From: Lawrence Krauss < To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Re: in NYC Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:55:23 +0000 not in canberra.. not when they can sell it in a week. On Dec 4, 2012, at 7:53 AM, Jeffrey Epstein wrote: of course they do On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Lawrence Krauss <1 > wrote: of course.. but they don't do that in australia... sellers market right now. On Dec 4, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Jeffrey Epstein wrote: rent it with an option to buy, much smarter. gives her the secuirty she needs and protects against dwonside On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Lawrence Krauss c > wrote: I guess my question is not to debate that people are rational... but to ask whether one might map religion onto another irrational component of our nature which is less destructive.. meanwhile I am going to lose more money as Nancy buys a house in canberra, a market that is sure to collapse in the coming year or two.. that is more pressing at the moment.. :) On Dec 4, 2012, at 6:50 AM, Jeffrey Epstein wrote: i understand that is you hying to be polite. in essence women and certain people i believe have a system that does not map onto the rational.. arguments in one system fail in the other. benefit cost. are complex, especailly in theirs. ie is the benefit from knowing that though the doctors say i have one month to live , that praying for a miricle is really harmful, your "rea;ity " is really not anyone elses. i thought a strict mathematical construct of two systems , even an algebraic topopolgy analogy would suffice , though two structures may intersect, getting from one place to another on one manifold , tells you almost nothing about how to do it on another. poetetnaily the more interesting question is why is it so pervasive. why is beauty a part of both„ should belief in relighion follow other power laws. , my guesss is yes, and therefore it shoudl be categoized as a resource.. maybe a benefit to the group , as so many are taken out of the