Tom Caylor wrote:
> Hal Ruhl wrote:
> > I have tried to find material discussing the following idea but have
> > not found any yet so I would appreciate comments.
> > The idea is based in the description of objects.
> > It was recently pointed out to me as being an aspect of my model by
> > Alastair Malcolm.
> > The idea is presented below and its result appears to be to exclude
> > continuums from universes.
> > Assumptions:
> > 1) There is a list of all possible properties of objects.
> The above object #1 is countable by definition.
> > 2) The list and all its sublists are the descriptions of all possible
> > objects.
> The above object #2 is uncountable by Cantor's diagonal argument. It
> is the power set of the first list. It is not a list.
> > By Cantor's diagonal argument lists can be no more than countably
> > infinite in length.
> > An object's spacial coordinates are part of its description [its
> > sublist] but because the full list is at most only countably infinite
> > in length there can not be a continuum of spacial coordinates on
> > it. The same would apply to an object's time coordinates.
> If you assume that space and/or time is a continuum, then there exists
> an uncountable set of space and/or time coordinates, even in every
> interval of non-zero measure. But if you take a particular object, as
> you are doing here, which has one set of space-time coordinate
> (4-tuple), this is describable with a countable set of symbols. Yes,
> assuming a space-time continuum that is really a continuum is rather
> hard to believe, as Feynman pointed out (at one point in his life ;).
Actually, since Feynam's "point" seems to be meaningful, then he
probably made the point over an interval of non-zero measure of his
> But as I have been trying to point out, this kind of belief is
> something that we do without thinking about it. And yet it is faith.
> It is based on evidence, a finite set of points of evidence, but it
> takes faith to integrate over those points.
It also takes faith to use a finite number of points to predict nature,
investing an interval of non-zero measure of your life to do it. The
personal involvement is what adds the meaning and significance to
faith. Believing against evidence is a totally different thing that we
can all bad talk with integrity as much as we want.
> > Universes are objects described by sub lists of the full list and
> > consist of sets of other sub lists but as such universes can not
> > contain continuums of spacial or temporal coordinates or continuums
> > of any other property its objects might have.
> > As an aside, in my current model the full list and its sub lists are
> > both description and object. Objects interact by mutually
> > changing just one property - their location on a Physical Reality
> > dimension. The change is just a shifting of boundaries between sublists.
> > Hal Ruhl
> Perhaps this is a good new angle to try to say what I'm trying to say.
> If there is ultimately no such thing as a person, then there is no
> subject-object distinction (needed for science, and even more for
> scientists). This is talking at the deepest level of philosophy, not
> the common sense (sometimes the word naive is used) sense that is used
> in everyday science. I think it is best to always look at the whole
> week (the living of everyday life at the finite level) from the
> perspective of the weekend (personal eternity, the grand scheme of
> things which the impersonal Everything does not provide). The only way
> to the continuum is to start with it. No amount of making lists is
> going to get you there.
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