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