On 19 Dec 2009, at 18:08, John Mikes wrote:
> Reality versions(?) continued...
>
> In his post Benjamin Jakubik wrote:
> "Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >> Honestly I think you are a bit dishonest to yourself here, since
> you
> >> already presume the appear
On 20 Dec 2009, at 05:55, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear Ronald,
>
>The theory is pure unadulterated Idealism. Matter/energy are, at
> best,
> considered as epiphenomena. My efferts to discuss alternatives have
> lead
> nowhere...
You may try again, or refer to links to your theories. T
aturday, December 19, 2009 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: paper on view of reality
Not to hijack my thread, but even if Physics is just a subbranch of
PA, I have difficulty conceiving of numerical computations happening
without matter/energy.
Ronald
On Dec 19, 12:08 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> *Reality *
Not to hijack my thread, but even if Physics is just a subbranch of
PA, I have difficulty conceiving of numerical computations happening
without matter/energy.
Ronald
On Dec 19, 12:08 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> *Reality **versions(?)* continued...
>
> In hi
*Reality **versions(?)* continued...
In his post Benjamin Jakubik wrote:
"Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Honestly I think you are a bit dishonest to yourself here, since you
>> already presume the appearance of matter,
>
> I assume nowhere primitive matter. I do
As a tyro, I'm wondering whether this is just a summary of what physicists
already know or a genuine conceptual breakthrough.marty a.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld wrote:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf
any comments on this?
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld wrote:
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf
> any comments on this?
>
My first thought was, "Am I going to be able to follow 19 pages of this?"
The answer was: not in complete detail.
My next thought was how interesting that I spent
Ronald:
WHAT is reality? 'physical' is one degree weaker, it is most likely based on
observations we call 'physical' in the figment: physical world(view) - the
poorly understood/explainable - as the article puts it: 'ontological in
science' - explanatory figment.
John M
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:1
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf
any comments on this?
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from t
9 matches
Mail list logo