On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 05:54:22PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> In our case, Brent was advertizing materialism or physicalism by
> referring to the high predictive power of the physical laws. That is
> the point which is inconsistent when we assume digital mechanism.
>
I didn't think Brent wa
On 16 Dec 2016, at 15:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for the
intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are you
interested, instead, of allowing humanity better control of our
region of the universe, by
On 16 Dec 2016, at 00:37, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:47:03PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The question you asked was (I quote):
I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to
explain the predictive power of physics.
Let me try to explain again.
H
On 15 Dec 2016, at 22:02, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/15/2016 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Dec 2016, at 23:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 05:23:16PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Dec 2016, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
I don't see why you would say ph
When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for the
intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are you interested,
instead, of allowing humanity better control of our region of the universe, by
understanding the rules?
-Original Message-
From: Russell
5 matches
Mail list logo
