Tom Caylor wrote: > Brent Meeker wrote: >> Tom Caylor wrote: >>> Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or >>> worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These >>> universes can be consistent or inconsistent. >>> >>> But approaching it from the empirical side (top down rather bottom up), >>> here is an example of a consistent structure: I think you assume that >>> you as a person are a structure, or that you can assume that >>> temporarily for the purpose of argument. You as a person can be >>> consistent in what you say, can you not? Given certain assumptions >>> (axioms) and inference rules you can be consistent or inconsistent in >>> what you say. >> Depending on your definition of consistent and inconsistent, there need not >> be any axioms or inference rules at all. If I say "I'm married and I'm not >> married." then I've said something inconsistent - regardless of axioms or >> rules. But *I'm* not inconsistent - just what I've said is. >> >>> I'm not saying the what you say is all there is to who >>> you are. Actually this illustrates what I was saying before about the >>> need for a "reference frame" to talk about consistency, e.g. "what you >>> say, given your currently held axioms and rules". >> If you have axioms and rules and you can infer "X and not-X" then the >> axioms+rules are inconsistent - but so what? Nothing of import about the >> universe follows. >> > > Yes, but if you see that one set of axioms/rules is inconsistent with > another set of axioms/rules, then you can deduce something about the > possible configurations of the universe, but only if you assume that > the universe is consistent (which you apparently are calling a category > error). A case in point is Euclid's fifth postulate in fact. By > observing that Euclidean geometry is inconsistent with non-Euclidean > geometry (the word "observe" here is not a pun or even a metaphor!), > you can conclude that the local geometry of the universe should follow > one or the other of these geometries.

## Advertising

No, you are mistaken. You can only conclude that, based on my methods of measurement, a non-Euclidean model of the universe is simpler and more convenient than an Euclidean one. >This is exactly the reasoning > they are using in analyzing the WIMP observations. The WIMP observations are consistent with a Euclidean model...provided you change a lot of other physics. >Time and again in > history, math has been the guide for what to look for in the universe. > Not just provability (as Bruno pointed out) inside one set of > axioms/rules (paradigm), but the most powerful tool is generating > multiple consistent paradigms, and playing them against one another, > and against the observed structure of the universe. Right. As my mathematician friend Norm Levitt put it,"The duty of abstract mathematics, as I see it, is precisely to expand our capacity for hypothesizing possible ontologies." > On the other hand, I think that the real proof of the pudding of > Bruno's approach would be, not does his approach agree with empirical > evidence at the quantum/atomic level, but does it agree at the global > level, e.g. by make correct predictions about the spacial curvature, > compactness, finitude/infinitude, connectedness, etc. of the observed > universe. Of course the quantum vs. global agreement would be the real > "proof" of any TOE. Agreement would be great. But the proof of scientific pudding is predicting something suprising that is subsequently confirmed. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---