Re: Con artist petition

On 10/26/2014 3:30 PM, LizR wrote: This one's UK specific (though I signed from NZ). The USA could do with one too IMHO. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70539 Actually most states in the U.S. do have laws which define fraud so as to include such activities. But the result is just

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 Bruce Kellett > wrote: >If there is more that a very small amount of dark energy, then a beam of light can never get right round the universe (the universe does not re-contract in that case OK. >it exp

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 Bruce Kellett wrote: >If there is more that a very small amount of dark energy, then a beam of > light can never get right round the universe (the universe does not > re-contract in that case > OK. > >it expands for ever even though closed). So you can never see the back

Re: Con artist petition

Hm. Sorry about that. You can always make one up. On 27 October 2014 15:09, Kim Jones wrote: > > > On 27 Oct 2014, at 9:30 am, LizR wrote: > > This one's UK specific (though I signed from NZ). The USA could do with > one too IMHO. > > http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70539 > > > > It a

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Bruce Kellett > he [Krauss] appears to have overlooked the simple fact that in a closed universe, light cannot go right round and back to the starting point before the universe re-contracts to zero size. You appear to have overloo

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Pure serious great from a theoretical physicist point of view until their series get disapproved by improved equipment. So, vast, and improved sky survey, might prove or disprove countless theories. All of the series and interpretations of theoretical physicist howe

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Since when is general relativity, wrong? What news did I miss? -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 05:32 PM Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? Mind you as

Re: Con artist petition

> On 27 Oct 2014, at 9:30 am, LizR wrote: > > This one's UK specific (though I signed from NZ). The USA could do with one > too IMHO. > > http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70539 It asks for your street address. NEVER sign anything over the Net that asks for your physical street add

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail ! Liz, that is the $64,000 question, what value is knowledge? With Steinhart, I am sure he knew well about MW I and Hugh Everett's theory. The philosopher who decades ago, I came up with what is called modal reasoning, is the guy who actually came up with this notion

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Bruce Kellett > > he [Krauss] appears to have overlooked the simple fact that in a closed > universe, light cannot go right round and back to the starting point before > the universe re-contracts to zero size. You appear to have overlooked the simple fact that i

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Bruce Kellett > the claims about the zero net energy of the universe made by people such > as Hawking and Krauss in popular presentations are wrong. The interesting > question is why undoubtedly clever people such as Krauss and Hawking would > make such fallacious

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Mind you as some people like to point out, we know GR is wrong... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com

Con artist petition

This one's UK specific (though I signed from NZ). The USA could do with one too IMHO. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70539 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

On 26 October 2014 14:00, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > Sent from AOL Mobile Mail > > Brent, I am quite familiar with Eric Steinhardt Paterson University, NJ. > He deals philosophically as a philosopher does, with the idea of > immortality, and id

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

Brent, these guys are SO smart! They even knew how to convert infinity into a definitely lucrative career with awards and stuff. You know I am a layman - even forgot the 'stuff' of my Ph.D. and D.Sc. and am proudly agnostic. Of 'infinity' I lately wrote: I accept the adjective (and adverb?) inf

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Yeah Bruce, Things could be much different then what Krauss conceives of today. Why not a closed timelike curve within an open universe, or an open universe within a CTC?? I always ask myself, how this can benefit our species? If its just a fact that is too big and indifferent to our existence,

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

Just go reread the thread "Re: For John Clark" october 2013... or read the last 5 years of John Clark Bullshit... for someone who don't give a damn about comp, that someone spent years of his own life answering bullshit about it... (but like he said... who's he ? you ? the great spaghetti monster m

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-26 18:58 GMT+01:00 John Clark : > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> Like I explained to you more than once, Everett was interested in >>> predictions but you are interested in consciousness, >>> >> >> > That is not relevant for the point you made. >> > > Like h

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Like I explained to you more than once, Everett was interested in >> predictions but you are interested in consciousness, >> > > > That is not relevant for the point you made. > Like hell it isn't! Everett was talking about predictions, y

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >> Yes, if you used a arbitrarily large number of electrons you could get >> a arbitrarily large number of digits, and you could do the same thing with a >> arbitrarily large number of dice. But if physics works by Real Numbers >> why

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Hi Brent, Thanks for your comments, which are very useful, even if the more technical comments are beyond me (I have to study up on that). Thanks for the tip about category theory, I vaguely heard about it... I know it is a rival to set theory when it comes to founding math (insofar that is pos

Re: CTM and the UDA (again!)

On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote: On 10/24/2014 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Jesse, Sorry for replying late. On 27 Jul 2014, at 18:27, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 23 July 2014 17:49, Jesse Mazer wrote: > So, why not adopt a

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:16, meekerdb wrote: On 10/24/2014 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2014, at 17:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2014 5:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/20

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 24 Oct 2014, at 22:02, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I believe it's you who has not integrated the consequences of consciousness not having a location. So it is meaningless to ask "what city will you be in?", all that can be said is tha

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

And now in physics we have this- http://stardrive.org/stardrive/index.php/news2/science/14152-when-parallel-worlds-collide-quantum-mechanics-is-born MWI worlds interact -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 10:13 am Subject: Re: Why

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:13, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Like Quentin explained to you more than once, your reference problem, if it was a valid argument against the FPI, would be valid also about Everett QM, Like I explained to you more tha

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 24 Oct 2014, at 18:58, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:10 PM, meekerdb wrote: > They are non-computable by a Turing machine - which is already assumed to have unlimited tape and time. It is likely that in the real world almost all integers are not computable too. Any i

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 25 Oct 2014, at 20:54, David Nyman wrote: On 21 October 2014 17:58, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Oct 2014, at 00:56, David Nyman wrote: On 19 October 2014 17:48, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2014, at 15:26, David Nyman wrote: On 19 October 2014 02:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: W

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:35, Peter Sas wrote: Hi Brent, On my account, beings (i.e. all things that are) lack intrinsic qualities because they are defined through their differences from each other. I guess you love category theory, which is mathematics based on that idea. It is also a qui