Dear Bruno,
How is the "trueness" of members of this "theory" (of all "true
arithmetical sentences) given? By fiat?
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: An All
Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
All members of [is,is not] definitional pairs including the [All,
Nothing] pair have a "conceptual" foundation within the All. Why would
the [All, Nothing} pair be the only one denied a mutual and concurrent
"physical" expression?
Well... It seems that we do not share the same
All members of [is,is not] definitional pairs including the [All, Nothing]
pair have a "conceptual" foundation within the All. Why would the [All,
Nothing} pair be the only one denied a mutual and concurrent "physical"
expression?
Hal
Hi John:
At 05:46 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
snip
> "My" Multiverse consists of universes unlimited in number and qualia
> (process capability, whatever).
My All would be infinite and could contain multiple multiverses - multiple
Somethings - evolving all at once.
I see no restriction on the natur
- Original Message -
From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
> Hi, Hall, (to your post below and many preceding that):
>
> I feel there is a semantic game going on." ALL" w
5 matches
Mail list logo
