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, [email protected] 10/6/2012 "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? Jason LOL Jason, Did you completely miss the point of "reality"? When is it even possible to have a "universe with 0 objects"? Nice oxymoron! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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?hl=en.
