Selector for content?/code in monospaced font
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Need some help with a styles page
Next: Newbie question
From: Ben C on 16 Feb 2010 16:34 On 2010-02-15, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <slrnhni351.318.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > >> On 2010-02-14, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> > In article <slrnhngp03.7m2.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, >> > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: [...] >> >> In the strict sense of Universe there really can only be one, so it >> >> includes all possible "universes". >> > >> > Is there a strict sense? It may be that there is no more sense to >> > this than there is to the class of all classes. >> >> What's wrong with the class of all classes (so long as they're allowed >> to include themselves)? >> > > OK, nothing - as long as they are allowed to do this. > > How happy would we be with a notion of a universe that is a part > of itself that is smaller than itself? I'm not very happy with the idea of anything being smaller than itself. > If it was not smaller than itself, there would be no room for the many > other possible universes that are smaller than it. Why? The bigger it is the more room for universes, big and small, there is in it. >> > As I understand it, there is this physical universe we live in >> > with its physical space. And then there is logical space. Logical >> > space is not *in* our universe, it is not the sort of thing that >> > is. In logical space are all the possible universes. >> >> If the possible universes are in logical space, is the actual universe >> not in it too? > > Yes, it is. But it is not in the physical space of the logical > space. There is no physical space in logical space. > > The way a something *is in* a logical space is a different way > altogether to the way a something *is in* a physical space. Right. A bit like if you have a pain in your finger, and then put your finger in your mouth, you don't now have a pain in your mouth.
From: dorayme on 16 Feb 2010 21:42 In article <slrnhnm3pl.4eg.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > On 2010-02-15, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: .... > > How happy would we be with a notion of a universe that is a part > > of itself that is smaller than itself? > > I'm not very happy with the idea of anything being smaller than itself. > Excellent, it is good to have a solid basis of agreement in any difficult discussion. > > If it was not smaller than itself, there would be no room for the many > > other possible universes that are smaller than it. > > Why? The bigger it is the more room for universes, big and small, there > is in it. > If a universe is no bigger or smaller than itself, then the only way for it to be a part of itself is for it to take up all the room there is *in* itself, leaving none for other universes. If it left room for other universes, then it would need to be smaller than itself. If the other universes were a spatial part of the top order universe, then they would not be separate universes but merely different regions of one universe. Perhaps it is more complex and you can make sense of a number of physical universes sharing the same space or space/time? But it is not anything I have a clear idea about. > >> > As I understand it, there is this physical universe we live in > >> > with its physical space. And then there is logical space. Logical > >> > space is not *in* our universe, it is not the sort of thing that > >> > is. In logical space are all the possible universes. > >> > >> If the possible universes are in logical space, is the actual universe > >> not in it too? > > > > Yes, it is. But it is not in the physical space of the logical > > space. There is no physical space in logical space. > > > > The way a something *is in* a logical space is a different way > > altogether to the way a something *is in* a physical space. > > Right. A bit like if you have a pain in your finger, and then put your > finger in your mouth, you don't now have a pain in your mouth. Perhaps a bit like it, yes. (As I see things in this matter, to continue my humourlessness, there is no such actual thing as 'the pain' really. There is the state of pain and it has a seat or cause. This cause is in the finger which is in the mouth... important point here is that the pain could be said to be temporarily and indirectly in the mouth but more persistently and more directly in the finger. Remember, the finger could be chopped off and the pain still felt as if it is in "that" finger etc. The location of pain is not a simple matter, mainly because we are dealing here with what does not really exist as an entity but with language practices built to get by for practical purposes). The idea that some have had about possible universes is that they are distinct in not having spatial or temporal connections with each other. The universiness is the having of a self-contained space/time. -- dorayme
From: Chris F.A. Johnson on 17 Feb 2010 12:09 On 2010-02-17, Mason C wrote: > Seeing there's nothing better than chatter here. So you post something worse. Instead of posting a link, you posted a bunch of invalid HTML that is hard to read in a newsreader (and probably would be even if it were valid). -- Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
From: Mason C on 18 Feb 2010 02:40 On 17 Feb 2010 17:09:01 GMT, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-17, Mason C wrote: >> Seeing there's nothing better than chatter here. > > So you post something worse. Instead of posting a link, you posted > a bunch of invalid HTML that is hard to read in a newsreader (and > probably would be even if it were valid). Is what I did worse than endlessly stringing out a dead thread with chatter under a serious subject header that attracts serious viewers? masonc
From: Mason C on 18 Feb 2010 17:08
sheeeez no sense of humour here |