On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:41 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> *You defined nothing as a universe of zero physical objects.* > I also said the universe could not exist if it only had one physical object because I defined "nothing" as infinite unbounded homogeneity. If you have a better definition of "nothing" I'd like to hear it. > *Is zero meaningless in a universe with zero physical things?* > If the universe had zero (or only one) physical things then even "meaning" would be meaningless, and so would "meaningless". But those things do have meaning therefore I can deduce that the universe does not consist of infinite unbounded homogeneity, and therefore the universe must contain more than just one thing; *> I don't see any way from escaping the necessity of rules and the number > zero,* > I don't either if you want to describe how the universe works because mathematics is the best language to do that. English is a useful language too but the word "cow" cannot give milk and the definition of a computation cannot perform a computation. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> apl -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2jVApsd-UFgBbAKw6ZZZAH%3Di00vsTEffq2_R_TUKL81A%40mail.gmail.com.
