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 > > > > > > > >
