* they
were motivated by.
-Chris
When people criticise others' faiths, it's more than feelings that get hurt.
-Original Message-
From: LizR
To: everything-list
Sent: Sat, Jan 10, 2015 10:01 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
On 11 Jan 2015, at 16:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux
wrote:
I'm sorry, but I can't let you say that charlie hebdo was a racist
magazine... it's simply false, they were fundamentally against
institutionalized religions, that's true... whatever
iticize religions because the churches, with the help of the main
stream atheist (of your type), does not want us to come back to reasoning at
that level, yet.
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list
Sent: Sun, Jan 11, 2015 12:41 pm
Subject: Re: Why is th
feelings that
get hurt.
-Original Message-
From: LizR
To: everything-list
Sent: Sat, Jan 10, 2015 10:01 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 11 January 2015 at 15:50, Samiya Illias
wrote:
When people criticise others' f
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:09 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Have you seen the cartoons… that went beyond criticizing or poking fun at
> someone else’s faith… the portrayal of the prophet (for those of that
> faith) is obscene, insulting, gr
On 10 Jan 2015, at 22:47, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 PGC wrote:
>>> Bruno -- he is very respectful of other people's opinions and
always argues the ideas without resorting to name calling.
>> Just yesterday Bruno called me a bigot, and it wasn't the first
time.
> Even if
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 Samiya Illias wrote:
> When people criticise others' faiths, firstly it hurts others feeling
Having your ideas criticized is seldom a pleasant experience, but if you're
more interested in finding the truth than in hurt feelings it is necessary.
> I think it would be far
On 10 Jan 2015, at 06:53, John Clark wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>But it is a simple and mudane facts that it means quite different
things according to time, place, culture
>> So is there any time place or culture where you would be willing
to say in a loud clear unequivocal voice "
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I can't let you say that charlie hebdo was a racist
> magazine... it's simply false, they were fundamentally against
> institutionalized religions, that's true... whatever they are, but racist
> certainly not... it was a sat
I'm sorry, but I can't let you say that charlie hebdo was a racist
magazine... it's simply false, they were fundamentally against
institutionalized religions, that's true... whatever they are, but racist
certainly not... it was a satyrical political magazine...
Quentin
2015-01-11 7:09 GMT+01:00 '
eir common enemy, and we all know how
this worked out.
-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias
To: everything-list
Sent: Sun, Jan 11, 2015 2:58 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:09 AM, 'Ch
0, 2015 10:01 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 11 January 2015 at 15:50, Samiya Illias wrote:
When people criticise others' faiths, firstly it hurts others feeling making
the criticism fall on deaf ears.
When people c
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:09 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
>
>
>
> On 11 January 2015 at 15:50, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
> Wh
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:16 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>> By the way, I wonder if you or anybody else on the list can explain
>>> something to me that I have never understood; why is it that in all of
>>> human activity religion is the one a
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
On 11 January 2015 at 15:50, Samiya Illias wrote:
When people criticise others' faiths, firstly it hurts others feeling making
the criticism fall on deaf ears.
>>When people criticis
On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 1:31:05 PM UTC, PGC wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 4:05:05 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>
> > Bruno -- he is very respectful of other people's opinions and always
> argues the ideas wit
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> By the way, I wonder if you or anybody else on the list can explain
>> something to me that I have never understood; why is it that in all of
>> human activity religion is the one and only one that is supposed to be
>> absolutely positively
On 11 January 2015 at 15:50, Samiya Illias wrote:
> When people criticise others' faiths, firstly it hurts others feeling
> making the criticism fall on deaf ears.
>
> When people criticise others' faiths, it's more than feelings that get
hurt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shootin
> On 11-Jan-2015, at 4:22 am, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 3:47 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> By the way, I wonder if you or anybody else on the list can explain
>> something to me that I have never understood; why is it that in all of human
>> activity religion i
On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 10:47:56 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 PGC > wrote:
>
>>
>>> >>> Bruno -- he is very respectful of other people's opinions and always
argues the ideas without resorting to name calling.
>>>
>>> >> Just yesterday Bruno called me
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> > On 11 Jan 2015, at 10:22 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> >
> > By the way, I wonder if you or anybody else on the list can explain
> something to me that I have never understood; why is it that in all of
> human activity religion is the one and on
> On 11 Jan 2015, at 10:22 am, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> By the way, I wonder if you or anybody else on the list can explain something
> to me that I have never understood; why is it that in all of human activity
> religion is the one and only one that is supposed to be absolutely positively
> 1
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 3:47 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> By the way, I wonder if you or anybody else on the list can explain
> something to me that I have never understood; why is it that in all of
> human activity religion is the one and only one that is supposed to be
> absolutely positively 10
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 PGC wrote:
>
>> >>> Bruno -- he is very respectful of other people's opinions and always
>>> argues the ideas without resorting to name calling.
>>>
>>
>> >> Just yesterday Bruno called me a bigot, and it wasn't the first time.
>>
>
> > Even if he did, you called yourself a
On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 4:05:05 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>
> > Bruno -- he is very respectful of other people's opinions and always
>> argues the ideas without resorting to name calling.
>>
>
> Just yesterday Bruno calle
unless you have something beyond to offer the Uma, besides cell
phones and movies.
-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias
To: everything-list
Sent: Fri, Jan 9, 2015 10:42 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 09-Jan
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>But it is a simple and mudane facts that it means quite different things
>>> according to time, place, culture
>>>
>>
>> >> So is there any time place or culture where you would be willing to
>> say in a loud clear unequivocal voice "I do not believe in God"? Could
>> yo
> On 09-Jan-2015, at 10:14 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>> On 09 Jan 2015, at 05:48, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 08-Jan-2015, at 10:46 pm, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Ultimate reality? What would make one reality more
xist or not.
Like computationalism offers the best we can hope for the mind-body
problem, I think it does the same for the question of this thread.
It is a bit frustrating in the sense that it shows that there are
minimal thing that we will never explain the origin of (like the
"basic&q
On 09 Jan 2015, at 05:48, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 08-Jan-2015, at 10:46 pm, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Ultimate reality? What would make one reality more real than
another?
> Ultimate, primary, fundamental means that it is assumed in the
axioms,
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Samiya Illias
wrote:
> > Most Muslims are also horrified by the cruelty, imbecility and ignorance
> of the people who are orchestrating and doing / getting done these and
> other terrible acts in the name of Islam. It's wrong, it's horrible
>
That it is.
> and
On 08 Jan 2015, at 18:46, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Ultimate reality? What would make one reality more real than
another?
> Ultimate, primary, fundamental means that it is assumed in the
axioms, and not derivable from logically simpler axioms.
If
e are minimal thing that we will never
explain the origin of (like the "basic" Turing universal system).
Bruno
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of meek
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 7:59 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
> On 08-Jan-2015, at 10:46 pm, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> >> Ultimate reality? What would make one reality more real than another?
>>
>> > Ultimate, primary, fundamental means that it is assumed in the axioms, and
>> > not derivable from logic
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:38:54PM -0800, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything
List wrote:
> Since I read this a few days past have been mulling it over for a bit. When
> you say "knots in space-time" at first read it seemed like you were
> describing string like entities forming these knots exist
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> Ultimate reality? What would make one reality more real than another?
>>
>
> > Ultimate, primary, fundamental means that it is assumed in the axioms,
> and not derivable from logically simpler axioms.
>
If you had said "fundamental reality" I woul
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> If playing with words is thinking,
>
It is.
> you are a great thinker
>
Thank you, I'm blushing.
>>> In our finitist context ExP(x) can be seen as an abbreviation of P(0)
>>> v P(1) v P(2) v P(3), v ... That is existence is an infinite d
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > Isn’t pressure just another way of measuring the sum of the force the
> enclosed volume of gas molecules exert on the enclosing surface;
>
Yes.
> > whereas for example many emergent qual
On 07 Jan 2015, at 19:23, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> all logicians have agreed that "existence" is a logical symbol.
And what does that symbol symbolize? The above tells me nothing, a
symbol can symbolize anything and a symbol can symbolize nothing
too
ary 06, 2015 2:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 04 Jan 2015, at 08:07, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
In regard to:
"If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?"
thing-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 1/6/2015 11:41 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
So, even what we think of as "nothing" is an existent entity or
"something".
If only
groups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 1/7/2015 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jan 2015, at 20:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/6/2015 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:05, 'Roger' via Everything List
2:12 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 1/7/2015 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jan 2015, at 20:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/6/2015 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:05, &
On 07 Jan 2015, at 21:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/7/2015 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jan 2015, at 20:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/6/2015 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:05, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exi
On 07 Jan 2015, at 19:51, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> you are obsessed with the christian or abramanic God, but I use
the term in its original sense given by Plato, where God is the
ultimate reality.
Ultimate reality? What would make one
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 11:38 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 8:01 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 1/7/2015
If only through the "we" which think about that nothing.
>
>
> Is anything possible at all without an observer?
>
> -Chris
>
> Roger: If we're talking about the situation where there's only the
> "absolute lack-of-all" or the "empty set", I think the only place the
> perspective/observer is
>
> Chris,
>
1.It sure is hard to visualize the "absolute lack-of-all", I agree.
What I try to do is to shut my eyes and try to imagine the universe and
all its volume collapsing down to just my body and then just my mindscape.
Then, I push that darkness of the mindscape off to the sid
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 7:49 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 3:42 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On
On 1/7/2015 7:37 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *meekerdb
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:40 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Wh
t: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 1/7/2015 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jan 2015, at 20:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/6/2015 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:05, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if t
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:40 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 1/6/2015
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 12:12 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 12:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 1/7/2015
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 4:49 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> Ultimate reality? What would make one reality more real than another?
> To a physicist pressure is a perfectly real concept, and the idea that
> pressure makes a balloon expand is true. And
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 6:51:08 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote:
>
>
>> > you are obsessed with the christian or abramanic God, but I use the
>> term in its original sense given by Plato, where God is the ultimate
>> reality.
>>
>
On 1/7/2015 11:25 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
Ultimate reality? What would make one reality more real than another? To a physicist
pressure is a perfectly real concept, and the idea that pressure makes a balloon expand
is true. And the concept that a million billion trilli
On 1/7/2015 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jan 2015, at 20:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/6/2015 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:05, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it seems important to
know why everythi
On 1/6/2015 11:41 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
So, even what we think of as "nothing" is an existent entity or "something".
If only through the "we" which think about that nothing.
Is anything possible at all without an observer?
What we think is nomologically possible
From: John Clark
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory
to dialectics?
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> you are obsessed with
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > you are obsessed with the christian or abramanic God, but I use the term
> in its original sense given by Plato, where God is the ultimate reality.
>
Ultimate reality? What would make one reality more real than another? To a
physicist pre
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> all logicians have agreed that "existence" is a logical symbol.
>
And what does that symbol symbolize? The above tells me nothing, a symbol
can symbolize anything and a symbol can symbolize nothing too. Logical
sybols don't necessarily sybolize anythi
that there are
minimal thing that we will never explain the origin of (like the
"basic" Turing universal system).
Bruno
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meeker
On 06 Jan 2015, at 20:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/6/2015 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:05, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it
seems important to know why everything exists.
But everything does not ex
On 06 Jan 2015, at 18:44, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> Nothing exist = not one thing exists
Then nothing doesn't exist,
Why? if nothing exist, not one thing exist.
so something must exist, but it says nothing exists. And welcome to
the sel
On 06 Jan 2015, at 17:57, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:00 AM, LizR wrote:
> You seem to be obsessed with God,
I'm obsessed!? Bruno is the one running around trying to stick the
"G-O-D" label on anything that moves not me.
I think Liz menat that you are obsessed with the
On 06 Jan 2015, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> That would made "existence" into a property, which is something
usually avoided
If it's not a property then existence and non-existence have no
consequences,
No, all logicians have agr
00 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory
> to dialectics?
>
>
> On 04 Jan 2015, at 08:07, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
>
>
> In regard to:
>
> "If nothing exist
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 2:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 04
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 9:06 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
Chris,
Hi. I admit that
On 1/6/2015 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:05, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it seems important to
know why everything exists.
But everything does not exist. At the best, you can say everything consi
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Nothing exist = not one thing exists
Then nothing doesn't exist, so something must exist, but it says nothing
exists.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 9:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On Tue, Jan
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Nothing exist = not one thing exists
>
Then nothing doesn't exist, so something must exist, but it says nothing
exists. And welcome to the self contradiction Merry-Go-Round.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subs
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> That would made "existence" into a property, which is something usually
> avoided
>
If it's not a property then existence and non-existence have no
consequences, so why all the passion over the God exists/doesn't-exist
debate, or the why doe
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:53 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> Eternal inflation can't explain how nothing became something but it can
>> explain how *almost* nothing became something, and that certainly seem like
>> a step in the right direct
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:00 AM, LizR wrote:
> You seem to be obsessed with God,
>
I'm obsessed!? Bruno is the one running around trying to stick the "G-O-D"
label on anything that moves not me.
> The problem with EI is that it needs an explanation for how the entire
> temporal structure arises,
On 06 Jan 2015, at 05:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/5/2015 8:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/5/2015 4:43 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
From: meekerdb
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something r
On 05 Jan 2015, at 19:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/5/2015 1:07 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
0={0} and then onward to: 0={0}= {0}+{0} = {{0}, {0}+{0}} etc.
There's your problem: "etc"
It gives Cantor ordinals, which can be made precise in some set theory
(like ZF).
0,
On 05 Jan 2015, at 19:44, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 Russell Standish wrote:
> My personal opinion is that measured values are constrained to be
rational
If that is true (and it may be) and if mathematics is a language and
the irrational numbers play no role in physics then
On 04 Jan 2015, at 19:31, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> Careful not confusing "Nothing exists" and "Nothing exist". In the
first case, something exists. But not necessarily in the second case
If "nothing" means no-thing, and that is certa
On 04 Jan 2015, at 18:38, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 'Roger' via Everything List > wrote:
> Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it
seems important to know why everything exists.
Even if the word "klogknee" has no use because everything is
klogknee,
02, 2015 9:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it
seems
imal
thing that we will never explain the origin of (like the "basic"
Turing universal system).
Bruno
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday,
On 03 Jan 2015, at 14:23, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Logical positivism in the hard form has been abandoned in favor of a
dozen derivations, but it is a tactical withdrawal in order to
protect the central dogmas: the antimetaphysical standpoint, the
acritical adoration of science understood
On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:05, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it
seems important to know why everything exists.
But everything does not exist. At the best, you can say everything
consistent or possible exist.
Anyway, as I
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 12:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 6 January 2015
On 6 January 2015 at 16:21, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:50 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> > Eternal inflation seems to assume there is something because "there has
>> always been something". However if so, it sidesteps the underlying issue -
>> why is there this (eternal) something? The qu
On 6 January 2015 at 16:03, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> From information theory, it's true that nothing takes less information to
> describe/specify than something. Surprisingly, however, it takes less
> information to specify everything than it does to specify something or
> nothing.
>
> This is the
Chris,
Hi. I admit that something and nothing may be more of a comedy gold
mine than I first wrote. It's nothing to sneeze at! :-) Although, I wonder
if people who aren't interested in this stuff (e.g. almost everyone) would
find it funny?
It sounds like we're pretty much in agreem
On 1/5/2015 7:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why am I me and not someone else
What evidence do you have that you aren't those other selves to? I believe all thoughts
are equally yours.
Who or what am I
The universal soul to which all experiences belong.
What is the meaning of li
15 4:34 PM
*Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 1/5/2015 3:50 PM, LizR wrote:
Eternal inflation seems to assume there is something because "there has always been
something". However if so, it sidesteps the underlying issue
On 1/5/2015 4:43 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
--
*From:* meekerdb
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Monday, January 5, 2015 4:34 PM
*Subject:* Re: Why is there
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:50 PM, LizR wrote:
> Eternal inflation seems to assume there is something because "there has
> always been something". However if so, it sidesteps the underlying issue -
> why is there this (eternal) something? The question itself - and any
> attempted answer - can't be a
.
> Why do conscious creatures need to know these things?
>
>
I don't know that we need to, but we're naturally curious, and that
curiosity includes to knowing our surroundings, where we came from and
where we're going. These questions aren't really any different.
Jason
>
January 2015 at 13:43, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
>> wrote:
>>
>> From: meekerdb
>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 4:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theo
401 - 500 of 811 matches
Mail list logo
