Infinite worlds, Quantum indeterminacy, and The endlessly generative
in [Logic]
|
From: Syd M. on 2 Mar 2010 15:45 On Mar 2, 2:47 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Ghod Dhammit" <g...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:_vOdnb-tGbmA1RDWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d(a)supernews.com... > > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:hZSdnVS7trGB4xHWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)posted.internetamerica... > >> "Smiler" <Smi...(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. More lying. PDW
From: Nemesis on 2 Mar 2010 17:41 "John Jones" <jonescardiff(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". As initial parameters, if you can first find out where matter originates from, and where life originates from then once you have determined this, then maybe your questions could be answered, as the answers may follow logically from the initial parameters. You are trying to determine whether you should add salt and pepper to your omelet before you have even broken the eggs and cooked it.
From: Nemesis on 2 Mar 2010 17:50 "Smiler" <Smiler(a)joe.king.com> wrote in message news:X4%in.66759$1Y2.6370(a)newsfe03.ams2... > Mark Earnest wrote: >> "John Jones" <jonescardiff(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'. > > -- Individual life entities or individual life organisms is maybe a better description than "souls". The word "souls" only exists in Christianity.
From: Mark Earnest on 2 Mar 2010 20:06 "Syd M." <pdwright42(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5cfd5322-9b53-4426-8ab3-179c84c5fa7e(a)b5g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Mar 2, 2:47 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Ghod Dhammit" <g...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:_vOdnb-tGbmA1RDWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d(a)supernews.com... > > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:hZSdnVS7trGB4xHWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)posted.internetamerica... > >> "Smiler" <Smi...(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. More lying. **Stupid.
From: The BORG on 2 Mar 2010 20:09
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:OoWdnZsizJyxKxDWnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d(a)posted.internetamerica... > > "Syd M." <pdwright42(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:5cfd5322-9b53-4426-8ab3-179c84c5fa7e(a)b5g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 2, 2:47 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: >> "Ghod Dhammit" <g...(a)att.net> wrote in message >> >> news:_vOdnb-tGbmA1RDWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d(a)supernews.com... >> >> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >news:hZSdnVS7trGB4xHWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)posted.internetamerica... >> >> "Smiler" <Smi...(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. > > More lying. > > **Stupid. > Is that the best you can do Bubble? Why not pop yourself into a little eggcup and put a little wooly hat on? Did Jesus tell you not to use bad language eh? So stupid is all you can say? But surely you should turn the other cheek? THE BORG |