Hi Georges: I was responding to Bruno's comments. However, I would have the same response to your position. Why that selection? The basic idea is that any such down select as to the possible basis of a or all universes is information and why make things that complex? If you look at my posts over the last few years my model does not make any selection as far as I can tell. [I am still refining it.] The set of all divisions of my list includes all possible foundations for states of universes and only requires that they follow logically from the consequences of dividing the list. There seems no good reason why my list is not the same size as the largest of lists so it would be countably infinite. The set of all of its divisions [its set of subsets] is a power set so would be uncountably infinite. That seems plenty of room. The only reasonable exclusion I can think of would be those divisions that would describe internally illogical universe states such as those that would contain an object that was simultaneously completely spherical and completely cubical.
I see no reason why my model would exclude either Bruno's basis [if I understand it correctly] or what I believe yours to be as two out of its infinite variety of universe underpinnings. Hal Ruhl At 03:00 AM 3/8/2006, you wrote: >Hal Ruhl a écrit : > > > > Hi Bruno: > > > > As I see it, to hold that numbers are the precursor > > existence of all else is a selection. > >I would not hold that one is the precursor of the other. >Rather I suggested that both could actually be the same. > >Georges. > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
