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

From: A. Wolf <a.lupine.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 16:41:26 -0500

*> I'm well aware of relativity. But I don't see how you can invoke it when
*

*> discussing all possible, i.e. non-contradictory, universes. Neither do I see
*

*> that list of states universes would be a teeny subset of all mathematically
*

*> consistent universes. On the contrary, it would be very large. It would
*

*> certainly be much larger than that teeny subset obeying general relativity or
*

*> Newtonian physics or the standard model of QFT in Minkowski spacetime.
*

You said: "So universes that consisted just of lists of

(state_i)(state_i+1)... would exist, where a state might or might not

have an implicate time value."

I was trying to express that the universe in which we reside isn't

separable into a set of lists of states. It's more mathematically

complex than that.

Some mathematical models are self-contradictory, and some are not.

This is true regardless as to how you formulate a foundation of

mathematics, and it forms the basis for understanding and proving

mathematical truths. I believe that a mathematical structure complex

enough to capture the entire set of events that define a universe must

be non-self-contradictory to be a truthful model for that universe.

There are mathematical structures which are self-contradictory because

they are predicated upon axioms which ultimately contradict

themselves; these structures are not well-defined and cannot be a

basis for existence. Such a basis would make existence itself

ambiguous, because all things would have to exist and not-exist at the

same time, and not in the quantum way--with no discernable structure

or foundation at all.

I'm not certain what you're trying to argue, but it seems like you

think that anything you can imagine must have a well-founded

mathematical basis...? You can imagine all you like, but it won't

bring into being a universe where Godel's incompleteness theorems

don't hold, for example. The fundamental things that we know about

mathematics itself transcend any particular realization of the

universe.

Anna

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

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 Sat Nov 08 2008 - 16:41:47 PST

Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 16:41:26 -0500

You said: "So universes that consisted just of lists of

(state_i)(state_i+1)... would exist, where a state might or might not

have an implicate time value."

I was trying to express that the universe in which we reside isn't

separable into a set of lists of states. It's more mathematically

complex than that.

Some mathematical models are self-contradictory, and some are not.

This is true regardless as to how you formulate a foundation of

mathematics, and it forms the basis for understanding and proving

mathematical truths. I believe that a mathematical structure complex

enough to capture the entire set of events that define a universe must

be non-self-contradictory to be a truthful model for that universe.

There are mathematical structures which are self-contradictory because

they are predicated upon axioms which ultimately contradict

themselves; these structures are not well-defined and cannot be a

basis for existence. Such a basis would make existence itself

ambiguous, because all things would have to exist and not-exist at the

same time, and not in the quantum way--with no discernable structure

or foundation at all.

I'm not certain what you're trying to argue, but it seems like you

think that anything you can imagine must have a well-founded

mathematical basis...? You can imagine all you like, but it won't

bring into being a universe where Godel's incompleteness theorems

don't hold, for example. The fundamental things that we know about

mathematics itself transcend any particular realization of the

universe.

Anna

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

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 Sat Nov 08 2008 - 16:41:47 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST
*