Hi Bruno
>> Come on, the poor guy tried hard since two years, and has convinced only him
That's a good way of spinning the fact that for two years it is in reality you
who has failed to convince him.
All the best
Chris
From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:23:08 +0000
Hi Quentin
>> I do not, valid critics are valid,
By definition mate.
>> but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he
>> maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that person does
>> not want to argue, he wants to defend a position at all costs, that's evil.
This is what I mean by emotional arm waving. I can honestly think of things
that are more evil and I suppose, from Clark's point of view, hes been pointing
out the inconsistencies in Bruno's argument for two years too. Does that make
Bruno evil???
In a later post you try to rebut Clark :
>>>> In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who "I" or "you" is
>>>> because however many copies of "I" or "you" there may or may not be they
>>>> will never meet.
>>That changes absolutely nothing... just put the reconstruction of the W guy
>>200 years later than the M guy, they will never meet...
But if you can send the W guy skipping through time, you can send the M guy
skipping through time too. So they could potentially meet. In MWI 'copies' can
not potentially meet. If this is your attempt to point out an inconsistency its
dismissively lazy and fails triumphantly.
In my opinion your beef is impotent anyhow. The most you'd ever show was that
Clark applied his argument inconsistently, you certainly wouldn't show that he
was wrong about Bruno's metaphysics.
all the best
Chris.
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:39:21 +1300
Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is
true but at a lower level and what we have observed that appears to
refute comp is a dream or simulation at a higher level.
If this is true, comp isn't a scientific theory.
Of course the converse of this is that no matter what we observe
then it cannot confirm comp.
This is true of any scientific theory (if comp is one, therefore, also true of
comp).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
