The set of everything U is ill defined. Given set A, we expect to be able to define the subset { x is element of A | p(x) } where p(x) is some predicate on x.
Therefore given U, we expect to be able to write S = { x an element of U | x is not an element of x } Now ask whether S is an element of S. - David > -----Original Message----- > From: George Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 17 November 2003 2:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? > > > > John Collins wrote: > > >One interpretation of > >the universe of constructible sets found in standard set theory textbooks > is > >that even if you start with nothing, you can say "that's a thing," and > put > >brackets around it and then you've got two things: nothing and {nothing}. > >And then you also have {nothing and {nothing}} > > > > Why start with nothing? Isn't this arbitrary? > In fact zero information = all possibilities and all information = 0 > possibility. > of course, (0 possibility) = 1 possibililty > > What is not arbitrary? Certainly anything is arbitrary. The least > arbitrary seems to be everything which is in fact zero information. > . > Start with the set(everything) and start deriving your numbers. > To do this, instead of using the operation set( ), use the operation > elementof( ). > Hence one=elementof(everything) and two = elementof(everything - one); > three = elementof(everything - one - two) > > George >