Re: Let There Be Something

From: Russell Standish <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:25:59 +1100

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:50:23PM -0500, Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> To me it's very simple, and I've already laid it out in just a few words
> below, and in more words in different ways in my previous posts on this thread.
> Russell, you've even said in your Why Occam's Razor paper that the Plenitude
> is ontologically to Nothing. To it follows that the following two mappings
> are the same:
>
> Plenitude --> Something
> Nothing --> Something
>
> It's basically a singularity either way. That's why I invoked the word
> "faith" below.
>
> Tom
>

What do you mean by singularity in this context? It does not
parse. Getting something from nothing is usually considered
problematic. Getting something from everything is not. Demonstrating
the equivalence of nothing and everything solves the problem does it
not?

Cheers

-- 
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	       0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         R.Standish.domain.name.hidden             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Sat Nov 12 2005 - 22:32:05 PST