Hi Norman:

Pardon my confusion over what you said.  I do not know how much you 
have read of my prior posts but if you refer to my list it is not a 
list of numbers but rather a list of possible properties of 
objects.   This list will generate numbers, etc. as required by its 
dynamic.  This dynamic is a consequence of the inherent divisibility 
of a list into sub lists.

Hal Ruhl

At 09:48 PM 3/13/2006, you wrote:

>I don't see how a list of numbers could, by itself, contain any meaningful
>information.  Sure, a list of numbers could be an executable program, but
>there has to be an executive program to execute the executable program.
>The multiverse has to therefore consist of more than a matrix of numbers
>which amount to an executable program.
>Where could the executive program have come from?   Perhaps one could call
>it "God."  I can think of no possibility other than  "It was always there,"
>and eternal existence is a concept I can't imagine.  Are there any other
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 5:29 PM
>Subject: Re: Numbers
>Hi Quentin:
>While numbers may contain the ability to have a discourse about themselves
>such as via Godel numbering it seems to me a substantial leap to say that
>they can have any discourse about anything else let alone a discourse to a
>degree that brings these other things into some level of existence.  This is
>because as I see it meaning beyond the self reference to other numbers is
>assigned to numbers by mechanisms external to numbers.
>How could numbers "mean" my list?  Since I could arbitrarily shuffle the
>list as often as I pleased then all counting numbers would wind up mapped to
>each item on the list.  This seems a complete suppression [except for the
>self reference just mentioned] of meaning => number and/or number => meaning
>to me.  Similar to what Peter said each number would mean "red", "green",
>"mammal", etc., and each meaning would be tagged to each number.
>The simplest approach IMO is to allow that my list generates numbers as
>needed [and mathematics for that matter] in various universes and assigns
>numbers meaning in those universes as and if required via the dynamic
>generated by its various divisions [see my other posts on my model].
>This does not preclude the generation of sets of universes - some out of an
>infinite number of sets of universes - in which numbers act as the seed and
>thus support Bruno's machine introspection etc.  The approach seems more
>universal in its scope of allowed universes and ease of their generation.
>Hal Ruhl

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to