z1, I find it an exciting (although not in all details for me
followable text) in beautiful French (your language!) which I have to
pronounce (silently) to understand (mostly) and did not study all along so
far. Also the supporting lit is remarkable - it was decades ago when I
Günther and Bruno,
am I sorry for not being ~30-40 years younger! I could start to study all
those excellent books in diverse kinds of logic (what I missed) and could
even have a chance to learn all those advancing ideas over the next 30 or so
years...
Makes me think of it: 30-40 years ago I WAS
Kim,
beware of your heroic offer! I read some books in both the original and
translated formats and KNOW that they are different. Not only has the
translator his 1st person understanding of WHAT to translate, the words
convey the new language's ambiguity for the reader's OWN 1st person
(at least our views about it). The ancients had is 'simplicate'-ly.
Oriental philosophy acknowledged our ignorance and blurrly built upon it.
(so do Zadeh and the 'fuzzy' scientists nowadays).
Best regards
John Mikes
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote
somehow into doing something. What??
Best Wishes,
Günther
JM: Respectfully
John
John Mikes wrote:
Günther and Bruno,
am I sorry for not being ~30-40 years younger! I could start to study
all those excellent books in diverse kinds of logic (what I missed) and
could even have
Dear Bruno, just lightening up a bit...you know that I graduated already
from 2nd yr grade school so I have an open mind criticizing high science.
Not that if I see 'I' that means 1, but if I see 'III' that does not mean
3 to me, it means 111. You have to teach first what those funny 'figures'
Kim,
I presume you have clear ideas about what 'life' may be (to live?) and the
a-temporal distinction of 'ever'. (It is definitely not = 'a long long
time').
I paraphrase you wisdom as:
time in our opinion goes as long as we live(?) so 'after that' is not
identified.
My reasons for not
My present inserts in Italics - some parts of the posts erased for brevity
John
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Feb 2009, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote:
(...)
Not that if I see 'I' that means 1, but if I see 'III' that does
Nisheeth?
there are a dozen pdf Google hits in that 'half' name. Diverse titles,
topics, even several different personal names.
Do you have a hint WHAT to (and whom to) look at?
Are you at Georgia Tech?
JohnM
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Do it
Stephen,
you've hit a nerve with *'copying':*
**
*Fundamental *questions:
*1.WHO *(what) is copying and *HOW*?
2.*INTO* what(?) is copying being done?
Then are continuing questions:
3. Does the 'COPY' (to be considerably identical) have identical
interconnective circumstances as does the
Stathis,
I usually appreciate the wisdom in your posts. Now I have a retort:
...What I find incoherent is the idea
that the psychological properties might be able to be duplicated but
nevertheless there is no continuity of identity because the soul
cannot be duplicated.
If you accept the topic
not like to be identified with that earlier 'John' - say: 2 year
old, or fetus, without mental experiences and capabilities. (This was the
question I re-asked a Muslim when she referred to an earlier me to get to
Heaven, instead of the sick old senile dying folks - what I asked
originally.)
John Mikes
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/24 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Stathis:
two questions.
1.
Why are you breaking your head HOW to copy something we don't believe
'exists' at all? If it aint, don't copy it. Copy what?
Copy
Brent:
who is making that 'backup' or 'replica' of you? and why?
you people take it for granted that a (supernatural???) authority has
nothing else to do except making replicas of members of the Everything List.
And you observe, how good - or bad - its work is.
Some teleological view of pantheism
Dear Bruno, this is my reply to your SeventhStep-2 post.
Still not clear; Axiom 1 says I is 'a' number, - OK.
Axiom 2 sais x which I understand is general for any number. So xI is
not different from II. The example: (say) I is 2, x=3, xI=32 and your 'II'
is not 'a' number, but two numbers
Bruno, - again the bartender...
*
Initial remark:
I like Gunther's parenthetical condition of arithmetic consistency - which I
find not assured in DIFFERENT universes. As I said axioms (2+2=4) are
in my opinion *thought - conditions* to make one's theory workable and so
they are conditioned by
Kim,
this seems to be a so far undiscussed domain and I have some concerns.
First off: the English usage mixes up 'education' with 'teaching'. Schools
have a task to transform unformatted teen-beasts into constructive beings,
what I call 'education'. That may be a very controversial thing,
Gunther wrote:
...assuming that _every_ computation is conscious qua computation?
brings up in my mind: thinking in comp (at least: in numbers) translates
'conscious' into 'computed' ??
(That would imply an elevation from the binary embryonic contraption as our
computer into more
'think' creatively and profusely about millions of dollars to get
rich? I will).
Respectfully
John Mikes
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Saibal Mitra smi...@zeelandnet.nl wrote:
Thanks! This is like undoing historical events. If you forget about the
fact that dinosaurs ever lived on Earth
Bruno,
I enjoyed your pretty comprehensive post!
Thanks!
John
PS one little question: have you ever been 'present' when in REM? JM
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Johnathan, Kim, Stathis
I agree with you Johnathan. Scientists learn a lot from
Kim,
Indeed I raised my voice against *labeling* and doing so exclusively *in a
certain direction of a personalized (societal? cultural?) view.* And what
did I get as a scolding cold shower? *another 'labeling'*: * called: *
*VALUES*. They, too, can be 'good or bad' in the restricted views we
Kim,
I would not search in Bruno's generalized theoretical scientific write-up
answers to ANY/ALL particular question in (and out of) all domain(s).
In my worldview (I wish I could compose it in a text callable scientific)
the interconnection of the totality (relations of ALL to ALL) brings
domain.
John
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 23 Mar 2009, at 23:44, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
I enjoyed your pretty comprehensive post!
Thanks!
John
PS one little question: have you ever been 'present' when in REM?
I feel like I am
Stathis: (in your text):
...or an unrelated person's consciousness...???
I agree with you when you say: losing all memories erases your personality
(consciousnessless state) - but where do you pick that 'unrelted person's
one, which also can only based on that 'unrelated person's' memory etc.
Brent,
I read this discussion and 'try' not to get involved (never succeedG).
*
Ourselves w/wout our memories? what else? These terms come from the ancient
religious fable about a 'soul' - the person in the faith-domain.
Even the old Indians made 'reincarnation' hazy without memories and the only
Brent: right on!
It all seems to me that we have no fitting meanings (whatver) of memory,
identity, forgetting, recalling and the entire vocabulary we apply to things
unknown. We only think so.
The fact that Bruno puts equationally expressed formulations (numbers) to it
does not make it more
. I neglected a deeper search THEN.
I will look into the DeBobo oeuvre again, because I value YOUR
recommendation. Thanks.
With friendship
John Mikes
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
http://www.debonosociety.com/
What's important? Thinking is perhaps
Jesse, I always appreciated your posts as considerate, logical and most
professional. Now I a not so sure...
Brent mixed up a bit the concepts, even stirring in interpretation into
meaning, you speak about our real world - a joke. All because both of you
are infected with a
Bruno,
you made my day when you wrote:
*SOMEHOW - *in:
...The machine has to be runned or executed relatively to a universal
machine. You need the Peano or Robinson axiom to define such states and
sequences of states.
You can shuffled them if you want, and somehow the UD does shuffle
them by its
Stathis,
I think Bruno is not realistic enough. Here is a better story - a solution
to understand the situation:
-
*The Financial Crisis Explained*
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Berlin . In order to increase sales, she
decides to allow her loyal customers - most of whom are
Stathis, and listers,
I cannot help: I read the text. (Not always, sometimes it seems too obtuse
for me even to 'read' it).
The Subject? ( Consciousness = information )
what happens to that darn 'information'? Oops, 'you' are AWARE of it!?
Meaning: you *DO* something with it (to be - become?
I would like to go along with Maudlin's point emphasized in Bruno's text
below, adding that causal structure is restricted to the limited model of
which we *CAN *choose likely 'causes' within our perceived reality, while
the unlimited possibilities include wider 'intrusions' of domains 'beyond
our
Bruno,
who was that French poet who made puns after death?
JohnM
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 May 2009, at 19:15, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
On 07 May 2009, at 18:29, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
late, let's go to sleep.
Well??? (I believe this is the most meaningful word in English)
John M
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 11 May 2009, at 22:49, John Mikes wrote:
who was that French poet who made puns after death
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno,
merci pour le nom Jean Cocteau. J'ai voulu montrer que je semble
vivant.
I told my young bride of 61 years (originally economist, but follows all
the
plaisantries I speculate on) about the assumptions you guys
identification is NO democratic voting matter, if 100
so called 'experts' voice an opinion I may still represent the right one
in a single-vote different position.
Thanks for your input
John M
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/13 John Mikes jami
Let me please insert my remarks into this remarkable chain of thoughts below
(my inserts in bold)
John M
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
Kelly Harmon wrote:
I think your discussing the functional aspects of consciousness. AKA,
the easy problems
I read in this exchange:
I have a problem with infinite time (or something of such meaning).
Since IMO time is an auxiliary coordinate to 'order the view from the inside
of this (our) universe and in view of the partial knowledge we so far
obtained about it, it is (our?) choice HOW we construct
Bruno:
could you tell in one sentence YOUR identification for logic?
(I can read the dictionaries, Wiki, etc.)
I always say :common sense, but what I am referring to is
*-- -- M Y -- -- common sense, *
distorted - OK, interpreted - according to my genetic built, my experience
(sum of
with. :)
--Abram
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno:
could you tell in one sentence YOUR identification for logic?
(I can read the dictionaries, Wiki, etc.)
I always say :common sense, but what I am referring to is
-- -- M Y -- -- common
of the model, the content, the statistics and
probability will change as well. Even the causality circumstances (so
elusive in my views). *
**
*Regards*
*John*
**
**
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 18 May 2009, at 21:00, John Mikes wrote
ignorance in my
questions/remarks on what I think I sort of understood. I may be 'on the
other side'.
Best regards
John
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 May 2009, at 00:01, John Mikes wrote:
As always, thanks, Bruno for taking the time
to. (Leaving open the term 'you - conscious' as a deus ex
machina quale-addition for the replacement).
Just looking through differently colored goggles.
John Mikes
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 May 2009, at 18:25
(random?) elements come into play? (Isn't THAT also a human
idea by the darn consciousness?)
I planed to illustrate my basis and presently developed best own belief
system, but it is not of general interest and I don't want to persuade
(convert? seduce?) anybody to similar position.
Peace!
John
Russell, I second (if it is of any worth).
I 'tried' to read the diatribes on the html page and my perseverence ws not
sufficient to stay in he lines. Some concepts seem to be mixed (I did not
say up) e.g. to identify 'reality' one should get a hold of it and I found
'physical' sketchy (maybe I
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200
From: tor...@dsv.su.se
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
Jesse Mazer skrev:
[[[
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009
society where the
communication consisted of direct transfer of ideas.
There was NO discussion.
Respectfully
John Mikes
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se wrote:
Jesse Mazer skrev:
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200
From: tor...@dsv.su.se
To: everything
to be above(G) such.
(=Outside this box).
With 'immortality' I connect our thinking in time, the ordinating relation
for* this* universe and our thinking *within*, (for)'ever' is not a timely
term, so eternity may be atemporal. - Q or not.
Regards
John Mikes
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM
, (who's?) - with thanks so far
John Mikes
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Johnathan,
On 29 Jun 2009, at 17:22, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
Bruno,
I think you were off to a good start with your planned series of posts
about the seven step argument
...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 30 Jun 2009, at 14:32, John Mikes wrote:
Hi, Bruno
you know that I am in a different mindset, yet happy to read your train of
thoughts. I consider a set a limited model of elements (and conclusions
thereof are not applicable to wider domains) -
Well
Brian,
I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence:
*In modern cosmology, a **multiverse is defined to be a collection of
possible physical universes*
that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many
'impossibilities' in the sense of a mindset of 1000 years ago and I
Dear Bruno, I mentioned that I have something more on the 'set' as you (and
all since G. Cantor) included it in the formulations. I had a similar notion
about my aris-total, the definition of Aristotle that the 'total' is
always more than the 'sum' of its components. Of course, at the time when A.
Dear Bruno, thanks for the prompt reply, I wait for your further
explanations.
You inserted a remark after quoting from my post:
*
* If you advance in our epistemic cognitive inventory to a bit better
level (say: to where we are now?) you will add (consider) relations
(unlimited) to the names of
'Occam' the ultimate reductionism. *
*(I wonder if Russell will excommunicate me for that?) *
*John*
Original message:
On 04 Jul 2009, at 22:42, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, thanks for the prompt reply, I wait for your further
explanations.
You inserted a remark after quoting from my post
Dear Bruno,
when I looked at the set-analysis it immediately popped up that {1,3} was
missing, - YET - this *fantasticG* discovery of mine did not bring me
closer to the idea what are numbers.
It seems I can win the battle and still lose the war.
John
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:05 PM, m.a.
Bruno,
I appreciate your grade-school teaching. We (I for one) can use it.
I still find that whatever you explain is an 'extract' of what can be
thought of a 'set' (a one representing a many).
Your 'powerset' is my example.
All those elements you put into { }s are the same as were the physical
*Please read between your lines included in bold* letters
*John
*
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jul 2009, at 00:50, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
I appreciate your grade-school teaching. We (I for one) can use it.
I still find that whatever you
that, I see an old artifax of a problem, how to save obsolescence into
advancement.
I am not ready to go into that.
John Mikes
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:34 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/27 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
That's a bit of a straw man you're refuting
to return to this post with smarter reflections some time.
John Mikes
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:52 AM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/28 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Hi John
I really do not expect from you to give adequate replies to all these
questions - it would make
Hi, Bruno,
let me skip the technical part and jump on the following text.
*F u n c t i o n* as I believe is - for you - the y = f(x) *form*. For me:
the *activity -* shown when plotting on a coordinate system the f(x) values
of the Y-s to the values on the x-axle resulting in a relation (curve).
David,
I thought you are facing the Scottish mountains for a relaxation and instead
here is a long - enjoyable- tirade about ideas which I try to put below into
a shorthand form by *my* vocabulary. But first a plea to Mrs. N:
*'please, do keep David away from te computer for the time of the
between human and non human a human illusion?
With Church Turing thesis we can suspect the existence of universal
illusions.
Bruno
On 01 Aug 2009, at 21:52, John Mikes wrote:
David,
I thought you are facing the Scottish mountains for a relaxation and
instead here is a long - enjoyable
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I am proposing, I suppose:
CONSCIOUSNESS = EVERYTHING ELSE
...
Rex, I arrived at the phrase as the ultimate rationalization and
generalization of things people write (back-and-forth) about consciousness:
*Consciousness
Bruno and Mirek,
concerning Theateticus vs. Theaeteticus:
in my strange linguistic background I make a difference betwee ai and ae -
the spelling in Greek and Latin of the name. As far as I know, nobody knows
for sure how did the 'ancient' Greeks pronounce their ai - maybe as the flat
'e' like
Theaetetus. But in french too, more and more
people forget to attach the o and e in words like oeuvre, or soeur
(sister).
Bruno
On 04 Aug 2009, at 15:05, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno and Mirek,
concerning Theateticus vs. Theaeteticus:
in my strange linguistic background I make a difference
Rex,
(I guess the unsigned text below came from you)
thanks for your one-liner gemstone of a definition on
Conscious Experience!
John Mikes
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote
David, (and Stathis?)
I appreciate David's 1,2,3, variations on the *it's or our,* but you
just destroyed my position with
*I should perhaps emphasise that purely for the purposes of the
argument I'm assuming brain = mind to be a one-for-one correlation.*
Well, not entirely.
If WE cannot desipher
-
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/25 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
David, (and Stathis?)
I appreciate David's 1,2,3, variations on the it's or our, but you
just
destroyed my position with
I should perhaps emphasise that purely
Bruno,
what do you call physics?
our figment based upon the old Greek's smart sophistication as THEY saw the
material world, or
the science BEFORE Niels Bohr, or
after QM, the newer (recent?) theories galore, or
the 'scientific' stance that will develop during the next millennia?
(Which still
Dear Bruno,
I am waiting for your explanatory post(s) and anxiously read some several
thousand pages with related topics.
Unfortunately the technical examples and discussing their solutions are not
much help.
I cannot extract the now-and-then interlaced text-explanations, even if I
find them,
Dear Peter,
the Yablo-Carnac-Gallois-Quine compendium is an interesting reading - except
for missing the crux:
You, as a person, with knowledge about the ideas of the bickering
philosophers, could do us the politesse of a brief summary about who is
stating what (very few lines) which may increase
Bruno,
there is a lot of wisdom in your post. Your last sentence, however, may
apply to that wisdom as well I am afraid.
...I have to assume that [such] truth are not dependent of me,... -
nor on anything else we may know of. I stay clear of 'truth' which is
applied in whoever's theory - as 'his'
Ronald.
I pursue (vaguely) such development and - though have no intention to
outguess Bruno's opinion - find it a VERY PRACTICAL (may I call it: e-bio)
line. (lineS - plural). Quite amazing results have been so far achieved in
this IMO totally initial phase. I can't wait how the
Bruno,
the more I read here on the Church thesis the less I know about it.
Is there a short description in 'non-technical' words about the 'essence'
you hold instrumental in the applications you apply?
John M
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 4 Sep,
'human terms').
I am not an 'antologist', I missed your paper last year.
Have a good time
John Mikes
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Dr Nick,
I think part of what the mirror test attempts to establish is that the
animal recognizes the reflection
Bruno,
I loved your post on the square root of 2!
(I also laughed at it, to stay at the puns).
You went out of your way and did not save efforts to prove how inadequate
and wrong (y)our number system is. (ha ha).
Statement: *if square-rooting is right* (allegedly, and admittedly) *then
THERE IS
, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 17 Sep 2009, at 15:14, John Mikes wrote:
You went out of your way and did not save efforts to prove how inadequate
and wrong (y)our number system is. (ha ha).
Wrong ?
Statement: *if square-rooting is right* (allegedly
that was outside of them.
Sorry, when it comes to speculation, I am jumpy.
I did not know about those non-natural naturals.
Have a good day
John
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Sep 2009, at 18:17, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
it is not very
Excellent points, Stathis.
What I would add (maybe as my Ciceronian Ceterum censeo) is the lack of a
knowable POV of P3: 'we' can only realize OUR version of understanding about
it.
The POV S1 = S2 is true only at the instantiation, because affter that both
are under non-identical influences of
! ha ha)
mind.
Have a good week
John Mikes
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/10/5 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Excellent points, Stathis.
What I would add (maybe as my Ciceronian Ceterum censeo) is the lack of
a
knowable POV of P3: 'we
Bruno, we had similar puzzles in middle school in the 30s.
The barber could not shave himself because he shaved only those who did not
shave themselves (and shaved all). So for (Q #1) in the 1st vriant
*she(?)* was a female, unless *he(?)* was a beardless male
(and the 'all' refers to only the
Marty,
how about my weird question: and if 1 is wrong and what he 'sees' as OA is
only a replica of the OA and is WRONG? Is 'being a replica' a human
priviledge?
(Forget it!)
John M
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:04 PM, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Bruno,
Good to see you back! I
DON'T KNOW
position.
Best regards
John Mikes
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Kim,
Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco's presentation. Very nice
talk. I appreciate a lot.
She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing: Science
(for me) arguments on the numbers-originated everything - in the
wider sense. But this is not this thread).
John Mikes
PS now - it seems - I joined the choir. JM
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Dec 2009, at 01:30, Brent Meeker wrote:
It is also
?) or on a public lecture, where questions and opposite opinions
could be expected.
Best for the hooiday season: this may be a present for Chirstmas.
On St. Nicholas Day
John Mikes
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Dec 2009, at 21:00, Rex Allen wrote
Rex, or Brent? (I am mixed up between th (-)s and the unmarked text. No
signature.
I rather paste my cpmment to the end of this posting, since it pertains to
the last par.-s.
John M
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent
Ronald:
WHAT is reality? 'physical' is one degree weaker, it is most likely based on
observations we call 'physical' in the figment: physical world(view) - the
poorly understood/explainable - as the article puts it: 'ontological in
science' - explanatory figment.
John M
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at
M
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Ronald:
WHAT is reality? 'physical' is one degree weaker, it is most likely based
on observations we call 'physical' in the figment: physical world(view) -
the poorly understood/explainable - as the article puts
Russell, - interesting idea and I appreciate it within the line I don't
really appreciate.
I pretend to be one of the 'research oriented' - I am reluctant of saying
scientist - which may fit into a robot-performed activity.
In the commi administration I had a pretty free hand to come up with ideas
.
It outlines a view about (our and other) universes in a not-so-scientific
manner.
Good luck to it and to other views
John Mikes
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Mindey min...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I was just wondering, we are talking so much about universes, but how
do we define
agree with your ending: How to define new, [for example]. It is a
relative concept.
Happy 2010
John M
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Dec 2009, at 23:16, russell standish wrote:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:54:53AM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
I wonder
1 - 100 of 1117 matches
Mail list logo
