Re: Objects, Lists, and continuums

From: Hal Ruhl <>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:11:44 -0500

Hi Tom

At 11:10 AM 12/4/2006, you wrote:

>Hal Ruhl wrote:
> > The idea is presented below and its result appears to be to exclude
> > continuums from universes.
> >
> > Assumptions:
> >
> > 1) There is a list of all possible properties of objects.
> >
>The above object #1 is countable by definition.

It is only countable as I say in my model but by Cantor's argument as
far as I know and not by definition. If it was by definition then
why his argument?

> > 2) The list and all its sublists are the descriptions of all
> possible objects.
> >
>The above object #2 is uncountable by Cantor's diagonal argument. It
>is the power set of the first list.

As I say in my model it is indeed the power set and thus makes for an
uncountable number of objects.

> It is not a list.

I did not say it was.

> > By Cantor's diagonal argument lists can be no more than countably
> > infinite in length.

The above refers to #1. I thought that was clear since I did not try
to say #2 was a list.

> > An object's spacial coordinates are part of its description [its
> > sublist] but because the full list is at most only countably infinite
> > in length there can not be a continuum of spacial coordinates on
> > it. The same would apply to an object's time coordinates.
> >
>If you assume that space and/or time is a continuum, then there exists
>an uncountable set of space and/or time coordinates, even in every
>interval of non-zero measure.

Well the idea that you can map the points in an N dimensional
continuum to the points on any line segment makes me wonder how
continuums can play a role in the description of universes especially
since it does not seem necessary - at least to me.

>But if you take a particular object, as
>you are doing here, which has one set of space-time coordinate
>(4-tuple), this is describable with a countable set of symbols.

If so then why is a continuum necessary? My Physical reality
dimension with countable - finite will do I think - values seems enough.

> Yes,
>assuming a space-time continuum that is really a continuum is rather
>hard to believe, as Feynman pointed out (at one point in his life ;).
>But as I have been trying to point out, this kind of belief is
>something that we do without thinking about it. And yet it is faith.
>It is based on evidence, a finite set of points of evidence, but it
>takes faith to integrate over those points.

As I indicated appeal to continuums seems odd and unnecessary. I
have found no evidence that convinces me otherwise and I have no
faith in the odd and unnecessary.

> > Universes are objects described by sub lists of the full list and
> > consist of sets of other sub lists but as such universes can not
> > contain continuums of spacial or temporal coordinates or continuums
> > of any other property its objects might have.
> >
> >
> >
> > As an aside, in my current model the full list and its sub lists are
> > both description and object. Objects interact by mutually
> > changing just one property - their location on a Physical Reality
> > dimension. The change is just a shifting of boundaries between sublists.
> >
> >
> > Hal Ruhl
>Perhaps this is a good new angle to try to say what I'm trying to say.
>If there is ultimately no such thing as a person,

Well a result of what I am saying seems to be that there are a
countably infinite number of objects that are exactly as I am "now"
but having every possible space-time combination. However, one has
to consider their location on the physical reality dimension. This
would allow a dynamic [which occurs by the nature of the # 1 list] to
trace out chains of such "as I could ever be" objects that would
appear as a person moving through space-time so long as at least
several adjacent such objects all have non zero but first rising and
then falling physical reality so that "flow" and "apparent" have a reference.

Must go it is late.


>then there is no
>subject-object distinction (needed for science, and even more for
>This is talking at the deepest level of philosophy, not
>the common sense (sometimes the word naive is used) sense that is used
>in everyday science. I think it is best to always look at the whole
>week (the living of everyday life at the finite level) from the
>perspective of the weekend (personal eternity, the grand scheme of
>things which the impersonal Everything does not provide). The only way
>to the continuum is to start with it. No amount of making lists is
>going to get you there.

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Dec 05 2006 - 00:12:12 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST