everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 16:39:18
Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in t
im so
everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 14:17:50
Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
On 21 Aug 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wr
On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and
sequences of numbers, making the "body problem" into a problem of
arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the
universal
On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:26, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You recently allude to a disagreement between us, but I
(meta)disagree with such an idea: I use the scientific method,
which means that you cannot disagree with me without showing a
precise flaw at
Dear Roger,
I agree with what you are saying regarding the communion
concept, but I am interested in some kind of explanation for it that is
not just some appeal to authority.
On 8/24/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
No, God communes with us (and the entire univers
everything-list
> *Time:* 2012-08-24, 08:54:31
> *Subject:* Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
>
> Stephan,
> I find it interesting that according to my Roman Catholic professor
> theologian friend,
> 燝od has intention but but intelligence. That would seem to be
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-24, 08:54:31
Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
Stephan,
I find it interesting that according to my Roman Catholic professor theologian
friend,
?od has intention but but intelligence. That would seem to be consistent with
what you say bel
27;s no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-24, 08:31:24
Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
Dear Roger,
I only see one glaring gap
e's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Stephen P. King
> *Receiver:* everything-list
> *Time:* 2012-08-23, 16:39:18
> *Subject:* Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
>
>
et>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Time:* 2012-08-23, 16:39:18
*Subject:* Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and
: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 16:39:18
Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and
> sequences of numbers, making the "body problem&
uot;
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 14:17:50
Subject: Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
On 21 Aug 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Aug 2012, at 1
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and
sequences of numbers, making the "body problem" into a problem of
arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal
machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above,
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You recently allude to a disagreement between us, but I (meta)disagree
with such an idea: I use the scientific method, which means that you
cannot disagree with me without showing a precise flaw at some step in
the reasoning.
You seem to follow the s
On 21 Aug 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Aug 2012, at 12:12, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno and Stephen,
This is the bicameral mind again. Right brain must accept left
brain decisions for human safety.
Ought must rule over is (or e
On 8/21/2012 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Aug 2012, at 12:12, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno and Stephen,
This is the bicameral mind again. Right brain must accept left brain
decisions for human safety.
Ought must rule over is (or else we'd all be nazis, Hume, for the
safety of humanity
16 matches
Mail list logo
