Gravity and Vacuum.
=.
Einstein was mistaken using his Gravitation theory
to the all Universe as a whole.
The Gravitation theory doesn’t work in the Universe as a whole.
The Gravitation theory is a local theory.
Why?
Because the detected material mass of the matter in the
Universe ( the
On 24.05.2012 09:52 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 20:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
nominalism that they are just notation and do not exist as such
independently from the mind.
But that distinction is usually made in the aristotelian context,
where some concrete
On 02 Mar 2012, at 06:18, meekerdb wrote (two month agao):
On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Excerpt: Any system with finite information content that is
consistent can be formalized into an axiomatic system, for example
by using one axiom to assert the truth of each independent
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 24.05.2012 09:52 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 20:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
nominalism that they are just notation and do not exist as such
independently from the mind.
But that distinction is usually made in
On May 25, 4:59 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
My doing the nomination is the reason for the reasons.
And the reason for the reasons that you nominated in the way you did had a
reason or it did not.
No, what I
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your position based on your theorem, after all, is
one of possible positions.
What do you mean by my position? I
On 5/26/2012 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2012, at 06:18, meekerdb wrote (two month agao):
On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Excerpt: Any system with finite information content that is consistent can be
formalized into an axiomatic system, for example by using one
I have just finished reading Understanding Consciousness by Max Velmans
and below there are a couple of comments to the book.
The book is similar to Jeffrey Gray's Consciousness: Creeping up on the
Hard Problem in a sense that it takes phenomenal consciousness
seriously. Let me give an
Bruno wrote:
--
*Provable depends on the theory. If the theory is unsound, what it proves
might well be false.*
*And if you trust the theory, then you know that the theory is consistent
is true, yet the theory itself cannot prove it, so reality is larger that
what you can prove in that
Brent wrote:
*1. Presumably those true things would not be 'real'. Only provable things
would be true of reality.*
**
*2. Does arithmetic have 'finite information content'? Is the axiom of
succession just one or is it a schema of infinitely many axioms?*
**
Appreciable, even in layman's logic.
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 7:48:41 AM UTC-7, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your position based on your theorem,
On Sat, May 26, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I nominate does not 'happen for a reason'
Then what you nominate is as random as it is idiotic. Idiots do things for
no reason, smart people do things for reasons.
the reason happens for my nomination.
Read that again and
On 26.05.2012 07:57 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 5/26/2012 1:50 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/en/Files/Entries/2012/5/23_A_Computable_Universe.html
Overview
This volume, with a foreword by Sir Roger Penrose, discusses the
foundations of computation in
On 26 May 2012, at 16:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your position based on your theorem, after all, is
one of
On 26 May 2012, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/26/2012 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2012, at 06:18, meekerdb wrote (two month agao):
On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Excerpt: Any system with finite information content that is
consistent can be formalized into an
On 5/26/2012 9:35 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent wrote:
/1. Presumably those true things would not be 'real'. Only provable things would be
true of reality./
Just to be clear, I didn't write 1. above. But I did write 2. below.
//
/2. Does arithmetic have 'finite information content'? Is the
On 5/26/2012 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 May 2012, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/26/2012 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2012, at 06:18, meekerdb wrote (two month agao):
On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Excerpt: Any system with finite information content
On 5/26/2012 2:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 07:57 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 5/26/2012 1:50 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/en/Files/Entries/2012/5/23_A_Computable_Universe.html
Overview
This volume, with a foreword by Sir Roger Penrose,
On 5/26/2012 11:57 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I have just finished reading Understanding Consciousness by Max
Velmans and below there are a couple of comments to the book.
The book is similar to Jeffrey Gray's Consciousness: Creeping up on
the Hard Problem in a sense that it takes phenomenal
19 matches
Mail list logo
