Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/9/2017 10:28 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 10 May 2017 3:04 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 10/05/2017 12:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes, it does seem that we are

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10 May 2017 5:51 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:40:19 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > I find Barbour's idea of time capsules quite helpful here. Each time > capsule is a self-contained conscious

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10 May 2017 3:04 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 10/05/2017 12:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes, it does seem that we are each outlining positions and arguments that do not necessarily intersect at many points. I will

Re: What are atheists for?

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:40:19 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I find Barbour's idea of time capsules quite helpful here. Each time capsule is a self-contained conscious moment. There is no progression necessarily involved, so the

Re: What are atheists for?

On 10/05/2017 12:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes, it does seem that we are each outlining positions and arguments that do not necessarily intersect at many points. I will try and answer some of your more direct questions. Why do I take the view

Re: ​Movie argument

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​>>> ​ >> 2) "you" mean here the guy in Helsinki, >> > > ​>> ​ > If that's what "you" means then "you" will see nothing but oblivion > because after the duplication there will be NO GUY in Helsinki; > > ​> ​ > False

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9 May 2017 9:40 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: > Both Hoyle's

Re: What are atheists for?

On 5/8/2017 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9 May 2017 8:36 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 9/05/2017 4:36 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 9 May 2017 6:16 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 10:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 5:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 8:48 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think the problem here is the use of the word "consistent".

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 4:36 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 9 May 2017 6:16 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On

Re: ​Movie argument

On 08 May 2017, at 19:24, John Clark wrote: On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​If a proper noun is not the referent of the personal pronouns Bruno Marchal loves to through around with abandon then WHAT IS? When Bruno asks ​"what city will you

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9/05/2017 5:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 May 2017, at 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 8:48 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think the problem here is the use of the word "consistent". You refer to "internally consistent computations"

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 08:27, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I have no good answer, only that your Platonic stuff somehow generates material. But "my" platonic stuff (and Plato's one: the ideas) are typically not material, and well, ... thanks for admitting that you have no good

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 07:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that there is a

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 01:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2017 12:22 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 15:18 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : On 8/05/2017

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 01:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 8:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 07:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 2:45 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Rather than use the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis to elucidate the conservation of energy in

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 8:48 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2017, at 05:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think the problem here is the use of the word "consistent". You refer to "internally consistent computations" and "consistent and hence intelligible

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9/05/2017 4:36 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 9 May 2017 6:16 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett"

Re: What are atheists for?

On 09 May 2017, at 00:58, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:42:01PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't think they need to halt. They need only to go through our local state. A priori, the halting computations might have a null measure among all computations, so that the

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 20:13, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/8/2017 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How could something non material produces something material? That's what we keep wondering about computationalism. On the contrary, with computationalism, that never happen. Something non material

Re: What are atheists for?

On 08 May 2017, at 15:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2017 5:25 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-05-08 9:14 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : On 8/05/2017 5:01 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Something lie the speed prior... yes the UD has all of them, but the measure

Re: What are atheists for?

On 9 May 2017 6:16 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 9/05/2017 1:57 am, David Nyman wrote: On 8 May 2017 8:21 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote: > Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and

Re: What are atheists for?

I have no good answer, only that your Platonic stuff somehow generates material. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Mon, May 8, 2017 6:51 am Subject: Re: What are atheists for? On 08 May 2017, at

Re: What are atheists for?

Pity then Bruce, We humans could use the company and maybe the advice. -Original Message- From: Bruce Kellett To: everything-list Sent: Mon, May 8, 2017 1:01 am Subject: Re: What are atheists for? On 8/05/2017 2:45