Saibal Mitra wrote:
>Bruno wrote:
>
>At 16:25 +0200 11/10/1996, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
>>>You can still have realism, but it must be the >>case that at least some
>of
>>>the things we think of as ``real physical objects´´ >>like e.g. electrons
>are
>>>not real.
>
>
>>What would that mean? What woul
Gordon wrote:
>But you have an inconsistent idea in that on the one hand a theory which
>say that they are physical object that becoame no physical and then just
>comp pure comp.Now although I dont thing it that narrow just like the
>old Clock work view, I do think that your theory can be simpler
Refinements to the next stages of my model.
Proposal
A type #2 universe can look and evolve like our universe.
Justification: Stage 1
Designate the succession of states for universe "j" as Sj(i) and its
representative binary bit string as Uj(i) where "i" runs over some range of
integers from
3 matches
Mail list logo
