Hi Georges:
At 08:16 AM 11/14/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
4) A Something: A division of the All into two subparts.
That too, sounds bad to me. It might well be that the only something that
deserve the title of Something would be the All itself. Everything else
might appear so only in our
I am not quite sure how justification (5) is meant to hang on this
structure. Where does the idea of asking questions come from? Why is
the Nothing supposed to be the kind of thing that should asked
questions in the first place? Why is the fact that Nothing can't
answer a question any more
Hi Pete:
At 04:50 PM 11/14/2004, you wrote:
I am not quite sure how justification (5) is meant to hang on this
structure. Where does the idea of asking questions come from? Why is the
Nothing supposed to be the kind of thing that should asked questions in
the first place? Why is the fact
The Nothing in my system is no longer a Nothing once it breaches the
Everything boundary so it can thereafter be active. It is immediately
replaced by a new Nothing.
The language we are using does not allow me to discuss these ideas without
introducing a hint of a thing called time which I do
I would appreciate comments on the following.
Proposal: The Existence of our and other universes and their dynamics are
the result of unavoidable definition and logical incompleteness.
Justification:
1) Given definitions 1, 2, and 3:
2) These definitions are interdependent because you can not
Sorry, I placed the definitions at the end of my post for easy group
reference and forgot to mention it.
Hal
[The whole post]:
I would appreciate comments on the following.
I placed the definitions at the end for easy group reference.
Proposal: The Existence of our and other universes and their dynamics are
the result of unavoidable definition and logical incompleteness.
Justification:
1) Given
101 - 107 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
