John, I meant loosely a universe conceivable by anyone (that might conceivably exist [?]), not limited to human conceptions.
Jason On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jason, I don't have anything against your question just pick one expression > from your post: > > ---..."or are there other conceivable universes"...-- > > Are you meaning that "conceivable" (for us?) includes 'inconceivable' (for > us) as well, or would you rather restrict your 'list' to such universes that > are within the restrictions of our human concepts? > John M > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jason Resch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> PS I think I see the point that you are still missing. I will have to >>> explain that whatever the physical universe is, in the case I am Turing >>> emulable, the physical universe is NOT turing emulable. >> >> >> Bruno, this was the item I was asking (or at least had meant to ask) you >> about several days ago. But it was phrased differently, something like "If >> I am the universe and the universe is not turning emulable then comp is >> false" Here you are saying the universe is not turning emulable, so if comp >> is true that implies "I != universe". I look forward to your explanation of >> why the universe is not Turing emulable. BTW: Does this apply to just the >> Everett Universe, or are there other conceivable universes which are >> emulable in addition to the observers they might contain? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
<<inline: 347.png>>
