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. Cheers -- *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) Mathematics 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
