At 12:02 PM 10/30/2005, you wrote:
let me address first Tom C's objection addressing the
"nothing" (from which nothing can come out) - and I
wonder how Hal will feel about this:
All we can talk about as "N O TH I N G" is that it
does not contain anything we know about. It would make
Tom's absolute no-no if we were omniscient gods, what
we are not. OUR nothing may be loaded with things we
do not know about, sense, observe, include into Hal's
From those 'indonnu's there may be a healthy causation
for a world within our grasp.
Now about your objection:
Actually many divisions of the list might work. All that is required
to launch evolving Somethings is that one side of the division be
incomplete and the other inconsistent. This is easy to demonstrate
for the Nothing:All pair since the Nothing contains no possible
further divisions of the list so can not respond to any meaningful
question and I show there is at least 1. In general I suspect the
divisions that will work must be finite:infinite pairs.
So on your point re the Nothing I think you may be correct.