?
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 7:33 pm
Subject: Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 16 January 2014 13:31, Edgar L. Owen lt;edgaro...@att.netgt; wrote:
Stephen,
c is actually the speed of TIME
Dear Edgar,
Bingo! You are correct. All motion in space-time is an illusion. The
ancient greeks figured that out already.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
If time doesn't move then nothing moves.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Stephen,
Sure, those ancient Greeks also figured out that Apollo drove the sun
across the sky in his chariot too. Boy were they smart, the final arbiters
of truth!
If all movement is illusion then most certainly you are also. Glad we got
that figured out! What am I doing here having this
Second, because everything is always moving through time at the speed of
light everything MUST be at one and only one location in time.
That doesn't follow.
It does if time is a one-dimensional continuum and everything is moving
through (along) it at the speed of light, and everything is a
On 16 January 2014 13:46, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Ok, speculatively jumping into the Tegmark book, which I am plodding
through and his 4 levels of the multiverse, I need to throw out this
question. Is it even possible, in principle, to physically traverse into
another universe, a parallel
On 16 January 2014 13:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Edgar,
Bingo! You are correct. All motion in space-time is an illusion. The
ancient greeks figured that out already.
You mean Zeno? But he didn't know about the maths of infinity... :)
(Just an aside.
On 1/15/2014 4:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Both DO follow if you understand the argument. Why do you think they don't
follow?
Well the first one is true, if you take time to mean a global coordinate time. But then
it's just saying every event can be labelled with a time coordinate.
On 16 January 2014 15:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:23 PM, LizR wrote:
So although the troll theory is tempting, because that is exactly how
trolls behave, I'm going to go for a bot instead. Someone decided to
write a programme which trots out a theory that doesn't
Dear Edgar,
I took a break to watch The Tomorrow People. Neat show. It's not real,
neither are the sky chariots. I know when to distinguish metaphor from
literal statements.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Sure, those ancient Greeks also
Dear LizR,
What you wrote is missing something. Add for each inertial
frame... to everything
is a single point because there are no spatial dimensions.
We forget that we have to deal with multiple inertial frames when
considering real world scenarios. They are very close to synchrony and
Dear LizR,
Yeah, Zeno didn't know about calculus... I was speaking to the idea that
time moves. It doesn't, there is nothing to move. It is not an object
that can be observed. We can measure measures of time: duration, sequence
and energy. It is amazing how our minds can create things out of
On 16 January 2014 16:16, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
What you wrote is missing something. Add for each inertial frame... to
everything is a single point because there are no spatial dimensions.
I was trying to make sense of the suggestion that everything
On 16 January 2014 16:19, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Yeah, Zeno didn't know about calculus... I was speaking to the idea that
time moves. It doesn't, there is nothing to move. It is not an object
that can be observed. We can measure measures of time:
Dear Brent,
You are not understanding what he is saying. Try to parse it as if the
person writing does not speak English as a first language. For one thing,
did you see the if in ... if the notion of time is given a priori, ,
the velocity is definitely determined when given a position... Prof.
Dear Brent,
One thing about the truth value stuff. I know several other high level
PhDs that have very similar discussions. It is based on a different way of
thinking.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. :-)
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
On 1/15/2014 4:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
If time doesn't move then nothing moves.
Moving means being different places at different times. Do you think time is different
places at different times?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 1/15/2014 5:02 PM, LizR wrote:
Second, because everything is always moving through time at the speed of light
everything MUST be at one and only one location in time.
But even in your own formulation in your blog things that moving at the speed of light
through spacetime move through time
Dear LizR,
But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is saying. *Space
is completely a construction of our minds.* *There is no 3,1 dimensional
Riemannian manifold out there*. We measure events and our minds put those
together into tableaux that we communicate about and agree
On 16 January 2014 16:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is saying. *Space
is completely a construction of our minds.* *There is no 3,1 dimensional
Riemannian manifold out there*. We measure events
Dear LizR,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2014 16:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is saying.
*Space
is completely a construction of our minds.*
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time (by requiring a
moving arrow of time and a present moment), so since SR is well verified
block time is false.
That things move does not disprove block time.
On 1/15/2014 7:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is saying. *Space is
completely a construction of our minds.* _There is no 3,1 dimensional Riemannian
manifold out there_. We measure events and our minds put those together
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 2:54 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
I will have to agree with LizR here. SR in fact makes the notion of a
present moment a nonsensical concept, as SR shows how there does not exist,
nay cannot
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
c is actually the speed of TIME as the STc equation makes clear. It just
so happens that light, having no velocity in time, always travels at the
speed of time in all observers' frames thorough SPACE. All its
On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
We cannot keep adding 1 forever to get an infinity. The universe
where addition is possible is only 13.7 billion years old.
So you assume the usual physical universe? Your comp space (which I
have still no clue at all of it consists)
On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:47, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
PS: In spite of your knee jerk reaction my treatment of
'Realization' deals not with 'New Age' type nonsense but mainly with
serious insights on how to directly experience reality as it
actually is such as:
1. The fundamental
On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
William,
No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same
definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course
theories aren't reality.
In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can
appear, is a
On 13 Jan 2014, at 21:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi,
Someone wrote, not sure if it was Terren or Bruno:
... from their own 1-1 points of view, they are in the UD*, and
will follow the path with the greater measure.
This looks like some form of a self-selection!?
OK. Like in the
On 13 Jan 2014, at 22:27, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 08:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't
register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time
On 13 Jan 2014, at 23:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/13/2014 11:37 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
William,
No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same
definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course
theories aren't reality.
In any case the quantum vacuum, out of
On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't
offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the
complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they
are continually offering theories of their
On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most
basic axioms and concepts of the theory.
1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
So you assume:
0. non-existence cannot exist.
That is too
On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:42, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 16:38, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
This sounds like St Anselm's ontological argument put into a nutshell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
You are
On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most
basic axioms and concepts of the theory.
Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms
Bruno,
Not at all. The list of all possible things in a real world is NOT
infinite. The possibilities are restricted by the intrinsic nature of the
quantum vacuum. For example, you can't get an infinite number of different
TYPES of particles out of the quantum vacuum. The set is very
Bruno,
Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was
wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago...
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
By the way, those looking for perhaps a little more substance for Edgar's
theories might enjoy his public blog at http://edgarlowen.info/edgar.shtml,
there is some material there that presumably also appears in his book.
Terren
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Thanks Terren,
However I should point out that the stuff on this site is way out of date.
I added nothing to it during the several years I was writing my book, and
almost everything there in the way of the topics germane to this group has
been extensively revised in the book and in my posts
On 14 Jan 2014, at 15:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Not at all. The list of all possible things in a real world is NOT
infinite.
In what real world?
In all real worlds?
To define not finite, you need second order logic.
To assume *one* finite reality is close to a blaspheme (grin) in
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most
basic axioms and
On 14 Jan 2014, at 15:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that
she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long
ago...
She was not really wrong. She alluded to the equations that Newton
provided. She was
On 14 Jan 2014, at 17:31, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've
Jason,
Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an
ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid in Jr.
High School?
By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does in his
Incompleteness Theorem. Reality computations are
Dear Bruno,
I disagree. A universal number is still a number and this is an idea of
a mind. Even if such a mind is degenerate in that it cannot be ever
complete, it still have finite subsets that are indistinguishable from
finite minds. The eternal running of the UD is such a eternal process.
Liz,
Correct. Most reality math is likely fairly simple and fairly limited.
That's why Bruno's 'comp' that assumes all math exists out there somewhere
is so extraordinarily wrong and excessive and non-parsimonious.
As for the grid cells on the GR rubber sheet model just imagine a
mass-energy
Bruno,
'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality
itself, not to milk in your refrigerator! Existence must exist means
something must exist, whether it's milk or whatever. Individual things have
individual localized existences, but existence (reality) itself is
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Thanks Terren,
However I should point out that the stuff on this site is way out of date.
I added nothing to it during the several years I was writing my book, and
almost everything there in the way of the topics germane
On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality of something, and
I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that kind of argument, at least when made
public.
So in private you are convinced, but as a professor of logic you
On 14 January 2014 16:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
The elements of the set are the information encoding the current state
of the universe and how it is evolving - whatever that may be. What that
may be needs to be further clarified.
So let me get this right. You have a
On 14 January 2014 16:38, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you
can judge...
I generally consider that *dualism* has too many basic concepts (as Stephen
will tell you :)
And anyone who understands their own ideas should
On 14 January 2014 23:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work
informally.
You don't consider Newton's Law of Gravitation to be a formal theory? How
much more formal can you get than defining space and time and mass and
On 15 January 2014 08:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality of
something, and I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that kind of
argument, at least when made public.
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an
ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid
in Jr. High School?
By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does
in his
Liz,
How many times do I have to say it before it's clear? Everything in my
model consists of pure abstract computational information running in the
real actuality and presence (the logical space) of reality.
There is NO actual physicality whatsoever. As I've said repeatedly,
physicality, the
2014/1/13 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Liz,
How many times do I have to say it before it's clear? Everything in my
model consists of pure abstract computational information running in the
real actuality and presence (the logical space) of reality.
There is NO actual physicality
Bruno,
No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't
register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time which is
NON-dimensional. The computations compute Clock time which IS dimensional.
Edgar
On Friday, January 10, 2014 5:00:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
a word yet.
Sincerely,
Og the caveman
-Original Message-
From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: kimjones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Sent: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 4:13 pm
Subject: Re: Tegmark's New Book
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 5:49:38 AM
Jason,
To answer your questions.
Reality must be finite. When the definition of infinity as an unreachable
non-terminable PROCESS (keep adding 1 forever) is clearly understood it is
obvious that nothing actual can be infinite. There is no getting around
this. Nothing real can be infinite
Stephen,
My computational space is not a physical dimensional space. It's a logical
information space. There are no metrics, topology, or parameters. These are
all properties of dimensional spaces. Dimensional spaces are part of the
computational results that emerge FROM computations in
Dear Edgar,
Several of us do not understand what you mean by pure abstract
computational information or real actuality and thus cannot evaluate
your claims. It would be helpful if you proposed some semi-formal
definitions or pointed to similar discussion by other authors. It seems to
me that
Stephen,
It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand it.
Just take the pure information content of everything that exists out of the
'things'. You have pure information. Now assume that information is
continually evolving to compute the current state of reality.
Hi Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 14:05, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Unfortunately I don't have enough familiarity with the math to follow you
here. It is something I'd like to become fluent in one of these days but
Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
To answer your questions.
Reality must be finite. When the definition of infinity as an unreachable
non-terminable PROCESS (keep adding 1 forever) is clearly understood it is
obvious that nothing actual
You would be surprised how similar what you say below is to the
conclusions of the UDA.
Jason
On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
My computational space is not a physical dimensional space. It's a
logical information space. There are no metrics,
Terren,
No, it's not a contradiction. Because present time just is and always has
been without anything happening prior to the big bang. Only when clock time
began to be computed as happening originated at the big bang was there a
measure of time, or rather a time that could be measured by
Dear Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand
it.
Good point! I tend to have a 5 bin system that I use to categorize
ontological theories: Material monism, Ideal
Stephen,
A couple of responses.
Forget all other theories when you read mine and judge it only on its own
merits... Don't shoehorn!
Only information is being computed. It exists independent of things. What
are called 'things' are mental interpretations of computational information
domains
On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
To answer your questions.
Reality must be finite. When the definition of infinity as an
unreachable non-terminable PROCESS (keep adding 1 forever) is
clearly understood it is obvious that nothing actual can be
Dear Edgar,
how to directly experience reality as it actually is. Now I am most
definitely not buying your book. Sorry, but that statement is anathema to
me. I have had quite enough of people claiming to have a way for me to know
what is really going on. 99.99% of the time they
are
Jason,
We cannot keep adding 1 forever to get an infinity. The universe where
addition is possible is only 13.7 billion years old. Not quite old enough
to get to infinity! This applies all the types of infinity you mention.
The universe (extended quantum vacuum) has always existed but there
Stephen,
I didn't really expect you to buy my book, but a lot of other people are
And I agree with you most people who tell you how to experience reality are
scam artists.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
how to directly
Stephen,
PS: In spite of your knee jerk reaction my treatment of 'Realization' deals
not with 'New Age' type nonsense but mainly with serious insights on how to
directly experience reality as it actually is such as:
1. The fundamental experience of our existence, our consciousness within a
On Jan 13, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
No, it's not a contradiction. Because present time just is and always has
been without anything happening prior to the big bang. Only when clock time
began to be computed as happening originated at the big bang
On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't
register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time which
is NON-dimensional.
Sorry, but I don't understand.
To discuss on this, I need to know what you
William,
No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same definition
to all theories, none of which are real. Of course theories aren't reality.
In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can appear, is
a well accepted concept. I just generalize it a little in
Dear Edgar,
So far what I am missing are detailed explanations and definitions of
terms. Yes, we could read your book, but we wonder if it's content has
those explanations and definitions. OTOH, I have often explained my ideas
-which are rather technical- and have had thunderous silence in
Hi,
Someone wrote, not sure if it was Terren or Bruno:
...
from their own 1-1 points of view, they are in the UD*, and will follow
the path with the greater measure.
This looks like some form of a self-selection!? It essence, any observer
having a 1p means that it will always exist
On 14 January 2014 02:17, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't
register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time which is
NON-dimensional. The computations compute Clock time which IS dimensional.
What
: kimjones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Sent: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 4:13 pm
Subject: Re: Tegmark's New Book
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 5:49:38 AM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
Maximus writes:
The Higgs Boson was predicted with the same tool as the planet Neptune
and the radio wave: with mathematics. Why does
On 14 January 2014 02:32, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
To answer your questions.
Reality must be finite. When the definition of infinity as an unreachable
non-terminable PROCESS (keep adding 1 forever) is clearly understood it is
obvious that nothing actual can be
On 14 January 2014 02:40, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
My computational space is not a physical dimensional space. It's a logical
information space. There are no metrics, topology, or parameters. These are
all properties of dimensional spaces. Dimensional spaces are part
On 14 January 2014 04:31, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand
it.
LOL!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On 1/13/2014 10:54 AM, L.W. Sterritt wrote:
Isn’t this just the reification fallacy? From Wikipedia: Reification (also known
as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when
an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it
On 14 January 2014 08:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't
register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time which is
NON-dimensional.
Sorry, but I
On 14 January 2014 10:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:54 AM, L.W. Sterritt wrote:
Isn’t this just the reification fallacy? From Wikipedia:
Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced
concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when
an
Oops typo. That should read
Edgar thinks that people not understanding his theory is their fault. He
hasn't worked out the simple fact that if he can't communicate it properly,
that is his problem. He probably never will.
On 14 January 2014 10:27, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 January
On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:49:17 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Forget all other theories when you read mine and judge it only on its own
merits... Don't shoehorn!
FWIW, that's all well and good for mathematical and other formal theories.
You've been insistent on not formalizing your
On 14 January 2014 04:31, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand
it.
Just take the pure information content of everything that exists out of
the 'things'. You have pure information. Now assume that
Dear Gabe,
Hear Hear!
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.comwrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:49:17 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Forget all other theories when you read mine and judge it only on its own
merits... Don't shoehorn!
FWIW, that's all
On 1/13/2014 11:37 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
William,
No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same definition to all
theories, none of which are real. Of course theories aren't reality.
In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can appear, is a well
On 1/13/2014 1:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 10:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:54 AM, L.W. Sterritt wrote:
Isn’t this just the reification fallacy? From Wikipedia: Reification
(also known
as concretism, or the
A set whose proper subsets are isomorphic to the set.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
How do you define infinity differently than an unreachable process?
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 4:08:52 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014
On 14 January 2014 11:38, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
How do you define infinity differently than an unreachable process?
Countable infinity can be defined as the number of members in the set of
all the integers.
Uncountable infinity can be defined as the number of members
On 14 January 2014 11:40, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
A set whose proper subsets are isomorphic to the set.
Very nice definition, I knew that one (honest!) having read a book by Rudy
Rucker on the subject, but had forgotten it. This is the property nicely
illustrated by
Liz,
Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered a
'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has themselves
offered a formal theory even though they are continually offering theories
of their own, none of which are formalized. Is that fair?
The
Liz, et al,
The so called 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' is obvious in a
universe where reality math actually computes reality. That couldn't be any
simpler or clearer.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:06:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014 11:29, meekerdb
Dear LizR,
What would happen is mathematics did not amazingly match up with the
patterns of phenomena of the physical world? Think about it. We expect a
model of a system to match that system as best possible, so what is magical
about symbolic representational systems that obey rules?
I
On 14 January 2014 12:42, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered
a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has
themselves offered a formal theory even though they are continually
offering
On 14 January 2014 12:56, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz, et al,
The so called 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' is obvious in a
universe where reality math actually computes reality. That couldn't be any
simpler or clearer.
It's all obvious. Nothing could be clearer.
On 14 January 2014 13:04, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
What would happen is mathematics did not amazingly match up with the
patterns of phenomena of the physical world? Think about it. We expect a
model of a system to match that system as best possible, so
301 - 400 of 604 matches
Mail list logo
