On 17 Dec 2012, at 12:51, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived
string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws
of
physics),
When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally
implying intentionality on
Hi Roger,
On 17 Dec 2012, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to
proof or theory . As a scientist, all I have to do is to
weigh myself and report that to you.
Data, in my book at least, always rules over
theory and assumptions.
Hi Bruno Marchal
You can write a chemical equation (theoretically) that will not work in the
real world..
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/19/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Hi Bruno Marchal
There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to
proof or theory . As a scientist, all I have to do is to
weigh myself and report that to you.
Data, in my book at least, always rules over
theory and assumptions.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/17/2012
Forever is
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2012 9:59 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Richard,
I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z)
On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.
1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's
On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.
1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
Hi Bruno Marchal
I probably agree, but what is the primitive
physical universe ?
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/16/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I probably agree, but what is the primitive
physical universe ?
Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its
existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity).
A non primitive physical universe is a physical
On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.
1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
2) (Your way) The
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.
1) (My way) The
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
OK, after thinking it over,
Hi Richard,
I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived
string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of
physics),
When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying
intentionality on the part of the entity.
omniscient
On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Richard,
I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived
string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of
physics),
When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Richard,
I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived
string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of
physics),
When people
On 12/16/2012 9:59 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Richard,
I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived
string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries
On 09 Dec 2012, at 00:30, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/8/2012 2:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Stephen,
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly,
except for yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic
explanation (=a joke).
Dear John,
;-) I try hard to stay in a
On 12/9/2012 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm
With CTM it is simple, if our knowledge augment linearly, our
ignorance augments non computably. The more we know, the more we can
intuit how much we don't know, making us wiser (with some luck). We
can jump from big picture to big picture,
Hi Stephen P. King
You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a
an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.
You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly,
in that you believe in local
On 12/8/2012 7:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a
an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.
Dear Roger,
It is OK, we all have our 'bad days'. :-)
Dear Stephen,
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except for
yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic explanation (=a joke).
I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I do not
detect the concept for such. Also: when you wrote
* I am claiming
On 08 Dec 2012, at 13:16, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
an Idealist like me.
Hmm... First I am silent on my beliefs. I am just a logician who say
if you believe this (that you can survive with an artificial digital
brain, Comp
On 12/8/2012 2:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Stephen,
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except
for yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic explanation (=a joke).
Dear John,
;-) I try hard to stay in a superposed state, somewhere between
serious and 'just
On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.
1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
24 matches
Mail list logo
