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                    
Australia                                [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Room 2075, Red Centre          

Reply via email to