Torgny, your par. 1: I like your including "all universes" into *"UNIVERSE"* if you talk about it. WE, here in this universe think about them. No contact, no lead, just our mental efforts. It all occurs in our prceived reality by thinking about more.
your par.2: domain is tricky. I like to write about 'totality' vs 'models i.e. the identified cuts of it for our interest (other lists, other topics) and a smart fellow (NZ) replied: "your 'totality' IS a model. You identified it as 'all' (we can imagine)" - which is not "all that can, or cannot exist". Possible, or impossible in our present views. BTW to 'understand' what somebody talks about is also tricky: we can only translate the 3rd pers. communication into our 1st pers. mindset so what we understand is not (necessarily) what the other said. Or wanted to say. Mindset is individual, no two persons can match in genetic origin (DNA, input of lineage, circumstances in gestational development, plus plus plus), AND the accumulated (personal) experience-material as applied to the individual life-history and emotional responses. "Duo si faciunt idem, non est idem" valid in ideation as well. I once wrote a sci-fi with an intelligent alien society where the communication consisted of direct transfer of ideas. There was NO discussion. Respectfully John Mikes On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Torgny Tholerus <tor...@dsv.su.se> wrote: > > Jesse Mazer skrev: > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200 > > > From: tor...@dsv.su.se > > > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > > > Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries > > > > > > My philosophical argument is about the mening of the word "all". To be > > > able to use that word, you must associate it with a value set. > > > > What's a "value set"? And why do you say we "must" associate it in > > this way? Do you have a philosophical argument for this "must", or is > > it just an edict that reflects your personal aesthetic preferences? > > > > > Mostly that set is "all objects in the universe", and if you stay > > inside the > > > universe, there is no problems. > > > > *I* certainly don't define numbers in terms of any specific mapping > > between numbers and objects in the universe, it seems like a rather > > strange notion--shall we have arguments over whether the number 113485 > > should be associated with this specific shoelace or this specific > > kangaroo? > > When I talk about "universe" here, I do not mean our physical universe. > What I mean is something that can be called "everything". It includes > all objects in our physical universe, as well as all symbols and all > words and all numbers and all sets and all other universes. It includes > everything you can use the word "all" about. > > For you to be able to use the word "all", you must define the "domain" > of that word. If you do not define the domain, then it will be > impossible for me and all other humans to understand what you are > talking about. > > -- > 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@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---