On 13.07.2012 22:14 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
There are no experts in this field because there is no field.
The field does exist.
What does a expert on theology know about the nature of reality that
a non-expert does not?
As far as I un
On 7/13/2012 11:18 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.07.2012 01:15 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 4:07 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It must be, because this has been a very sucessful mith.
Yes, it was no doubt successful in keeping the peasants believing the
in divine knowledge of th
On 13.07.2012 20:43 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 11:14 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
My question would be not about responsibility, I am not that far.
Let us take a chess game (the example from John). We have two
people playing chess and then for example the M-theory.
How would
On 14.07.2012 01:15 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 4:07 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It must be, because this has been a very sucessful mith.
Yes, it was no doubt successful in keeping the peasants believing the
in divine knowledge of the free loading priests.
Brent
One can say
On 7/13/2012 9:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/13/2012 11:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2012 7:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Does unpredictability that you have mentioned in another message will help in this
respect? If yes, how?
If you're asking whether unpredictability eliminates respon
On 7/13/2012 11:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2012 7:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Does unpredictability that you have mentioned in another message
will help in this respect? If yes, how?
If you're asking whether unpredictability eliminates responsibility,
the answer is no.
Brent
Hi Brent
On 7/13/2012 7:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Does unpredictability that you have mentioned in another message will help in this
respect? If yes, how?
If you're asking whether unpredictability eliminates responsibility, the answer
is no.
Brent
Hi Brent,
OK, so does the converse hold? Pre
On 7/13/2012 7:15 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2012 4:07 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It must be, because this has been a very sucessful mith.
Yes, it was no doubt successful in keeping the peasants believing the
in divine knowledge of the free loading priests.
Brent
--
Back in the day
On 7/13/2012 1:52 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2012 10:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.07.2012 22:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/12/2012 12:27 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.07.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I understand but t
On 7/13/2012 4:31 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/7/14 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
On 7/13/2012 4:07 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It must be, because this has been a very sucessful mith.
Yes, it was no doubt successful in keeping the peasants believing the in
divin
2012/7/14 meekerdb
> On 7/13/2012 4:07 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> It must be, because this has been a very sucessful mith.
>
>
> Yes, it was no doubt successful in keeping the peasants believing the in
> divine knowledge of the free loading priests.
>
> Brent
>
I can play this kind of dow
On 7/13/2012 4:07 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It must be, because this has been a very sucessful mith.
Yes, it was no doubt successful in keeping the peasants believing the in divine knowledge
of the free loading priests.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
We all are thrown to existence in a box. we do not know how nor why and for
what purpose. We can choose to concentrate in looking at the things of the
box, or we can spend time looking at the limits of the box, at the whys
and what is out and how to go out. Or to discover the final purpose it
ther
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 4:29:46 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Then we should stop teaching Newtonian physics as well, since there are
>> no new advances there either.
>>
>
> Not so. A hurricane simulation is pure Newtonian physi
On Friday, July 13, 2012 3:38:25 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> The difference between names and numbers is that numbers can only be
>> augmented in a linear fashion
>>
>
> For all numbers x in set X let x=x^2
>
> John K Clark
>
>
That doesn't
On Friday, July 13, 2012 1:23:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>
> An interesting example. The reason you can add colors out of sequence is
> that the spectrum is a continuum; so between any two colors is another,
> different color. This actually happened in the case of "orange". In the
> time
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> There are no experts in this field because there is no field.
>>
>
> The field does exist.
>
What does a expert on theology know about the nature of reality that a
non-expert does not?
> Presumably there were questions that he [Newton] had found im
On 7/13/2012 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jul 2012, at 11:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
How exactly does one make a connection between a given set of
resources and an arbitrary computation in your scheme?
From the measure on all computations, which must exist to satisfy
comp, as the
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
The difference between names and numbers is that numbers can only be
> augmented in a linear fashion
>
For all numbers x in set X let x=x^2
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Like "God" this is a example is somebody willing to abandon a idea but
>> not a word;
>>
>
> > Logicians work axiomatically or semi-axiomatically. If an idea/theory
> seems absurd, we make the minimal change to keep the most of the theory
> (the words
On 7/13/2012 11:14 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.07.2012 19:52 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 10:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.07.2012 22:08 meekerdb said the following:
...
In Dennett's conception 'free will' is just a marker for
responsibility; hence his aphorism, "You c
On 7/13/2012 11:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.07.2012 19:53 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 10:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
The field does exist. You may want for example to read Newton. He
was a fan of theology.
Newton on theology is one of the things I would least like to re
On 07.07.2012 19:40 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
An interesting question is however, where resulting visual mental
concepts are located.
I find it about as interesting as asking where "big" or the number
eleven is located and shows the sam
On 13.07.2012 19:52 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 10:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.07.2012 22:08 meekerdb said the following:
...
In Dennett's conception 'free will' is just a marker for
responsibility; hence his aphorism, "You can avoid responsibility
for everything if you
On 13.07.2012 19:53 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 10:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
The field does exist. You may want for example to read Newton. He
was a fan of theology.
Newton on theology is one of the things I would least like to read.
Why? Presumably there were questions th
On 7/13/2012 10:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
The field does exist. You may want for example to read Newton. He was a fan of theology.
Newton on theology is one of the things I would least like to read.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ever
On 7/13/2012 10:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.07.2012 22:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/12/2012 12:27 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.07.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I understand but the question in principle still remains.
On 7/13/2012 12:45 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/12/2012 9:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/12/2012 7:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/12/2012 4:04 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
We each one are free riders because we are selfish collaborators. A
twist on selfish collaboration is the self deception: our
On 12.07.2012 22:44 John Clark said the following:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:
I am not an expert in this field
There are no experts in this field because there is no field.
The field does exist. You may want for example to read Newton. He was a
fan of theology.
On 12.07.2012 22:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/12/2012 12:27 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.07.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I understand but the question in principle still remains.
Who play the
chess, I or the M-theory?
Th
On 7/13/2012 5:53 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The difference between names and numbers is that numbers can only be augmented in a
linear fashion, ie by adding instances of whatever arbitrary number of initial digits
you name. With names, you can keep adding names at the primordial level. You don't
On 7/13/2012 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:08, meekerdb wrote:
...
In Dennett's conception 'free will' is just a marker for responsibility; hence his
aphorism, "You can avoid responsibility for everything if you just make yourself small
enough." So where one person
On 7/13/2012 12:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I insist I use them in the sense of many, and your way to keep definition explains why
you reject the whole notion.
You don't use "theology" in the sense of the papers I see published by faculties in
departments of theology. They are about the dogma
On 7/12/2012 9:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/12/2012 7:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/12/2012 4:04 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
We each one are free riders because we are selfish collaborators. A twist on selfish
collaboration is the self deception: our memory is unconsciously distorted to su
On 13 Jul 2012, at 11:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/13/2012 3:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 21:53, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/12/2012 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 02:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2012 7:
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:23:55 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
>
>
> John,
>
> Good point, indeed. I should confess that as soon as I start thinking of
> mathematics then I see no way to define a theory of free will. To this
> end, mathematics is no better than physics.
>
> Well, the on
On 7/13/2012 3:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 21:53, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/12/2012 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 02:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
In your work you s
On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:29, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
> Then we should stop teaching Newtonian physics as well, since
there are no new advances there either.
Not so. A hurricane simulation is pure Newtonian physics and yet
they are far far
On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/12/2012 12:27 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.07.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I understand but the question in principle still remains. Who
play the
chess, I or the M-theory?
Ther
On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:08, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> To reject *all* theologies, you need *a* theology.
Like "God" this is a example is somebody willing to abandon a idea
but not a word;
Logicians work axiomatically or semi-axiomatically. If an idea/th
On 12 Jul 2012, at 21:53, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/12/2012 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 02:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
In your work you seem to posit that numbers have minds (thus
41 matches
Mail list logo
