Charles Goodwin wrote:
I was talking about the laws of physics. It's possible in principle for
those to be known (I think). One can also know all there is
to know while knowing that one's knowledge is incomplete! Obviously a
complete description of reality is impossible (where would you
store
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:15 PM
Subject: RE: My history or Peters??
I was talking about the laws of physics. It's possible in
principle for
those to be known (I think). One can also know all there is
to know while knowing
Charles Goodwin wrote (to Fred Chen):
The term 'laws of physics' is shorthand for whatever rules the universe
operates by on the most fundamental scale.
[...]
This has meaning if we take for granted that the term the universe
denotes something.
What if the most fundamental scale is just
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:15 PM
Subject: RE: My history or Peters??
I was talking about the laws of physics. It's possible in
principle for
those to be known (I think). One can also know all there is
to know while knowing that one's knowledge is incomplete!
Obviously
Charles wrote (sometimes ago):
On the other hand we may eventually learn all there is to learn. That's
also possible.
There is no unifying complete theory of just number theory or Arithmetic,
neither computer science.
You can try to solve the riddle in diagonalisation 1. It is a
shortcut for
Brent Meeker wrote:
Hello Marchal
On 05-Sep-01, Marchal wrote:
Even if we are more than a universal computing machine, it is easy
to explain there is a sense in which we are *at least* universal
computing machines (even the kind which can know that(°)), and that is
enough for
the state of every particle?) but a complete codified
description of how reality works is another story.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2001 4:14 a.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: My history
7 matches
Mail list logo
