John F. Sowa wrote:
> 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).
> JFS>> ...there must be a complete and consistent description
> >> of the entire universe for all time.
> vQ> First, what is meant by 'description'? A written, spoken
> > sentence, a thought, a collection of propositions?
> A collection of propositions as abstract entities in that
> Platonic heaven.
> 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?
> It is impossible to have a perfect model of any physical system
> that takes less space and matter than the system itself. (01)
Not a perfect material model of a material system. (02)
> 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. (03)
I proposed a similar argument a few weeks ago on this forum.
One difference: I can imagine a perfect model of a system, using just
exactly the same amount of matter and space as that system occupies.
That we can't make such models is another issue. (04)
> 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. (05)
In the sense you propose, I agree, there must be a complete and
consistent description of the entire universe for all time. (06)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)