Hi Bruno: At 05:43 AM 2/19/2007, you wrote:

>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. What I am trying to do is establish what making a list is in my model and does it have any mathematical credence. I make it an assumption because some may believe that "make a list" means something different. >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. > See below > > > > 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". Did you mean class not "glass"? >You can add that you mean that the term "glass of bear" is *intended >for states of universes, I am not a mathematician so I do not quite understand the above. > but recall the goal is to provide an >explanation for the appearance of the "states of universes". If I understand you, that comes later in the walk through of my model > In general >properties are modelized by sets. It is ok to presuppose some naive set >theory, but then you "axiomatic" has to be clean. > See below > > > > 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 >properties. > To me at this point the Church Thesis is an ingredient in some of the possible state succession sequences allowed in my model. I mean all properties I do not know if that is the same as your "effective" properties. > > > > My fourth assumption is: > > > > The list of possible properties of objects is countably infinite. > > >? (lists are supposed to be countably infinite (or finite)). > This is my point above - "to list" inherently a countably infinite [as max length] process. I would add that my third assumption becomes more important later as one of the keys to my model's dynamic. > > > > Conclusions so far: > > [All possible objects are defined by all the sub lists of the full > > list.] > > [The number of objects is uncountably infinite] > >What is the full list? The list of all possible properties of objects. > > > > 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. > Yes we have discussed this before, and it is one of the reasons I continue to believe that your approach is a sub set of mine. I know it has taken a long time for me to reach a level in my model where I could even begin to use an axiom based description and I appreciate your patience. > > > > 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. I have read that it takes 10 years of focused practice to become an expert in a given sub discipline. At this point in my practice of engineering I am on my way to becoming an expert in a fifth sub discipline. I hope you can understand why I must continue to find a path to the development and expression of my ideas in this venue that is short of becoming an expert in mathematical expression. I appreciate your help and perhaps with a little more of it I can reach what you are asking for. Perhaps it is also a good idea to exhaust the idea of whether or not your approach is or is not a sub set of another approach. Yours 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---