Hi Bruno:
In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach.
The first has to do with the process of making a list.
The assumption is:
Making a list of items [which could be some of
the elements of a set for example] is always a
process of making a one to one mapping of the
items to some of the counting numbers such as:
1 - an item
2 - an item not previously on the list
3 - an item not previously on the list
.
.
.
n - last item and it was not previously on the list
My second assumption is:
Objects [such as states of universes for example] have properties.
My third assumption is:
All of the properties it is possible for objects to have can be listed.
My fourth assumption is:
The list of possible properties of objects is countably infinite.
Conclusions so far:
[All possible objects are defined by all the sub lists of the full list.]
[The number of objects is uncountably infinite]
I will stop there for now and await comments.
As to the remainder of the post:
In the above I have not reached the point of
deriving the dynamic of my model but I am not
focusing on computations when I say that any
succession of states is allowed. Logically
related successions are allowed. Successions
displaying any degree of randomness are also allowed.
I would like to finish the walk through of my
model before discussing white rabbits and observation.
Yours
Hal Ruhl
At 09:49 AM 2/12/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Hal,
>
>
>Le 12-févr.-07, à 03:37, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
>
> >
> > Hi Bruno:
> >
> > I was using some of the main components of my
> > model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of
> > all degree. Any succession of states is
> > allowed. If the presence of SAS in certain
> > successions requires a certain family of white
> > rabbit distributions then these distributions are present.
>
>
>Well, thanks for the white rabbit, but the current goal consists in
>explaining why we don't see them. When you say any succession of states
>is allowed, are you talking about computations? In computations the
>states are logically related, and not all succession of states can be
>allowed, or you talk about something else, but then what exactly?
>What are your assumption, and what are your conclusion? I know you have
>made an effort in clarity, but in your last definitions you adopt the
>axiomatic way of talking, but not the axiomatic way of reasoning. This
>makes your talk neither informally convincing (granted some sharable
>intuition) nor formally clear. I have always been willing to attribute
>to you some intuition, I continue doing so, and I have suggested to you
>some books capable of providing helps toward much clarity, which is
>what is needed to communicate to others, especially when working on
>extremely hard subject like what we are discussing.
>I hope that Jason, who kindly proposes some act of systematization,
>will be able to help you to develop your probably interesting ideas,
>
>Regards,
>
>Bruno
>
>
>
>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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Feb 17 2007 - 21:33:53 PST