On 10 May 2012, at 21:09, John Mikes wrote:

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


I think we agree John. Pure nothingness makes no sense. Pure non- consciousness makes no sense either. And besides, with the comp assumption, we have to assume the numbers and addition and multiplication, if not, words like "digital" have no meaning.

Bruno





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- l...@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 .

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.

Reply via email to