Hi all -- it's been a long time since I've participated in this group.
I've been lurking for a few days, and am very pleased with the quality
of the posts that I've read! It's good to see that this discussion
continues!
Some comments below.
Tim May wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 03:40
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just want to be more explicit in my characterization of the guardian
angels, the fatalisitic slobs and the narcissistic gods.
George,
I don't know how you justify dividing the ETs into such neat
categories, based on the MWI and the feasability of QS. That is
Jerry Clark wrote:
Such 'Life' evolution raises an interesting question: These SAS's would ...
Sooner or later a physicists would hear about
this new development and the realisation would be made that their universe
*is* a Life simulation.
Would it? This is a questions I've thought
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You all seem to assign to measure a soul-like quality as if measure had any
value, as if it is good to maximize measure, as if measure has an
objective, and absolute existence.. like the Ether.
I believe that in fact, the probability of observing an event LINKED
This reply is a little stale, but here goes anyway:
Marchal wrote:
George Levy wrote:
In a message dated 99-06-30 11:20:07 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Precisely: Maudlin and me have proved that:
NOT compORNOT sup-phys
i.e. computationalism and
Alastair Malcolm wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Higgo James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As for flying rabbits, one appeared on my ceiling as I was reading your
post, but as it was only there for 10E-43 seconds, I did not notice it.
The
odds against it remaining there for two
Is anyone familiar with this, at
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ ?
It's a collaborative effort to develop and organize
philosophical theories in a kind of organic, constantly
improving structure.
While reading the archives of this list, I've been blown
away by how much good material there is in there
Higgo James wrote:
Well said, but I'm not sure your definition of 'I' holds. There are
infinitely many 'Chris Maloneys' born in a hospital of the same name of
parents of the same name... etc etc etc who are in no way connected with
you. Besides, these identifiers are all social naming
Alastair Malcolm wrote:
Christopher,
I have found your recent posts to everything-list very interesting, and the
ideas presented overlap to a degree with my own, but there is one question
that I have, if I may, which I mention below.
From: Christopher Maloney [EMAIL PROTECTED
9 matches
Mail list logo