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.
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]>
>Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 5:29 PM
>Subject: Re: Numbers
>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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at