Changes

I notice that I begin to consider calling something objective whenever there are lots and lots of different ways of looking at it, which is to say, if you think about it, that there are many different signs of it that can be sensibly related among each another, to wit, no objectivity without interoperability.

I notice that I begin to consider calling something objective whenever there are lots and lots of different ways of looking at it, which is to say, if you think about it, that there are many different signs of it that can be sensibly related among each another, to wit, no objectivity without interoperability.

So consider this Semiotic Proof Of The Objectivity Of God:  If there really were Nine Billion Names Of God, as in the Arthur Clarke story that I read as a child, then I would consider that a sufficient proof of God's objectivity.  AC being British, I reckon this means 9 x 10^12 names, but I will have to check, as it's been a while since I last read the story.

So consider this Semiotic Proof Of The Objectivity Of God:  If there really were Nine Billion Names Of God, as in the Arthur Clarke story that I read as a child, then I would consider that a sufficient proof of God's objectivity.  AC being British, I reckon this means 9 × 10¹² names, but I will have to check, as it's been a while since I last read the story.

* Incidental Musements:

* Incidental Musements:

** http://math.cofc.edu/faculty/kasman/MATHFICT/mf82.html

** http://math.cofc.edu/faculty/kasman/MATHFICT/mf82.html

** http://www.lsi.usp.br/~rbianchi/clarke/ACC.Biography.html

** http://web.archive.org/web/20071222105936/http://www.lsi.usp.br/~rbianchi/clarke/ACC.Biography.html

===Incidental Note 2===

===Incidental Note 2===