on 27.11.2010 22:19 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 11/27/2010 11:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following:
On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your
information could
on 28.11.2010 20:46 1Z said the following:
On Nov 27, 7:21 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 27.11.2010 20:08 1Z said the following:
On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.comwrote:
Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your
information could be
of Wolfram (I guess it is close to the statement
that the Universe is some kind of a cellular automaton), it does not
matter much if a node is fully deterministic or random.
Evgenii
on 20.11.2010 23:57 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 11/20/2010 5:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 19.11.2010
Dear Bruno,
Could you please recommend some reading about the mechanist assumption?
Especially that
then the observable reality cannot be a machine
Evgenii
on 21.11.2010 15:58 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 09:11, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
It seems to me
on 19.11.2010 04:11 Rex Allen said the following:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Reschjasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the
source) where someone asked Who pushes who around inside the
brain?, meaning is it the matter that
The text is well done. Thanks. A question. What would be the consequence
of the nomologicalism for a person that would like to earn some more
money? Well, let us not consider the case when one successfully sells
the text about nomologicalism.
Evgenii
on 21.09.2010 19:10 Rex Allen said the
on 19.09.2010 01:52 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 19:32, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 18.09.2010 19:40 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ruwrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water.
on 18.09.2010 23:35 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference
John,
I am not sure if I have a particular position. I am a chemist by
background, well I was doing all the life simulation only.
Actually I am comfortable with reductionism ideas, as many scientist
are. Yet, I do not understand something.
Say chemistry starts that H2 has a single bond, 02
on 18.09.2010 01:38 1Z said the following:
On 17 Sep, 18:52, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.comwrote:
...
The next citation by Robert B. Laughlin (Nobel laureate in
physics) could be
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and H2O is
in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements of reality, too
I am not sure if I understand your answer. Say we have H2 and O2 at room
on 18.09.2010 19:02 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 17 Sep 2010, at 19:52, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
This is why attempts to describe free atoms in Newtonian terms
always result in nonsense statements such as their being neither
here nor there but simultaneously everywhere.
IMO
on 18.09.2010 19:40 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
H2O is in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic
on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
H2O is in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements
on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Whatever composite categories we might be tempted to have recourse
to - you know: molecules, cells, bodies, planets, ideas,
explanations, theories, the whole ball of wax - none of
on 07.09.2010 05:11 Rex Allen said the following:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 9/6/2010 6:45 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
...
Put a different way:
According to physicalism conscious experience supervenes on quarks
and electrons. Quarks and
on 03.09.2010 10:10 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 02 Sep 2010, at 19:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following: ...
Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in
those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus
on 03.09.2010 06:46 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/2/2010 1:32 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Quentin Anciauxallco...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Of course it is *logically* possible that any new data could be
consistent with physicalism - but then logical
on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in
those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus
operandi. Only layman and engineers have to hope that their theories
fits enough a reality.
The theories
601 - 619 of 619 matches
Mail list logo
