On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Jan 2012, at 07:17, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Stephen, Ronald,
The paper is very interesting, on physics, but succumbs directly from the
On 20 Jan 2012, at 07:17, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Stephen, Ronald,
The paper is very interesting, on physics, but succumbs directly
from the argument that any digital physics is bound to be
unsuccessful on the
On 20 Jan 2012, at 07:17, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Stephen, Ronald,
The paper is very interesting, on physics, but succumbs directly
from the argument that any digital physics is bound to be
unsuccessful on the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Stephen, Ronald,
The paper is very interesting, on physics, but succumbs directly from the
argument that any digital physics is bound to be unsuccessful on the
mind-body problem by being still physicalist. The body
Stephen, Ronald,
The paper is very interesting, on physics, but succumbs directly from
the argument that any digital physics is bound to be unsuccessful on
the mind-body problem by being still physicalist. The body problem is
a problem of computer science, that is arithmetic, once we bet
5 matches
Mail list logo