Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread 1Z
On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get the Everything ensemble gratis! We don't need any postulate. But how is this transition made? At this point I

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread 1Z
On 12 Sep, 15:32, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For further research, it is then natural to identify imaginable things with their descriptions and to choose a simple alphabet for expressing the descriptions (e.g. strings of 0 and 1). How would you express A thing such that it

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Youness Ayaita
On 13 Sep., 13:26, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get the Everything ensemble gratis! We don't need any postulate. But

Re: Rép : Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences

2007-09-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Dear Günther, Le 12-sept.-07, à 16:49, Günther Greindl a écrit : The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per definition (that is what following from the axioms mean). Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would appear. Axioms are just provisory

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit : These sorts of discussions No-justification, Zero-information principle, All of mathematics and Hal Ruhl's dualling All and Nothing (or should that be duelling) are really just motivators for getting at the ensemble, which turns out

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Youness Ayaita wrote: ... I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned to a preimage x, we usually must know a formula first. But the

Re: Rép : Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences

2007-09-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: ... I agree with this. You can rule out a theory when it leads to a contradiction, but only *once* you get that contradiction. (A theory can be contradictory without you ever knowing that fact). A theory also can be contradicted by a fact. The theory need not be

Re: Rép : Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences

2007-09-13 Thread Günther Greindl
Dear Bruno, The problem is: in math what follows from the axioms is true per definition (that is what following from the axioms mean). Not at all. If you were true, no inconsistent theory in math would appear. You are right, my above sentence was too simple. New try: All sentences that

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread 1Z
On 13 Sep, 12:47, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 13 Sep., 13:26, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get

Re: Rép : Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences

2007-09-13 Thread John Mikes
Bruno, that was quite a response. Let me just include those part to which I have something to say - in most cases your 'half-agreement' cuts my guts. == ...I like very much David Deutsch's idea that if we are scientist we are in principle willing to know that our theory is wrong, but

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Youness Ayaita
On 13 Sep., 19:44, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Youness Ayaita wrote: ... I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned to

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit : These sorts of discussions No-justification, Zero-information principle, All of mathematics and Hal Ruhl's dualling All and Nothing (or should that be duelling) are

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Youness Ayaita
I want to correct an error, the 1st idea in my last reply was erroneous, since in the set {0,1}^P(T) one will find descriptions that do not belong to any imaginable thing t in T. Thus, it would not be possible to use the total set and the whole idea is rather useless. So, I restrict my arguments

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Youness Ayaita wrote: I want to correct an error, the 1st idea in my last reply was erroneous, since in the set {0,1}^P(T) one will find descriptions that do not belong to any imaginable thing t in T. Thus, it would not be possible to use the total set and the whole idea is rather useless.