> Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
[CLIP]
> >Jason is talking about the same incredible consistency of Nature I call TT.
>
> Are you talking about algorithms maybe?
There are more ways to get consistency. Quantum Mechanics relies on
statistical averaging to get consistent results on macroscopic scales.
[CLIP--including what was the latest react-to text]
> There is no Absolute Model, although we are getting closer and closer to
> the next one.
>
> Now if you could prove that the changes in these models were getting
> smaller and smaller; fewer and fewer, then you would be on to something,
> the convergence towards the ultimate models. ???
????
Perhaps the ultimate model within a given set of definitions. However,
if the set of definitions is not "comprehensive enough", it may be that
the ultimate model ALWAYS has error in it. I'm thinking of some very
concrete mathematics here.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////