Le 18-nov.-05, à 05:26, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
It seems logical. The Notion of "Everything" is 1st person in the
sense that one, any one, can find itself within it. Nothing, on the
other hand, only makes sense as seen from some external vantage point,
hence it is 3rd person.
I can
Nothing. The notion of something requires an "other" against
which it is distinguished; there is no "other" in Nothingness.
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:00:04PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Hi James and Russell,
>
>Could a middle ground be found in the notion that "something" is a
> differentiated piece of Nothing, where Everything (1st person notion) and
> Nothing (3rd person notion) are one and the same?
I
?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James N Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Everything-List List"
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: contention: theories are incompatible
From: "James N Rose"
> "Conservation" as a 'fundamental rule of condition'
> is incompatible and antithetical with any notions
> of "many worlds".
Are conservation principles only defined in
closed systems? Is a 'world' a closed system?
There is, i.e., a no-deleting theorem (similar
to the no-c
At 10:14 PM 11/16/2005, James N Rose wrote:
An open hypothesis to list members:
"Conservation" as a 'fundamental rule of condition'
is incompatible and antithetical with any notions
of "many worlds".
Either explicitly excludes and precludes the other;
can't have both and retain a consistent exi
I don't see why. Conservation of information is a fundamental property
of the Multiverse, and is directly equivalent to the law of unitary
evolution in quantum mechanics.
If you are talking about conservation of energy, are you aware that
the total energy content of the universe is zero? All of ma
An open hypothesis to list members:
"Conservation" as a 'fundamental rule of condition'
is incompatible and antithetical with any notions
of "many worlds".
Either explicitly excludes and precludes the other;
can't have both and retain a consistent existentialism.
J Rose
8 matches
Mail list logo
