george murphy wrote:
> Given your reply to Dave, I'm not sure whether you're
> interested primarily in "fun" or apologetics. If the 1st then your
> idea is perhaps worthy of a 1/2 hour Twilight Zone episode. If the
> latter then I'd alter Dave's evaluation to "preposterouser and
> preposterouser." An alternate universe with rivers named Tigris &
> Euphrates & a land named Assyria?
Your theology is appreciated!
But: I figured that it's not worth wasting any more ASA time. I was,
however, quite serious about the possibility. If that is ridiculous,
then where do you place Hawkings (and others) notion of an infinite
number of spontaneous universes -- or the many universe interpretation
of quantum mechanics? (Do I correctly recall that you accept that QM
interpretation?) . I just don't think that God should have intellectual
limits placed on Him that physics will not place on itself. Moreover, I
think that it very unreasonable to assume (a-priori) that God is more
limited than mankind would be if "creating" AI for robots.
I was just arguing for the possibility -- physics not apologetics (for
which I have no qualifications).
Physics is fun if you don't take physicists too seriously ;-)
> It sounds as if you've watched the ending of "Planet of the Apes" too many times. (I hope at least it was
> the original one: Last summer's remake was wretched.)
I liked it, but I like almost all sci-fi.
Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 19 2001 - 10:49:00 EST