RE: Let There Be Something

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:01:51 -0500

Hi John:


At 12:02 PM 10/30/2005, you wrote:
>Stathis,
>let me address first Tom C's objection addressing the
>"nothing" (from which nothing can come out) - and I
>wonder how Hal will feel about this:
>All we can talk about as "N O TH I N G" is that it
>does not contain anything we know about. It would make
>Tom's absolute no-no if we were omniscient gods, what
>we are not. OUR nothing may be loaded with things we
>do not know about, sense, observe, include into Hal's
>list.
> From those 'indonnu's there may be a healthy causation
>for a world within our grasp.
>Now about your objection:

Actually many divisions of the list might work. All that is required
to launch evolving Somethings is that one side of the division be
incomplete and the other inconsistent. This is easy to demonstrate
for the Nothing:All pair since the Nothing contains no possible
further divisions of the list so can not respond to any meaningful
question and I show there is at least 1. In general I suspect the
divisions that will work must be finite:infinite pairs.

So on your point re the Nothing I think you may be correct.


Yours

Hal Ruhl
Received on Sun Oct 30 2005 - 20:03:27 PST