Russell, thanks for the non-argumentative position (understatement, but I mean it so). Russell wrote: ------------------- I am merely pointing out the necessity of TIME. One can treat it as an axiom (as I do), seek further justification in terms of other axioms (eg computationalism), or provide a model that doesn't satisfy it in order to show it is not necessary.
I appreciate that you are attempting to do the third of these options, and I will be most intrigued with your results should you obtain any. In the meantime, I find it more productive to work with it as an axiom, and to provide some "handwaving" justifications for it. -------------------- You use "axiom" as if it were something reasonable. It is a postulate to facilitate an idea (theory/rem?) within a model. So are 'givens'. - Even 'emergent marvels' point to our ignorance about the origin of a composite of viable processes producing them. I don't claim a productive practicality - the idea of thinking (about) wholism is a starting line, not even ready for "obtaining results". Let's talk about it 2-300 years from now. Some 'dreamers' paved the way for advancement. Cheers John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <everything-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 7:49 PM Subject: Re: Implications of MWI
