On 5/9/2014 3:12 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
> Actually, there is a very convincing argument that the real universe
> is discrete rather than continuous, and finite (very, very large,
> but finite) rather than infinite. See http://motionmountain.net/ ,
> especially volume 4 et. seq. (01)
There is a consensus that the universe has been finite since the
Big Bang -- and most likely forever after. There also seems to be
a consensus that all packets of mass and/or energy are quantized. (02)
So we can probably give a definite maybe to the claim that there
is a finite number of discrete units of whatever. (03)
On the other hand, those whatevers keep keep combining and splitting up
in all sorts of ways -- including the virtual whatevers that occur even
in a total vacuum. And there are also claims that our universe is just
one among an infinity of universes in a multiverse. (04)
But even if the whatevers are discrete, the wave functions for each
of them are continuous -- and they have no sharp boundaries. (05)
However, in vol. 6 of Motion Mountain (which he says is *speculative*)
Schiller says that we need new mathematics that does not depend on
set theory. (06)
I think we could give an indefinite maybe to that claim. (07)
As to the question about what it all means for ontology, I subscribe
to the philosophy of Mr. Natural (in the Robert Crumb comics): (08)
Question: Mr Natural, Mr Natural, what do it all mean?!? (09)
Answer: It don' mean sheeeit. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (012)
|