Re: CHAT: What statement? abyss staring

From: J. R. Molloy (
Date: Sun Apr 08 2001 - 18:11:34 MDT

From: "scerir" <>
> Actually a theorem by Hawking and Penrose (Proc. Roy. Soc. Lon. A-314, 529)
> shows that, if general relativity is correct, there is a singularity at
> which all physical laws would break down. A singularity does not belong to
> the space-time because those physical laws would not hold in there.

OK, then the term space-time doesn't cover more generally inclusive
definitions of the cosmos. Thanks for pointing that out, and it's nice to
engage someone who's thought about these things before.

> So will the Beginning and the End be singularities?

Good question for a higher than human-competitive AI?
(Hurry up, Eliezer! We need that Friendly AI.)

> Are the Eternal Recurrence, or the Open Way, just a sort of philosophy?

Without direct experience, merely repeating the words, Eternal Recurrence
becomes just another philosophical perspective. Similarly, scuba diving
becomes a sort of philosophy to anyone who prefers not to jump into the water.


Stay hungry,

--J. R.

Useless hypotheses:
 consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism

     Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
     but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
     (Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:45 MDT