Hal Ruhl wrote:

> My point is that the Nothing is unstable.  It does not know this - it can
> only test it.

I can't even begin to give you a meaningful answer. We are talking a totally
different language. How can "Nothing" know? How can it test it?

> Since it has no information it is also unaware of the
> possibility of an Everything.

How can "Nothing" be aware? or unaware?

> The Everything is also unstable

Everything is unstable? No way. It already contains all unstable and stable
states. You don't make any sense.

> but in its
> case it is unaware of the possibility of the Nothing.   The difference
> between the two is this antipodal lack of information.

Antipodal??? They both have zero information. This is hardly antipodal!

> The smallest perturbation away from either that could establish an answer
> to the stability question is to become its alter ego.

Alter ego???????? EGO???? how about ID? or SUPEREGO??

This makes no sense to me.


Sorry Hal. You have to be more objective in your choice of words. I just can't
follow you. I think you went through this with Bruno for the same reasons. I
avoided the whole discussion then because I couldn't follow you.


Reply via email to