Hi Stephen:

What I am basically saying is that you can not define a thing without simultaneously defining another thing that consists of all that is "left over" in the ensemble of building blocks. I suspect that usually the "left over" thing is of little practical use.

However, this duality also applies to the "Nothing" and its left over which is the "Everything". A look at this pair allows the derivation that the boundary between them [the definition pair] can be represented as a "normal" real and can not be a constant if zero info is to be maintained.

Thus, given the dynamic, this boundary's representation as I said in the last post can be modeled as the output of a computer with an infinite number of asynchronous multiprocessors. A cellular automaton with asynchronous cells. Universes are interpretations of this output.

Sort of a left wing proof that we are "in" a massive computer.

The Hintikka material you pointed me to is far too imbedded in mathematical language symbols for me to understand.

Yours

Hal




At 12:03 AM 4/13/2004, you wrote:
Dear Hal,

    I will have to think about this for a while. Very interesting. Meanwhile
I ask that you take a look at the game theoretic semantic idea by Hintikka.

Kindest regards,

Stephen




Reply via email to