Re: Consistency?

From: jamikes <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:11:19 -0400

Hal wrote:
(Subject: Consistency?)


> If one takes the position that "logical proof" is not universally relevant
> to the evolution of universes within the Everything and the determination
> of the sequence of successive states of a universe is replaced with
> concepts such as "computable" or my "acceptable" what role does "logical
> consistency" play?

Since we are part of the Everything and our logic is part of us, "logical
proof"
would be a pars pro toto category mistake to control relevant or acceptable
anything (changes, etc.). Computable as well. It is in our mind, not
restrictive
to Everything - which is not restricted to what we think or observe.
>
> Logical consistency would seem to play no role. The transition is merely
> "acceptable". More than one "acceptable" successor state enables
splitting.
>
How about rather: "to be accepted"?

> Hal
>
John MIkes
Received on Thu May 17 2001 - 07:32:57 PDT