Bruno and Ricardo:
 ...unless you remove the "boundries" as well - I think.
That would end up for "nothing" with a POINT, which is still a point and
not nothing. (If you eliminate the point???)
John M

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
>  On 09 May 2012, at 21:39, R AM wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Nothing in the universe of sets. But this makes not much sense. And you
> have still an empty universe. Then you will tell me to remove all
> universes, but you will still get an empty multiverse. Oh, you can get rid
> of all multiverses, but you will still have an empty multi-multiverse. Oh,
> you can reiterate this in the transfinite, ... but you need some rich
> theory at the metalevel, then. Absolute nothingness does not make sense in
> my opinion.
>
>
>
>
>   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).
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
>
>
>>   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.
>
>
> Right.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Ricardo.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>  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.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to