Either additional information will be consistent with what has already been given or it will not be. If it is, then your expectations are still consistent with what is given; if it is not, the method will produce altered expectations. There is no reason to believe the method will produce the same results. The expectations consistent with the elements of that "A" which is "a lie" ... have no bearing at all on the expectations consistent with the elements of that other "A" which is directly from "God"...

Stick with me. So far, we've covered why physical phenomena is irrelevant to defining an explanation (for your model) and that you've taken a very unorthodox definition of explanation (which I'll give you some leeway at this moment). I've also set-up the kind of scenario in which I need to understand why you can model an explanation if all the elements of that explanation are lies. Now, we have to start moving back into the technical aspects of your defined sets...

I should correct something first. In the case of the both universes, set A is known only to God and the demon. In the universe with the demon, Set B refers to the information that the demon is giving you, which I'll call Set 666. Now set 666 does not produce any valid element of A, they are disjoint sets. This is not the case for the universe where there is no demon. Set B (let's call it set B' to distinguish from Set B in the demon universe) for the God universe contains elements of A, but no one but God knows which elements of B' are elements or duplicate elements of A.

In your paper you say "B is a set, defined to be an unordered finite collection of elements of A", however in the universe with the demon "B is a set, defined to be an unordered finite collection of elements of 666" - not A. Hence, set B in the demon universe (DU) will not have any of the elements of set B' in the God universe (GU), that is, they are disjoint sets.

Question 15: If set B in DU is disjoint with set B' in GU and also disjoint with set A for both DU/GU, then your assertion that you "have constructed a model capable of modeling all possible reference labels for the elements of A" is invalidated, don't you agree?

• A is what is to be explained! - doctordick - December 18, 2004 - 20:30 UTC