I meant loosely a universe conceivable by anyone (that might conceivably
exist [?]), not limited to human conceptions.


On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Jason, I don't have anything against your question just pick one expression
> from your post:
> ---..."or are there other conceivable universes"...--
> Are you meaning that "conceivable" (for us?) includes 'inconceivable' (for
> us) as well, or would you rather restrict your 'list' to such universes that
> are within the restrictions of our human concepts?
> John M
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jason Resch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> PS I think I see the point that you are still missing. I will have to
>>> explain that whatever the physical universe is, in the case I am Turing
>>> emulable, the physical universe is NOT turing emulable.
>> Bruno, this was the item I was asking (or at least had meant to ask) you
>> about several days ago.  But it was phrased differently, something like "If
>> I am the universe and the universe is not turning emulable then comp is
>> false"  Here you are saying the universe is not turning emulable, so if comp
>> is true that implies "I != universe".  I look forward to your explanation of
>> why the universe is not Turing emulable.  BTW: Does this apply to just the
>> Everett Universe, or are there other conceivable universes which are
>> emulable in addition to the observers they might contain?
>> Thanks,
>> Jason
>> >>

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

<<inline: 347.png>>

Reply via email to