>>> Day Brown on "nothing" 
 WE> Godel Incompleteness Theorem from mathematical logic.  He  
 WE> proved that there existed statements such that neither the  
 WE> statement itself nor its negation could ever be proved.   
 DB> Lemmee see if I got this: 
 DB> A: this statement does not exist. 
 DB> B: Statement A is wrong. 
No, but you're on the right tract.  A is false, B true.
Try C:  this statement is false.  D:  this statement is unprovable.
Based, most likely upon the earlier Russell paradox.
But this was just a start into the quirks of logic.
 
 WE> Recent focus has been on problems which, tho theoretically  
 WE> solvable, cannot actually be done even with supercomputers.  
 WE>  They haven't actually proved the existence of such, but it  
 WE> has been proven that the whole bunch of such problems are  
 WE> equivalent in the sense that if one is actually solvable,  
 WE> they all are. 
 DB> And, if they all are? 
Most likely they're not.  If they all are, our computers would be able to do 
more that we'd think.  Don't know recent work on this topic.  Wouldn't it be 
humorous if someone proved that the conjecture is undecidable. -)
 DB> Izzat "Zeno"? who said that 'space' must exist for stuff to 
 DB> exist 'in' it, even though space itself is 'nothing'? 
 DB> 
 DB> I suspect that the answer lies in some more recent insights from 
 DB> quantum physics, where stuff like this is dealt with all the time 
 DB> in conceptions of reality that require more than three dimensions 
 DB> to make the math work out, which apparantly, it does if you have
 DB> six dimensions. 
The quantizing of space is as yet a conjecture, same with time.
 DB> IT was, it 
 DB> seems, related to the mystical notion of synchronicity, where a 
 DB> set of apparantly unrelated phenomena, except for the relation 
 DB> each member of the set had in a given time frame, was in fact, 
 DB> related because *of* the concurrent time factor. 
----
 DB> There is the assumption in Astrolgy, for instance, that every 
 DB> single thing that happens 'now' is related to the 'now' in which 
Everything affects everything else.  Not true.  Planck's constant would 
indicate that the butterfly is affected by the distant galaxy to such a small 
degree, 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, 
that any such effect would be indistinguishable from the uncertainty inherent 
in the event.
---
---------------