On 8/05/2017 4:53 pm, David Nyman wrote:
Both Hoyle's pigeon holes and Barbour's time capsules assume that
there is a coherent underlying physics with regular exceptionless
laws. Until you have something like that, you cannot define consistent
continuations.
But I'm afraid that's implied by assumption unless one takes the view
that the evolution of physical states is fundamentally incomputable,
But I thought that that was what Bruno claimed. If one assumes physics
in one's derivation, then the circularity is vicious.
Bruce
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
