Le 17-sept.-07, à 08:22, Youness Ayaita a écrit :

>
> Thank you for this remark, Hal. Indeed, you mentioned very similar
> ideas:
>
> "List of all properties: The list of all possible properties
> objects can have.  The list can not be empty since there is at least
> one object: A Nothing.  A Nothing has at least one property -
> emptiness.  The list is most likely at least countably infinite and
> is assumed herein to be so.  Any list can be divided into two
> sub-lists - the process of defining two objects - a definitional
> pair.  The set of all possible subsets of the list is a power set and
> therefore uncountably infinite.  Therefore there are uncountably
> infinite objects."

This quotation illustrates the trouble I have with some participants in 
the list: a big lack of clarity/rigor.
There are confusions between list of objects and set of objects. 
Confusion between set of objects and set of subsets of the set of 
objects, making this quote too much formal relatively to the informal 
idea behind.
I have often explain to Hal Ruhl that albeit I can appreciate some of 
his intuitions, his attempts to make things formal are form of 1004 
fallacies. It can only discourage those who use all the standard terms 
in their usual meaning. I continue to suggest Hal to study mainly set 
theory (given that he uses set vocabulary).




>
> But your theories are much more complex than that if my first
> impression is correct. Sooner or later, I'll give attention to them in
> more detail.
>
> This list really is a rich source of unconventional ideas! Since I'm
> new in the list, I am always thankful if someone refers me to
> interesting earlier discussions where I can read up on several topics.


Many late remark are based on the ASSA approach, and even more or less 
on quasi physicalist assumptions like the presupposition that there is 
a sense to allow observer to belong to physical (?) universes. The 
Universal Dovetailer Argument (original paper is Marchal 1991, but see 
also the sequel cf my URL) shows how such assumptions are incompatible 
with the computationalist assumption. The first and third person 
distinction is of fundamental importance to get that point. Ihave 
explain the UDA more than one time in this list, but I can explain 
again. I don't think most RSSA people have a problem with it, although 
I know the 8th step in the 8 steps version of the UDA has noit really 
been already discussed.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


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