Re: on formally describable universes and measures

From: George Levy <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:22:01 -0800

Russell Standish wrote:

> ...The plenitude would include all
> sets that don't contain themselves, as well as sets that do. We know
> the plenitude contains itself. However, since the set of all sets that
> don't contain themselves is a logical contradiction, it is presumably
> excluded from the plenitude in just the same way as square circles are.
>
> So this still doesn't imply that the plenitude is not a set, only that
> the set of all sets that don't contain themselves is not a subset of
> the plenitude. (Perhaps this make it not a set ??)
>

The plenitude is the absolute whole and is complete. It is however inconsistent,
irrational... choke full of white rabbits. It includes the barbers who shave all
those who don't shave themselves, and those horrible sets that Russell dreamed
about, those that include sets that do not include themselves. In biblical terms
it is the primeval chaos ( "tohu bohu", French, Hebrew). Our world, that is our
perception of the plenitude, anthropically constrained by our consciousness, is
incomplete but rational and completely devoid of white rabbits.

George
Received on Fri Mar 09 2001 - 16:37:01 PST