Hi James and Russell,
Could a middle ground be found in the notion that "something" is a
differentiated piece of Nothing, where Everything (1st person notion) and
Nothing (3rd person notion) are one and the same? Violations of the notion
of conservation only seem to obtain when we conflate the 1st and 3rd person
The problem that I see with existentialism is that it tacitly assumes an
unattainable 3rd person upon which to base its notion of existence. Why do
we need to assume more than "Existence exists" (in an active and not passive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James N Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Everything-List List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: contention: theories are incompatible
I don't see why. Conservation of information is a fundamental property
of the Multiverse, and is directly equivalent to the law of unitary
evolution in quantum mechanics.
If you are talking about conservation of energy, are you aware that
the total energy content of the universe is zero? All of mass-energy
is balanced by the negative potential energy of gravitational
attraction. Multiplying zero energy universes into a multiverse still
conserves energy. Ditto with momentum - the total momentum of the
universe is zero.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:14:20PM -0800, James N Rose wrote:
An open hypothesis to list members:
"Conservation" as a 'fundamental rule of condition'
is incompatible and antithetical with any notions
of "many worlds".
Either explicitly excludes and precludes the other;
can't have both and retain a consistent existentialism.