Re: Let There Be Something

Le 15-nov.-05, à 00:28, Russell Standish a écrit : Equivalence in the sense of category theory's notion of duality. In Venn diagrams, for instance, the empty set is the dual of the universal set. Most set theories does not have a universal set. Version of Quine's New Foundations (NF) does bu

Re: Let There Be Something

Equivalence in the sense of category theory's notion of duality. In Venn diagrams, for instance, the empty set is the dual of the universal set. More particularly to the "bitstring ensemble" ASKA "Schmidhuber ensemble"* or UD*, the empty observer moment can be identified with Nothing, and the empt

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 13-nov.-05, à 04:25, Russell Standish a écrit : What do you mean by singularity in this context? It does not parse. Getting something from nothing is usually considered problematic. Getting something from everything is not. Demonstrating the equivalence of nothing and everything solves the p

Re: Let There Be Something

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:50:23PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To me it's very simple, and I've already laid it out in just a few words > below, and in more words in different ways in my previous posts on this > thread. > Russell, you've even said in your Why Occam's Razor paper that the

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 12-nov.-05, à 07:46, Kim Jones a écrit : Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem CAN be understood without reference to the numbers. Something tells me Bruno's comp theory can as well. He does remarkably well with his English but his acronyms make me cringe with fright... Well thanks for the Engl

Re: Let There Be Something

What about the enormous legion of people like me reading this list who are neither mathematicians OR physicists but who also have a healthy interest in the fundamental questions? Isn't the "Everything List" for *every* body? Any hope of someone bringing out a lexicon of terms - I mean a gl

Re: Fwd: Let There Be Something

Maybe true, maybe not. Nevertheless this is a more sophisticated critique than what has been posted so far. BTW - extracting a finite amount of information from the plenitude is more akin to extracting a segment from an orange. Both the segment and the orange are infinite sets of points (of course

Re: Fwd: Let There Be Something

On 11/12/05, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But extracting something from the Plenitude is trivial, or so it seems > to most people. If I have an infinite bin of dollar coins, and I owe > you $10, I don't see any difficulty in paying you the $10. Do you? > Please quote something fro

Re: Fwd: Let There Be Something

; In the previous post I should have said, "Russell, you've even said in your > Why Occam's Razor paper that the Plenitude is ontologically _equivalent_ to > Nothing." > > Tom > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Full-name: Daddycaylor > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:50:

Fwd: Let There Be Something

In the previous post I should have said, "Russell, you've even said in your Why Occam's Razor paper that the Plenitude is ontologically _equivalent_ to Nothing."   Tom --- Begin Message --- To me it's very simple, and I've already laid it out in just a few words below, and in more words in

Re: Let There Be Something

To me it's very simple, and I've already laid it out in just a few words below, and in more words in different ways in my previous posts on this thread. Russell, you've even said in your Why Occam's Razor paper that the Plenitude is ontologically to Nothing.  To it follows that the following

Re: Let There Be Something

Hi Russell, You are very kind. Certainly translating the Lille thesis could be some beginning. At the same time people could be disappointed, because somehow my last papers are better (imo) than my lille thesis. The UDA is divided in those papers into (8) steps (no such numerotation help

Re: Let There Be Something

It is a very nice proposition Russell. Thanks. I could even pay. Are you thinking to "consciousness and mechanism" (750 pages!) or " Computability, physics and cognition" (120 pages) ? Bruno Le 08-nov.-05, à 10:54, Russell Standish a écrit : I wasn't talking about a machine translation, b

Re: Let There Be Something

I wasn't talking about a machine translation, but a machine assisted translation. I would take the machine translated text, and edit it into idomatic English - using my knowledge of the French text and the subject to assist. Diagrams would probably be left unchanged. It will still be a large task,

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 06-nov.-05, à 08:38, Russell Standish a écrit : On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 03:37:52PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote: physics. BTW, I am still waiting to read an English version of your Thesis. That, I hope, might help me. Have you considered Google's translation services? With a little ar

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 07-nov.-05, à 08:29, Hal Finney writes: Bruno writes: OK. But the word "universe" can be misleading here. It is probably less misleading to say that the Universal Dovetailer generates all computations. By assuming comp, this generates also all the (first person) observer-moments (states/wo

Re: Rép : Let there be Something

Hi John M, Bruno, fine, do you mean that you can (with any considered means you may apply) THINK differently from your "human mind's" working conditions? That you can absorb and understand the humanly unabsorbable and ununderstandable? When I wrote my sci-fi, I wanted to apply something 'real

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 05-nov.-05, à 21:37, Stephen Paul King a écrit :     And it is that timelessness that I am basing my argument against your thesis! YOu are ignoring the vast number of arguments that have been found in physics and even the reasoning comming from computer science, for example the Calude et

Re: Let There Be Something

Hi Stephen, That is a fascinating claim! "...we could argue the UD is 0 dimensional: it computes an undefined function with 0 arguments."     What is the quantity of computational resources required for such a computation? Probably null. Provably so with the QM hypothesis or the comp hyp.      

Re: Let There Be Something

I don't agree that your original query was left unanswered - it was answered by several people, in possibly contradictory ways (that remains to be seen - I tend to see the commonality). Perhaps you mean the answers were unsatisfactory for you, in which case I'd be interested in hearing from you why

Re: Let There Be Something

Hi Jesse, I think the point is that arithmetical realism is a faith. That every number has a successor is an axiom, thus considered as true. But while I believe in arithmetical realism I can conceive that other people don't and see arithmetical realism/plantonism has not true/real... that someh

Re: Let There Be Something

Tom wrote: Perhaps there needs to be a new thread for the new topic (Game of Life, etc.). It seems my original inquiry has been left unanswered, but this is my point. My challenge was that multiverse theory is just pulling things out of thin air just as much as any other metaphysical theor

Re: Let There Be Something

Perhaps there needs to be a new thread for the new topic (Game of Life, etc.). It seems my original inquiry has been left unanswered, but this is my point. My challenge was that multiverse theory is just pulling things out of thin air just as much as any other metaphysical theory. At each po

Re: Let There Be Something

Bruno writes: > OK. But the word "universe" can be misleading here. It is probably less > misleading to say that the Universal Dovetailer generates all > computations. By assuming comp, this generates also all the (first > person) observer-moments (states/worlds/...). > The physical reality will

Re: Let There Be Something

On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 05:01:03AM -0500, Bob Hearn wrote: > > On Nov 6, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > > >On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 09:57:17AM -0500, Bob Hearn wrote: > >>However, one can easily imagine a perceptual 2D world existing for > >>conscious entities. Even if there is no sel

Re: Let There Be Something

On Nov 6, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Russell Standish wrote:On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 09:57:17AM -0500, Bob Hearn wrote:However, one can easily imagine a perceptual 2D world existing for  conscious entities. Even if there is no self-consistent 2D physics  leading to atoms, planets, etc., one can computational

Re: Let There Be Something

On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 03:37:52PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote: > physics. BTW, I am still waiting to read an English version of your Thesis. > That, I hope, might help me. Have you considered Google's translation > services? > With a little arm twisting, I might be tempted into assisting in

Re: Let There Be Something

On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 09:57:17AM -0500, Bob Hearn wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2005, at 2:22 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > > >Game of Life is an example 2D system capable of universal > >computation. I'm not sure this implies consciousness is possible in > >2D, but it needs to be considered. > > It do

Re: Let There Be Something

Yes - that's exactly what I meant. Assuming computationalism, consciousness is implied. I do not always assume computationalism :) ... On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 02:51:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 05-nov.-05, ? 08:22, Russell Standish a ?crit : > > >Game of Life is an example 2D system c

Re: R�p : Let there be Something

Bruno, fine, do you mean that you can (with any considered means you may apply) THINK differently from your "human mind's" working conditions? That you can absorb and understand the humanly unabsorbable and ununderstandable? When I wrote my sci-fi, I wanted to apply something 'really' esoteric (

Re: Let There Be Something

estion is born from your comment: Is > your notion of a "dimension" flow from linear > independence, like that of vectors? How does one > define the notion of a "basis" in this computational > dimension? > > Onward! > > Stephen > > - Original

Re: Let There Be Something

Dear Bruno, - Original Message - From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Cc: "Everything-List List" Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:31 AMSubject: Re: Let There Be SomethingLe 05-nov.-05, à 15:57, Stephen Paul

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 05-nov.-05, à 15:57, Stephen Paul King a écrit : Again, Bruno, your theory prohibits *any* kind of notion that involves *change*. That is its Achilles Heel. We already discussed this. When you define the first person by the Theaetetical trick you get freely, from the self-reference lo

Re: Let There Be Something

ything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 8:47 AM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Le 05-nov.-05, à 04:52, Stephen Paul King wrote( to George):     It seems to me that the notion of "storing" and communication 1 bit explicitly requires some form of sta

Re: Let There Be Something

ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Everything-List List" Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 9:01 AM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Hi Stephen, Can atoms exist in a 2D universe? I remember having read that 17 sort of atoms can exist in some natural 2-dimensional QM. I don't know if

Re: Let There Be Something

On Nov 5, 2005, at 2:22 AM, Russell Standish wrote:Game of Life is an example 2D system capable of universalcomputation. I'm not sure this implies consciousness is possible in2D, but it needs to be considered.It does imply that if the Game of Life is the laws of physics of your universe, then consc

Re: Let There Be Something

Hi Stephen, Can atoms exist in a 2D universe? I remember having read that 17 sort of atoms can exist in some natural 2-dimensional QM. I don't know if this is related to the anyons and Hall effects where particles are squeezed in two dimensional trap (by powerful magnetic field). I have i

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 05-nov.-05, à 08:22, Russell Standish a écrit : Game of Life is an example 2D system capable of universal computation. I'm not sure this implies consciousness is possible in 2D, but it needs to be considered. It is easy, although very tedious, to program a Universal Dovetailer, in the gam

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 05-nov.-05, à 04:52, Stephen Paul King wrote( to George):     It seems to me that the notion of "storing" and communication 1 bit explicitly requires some form of stable structure over multiple queries. Does this not lead to the requirement of some form of physicality, a physicality that is ep

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 03-nov.-05, à 19:29, Hal Finney a écrit : Bruno Marchal writes: And that illustrates the advantage of the comp theory, it gives by construction the correct physics, without any need, for a comp "believer" to verify it. Except, of course, that comp need to be postulated and we must be open

Re: Rép : Let there be Something

Le 03-nov.-05, à 17:13, John M a écrit : Bruno, I love your closing sentence! I am not a physicist. Why do you think that philosophers don't use some anthropocentric mind-work in identifying 'principles'? They use that indeed. But they use also deeper xxx-thropocentric principle. To focus o

Re: Let There Be Something

Saturday, November 05, 2005 2:22 AM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Game of Life is an example 2D system capable of universal computation. I'm not sure this implies consciousness is possible in 2D, but it needs to be considered. I think Turing machines are impossible in 1D, however...

Re: Let There Be Something

> > Stephen > > - Original Message - > From: George Levy > To: Everything List > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:17 PM > Subject: Re: Let There Be Something > > > I conjecture that if one can design physical laws for a universe capable

Re: Let There Be Something

Everything List Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:17 PM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something I conjecture that if one can design physical laws for a universe capable of 1) supporting the NAND function 2) storing (locally) 1 bit, 3) transmitting 1 bit from one point to another point

Re: Let There Be Something

I conjecture that if one can design physical laws for a universe capable of 1) supporting the NAND function 2) storing (locally) 1 bit, 3) transmitting 1 bit from one point to another point, then one could also generate a Turing machine in this universe which would then be capable of supporting

Re: Let There Be Something

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 03:21:50PM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Russell Standish writes: > > It predicts that either a) there is no conscious life in a GoL > > universe (thus contradicting computationalism) or b) the physics as > > seen by conscious GoL observers will be quantum mechanical in natur

Re: Let There Be Something

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:18:01AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Hi Russel, > > Le Jeudi 03 Novembre 2005 22:11, Russell Standish a ??crit??: > > > > > Even then, there is still a loophole. I suspect that 3D environment > > are far more likely to evolve the complex structures needed for > > con

Re: Let There Be Something

Hi Tom: One of the goals of my search for a model was to explain why there is an observed dynamic. The Somethings that are launched from my Nothing/All pair include evolving Somethings [due to their incompleteness]. This evolution causes states of universes resident in the All to be given a

Re: Let There Be Something

Russell Standish writes: > It predicts that either a) there is no conscious life in a GoL > universe (thus contradicting computationalism) or b) the physics as > seen by conscious GoL observers will be quantum mechanical in nature. > > If one could establish that a given GoL structure is conscious,

Re: Let There Be Something

Hi Russel, Le Jeudi 03 Novembre 2005 22:11, Russell Standish a écrit : > > Even then, there is still a loophole. I suspect that 3D environment > are far more likely to evolve the complex structures needed for > consciousness, so that conscious GoL observers are indeed a rare > thing. I don't know

Re: Let There Be Something

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:39:27PM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Russell Standish writes: > > Lack of convincing is perhaps due to lack of understanding. Even I do > > not fully understand the true worth of my "derivation". It seems to me > > that I show that any physical theory that takes into acco

Re: Let There Be Something

Russell Standish writes: > Lack of convincing is perhaps due to lack of understanding. Even I do > not fully understand the true worth of my "derivation". It seems to me > that I show that any physical theory that takes into account > observation must have that Hilbert space structure, with that fo

Re: Let There Be Something

Bruno Marchal writes: > And that illustrates the advantage of the comp theory, it gives by > construction the correct physics, without any need, for a comp > "believer" to verify it. Except, of course, that comp need to be > postulated and we must be open it is could be false. With comp, you >

Re: Let There Be Something

than any Intelligent-Being-opic Principle would dictate. But what about the other points and challenges in my post, below? Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 08:53:30 EST Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Hal Finney

Re: Let There Be Something

Thanks Russell, for the testimony for our not being omniscient. I concur with Hal in his assumption that recent-day physics is "close-to-right" - because it is within the model-view of what we identified (over centuries) as the "physical view of the world" strictly within our actual (and continual

Fwd: Re: R�p : Let there be Something

Note: forwarded message attached. --- Begin Message --- --- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le 02-nov.-05, à 21:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit > : > > > I should make another point, that it seems very > likely that the worm > > has no way of developing the in-apple technology >

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 03-nov.-05, à 12:12, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : Hi Bruno, Le Jeudi 3 Novembre 2005 11:14, vous avez écrit : Le 02-nov.-05, à 21:23, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : I could'nt imagine what would it be for a human to knows the why and being able to prove it... Then you should like comp (and its

Re: Let There Be Something

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:03:21PM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > I don't think most of our versions of multiverse theories depend on the > assumption that present-day physics is close to being right. It's true > that we have some efforts such as those of Russell Standish to derive QM > from a mu

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 03-nov.-05, à 06:03, Hal Finney a écrit : In short, if there really exists a simple mathematical explanation of our universe, which IMO is a prediction of multiverse theories, I don't see our present physical models as being very close to that goal. That doesn't mean that multiverse theories

Rép : Let there be Something

Le 02-nov.-05, à 21:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I should make another point, that it seems very likely that the worm has no way of developing the in-apple technology to find out about quantum mechanics or DNA. This emphasizes the fact that we, with our quantum theories, M-theories, and l

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 02-nov.-05, à 21:23, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : I could'nt imagine what would it be for a human to knows the why and being able to prove it... Then you should like comp (and its generalisation) because it explain the why, and it justifies completely wxhy we cannot and will never been abl

Re: Let There Be Something

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > We're very ambitious on this list, aiming for the One True Theory which will > explain the universe. It's fair enough to keep this in mind as the ultimate > goal, but you have to remember that every generation of scientists has > thought this goal was just in reach,

Re: Let There Be Something

Hi Hal, Indeed, if intellectual progress had continued at the rate it had in ancient Athens, for example, and provided that the Greeks overcame their disdain for technology (which promotes as well as feeds off "pure" science), we would have colonised the stars by now, and who knows where our p

Re: Let There Be Something

I heard a quote today [source I did not hear] that may add flavor to this discussion: [to paraphrase] "Irrationality is not an argument against the existence of a thing, it is merely a condition of a thing." Hal Ruhl

Re: Let There Be Something

Tom Caylor writes: I should make another point, that it seems very likely that the worm has no way of developing the in-apple technology to find out about quantum mechanics or DNA. This emphasizes the fact that we, with our quantum theories, M-theories, and loop gravity etc. could be just as

Re: Let There Be Something

Hi Tom: At 08:53 AM 11/2/2005, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: > So as in the case of my Nothing and my All it seems > the apex of causation may be neither infinite regression > "or" termination but rather both [an "and"]. I'm saying that the "All" is on equal ontological footing with the "Nothing"

Re: Let There Be Something

Tom Caylor writes: > I disagree. How can the worm apply a probability distribution over > things that he knows nothing of, such as trees, people, and evolution? The same way that we can reason about things we know nothing of, such as blinkers, puffer trains, glider guns and other objects in Co

Re: Let There Be Something

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > By the way, I recently read an article about astonometers finding > aromatic hydrocarbons in outer space. This totally baffles them, since > they don't know how things like this could've gotten there or survived. > This lends more weight to the possibility that maybe t

Re: Let There Be Something

1:23:47 +0100 Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Hi, I don't think the super-intelligent worm is a good analogy... first because you made to much assumption of his way of thinking, second I don't see the relevance of a super-intelligent worm in an apple compared to the myth of the

Re: Let There Be Something

ent: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:58:30 -0500 > Subject: Re: Let There Be Something > > Hal,  >   > I disagree. How can the worm apply a probability distribution over > things that he knows nothing of, such as trees, people, and evolution? > Using the Wormopic Principle, when the wor

Re: Let There Be Something

explaining the universe as the worm is. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:58:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Hal,    I disagree. How can the worm apply a probability distribution over things that

Re: Let There Be Something

;t, resulting in being totally disabled in being able to explain everything in biology (to our satisfaction). Tom -Original Message- From: Hal Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:13:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Tom C

Re: Let There Be Something

Tom Caylor writes: > To look at this from a different perspective, suppose there was a worm that > lived in an apple, and the worm was super-intelligent to the point of being > able to grasp all of our mathematical concepts that Tegmark claims are > sufficient to describe all of reality. The

Re: Let There Be Something

Hal Finney wrote: > Are you saying that you don't agree that the anthropic principle > applied to an ensemble of instances has greater explanatory > power than when applied to a single instance? Russell wrote: > Perhaps I'm missing your argument here, but I gather you are > claiming that the a

Re: Let There Be Something

PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:23 PM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something

Re: Let There Be Something

Unfortunately lately I do not have the time to read and think through each post but I would like to briefly point out that my approach has the Godelian ingredients of completeness/incompleteness, consistency/inconsistency and self reference. The power set of divisions of the list provides [I t

Re: Let There Be Something

Hi, as I said before I don't think/feel that single universe is on the same level as multiverse... Just by using "absurd" feeling I was talking about. If there is a single reality, you have to anwser why this one ? why like this ? what is the ultimate reason for the reality to be limited to thi

Re: Let There Be Something

Perhaps I'm missing your argument here, but I gather you are claiming that the assumption of a plenitude is on an equal ontological footing as the assumption of a single reality, as both are ab initio moves, not derived from any other principle. Whilst I agree that nothing mandates one case or the

Re: Let There Be Something

Tom Caylor writes: > I believe that my statement before: > > >...simply bringing in the hypothetical set of all unobservable things > >doesn't explain rationally in any way (deeper than our direct > >experience) the existence of observable things. > > applies to the multiverse as well, since > the

Re: Let There Be Something

My phrase "something from nothing" was not meant to restrict my inquiry to origins, in the sense of time or causality, but can be viewed in terms of information in general. It seems that the discussion has not contradicted my initial idea that, when it comes to explaining why things are the way t

Re: Let There Be Something

Le 29-oct.-05, à 00:57, Hal Finney a écrit : I would suggest that the multiverse concept is better thought of in somewhat different terms. It's goal is not really to explain where the universe comes from. (In fact, that question does not even make sense to me.) I think we should not confu

Re: Let There Be Something

Kim Jones writes: Then in making that assertion it follows surely that we (x) are all God (y) and God has no particular attributes that we do not possess, being in some sense equivalent. God would then be equivalent to Life. Stathis may have unwittingly "proven" the existence of the big G

Re: Let There Be Something

Then in making that assertion it follows surely that we (x) are all God (y) and God has no particular attributes that we do not possess, being in some sense equivalent. God would then be equivalent to Life. Stathis may have unwittingly "proven" the existence of the big G Kim Jones On 31/

Re: Let There Be Something

Hi Stathis: At 08:19 PM 10/30/2005, you wrote: The same objection to the quest for a first cause applies to the quest for ultimate meaning: you can always ask, if the meaning (or cause, or purpose) of x is y, what's the meaning (or cause, or purpose) of y? If you assert that y is special beca

Re: Let There Be Something

Norman Samish writes: If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be played in

RE: Let There Be Something

Hi John: At 12:02 PM 10/30/2005, you wrote: Stathis, let me address first Tom C's objection addressing the "nothing" (from which nothing can come out) - and I wonder how Hal will feel about this: All we can talk about as "N O TH I N G" is that it does not contain anything we know about. It woul

Re: Let There Be Something

AIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:17 AM > Subject: Re: Let There Be Something > > > snip > > -(excerpts): > >> a "fuzzy feeling" that there "should" be a po

RE: Let There Be Something

Stathis, let me address first Tom C's objection addressing the "nothing" (from which nothing can come out) - and I wonder how Hal will feel about this: All we can talk about as "N O TH I N G" is that it does not contain anything we know about. It would make Tom's absolute no-no if we were omniscien

Re: Let There Be Something

o: Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 10:03 AM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something In my view the entire system we discuss is self referential. For example a line item on my list is the "features" of the list and thus the list itself. The list is a member of itself. There is no "outside&

Re: Let There Be Something

erely an ansatz of some 1st person aspect. Onward! Stephen - Original Message - From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:17 AM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something snip -(excer

Re: Let There Be Something

--- Norman Samish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > --Stathis Papaioannou: > > > > I'll grant you it may be strange, but how is it > any more pointless than > > anything that can happen (or a subset thereof) > happening only once, or a > > finite number of times? > > > > Norman Samish writes:

Fwd: Re: Let There Be Something

--- John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:17:12 -0800 (PST) > From: John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Let There Be Something > To: Norman Samish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > everything-list@eskimo.com > > > >

Re: Let There Be Something

In my view the entire system we discuss is self referential. For example a line item on my list is the "features" of the list and thus the list itself. The list is a member of itself. There is no "outside" and thus I see no opportunity for, or a need for, a meaning or point. Of course in o

Re: Let There Be Something

Norman Samish writes: If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be playe

Re: Let There Be Something

Norman Samish writes: If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be played in

RE: Let There Be Something

Tom Caylor writes: I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of not

Re: Let There Be Something

I want to make it clear that in my sentence and re the details of my post that in my corrected sentence: "Universes do not arise out of nothing but rather out of the mere possibility of Nothing and All." the "... mere possibility of Nothing and All." is a simultaneous possibility since as I

Re: Let There Be Something

~ > > - Original Message - > From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:57 PM > Subject: Re: Let There Be Something > > > > Tom Caylor writes: > >> I

Re: Let There Be Something

Hal Finney wrote: Anthropic reasoning is only explanatory if you assume the actual existence of an ensemble of universes, as multiverse models do. The multiverse therefore elevates anthropic reasoning from something of a tautology, a form of circular reasoning, up to an actual explanatory princi

Re: Let There Be Something

Sorry my last sentence should have been: Universes do not arise out of nothing but rather out of the mere possibility of Nothing and All. Hal

  1   2   >