On 6 January 2015 at 16:03, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> From information theory, it's true that nothing takes less information to
> describe/specify than something. Surprisingly, however, it takes less
> information to specify everything than it does to specify something or
> nothing.
>
> This is the
Chris,
Hi. I admit that something and nothing may be more of a comedy gold
mine than I first wrote. It's nothing to sneeze at! :-) Although, I wonder
if people who aren't interested in this stuff (e.g. almost everyone) would
find it funny?
It sounds like we're pretty much in agreem
On 1/5/2015 7:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why am I me and not someone else
What evidence do you have that you aren't those other selves to? I believe all thoughts
are equally yours.
Who or what am I
The universal soul to which all experiences belong.
What is the meaning of li
On 1/5/2015 8:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/5/2015 4:43 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
--
*From:* meekerdb
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Monday, January 5, 2015 4:34 PM
On 1/5/2015 4:43 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
--
*From:* meekerdb
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Monday, January 5, 2015 4:34 PM
*Subject:* Re: Why is there something ra
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:50 PM, LizR wrote:
> Eternal inflation seems to assume there is something because "there has
> always been something". However if so, it sidesteps the underlying issue -
> why is there this (eternal) something? The question itself - and any
> attempted answer - can't be a
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6 Jan 2015, at 12:09 pm, LizR wrote:
>
> Sounds a bit like sophistry. The question could be rephrased 'why/how does
> anything exist?' - which is a natural continuation of the questions
> scientists have been asking for a while. If
> On 6 Jan 2015, at 12:09 pm, LizR wrote:
>
> Sounds a bit like sophistry. The question could be rephrased 'why/how does
> anything exist?' - which is a natural continuation of the questions
> scientists have been asking for a while. If you aren't interested in why and
> how things work,
Sounds a bit like sophistry. The question could be rephrased 'why/how does
anything exist?' - which is a natural continuation of the questions
scientists have been asking for a while. If you aren't interested in why
and how things work, then don't bother to do science.
"Why is there something rath
From: meekerdb
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory
to dialectics?
On 1/5/2015 3:50 PM, LizR wrote:
Eternal inflation seems to assume there is something because "
On 1/5/2015 3:50 PM, LizR wrote:
Eternal inflation seems to assume there is something because "there has always been
something". However if so, it sidesteps the underlying issue - why is there this
(eternal) something? The question itself - and any attempted answer - can't be answered
causally.
Eternal inflation seems to assume there is something because "there has
always been something". However if so, it sidesteps the underlying issue -
why is there this (eternal) something? The question itself - and any
attempted answer - can't be answered causally.
--
You received this message becau
I am a computer scientist, I was wondering how General Relavity or motion
on EM fields can be modelled using discrete complex networks (ie. graphs)
including only local interactions. For example we can model discrete local
graph contraction on presence of mass or electric charge, and we can
co
On 1/5/2015 11:24 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *meekerdb
*Sent:* Monday, January 05, 2015 10:55 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Why is there something
On 6 Jan 2015, at 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> But surely, The False exists?
>
> False proposition exists, but, well, thanks to God, they are not true, and
> thus not realized in any reality.
>
> But in the cul-de-sac world, false is "necessary", which still does not lead
> you to mee
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 10:55 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 1/5/2015 1:0
On 05 Jan 2015, at 06:04, Kim Jones wrote:
On 5 Jan 2015, at 2:57 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jan 2015, at 00:30, Kim Jones wrote:
On 4 Jan 2015, at 2:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But this "fearing of God" is a mystery to me. God should be good.
Only the devil should be feared.
On 1/5/2015 1:07 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
0={0} and then onward to: 0={0}= {0}+{0} = {{0}, {0}+{0}} etc.
There's your problem: "etc"
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 Russell Standish wrote:
> My personal opinion is that measured values are constrained to be
> rational
If that is true (and it may be) and if mathematics is a language and the
irrational numbers play no role in physics then perhaps they are a fantasy,
the equivalent of a Ha
On 05 Jan 2015, at 05:52, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 3:04 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/3/2015 4:15 PM, PGC wrote:
with the latter ultimately escaping our capacity to sort and
analyze.
You mean their assertion of that is clear. It's begging the
question t
I know that the mere notion of human sacrifices as the cornerstone of every
society inspire horror to modern men and they don´t dare to consider it.
And yet the conclusion is unescapable. That explain a lot about the
modernity.
If you dismiss organizeed religion and his altar of sacrifices, then
e
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 10:03:25 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 Bruno Marchal > wrote:
>
> > By your post, it seems you do not believe in a primary biological
>> reality or even a chemical universe.
>>
>
> I don't know, give me some examples of "a primary biological realit
On Monday, January 5, 2015 7:13:54 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Russell ~ nicely summed up [is there a pun in what I just said?] I like
> that subtle meta information that the sum entirety of all information of
> everything is all on the left hand of an equation with no information in it
> a
On 04 Jan 2015, at 22:55, John Mikes wrote:
I published several times on various lists - including this one - my
stance about that
OXYMORON 'democracy' called so because the 'demos' (i.e. all of us)
cannot exercise 'kratos'
(governing power) to everyone's satisfaction in the variety we
re
On 04 Jan 2015, at 19:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/4/2015 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when
it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
- Anne Lamott
Good point.
Of course today we know that God has created
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:22:06 AM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>
> Why would you recommend others read something you have not? You don't see
> that as being just a little strange?
>
I don't do that that I can remember. I doubt I would ever bother. But what
exactly 'reading' involves and how
"Nothing doing" might sum up what's going on.
--
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.
To post to this gr
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 11:38 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 12:25 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: S=0
> On 5 Jan 2015, at 6:13 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 8:47 PM
Chris,
I have nothing important to say! :-) Nothing and something are kind of
good areas for puns, double entendres and jokes. After all, Jerry Seinfeld
> On 5 Jan 2015, at 6:13 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
> For me the crux has always also been how does anything at all emerge from an
> all-encompassing universal nothingness.
Well, you've read Larry Krauss on this by now for the Aristotelian theologic
good oil. Lar
31 matches
Mail list logo
