<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
  <title>Everything List Google Group</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list</link>
  <description>A mailing list for discussion of the idea that all possible universes exist. Please visit http://www.weidai.com/everything.html for more information.</description>
  <language>en</language>
  <item>
  <title>3D Mandelbrot</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/5e08337e78e6a387/150591686cb873ef?show_docid=150591686cb873ef</link>
  <description>
  The Mandelbulb: first &#39;true&#39; 3D image of famous fractal &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;enjoy &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;Kim Jones
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/5e08337e78e6a387/150591686cb873ef?show_docid=150591686cb873ef</guid>
  <author>
  kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
  (Kim Jones)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:32:01 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: The seven step series (november 2009)</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/bd4b522b1c610430/4977a3222bdf0333?show_docid=4977a3222bdf0333</link>
  <description>
  UDA has been constructed so that we don&#39;t have to answer this question &lt;br&gt; to understand that the physical laws emerge from numbers (assuming &lt;br&gt; comp). &lt;br&gt; It is just enough that we accept that there is a level of &lt;br&gt; substitution. Then we can prove that we cannot know-for-sure which &lt;br&gt; computations support consciousness, yet that we have to take into
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/bd4b522b1c610430/4977a3222bdf0333?show_docid=4977a3222bdf0333</guid>
  <author>
  marc...@ulb.ac.be
  (Bruno Marchal)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:51:51 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: The seven step series (november 2009)</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/bd4b522b1c610430/c124b59bc8e95d35?show_docid=c124b59bc8e95d35</link>
  <description>
  I think closed time-like loops are probably impossible. But your answer &lt;br&gt; just points to possible equivocation on &amp;quot;person&amp;quot;. The time traveling &lt;br&gt; Brent is a different person from the untraveled Brent because he has &lt;br&gt; different memories just as the 70yr old Brent is a different person than &lt;br&gt; the 10yr old Brent. But in another sense - causal continuity - they are
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/bd4b522b1c610430/c124b59bc8e95d35?show_docid=c124b59bc8e95d35</guid>
  <author>
  meeke...@dslextreme.com
  (Brent Meeker)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:45:04 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: The seven step series (november 2009)</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/bd4b522b1c610430/986d167bba8b4f26?show_docid=986d167bba8b4f26</link>
  <description>
  I come back on this. The question &amp;quot;how many persons?&amp;quot; is a question &lt;br&gt; which remains very hard in the mechanist theory. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;To answer it, let me ask you a question. Suppose that old fashioned &lt;br&gt; time travel is possible, and that Brent Meeker of the future decides &lt;br&gt; to travel in the past, and to say hello to the younger Brent Meeker.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/bd4b522b1c610430/986d167bba8b4f26?show_docid=986d167bba8b4f26</guid>
  <author>
  marc...@ulb.ac.be
  (Bruno Marchal)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:40:28 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Arguably The World&#39;s Greatest Woman</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/9c91ef3f7bb4db96?show_docid=9c91ef3f7bb4db96</link>
  <description>
  Fundamental science does care on what really is. But it is admitted by &lt;br&gt; serious inquirer that there are alternative theories. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;They are related to a self-referentially correct universal machine. &lt;br&gt; Formal theories are just simple exemples of such machine. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;The interest is that such machine discover that there is a
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/9c91ef3f7bb4db96?show_docid=9c91ef3f7bb4db96</guid>
  <author>
  marc...@ulb.ac.be
  (Bruno Marchal)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:40 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Arguably The World&#39;s Greatest Woman</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/31fc1e9086774d33?show_docid=31fc1e9086774d33</link>
  <description>
  Science is neutral in the sense that science doesn&#39;t care what reality &lt;br&gt; is, but science assumes that there is enough regularity in reality that &lt;br&gt; theories about it can be tested. The unprovable truths you refer to are &lt;br&gt; always relative to a particular set of axioms and rules of inference. &lt;br&gt; So unless you have some way to limit &amp;quot;reality&amp;quot; to that set of axioms and
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/31fc1e9086774d33?show_docid=31fc1e9086774d33</guid>
  <author>
  meeke...@dslextreme.com
  (Brent Meeker)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:48:09 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Arguably The World&#39;s Greatest Woman</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/4d969e23faa183c8?show_docid=4d969e23faa183c8</link>
  <description>
  I know, but that is the fun. Life and everything interesting apperas &lt;br&gt; on the border of the non controlable. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;Yes, indeed. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;It is a theorem that is does not change the general idea. I have tried &lt;br&gt; the combinators, but the advantage of numbers is that their are taught &lt;br&gt; already in high school, and also, the most know Löbian machine, Peano
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/4d969e23faa183c8?show_docid=4d969e23faa183c8</guid>
  <author>
  marc...@ulb.ac.be
  (Bruno Marchal)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:08:11 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Arguably The World&#39;s Greatest Woman</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/025c63eab9684a63?show_docid=025c63eab9684a63</link>
  <description>
  Yes, but if you use science &#39;against&amp;quot; them, you make science a pseudo- &lt;br&gt; religion, and you give them more braids. If we don&#39;t get back to &lt;br&gt; &#39;serious&amp;quot; (meaning hypothetical) theology, pseudo-religion will &lt;br&gt; continue. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;Even if you take the &#39;theology&#39; of the universal machine as a toy &lt;br&gt; theology, it is remarkable how it explains the difference between
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/025c63eab9684a63?show_docid=025c63eab9684a63</guid>
  <author>
  marc...@ulb.ac.be
  (Bruno Marchal)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:45:58 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Arguably The World&#39;s Greatest Woman</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/3c23c603c4c144d3?show_docid=3c23c603c4c144d3</link>
  <description>
  Many being a few thousand? But there are billions of Christians who are &lt;br&gt; *not* theologians and a large fraction of them (at least in the U.S.) &lt;br&gt; use their votes and money to make Christian dogma public policy. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;When we disagree with the Earth being flat it is because we have a &lt;br&gt; better theory about the shape of the Earth.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/3c23c603c4c144d3?show_docid=3c23c603c4c144d3</guid>
  <author>
  meeke...@dslextreme.com
  (Brent Meeker)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:33:18 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Arguably The World&#39;s Greatest Woman</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/a5a72e7d2177bf3d?show_docid=a5a72e7d2177bf3d</link>
  <description>
  Bruno, &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;you navigate into perillous waters. Your statements are extremely smart and &lt;br&gt; applicable - to a certain limit, at which they vanish into undecidedness. &lt;br&gt; You chose arithmetic thinking as your anchor to firmness - it is your choice &lt;br&gt; and it works for you. It does not work for me: I am still in the
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/a5a72e7d2177bf3d?show_docid=a5a72e7d2177bf3d</guid>
  <author>
  jami...@gmail.com
  (John Mikes)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:48:04 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Arguably The World&#39;s Greatest Woman</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/93f98a6ebe141152?show_docid=93f98a6ebe141152</link>
  <description>
  Who them? Which Christians? There are many Christian theologians who &lt;br&gt; have reasonable (with respect to comp, or to the scientific attitude) &lt;br&gt; conception of God. The difference between some american and european &lt;br&gt; christians can be bigger than the difference between european atheists. &lt;br&gt; But once we know some group does not argue, but use authoritatively
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/93f98a6ebe141152?show_docid=93f98a6ebe141152</guid>
  <author>
  marc...@ulb.ac.be
  (Bruno Marchal)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:20:54 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Arguably The World&#39;s Greatest Woman</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/6f698b565e96e6c6?show_docid=6f698b565e96e6c6</link>
  <description>
  Because that&#39;s what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell &lt;br&gt; them we&#39;re agnostic about God we will be telling them that we have no &lt;br&gt; good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good reason &lt;br&gt; to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;Does your eye ever become so critical as to reject a theory - not reject
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/6f698b565e96e6c6?show_docid=6f698b565e96e6c6</guid>
  <author>
  meeke...@dslextreme.com
  (Brent Meeker)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:33:53 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Arguably The World&#39;s Greatest Woman</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/408b3ef705515c8a?show_docid=408b3ef705515c8a</link>
  <description>
  Why should we use the term &amp;quot;God&amp;quot; in the sense of those who clearly &lt;br&gt; have confused science with temporal authoritative argument? The word &lt;br&gt; and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition, and refer &lt;br&gt; to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of infinite, &lt;br&gt; or inconceivable, in-something.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/408b3ef705515c8a?show_docid=408b3ef705515c8a</guid>
  <author>
  marc...@ulb.ac.be
  (Bruno Marchal)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:27:22 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Arguably The World&#39;s Greatest Woman</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/d2a72a1c4b8e17d8?show_docid=d2a72a1c4b8e17d8</link>
  <description>
  Hi Kim, &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco&#39;s presentation. Very &lt;br&gt; nice talk. I appreciate a lot. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt; She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing:  Science &lt;br&gt; is agnostic.  &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt; &amp;quot;I believe in God&amp;quot; (Bg) is a religious statement.  (B = I
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/d2a72a1c4b8e17d8?show_docid=d2a72a1c4b8e17d8</guid>
  <author>
  meeke...@dslextreme.com
  (Brent Meeker)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:01:28 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Arguably The World&#39;s Greatest Woman</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/b40e292649bfc893?show_docid=b40e292649bfc893</link>
  <description>
  Hi Kim, &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco&#39;s presentation. Very &lt;br&gt; nice talk. I appreciate a lot. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing: Science is &lt;br&gt; agnostic. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I believe in God&amp;quot; (Bg) is a religious statement. (B = I believe, g &lt;br&gt; = &#39;God&#39; exists&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;~&amp;quot; = negation)
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/50cbd38dfef028d3/b40e292649bfc893?show_docid=b40e292649bfc893</guid>
  <author>
  marc...@ulb.ac.be
  (Bruno Marchal)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:44:02 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
