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

From: Christoph Schiller <christoph_schiller.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:36:14 -0700

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) What I meant with the word "is" in the title was:

"Is the most precise description of " the uniwerse a set?

I am not talking about ontology or epistemology, just about

experiments and comparison with theory.

Of course, both quantum theory and relativity *assume*

sets to start with; the whole point is that despite this,

when one takes them *together* (and in fact, it turns

out, only then) one can deduce that these sets make no sense.

I do not know how to think without sets, but I sure want to

know whether and how far this is possible. That is the real fun here.

It is said than one fallacy in the argument is that it is assumed

that all sets used in the physical description of nature are derived

from space-time and particle sets. I do not know of any others;

I'd thought that all are built up from these. I am *very*

curious if there are any other, independent sets. That is indeed

extremely important for the argument, and would kill it.

About simpler set theories. I am not sure whether there are

set theories without the assumption of distinguishability of

the elements. If so I'd like to know know more as well.

About the comment by Brent Meeker I find that the two equations

he gives directly lead to equation 28, that his statement is thus

incorrect. (Just insert them into each other)

Christoph

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:36:14 -0700

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) What I meant with the word "is" in the title was:

"Is the most precise description of " the uniwerse a set?

I am not talking about ontology or epistemology, just about

experiments and comparison with theory.

Of course, both quantum theory and relativity *assume*

sets to start with; the whole point is that despite this,

when one takes them *together* (and in fact, it turns

out, only then) one can deduce that these sets make no sense.

I do not know how to think without sets, but I sure want to

know whether and how far this is possible. That is the real fun here.

It is said than one fallacy in the argument is that it is assumed

that all sets used in the physical description of nature are derived

from space-time and particle sets. I do not know of any others;

I'd thought that all are built up from these. I am *very*

curious if there are any other, independent sets. That is indeed

extremely important for the argument, and would kill it.

About simpler set theories. I am not sure whether there are

set theories without the assumption of distinguishability of

the elements. If so I'd like to know know more as well.

About the comment by Brent Meeker I find that the two equations

he gives directly lead to equation 28, that his statement is thus

incorrect. (Just insert them into each other)

Christoph

--- Have a look at my free physics textbook, written to be surprising and challenging on every page: http://www.dse.nl/motionmountain/contents.html --- ------------------------------------------------------------ --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy.Received on Mon Oct 16 2000 - 01:34:48 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*