On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> On 09 May 2012, at 17:09, R AM wrote:
> "nothing" could also be obtained by removing the curly brackets from the
> empty set {}.
> Noooo... Some bit of blank remains. If it was written on hemp, you could
> smoke it. That's not nothing!
> Don't confuse the notion and the symbols used to point to the notion.
> Which you did, inadvertently I guess.

I was using the analogy between items contained in sets and things
contained in bags. The curly brackets would represent the bags. Removing
things from a bag leaves it empty. Removing the bag leaves ... nothing.

Sure, like 0 is some sort of nothing in Number theory, and like quantum
> vacuum is some sort of nothing in QM. Nothing is a theory dependent notion.
> (Not so for the notion of computable functions).

Yes, these concrete nothings are well behaved, unlike the absolute nothing,
which we don't know what rules it obey (in case it is a meaningful concept,
which it might not be).

> Extensionally, the UD is a function from nothing (no inputs) to nothing
> (no outputs), but then what a worker!
> Extensionally it belongs to { } ^ { }. It is a function from { } to { }.

But I guess that is because the UD generates internally all possible inputs
for all possible programs, isn't it.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to