Hi Brent,

On Friday 16 March 2007 00:16:13 Brent Meeker wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >      >     But these ideas illustrate a problem with
> >      >     "everything-exists".  Everything conceivable, i.e. not
> >      >     self-contradictory is so ill defined it seems impossible to
> >
> >     assign
> >
> >      >     any measure to it, and without a measure, something to pick
> >
> >     out this
> >
> >      >     rather than that, the theory is empty.  It just says what is
> >      >     possible is possible.  But if there a measure, something
> >
> >     picks out
> >
> >      >     this rather than that, we can ask why THAT measure?
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > Isn't that like arguing that there can be no number 17 because
> >
> >     there is
> >
> >      > no way to assign it a measure and it would get lost among all the
> >
> >     other
> >
> >      > objects in Platonia?
> >      >
> >      > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> >     I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and other small
> >     numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 - i.e. almost all
> >     of them.  A theory that just says "all integers exist" doesn't help
> >     answer that.  But if the integers are something we "make up" (or are
> >     hardwired by evolution) then it makes sense that we are only
> >     acquainted with small ones.
> >
> >
> > OK, but there are other questions that defy such an explanation. Suppose
> > the universe were infinite, as per Tegmark Level 1, and contained an
> > infinite number of observers. Wouldn't that make your measure
> > effectively zero? And yet here you are.
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
>
> Another observation refuting Tegmark! :-)
>
> Seriously, even in the finite universe we observe my probability is almost
> zero.  Almost everything and and everyone is improbable, just like my
> winning the lottery when I buy one a million tickets is improbable - but
> someone has to win.  So it's a question of relative measure.  Each integer
> has zero measure in the set of all integers - yet we are acquainted with
> some and not others.  So why is the "acquaintance measure" of small
> integers so much greater than that of integers greater than 10^10^20 (i.e.
> almost all of them).  What picks out the small integers?
>
> Brent Meeker

If you see each integer with a successor notation, 2 is S(1) and 3 is S(2) 
which is S(S(1)) and so on, you see that "big" integers contains the "small" 
integers and the smalls are over represented... just a though ;-)

Quentin

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to