Re: on formally describable universes and measures

2001-03-11 Thread Russell Standish
Saibal Mitra wrote: > > > If the plenitude is a set, then the power-set of the plenitude is not > contained in the plenitude. > > Saibal > True, but this may not be a problem. For example, the Schmidhuber plenitude is the ensemble of all descriptions. Assuming this is a set, then is the power

Re: on formally describable universes and measures

2001-03-11 Thread Russell Standish
There are many different types of plenitude. For the sake of precision, I will be referring to the Schmidhuber plenitude, ie "all descriptions". I think we're mixing levels here. Individual descriptions needn't be consistent. Whilst the description "The subset of the plenitude that contains all

The FAQ

2001-03-11 Thread Hal Ruhl
I have posted a new rather expanded draft of the FAQ. at http://www.connix.com/~hjr/everythinglistFAQ.html I am very interested in comments on the general structure before I get much further along. Changes get harder the more developed it becomes. I am still using my own model to step it up,

Re: on formally indescribable merde

2001-03-11 Thread Scott D. Yelich
Saey whaet?

Re: on formally indescribable merde

2001-03-11 Thread Scott D. Yelich
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, James Higgo wrote: > Of course, 'your' current OM, which includes reading this email, is > unrelated to 'my current' OM. But since all OMs exist I can be sure that > there will be an OM which includs 'I am Bruno and I am reading this merde'. You are James. Bruno is Bruno. Why