In the previous post I should have said, "Russell, you've even said in your Why Occam's Razor paper that the Plenitude is ontologically _equivalent_ to Nothing."
--- Begin Message ---
To me it's very simple, and I've already laid it out in just a few words below, and in more words in different ways in my previous posts on this thread.Russell, you've even said in your Why Occam's Razor paper that the Plenitude is ontologically to Nothing. To it follows that the following two mappings are the same:Plenitude --> SomethingNothing --> SomethingIt's basically a singularity either way. That's why I invoked the word "faith" below.TomRussell Standish wrote:> I don't agree that your original query was left unanswered - it was
> answered by several people, in possibly contradictory ways (that
> remains to be seen - I tend to see the commonality). Perhaps you> mean the answers were unsatisfactory for you, in which case I'd
> be interested in hearing from you why they are unsatisfactory.
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 11:41:10AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Perhaps there needs to be a new thread for the new topic (Game of Life,
> It seems my original inquiry has been left unanswered, but this is my
> point. My challenge was that multiverse theory is just pulling things
> out of thin air just as much as any other metaphysical theory. At each
> point in the history of science, science needs an external foundation
> to stand on, and by definition this is extra-science. Cluttering up the
> picture with "Everything" doesn't solve the problem at all. The
> multiverse is a tautology. Attributing meaning to it is a statement of
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
--- End Message ---