Re: Observer Moment or Observer Space?

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 09:29:40PM -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote: As I understand your Theory of Nothing book the Everything in it has or at least contains time like components [time postulate]. I agree but apparently for a different reason. In your reply to Jason you allowed that the OM machine

Re: Neuroquantology

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/01/poltergeists-and-qua.html I think that answers that question On 28/03/2008, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just had a cold call from an editor of a fairly new journal called NeuroQuantology (http://www.neuroquantology.com/), which has its

RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?

Hi Russell: You wrote: The time postulate is a requirement of observerhood. I'm not sure this means that time-like components are in the Everything, but I can accept this is possible. I don't know of any similar requirement for space, but I have tossed around some ideas to do with embedding