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.

[SNIP]

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.

George

Reply via email to