On 12/16/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:45 PM, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 12/16/2013 8:52 PM, LizR wrote:On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear LizR, That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an observer in such a universe, it's far too simple." There could not be one wherefore "he could deduce the existence of 17 theoretically, and work out its properties" is impossible: probability zero. I can't see the significance of this argument. If we take a large enough number, say 10^80, that observers /can /exist, we can then ask whether such observers could work out the properties of numbers greater than 10^80.Can we? Whenever I add 1 to 10^80 I get 10^80 in spite of Peano.Use a programming language such as python or Java which supports big integers. It will let you add 1 to 10^80.
I know. I was just taking 10^80 to mean "a very big number" which of course depends on context. I generally do applied physics and engineering and so 10^80+1 = 10^80 for physical variables.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
