Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the >>> chocolate > fairy". You can claim that while the

Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)

On Mar 7, 1:52 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to > > > any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of > > the stuff in the Plenitude

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the > > chocolate > > > > fairy". You can claim that while the reason people lik

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Hi John, Singularity is just a name that means that the solutions of the equations describing the BH gives infinity... It's what is a singularity. Does the "infinity" is "real" (we must still be in accordance about what it means) is another question, but accepting GR as a true approximation of

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

i ENVY YOU, guys, to "know" so much about BHs to speak of a singularity. I would not go further than "according to what is said about them, they may wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity". Galaxies, whatever, fall into those hypothetical BHs and who knows how much Dark