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 [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
