On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi jason,
Do programs have to be deterministic. What definition of deterministic
are you using?
All Turing-equivalent computation is deterministic. By deterministic I
mean the (N+1)th state of the
Dear Edgar,
In Bruno's Platonia there is no such thing as time so we can not make
arguments involving cycles of time. All just exists.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Let me point out one fatal problem with Bruno's theory as you present it.
Hi Jason,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
How do we distinguish a program from a string of random numbers.
(Consider OTP encryptions).
By we do you mean
Hi Jason,
It is Markov... OK.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi jason,
Do programs have to be deterministic. What definition of
deterministic are you
If it is Markov, the BB problem automatically follows.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
It is Markov... OK.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:03 PM,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Let me point out one fatal problem with Bruno's theory as you present it.
According to you there is some single processor that runs all this UD
stuff, but the truth is that in actual computational reality every
Stephen,
Even worse, and less applicable to reality if it's really true, but Jason
is clearly talking about sequences of computations, and befores and afters.
How can sequences occur if there's no time? And how does time arise?
Seems awfully unrealistic to me
Edgar
On Friday, December
On 28 December 2013 17:15, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:06 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Clearly programmes don't have to be deterministic. They could contain a
source of genuine randomness, in principle.
That source, if it is within the program,
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute it
in real time which is what reality actually does which is my point.
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:19:17 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
It is not a question of whether or not that binary string refers to
anything that is true or not, only what its particular value happens to
be. No no no! We can not make statements without
On 28 December 2013 17:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Even worse, and less applicable to reality if it's really true, but Jason
is clearly talking about sequences of computations, and befores and afters.
How can sequences occur if there's no time? And how does time
Hi Edgar,
But here is the thing. If we assume timelessness, Bruno is CORRECT! THe
question then becomes: What is time?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Even worse, and less applicable to reality if it's really true, but Jason
is clearly
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
How do we distinguish a
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
If it is Markov, the BB problem automatically follows.
BB = Boltzmann Brains ?
What is the problem? BB's exist in the UD, as we discussed above, but they
seem like they would have a low measure compared
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of determinism is
random noise is necessary for the computations. Turing machines require
exact pre-specifiability. Adding noise oracles is cheating!
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute
it in real time which is what reality actually does which is my point.
In real time ?! In comp (and many TOEs) time is emergent. To take a
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Even worse, and less applicable to reality if it's really true, but Jason
is clearly talking about sequences of computations, and befores and afters.
How can sequences occur if there's no time?
The sequence
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
It is not a question of whether or not that binary string refers to
anything that is true or not, only what its particular
On 28 December 2013 17:27, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of determinism
is random noise is necessary for the computations. Turing machines
require exact pre-specifiability. Adding noise oracles
On 28 December 2013 17:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
If it is Markov, the BB problem automatically follows.
BB = Boltzmann Brains ?
Yes.
What is the problem? BB's exist in the UD, as
Hi Jason,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
It is not a question of whether or not that binary string refers to
anything that is true or not, only
This low measure, how is its lowness determined? What is doing the
comparing operation?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
If it is Markov, the BB problem
On 28 December 2013 17:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Jason,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
It is not a question of
A post from today...
If you had walked up to someone living in prehistoric times and had a
conversation about the Sun and the Moon, it would probably be an easy way
of talking about the concept of opposites. It’s an embodied metaphor which
is almost absurdly plain. The Sun, a featureless
Hi LizR,
the relative time (as perceived by some imaginary third party) is
irrelevant. SO long as the interactions are synchronized correctly, lag is
irrelevant. Time is a measure of change of one element in a sequence to
another, the duration of the sequence is not relevant here unless we are
Why do real world computers use noise oracles, or their equivalent?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:27, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute
it in real time which is what reality actually does which is my point.
It would seem exactly the same to you whether reality were computed
Anything that emulates a Turing machine to sufficient accuracy (i.e. can
expand its tape as necessary). How is this determined without actually
running the computation on a physical machine?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:33 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:31, Stephen Paul
The temporal re-parametrization is irrelevant here. What matters is whether
it is live or memorex...
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to
Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important topic
of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.
As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There simply
is no true classical level randomness. There is plenty of non-computability
which
On 28 December 2013 17:34, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It could be said that the electric force, figuratively if not literally
(but maybe literally, given a rehabilitated view of physics), creates time.
It is *the animation of circuitry.* Electricity is algebraic and logical
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of determinism
is random noise is necessary for the computations. Turing machines
require exact pre-specifiability. Adding noise
On 28 December 2013 17:36, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
the relative time (as perceived by some imaginary third party) is
irrelevant. SO long as the interactions are synchronized correctly, lag is
irrelevant. Time is a measure of change of one element in a
On 28 December 2013 17:37, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Why do real world computers use noise oracles, or their equivalent?
Do they?
I think you're thinking of real world *programmes*, ones that need to
simulate randomness - e.g. for games, or to generate encryption
On 28 December 2013 17:38, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Anything that emulates a Turing machine to sufficient accuracy (i.e. can
expand its tape as necessary). How is this determined without actually
running the computation on a physical machine?
How is what determined?
I also suspect that quantum makes spacetime rather than being phenomena
which take place in spacetime, if that's what you're proposing. I'm not
sure however that explaining physical space as information space is
ultimately an improvement. Without linking either one to awareness, the
result is
Are we confusing the real thing with the Platonic?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the
On 28 December 2013 17:41, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of determinism
is random noise is necessary for the
Liz,
Then how about answering my simple questions if you understand UD so well?
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:23:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:19, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Stephen,
Even worse, and less applicable to reality if it's really
I have studied encryptions. My mind is still recovering from reading the
Stay and Vicary paper! (It shows an equivalence in principle between one
time pad encryptions and quantum teleportation protocols...)
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013
On 28 December 2013 17:43, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Then how about answering my simple questions if you understand UD so well?
Who said I understand the UD so well?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On 28 December 2013 17:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
I have studied encryptions. My mind is still recovering from reading the
Stay and Vicary paper! (It shows an equivalence in principle between one
time pad encryptions and quantum teleportation protocols...)
I read
That is the question, isn't it!
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:38, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Anything that emulates a Turing machine to sufficient accuracy (i.e.
can expand its tape as necessary). How is this
Ah, but they do degrade. Consider your ability to access a '80s floppy
drive's data.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:41, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Stephen Paul King
On 28 December 2013 17:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
That is the question, isn't it!
I think this thread just disappeared into its own Ouroboros...
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:38, Stephen Paul King
Yeah, it is! Its about how one computer's noise is another computer's
signal!
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:44, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
I have studied encryptions. My mind is still recovering from reading
Loops are sometimes allowed as outputs of computations. :-)
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:45, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
That is the question, isn't it!
I think this thread just disappeared into its own
On 28 December 2013 17:46, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Ah, but they do degrade. Consider your ability to access a '80s floppy
drive's data.
Well, that's because people haven't worked out how to do it perfectly. I
agree digital archaeology is a real problem, but so would
On 28 December 2013 17:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Yeah, it is! Its about how one computer's noise is another computer's
signal!
It throws SETI into a loop too. How can we detect encrypted signals from
the stars? They'll look like noise!
--
You received this
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
It is not a
On 28 December 2013 17:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Loops are sometimes allowed as outputs of computations. :-)
I think we came out one turn higher on the spiral staircase.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
Assuming everything is quantum (as most physicists do) then clearly all
randomness must be.
--
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
Most TOEs try to get space-time as emergent from something simpler.
On 28 December 2013 17:43, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I also suspect that quantum makes spacetime rather than being phenomena
which take place in spacetime, if that's what you're proposing. I'm not
sure
Craig,
Yes, I'm proposing that spacetime emerges from quantum events. But your
second question depends on this since if spacetime emerges from quantum
events there can be no physical space since physical space is exactly what
we agreed doesn't exist until it emerges from quantum events which
Hi LizR,
This is fun! :-) We must remember that we are defining People as
intersections of infinitely many computations. Right? Their perceptions of
themselves as physical being having some particular set of configuration,
for example bilateral symmetry, etc. is not really relevant to UDA. So,
http://kauffman2013.wordpress.com/
:-)
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:51 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:47, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Loops are sometimes allowed as outputs of computations. :-)
I think we came out one turn higher on the
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi LizR,
This is fun! :-) We must remember that we are defining People as
intersections of infinitely many computations. Right? Their perceptions of
themselves as physical being having some particular
Hi Jason,
I would like to know the definition of reality that you are using here.
Here is mine: *That which is incontrovertible for some collection of
observers that can communicate*. This definition requires interactions and
thus requires some form of primitive becoming. Platonia does not
Hi Jason,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
I would like to know the definition of reality that you are using
here.
Reality I normally define
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
PS to answer your other question. In the double slit experiment there is
no pre-existing dimensional space for the electron to be in more than one
place in.
Then what is it interfering with if not itself?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
If there are no faster-than-light
On 12/27/2013 7:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually
exist. When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than
being a fixed background to them these questions disappear.
If the
On 12/27/2013 7:54 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state
of the
UD's execution are mathematical facts
Hi Brent,
What is executing it?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:13 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/27/2013 7:54 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and
On 12/27/2013 7:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually exist. When it is
recognized that space emerges from events rather than being a fixed background to them
these questions disappear.
E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite
On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote:
Jason,
Answers to
On 12/27/2013 8:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Let me point out one fatal problem with Bruno's theory as you present it.
According to you there is some single processor that runs all this UD stuff, but the
truth is that in actual computational reality every logical element
What is a
On 12/27/2013 8:24 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Edgar,
But here is the thing. If we assume timelessness, Bruno is CORRECT! THe question then
becomes: What is time?
It's a computed partial ordering relation between events.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Computed how? By what?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/27/2013 8:24 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Edgar,
But here is the thing. If we assume timelessness, Bruno is CORRECT!
THe question then becomes: What is time?
It's a computed
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/27/2013 7:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
If there are no faster-than-light (FTL)
On 28 December 2013 18:03, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Jason,
I would like to know the definition of reality that you are using here.
I quite like whatever doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Computed how? By what?
I know the answer to this one! To quote Brent -- He proposes to dispense
with any physical computation and have the UD exist via arithmetical
realism as an abstract, immaterial computation.
--
On 12/27/2013 8:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
If it is Markov, the BB
Right. That is why the word incontrovertible is included. One's opinions
and desires, etc. con't matter a hill of beans to what is necessarily true
for come collection of (multiple!) observers. I also assume a version of
the anthropic principle: An observer can only experience a reality that
is
On 28 December 2013 19:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/27/2013 8:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
If it is Markov, the BB problem
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08
On 12/27/2013 8:37 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Why do real world computers use noise oracles, or their equivalent?
Because for some problems it is quick and easy to check a proposed solution, but difficult
to calculate one. So you generate proposed solutions at random until one of them
On 12/27/2013 8:52 PM, LizR wrote:
Assuming everything is quantum (as most physicists do) then clearly all
randomness must be.
But note that Bruno wants to avoid this by making first-person continuity
uncertain.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 28 December 2013 19:37, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:26,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
I would like
On 28 December 2013 19:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/27/2013 8:52 PM, LizR wrote:
Assuming everything is quantum (as most physicists do) then clearly all
randomness must be.
But note that Bruno wants to avoid this by making first-person continuity
uncertain.
Hmm. Not
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important
topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.
As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There
simply is no
Hi Brent,
How long do we have to wait of the generations to run when time
isn't an allowed concept? In Platonia there is no time, therefore no
arguments that imply the necessary existence of time are allowed.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:40 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
101 - 184 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
