On 17 Dec 2012, at 19:28, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
wrote:
I thought it was the product of two quaternions that is non-
commutative
Yes, multiplication is non-commutative for quaternions
and that its primary feature is
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/17/2012 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Is it possible to define a relative probability in the case
where it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the
members of the ensemble?
Yes. relative probability is not necessarily a
time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-17, 16:55:48
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/17/2012 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Is it possible to define a relative
On 12/18/2012 10:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Leibniz simply assumed that the PEH existed.
My followup was that at least for large groups
of particles, not of small groups or 1,
thermodynamincs is the PEH.
Dear Roger,
I am OK with the idea that thermodynamics is the PEH,
the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-11, 16:01:15
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/11/2012 9:33 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Dear Roger,
It's called an attempt at humor. I apologize if it didn't meet your
standards: I
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Quantum theory must be based on complex variables and not real numbers or
quaternions for example.
Quaternions are used in Quantum Mechanics particularly when spin is
involved and it's easy to see why. The real numbers
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Quantum theory must be based on complex variables and not real numbers
or quaternions for example.
Quaternions are used in Quantum Mechanics
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought it was the product of two quaternions that is non-commutative
Yes, multiplication is non-commutative for quaternions
and that its primary feature is handling rotations in 3d space.
I don't know what you
On 16 Dec 2012, at 19:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/16/2012 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[BM] Everett already show that such relative probabilities does
not depend on the choice of the basis, nor on my place in the
multiverse.
[SPK] I strongly disagree with this statement!
On 12/17/2012 1:28 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought it was the product of two quaternions that is
non-commutative
Yes, multiplication is non-commutative for quaternions
and
On 12/17/2012 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Is it possible to define a relative probability in the case where
it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the members of the
ensemble?
Yes. relative probability is not necessarily a constructive notion.
Dear Bruno,
Is this not a
On 14 Dec 2012, at 22:44, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/14/2012 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Dec 2012, at 16:50, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is
to a
On 12/16/2012 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[BM] Everett already show that such relative probabilities does not
depend on the choice of the basis, nor on my place in the multiverse.
[SPK] I strongly disagree with this statement! Everett showed the
exact opposite; that relative
On 13 Dec 2012, at 16:50, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a
unique physical universe rather than every possible one.
On the contrary. It leads to many-dreams,
On 12 Dec 2012, at 23:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/12/2012 7:27 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Gödel used Principia Mathematica, and then a theory like PA can be
shown
essentially undecidable: adding axioms does not change
On 12/14/2012 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Dec 2012, at 16:50, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a
unique physical universe rather than every possible one.
On 12 Dec 2012, at 20:03, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:27, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
snip
This means literally that if the
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a
unique physical universe rather than every possible one.
On the contrary. It leads to many-dreams, and it is an open question if this
leads to a
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
Dear Roger and Richard,
This is what I have come
: 2012-12-11, 09:33:22
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Dear Roger,
It's called an attempt at humor. I apologize if it didn't meet your standards:
I am a learner in comedy, not a knower.
A point here which puts my attempt at humor directly on topic: I ask myself
the use of the word God
On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
Dear Roger and Richard,
This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are
collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their
relation
is more like
, raw perception.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/12/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-10, 11:42:13
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:27, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
snip
This means literally that if the theory below (A, B, C, ... J) is correct A,
B, C ..., J
On 12/12/2012 7:27 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 19:03, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Richard,
On 10 Dec 2012, at 16:17, Richard
the following content -
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-10, 09:43:52
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Roger,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Leibniz expressed what was logically
content -
*From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-12-09, 07:54:53
*Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
That's is likely what Newton would believe
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then I'll listen
to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their linguistic
labyrinths any day.
I do not even try to learn comedy.
On 11 Dec 2012, at 17:16, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then
I'll listen
to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their
linguistic
On 12/11/2012 9:33 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Dear Roger,
It's called an attempt at humor. I apologize if it didn't meet your
standards: I am a learner in comedy, not a knower.
A point here which puts my attempt at humor directly on topic: I ask
myself whether everybody is a TOE?
: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
Dear Roger and Richard,
This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are
collectively God
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-09, 07:54:53
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
That's is likely what Newton would believe
and most likely what Liebnitz really
everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-12-09, 07:54:53
*Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
That's is likely what Newton would believe
and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in
but was afraid to express.
Richard
-
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
Dear Roger and Richard,
This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well
consciousness and
first person).
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use
On 12/10/2012 8:33 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad,
not the supreme monad itself.
Dear Roger,
This is a contradiction of the relations between monads, there
cannot be a special monad. Just as there is no 'center' on the
the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
Dear Roger and Richard
, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
-08, 08:48:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger,
Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not
need a god outside of themselves.
Richard
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Referring as I did
. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27
Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger,
In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is
required. No one monad has
On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
Dear Roger and Richard,
This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are
collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation
is more like what we see in a neural
the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger
, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 12/6/2012 7
Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27
Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger,
In order to get
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27
Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger,
In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is
required. No one monad has consciousness as L has
: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger,
In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is
required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore
isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore
cannot be god.
Richard
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31
-08, 07:49:27
Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger,
In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is
required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore
isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore
cannot be god.
Richard
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets
many people.
Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one
47 matches
Mail list logo
