I agree (whatever it is worth) with the (empty or not) 'set' being
'something' in the nothing.
(I started my 'naive otology (1991) with 'nothingNESS', which is also more
than (your) nothing: containing an ontological qualifier, so it became
"SOMETHINGNESS" which was the startup of the world.
(Never mind that now, just reminiscence). - )
I had no 'smart'(?) ideas on "what moves", but had some headaches with the
vacuum energy (I read about it by D. Bohm) and concluded that it may be a
physicistical "quantizing" of the (OOPS!) "creation": the
vacuumenergy-amount of allegedly 10^124 times that of the total energy
content of the material universe - contained in 1 ml of vacuum (I did not
make that up) - was assigned in my mind to the 'work' to make 'nothing' into
'something'. (Just for the fun of it.)
Silly idea but at that time I had no better one - nor do I have now.
To your more recent post upon Kory's rather technical complaints to CMR's
(>"Mathematical realism holds that mathematical entities exist
>independently of the human mind..."<)
I have a principal complaint: How do we learn about "things existing
independently of our mind"? by some 'unidentifiable' input how it is
interpreted by the mind (the essence of 1st person ideas). So it is our mind
that 'makes up' the mathematical concepts which may "exist" in the natural
world quite differently. Our response.
As I recall I mentioned D. Bohm's remark that "numbers do not exist in
nature, they are human inventions" or something of that kind, and as I
remember it was CMR who retorted (correct me if I remember wrong) that "your
mind is part of the world and the numbers exist in it, how can you maintain
Bohm's statement? [quote approximate].
Discounting "what came first" WE may conclude that if mathematics
"came from nature" - it came from our interpretation. An inventive
Just like the space-time coordination which led to "motion".

Sorry for the common sense rambling

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

> Hi Stephen:
> At 01:14 PM 6/30/2004, you wrote:
> >Dear Hal,
> >
> >     Could the Nothing be a generalization of the notion of the Null or
> >set?
> I think the Null or Empty sets are more particular than my Nothing since
> they include all the underpinnings supporting the idea of "set".
> >     One question that I have is "what moves?" It seems that I am merely
> >re-asking Zeno's question...
> >
> >     How is motion, whether it is the UD moving infinitely slowly from
> >to string or your example of a "shackwave", what is the reason "MOTION"
> >exists? What necessitates motion and change a priori?
> In our universe we identify something called a vacuum energy.  I see the
> incompleteness of the Nothing as such a "prime mover" if you will.  The
> initiator is sort of a symmetry breaking when the Nothing must answer a
> meaningful question.  Once this starts it acts rather like a formal system
> attempting to complete itself - an empty quest.  This provides the
> "motivator" for the evolution of the particular metaverse associated with
> this particular symmetry breaking.  I do see the evolution process as
> digital so there is no "motion" as we usually interpret it.  A universe
> just winks out between successive states.  In this case relativity and
> quantum mechanics seem to me to be simple consequences.
> Hal

Reply via email to