Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

From: Michael Rosefield <>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 16:30:33 +0000

If I may,

The basic concept is that every model is composed of a set of elements, a
set of n-ary relations between them, a set of constants and symbols, plus a
set of axiomatic sentences to define it. It's been a few years since my
mathematical logic MSc though....

- Did you ever hear of "The Seattle Seven"?
- Mmm.
- That was me... and six other guys.

2008/11/8 John Mikes <>

> Anna,
> I wanted to write positively to your posts, procrastinated it though and
> others took it up.
> Now I want to reflect to one word, I use differently:
> *---- MODEL ----*
> There are several 'models', the mathematical (or simple physical) metaphor
> of a different subject is one, not to mention the pretty women in
> fashion-shows.
> I use *model* in the sense of a reductionist cut from the totality aspect
> for a topical view: the epitom of which is Occams razor. Observing
> (studying) a topic within chosen boundaries - limitations of our selection
> by our interest.
> Of course Bruno's all encompassing arithmetic system can cover for this,
> too, but I am not for restricting our discussions to the limitations of the
> present human mind's potential (even if only in an allowance for what we
> cannot comprehend or imagine). Beyond Brent's "yam-y" extension.
> What we don't know or understand or even find possible is not impossible.
> It is part of 'everything'.
> I chose to be vague and scientifically agnostic.
> Have fun in science
> John Mikes
> **
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Brent Meeker <>wrote:
>> A. Wolf wrote:
>> >> So universes that consisted just of lists of (state_i)(state_i+1)...
>> >> would exist, where a state might or might not have an implicate time
>> value.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Of course, but would something that arbitrary be capable of supporting
>> > the kind of self-referential behavior necessary for sapience?
>> >
>> > Anna
>> >
>> "Capable of supporting" implies some physical laws that connect an
>> environment and sapient beings. In an arbitrary list universe, the
>> occurrence of sapience might be just another arbitrary entry in the list
>> (like Boltzman brains). And what about the rules of inference? Do we
>> consider universes with different rules of inference? Are universes
>> considered contradictory, and hence non-existent, if you can prove X and
>> not-X for some X, or only if you can prove Y for all Y?
>> You see, that's what I like about Bruno's scheme, he assumes a definite
>> mathematical structure (arithmetic) and proposes that everything comes
>> out of it. I think there is still problem avoiding wonderland, but in
>> Tegmark's broader approach the problem is much bigger and all the work
>> has to be done by some anthropic principle (which in it's full
>> generality might be called "the Popeye" principle - "I yam what I
>> yam."). Once you start with all non-contradictory mathematics, you
>> might as well let in the contradictory ones too. The Popeye principle
>> can eliminate them as well.
>> Brent
>> >>

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 Sat Nov 08 2008 - 11:30:49 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST