Infinite worlds, Quantum indeterminacy, and The endlessly generative
in [Logic]
|
From: bigfletch8 on 3 Mar 2010 02:38 On Mar 2, 10:53 am, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: > 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'. Thats a religious style belief...perfectly fitting (bespoke) to your current pov. Did you realise that the reality of soul is nothing to do with religious or god belief? Not unlike saying "I dont recognise myself, because others are delusional"... BOfL > > -- > Smiler > The godless one > a.a.# 2279 > All gods are bespoke. They're all made to > perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Smiler on 3 Mar 2010 19:55 bigfletch8(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Mar 2, 10:53 am, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: >> 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'. > > Thats a religious style belief...perfectly fitting (bespoke) to your > current pov. > Nope. It's a reasonable conclusion from the total lack of evidence for the existence of a soul. > Did you realise that the reality of soul Your objective evidence for the reality of soul is? Has anyone seen a soul? Has anyone measured or weighed a soul? What measurable effect do souls have on the world? Has anyone isolated a soul in the laboratory? What physical or chemical properties do souls have? Where in the body does the soul exist? Why haven't surgeons ever found one? Why are they not described in anatomy books? > is nothing to do with > religious or > god belief? So how does one acquire this supposed soul without some supposed deity putting it into you? > > Not unlike saying "I dont recognise myself, because others are > delusional"... > I have no evidence that such a thing as a soul exists, therefore, I don't believe in them. Those who do certainly are delusional. -- Smiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
From: Smiler on 3 Mar 2010 20:01 Mark Earnest wrote: > <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. There are more people alive on earth now than have ever lived. Where did all those extra supposed souls come from? Did your supposed god make more for those extra people or are some of them without a supposed soul? If some people can get along fine without one, why does anyone need one? -- Smiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
From: Mark Earnest on 3 Mar 2010 20:51 "Smiler" <Smiler(a)joe.king.com> wrote in message news:4EDjn.319470$8K4.169283(a)newsfe15.ams2... > Mark Earnest wrote: >> <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. > > There are more people alive on earth now than have ever lived. Where did > all those extra supposed souls come from? You're thinking of reincarnation. I don't subscribe to that brand of philosophy, except in certain ways. In my way of thinking, each individual soul always existed, and there always were and still are just enough to give each of 100 billion persons one soul. > Did your supposed god make more for those extra people or are some of them > without a supposed soul? > If some people can get along fine without one, why does anyone need one? A person cannot get along without a soul because he pretty much is that soul. You've been watching too many "sell your soul to the devil" comedies, apparently.
From: Smiler on 4 Mar 2010 18:42
Mark Earnest wrote: > "Smiler" <Smiler(a)joe.king.com> wrote in message > news:4EDjn.319470$8K4.169283(a)newsfe15.ams2... >> Mark Earnest wrote: >>> <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. >> >> There are more people alive on earth now than have ever lived. Where >> did all those extra supposed souls come from? > > You're thinking of reincarnation. I don't subscribe to that brand of > philosophy, except in certain ways. No I wasn't. > > In my way of thinking, each individual soul always existed, and there > always were and still are just enough to give each of 100 billion > persons one soul. > How do you know that there are that many souls? Have you counted them? > >> Did your supposed god make more for those extra people or are some >> of them without a supposed soul? >> If some people can get along fine without one, why does anyone need >> one? > > A person cannot get along without a soul because he pretty much > is that soul. I don't have on and I'm getting along fine. > You've been watching too many "sell your soul to the > devil" comedies, apparently. Nope. "A picture of Dorien Grey" wasn't a comedy, but it was fiction. -- Smiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer |