Le 17-mars-06, à 06:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Yes, I was assuming that the descriptions "lose information", or generalize, just as "mammal" is a generalization, and just as Bruno's duplication loses information. Otherwise, I would call it a re-representation of *ALL* the details of something, *as seen from a certain perspective*, into another form. I don't think this is possible with physical things in our universe. This is what I was trying to get at.
But what is a physical things? Are assuming such things exist at the outset?
If we are limiting our discussion to numbers to begin with, then we would have to assume at the outset that the universe is totally representable (not just describable) by numbers in order for the discussion to have any bearing on the final true nature of the universe. I don't assume that.
What do you mean by limiting the discussion to numbers? We know today that the realm of numbers (I mean natural numbers) contains many things which is already not representable in term of numbers. For example the notion of true proposition (bearing on numbers) cannot be represented arithmetically.
I would say that Godel's theorems demolish all "reductionist" interpretation of what the numbers are capable of.
The UDA shows also that if I can be locally coded by a number, then necessarily my observable universe, which emerges from all my possible continuations, will be full of entities which are not codable by numbers.
After Godel we know that even if we limit ourselves to numbers at the outset, there is just no complete finite TOE capable of describing all the truth (about numbers).
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---