On 16 Jul 2009, at 15:17, John Mikes wrote:
> I would not restrict 'a set' to what WE can conceive, or define now.
> (Not even within the 'math'-related domain).
Nor do I.
I never say so. On the contrary we will see how different are sets
when seen by machines and gods, but to explain this it is necessary we
agree on elementary properties and definitions on sets, so that we can
Here by "we" you are free to take the "we" by any entities (machines,
humans, gods, or whatever).
>> the relations of the set-partners comes into play. Not only those
>> which WE choose for 'interesting' to such set, but ALL OF THEM
>> influencing the character of that "ONE".
>> Just musing.
> It is OK. The idea consists in simplifying the things as much as
> possible, and then to realize that despite such simplification we
> are quickly driven to the unprovable, unnameable, un-reductible, far
> sooner than we could have imagine.
> I may suggest (or: assume?) that instead of "despite" it would make
> more sense to write: "AS A CONSEQUENCE"
> - think about it.
It could make sense. This would lead to finitism and or mechanism,
which I am trying to share with you. But again, this is an
anticipation, and can hardly been made precise if we don't train
ourselves to think about those simple things before.
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
For more options, visit this group at