On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 08:05:14AM -0700, 1Z wrote:
> Russell Standish wrote:
> > The Nothing itself does not have any properties in itself to speak
> > of. Rather it is the PROJECTION postulate that means we can treat it
> > as the set of all strings, from which any conscious viewpoint must
> > correspond to a subset of strings.
> That sounds rather like the Somethingist principle that only certain
> possibilites
> are selected for the Privilege of Actuallity.

Not at all. You are fundamentally misinterpreting my comments. I won't
try to explain here, but ask you to reread the relevant parts of "Why
Occam's razor", or of my book.


*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 0425 253119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to