Bruno asked:
. Is that an absolute truth?
By no means. It is a word-flower, a semantic hint, something in MY
agnosticism and I feel like a semantic messenger only. I accept better
expressions.
(Except for "absolute truth" - ha ha).
And Teilhard was a great master of words.
John M
On Fri
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You said yourself that the first person cannot be defined. How could we
> verify that prediction? Except by feeling to be one of the W and M
> reconstituted person. And from their points of viex, the prediction of
> being in both place is simply refute
On 11.04.2012 11:11 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 10 Apr 2012, at 21:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Hence if you know something in Internet or in the written form, I
would appreciate your advice. The best about 20 pages, not too
little, and not to much.
OK I found the paper by Turi
On 29 Jun 2012, at 16:21, John Mikes wrote:
Brent, thanks for the appreciation!
My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned.
We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever
"WE" accept is "human".
Is that an absolute truth?
In my humble opinion, "WE = hum
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:18 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> I explains why people think, "I could have done otherwise."
>
Regardless of what they think the irrefutable fact remains that they did
NOT do otherwise, and they did not do otherwise for a reason or they did
not.
> They could, due to random eve
Brent, thanks for the appreciation!
My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned.
We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever "WE"
accept is "human".
What is Mother Nature accepting?
John M
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 6/28/2012 12:4
On 28 Jun 2012, at 22:18, Brian Tenneson wrote:
What I meant is an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what is
actually, absolutely true (so in a parallel 2+2 might actually be
17). Not manipulate the perception of truth.
You can just define a new addition "+" by the rule x + y = th
On 28 Jun 2012, at 18:16, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> comp allows self-duplication. That is the key point.
OK.
>> If you really had complete information then you could make 2
predictions: 1) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary "I Bruno
Marchal am no
8 matches
Mail list logo
