On 3/2/2022 1:42 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:07:22 PM UTC+1 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/2022 12:58 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:11:34 PM UTC+1
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/2022 2:41 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:48 AM UTC+1
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/2022 4:00 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:17:43 AM UTC+1
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/2022 1:59 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:14:31 PM UTC+1
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
But before we can assess whether something has a
consistent description we need to specify the
description precisely. With a vague description
we may be missing an inconsistency lurking
somewhere in it or there may appear to be an
inconsistency that is not really there. For
example, if we try to describe a quantum object
in terms of classical physics the description
will not be precise enough and the assumptions
inherent in those terms will be contradictory.
The ideal description would reveal the complete
structure of the object down to empty sets but we
can't physically probe objects around us to that
level.
I think that's a cheat. It's not that
classical physics was imprecise. It was just
wrong. QM and Newtonian mechanics even have
different ontologies. If you're wrong about
the subject matter no amount of logic will
correct that. Logic only explicates what is
implicit in the premises. It's a cheat to
appeal to an ideal description when you have
no way of producing such a description or
knowing if you have achieved it or even
knowing whether one exists .
It's not a cheat, it's a complete mathematical
description. Every mathematical structure can be
ultimately described as a pure set. Classical
physics and quantum physics have not been
described as pure sets and so they are not
complete mathematical descriptions. The fact that
it is not feasible for us to achieve such a
description of physical structures doesn't mean
that it doesn't exist.
And the fact that you can form a sentence using the
word doesn't mean it exists either.
Which word?
"Complete" mathematical description.
I said it because according to set theory every mathematical
structure can be reduced to a pure set. So a pure set would
be a complete mathematical description of any object. It
basically means that an object is analyzed down to its
smallest parts (empty sets). This internal structure of the
object also establishes all the object's relations to all
other objects, including for example the relation of
"insurability" between a car and insurance providers.
Which means you are assuming the world is a mathematical
structure. In other words begging the question.
Yeah, I am assuming that things constitute collections - that's
what a mathematical structure is. What other kind of structure
can there be?
Don't you see that "things" and "collections" are concepts we
impose on the world. Didn't you notice when the whole ontology of
the world shifted from particles to fields? No? Did you see
metphysicians rushing to revise their world views?
And the concept of "collections" obviously corresponds to the world.
After all, how could it be otherwise? If there are two somethings they
automatically constitute a collection of two somethings. Particles or
fields, whatever - they have mathematical descriptions and
mathematical descriptions are in principle reducible to pure sets.
One of their mathematical descriptions used to be that two different
something could not be in the same place at the same time. That two
identical things must be the same thing. It's just logic.
Yes, all mathematical descriptions can be reduced to sets and
relations. I'm told they can also be reduced to categories, but haven't
studied category theory. Russell and Whitehead thought they can be
reduced to logic. And things admit of mathematical description. But
you've leaped over all that to things*are *their mathematical description.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eb04530b-9cdd-ec76-450d-b28a4edc43b4%40gmail.com.