Hi Stephen P. King  

IMHO A universe with 0 objects could still contain Mind--
which had to be there before the universe was created.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 

----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-06, 01:14:01 
Subject: Re: Epiphenomenalism 

On 10/6/2012 1:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote: 

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King  wrote: 

On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all possible realities. 

    It is not a reality in a world that only has 16 objects in it. I can come 
up with several other counter-examples in terms of finite field, but that is 
overly belaboring a point.  

This can clearly be shown to be false.  For me to be responding to this post 
(using a a secure connection to my mail server) requires the use of prime 
numbers of 153 decimal digits in length. 

There are on the order of 10^90 particles in the observable universe.  This is 
far smaller than the prime numbers which are larger than 10^152.  So would you 
say these numbers are not prime, merely because we don't have 10^153 things we 
can point to? 

If a number P can be prime in a universe with fewer than P objects in it, might 
P be prime in a universe with 0 objects? 


LOL Jason, 

    Did you completely miss the point of "reality"? When is it even possible to 
have a "universe with 0 objects"? Nice oxymoron!  


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to