This is just the Cantor's conjectures and the power set in play. A universal set containing an element that contains the universal set.
Mike Atovigba On 9/12/10, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > ============================================================================= > Today's Topic Summary > ============================================================================= > > Group: [email protected] > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics > > - Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light. [5 Updates] > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/3d257186d5c0fca7 > > > ============================================================================= > Topic: Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light. > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/3d257186d5c0fca7 > ============================================================================= > > ---------- 1 of 5 ---------- > From: aruzinsky <[email protected]> > Date: Sep 11 09:09AM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/ad19807e900c113b > > It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove or disprove the > hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation. To point out > the obvious, that computer would have to be governed by different laws > of physics than the simulation. Possibly, that computer is part of a > universe, including an operator/programmer, governed by different laws > than this one. The computer operator/programmer could, at whim, do > just about anything with that simulation, including making an > appearance as an avatar to tell the inhabitants that that they are > inside a computer simulation. Gee, I wonder how such a communication > might be misinterpreted by an anthropocentric populous? And, then > the question is, how does that programmer know that he is not living > inside a computer simulation? > > Rent the video, The Thirteenth Floor, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor > . > > > > ---------- 2 of 5 ---------- > From: aruzinsky <[email protected]> > Date: Sep 11 02:39PM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/e5514b972d3403ef > > That should be "populace," you dumb F. > > > > ---------- 3 of 5 ---------- > From: awori achoka <[email protected]> > Date: Sep 12 12:56PM +0300 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/ad5a7a14188a16fb > > This brings in the issue of knowledge as an end--or should I say an > infinity. > > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM, aruzinsky > > -- > > nubiaafrika.blogspot.com > > > ---------- 4 of 5 ---------- > From: einseele <[email protected]> > Date: Sep 12 06:27AM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/6a8edd57a7199e0d > > I agree with this here > And also want to add that this idea is a classic of all times hard to > trace back. Even if the point is the same, I like to read it as the > Chuang-Tsu's butterfly: > > "Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a > butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I > did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I, > visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a > butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu. Between Tzu and > the butterfly there must be some distinction. [But one may be the > other.] This is called the transformation of things." > > Somehow everything is made of the same. Science, religion, and all > knowledge's forms try to discover how something becomes another, like > alchemy pairing dust-gold. > > Lately Steven Hawking posted a sort of proof of non existent God > needed to create the "something" out of the "nothing". In other words > there is no need of God for something to come out of nothing. > > This of course triggered the religious authority counterpart response > pointing the necessary opposite demonstration. > > But you do not hear about the linguistic problem involved. > > "Nothing" only exist in language, and even there has substance, making > it a double object. All equivalent, null, empty, zero, etc, have their > own double side. > > If "nothing" only lives in language, then it is true that at the > beginning there was only the Word. Though this true can only be false. > > To play with words is interesting and lead you to linguistic issues. > > Now, to bring these to the Universe's creation is no sense IMO > > > > > > > ---------- 5 of 5 ---------- > From: aruzinsky <[email protected]> > Date: Sep 12 08:36AM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/2794e279569b3abd > > I think there are many advantages to modeling reality as a simulation > on a hypothetically perfect computer . For example, science becomes, > "Reverse engineer reality.", and we would no longer be burdened with > verbose blather such chazin's. > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
