On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi,I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is aquibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproducethe same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics.

I think I agree. I comment Craig below.

Onward! Stephen On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a bookcalled "A Universe FromNothing". That the universe came from nothing is suggested bycalculations of the totalenergy of the universe. Theories of the origin of the universehave been developed byAlexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. Of coursethe other view is thatthere cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default. "The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." --- Quentin SmithI think that we are all familiar with the universe from nothing theories, but the problem is with how nothing is defined. The possibility of creating a universe, or creating anything is not 'nothing', so that any theory of nothingness already fails if the definition of nothing relies on concepts of symmetry and negation, dynamic flux over time, and the potential for physical forces, not to mention living organisms and awareness. An honestly recognized 'nothing' must be in all ways sterile and lacking the potential for existence of any sort, otherwise it's not nothing.

`I agree too. That is why it is clearer to put *all* our assumptions on`

`the table. Physical theories of the origin, making it appearing from`

`physical nothingness, makes sense only in, usually mathematical,`

`theories of nothingness. It amounts to the fact that the quantum`

`vacuum is unstable, or even more simply, a quantum universal`

`dovetailer. This assumes de facto a particular case of comp, the`

`believes in the existence of at least one (Turing) universal system.`

`As you might know, choosing this particular one is treachery, in the`

`mind body problem, given that if that is the one, it has to be`

`explained in term of a special sum on *all* computational histories`

`independently of the base (the universal system) chosen at the start.`

`Any formalism describing the quantum vaccuum assumes much more that`

`the Robinson tiny arithmetical theory for the ontology needed in comp.`

`Nothing physical does not mean nothing conceptual. You have still too`

`assume the numbers, at the least. So it assumes more and it copies`

`nature (you can't, with comp, or you lost the big half of everything).`

My view is that the default is neither nothing or something butratherEverything.

`I think there coexist, and are explanativaely dual of each others. In`

`both case you need the assumptions needed to make precise what can`

`exist and what cannot exist.`

If you have an eternal everything then the universe of somethings and sometimes can be easily explained by there being temporary bundling of everything into isolated wholes, collections of wholes, collections of collections, etc, each with their own share of small share of eternity.

OK.

This is what I am trying to say with Bruno about numbers startingfrom1 instead of 0. From 1 we can subtract 1 and get 0,

So we get 0 after all.

but from 0, no logical concept of 1 need follow.

`No logical concept, you are right (although this is not so easy to`

`proof). But you have the *arithmetical* (yes, *not* logical), notion`

`of a number's successor, noted s(x). We assume that all numbers have`

`successors. And we can even define 0 as the only one which is not a`

`successor, by assuming Ax(~(0= s(x))) (for all number 0 is different`

`from the successor of that number).`

`having the symbol 0, we can actually name all numbers: by 0, s(0),`

`s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), s(s(s(s(0)))), s(s(s(s(s(0))))), ...`

0 is just 0. 0 minus 0 is still 0.

`Yes. That's correct. And for all numbers x, you have also that x + 0 =`

`x. Worst: for all number x, x*0 = 0.`

That 0 is a famous number! 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 everything-list@googlegroups.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.