On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Kip Ingram wrote:
>
> Free will seems to become the focal points of conversations like this much
> more than it should, though.
>
I could not agree more! Free will is a idea so bad it's not even wrong.
I don't think anything in
On 07 May 2017, at 06:04, Kip Ingram wrote:
The initial reply to this post stated the need to define free will
before seeking its origins. My own definition is "the injection of
new information into a dynamic system." Not the injection of
randomness, but rather the injection of
The initial reply to this post stated the need to define free will before
seeking its origins. My own definition is "the injection of new
information into a dynamic system." Not the injection of randomness, but
rather the injection of *information*. As noted in other replies, the only
avenue
On 5/6/2017 9:04 PM, Kip Ingram wrote:
The initial reply to this post stated the need to define free will
before seeking its origins. My own definition is "the injection of
new information into a dynamic system." Not the injection of
randomness, but rather the injection of /information/.
The initial reply to this post stated the need to define free will before
seeking its origins. My own definition is "the injection of new
information into a dynamic system." Not the injection of randomness, but
rather the injection of *information*. As noted in other replies, the only
On 11 Feb 2014, at 17:35, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:36:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital
transformation of consciousness is perfectly
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:36:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of
consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:35 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:36:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation
of consciousness is perfectly
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Forget stops.
OK, if they're still moving fast relative to each other then each will see
the others clock running slow.
Just assume A at the point just before he stops and is still
decellerating at 1g TO stop. The
John,
1. No. because both A and B experience the exact same 1g acceleration for
the entire trip. A's watch doesn't suddenly spring back thousands of year
in the second he finally cuts off his acceleration.
2. This example comes from Kip Thorne who provides the calculations. If the
results of
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
both A and B experience the exact same 1g acceleration for the entire
trip.
Not if A comes to his destination AND STOPS.
A's watch doesn't suddenly spring back thousands of year in the second he
finally cuts off his
John,
No, not at all.
Forget stops. Just assume A at the point just before he stops and is still
decellerating at 1g TO stop. The situation is exactly the same except for a
few nanoseconds.
Also the apparent slowing of both A and B's clocks relative to each other
is due to their relative
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote
The question is why when A gets to the center of the galaxy and stops
That's the key point to remember, A comes to a stop. And during the
deceleration process things would no longer be symmetrical, A would see B's
clock
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
you talk like if the object on your desk are localized.
Are you claiming that a computer can emulate a intelligent conscious
being but can't emulate a desk?
I am not saying that. I am saying that the desk apparent
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you troll as a hobby or professionally?
Oh I think you could call me a professional by now, in fact because I've
been making many of these exact same points since the early 1990s I have
been given an award by the
On 03 Feb 2014, at 18:08, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
you talk like if the object on your desk are localized.
Are you claiming that a computer can emulate a intelligent
conscious being but can't emulate a desk?
I am not
John,
A couple of points in response.
Yes, I agree that both A and B see each other's clocks running slower than
their own DURING the trip. This is standard relativity theory mostly
Lorentz transform if we just take non-accelerated relative motion. Also
note that, contrary to your statement,
On 4 February 2014 06:19, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you troll as a hobby or professionally?
Oh I think you could call me a professional by now, in fact because I've
been making many of these exact
On 4 February 2014 09:29, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
A couple of points in response.
Yes, I agree that both A and B see each other's clocks running slower than
their own DURING the trip. This is standard relativity theory mostly
Lorentz transform if we just take
Liz,
You keep missing my point. There is NO inertial frame in this example,
neither A nor B's frame is inertial.
Neither A nor B are in an inertial frame in this example. The specific
point of the example is that they BOTH experience exactly the same
NON-inertial 1g acceleration for the
Brent,
The centrifuge is totally unnecessary because B back on earth already IS
experiencing the exact same 1g gravitational acceleration that A is. B
doesn't need any centrifuge to experience 1g.
That's why those specs were part of my case, so acceleration could be
discounted...
Edgar
On
Brent, and anyone else who wants to answer,
First, thanks for your patience and consideration in answering my
questions. I appreciate it, and hope you will also take the time to address
what I see is the crux of the journey to the center of the galaxy case
below.
To review: the case of A
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
I stated that A began his trip from earth ORBIT, not from blasting off
from earth's surface, so A's acceleration is 1g for the ENTIRE trip.
Then each would see the others clock as running slower than his own. You
might
On 01 Feb 2014, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
then feel free to invoke some non-comp or invoke more comp if
that floats your boat, I no longer care. I've given up trying to
find a consistent definition of your silly
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of
consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
pounding my hand on right now as simply being a subroutine in the johnkclak
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:36 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of
consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:36 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation
On 02 Feb 2014, at 19:36, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital
transformation of consciousness is perfectly consistent with the
matter in the desk I'm pounding my hand on right
On 31 Jan 2014, at 20:57, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have
direct experience of the subjective.
Nice for you.
Indeed.
But that does not invalidate the point that you can't prove
On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:24 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated person should
know get tiresome too.
Try Vitamin B 12. It is known to have a positive effect on the mind's ability
to accept new input. Failing that, you might
Actually, John Clark wrote...
On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:34 pm, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:24 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated person
should know get tiresome too.
Try Vitamin B
Hi John,
One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock, BUT
the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire trip
which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on earth. So
if the accelerations were exactly equal during the entire
Brent,
But see my response to John. How can that work since the accelerations are
both = 1g throughout the entire trip? By the Principle of Equivalence
shouldn't they have the same effect on time then?
But if you say it's not the acceleration, but the distance through
spacetime, then the
Liz,
But see my responses to John and Brent on this ..
The question I'd ask you is why A's frame cannot be put into a single
inertial frame of reference if his 1g acceleration was exactly the same as
B's 1g acceleration during the ENTIRE trip?
Are you saying that the simple fact that the
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock,
BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire
trip which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on
earth.
John,
First, 2 substantial errors in your post below.
1. I stated that A began his trip from earth ORBIT, not from blasting off
from earth's surface, so A's acceleration is 1g for the ENTIRE trip. But
even if he blasted off from earth's surface at 2g that would have a
negligible and
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
then feel free to invoke some non-comp or invoke more comp if that
floats your boat, I no longer care. I've given up trying to find a
consistent definition of your silly little word comp that is used on this
list and
On 2/1/2014 9:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock,
BUT the
point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire
For a trip of interstellar distance, the time dilation caused by getting
into low earth orbit will be insignificant. Alice and Bob can compare their
watches when Alice is in orbit, and see that they are still synchronised to
high accuracy, at least as far as humans are concerned - there might be a
On 1/31/2014 10:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
A's clock slow
Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B
On 1 February 2014 07:59, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
A's clock slow
Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is
Brent,
PS on quoted post:
If, as you say, A's proper time (comoving clock) is running much slower all
during (most of) the trip to the center of the galaxy, then doesn't that
mean A would observe all the intergalactic stuff passing by him at MUCH
greater than the speed of light? How would
On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:14, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe full
of drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change.
I have no doubt that this is true. The
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
A's clock slow
Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at
near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct
experience of the subjective.
Nice for you.
Indeed.
But that does not invalidate the point that you can't prove this to an
other person,
I can't even prove
On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/29/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter
into a God, and science into pseudo-religious
On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/29/2014 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place
where precisely we should not attribute any
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Please read Lao-tseu or Plotinus.
I have read Lao-tseu but as for Plotinus I've had my fill of ancestor
worship for one day.
and if you read AUDA, you will see how machine car refer to truth
without using a truth
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe full of
drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change.
I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a
complete 3p theory of
Brent,
So what you are saying is that because everything travels through spacetime
at the speed of light in all frames (my STc Principle) and A's path through
SPACE is much longer than B's (which is zero) that A's path through time
must be correspondingly shorter?
At least that's my
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter
into a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his
train of authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is still
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place
where precisely we should not attribute any importance. I would use
tao, that would make the results looking new-age. Use any another
name,
On 28 Jan 2014, at 19:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.
Yes. Singular. that the main contribution of the Parmenides: the
rise of monotheism and the rise of monism. The idea that there is a
unique
On 28 Jan 2014, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would
nominate the strings of string theory and others computations of a
universal dovetailer, why would suppose in advance that this GOAR
is infinite,
Brent,
Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for if
I may...
In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.
Two observers A and B.
A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 light
year away, using a constant 1g
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s
Yes, Hubble observed that the universe was expanding in the early 1920s,
but only in the late 1990s was it discovered that the universe was not just
expanding but
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God.
No, Einstein had more to say on the subject than just I do not believe in
a personal God. Besides not
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if
the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not
intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:13 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God.
No, Einstein had more to
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse that
clearly and unambiguously explains exactly what the hard problem is.
In a nutshell, the difficulty is that a complete 3p explanation of the
brain seems
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
atheists are christians.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are
On 29 Jan 2014, at 17:29, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence
and if the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the
universe is not intelligent and is not
On 29 Jan 2014, at 17:51, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote
Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse
that clearly and unambiguously explains exactly what the hard
problem is.
In a nutshell, the difficulty
On 29 Jan 2014, at 18:21, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
atheists are christians.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
You should
On 1/29/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter into a God, and
science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of authoritative
On 1/29/2014 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place where precisely we
should not attribute any importance. I would use tao, that would make the
On 30 January 2014 09:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Leibniz was so impressed with binary numbers he suggested that 1 and 0
might be the goar.
John A. Wheeler also.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
On 30 January 2014 05:13, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God.
No, Einstein had more to say on
On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for if I
may...
In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.
Two observers A and B.
A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy,
On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for
if I may...
In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.
Two observers A
On 1/28/2014 6:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
That's just your interpretation and you apparently ARE UNABLE to find any authoritative
sites to confirm it. Yes, of course the mass interior to a BH collapses into the
singularity but that doesn't mean it vanishes from the black hole.
On 1/29/2014 5:39 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for
if I may...
In
On 27 Jan 2014, at 19:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08,
On 27 Jan 2014, at 21:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do
not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:
I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein
quotes floating around the web.
They were real, but taken out of the context.
But they made my point. Einstein is a believer, but out of
confessional religion. Like Gödel.
Bruno
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I use the exact same definition of life that
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 06:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3
of that book is
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:52, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist,
physicalist) theology for granted.
I've said more
On 28 January 2014 21:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:
I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes
floating around the web.
They were real, but taken out of the context.
But they made my point. Einstein is a
On 28 January 2014 21:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as their
precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To stuck a
concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I know only
atheists to stuck
On 27 Jan 2014, at 23:38, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't
rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all
encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown
On 28 January 2014 22:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From that, one
cannot deduce that he thought you *can
On 28 Jan 2014, at 05:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't
rhetorical I'd
Oops send a message by mistake, sorry. Comment below.
On 28 Jan 2014, at 05:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you
On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:13, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 21:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:
I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein
quotes floating around the web.
They were real, but taken out of the context.
But
On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 21:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as
their precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To
stuck a concept in one theory is just like assessing
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question,
On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:19, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 22:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From
that, one cannot
Liz,
No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the
difference.
My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the uneven
Hubble expansion of space around galaxies.
The effect Brent is proposing has nothing to do with the Hubble expansion.
It seems to
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So sure yeah, there's no limit to
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
On 1/28/2014 12:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, and most of the time, such eliminativism is a progress. WE eliminate the terms of
the obsolete theories, like phlogiston, or like the cold and hot atoms of Lavoisier, or
the N rays, etc.
Just as an aside, N rays is now used to describe neutron
On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter into a God, and
science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of authoritative arguments. why
do you think the FPI is still ignored by most scientists?
To say I don't believe
On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place where precisely we
should not attribute any importance. I would use tao, that would make the results
looking new-age. Use any another name, people will add more connotations than with the
On 1/28/2014 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.
Yes. Singular. that the main contribution of the Parmenides: the rise of monotheism and
the rise of monism. The idea that there is a unique reality. That is the motor of the
fundamental
On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would nominate the
strings of
string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer, why would
suppose
in advance that this GOAR is infinite, transcendent(whatever that means),
On 1/28/2014 4:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the difference.
My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the uneven Hubble
expansion of space around galaxies.
The effect Brent is proposing has nothing
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes
floating around the web.
They were real, real enough to provoke a furious response from thousands
of American hillbillies in the 1930's such as:
Professor
Brent,
Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several
others (eg. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter
13: Inside Black Holes of 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and
NONE of those sources say what you are saying, namely that
1.
1 - 100 of 315 matches
Mail list logo