On 12/16/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:45 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:On 12/16/2013 8:52 PM, LizR wrote:On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com <mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> wrote: Dear LizR, That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an observer in such a universe, it's far too simple." There could not be one wherefore "he could deduce the existence of 17 theoretically, and work out its properties" is impossible: probability zero. I can't see the significance of this argument. If we take a large enough number, say 10^80, that observers /can /exist, we can then ask whether such observers could work out the properties of numbers greater than 10^80.Can we? Whenever I add 1 to 10^80 I get 10^80 in spite of Peano.Use a programming language such as python or Java which supports big integers. It will let you add 1 to 10^80.
I know. I was just taking 10^80 to mean "a very big number" which of course depends on context. I generally do applied physics and engineering and so 10^80+1 = 10^80 for physical variables.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
