hi all and Paul,
I wrote
>> Unless you have evidence that time is something other than
>> the motion of matter, you must accept that just as it cannot be
>> destroyed, it cannot be created.
and Paul said
I am sensitive to some elements of the spirit behind this claim. But I
disagree with it. It is simply not up to us what limits there are. They
either are or are not. And that was really my point.
What i responded to in Eric's initial mail was the idea that not only is
everything we "know" wrong (I am confident that it is), but that it could
be wrong in a way which invalidated all of our efforts to understand the
>To accept any limit simply because we don't know of a way around it, entirely
>circumvents the tranhumanist spirit of inquiry and exploration.
cheerio chaps,
tim