Le 18-févr.-07, à 03:33, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
> 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
I don' t see clearly an assumption here. I guess you are assuming
existence of things capable of being put in a list. Effectively? then
why not use the Wi (cf Cutland's book or older explanations I have
provided on the list. Help yourself with Podniek's page perhaps, or try
to be just informal.
> My second assumption is:
> Objects [such as states of universes for example] have properties.
You talk like if it was an axiomatic. A good test to see if it is an
axiomatic consists to change the primitive words you are using by
arbitrary words. You are saying "glass of bears have trees and garden".
You can add that you mean that the term "glass of bear" is *intended
for states of universes, but recall the goal is to provide an
explanation for the appearance of the "states of universes". In general
properties are modelized by sets. It is ok to presuppose some naive set
theory, but then you "axiomatic" has to be clean.
> My third assumption is:
> All of the properties it is possible for objects to have can be listed.
I guess you assume church thesis, and you are talking about effective
> My fourth assumption is:
> The list of possible properties of objects is countably infinite.
? (lists are supposed to be countably infinite (or finite)).
> Conclusions so far:
> [All possible objects are defined by all the sub lists of the full
> [The number of objects is uncountably infinite]
What is the full list?
> 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 have already mentionned that comp entails some strong form of (first
person) randomness. Indeed, a priori to much.
> I would like to finish the walk through of my
> model before discussing white rabbits and observation.
I am really sorry Hall. It looks you want to be both informal and
formal. It does not help me to understand what you are trying to say.
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