GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> > > Yet another way of proving the Plenitude is to rely
> > > on Goedel consistency/completeness theorem.
> > > Insisting on consistency, while trying to
> > > achieve completeness (which is an impossibility),
> > > forces the boundary of the set of discourse to
> > > infinity.
> >
> > That doesn't prove the plenitude.
>
> True. I stand corrected. It does not prove the physical Plenitude. However,
> it certainly expands the mathematical universe to infinity. Now if the
> correspondance between the physical Plenitude and the Mathematical Universe
> holds then my statement is still right.
I'm not sure who wrote what in this exchange, however I have had some
correspondence with a rather insistent fellow called Hal Ruhl who is
saying much the same thing. Basically, the great nothing is "unstable"
with respect to the question "is the great nothing
stable". Ultimately, Goedelian incompleteness will fill in the
Plenitude, if we don't assume it in the first place. I have to admit
that I'm not completely comfortable with the argument, but believe it
has some merit. Unfortunately, I've been unable to locate a URL for his
paper on the subject. However, his email is hjr.domain.name.hidden
> The WAP filters what we can observe from the Plenitude. If you assume that WE
> ARE RATIONAL then OUR RATIONALITY CONSTRAINS the WAP filtering to rational
> observations. Hence no arbitrary events. All is explainable. No Wabbits. This
> may also be an answer to Jacques' post.
>
>
> George
>
>
Why should we assume that as observers we are rational? Quite apart
from deciding exactly what such a statement means (eg economists
version of rational agents, how logical how thought processes, are we
but cleverly disguised Turing machines), it is still rather
controversial that such a statement would have much validity.
I would like to take a more general view to say that observers must
be able to process information. Assuming a modestly strong version of
the Church-Turing thesis (information can only be encoded "digitally",
and all information processing can be performed by UTMs), this should
be enough structure (I hope) to answer the White Rabbit
problem. (Basically, any white rabbits you see are part of your own
fetid imagination, and therefore are your problem, not mine!)
Cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu May 25 2000 - 19:23:48 PDT