Re: Is the universe a set? Probably not.

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:44:47 +1100 (EST)

Christoph Schiller wrote:
> 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.

My understanding of QM is that it is based on a set (the Hilbert space
of "wavefunctions") that is neither a space-time set nor a particle
set. It has infinite dimensionality while space-time sets are finite,
and is continuous while particle sets are discrete.

Let me know if I'm missing something here, but I would have thought
that this does kill your argument.

Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Room 2075, Red Centre
Received on Mon Oct 16 2000 - 15:55:52 PDT

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