*Why? "Mathematical" means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock
Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists
in some Platonic realm.
*
Brent,
What do you mean by that? I do not get your point.
Anyway I do not insist that it should be realizable. But I have
Dear John,
I feel I understand your view and distinction of "origination point"
and "origination".
"Origination" is entailment of "origination point". "Origination
point" is part of our world ("the item to be originated"). Is that
correct?
Now, my opinion is that there is no "origination" of the
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
> /All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in
> the equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since
> calculus is easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that
> defining an instantaneous state requires uncountable
Tom Caylor wrote:
> On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tom Caylor wrote:
A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the
sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can
agree on what it provides.
>>> I don't like simply saying
Thanks, Russell, 4 Poles may play bridge.
John
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
> In the sci-
Sorry, Danny, for my convoluted style. Also, for having missed you
'original' explanation of (your) God. I try to concentrate on SOME of the
texts, it is getting too much indeed, to memorize week long postings of
many.contributors..
You wrote:
---
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
> In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as
> done
> by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned
> "energy"
> with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your ma
Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease:
The last part: "> If we accept Bruno's "we are god"<
">I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is
that, assuming comp, the first person inherits "God"' unanmeability.
So the first person has some "god" attribute. you cann
OK, but it seems that we are using "reductionism" differently. You could say
that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it
exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; or you could say
that it can be reduced to an electron + proton because these two compone
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain
> it. What's wrong with that?
Because, assuming comp, neither matter nor mind (including perception)
can be break up into simpler parts to be explained. That is what
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:33, John M a écrit :
> Still: human thinking.
You should subscribe to some alien list, if you are annoyed by us being
human.
You can answer "human thinking" to any (human) post. So this does not
convey any information, unless you explain what in our human nature
prev
11 matches
Mail list logo
