# Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

```Jamie wrote:
> If there any viable system in which you -can-
> both derive, and find useful application for,
> the equation 0=1 ?
(Of course If = Is, no logic applied<G>)
The question shifts to "viable". What is a 'viable' system?
MAYBE that what we find so (--> in our HUMAN logic, formally represented in
Bruno's post). We have allowances even in that:
we can think about a logical system, where 0 = 1 indeed. Where
quantities are cut out and every numerical means just numerical.
We usually don't use such, but "possible" it is, not in the sense
as I questioned Hal's "all possible systems". (In human logic, that is).```
```
Usually, however, I would say that the 0 = 1 logical system is
NOT within our "possible systems" (humanly identified). It requires a
different logic from the one we ordinarily apply - which does not make it
"impossible" though.

I personally (in my theoretical cravings) don't like "equations" because
they deal with fixed model-quantities cutting off connotations beyond the
set boundaries of our topical reduction. Of course in such 'open' wholistic
thinking I cannot reach practical cponclusions (Yet? a good question).

0=1ly yours

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "James N Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

> If there any viable system in which you -can-
> both derive, and find useful application for,
> the equation 0=1 ?
>
> James Rose
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > At 13:40 26/11/04 -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> > >What does "logically possible" mean?
> >
> > A proposition P is logically possible, relatively to
> > 1) a consistent set of beliefs A
> > 2) the choice of a deduction system D (and then consistent
> >      means "does not derive 0=1).
> >
> > if the negation of P is not deductible (in D) from A.
> >
> > Concerning many theories, to say that a proposition
> > (or a set of propositions) A is logically possible
> > is the same as saying that A is consistent (i.e you
> > cannot derive 0 = 1 from it), or saying that A has a
> > model (a reality, a mathematical structure) satisfying
> > it.
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>

```