ashamed for breaking my decision NOT to babble into this discussion with my
personal common sense, here is something to your position from my problems:
(First a bit of nitpicking, as an appetizer)
> >>For example, in every world where X and Y are simultaneously true, >>>it
is also true that X is true, even if no one notices this.'
how can an unnoticed truth be included into noticed (mutual) truth?
Time. I tackle a timeless (atemporal) system. The problem is "change".
What does a timeless change mean? One has to eliminate 'sequence', the
result of a change, or: Hal's All is static and includes both ends of all
changes. You used the 'static' cop-out:
> >> static relationships between static truths, relationships that would
> >>exist regardless of whether anyone contemplated or "discovered" them.
Of course a 'change' is meaningless in this case. We speculated a lot about
"Process", where change is involved between the endpoints of process.
If All is not static, change is there (time?) if it is static, it is
meaningless as a world. In that case it is a nirvana, static timelessness =
eternity for nothing.
I am afraid, although I never studied formal logic, I have an inherent sense
of 'human' logic in my speculations and cannot get over it.
Human logic (formal or formless) is one aspect of nature, not necessarily
the one covering All (of it). (The 1 = 0 case?)
Your discussions reached Taoistic levels, the format where not even the
contrary or other variants of a statement may be true. The opposite end of
conventional physical thinking and I doubt whether there is a way to combine
the two (maybe more than two<G>?) ends of the spectrum into one way (of
Which end would you choose? You underwent a young-age brainwashing for the
(conventional) physicist end and have an open enough mind for the other end.
Can you compensate? can anybody? I am neither a physicist, nor a
philosopher. I got my natural science brainwashing and try to deregulate my
mind (with questionable success).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
> Hal Ruhl wrote:
Snip, 2 quotes above included