On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:08:16AM -0700, Brian Tenneson wrote:
> I was attempting to -invalidate- that argument against the existence of the
> universe, actually, by saying that in three truth values, which the
> Physicists can't rule out as being the more accurate logic of their
> universe, the argument "reductio ad absurdum" is not a tautology and,
> therefore, can't necessarily be applied.
>
> However, in binary logic, the Physicist's universe (or whatever Everything
> means) can't exist.
>
...
>
> If there is further objection to my line of thinking, -please- point it out
> to Everyone (which I hope is well-defined or else no one would know what I
> mean, right?) ;)
>
> Thank you for your remarks; I find all input extremely productive!!
Isn't the sort of everything you have in mind a bit like omnipotence
(which has problems such as creating the immovable object, then moving
it).
Perhaps such an everything really is logically impossible. The sorts
of everything we've discussed here on the list are much more modest
beasts - even Tegmark's all mathmatics tends to be viewed in terms of
recursive enumerable structures (or finite axiomatic systems).
Cheers
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder.domain.name.hidden
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Thu Apr 24 2008 - 19:23:34 PDT