Re: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[LizR]

On 19 May 2014 12:13, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/18/2014 4:23 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 17 May 2014 11:05, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 5/16/2014 2:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 16 May 2014 17:14, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>
>>> So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you
>>> think it is possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful?
>>>
>>>
>>>  Sure, it's possible to reason about anything.  Whether you can arrive
>>> at something useful is an open question - one can but try.  I like the late
>>> Norm Levitt's remark, "What is there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there?
>>> NOTHING!"
>>>
>>
>>  Or one could paraphrase Russell Standish - What is there? NOTHING! -
>> Which is EVERYTHING!
>>
>>  I like Russell's version, which creates more of a *frisson*. Although I
>> assume Levitt is claiming the existence of a multiverse (EVERYTHING implies
>> that of course).
>>
>>
>>  I doubt that, Norm was rather a fan of Bohmian QM.
>>
>
>  I had the chance to talk to Jim Al-Kalili at the Auckland Writers
> Festival and I was surprised to find his favourite interpretation of QM is
> also the Bohm one, which hasn't been coming up much in Max Tegmark's polls
> of physicists recently. (I believe it's the multiverse but with one
> universe "more real" than all the others, or something similar).
>
>  Obviously I didn't have much to go on with Mr Levitt, just the quote you
> supplied, but ISTM "What is there? EVERYTHING!" could be taken to mean that
> everything that can exist exists (i.e. Everett). An alternative reading is
> that he is saying he thinks the universe is infinite, which also gives us
> everything that can exist. I'm not sure how else one can interpret
> "EVERYTHING" especially when it's emphasised like that.
>
>
> You're reading to much into it.  Norm wasn't involved the everythingism of
> Tegmark and Marchal.  He was making a tongue-in-cheek paraphrase of W. V.
> O. Quine's, "Nonbeing must in some sense be, otherwise what is it that
> there is not?"  Norm was interested in defending the existence of a
> Platonic realm of mathematics, but one that "existed" in a different way
> than the material world.
>

Like I said, you didn't provide much to go on.

>
> Brent
> "The duty of abstract mathematics, as I see it, is precisely to
> expand our capacity for hypothesizing possible ontologies."
>  --- Norm Levitt
>

Max T has definitely adhere to that.

-- 
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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[meekerdb]

On 5/18/2014 4:23 PM, LizR wrote:

On 17 May 2014 11:05, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 5/16/2014 2:41 PM, LizR wrote:

On 16 May 2014 17:14, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:

On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you 
think it
is possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful?


Sure, it's possible to reason about anything.  Whether you can arrive at
something useful is an open question - one can but try.  I like the 
late Norm
Levitt's remark, "What is there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there? 
NOTHING!"


Or one could paraphrase Russell Standish - What is there? NOTHING! - Which 
is
EVERYTHING!

I like Russell's version, which creates more of a /frisson/. Although I 
assume
Levitt is claiming the existence of a multiverse (EVERYTHING implies that 
of course).


I doubt that, Norm was rather a fan of Bohmian QM.


I had the chance to talk to Jim Al-Kalili at the Auckland Writers Festival and I was 
surprised to find his favourite interpretation of QM is also the Bohm one, which hasn't 
been coming up much in Max Tegmark's polls of physicists recently. (I believe it's the 
multiverse but with one universe "more real" than all the others, or something similar).


Obviously I didn't have much to go on with Mr Levitt, just the quote you supplied, but 
ISTM "What is there? EVERYTHING!" could be taken to mean that everything that can exist 
exists (i.e. Everett). An alternative reading is that he is saying he thinks the 
universe is infinite, which also gives us everything that can exist. I'm not sure how 
else one can interpret "EVERYTHING" especially when it's emphasised like that.


You're reading to much into it.  Norm wasn't involved the everythingism of Tegmark and 
Marchal.  He was making a tongue-in-cheek paraphrase of W. V. O. Quine's, "Nonbeing must 
in some sense be, otherwise what is it that there is not?"  Norm was interested in 
defending the existence of a Platonic realm of mathematics, but one that "existed" in a 
different way than the material world.


Brent
"The duty of abstract mathematics, as I see it, is precisely to
expand our capacity for hypothesizing possible ontologies."
 --- Norm Levitt

--
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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, May 19, 2014 12:23:58 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 17 May 2014 11:05, meekerdb > wrote:
>
>>  On 5/16/2014 2:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 16 May 2014 17:14, meekerdb >wrote:
>>
>>>  On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>  
>>> So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you 
>>> think it is possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful? 
>>>  
>>>
>>>  Sure, it's possible to reason about anything.  Whether you can arrive 
>>> at something useful is an open question - one can but try.  I like the late 
>>> Norm Levitt's remark, "What is there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there? 
>>> NOTHING!"
>>>  
>>
>>  Or one could paraphrase Russell Standish - What is there? NOTHING! - 
>> Which is EVERYTHING!
>>
>>  I like Russell's version, which creates more of a *frisson*. Although I 
>> assume Levitt is claiming the existence of a multiverse (EVERYTHING implies 
>> that of course).
>>   
>>
>> I doubt that, Norm was rather a fan of Bohmian QM.
>>
>
> I had the chance to talk to Jim Al-Kalili at the Auckland Writers Festival 
> and I was surprised to find his favourite interpretation of QM is also the 
> Bohm one, which hasn't been coming up much in Max Tegmark's polls of 
> physicists recently. (I believe it's the multiverse but with one universe 
> "more real" than all the others, or something similar).
>
 
I love that guy. He is fare and way my favourite ever explainer of 
science...as in the documentaries he's made. He's so pure and he sort of 
bursts with true meant appreciation for the scientific pioneers...he can't 
help smiling when he speaks of some of them and their amazing 
exploits. He's the best, I think the smartest as well. And totally 
unselfpossessed. The others can't touch him. Either they barely can conceal 
their contempt for the scientific geniuses - like Deutsch in my view - or 
they are full of themselves to the point of it become a distraction for 
the viewer. Like what's his name, wonder's of the solar system guy. That 
being said, he's alright, I'm going to see him in a week or two. But 
Jimmy boy is a star.  

>
> Obviously I didn't have much to go on with Mr Levitt, just the quote you 
> supplied, but ISTM "What is there? EVERYTHING!" could be taken to mean that 
> everything that can exist exists (i.e. Everett). An alternative reading is 
> that he is saying he thinks the universe is infinite, which also gives us 
> everything that can exist. I'm not sure how else one can interpret 
> "EVERYTHING" especially when it's emphasised like that.
>  

-- 
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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[LizR]

On 17 May 2014 11:05, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/16/2014 2:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 16 May 2014 17:14, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you
>> think it is possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful?
>>
>>
>>  Sure, it's possible to reason about anything.  Whether you can arrive at
>> something useful is an open question - one can but try.  I like the late
>> Norm Levitt's remark, "What is there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there?
>> NOTHING!"
>>
>
>  Or one could paraphrase Russell Standish - What is there? NOTHING! -
> Which is EVERYTHING!
>
>  I like Russell's version, which creates more of a *frisson*. Although I
> assume Levitt is claiming the existence of a multiverse (EVERYTHING implies
> that of course).
>
>
> I doubt that, Norm was rather a fan of Bohmian QM.
>

I had the chance to talk to Jim Al-Kalili at the Auckland Writers Festival
and I was surprised to find his favourite interpretation of QM is also the
Bohm one, which hasn't been coming up much in Max Tegmark's polls of
physicists recently. (I believe it's the multiverse but with one universe
"more real" than all the others, or something similar).

Obviously I didn't have much to go on with Mr Levitt, just the quote you
supplied, but ISTM "What is there? EVERYTHING!" could be taken to mean that
everything that can exist exists (i.e. Everett). An alternative reading is
that he is saying he thinks the universe is infinite, which also gives us
everything that can exist. I'm not sure how else one can interpret
"EVERYTHING" especially when it's emphasised like that.

-- 
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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[freqflyer07281972]

I looked up Norm Levitt in Wikipedia -- the entry is rather sketchy. Do you 
have any links or biblio entries I can follow up on? From what I did read 
of him (opposing "new left" academic silliness) I am intrigued to find out 
more.

On Friday, May 16, 2014 7:05:59 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 5/16/2014 2:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 16 May 2014 17:14, meekerdb > wrote:
>
>>  On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>  
>> So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you 
>> think it is possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful? 
>>  
>>
>>  Sure, it's possible to reason about anything.  Whether you can arrive at 
>> something useful is an open question - one can but try.  I like the late 
>> Norm Levitt's remark, "What is there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there? 
>> NOTHING!"
>>  
>
>  Or one could paraphrase Russell Standish - What is there? NOTHING! - 
> Which is EVERYTHING!
>
>  I like Russell's version, which creates more of a *frisson*. Although I 
> assume Levitt is claiming the existence of a multiverse (EVERYTHING implies 
> that of course).
>   
>
> I doubt that, Norm was rather a fan of Bohmian QM.
>
> Brent
>  

-- 
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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[meekerdb]

On 5/16/2014 2:41 PM, LizR wrote:

On 16 May 2014 17:14, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you think 
it is
possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful?


Sure, it's possible to reason about anything.  Whether you can arrive at 
something
useful is an open question - one can but try.  I like the late Norm 
Levitt's remark,
"What is there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there? NOTHING!"


Or one could paraphrase Russell Standish - What is there? NOTHING! - Which is 
EVERYTHING!

I like Russell's version, which creates more of a /frisson/. Although I assume Levitt is 
claiming the existence of a multiverse (EVERYTHING implies that of course).


I doubt that, Norm was rather a fan of Bohmian QM.

Brent

--
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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[LizR]

On 16 May 2014 17:14, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you
> think it is possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful?
>
>
> Sure, it's possible to reason about anything.  Whether you can arrive at
> something useful is an open question - one can but try.  I like the late
> Norm Levitt's remark, "What is there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there?
> NOTHING!"
>

Or one could paraphrase Russell Standish - What is there? NOTHING! - Which
is EVERYTHING!

I like Russell's version, which creates more of a *frisson*. Although I
assume Levitt is claiming the existence of a multiverse (EVERYTHING implies
that of course).

-- 
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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 May 2014, at 06:18, LizR wrote:

"We have proved that the Void is One, because it certainly is not  
Many."


Is there no possibility that the void might be None?


Not really. Not a void you can be conscious one or refer too. Well,  
set theory obeys comprhension, but also reflection, which add in the  
universe what has be comprehended.


Bruno







On 16 May 2014 15:47, meekerdb  wrote:
On 5/15/2014 6:45 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
A fun little article I came across that I thought everyone here  
might appreciate:


http://www.imprint.co.uk/C&HK/vol7/kauffman_7-4.pdf

Thoughts? Objections?


I can hardly wait to hear the Kauffman vs William Lane Craig debate.

Brent


--
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.


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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[meekerdb]

On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you think it is 
possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful?


Sure, it's possible to reason about anything.  Whether you can arrive at something useful 
is an open question - one can but try.  I like the late Norm Levitt's remark, "What is 
there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there? NOTHING!"


Brent



In the article, Kauffman seems to telegraph right at the beginning that everything that 
will follow is an exercise in deception, thanks to the old Taoistic chestnut that "the 
Void, when named, is not the Void." And yet, formal reasoning seems to lead us to some 
kind of meaningful conclusions about it regardless.




On Friday, May 16, 2014 12:53:38 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

On 5/15/2014 9:30 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

I don't get it. Please explain?

Are you making a joke, something on the order of "both of these guys are 
spouting
such metaphysical hogwash that the debate between them would be an even 
bigger
yawnfest than their articles in particular"?


It was a tongue in cheek remark. I wouldn't say Kauffmann is spouting 
hogwash,
though Craig certainly does.  But there's a symmetry of style.  Both draw 
deep
conclusions from just words...but not compatible conclusions.

Brent


Or is it some specific aspect of what each of them profess to believe? I 
know that
Craig is a theologian who argues in favor of the Kalam cosmological 
argument for
god's existence. I submitted the link to the Kauffman article just because 
it
seemed to be talking about a lot of the stuff that is frequently discussed 
here,
but doesn't appear to grind any particular theological axe. So I don't 
really see
the connection you are making (or the irony/humor/sarcasm you might/might 
not have
intended).



I can hardly wait to hear the Kauffman vs William Lane Craig debate.

Brent

-- 
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-li...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.


--
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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[freqflyer07281972]

So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you think 
it is possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful? 

In the article, Kauffman seems to telegraph right at the beginning that 
everything that will follow is an exercise in deception, thanks to the old 
Taoistic chestnut that "the Void, when named, is not the Void." And yet, 
formal reasoning seems to lead us to some kind of meaningful conclusions 
about it regardless. 



On Friday, May 16, 2014 12:53:38 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 5/15/2014 9:30 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>  
> I don't get it. Please explain? 
>
> Are you making a joke, something on the order of "both of these guys are 
> spouting such metaphysical hogwash that the debate between them would be an 
> even bigger yawnfest than their articles in particular"? 
>
>
> It was a tongue in cheek remark. I wouldn't say Kauffmann is spouting 
> hogwash, though Craig certainly does.  But there's a symmetry of style.  
> Both draw deep conclusions from just words...but not compatible conclusions.
>
> Brent
>
>  Or is it some specific aspect of what each of them profess to believe? I 
> know that Craig is a theologian who argues in favor of the Kalam 
> cosmological argument for god's existence. I submitted the link to the 
> Kauffman article just because it seemed to be talking about a lot of the 
> stuff that is frequently discussed here, but doesn't appear to grind any 
> particular theological axe. So I don't really see the connection you are 
> making (or the irony/humor/sarcasm you might/might not have intended). 
>
>  
>>
>> I can hardly wait to hear the Kauffman vs William Lane Craig debate. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>  -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[meekerdb]

On 5/15/2014 9:30 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

I don't get it. Please explain?

Are you making a joke, something on the order of "both of these guys are spouting such 
metaphysical hogwash that the debate between them would be an even bigger yawnfest than 
their articles in particular"?


It was a tongue in cheek remark. I wouldn't say Kauffmann is spouting hogwash, though 
Craig certainly does.  But there's a symmetry of style.  Both draw deep conclusions from 
just words...but not compatible conclusions.


Brent

Or is it some specific aspect of what each of them profess to believe? I know that Craig 
is a theologian who argues in favor of the Kalam cosmological argument for god's 
existence. I submitted the link to the Kauffman article just because it seemed to be 
talking about a lot of the stuff that is frequently discussed here, but doesn't appear 
to grind any particular theological axe. So I don't really see the connection you are 
making (or the irony/humor/sarcasm you might/might not have intended).




I can hardly wait to hear the Kauffman vs William Lane Craig debate.

Brent

--
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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[freqflyer07281972]

I don't get it. Please explain? 

Are you making a joke, something on the order of "both of these guys are 
spouting such metaphysical hogwash that the debate between them would be an 
even bigger yawnfest than their articles in particular"? Or is it some 
specific aspect of what each of them profess to believe? I know that Craig 
is a theologian who argues in favor of the Kalam cosmological argument for 
god's existence. I submitted the link to the Kauffman article just because 
it seemed to be talking about a lot of the stuff that is frequently 
discussed here, but doesn't appear to grind any particular theological axe. 
So I don't really see the connection you are making (or the 
irony/humor/sarcasm you might/might not have intended). 


>
> I can hardly wait to hear the Kauffman vs William Lane Craig debate. 
>
> Brent 
>

-- 
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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[LizR]

"We have proved that the Void is One, because it certainly is not Many."

Is there no possibility that the void might be None?


On 16 May 2014 15:47, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 5/15/2014 6:45 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
>> A fun little article I came across that I thought everyone here might
>> appreciate:
>>
>> http://www.imprint.co.uk/C&HK/vol7/kauffman_7-4.pdf
>>
>> Thoughts? Objections?
>>
>
>
> I can hardly wait to hear the Kauffman vs William Lane Craig debate.
>
> Brent
>
>
> --
> 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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[meekerdb]

On 5/15/2014 6:45 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

A fun little article I came across that I thought everyone here might 
appreciate:

http://www.imprint.co.uk/C&HK/vol7/kauffman_7-4.pdf

Thoughts? Objections?



I can hardly wait to hear the Kauffman vs William Lane Craig debate.

Brent

--
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.

Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic

[freqflyer07281972]

A fun little article I came across that I thought everyone here might 
appreciate:

http://www.imprint.co.uk/C&HK/vol7/kauffman_7-4.pdf

Thoughts? Objections? 

-- 
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.