 | | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —James Brown
|
| | | (...) As far as I understand the bos thing, while the state of things inside the box is not determined, we may assume that universal constants will apply. So it can be taken as read that I will drink the coffee. ;) James caffeine buzz & Lego - a (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Mark de Kock
|
| | | | James Brown writes/wrote/has writen: (...) But now you just _asume_ you will drink the coffee. What if in the dark you can not find the cup or you spill the coffee? There are lots of possibilities possible in which you will not drink it (the (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Shroedinger and the coffee constant (was RE: something else) —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) box (...) Ah, but it's not an assumption, except in the very extreme view that all theories are assumptions. Based on extensive empirical research, it has been determined that when a cup of coffee and I are placed in the same enclosed area (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Shroedinger and the coffee constant (was RE: something else) —Mark de Kock
|
| | | | James Brown writes/wrote/has writen: (...) area (...) will (...) rule, (...) in (...) considered (...) Is this known as the Theorem_of_James ? (...) do (...) Cheers! (...) is (...) Sooo... this is the way for you to always drink coffee? I just get (...) (26 years ago, 28-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
