Paul Hughes wrote:
> I just got around to reading this book and loved it!
> For those who've read it what do you think of Egan' 'Dust
> Theory' espoused in the book?
I would love for someone to prove/disprove this theory. (at the moment,
I'm kind of hoping for a disproof)
I can do neither, but I can offer a very simple probablistic disproof:
If you take all possible "dust worlds", there will be very few that will
be logically consistent. Most will just be a random sequence of events,
with no physical laws, consistent cause-and-effect, or anything like
that. *Yet*, from my point of view everything appears very consistent.
The chance of my being in a consistent world is very low, and yet I am.
So, the "Dust Theory" is unlikely -- but still possible.
And that's the best I can come up with. Anyone else care to take a
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:35 MDT