Infinite worlds, Quantum indeterminacy, and The endlessly generative
in [Logic]
|
From: Zerkon on 2 Mar 2010 08:25 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:54:41 +0000, John Jones wrote: > Isn't there another way we can define or describe an endlessly > generative universe rather than through "infinite" or "indeterminate" > objects? Potential as an innate property to existing non-duration which can only be conceived by using arrow perceptions of 'time' and change. Infinite being the only conclusion to finite, as determinate must lead to it's opposite, as with end and umm.. point. The only other way to describe all of this is to eradicate point of view but then all discussion becomes impossible. To illustrate this, I shall now not begin.
From: David Canzi on 2 Mar 2010 11:38 In article <hmhnk3$3do$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >Modern science regards the universe as fixed, even if the number of >things that are fixed is "infinite" or "indeterminate". For example, >science's notion of infinite possible worlds and quantum indeterminacy >are all variations on a granular, fixed universe filled with fixed >objects. By "fixed" I mean re-identifiable. A neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Please clarify how the concept of fixity applies to neutron decay. -- David Canzi
From: Ghod Dhammit on 2 Mar 2010 12:17 "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hZSdnVS7trGB4xHWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)posted.internetamerica... > "Smiler" <Smiler(a)joe.king.com> wrote in message [snip] >> Yep. There are zero 'souls'. > > In the book of the religion of atheism. Show us a copy, cretin.
From: Mark Earnest on 2 Mar 2010 14:47 "Ghod Dhammit" <ghod(a)att.net> wrote in message news:_vOdnb-tGbmA1RDWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d(a)supernews.com... > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hZSdnVS7trGB4xHWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)posted.internetamerica... >> "Smiler" <Smiler(a)joe.king.com> wrote in message > [snip] >>> Yep. There are zero 'souls'. >> >> In the book of the religion of atheism. > > Show us a copy, cretin. No need to, you guys quote it all the time.
From: Syd M. on 2 Mar 2010 15:44
On Mar 1, 9:55 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote in message > > news:X4%in.66759$1Y2.6370(a)newsfe03.ams2... > > > > > Mark Earnest wrote: > >> "John Jones" <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > >>news:hmhnk3$3do$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >>> Modern science regards the universe as fixed, even if the number of > >>> things that are fixed is "infinite" or "indeterminate". For example, > >>> science's notion of infinite possible worlds and quantum > >>> indeterminacy are all variations on a granular, fixed universe > >>> filled with fixed objects. By "fixed" I mean re-identifiable. > > >>> Isn't there another way we can define or describe an endlessly > >>> generative universe rather than through "infinite" or > >>> "indeterminate" objects? Such an "endlessly generative" would > >>> immediately disqualify the idea > >>> of time-travel, as all moments would be unique. There could, in > >>> principle, be no returns or revisits. There could also be no > >>> empirically or non-empirically re-identifiable points in space. This > >>> latter idea is already partly endorsed by the quantum lads who, > >>> unlike the Newtonians, do not endorse the idea of the empirical > >>> re-identification of objects. The quantists are, however, committed > >>> to the idea of non-empirically re-identifiable objects in their > >>> notion of "indeterminacy". > > >> **An endlessly generative universe would finally run out and expend > >> itself, as there are only so many souls. > > > Yep. There are zero 'souls'. > > In the book of the religion of atheism. Does not exist, liar. PDW |