Re: Re: Epiphenomenalism

```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
10/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to