A. Wolf wrote:
>> But not a logical contradiction. It would just contradict our assumed
>> model of physics, i.e. a nomological contradiction.
> I realize I can't give a concrete example from physics due to the lack of
> total human understanding, so it is difficult to get across the exact point.
> If we presume that our understanding of the relationship between space and
> time is correct, then it would be a contradiction to observe true FTL
> transmission of information, because that would cause paradoxes
> (contradictions) in the structure of the universe itself.
>> It does unless there are some axioms and rules of inference such that
>> adding the thing I envision allows one to infer a contradiction. That's
>> why I was asking about the model - does it have axioms and rules of
> All models of mathematics have axioms, but only those (I postulate) which
> are non self-contradictory "exist". A universe that includes a model of
> naive set theory cannot exist, for one example, because it is
> self-contradictory. A universe that contains an elementary model capable of
> describing the ideas of naive set theory can exist, though.
So universes that consisted just of lists of (state_i)(state_i+1)...
would exist, where a state might or might not have an implicate time value.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at