Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

Hal Ruhl wrote: At 11:41 PM 12/18/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: 'The laws of logic need not be thought of as rules of discovery, they can be thought of purely as expressing Expressing seems to be a time dependent process. I don't think it needs to be. When we say a certain set of symbols

Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

John M wrote: Dear Jesse, ashamed for breaking my decision NOT to babble into this discussion with my personal common sense, here is something to your position from my problems: (First a bit of nitpicking, as an appetizer) For example, in every world where X and Y are simultaneously true, it is

Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

Hi Jesse: I do not think the conversation re: I can't think of any historical examples of new mathematical/scientific/philosophical ideas that require you to already believe their premises in order to justify these premises, has a valid place in this thread. Can you tell me why you do? Hal

Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

Hal Ruhl wrote: I do not think the conversation re: I can't think of any historical examples of new mathematical/scientific/philosophical ideas that require you to already believe their premises in order to justify these premises, has a valid place in this thread. Can you tell me why you do?