Wacek, (01)
I was taking the notion of "be" in the most generous sense
of the term -- namely existence in a Platonic heaven of
mathematical entities -- something along the lines of
Cantor's heaven of infinities of infinities of sets (as
Hilbert and Gödel conceived of it). (02)
JFS>> ...there must be a complete and consistent description
>> of the entire universe for all time. (03)
vQ> First, what is meant by 'description'? A written, spoken
> sentence, a thought, a collection of propositions? (04)
A collection of propositions as abstract entities in that
Platonic heaven. (05)
vQ> If there is such a description, is the description a part
> of the universe, and as such, is it a description of the
> entire universe -- thus including the description itself?
> If it is not, what does 'entire' mean? (06)
It is impossible to have a perfect model of any physical system
that takes less space and matter than the system itself. (07)
Any description of a physical system that gets down to the atomic
level would require more atoms to record it than there are atoms
in the system. (08)
As I said in my earlier note, such a description would constitute
a sizable chunk of MoG (the Mind of God), which I assume would be
located (if "located" is an appropriate term) in a Platonic heaven. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|