On 2/17/2012 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Feb 2012, at 14:23, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 20:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
I understand the UDA, as I have read every one of Bruno's
English papers and participated
On 17 Feb 2012, at 22:26, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:24 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Feb 2012, at 13:51, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 16:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15
Dear Stephen,
On 18 Feb 2012, at 20:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Feb 2012, at 14:23, Stephen P. King wrote:
I agree with this but I would like to pull back a bit from the
infinite limit without going to the ultrafinitist idea. What we
On 2/18/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Think about it, what would be the consequence of allowing A ^ ~A to occur in
sharable 1p? If we start out with the assumption that all logics exist as possible and
then consider which logics allow for sharable 1p, then only the logics that
On 16 Feb 2012, at 18:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer
all
kinds of
On 16 Feb 2012, at 20:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
I understand the UDA, as I have read every one of Bruno's
English papers and participated in these discussions, at least. You
do not need to keep repeating the same lines. ;-)
The point is that the doctor assumption already
On 16 Feb 2012, at 20:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 10:16 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes
that all
of the
On 2/17/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 16:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Feb 2012, at 08:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
By the way, Darwin's theory revolves around the notion of
evolution, that simpler objects can
On 2/17/2012 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 20:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
I understand the UDA, as I have read every one of Bruno's English
papers and participated in these discussions, at least. You do not
need to keep repeating the same lines. ;-)
The
On 16 Feb 2012, at 23:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be
On 17 Feb 2012, at 00:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 3:02 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this
On 17 Feb 2012, at 00:02, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the
On 2/17/2012 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You forget that Quantum reality is Turing emulable.
A quantum computer can't compute a function that a TM can't. But when it comes to
emulating reality, it seems there is a difference because quantum reality may be
arbitrarily entangled (which is
On 2/17/2012 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note that Bruno answers the concern that interaction/entanglement with the environment
by saying that the correct level of substitution may include arbitrarily large parts of
the environment. I think this is problematic because the substitution (and
On 2/17/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This does not follow from what you say above. On the contrary, if by chance or reason,
we build intelligent machine, we will have new opportunities to study consciousness
and its role in mind and matter.
I don't think it would ever be nice that
On 17 Feb 2012, at 13:51, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 16:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Feb 2012, at 08:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
By the way, Darwin's theory revolves around
On 17 Feb 2012, at 14:23, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 20:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
I understand the UDA, as I have read every one of Bruno's
English papers and participated in these discussions, at least.
You do
On 17 Feb 2012, at 19:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2012 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You forget that Quantum reality is Turing emulable.
A quantum computer can't compute a function that a TM can't. But
when it comes to emulating reality, it seems there is a difference
because quantum
On 17 Feb 2012, at 19:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This does not follow from what you say above. On the contrary, if
by chance or reason, we build intelligent machine, we will have
new opportunities to study consciousness and its role in mind and
matter.
On 2/17/2012 2:24 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Feb 2012, at 13:51, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 16:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Feb 2012, at 08:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
By
On 2/17/2012 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Feb 2012, at 19:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2012 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You forget that Quantum reality is Turing emulable.
A quantum computer can't compute a function that a TM can't. But when it comes to
emulating reality, it
On 2/17/2012 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Feb 2012, at 19:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This does not follow from what you say above. On the contrary, if by chance or reason,
we build intelligent machine, we will have new opportunities to study
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer all
kinds of computational errors such as schizophrenia, dismorphia, etc. We
intentionally lie... The list of computationally erroneous behavior of
the brain is almost endless. How
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer all
kinds of computational errors such as schizophrenia, dismorphia, etc. We
intentionally lie... The list of computationally erroneous behavior of
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer all
kinds of computational errors such as schizophrenia, dismorphia, etc. We
intentionally lie... The
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer all
kinds of computational errors such as schizophrenia, dismorphia,
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer all
kinds of computational
On 2/16/2012 1:16 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes that all of the
properties of objects are inherent in the objects themselves and have no relation or
dependence on anything else. This is is wrong. We know from our study
2012/2/16 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 2/16/2012 1:16 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
On 2/16/2012 10:16 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility that the brain can
be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It would be helpful if we first established
that a Turing Machine is capable of what we are assuming it do be able
On 2/16/2012 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility that
the brain
can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It would be helpful if we
first
established that a Turing Machine is capable of what we are assuming it
2012/2/16 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/16/2012 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It would be
helpful if we first established that a Turing Machine is
On 2/16/2012 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/2/16 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/16/2012 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the
brain can be emulated by a
On 2/16/2012 19:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:16 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting.
On 2/16/2012 19:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 10:16 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How
On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes
that all of the properties of objects are inherent in the objects
themselves and have no relation or dependence on anything else.
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It
would be helpful if we first established that a Turing Machine is
On 2/16/2012 2:34 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the
possibility that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing
Machine. It would be helpful if we first established that a
Turing
2012/2/16 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/16/2012 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/2/16 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/16/2012 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It
would be helpful if we first
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It
On 2/16/2012 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be
On 2/16/2012 3:02 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the
On 2/16/2012 12:36 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes that all of the
properties of objects are inherent in the objects themselves and have
On 2/16/2012 12:40 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility that the brain
can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It would be helpful if we
On 2/16/2012 4:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It
On 2/16/2012 4:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can
On 2/16/2012 6:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 12:36 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes
that all of the properties of objects are
On 2/16/2012 5:45 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 12:36 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes
On 2/16/2012 7:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
But QM is consistent with some things (almost all big things) being
almost exactly classical. There is no reason to think our brains
depend on non-classical processes to perform computations (metabolism
- yes, computation - no). Certainly it would be a
On 2/16/2012 8:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
So Kraus' argument does itself show at least one aspect of how
classical teleportation is problematic. I rest my case.
But his teleportation, which is based on transmitting the position of
every atom in a human body is far more than required for Bruno's
On 2/16/2012 7:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
But QM is consistent with some things (almost all big things) being almost exactly
classical. There is no reason to think our brains depend on non-classical processes to
perform computations (metabolism - yes,
On 2/17/2012 1:53 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 8:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 8:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
So Kraus' argument does itself show at least one aspect of how
classical teleportation is problematic. I rest my case.
But his teleportation, which is based on
On 2/14/2012 13:45, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/14/2012 5:13 AM, acw wrote:
How does the existence on an entity determine its properties? Please
answer this question. What do soundness and consistency even mean
when there does not exist an unassailable way of defining what they are?
Look
On 2/14/2012 05:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 11:18 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/14/2012 02:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote:
[SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c
it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the
block
universe idea that
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way
of talking about this same kind of optimization problem without
tipping his hand that it implicitly requires a computation to be
performed to find it.
Because UDA+MGA
On 2/14/2012 5:13 AM, acw wrote:
How does the existence on an entity determine its properties? Please
answer this question. What do soundness and consistency even mean
when there does not exist an unassailable way of defining what they are?
Look carefully at what is required for a proof, don't
On 14 Feb 2012, at 06:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
acw:
Yet the problem is decidable in finite amount of steps, even if
that amount may be very large indeed. It would be unfeasible for
someone with bounded resources, but not a problem for any abstract
TM or a physical system (are they one
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way
of talking about this same kind of optimization problem without
tipping his hand that it implicitly requires a computation to be
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of
talking about this same kind of optimization
2012/2/14 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of
talking about this same kind of optimization problem without tipping his
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/2/14 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way
Hi Stephen,
On 14 Feb 2012, at 15:53, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another
way of talking about this same kind of optimization problem
On 2/14/2012 7:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/14 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
[SPK]
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the
existence of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a
theory that predicts that it cannot exist. How? By supposedly
proving that the physical world
, rendering this primitive material world devoid of explanatory
power.
HI Quentin,
What is the difference? Please see my last post to ACW with the
subject header Re: On Pre-existing Fields
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
2012/2/14 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
[SPK]
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence
of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts
that it cannot exist. How? By supposedly
expectation of your next moment, rendering this
primitive material world devoid of explanatory power.
HI Quentin,
What is the difference? Please see my last post to ACW with the
subject header Re: On Pre-existing Fields
The difference is that it is not primary... the physical universe
On 2/14/2012 11:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
[SPK]
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence
of the
very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts that
it cannot
exist. How? By
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
[SPK]
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence
of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts
that it
last post to ACW with
the subject header Re: On Pre-existing Fields
The difference is that it is not primary... the physical universe
emerge from computations. It should be an invariant in relative deep
computation giving rise to consciousness.
Numbers-Computations-consciousness universe
On 2/14/2012 2:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
My understanding is that the properties of the physical world are
inferred from our subjective experiences that have a consistency
(which Vic Stenger calls point-of-view-invariance) which allows us to
model them as being out there, i.e. objective.
On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote:
[SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c
it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the block
universe idea that Andrew Soltau and others are wrestling with.
Why is a pre-existing field so troublesome? Seems like a similar
problem as the
On 2/14/2012 02:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote:
[SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c
it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the block
universe idea that Andrew Soltau and others are wrestling with.
Why is a pre-existing field so
Lots of interesting ideas going about.
It sounds like you're pondering how many elements are in the set of all
world-lines consistent with the true laws of physics (e.g., possibly, the
least action principle). (Incidentally, that set oddly enough is timeless
yet the bundles of world-lines that
On 2/13/2012 11:18 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/14/2012 02:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote:
[SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c
it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the
block
universe idea that Andrew Soltau and others are wrestling with.
On 2/13/2012 6:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote:
[SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c
it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the block
universe idea that Andrew Soltau and others are wrestling with.
Why is a pre-existing field so
79 matches
Mail list logo
