On 12/3/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times.
How would one prove that all observations that that 1p has are
mutually consistent? Unless you assume that the speed of light is
infinite, and thus there exists a unique simultaneity (or absolute and
uniform variation of the rate of sequencing of events) for all observed
events, mutual consistency is impossible. This implies that there cannot
exist a singular 1p for "the entire universe". It is for this reason
that I reject the 'realist' approach to ontology and epistemology and am
trying to develop an alternative.
Think about how it is that a Boolean Algebra, which is known to be
the faithful logical structure representing a 'classical' universe' (not
'the universe'!), is found to be Satisfiable.
"In computer science, satisfiability (often written in all capitals or
abbreviated SAT) is the problem of determining if the variables of a
given Boolean formula can be assigned in such a way as to make the
formula evaluate to TRUE. Equally important is to determine whether no
such assignments exist, which would imply that the function expressed by
the formula is identically FALSE for all possible variable assignments.
In this latter case, we would say that the function is unsatisfiable;
otherwise it is satisfiable. For example, the formula a AND b is
satisfiable because one can find the values a = TRUE and b = TRUE, which
make (a AND b) = TRUE. To emphasize the binary nature of this problem,
it is frequently referred to as Boolean or propositional satisfiability.
SAT was the first known example of an NP-complete problem. That briefly
means that there is no known algorithm that efficiently solves all
instances of SAT, and it is generally believed (but not proven, see P
versus NP problem) that no such algorithm can exist. Further, a wide
range of other naturally occurring decision and optimization problems
can be transformed into instances of SAT."
It seems to me that the content of any 1p that is real must be at
least a solution to a SAT problem.
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz.
The supreme monad sees all clearly.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at