**From:** Charles D Hixson (*charleshixsn@earthlink.net*)

**Date:** Fri Jun 22 2007 - 14:45:36 MDT

**Next message:**David Picón Álvarez: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Previous message:**Damien Broderick: "singularity ambigrams"**In reply to:**Norman Noman: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Next in thread:**David Picón Álvarez: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Reply:**David Picón Álvarez: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Norman Noman wrote:

*>
*

*> ...
*

*> Furthermore, the idea that the universe can be entirely understood is
*

*> questionable to me. If it's infinite, there will always be a bigger
*

*> problem, a harder puzzle, a smarter opponent. I think our doom is
*

*> probably inevitable in the long run, but not by suicide.
*

FWIW, it's recently been shown that to explain the universe of

mathematics one needs not only a large number of axioms, but an infinite

number of axioms. (I forget just which order of infinity this is, but

it's larger than C.) And math is an attempt at a simplified abstraction

of the universe.

**Next message:**David Picón Álvarez: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Previous message:**Damien Broderick: "singularity ambigrams"**In reply to:**Norman Noman: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Next in thread:**David Picón Álvarez: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Reply:**David Picón Álvarez: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT
*