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 http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
