Re: Re: Re: Evidence: Open vs. Closed Universe

From: Estacado66@aol.com
Date: Tue Nov 25 1997 - 19:59:54 MST

• Next message: Roderick A. Carder-Russell: "Phil Goetz"
• Previous message: John Montgomery: "Re: Uploading, that's needed !! -Reply -Killing mudanes??"
• Next in thread: Bradley Graham Weslake: "Re: Re: Re: Evidence: Open vs. Closed Universe"
• Reply: Bradley Graham Weslake: "Re: Re: Re: Evidence: Open vs. Closed Universe"
• Reply: Anders Sandberg: "Re: Re: Re: Evidence: Open vs. Closed Universe"
• Reply: Eugene Leitl: "Re: Re: Re: Evidence: Open vs. Closed Universe"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

In a message dated 11/25/97 10:58:59 PM, you wrote:

<<> Epistemologically there are zero reasons for believing a closed
> universe is even possible.

Epistemologically? Why is there no reason for believing in a closed
universe for *epistemic* reasons?
>>

   Any conceptualization of a closed universe(hold your favorite version
of a closed universe in your mind right now) is subject to the infinite
regress fallacy.

Estacado

• Next message: Roderick A. Carder-Russell: "Phil Goetz"
• Previous message: John Montgomery: "Re: Uploading, that's needed !! -Reply -Killing mudanes??"
• Next in thread: Bradley Graham Weslake: "Re: Re: Re: Evidence: Open vs. Closed Universe"
• Reply: Bradley Graham Weslake: "Re: Re: Re: Evidence: Open vs. Closed Universe"
• Reply: Anders Sandberg: "Re: Re: Re: Evidence: Open vs. Closed Universe"
• Reply: Eugene Leitl: "Re: Re: Re: Evidence: Open vs. Closed Universe"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:09 MST