On Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:17:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/24/2013 9:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:13:25 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 1/23/2013 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> I guess you are serious, but I can't imagine how you can
On 1/24/2013 9:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:13:25 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/23/2013 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I guess you are serious, but I can't imagine how you can actually believe
that. You
think that you turn the Mars rover on and ther
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:13:25 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/23/2013 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> I guess you are serious, but I can't imagine how you can actually believe
> that. You think that you turn the Mars rover on and there is some entity
> there which has an expectati
Hi Craig Weinberg
Do I have to tell you ? Fictitous objects have no consciousness.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-23, 12:23:21
Subject: Re: Re: the curse of materialism
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:03:58 AM
On 1/23/2013 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I guess you are serious, but I can't imagine how you can actually believe that. You
think that you turn the Mars rover on and there is some entity there which has an
expectation about 'Mars' or Earth. It really doesn't. There is no entity there
So y
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:42:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/23/2013 9:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mar
On 1/23/2013 9:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another
to drive
through the streets of Los Angeles.
Y
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to
>> drive through the streets of Los Angeles.
>>
>
> You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, no
existence too? Why not?
Craig
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Bruno Marchal
> *Receiver:* everything-list
> *Time:* 2013-01-22, 12:28:48
> *Subject:* Re: the curse of materialism
>
> On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote
On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and
another to drive through the streets of Los Angeles.
You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, not the computer.
Not 'images', 'r
On 1/23/2013 6:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Numbers do have an independent existence, that
being nonphysical existence.
Hi Roger,
I agree but only because I see existence as mere a priori necessary
possibility; not contingent upon perception at all...
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
Yo
Hi Stephen,
Numbers do have an independent existence, that
being nonphysical existence.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-22, 12:28:48
Subject: Re: the curse of materialism
On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote
On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to
drive
through the streets of Los Angeles.
You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, not the computer.
Not 'images', 'representations' (check your reading ac
On Monday, January 21, 2013 6:42:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/21/2013 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrot
On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/22/2013 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you
cannot derive both addition and multipli
On 1/22/2013 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you
cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of
computer. Then everythi
On 22 Jan 2013, at 09:19, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Book: What is your dangerous idea?
/ Edited by John Brockman /
Article:
Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein;
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin.
/ by Lee Smolin. /
===.
/ Page 115 /
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin
On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:01:50 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You are saying that you can prove that the only way a computer can
exist is if arithmetic is irreducible?
I did not say th
On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you
cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence
of computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you
for myself, I'm too conservative to
easily accept these views, but I am
open to examining them.
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-22, 03:19:16
Subject: Re: the curse of materialism
Book: What is your dangerous id
ng content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-22, 02:46:12
Subject: Re: the curse of materialism
Lecture : Scientific heresy. Nov 1, 2011 in Edinburgh.
/ By Matt Ridley /
My topic today is scientific heresy.
When are scientific heretics right and whe
Book: What is your dangerous idea?
/ Edited by John Brockman /
Article:
Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein;
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin.
/ by Lee Smolin. /
===.
/ Page 115 /
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin suggests that
natural selection could act not only on
Lecture : Scientific heresy. Nov 1, 2011 in Edinburgh.
/ By Matt Ridley /
My topic today is scientific heresy.
When are scientific heretics right and when are they mad?
How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience?
#
Just this month Daniel Shechtman won the 2011 Nobel
On 1/21/2013 5:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/21/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to
have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.
That's somethin
On 1/21/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for
material things to have representations of things, intensionality,
such as numbers.
That's something evolution explains.
Brent
Hi Brent,
On 1/21/2013 2:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I mean if we wanted to get technical I would split the physics of
counting into the private motive experience quantitative reasoning
from the sensory experiences of figures or forms upon which we project
our representations, but yeah numbers need a su
On 1/21/2013 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism f
On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>>
>> Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible
On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material
things to
have representations of things, intensionality,
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material
> things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.
>
>
> That's something evoluti
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to have
representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.
That's something evolution explains.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Monday, January 21, 2013 2:45:00 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> I call that substrate physical, but not material as it
> experiential/intentional rather than substantial/extended.
>
>
> Of course, the experiential looks like material from the pov of another
experience, if they are suf
On Monday, January 21, 2013 2:05:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot
> > derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of
> > computer. Then everything aroun
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:01:50 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> You are saying that you can prove that the only way a computer can exist
> is if arithmetic is irreducible?
>
>
> I did not say that. I was saying that you have to ass
On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot
derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of
computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you
believe you can derive them, then do it. But you procee
On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:30:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:30:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wednesda
On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>> > That is the most clear demosnstrati
On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in
the
> mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only m
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> > That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in the
> > mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some kind
> > of underlying conp
On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in the
mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some kind
of underlying conputation)
Simply speaking 3D geometry in which we see our body and the rest of
the colored
ed as values of
>> functions on phase space, but as eigenvalues; more precisely: as spectral
>> values (point spectrum plus absolute
>> continuous plus singular continuous spectrum) of linear operators in
>> Hilbert space.[1]"
>>
>> I am not able to
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:46:03 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:25:51 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
> >>
> >> Craig,
> >>
> >> The monads themselves are sensitive,
> >
> >
> > How? Why?
>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:25:51 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> The monads themselves are sensitive,
>
>
> How? Why?
They get information from every other monad in the universe.
by direct 1/r mapping, a sorta direct perc
thing-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 09:16:17
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
I don't really see much of a difference whether we talk about BECs, strings,
charged geometries, vacuum flux, aether, numbers, or any other spatially
structured medium. Who cares? The question is how doe
se QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
This might be called the curse of materialism.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/16/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
R
Hi Bruno Marchal
OK.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/16/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 10:35:43
Subject: Re: the curse of m
uot;Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> >> - Receiving the following content -
> >> From: Richard Ruquist
> >> Receiver: everything-list
> >> Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49
> >> Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse o
On 16 Jan 2013, at 11:01, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
This might be called the curse of materialism.
Newton's physics is also non physical. In fact it is
01-16, 09:43:48
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
Roger,
Your presumptions are incorrect.
Also your monad definition.
I am too old for bare naked.
Stop being silly.
Richard
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> Yes, of cours
uot;Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-16, 09:21:38
> Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
>
>
> I think its more like ap
t you want ?
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/16/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 09:21:38
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse
s singular continuous spectrum) of linear operators in
> Hilbert space.[1]"
>
> I am not able to understand that.
>
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/16/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> - Recei
" - Woody Allen
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Richard Ruquist
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
>>
>>
>> Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and lig
pecially near the end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49
> Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
>
>
> Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up
ving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49
> Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
>
>
> Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can
> form a BEC. BEC is a mathemati
Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49
Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can
form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one
substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively
outside spacetime
Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/16/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-16, 07:38:37
Subject: Re: the curse of materialism
The Newton
---
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-01-16, 07:47:52
> Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism
>
>
> Roger,
> I liked your "1p think therefore 1p am"
>
> But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.
>
>
thing-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 07:47:52
Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism
Roger,
I liked your "1p think therefore 1p am"
But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.
Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete.
Feynman came close to com
e curse of materialism
To: everything-list
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
This might be called the curse of materialism.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/16/2013
"Forever is a long t
r Clough" wrote:
> Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
>
> You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
> Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
> This might be called the curse of materialism.
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/16/2013
> "Forev
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
This might be called the curse of materialism.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/16/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end.&quo
64 matches
Mail list logo
