From: Ross A. Finlayson (extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 16:13:41 MST
On Sunday, January 5, 2003, at 01:37 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:
> ...
> (This remark must be qualified as follows. If one were
> to discover this integer, or portions of it, and begin
> a dialog, then parts of itself become instantiated in
> your own brain, or in the writing materials or computers
> that you utilize.)
>
> Lee
>
There are x many posters to extropians in the last month. In order of
posting, they could be numbered as 1 through x.
There are many grains of sand on the beach, say, x many. In order of
mass, they could be numbered as 1 through x.
There are x many atomic particles at a given time. In order of
selection, they could be numbered as 1 through x.
This goes on to number every infinite thing ever, including all the
finite things.
Are they conscious? If you had one then it might have another number.
The set of all sets doesn't have as an element a set of all sets not
containing themselves. That's about a logical antinomy or paradox about
how if it did then it wouldn't. It doesn't.
I think I have groundbreaking opinions about set theory and numbers.
Ross F.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST