- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Brian Tenneson <tennesb.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:28:01 -0700

Perhaps Hilbert was right and Physics ought to have been axiomatized when he

suggested it. ;) Then again, there might not have been a motivation to

until recently with Tegmark's MUH paper and related material (like by David

Wolpert of NASA).

I was trying to answer Bruno's objections regarding set theory being too

rich to be the 'ultimate math' the MUH needs to propose what the universe is

and I quipped that that was because math is invented or discovered to

further its own end by logicians, for the most part, and that

metamathematicians such as Cantor had no apparent interest in physical

things or furthering the pursuit of Physics.

Another question of Bruno's was my motivation. I started this quest hoping

that three truth values were sufficient to develop a set theory with a

universal set that was in a classical logic sense consistent to ZFC set

theory. Or, if not true, prove that and figure out why. Perhaps more truth

values would solve that. My main motivation has definitely not been to

"rescue" a major apparent shortcoming in the MUH as I started this

on-and-off quest in 2003 with no internet connection or resources such as a

deluge of journals (ie, a good library). How it started was that someone

online in a place such as this used Russell-like arguments to -prove- that

the Physic's universe -does not exist- for essentially the same reasons a

universal set can't seem to be non-antimonious.

Suppose Everything is well defined along with its partner, containment (such

as the earth is contained in the solar system by the definitions of both).

Then Everything does not exist. Proof:

Consider the thing, call it "this something," that is the qualia of all

things that do not contain themselves.

Then this something contains itself if and only if this something does not

contain itself.

By a simple logical tautology (a variant of ad absurdum), this proves that

"Everything is well defined" is a false statement. It also raises doubts as

to the existence of this so called Everything. Maybe this google group

should end?

I don't think so.

My quip was something along the lines of, "however, in any ternary logic, ad

absurdum is not a tautology and therefore, can't be used here."

That discussion got me going and while mostly off task, I've been thinking

about this on and off since then. Basically, my motivation to "rescue" a

universal set is so that Cantor's dream of formalizing in a mathematical way

some type of deity could be realized. The analogy would be Abraham Robinson

is to Issac Newton (on infinitesimals) as Quinne (et al) are to Cantor (on a

universal set). Right idea, but never considered using fuzzy logic not to

be delved into much until Lukaseiwicz, Zadeh, and others revitalized FL. As

it took an army of giants to "rescue" Newton's intuition which was

criticized by another philosopher (Berkeley, akin to Russell) to develop

enough tools (compactness theorem), it is taking an army of logicians to

"rescue" Cantor's intuition about God which, and this may be apocrypha, he

believed to be his maximally infinite set. He thought infinity must be an

attribute of God and therefore delved into infinite sets, hoping, I assume,

to reach some type of Omega set that contains all sets and would then be

necessarily the "biggest" infinity. Cantor proved that the power set of any

set is "larger," however, and settled his own quest in his own way though

I'm guessing he -desired- the opposite conclusion to have been reached.

Others in the FL army are trying to reach that conclusion which Cantor,

chronologically, would have to have re-discovered much mathematics to

realize in the way this army is doing.

So the basic motivation is to find some type of thing with maximality in

some important sense and study it. With the MUH, now I suspect that

Everything would be a likely candidate for a literal God and atheism might

have to suddenly be the irrational side to be on.

So on this note, the works of David Hawkins (a psychiatrist and

spiritualist) inspired me to ponder the following question, along with

Tegmark's articulation of the MUH, of course.

Which mathematical structure -is- the universe in Physics?

I suspect it might already exist and has been studied. It's like finding

the correct non-Euclidean Geometry applicable to the universe we perceive

gets us to a GR that coincides with observation (for the most part?). I am

guessing that the universe must have an MV-algebra structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV-algebra

I was trying to rejoin Bruno's "too rich" -valid- (imho) objection to

Tegmark's approach in his MUH paper by concocting a theory that was far less

rich. All I need are things and a notion of containment. I was going to

call it container theory. Then there'd be no need to develop something

strong enough to do numbers, infinite sets, and such, so with those goals

gone, so much more is available to Physics without having to squeeze any set

theory or logic into Physics. It's there, I suspect, in -classical logic-

and recent -algebra- in the guise of MV-algebra. This area is exactly what

I mean by thing and containment. Now if you look at the wiki article above,

observe, firstly, how little there is reliance on sets or non-classical

logic.

Secondly, I could view all the letters that would normally be variables as

things in the "container theory" I was trying to work on. In MV-algebras,

the variables represent truth degrees and the carrier of the MV-algebra is

the truth set, the set of all truth values which has cardinality two in all

classical logics. But this seems promising for my 'container theory' which

I was assuming someone had done that I just had to find somewhere. Now if

each variable is now a worldline, one think of it that way. The carrier of

the MV-algebra is the set of all worldlines in one parallel universe. An

ideal could be a sub-universe that isn't parallel. The circle-plus is the

notion of joining and the circle-times is the notion of intersecting or

meeting (to use Boolean terminology which is much more compatible with most

natural languages).

The 0 in the MV-algebra could be intuitively compared to that which contains

nothing or the empty container.

The notion of containment is given by the ordering induced by the

circle-plus and negation operator, listed in detail in Siegfried Gottwald's

"A Treatise on Many-Valued Logics" in section 9.2.1 on pages 215-234.

So if each variable represents a world-line consistent with -some- laws of

some Physics, which vary from parallel to parallel (a parallel would be an

ideal of an MV-algebra), then maybe this way to view MV-algebras would prove

interesting to a Physicist.

To glue MV-algebras together into what the multiverse might be, not much

more complex than a simple union would suffice, I think (not having thought

along those lines yet)?

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Wed Apr 23 2008 - 00:30:34 PDT

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:28:01 -0700

Perhaps Hilbert was right and Physics ought to have been axiomatized when he

suggested it. ;) Then again, there might not have been a motivation to

until recently with Tegmark's MUH paper and related material (like by David

Wolpert of NASA).

I was trying to answer Bruno's objections regarding set theory being too

rich to be the 'ultimate math' the MUH needs to propose what the universe is

and I quipped that that was because math is invented or discovered to

further its own end by logicians, for the most part, and that

metamathematicians such as Cantor had no apparent interest in physical

things or furthering the pursuit of Physics.

Another question of Bruno's was my motivation. I started this quest hoping

that three truth values were sufficient to develop a set theory with a

universal set that was in a classical logic sense consistent to ZFC set

theory. Or, if not true, prove that and figure out why. Perhaps more truth

values would solve that. My main motivation has definitely not been to

"rescue" a major apparent shortcoming in the MUH as I started this

on-and-off quest in 2003 with no internet connection or resources such as a

deluge of journals (ie, a good library). How it started was that someone

online in a place such as this used Russell-like arguments to -prove- that

the Physic's universe -does not exist- for essentially the same reasons a

universal set can't seem to be non-antimonious.

Suppose Everything is well defined along with its partner, containment (such

as the earth is contained in the solar system by the definitions of both).

Then Everything does not exist. Proof:

Consider the thing, call it "this something," that is the qualia of all

things that do not contain themselves.

Then this something contains itself if and only if this something does not

contain itself.

By a simple logical tautology (a variant of ad absurdum), this proves that

"Everything is well defined" is a false statement. It also raises doubts as

to the existence of this so called Everything. Maybe this google group

should end?

I don't think so.

My quip was something along the lines of, "however, in any ternary logic, ad

absurdum is not a tautology and therefore, can't be used here."

That discussion got me going and while mostly off task, I've been thinking

about this on and off since then. Basically, my motivation to "rescue" a

universal set is so that Cantor's dream of formalizing in a mathematical way

some type of deity could be realized. The analogy would be Abraham Robinson

is to Issac Newton (on infinitesimals) as Quinne (et al) are to Cantor (on a

universal set). Right idea, but never considered using fuzzy logic not to

be delved into much until Lukaseiwicz, Zadeh, and others revitalized FL. As

it took an army of giants to "rescue" Newton's intuition which was

criticized by another philosopher (Berkeley, akin to Russell) to develop

enough tools (compactness theorem), it is taking an army of logicians to

"rescue" Cantor's intuition about God which, and this may be apocrypha, he

believed to be his maximally infinite set. He thought infinity must be an

attribute of God and therefore delved into infinite sets, hoping, I assume,

to reach some type of Omega set that contains all sets and would then be

necessarily the "biggest" infinity. Cantor proved that the power set of any

set is "larger," however, and settled his own quest in his own way though

I'm guessing he -desired- the opposite conclusion to have been reached.

Others in the FL army are trying to reach that conclusion which Cantor,

chronologically, would have to have re-discovered much mathematics to

realize in the way this army is doing.

So the basic motivation is to find some type of thing with maximality in

some important sense and study it. With the MUH, now I suspect that

Everything would be a likely candidate for a literal God and atheism might

have to suddenly be the irrational side to be on.

So on this note, the works of David Hawkins (a psychiatrist and

spiritualist) inspired me to ponder the following question, along with

Tegmark's articulation of the MUH, of course.

Which mathematical structure -is- the universe in Physics?

I suspect it might already exist and has been studied. It's like finding

the correct non-Euclidean Geometry applicable to the universe we perceive

gets us to a GR that coincides with observation (for the most part?). I am

guessing that the universe must have an MV-algebra structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV-algebra

I was trying to rejoin Bruno's "too rich" -valid- (imho) objection to

Tegmark's approach in his MUH paper by concocting a theory that was far less

rich. All I need are things and a notion of containment. I was going to

call it container theory. Then there'd be no need to develop something

strong enough to do numbers, infinite sets, and such, so with those goals

gone, so much more is available to Physics without having to squeeze any set

theory or logic into Physics. It's there, I suspect, in -classical logic-

and recent -algebra- in the guise of MV-algebra. This area is exactly what

I mean by thing and containment. Now if you look at the wiki article above,

observe, firstly, how little there is reliance on sets or non-classical

logic.

Secondly, I could view all the letters that would normally be variables as

things in the "container theory" I was trying to work on. In MV-algebras,

the variables represent truth degrees and the carrier of the MV-algebra is

the truth set, the set of all truth values which has cardinality two in all

classical logics. But this seems promising for my 'container theory' which

I was assuming someone had done that I just had to find somewhere. Now if

each variable is now a worldline, one think of it that way. The carrier of

the MV-algebra is the set of all worldlines in one parallel universe. An

ideal could be a sub-universe that isn't parallel. The circle-plus is the

notion of joining and the circle-times is the notion of intersecting or

meeting (to use Boolean terminology which is much more compatible with most

natural languages).

The 0 in the MV-algebra could be intuitively compared to that which contains

nothing or the empty container.

The notion of containment is given by the ordering induced by the

circle-plus and negation operator, listed in detail in Siegfried Gottwald's

"A Treatise on Many-Valued Logics" in section 9.2.1 on pages 215-234.

So if each variable represents a world-line consistent with -some- laws of

some Physics, which vary from parallel to parallel (a parallel would be an

ideal of an MV-algebra), then maybe this way to view MV-algebras would prove

interesting to a Physicist.

To glue MV-algebras together into what the multiverse might be, not much

more complex than a simple union would suffice, I think (not having thought

along those lines yet)?

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Wed Apr 23 2008 - 00:30:34 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST
*