Infinite worlds, Quantum indeterminacy, and The endlessly generative
in [Logic]
|
From: Mark Earnest on 2 Mar 2010 21:42 "The BORG" <borg(a)gone.com> wrote in message news:xFijn.194858$4D2.104521(a)newsfe12.ams2... > > "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 The idea here is to give as much opposition as possible with the least amount of effort.
From: bigfletch8 on 2 Mar 2010 23:24 On Mar 2, 8:54 am, John Jones <jonescard...(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. > > 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". They are both using different bits of their 'mind of relativity', which obviouslly is not satitfactory, as you are constantly discovering. BOfL
From: bigfletch8 on 2 Mar 2010 23:26 On Mar 2, 9:02 am, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But not an endlessly re generative universe which has been the constant message of the masters. You make 'souls' sound like 'legs', but legs can be counted! BOfL
From: Mark Earnest on 3 Mar 2010 01:02 <bigfletch8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a6a5ca1f-bae8-4206-8f91-cde79514fc77(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Mar 2, 9:02 am, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But not an endlessly re generative universe which has been the constant message of the masters. You make 'souls' sound like 'legs', but legs can be counted! **If all souls just are, meaning that they always have and always will exist, then there can only be so many of them. This is because we would eventually remember, what we were forever ago, and see that there can only be so many of us to remember.
From: bigfletch8 on 3 Mar 2010 02:35
On Mar 3, 6:50 am, "Nemesis" <n...(a)77.net> 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'. > > > -- > > Individual life entities or individual life organisms is > maybe a better description than "souls". The word "souls" > only exists in Christianity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I wonder what it was called in the original Greek language of biblical days. There are many terms for 'soul' particularly in the cultures of the majority of peoples who believe in reincarnation. BOfL |