Hi,
Le Jeudi 16 Mars 2006 14:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges wrote:
- The multiverse is isomorphic to a mathematical object,
This has to be saying simply that the multiverse IS a mathematical
object.
Otherwise it is nonsense.
No, because all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges wrote:
- The multiverse is isomorphic to a mathematical object,
This has to be saying simply that the multiverse IS a mathematical
object.
Otherwise it is nonsense.
No, because all mathematical objects, as mathematical objects
Le 16-mars-06, à 14:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
No, because all mathematical objects, as mathematical objects
exist (or don't exit) on an equal basis. Yet the universe is only
isomorphic to one of them. It has real existence, as opposed
to the other mathematical objects which are only
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 16-mars-06, à 14:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
No, because all mathematical objects, as mathematical objects
exist (or don't exit) on an equal basis. Yet the universe is only
isomorphic to one of them. It has real existence, as opposed
to the other mathematical
Hi Norman,
Le 15-mars-06, à 17:32, Norman Samish a écrit :
( Norman Samish) I don't see how a list of numbers could, by itself, contain any meaningful information. Sure, a list of numbers could be an executable program, but there has to be an executive program to execute the executable
Le 16-mars-06, à 17:27, Georges Quénot a écrit :
Eeh... Who are you replying to exactly?
Oops. I guess it was Tom. Sorry.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
... or Peter D Jones.
Really sorry. I will try to correct that issue tomorrow.
I should not answer posts and teaching at the same time! I will try to
remember that lesson.
B.
Le 16-mars-06, à 18:44, Bruno Marchal a écrit :
Le 16-mars-06, à 17:27, Georges Quénot a écrit :
Eeh... Who are
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical object
real and others abstract...
A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is not sufficient
to explain
the world. QED.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
Le Jeudi 16 Mars 2006 21:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical
object real and others abstract...
A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is not sufficient
to explain
the world. QED.
Is isomorphism or a one-to-one correspondence a mathematical concept or
a metamathematical (or metaphysical? another complication in the
discussion) concept? I take them as mathematical concepts, so that
speculating about isomorphisms of things like the multiverse is in
itself assuming that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is isomorphism or a one-to-one correspondence a mathematical concept or
a metamathematical (or metaphysical? another complication in the
discussion) concept?
It is not mathematical in the sense tha both of objects have
to be mathematical and nothing but mathematical
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 16-mars-06, à 14:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
No, because all mathematical objects, as mathematical objects
exist (or don't exit) on an equal basis. Yet the universe is only
isomorphic to one of them. It has real existence, as opposed
to the other
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le Jeudi 16 Mars 2006 21:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical
object real and others abstract...
A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is not sufficient
to explain
the
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 11-mars-06, à 10:59, Georges Quénot wrote (to John):
snip
Yes also and indeed, the way of thinking I presented
fits within a reductionist framework. Nobody is required
to adhere to such a framework (and therefore to the way
of thinking I presented). If one
Yes, Iwas assuming that the descriptions "lose information", or
generalize, just as "mammal" is a generalization, and just as Bruno's
duplicationloses information. Otherwise, I would call it a
re-representation of*ALL* the details of something, *as seen from a
certain perspective*, into
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical object
real and others abstract...
A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is not sufficient
to explain the world. QED.
This looks *very* similar to;
]]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges wrote:
- The multiverse is isomorphic to a mathematical object,
This has to be saying simply that the multiverse IS a mathematical
object.
Otherwise it is nonsense.
No, because all
17 matches
Mail list logo
