On 22 August 2014 08:00, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:00 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is nothing logically inconsistent about a fire breathing dragon >>> powered by a nuclear reactor in its belly, but that doesn't prove that such >>> an animal actually exists. >>> >> >> > Unless you believe that QM necessarily entails a multiverse, in which >> case they exist somewhere. >> > > The multiverse doesn't care if I believe in it or not, it either exists or > it doesn't. Although I could be wrong I think the multiverse idea is > logically consistent, but even if I'm right and it is that doesn't prove it > exists. >
Ri-i-i-ight, fine, if you're going to nitpick the phraseology that's your privilege. > > > a consequence of the multiverse is that all physically possible events >> happen within it. >> > > Yes but it's not always obvious what is physically possible and what is > not. Is it physically possible that Germany could have won the second world > war? Yes. Is it physically possible that 2+2=5 ? No. Is it physically > possible that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong? No. Is it > physically possible that the first law of thermodynamics is wrong? I don't > know. > So it isn't obvious. (The second law can be wrong for arbitrary amounts of time, actually.) > > > It's possible (if comp is correct) that >> > > Who cares, I don't give a hoot in hell about scientific baby talk like > "comp". > > Or about normal scientific talk either, to judge by your comments above. -- 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/d/optout.
