-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:15:43 -0400
Subject: Re: subjective reality

Hi Godfrey:

At 12:03 PM 8/24/2005, you wrote:
>Hi Hal,
>
>Just a minimal comment to what you state below.
>I erase a bit of the previous exchange.
>
>Godfrey Kurtz
>(New Brunswick, NJ)

snip

>[GK]
> If I understand you correctly your List-of-Everything is pretty much > like our own everything-list (;-)! So it contains YD, CT and AR and also > their negations which makes it self-contradictory a priori and thus > imprevious to any charges of contradiction and in > all likelyhood beyond any argument that anyone may devise (since it
obviously contains it too).



My first assumption says:

"There exists a list of all possible properties of objects that can have reality."

Are you saying that this list taken as a whole is necessarily self contradictory and therefore you can not show it does not exist due to this internal self contradiction and this is your proof that it does not exist?

Let me first point out that the list is just a list - not a system of logic. I give it only one property by assumption - existence.

Hal Ruhl


[GK]

Hi Hal,
My first comment was directed at your previous sentence which read something like: "The list of course would have properties that seem incompatible as simultaneous properties of a single object, but nevertheless definitions create such objects as the "is not" member of the definitional pair. So the All is - in total - self incompatible, but so what? " I thought, from it, that you meant to say that your Everything list contains contradictory attributions like "X is a car" and "X is not a car" for the same X. I obviously
misunderstood you.

About your first assumption, as you restate above, I would venture to say that QM suggests that the existence of such list is very unlikely if by 'reality" one understands "physical reality" as defined by EPR, that is, as composed by distinct elements bearing properties that are independent of the means of observation used to assign them to such objects. This is the gist of Einstein's famous question "Is the moon there when nobody looks?" and all that folklore. Now if by "reality" you mean platonic reality, I think it is a good question whether such list may exist or not. You will have to ask a mathematician...

(I am assuming it is contains an countable infinity of entries, no?)

Kindly,

Godfrey

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Reply via email to