Hal Ruhl writes:
> Hi Bruno:> > I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.> >
> Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its > evolving universes - meaning
> I take it that all > successive states are fully logical consequences of
> their prior state.
You mean "physical consequences" or something similar, don't you? I don't see
anything logically inconsistent about a talking white rabbit or even the atoms
of my keyboard reassembling themselves into a fire-breathing dragon.
> I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two.> > Lets us say
> that you are correct about this > result re your model, this just seems to >
> reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order > to avoid the information
> generating selection in the full set.> > Yours> > Hal Ruhl> > > At 11:30 AM
> 2/5/2007, you wrote:> > > >Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit :> >> >
> > As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as> > >
> a subset.> >> >> >This means that even if "my theory" makes disappear all
> (1-person)> >white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset
> does> >not reintroduce new one.> >> >Bruno> >> >>
> >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/> >> >> >> >
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at