Re: Numbers

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:11:50 -0500

Lists and numbers:

My model's only assumption [I think] is a countably infinite list of
possible properties of objects. Dividing the list defines two
objects. There would be an uncountably infinite number of such
divisions of the list. No operator is necessary but different
divisions of the list would define objects that have different
potential degrees of let us say physical reality - for example
internally logical objects might tend to have a higher degree and
internally illogical objects a lower degree.

 From this, using complete/incomplete and consistent/inconsistent
properties and the idea that some object pairs that are both somewhat
illogical [such as the Nothing and the All - respectively incomplete
and inconsistent] but may nevertheless both have the highest degree
of potential physical reality [How would one assign a higher degree
to either member of the Nothing:All pair?] approaching
simultaneous/continuous I seem to be able to extract evolving
entities that could be universes including those that would "look" like ours.

Where do numbers fit into this venue? It seems reasonable that my
list could be encoded as a number consisting of a bit string with a
code prefix. Since the list requires no "operator" then perhaps no
"decoder" is required.

One could then ask if there is some order to this association? Did
either the number or the list come first? Since the list seems
sufficient for my model the association would seem to support only
one number. [Other strings with different codes could work but seems
overly rich.] Focusing on the string [countably infinite] with the
shortest prefix, why should this one number have an existence that
exceeds that of other numbers?

Numbers might be objects in this venue [I think] such as objects that
have among their properties the property "prime", but it seems
certain that some objects would express numbers and mathematics etc.

To me, given the above, a list of all possible properties of objects
seems a simpler and easier to unwrap base to work with.

Hal Ruhl

           


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Mar 12 2006 - 14:13:12 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST