On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> I would say that, under these definitions, the correct scientific
>> s
>> tance is to be agnostic.
>
>
> Does the agnostic or the atheist have
> the correct scientific
>
> stan
On 2/7/2017 10:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This world. The one I can interact with.
Ah! You mean this dream. yes, it looks we can share part of it, and
interact with many users, like in second life. But to believe there is
a primary world behind this requires an act of faith, and eventual
On 2/7/2017 9:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Which is exactly why I'm explicit in defining what the theism is that
I consider preposterous and what other god ideas I'm merely agnostic
about. Then Bruno criticizes me for "supporting" the former; rather
than help him muddy the meaning of "God" so
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Telmo Menezes
wrote:
>
>
> I would say that, under these definitions, the correct scientific
> s
> tance is to be agnostic.
>
Does the agnostic or the atheist have
the correct scientific
stance regarding a teapot in orbit around Uranus? I like what the
On 2/7/2017 2:16 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Yes. The relation of mathematics to facts in the world is one of
description. That a dx/dt = -x has a decaying exponential as a solution is
not a fact about the world. As any engineer will tell you, it means that if
the differential equation is a goo
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
>> >
>> Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique successor because
>> it's just not true anymore.
>
>
> >
> Right, from the third person points of view that he can have about
> himself, or better himselves.
>
No idea wh
On 07 Feb 2017, at 04:09, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> I am right here in Helsinki right now,
> OK.
>> in the future what one and only one city will I see after
the experiment is over?
> That is the question. OK.
Yes
> Not
On 06 Feb 2017, at 23:32, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/6/2017 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As such it has nothing to do with facts in the world.
Which world?
This world. The one I can interact with.
Ah! You mean this dream. yes, it looks we can share part of it, and
interact with man
On 06 Feb 2017, at 20:28, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/6/2017 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel
seeing only one city.
How does computationalism alone guarantee that? It seems that it
relies on a lot of physical assumptions about
On 06 Feb 2017, at 20:22, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/6/2017 2:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 2/5/2017 3:14 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Inconsistent? Would you have people who oppose fascism not have a
definition of fascism - so that they w
On 06 Feb 2017, at 18:12, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon., 6 Feb. 2017 at 11:06 pm, Ronald Held
wrote:
Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad
Authors: Sean M. Carroll
Comments: 27 pages. Invited submission to a volume on Current
Controversies in Philosophy of Science, eds. Shamik Dasgupta and Br
Lol. There is no way to avoid the absolute since nothing can be based on
nothing,.
In this case you reify nothing, which is purely negative, as absence of
anything,, and convert it to "something". And this something that you
implicitly postulate is an absolute ethical principle of humility, which
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 2/6/2017 2:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/5/2017 3:14 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Inconsistent? Would you have people who oppose fascism not have a
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
