David Nyman skrev:
On 11/07/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

(quite contrary to the premise of the everything-list, but one that I'm glad to entertain).

For what it's worth, I really don't see that this is necessarily
contrary to the premise of this list.  The proposition is that all
POSSIBLE worlds exist, not that anything describable in words (or for
that matter mathematically) 'exists'.  My analysis is an attempt to
place a constraint on what can be said to exist in any sense strong
enough to have any discernible  consequences, either for us, or for
any putative denizens of such 'worlds'.  So I would argue that
non-reflexive worlds are not possible in any consequential sense of
the term.
What do you mean with a POSSIBLE world?

One exemple of a possible world is that GoL-universe, of which there is a picture of on the Wikipedia page.

One interesting thing about this particular GoL-universe is that it is finite, the time goes in a circle in that universe.  That universe only consists of 14 situations.  After the 14th situation follows the 1st situation again.

This GoL-universe exists, but it is a non-reflexive world, I can not see anything reflexive in that universe.

Torgny Tholerus

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

Reply via email to