Re: on formally describable universes and measures

I'm not sure that it would actually. The plenitude would include all sets that don't contain themselves, as well as sets that do. We know the plenitude contains itself. However, since the set of all sets that don't contain themselves is a logical contradiction, it is presumably excluded from the p

Re: on formally indescribable merde

> From: "James Higgo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So what is it, this mystical soul, that 'transits' OMs? The more I think about this, the more I end up running around in circles I think the transit is just a hypothetical one; _if_ OMa iterated to OMb, it would be consistent. However, I cannot h

Re: on formally describable universes and measures

Dear George, Interleaving... George Levy wrote: > Hi Stephen > > Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > Dear George, > > > > George Levy wrote: > > > > > Stephen Paul King wrote: > > I am suggesting that *all* "objects" are either an observer or a part of an >observer. I am > > attacking the anthr