Re: "Everything" need a little more than 0 information

From: James N Rose <integrity.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:48:43 -0800

Gentlemen (and Ladies, if some be present here),

I offer you a small bit of wisdom and irony,
presented in a bit of humor.

Statement of vernacular AND mathematical truth:

"The universe is an ODD PLACE." (!)

[i.e., it is imbalanced and -not- fundamentally symmetric]


PROOF:

  -infinity <--- [zero] ---> +infinity

The symmetric infinities balance and cancel each other
out, leaving an entity~identity having no complement;
an 'odd' remainder.

So, when all is said and done, the universe is
essentially an 'odd place'. :-)))

Jamie Rose


ps. then again, you might want to do what I am
doing: looking to build a more complete mathematics
in which some states of [one] and [zero] are
equal to each other. ! :-) jr



Marchal Bruno wrote:
>
> >> > From: "Russell Standish" <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
>
> >> >
> >> > > There is no problem is saying that all computations exist in
> >> > > "platonia" (or the plenitude). This is a zero information set, and
> >> > > requires no further explanation.
>
> Stricly speaking I disagree. The expression "all computations" needs
> Church thesis for example. And Church thesis is a non trivial bag of info.
> But I see where is the point. The "all computation set" is a zero
> information set, but is not a zero meta-information set, should we say.
> Same for "all numbers", "all sets" You still need to define axiomatically
> numbers or sets.
> There will always be some mysterious entity we need to
> postulate. That is why I postulate explicitely the Arithmetical Realism
> in comp. Too vague "Everything" could lead to inconsistencies.
>
> Bruno
Received on Fri Nov 29 2002 - 13:46:01 PST