Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds

From: Hal Ruhl <>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:42:49 -0500

Hi Bruno:

At 05:43 AM 2/19/2007, you wrote:

>Le 18-févr.-07, à 03:33, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
> >
> > 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
>I don' t see clearly an assumption here. I guess you are assuming
>existence of things capable of being put in a list.

What I am trying to do is establish what making a
list is in my model and does it have any mathematical credence.

I make it an assumption because some may believe
that "make a list" means something different.

>Effectively? then
>why not use the Wi (cf Cutland's book or older explanations I have
>provided on the list. Help yourself with Podniek's page perhaps, or try
>to be just informal.

See below

> >
> > My second assumption is:
> >
> > Objects [such as states of universes for example] have properties.
>You talk like if it was an axiomatic. A good test to see if it is an
>axiomatic consists to change the primitive words you are using by
>arbitrary words. You are saying "glass of bears have trees and garden".

Did you mean class not "glass"?

>You can add that you mean that the term "glass of bear" is *intended
>for states of universes,

I am not a mathematician so I do not quite understand the above.

> but recall the goal is to provide an
>explanation for the appearance of the "states of universes".

If I understand you, that comes later in the walk through of my model

> In general
>properties are modelized by sets. It is ok to presuppose some naive set
>theory, but then you "axiomatic" has to be clean.

See below

> >
> > My third assumption is:
> >
> > All of the properties it is possible for objects to have can be listed.
>I guess you assume church thesis, and you are talking about effective

To me at this point the Church Thesis is an
ingredient in some of the possible state
succession sequences allowed in my model.

I mean all properties I do not know if that is
the same as your "effective" properties.

> >
> > My fourth assumption is:
> >
> > The list of possible properties of objects is countably infinite.
>? (lists are supposed to be countably infinite (or finite)).

This is my point above - "to list" inherently a
countably infinite [as max length] process.

I would add that my third assumption becomes more
important later as one of the keys to my model's dynamic.

> >
> > Conclusions so far:
> > [All possible objects are defined by all the sub lists of the full
> > list.]
> > [The number of objects is uncountably infinite]
>What is the full list?

The list of all possible properties of objects.

> >
> > 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 have already mentionned that comp entails some strong form of (first
>person) randomness. Indeed, a priori to much.

Yes we have discussed this before, and it is one
of the reasons I continue to believe that your approach is a sub set of mine.

I know it has taken a long time for me to reach a
level in my model where I could even begin to use
an axiom based description and I appreciate your patience.

> >
> > I would like to finish the walk through of my
> > model before discussing white rabbits and observation.
>I am really sorry Hall. It looks you want to be both informal and
>formal. It does not help me to understand what you are trying to say.

I have read that it takes 10 years of focused
practice to become an expert in a given sub discipline.

At this point in my practice of engineering I am
on my way to becoming an expert in a fifth sub discipline.

I hope you can understand why I must continue to
find a path to the development and expression of
my ideas in this venue that is short of becoming
an expert in mathematical expression.

I appreciate your help and perhaps with a little
more of it I can reach what you are asking for.

Perhaps it is also a good idea to exhaust the
idea of whether or not your approach is or is not
a sub set of another approach.


Hal Ruhl

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Feb 19 2007 - 22:43:28 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:13 PST