The condition given at the start of the appendix is of one copy per
(logically possible) unit combination. Section 2 of the paper deals with
the various possible cases of copies.

Alastair

----- Original Message -----
From: H J Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 20 February 2002 03:40
Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper


> Dear Alastair:
>
> I believe I understood your appendix, but to clarify my question:
>
> You have a logical base of logical unit strength m.  Call that a
particular
> venue for all universes describable by some combination of one or more of
> the units in m.
>
> My original question was why have just one copy of this venue?  The
> Everything surely has enough room for an infinite number of independent
> copies of m.  So any universe describable in m is represented in the
> Everything by an infinite number of copies.   This removes any
> preponderance of simple universes over complex ones.
>
> Further the venue m + 1 can support even more varieties of universes
> including all those in  m and itself is repeated an infinite number of
> times in the Everything.  So too for M + 2 and so on.
>
> This seems to completely remove the extrinsic property of preponderance
and
> its associated information from the Everything.
>
> Hal
>
> At 2/19/02, you wrote:
> >The intended implication is that the minimally represented versions of
> >universes will predominate for all possible values of m (above n+d).
Sorry
> >if that wasn't clear.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: H J Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: 19 February 2002 04:50
> >Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper
> >
> >
> > > Dear Alastair:
> > >
> > > In the appendix of your paper if we call m logical units a venue why
do
> >you
> > > have just one such venue?
> > >
> > > If there are an infinite number of venues of strength m in the
Everything
> > > then any sub m sets in m appear an infinite number of times in the
> >Everything.
> > >
> > > Hal
> > >
> > >
>
>



Reply via email to