Hi Bruno: In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach.
The first has to do with the process of making a list. The assumption is: Making a list of items [which could be some of the elements of a set for example] is always a process of making a one to one mapping of the items to some of the counting numbers such as: 1 - an item 2 - an item not previously on the list 3 - an item not previously on the list . . . n - last item and it was not previously on the list My second assumption is: Objects [such as states of universes for example] have properties. My third assumption is: All of the properties it is possible for objects to have can be listed. My fourth assumption is: The list of possible properties of objects is countably infinite. Conclusions so far: [All possible objects are defined by all the sub lists of the full list.] [The number of objects is uncountably infinite] I will stop there for now and await comments. As to the remainder of the post: In the above I have not reached the point of deriving the dynamic of my model but I am not focusing on computations when I say that any succession of states is allowed. Logically related successions are allowed. Successions displaying any degree of randomness are also allowed. I would like to finish the walk through of my model before discussing white rabbits and observation. Yours Hal Ruhl At 09:49 AM 2/12/2007, you wrote: >Hi Hal, > > >Le 12-févr.-07, à 03:37, Hal Ruhl a écrit : > > > > > Hi Bruno: > > > > I was using some of the main components of my > > model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of > > all degree. Any succession of states is > > allowed. If the presence of SAS in certain > > successions requires a certain family of white > > rabbit distributions then these distributions are present. > > >Well, thanks for the white rabbit, but the current goal consists in >explaining why we don't see them. When you say any succession of states >is allowed, are you talking about computations? In computations the >states are logically related, and not all succession of states can be >allowed, or you talk about something else, but then what exactly? >What are your assumption, and what are your conclusion? I know you have >made an effort in clarity, but in your last definitions you adopt the >axiomatic way of talking, but not the axiomatic way of reasoning. This >makes your talk neither informally convincing (granted some sharable >intuition) nor formally clear. I have always been willing to attribute >to you some intuition, I continue doing so, and I have suggested to you >some books capable of providing helps toward much clarity, which is >what is needed to communicate to others, especially when working on >extremely hard subject like what we are discussing. >I hope that Jason, who kindly proposes some act of systematization, >will be able to help you to develop your probably interesting ideas, > >Regards, > >Bruno > > > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---