Jason, I don't have anything against your question just pick one expression
from your post:
---..."or are there other conceivable universes"...--
Are you meaning that "conceivable" (for us?) includes 'inconceivable' (for
us) as well, or would you rather restrict your 'list' to such universes that
are within the restrictions of our human concepts?
John M
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jason Resch <jasonresch.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>>
>>
>> PS I think I see the point that you are still missing. I will have to
>> explain that whatever the physical universe is, in the case I am Turing
>> emulable, the physical universe is NOT turing emulable.
>
>
> Bruno, this was the item I was asking (or at least had meant to ask) you
> about several days ago. But it was phrased differently, something like "If
> I am the universe and the universe is not turning emulable then comp is
> false" Here you are saying the universe is not turning emulable, so if comp
> is true that implies "I != universe". I look forward to your explanation of
> why the universe is not Turing emulable. BTW: Does this apply to just the
> Everett Universe, or are there other conceivable universes which are
> emulable in addition to the observers they might contain?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Tue Nov 11 2008 - 14:32:19 PST