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.
At 09:49 AM 2/12/2007, you wrote:
>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,
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