Hal Ruhl writes:
> Hi Bruno:> > I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.> > Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its > evolving universes - meaning I take it that all > successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state.
You mean "physical consequences" or something similar, don't you? I don't see anything logically inconsistent about a talking white rabbit or even the atoms of my keyboard reassembling themselves into a fire-breathing dragon.
Stathis Papaioannou
> I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two.> > Lets us say that you are correct about this > result re your model, this just seems to > reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order > to avoid the information generating selection in the full set.> > Yours> > Hal Ruhl> > > At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote:> > > >Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit :> >> > > As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as> > > a subset.> >> >> >This means that even if "my theory" makes disappear all (1-person)> >white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does> >not reintroduce new one.> >> >Bruno> >> >> >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/> >> >> >> > _________________________________________________________________
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Feb 05 2007 - 23:25:32 PST