Hi Bruno
You might quote mùe, but I make clear and insist, at each step of the UDA,
that the question is addressed before the duplication.
You insist but you do not make clear. Even in this reply you state: On the
contrary, it is very simple. After the duplication
The confirmation or
: stath...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:40:47 +1000
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 1 October 2013 22:47, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
A child recently saw by himself that even God cannot predict to you
Hi Bruno, and thanks for the reply.
Precisely: the expectation evaluation is asked to the person in Helsinki,
before the duplication is done, and it concerns where the person asked will
feel to be, from his first person point of view.
---
Hi Alberto
Were there ever genuinely naked questions? ie. Was there really a time when
ideas were not framed by the exciting possibilities offered by the contemporary
technology?
All the best
--- Original Message ---
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
Sent: 29 September 2013 7:59 PM
If there is an entity that remembers being me at time t1 then the me
at time t1 survives. For example, if I fall asleep on a plane and wake
up on another continent 8 hrs later, I have survived despite the time
and space gap and despite the fact that the matter in metabolically
active parts of my
Hi
Well Im sure that I am missing something important, but I can't see it so far...
The diary is the one that you have with you. You will not have two
diaries, since you cannot experience being in Moscow and Wsahington at
the same time with contradicting the survivability axiom of
COMP.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc
I thought this clip might tickle people on this list pink. Some people have too
much time on their hands and too much talent. Im afraid I can't comment on the
accuracy of the lyrics, my noodle doesn't stretch that far.
All the best.
Hi Brent
Mainly because it makes I ambiguous. One answer would be the probability
of me being in Moscow is zero and the probability of me being in Washington
is zero, because I am going to be destroyed.
Another answer would be the probability of me being in Moscow is one and the
I'll have a pop at this because I have a problem too.
I get stuck on Bruno's 'proof' at the point where the comp practitioner, about
to be duplicated and sent to Washington and Moscow, is asked to estimate his
chances of arriving at Moscow. Allegedly I should feel it to be 50/50 and this
Hi Liz
Interesting. There's another thought experiment, or gambit, MWIers raise
involving quantum immortality.
In this, some quantum event at time t triggers a gun to shoot (or not shoot)
the MWIer.
Traditionally, MWIers argue the only reason they would not take the gambit is
because they
Hi John
250 years ago the young Jean-Paul Marat tried to get into the French Academy
of Science on the basis of his thesis on animal magnetism. The greatest
chemist of the 18'th century, Antoine Lavoisier recommended against this and
called Marat's paper worthless because it led to
the mystery under the rug.
Bruno
On 18 Sep 2013, at 18:25, chris peck wrote:
Hi Bruno
We don't have to accept Popper's demarcation principle in order to
understand that it has genuinely been influential or that Popper's
arguments are used within scientific circles.
I haven't read
Hi John
It doesn't take a genius to realize that if a idea isn't getting anywhere,
that is to say if it doesn't produce new interesting ideas, your time would
be better spent doing something else.
Whats with this idea that the only good ideas are ones it would take a genius
to realize?
--- Original Message ---
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:12, chris peck wrote:
Hi John
Exactly, Newton and Darwin and Einstein didn't need
thought...thus the current criticism of String Theory.
All the best
--- Original Message ---
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:12, chris peck wrote:
Hi
Hi John
Exactly, Newton and Darwin and Einstein didn't need Popper to tell them how
to get knowledge out of nature, and absolutely no change in how science was
done happened in 1934, the year Popper's book was published. None
whatsoever.
Newton and Darwin would have had problems if they
-list@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
it seems to me that John has just misunderstood Feyerabend.
It seems to me that the church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful
to reason than Galileo himself leaves little room
Hi PGC
With respect, you've embarked on a fools errand there, PGC. Given the way John
has framed the task any contribution made by xyz will end up not being a
contribution in philosophy. Take Charles Pierce who pretty much founded
semiotics and made contributions in fields as diverse as
Hi PGC
It seems to me that John has just misunderstood Feyerabend. Unsuprising given
his misunderstanding of Popper not to mention Darwin.
Feyerabend is not really defending the church here. Hes making the point that
in order to get his theory out and give it life Galileo had to at some stage
Hi John
There is not a scientist alive that learned to do science by reading Karl
Popper. Popper was just a reporter, he observed how scientists work and
described what he saw. And I don't think Popper was exactly a fount of wisdom.
In chapter 37 of his 1976 (1976!!) book Unended Quest: An
Hi John
Nearly a century ago J.B.S. Haldane was confronted with a bonehead who said
he thought Evolution was not a scientific theory because he was unable to
provide a hypothetical way it could be disproved. In response Haldane
thundered RABBITS IN THE PRECAMBRIAN !.
It wasn't
from the fine example you set.
All the best.
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 00:18:56 -0400
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:10 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Did you use to post
Hi Alberto
First, the experimentation can not be done ever in every science. Not only
cosmology and meteorology but also in human sciences it is almost impossible to
perform a controlled experiments. Some economy laws, not to tell in other old
discipliones like moral sciences and so on, many
Of chris peck
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 7:30 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: When will a computer pass the Turing
Test?
Hi
Chris
Hi Chris
I
also do not “KNOW” whether or not I really do have “free will”.
But if I do not have “free will” evolution has seen fit to evolve
a very expensive – in evolutionary terms – illusion of “free
will... To argue that “free will”, “self-awareness”
Hi Craig
Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt show anything. Here
'spontaneous' just means 'originates in the brain in the absence of external
stimuli'. This kind of activity is often refered to as 'task unrelated' which
is to say it is not activity that is bound to some
/2/2013 7:34 AM, chris peck wrote:
The study you're citing firstly claims the 60% of the variance they uncovered
is
explained by 'spontaneous' brain activity not 60% of all brain activity. More
importantly, by spontaneous they just mean brain activity that has not been
triggered by
external
2, 2013 6:11:51 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote:
Hi Craig
Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt
show anything. Here 'spontaneous' just means 'originates in
the brain in the absence of external stimuli
Hi Chris
if in the end it is an infinitely regressing hall of mirrors, a cosmic
illusion – why the elaborate and evolutionarily expensive (multiple levels
of adaption) masquerade ball in which we all participate?
As far as I can tell there is no cosmic illusion of free will. I'm my opinion
Hi Saibal
When you say something is good you have some concept of morality in mind
whether you like it or not. Otherwise comments like 'this is good' or 'that is
good' are meaningless gibberish. In your case it is very obviously
consequentialism you have in mind because you are attempting to
programmed a concept of morality in his brain to create a mental
block in such a case. Whatever explanation I give has to be wrong
because his sense of morality (which he can't expand on), tells him
so.
Saibal
Citeren chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Saibal
When you
Hi Roger
Just persevere. It took ages before he listened to me regarding black holes.
All the best.
From: rclo...@verizon.net
To: spudboy...@aol.com; everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of
logic
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013
corruption in politics (US elections 2000) is good in hind sight because it led
to democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
or one more up Saibal's street:
In hind sight the end of the Raj was a bad thing because it led to the
partition of India and Pakistan, wars over Kashmir and nuclear friction.
in a lot of life forms we can study.Thanks
for the interesting thread,Chris From: everyth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:20 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade Hi Craig
A rapid descent into extremism can be caused by factors such as
economic desperation. However, you can also have a gradual change in
society and then people are always indioctrinated that their current
norms and values are correct.
Of course we regard our norms and values as correct. They are
Hi Brent
But I don't think this is just a moral evolution. I think it is driven by
technology. As societies become richer they become less competitive and
insular and more compassionate and open.
I agree. I think trade imparticularly creates a symbiotic relationship between
people which
Hi Craig
am saying that the ontology of desire is impossible
under strong determinism. Deterministic and random processes cannot
possibly produce desire - not because desire is special, but because it
doesn't make any sense. You
are talking about putting in a gas pedal on a bowling ball.
I
...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:01:35 +1000
Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 22 August 2013 13:20, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Craig
am saying that the ontology of desire is impossible under strong
determinism
The sad fact is that without Hitler, the West would still be a colonial
power committing human rights abuses on a unimaginable scale.
I suppose we should expect multiverse theorists to present as fact
counterfactual histories which can't be falsified.
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:49:59 -0700
Hi Chris
Increasingly code is the result of genetic algorithms being run over many
generations of Darwinian selection -- is this programmed code? What human
hand wrote it? At how many removes?
In evolutionary computations the 'programmer' has control over the fitness
function which ultimately
group dynamics thus helping to lower
transactional costs perhaps.
Cheers,
-Chris D
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:04 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof
Hi Chris
You assume the dog acted with a premeditated anticipation of a reward.
No I really don't. I was just being a little light hearted in that paragraph.
There is a disjunct between the reasons the dog does something and the effect
the behavior has on genes. The dog may just love
I'm sure he still posts in some parallel feathers of the dove's tail. :)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:00:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
From: yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Is this the topic that stopped Bruno from posting in the
Hi Chris d m
The papers Ive been reading regard horizontal genetic transfer as a mechanism
by which the machinery of translation, transcription and replication evolved.
As cellular organisms became more complex this mechanism gives way to vertical
genetic transfer which then dominates
Hi Prof. Standish
I read your paper 'Evolution in the Multiverse' and the related discussion in
your book.
I'm not sure I really got it. My original interpretation was wrong, I think,
but went something like (by all means laugh at any howlers):
there is the plenitude which is everything that
Hi Chris and John
The paper I linked to describes a evolutionary dynamic which emphasizes
horizontal over vertical genetic transfer. I think it is described in the paper
as Lamarckian because changes to the coding mechanism can occur in their model
within a single generation of organisms
it is a defunct research programme, but maybe you could
follow up citations.
I could probably dig out an e-copy of the ECAL paper from my
institution's Springerlink subscription, if you're really interested.
Further comments interspersed
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:03:36AM +, chris peck wrote
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong
On 8/8/2013 8:10 PM, chris peck wrote:
Hi Prof. Standish
Thanks so much for the offer. I actually hunted the paper down from a link
in the
original springer resource you posted. Some of it flies over my head
Hi Prof. Standish
Unfortunately my subscription to Athens ran out a long time ago and I don't
have access to the paper you mention.
I'm still not sure you've addressed the crux of the argument. Lets say you have
a bunch of codons that when processed by a replicating mechanism spit out a
Hi Alby
Roger is pro-drugs in the thread below you dozy dipstick. ;)
Its the liberal who is arguing for soft headed psycotherapy. its the
pharmaceutical company vs. The lilly livered liberal script.
Get with the program you silly sausage!
--- Original Message ---
From: Alberto G. Corona
Hello Dr. Standish
If I may play devil's advocate for a post it seems to me that the question over
duration required for an optimized system to evolve is only a minor aspect of
the argument presented in this paper.
More seriously it concerns the mechanics of such an evolution.
To use a
Hi Alberto
A video of one man questioning Carson's conclusions doesnt support the claim
she fabricated evidence. All it does is show that some scientists disagree with
her results. Not unusual in science. Of course sceptics will argue
evironmentalism is politicised science. Given that most of
Yep. He was.
--- Original Message ---
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Sent: 3 August 2013 2:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The stupid legacy of another crackpot, Roger Clough
On 8/2/2013 5:27 PM, chris peck wrote:
By the way, Michael Crichton, the man whose video
Hi Rog
I'm getting the feeling here, that you're not a liberal... is that right?
:)
From: rclo...@verizon.net
To: rclo...@verizon.net
Subject: Whistleblower: Bradley Manning
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:31:38 -0400
Message body
Whistleblower: Bradley Manning
Manning could have done himself a
Weird, because DDT isn't banned when used for disease vector control, which
kind of scuppers your post at the get go.
Its well established that insects quickly develop resistance to DDT. So it
isn't especially effective. In some respects its counter productive. The
resistance confers other
Thanks Telmo
That sheds a little more light on where
you're coming from. I watched those videos with interest and found
the Austrian school fascinating. Apologies in advance for the length
of this post and for the howling errors in reasoning it undoubtedly
contains. I’m just a beginner!
So
, most of them, scripting systems have not to be
alphabetic nor phonetic, can be ideographic, like chiness in which case it is
meaningless to associate )
2013/7/19 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
Hi Alberto
But alphabets are not phonemic are they? And some alphabets are curvy (Thai
Hi Alberto
I wonder if the phoneme for 'ki' is represented by jagged letters in non Latin
based alphabets?
--- Original Message ---
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
Sent: 19 July 2013 2:03 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction
the
associations.
2013/7/19 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
Hi Alberto
I wonder if the phoneme for 'ki' is represented by jagged letters in non Latin
based alphabets?
--- Original Message ---
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
Sent: 19 July 2013 2:03 AM
@ Telmo
Hi Telmo
The key word here is leveraged. Ultimately, this level of leveraging
is only possible because the Fed can create money out of thin air.
You'll have to elaborate on that. As far as I am aware the banks were leveraged
by money currently in circulation. Loans made by insurance
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:22:49 +0200
On 16 Jul 2013, at 16:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:09 AM, chris peck
chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Roger
hmmm. sort of. Lowering interest rates, creating cheap money, in part
encouraged banks to lend to people
any hint of it.
I feel like banging my head with a bible.
From: jasonre...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: We are all naturally racists. Political correctness is likely to
get you killed.
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 19:37:49 -0500
On Jul 17, 2013, at 5:21 PM, chris
Hi Roger
hmmm. sort of. Lowering interest rates, creating cheap money, in part
encouraged banks to lend to people they ordinarily would not have. This put
more buyers on the market and that increase in demand led to a rise in house
prices. Of course, when the interest rates went up, those
To Jason:
Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even
realizing it has done so.
How can you possibly speak for atheists generally in this regard? Particularly
after the arguments you have been making! What do you know of all the
possibilities they have entertained
Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful word. If
someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not belive in God.
--- Original Message ---
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Sent: 10 July 2013 7:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re:
Subject: Re: Hitch
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful
word. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not
belive in God.
But you don't know what God the atheist
-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:33:43 -0500
On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
If some one says look, cat I don't know what kind of cat they are refering
to. I nevertheless can be confident that they have seen something
Hi Roger
This boggles my mind. I am purely matter. ?
Should be: This boggles my mind. I am not I.
regards.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Materialism and Buddhism
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:22:11 +0200
Hi Roger,
I was searching for my Vasubandhu
Hi Roger
So long as Im not a hapless monad subjected to an influx of incomplete and
distorted 'percepts' via a supreme monad, I'm more than happy to be a Zombie. I
might be dead but at least I'm not deluded and neither one of us has much of a
claim on having free will. Moreover, being a zombie
--- Original Message ---
From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Sent: 22 June 2013 11:26 AM
To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Subject: Materialists believe apparently strange things, such as that mind is
matter.
Materialists believe apparently strange things, such as that mind is
Hi Rog
As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both
rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If
reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be
combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological
l think the angst has more to do with concerns about state power than it has to
do with an emergent super brain controlling my noodle with monadic fairy dust,
Roger.
perhaps the materialists can devise an equivalent explanation of a global
mind...
Im guessing here but l think they'll stick
This is a theorem, once we suppose the mind is Turing emulable.
not actually a theorem if we don't, tho' ?
More to the point, it might well be that materialism IS a joke. But Roger's
attempt to show this is no closer to the mark than Dr. Johnson kicking his
stone was to disproving idealism.
A question Roger:
To recap:
there is only one mind (the Perceiver or Cosmic Mind or God) that
perceives and acts, doing this through the Surpreme (most dominant) monad.
It perceives the whole universe with perfect clarity.
Only it can perceive and act . the Supreme Monad continually and
cheers Bruno. :)
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Penrose and algorithms
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 18:40:50 +0200
Hi Chris,
Le 09-juin-07, à 13:03, chris peck a écrit :
Hello
The time has come again when I need to seek
I have a question for people here who know the issues better than me:
I was having an argument about alleged Quantum Immortality/Quantum suicide
with some people who argue that because the 2nd law of thermodynamics
continues regardless in each universe a 'me' continues within, I should
Hello everyone
I just want to post a message of thanks for the replies you have all given
me. It really is appreciated whether for or against the proposition.
by 'eck you're a brainy lot!
thank you all very much.
Chris.
_
Rate
Brent wrote:
I'm sure that more than one philosopher has made this criticism.
Including yourself. I agree with the criticism, but I dont see its
relevance with regards to the importance of subjectivity and introspection
with regards to knowledge. I admire Descartes as a man, not so much as
and realism here? It seems to me we
are all picking and choosing theories we ought to be agnostic about.
Best Regards
Chris.
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:56:29 -0700
chris peck wrote:
Because a) you have experiences but not experiences of yourself and
In what way dont I have experience of myself? Who
to build from the cogito. Descartes didnt manage it.
However, to ignore it altogether is just lazy and is hardly a argument
against those who dont.
regards.
Chris.
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:13:21
Well, maybe some of the above helped to explain it. Basing stuff
on 1st person has a long history. That's what everyone, it seems
to me, did before the scientific era (about 1600?). So far as I know,
nothing
has ever come of it.
Its been the cornerstone of modern philosophy since the 1600's.
of enquiring.
How much did relative space/time as concept cost compared to the non
descovery of the Higgs Boson?
Regards Chris.
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Theology (was in-between-times)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005
Bruno wrote:
No. But then your definition of theology is perhaps a little bit to much a
contingent matter.
Perhaps the word theology has too many connotations.
I agree largely.
I think the correct distinction to make between what people seem to mean wrt
the religion/science dispute is
Hi Lee;
Im dont know. Im in two minds now. I think my own objection to Sam Johnsons
'refutation' is based on a very strict definition of knowledge which entails
some notion of certainty. To be only 99% certain is not enough on this
definition to know something. Its a little sceptical isnt it?
Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show that sensory perception is
indirect, and therefore the existance of a material cause for those
perceptions is an unjustified inference in contravention of Occam's razor.
The argument that the look, texture,
Hi Bruno;
There are problems with Berkley to be sure, but I dont think Johnson had
much of a grasp of them. Are there good objections to Berkley? Certainly.
Did SJ propose any? Not really.
I agree ontologically. But I disagree epistemologically. It is like with
Mendeleev classification of
Hi Lee;
You see Samuel Johnson as a realist?
I think I started off a naive realist, became a realist and quickly became
confounded by the absurdity of the position. If I 'understood that there can
be things like optical illusions', I did so honestly, they told me something
very clear about
express
below do not yield a coherent narrative. But you must make up your own
mind. There are so many assumptions being made that must be reconsidered...
What is your background?
- Original Message -
From: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list
in temporally perpendicular
directions?
Regards
Chris.
From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:11:01 -0700
Interleaving:
chris peck wrote:
Hi James;
Yes, you are definitely
(dimensional
or not dimensional). Is the universe operatively Abelian,
or non-Abelian or co-Abelian?
James
chris peck wrote:
Hi James;
You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
mistake that all conventional thinkers
I hope i am a 'conventional thinker'. It gives me reason to think im
July 2005
chris peck wrote:
Hi James;
I suspected that this part of my argument to Stephen would raise
objections
from other members of this board.
'Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential
pre-bias.'
It may be. Nevertheless, without the experience to hand
PROTECTED]
To: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:26:45 -0400
Dear Chris,
Thank you for this post! Interleaving...
- Original Message - From: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED
.
Regards
Chris.
From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
CC: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:11:55 -0700
chris peck wrote:
Hi Stephen;
I suppose we can think of time
Hi Stephen;
I have a couple of quesitions.
Emulations involve some notion of a process and such are temporal. The idea
that a process, of any kind, can occur requires some measure of both
transitivity and duration.
The mere *existence* of a process only speaks to its potential for
more than I wanted to about all this. I ought to go and
download one of your papers.
Chris. :)
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: joining.
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:19:46 +0200
Hi Chris,
Le 29-juin-05, à 17:49
with that, possible worlds are
just convenient ways of considering possibility, rather than actuality. im
sure this is all obvious to you, I'll read your PHD and see if I agree with
that. I hope there isnt too much math.:)
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED
building another atom smasher. We should spare some time to be
as disrespectful towards QM as Einstein was towards absolute space time.
'BTW, are you familiar with Hintikka's work?'
Nope. I'll google on it.
Speak soon.
Chris. ;)
From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: chris peck [EMAIL
Hello;
My name is Chris Peck, this is my joining post. I have not seen anyone
elses, so im not entirely sure what's expected.
I have Ba in Philosophy from University College London, and an MSc in IT
from the same institution.
Im interested in philosophy of science - particularly
101 - 198 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
