From: Gordon Worley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Dec 05 2001 - 19:04:58 MST
On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 07:50 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> Here's a flyer: there's something a bit ticklish about the HUP.
> That and various other bits related to randomness, 2LT, and some of
> the quantum oddnesses *might* indeed be such evidence. There's no
> support for the statement that there *is* no evidence against this
> being the original evidence. A better statement would be that we are
> not to date aware of any compelling physical evidence against this
> being the original universe.
Just like all our arguments, the *real* universe could be a lot more
complicated (viz. have a lot more complicated rules of physics). Of
course, we have no way of knowing. If we created a simulation where
Newtonian Physics always worked, they could use the same argument
because all this stuff about forces and momentum is 'odd' compared to
Aristotlian (sp) Physics.
-- Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose email@example.com it to mean--neither more nor less.' PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 25 2013 - 04:00:32 MDT