Maybe true, maybe not. Nevertheless this is a more sophisticated
critique than what has been posted so far.
BTW - extracting a finite amount of information from the plenitude is
more akin to extracting a segment from an orange. Both the segment and
the orange are infinite sets of points (of course
On 11/12/05, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But extracting something from the Plenitude is trivial, or so it seems
> to most people. If I have an infinite bin of dollar coins, and I owe
> you $10, I don't see any difficulty in paying you the $10. Do you?
>
Please quote something fro
But extracting something from the Plenitude is trivial, or so it seems
to most people. If I have an infinite bin of dollar coins, and I owe
you $10, I don't see any difficulty in paying you the $10. Do you?
Cheers
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:57:38PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the previou
In the previous post I should have said, "Russell, you've even said in your
Why Occam's Razor paper that the Plenitude is ontologically _equivalent_ to
Nothing."
Tom
--- Begin Message ---
To me it's very simple, and I've already laid it out in just a few words
below, and in more words in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I'll "break the symmetry" of relative silence on this list
lately.
I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get
something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a
selection principle does not explain anything. I see no r
5 matches
Mail list logo
