On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:50:23PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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 --> Something
> Nothing --> Something
> It's basically a singularity either way.  That's why I invoked the  word 
> "faith" below.
> Tom

What do you mean by singularity in this context? It does not
parse. Getting something from nothing is usually considered
problematic. Getting something from everything is not. Demonstrating
the equivalence of nothing and everything solves the problem does it


*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.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                                    0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

Attachment: pgptmuiIBxzj1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to