From: Alden Jurling (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Dec 09 2001 - 00:35:09 MST
I cant prove that there ISNT a loophole in any given law (and hence loop
holes in the loop holes and so on).
Let me propose a counter example with a more limited scope. If it is
possible to develop a technology that would allow "entire universe could be
swallowed in an instant"(including all of the time line) and we also assume
that we are not the only technological beings in the time line (i
reasonable assumption I think), then given the size and age of the universe
it is likely that someone somewhere some-when will develop this technology.
If anyone who wanted to take over the universe for whatever reason were to
develop this technology then they would take over the universe.
Since we are here today, and space time seems intact it seems reasonable to
assume that either 1) such a technology is very unlikely to be developed
(or impossible), 2) there is a very compelling reason *not* to do this, 3)
Nothing/no-one with both the ability and the inclination to develop and use
such a technology has-ever or will ever exist anywhere in the (possibly
So basically, if its possible, why hasn't it already happened? or "if time
travel works, where are all the time travelers?"
I hope that was coherent.
At 01:44 AM 12/9/01 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 12/8/2001 10:33:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>>Are you proposing that there ARE no absolute limits on reality? Or just
>>suggesting that all the limits we define now will turn out to be false?
>>Yes, we may be able to cheat our way around some 'laws', but even the
>>cheats would have rules. Prehaps I'm missing something in what your saying?
>There could very well be no limits, but I'm not sure. I can say quite
>confidently however that the limits as we define them now are false. You
>can cheat the rules by the "cheat rules", then cheat the "cheat rules", ad
>singularitarum. Perceptual Transcends very likely go hand in hand with
>Apparent Limitation Transcends. There's no way we can tell where it ends
>from our viewpoint, but it very well could be that the True State of
>Reality has no limitations. Is there something incredibly radical or
>inherently impossible about this idea that I'm missing?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT