On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb wrote:
> It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called "A
> Universe From
> Nothing". That the universe came from nothing is suggested by calculations
> of the total
> energy of the universe. Theories of the origin of the universe have bee
Hi,
I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a
quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the
same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics.
Onward!
Stephen
On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb w
On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a
quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce
the same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics.
I think I agree. I comment Craig below.
Hi Brent,
On 1/25/2012 2:05 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/24/2012 8:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Brent,
On 1/24/2012 9:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi John,
1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model
that attempts to weave toget
John Mikes wrote:
> > 1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang,
>
Well, we have excellent empirical evidence that the observable universe is
expanding, and a straightforward extrapolation into the past indicates that
13.75 billion years ago everything we can see was concentrated at just one
point.
Dear Bruno,
I still think that we can synchronize our ideas!
On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a
quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't rep
On 1/25/2012 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble over the math.
We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the same slide into sophistry that has
happened in physics.
On 23.01.2012 01:26 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:16:23PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.01.2012 05:59 Russell Standish said the following:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:03:41PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
and since information is measured by order, a
On 24.01.2012 13:49 Craig Weinberg said the following:
If you are instead saying that they are inversely proportional then
I would agree in general - information can be considered negentropy.
Sorry, I thought you were saying that they are directly proportional
measures (Brent and Evgenii seem to
On 24.01.2012 22:56 meekerdb said the following:
In thinking about how to answer this I came across an excellent paper
by Roman Frigg and Charlotte Werndl
http://www.romanfrigg.org/writings/EntropyGuide.pdf which explicates
the relation more comprehensively than I could and which also gives
som
On 1/25/2012 11:47 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.01.2012 01:26 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:16:23PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.01.2012 05:59 Russell Standish said the following:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:03:41PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
On 1/25/2012 11:01 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I still think that we can synchronize our ideas!
On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble over the
On Jan 25, 1:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I agree too. That is why it is clearer to put *all* our assumptions on
> the table. Physical theories of the origin, making it appearing from
> physical nothingness, makes sense only in, usually mathematical,
> theories of nothingness. It amounts to th
On 1/25/2012 3:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
x. Worst: for all number x, x*0 = 0.
> That 0 is a famous number!
x*0=1 for x=/=0
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@goo
Hi Brent,
On 1/25/2012 4:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/25/2012 11:01 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I still think that we can synchronize our ideas!
On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
I am 99% in agreement with C
On 1/25/2012 4:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Sounds like the sophistry you accuse physcists of. While 'everything' may be as
uninformative a 'nothing', they seem pretty distinct to me.
Exactly how is this distinction made? Is it merely semantics for you, this
difference?
Well, for one,
On 1/25/2012 7:41 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/25/2012 4:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Sounds like the sophistry you accuse physcists of. While
'everything' may be as uninformative a 'nothing', they seem pretty
distinct to me.
Exactly how is this distinction made? Is it merely semantics for
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Stephen P. King Wrote:
> A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake of
> his life". The problem is that one can add an arbitrary number of such
> scalar field terms to one's field equations. Frankly IMHO, it is more
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> My chasing you with an ax would be no different than colon cancer or
> heart disease chasing you. You would not project criminality on the cancer
>
Yes exactly, I want any cancer in my body to die and I want the guy
chasing me with a bloody ax to die
As I continue to ponder the UDA, I keep coming back to a niggling
doubt that an arithmetical ontology can ever really give a
satisfactory explanation of qualia. It seems to me that imputing
qualia to calculations (indeed consciousness at all, thought that may
be the same thing) adds something that
Hi John,
On 1/25/2012 11:57 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>>
Wrote:
> A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake of
his life". The pro
21 matches
Mail list logo
