Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote: So what does existence mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,... I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence, which are the appearance that we derive at some higher emergent level. With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory (like Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive from them the emergence of all universal machines, their interactions and the resulting first person statistics, which should explains the origin and development (in some mathematical space) of the law of physics. I like when David Mermin said once: Einstein asked if the moon still exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in that case, definitely not exist. Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon doesn't exist even when we look at it. Only the relative relations between my computational states and infinitely many computations exists. Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of exist. ? Are you not begging the question? I would say that comp does not eviscerate the meaning of exists. The meaning is provides by the standard semantics of predicate logic, where exists is a quantifier. But that is quite a different sense of exist. It is most basic one, used at the ontic level. May be you *assume* a notion of primitive physical existence. Then indeed, with comp we assume only a simple notion of arithmetical existence (on which most scientists agree) and derive the physical reality from an epistemological type of existence. It just means satisfying axioms and inferences from those axioms. It means more, as we work in a theory which is supposed to be a theory of everything. It is not pure logic or pure math. It is theology or TOE. Depending on the axioms and the rules of inference you can prove that something exists or that it cannot exist or that it might exist but can't be proven. We work in the comp frame. It presuppose you agree with sentences like it exist a number equal to the successor of the successor of 0, etc. We want explain complex phenomena, from particles interactions to conscious awareness, from simple basic assumption. The choosing arithmetic as the base universal theory, And choosing Christianity as the base universal theory And choosing Marxism as the base universal theory I have never met a christian, nor a marxist, believing that elementary arithmetic is false or useless. I have met arithmeticians doubting Christianity and/or Marxism. Elementary arithmetic is a scientific theory (even a sub-theory of most applied scientific theories). Christianity is a fuzzy and vague corpus of hope and belief, presupposing too arithmetic. To oppose or compare Christianity and arithmetic is no better than opposing Christianity and Evolution Theory. only number exists, some number functions and relation exists in a related but slightly different sense, and then physical existence is precisely define by the existence used in the modal context. Roughly speaking, we have the intelligible existence the E of arithmetic, then the modal existence: with [i]p = []p p, or []p t, or []p t p, we have different notion of existence of the type [i]Ex([i]p(x) and also, (quantized existence) [i]iEx([i]ip(x)). Of course this needs the first order modal logic extending the current propositional hypostases. More on this in the math thread. If my consciousness can survive a physical digital substitution, then it survives an arithmetical digital substitution, and what we call the moon has to be recovered as a stable pattern emerging from an infinity of computations in arithmetic, But only, I think, in a different digital universe in which we are also stable patterns of relations. By the FPI, we are distributed in infinitely many computations (making the real universe appearance a non digital and unique (yet multiversal) reality a priori). And in THAT universe what we call the Moon is what we can fly too and and on. OK, then. but I was using the arithmetic TOE(*), and we have to be clear on all the different notions of existence which emerge in it. Bruno (*) the TOE chosen is Robinson arithmetic. Precisely, it is predicate logic + the non logical following axioms: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x An observer is a believer in the axioms above + some induction axioms. IF you can build a world out of those, THEN an a believer in those axioms is an observer in THAT world. But that's a long way from showing it's true of THIS world. The term world is
Re: Interesting Google tech talk on QM
On 01 May 2014, at 03:55, Pierz wrote: On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 6:19:01 AM UTC+10, jessem wrote: On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:02 PM, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com wrote: Brent(?) wrote: No I never read that, but hell yeah, MWI worries me! Doesn't it worry you? I mean I know at one level that in a very real sense it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, since the other universes can never affect me, but at another the reality that everything happens to me that I can imagine is just plain terrifying. And the 'me' isn't just the versions of me that are still called by my name, I can't escape the conclusion that I am everyone and everyone is me and that *everyone's* experience is my experience at some level. If MWI ever does become the accepted conception of reality, we have a huge amount of philosophical reorientation ahead of us. For instance, if I take some risk (like drink-driving, a relevant topic on another thread), and 'get away with it', MWI suggests I am still responsible for other realities in which I crashed and injured or killed myself and/or others. My whole approach to risk management becomes quite different if all outcomes are realised. In what ways would your approach to risk management need to change if there was still some notion of different outcomes having different measures that correspond to normal classical probabilities? In a MWI context you might have a scenario where you can say if I take action X, then I expect in 95% of worlds outcome Y will occur, but in 5% of worlds outcome Z will occur, but in what cases would your choice about whether to take outcome X be any different than a one-world scenario where you can say if I take action X, then I expect there's a 95% probability outcome Y will occur, but a 5% probability outcome Z will occur? Can you think of any specific examples where this would change your decision? The MWI advocate David Deutsch had a quote about choices and morality in the article at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17122994.400-taming-the-multiverse.html which made sense to me: By making good choices, doing the right thing, we thicken the stack of universes in which versions of us live reasonable lives. When you succeed, all the copies of you who made the same decision succeed too. What you do for the better increases the portion of the multiverse where good things happen. Jesse Sorry Brent that people seem to be taking these as your remarks. Actually jesse on reflection I agree with you that from a rational point of view, one should make the same decision in either interpretation. The difference in perspective is a non-rational one, but non-rational perspectives can still matter. It's almost impossible to shake the familiar notion that I'll either get away with this or I won't in relation to some specific risk one takes, because from the 1p perspective, that is always true. Knowing (if MWI is ever proved) that in fact one's future is a weighted distribution of all possibilities, all of which we will experience, might change the way one relates to choice and experience. It drives home responsibility because there is no getting away with in an absolute sense. But then again, I believe that thinking about the absolute perspective from the 1p-perspective is always a mistake, in that subjective responses are always 1p and bound up with the qualia, which don't apply to the absolute. Therefore the terror I experience thinking about MWI, and also the sense of it changing my feelings about choice, are probably part of that same confusion of levels. Only God knows how we should feel about the Absolute, or perhaps how the Absolute feels (the qualia of the Absolute). Anyway my suspicion is that MWI is only the very beginning of a new level of understanding - a beginning of infinity per Deutsch - so any feelings we might have about it are based on a terribly limited perspective. Exactly, and even more so that we can never be sure of any of our theories/assumption. Doubly so in theology. We can use practical knowledge to reduce harm, and try to avoid wishful thinking in our theories, but we shouldn't fear truth per se, especially because we cannot be sure about it. We can take pleasure in the contemplation, and learn to not judge the others. Bruno -- 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/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
Someone said: So what does existence mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,.. So electrons did not exist until Rutherford. And even so, in a primitive form. Electrons had to wait in the limb of partial existent things until Millican said: Let´s give mass to the Electron. And the electrons existed happily since then.. Only for the people aware of the pattern creation. Who knows how many things are waiting to become into the existence this way. That is not a good definition of existence for me. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Top-down causation
On 30 April 2014 23:47, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Emergence means that the higher level is idependent of the substrate and produce effects in the substrate. That means that once emerged, it does not matter if is the result off a darwinian process, a numeric simulation or an intelligent design, it is as it is and start to work with their own rules, influencing above and below it. http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/~ellis/nature.pdf I find that paper rather unconvincing. So what if we can't predict football from the Schrodinger equation? This doesn't imply the existence of downward causation as anything physically fundamental, it just says that the computations are intractable, or maybe just that they would take an impractically long time to run. But if he* isn't* saying downward causation is physically fundamental, he's comparing apples with oranges, and the result is bananas. The stuff about the atoms having to be in exactly the right place at the time of the big bang is reminiscent of Hoyle's junkyard-to-747 argument. It misses out all the ordering principles that might come to bear, and basically appeals to our incredulity. Well, duh, that couldn't *possibly*happen - could it?!? But to see how vitally important that original arrangement is, let's suppose we do a thought experiment and stir all those original atoms around randomly. We can churn them around a lot (but to be fair we should leave the average density and average quantum fluctuations as they were in our version of the primordial gas). Let's do it a trillion trillion trillion or so times, with everything from one atom being moved to whole galactic masses being rearranged, and consider what might be the results. Well, gravity and evolution will still take their courses. So we'll still get planets and in some cases, life. In the cases where we only moved a few atoms, we'll probably get something indistinguishable from our Earth, and even the Mona Lisa. This is just the idea of a multiverse, which the author of the paper has turned upside down to make it into an argument from incredulity. But all one can really say is that differences in initial condtions will produce a range of outcomes, presumably ranging from almost exact copies of Earth through to entirely different galaxies (the proportions will I suppose involve chaos theory - maybe moving one atom really *would* butterfly-effect its way through history to stop Earth existing, or let the Nazis win WW2, or at least give the Mona Lisa a moustache) But the bottom line is that we'd get something reasonably similar from similar starting conditions, and all one can say is, again, so what? So our starting conditions happened to produce our universe, but slightly different conditions would have produced a slightly different universe. Whatever next ... Pope still Catholic ? So appealing to the exact conditions being needed to create our exact conditions as though this is something special or important is deeply suspect, IMHO. I get enough of that precisely arranged nonsense when I discuss backwards causation, and it looks like downwards causation needs similarly specious appeals to our incredulity. (Still, maybe all the hot air and hand waving will have an unexpected effect on lower levels of physics...) -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
How about: NOW YOU SEE ME ? On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:14 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: One I've mentioned ad nauseum - Memento. There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend. To avoid spoilers, I won't go into detail about why these films might appeal, but they both address issues mentioned on this list (at least tangentially, and in a fictional manner). I might also mention Chronocrimes for its portrayal of a block univese. Sadly no one seems to have filmed October the First is Too Late although the 10-episode epic Doctor Who story The War Games comes close in some respects. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Who story was inspired by Hoyle's novel, which I think appeared about 3 years beforehand if I remember correctly. I would semi-recommend this (but you have to remember that it was made in black and white, for viewing as a weekly serial in 1969...) -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Consciousness: Emotions Feelings
Thanks, Bruno. Quite profound: 'To be or not to be' ... 'I don't want to be here' ! Samiya On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Apr 2014, at 12:00, Samiya Illias wrote: An interesting conversation: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/?page=1 Bruno, can this be developed in a machine? I agree with large parts of Damasio, and disagree on others. Alas, he is still not aware of the consequence of mechanism, (like most brain scientists), and I disagree with his interpretation of Descartes (but that is another topic). Yes, we are driven by emotion. The intellect is a recent development in our history. It is the passage from eaten or to be eaten to to be or not to be. Keep in mind that computationalism is the assumption that *you* are already a machine, and so, trivially, comp takes into account all your emotion. If you survive a teleportation, but would lose your emotion, comp would be false. By definition, your entire mental universe, including faith, emotion, reason, ... is preserved. The body ([]p) is only a finite local representation of you, but you comes as much from the truth than from that self-representation. Personal consciousness, the maker of sense, start from the intersection of truth and bodily-beliefs: the []p p. Consciousness is semantical, and is more on the side of p, in the []p p. Somehow, the intellect (mind, machine) []p is a filter of that consciousness p. emotion is our oldest language, with a quick evaluation of the adequacy of a chemical environment. Our olfactive neurons have special relationship with the region of the brain related to emotions, which witness that fact, and people know how much a smell can trigger souvenir charged with emotion. This is also well illustrated in the following video. Although the paramecia are a bit slow figuring what happened, they got eventually the point; probably not in the shape Gosh I am eaten by an amoeba, but more something like I don't want to be here and I have to try to escape at all cost. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvOz4V699gk Bruno Samiya *MIND*: Do you believe that we will someday be able to create artificial consciousness and feelings? *Damasio*: An organism can possess feelings only when it can create a representation of the body's functions and the related changes that occur in the brain. In this way, the organism can perceive them. Without this mechanism there would be no consciousness. It is unclear that this could ever develop in a machine or whether we really want machines with feelings. -- 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/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: So electrons did not exist until Rutherford. J.J. Thomson discovered the electron. John K Clark -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: What generates Platonia? Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it scientifically. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/d/optout.
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On 5/1/2014 2:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Someone said: So what does existence mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,.. So electrons did not exist until Rutherford. And even so, in a primitive form. Electrons had to wait in the limb of partial existent things until Millican said: Let´s give mass to the Electron. And the electrons existed happily since then.. Only for the people aware of the pattern creation. Existence is relative to theory. So electrons existed before Millican and protons existed after Gell-Mann showed they were made of quarks. Just as the Moon exists after we discovered atoms. Brent Who knows how many things are waiting to become into the existence this way. That is not a good definition of existence for me. -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: anyone super-geek here?
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 5:17:40 AM UTC+1, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Jason Resch *Sent:* Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:08 AM *To:* Everything List *Subject:* Re: anyone super-geek here? I work at a company who's primary business is making large-scale private cloud storage systems, supporting both Amazon's S3 and OpenStack interfaces. While OpenStack has the advantage of being more open, Amazon's S3 protocol seems to have a larger mind share, and more traction as far as becoming a de facto standard. If you are developing client-side applications against cloud APIs, I think you will find the S3 API more powerful and better designed and thought out than the Openstack API, but for simpler use cases that just involve read, write, delete, etc. there's very little difference between them. I think Chris's comment below is particularly good advice. You ought to build an abstraction layer that sits between your application logic and the storage layer such that in the future you can more easily transition to other APIs should the need or desire arise. I would also add that doing so is a lot easier when first building a system. After dependencies creep through a code base it becomes increasingly difficult to retrofit an abstraction layer into a body of code. Believe me I know, I have tried and seen a lot of other attempts. Have worked with some code for some very large software companies that is a forest of pre-processor commands that make it almost impossible to follow the code through the forest of #ifdefs, #elif, #defines, #endif directives AND_A_WHOLE_BUNCH_UGLY_LONG_STRINGS… in this one instance I believe they still struggle with the massive bleed through of dependencies throughout a very large code base. Once a body of code becomes inherently coupled by dependencies it can become impossible – in practice – to achieve loose coupling. On the other hand sometimes strong dependency makes perfect sense, but for anything that is peripheral to the core function of the software it often makes sense to emplace abstraction layers early on in the life-cycle. It is a case of do it now; or risk not being able to do it later… architecting an abstraction layer is also an opportunity to reflect on actual requirements and what kind of models and system topologies make sense. It can lead to better design over all. Chris Jason On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 8:03 PM, 'Chris de Morsella cdemo...@yahoo.comjavascript:' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: I looked at it a while back and of the various open source cloud initiatives it looks like the one best positioned to succeed also because it is heavily backed by Rackspace -- a large hosting, col-location service based out of Texas. My advice though, whatever cloud solution you go with would be to try as much as possible to abstract the specific bridge code behind an opaque interface that cleanly separates it from bleeding out into other code. This will help to isolate this layer from other layers in your code. In general an extra layer of indirection is almost always worth it if it can decouple responsibilities and functions. Clean separation is one of the keys to managing mushrooming complexity as code grows and evolves over time. Alberto, Chris, Jason, cde : I was grateful for your comments which were very helpful. I'll pass drinks back if anything changes as a result. Many thanks! -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
I say that human beings (first-person) experience reality only in terms of words, many words with some measure of meaning and some without any meaning at all. Even the physics you mentioned are conveyed to the public as words, and the math that is conveyed between physicists is expressed in words, including Robinson's 1,2,3... arithmetic. You see some words, particularly mathematical and physical terms, have special properties that are in some measure truthful...Richard Ruquist 20140501 On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: What generates Platonia? Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it scientifically. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On 2 May 2014 04:42, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: What generates Platonia? Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it scientifically. Do you believe that mathematical truths are true independent of mind? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/d/optout.
Evolution from Scripture
Evolution and Creationism are generally considered to be opposing world views. This article attempts to prove from Scripture the existence of humans pre-dating Adam, thereby showing that evolution is not opposed to creationism, rather it is one of the methods of creation: http://can-you-answer.com/scripts/miscArticles.asp?artno=92 Samiya -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
So what? If valid, one can probably prove anything from the Bible. On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 08:35:30AM +0500, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution and Creationism are generally considered to be opposing world views. This article attempts to prove from Scripture the existence of humans pre-dating Adam, thereby showing that evolution is not opposed to creationism, rather it is one of the methods of creation: http://can-you-answer.com/scripts/miscArticles.asp?artno=92 Samiya -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
Proof is the domain of science. Scripture guides the way for those who believe. For those who believe theology to be a valid area of study, it is interesting to find that though the scriptures may be ancient, yet they are still relevant to modern age / scientific knowledge, and thus should not be discarded, rather a careful study has much to offer to those seeking a Theory of Everything. Samiya On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: So what? If valid, one can probably prove anything from the Bible. On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 08:35:30AM +0500, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution and Creationism are generally considered to be opposing world views. This article attempts to prove from Scripture the existence of humans pre-dating Adam, thereby showing that evolution is not opposed to creationism, rather it is one of the methods of creation: http://can-you-answer.com/scripts/miscArticles.asp?artno=92 Samiya -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
