# Re: Objects, Lists, and continuums

```Hi Tom

At 11:10 AM 12/4/2006, you wrote:```
```
>Hal Ruhl wrote:
> > 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.

It is only countable as I say in my model but by Cantor's argument as
far as I know and not by definition.  If it was by definition then
why his argument?

> > 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.

As I say in my model it is indeed the power set and thus makes for an
uncountable number of objects.

>  It is not a list.

I did not say it was.

> > By Cantor's diagonal argument lists can be no more than countably
> > infinite in length.

The above refers to #1.  I thought that was clear since I did not try
to say #2 was a list.

> > 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.

Well the idea that you can map the points in an N dimensional
continuum to the points on any line segment  makes me wonder how
continuums can play a role in the description of universes especially
since it does not seem necessary - at least to me.

>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.

If so then why is a continuum necessary?  My Physical reality
dimension with countable - finite will do I think - values seems enough.

>  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 ;).
>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.

As I indicated appeal to continuums seems odd and unnecessary.  I
have found no evidence that convinces me otherwise and I have no
faith in the odd and unnecessary.

> > 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,

Well a result of what I am saying seems to be that there are a
countably infinite number of objects that are exactly as I am "now"
but having every possible space-time combination.  However, one has
to consider their location on the physical reality dimension.  This
would allow a dynamic [which occurs by the nature of the # 1 list] to
trace out chains of such "as I could ever be" objects that would
appear as a person moving through space-time so long as at least
several adjacent such objects all have non zero but first rising and
then falling physical reality so that "flow" and "apparent" have a reference.

Must go it is late.

Hal

>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.
>
>Tom
>
>
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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