Continuing The Discussion.

[DominO123]

Siamanto, I have decided to continue the discussion here myself. because no moderator has volonteered to split the thread. The folding thread is refered in the pined thread, which is refered in the team page... won't be cool for those ending up there to have a discussion regarding the universe.

 

http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=9964&st=220#

 

First question, you asked what I do mean by undeterminated, in the context where I have used it, I meant that the line has at least one side that continue to infinity, or that you don't know where it ends.

 

"Containing itself," I am hating you for having asked me this.

 

Come on Siamanto, you don't expect us to debate about the Russels Paradox as well? I have always BTW used the same definition, in the context of the "set" that Cantor himself brought.

 

Since my English expression is limited, I have tried to find the definition that correspond the best with my interpretation, so I have found one.

 

"There is no reason why a set cannot contain other sets (you can certainly have a concept about other concepts). The set of all sets that contain 5 or less members is itself a set - it would include, for instance, my fruit-bowl of four apples. If a set can contain other sets, can it contain itself ? The set of all sets that contains 6 or more members would include itself, since there are very many (more than six anyway) sets that contain 6 or more members; therefore the group as whole of sets containing 6 or more members is itself a set, and contains itself - the set of all sets containing 6 or more members."

 

http://mikefinch.com/md/fc/ll.htm

 

The page worth to be read in its entirity.

 

For point 3, I admit that it was not an N in an N, something I previously admitted in my previous post. I just brought out that example, because it is a good demonstration of mapping, and was very visual and clear.

 

For point 4 I agree.

 

1- You have stated that universes come into existence and "pop up." That means that they can be CHARACTERIZED - not IDENTIFIED - by the instant t of T when they come into existence.

In other words:

(P1) There is a mapping from U - the set of universes - into T i.e. Time.

(Note, I did not say from T into U. I'm not sure there exists a mapping from T into U!)

Before we continue, do you agree that (P1) is true?

 

Again, Siamanto, I can not answer if it is true, it is right now an I don't know. The problem with my pop-up conceptions is that there is a moment where a universe just appeared... moment means time... some appeared before, others after etc... but if time is a dimention that is depending for a given universe, outside of it, there would theoriticaly be no time, but if no time... then a universe can not pop-up, and there could be no "0" or beggining.

 

This is the problem I have been trying to meditate about(and came with an idea), in physic, there are physicists that came up with the idea of sequences, and no time, to correct this situation. Because suppose beyond the dimention of time(and like I've said, there could be a hypertimes like there could be hyperspaces... many dimentions of times, and this would make the situation even worst), it could be as much right to say that a universe appeared in reverse, from a dying universe, than saying it appeared from a big bang. My idea is that time is just a phenomenology of consciousness, and that in fact it does not exist. I could developpe more about this in a future post.

 

I'm not sure what you mean!

Von Neumann showed that starting with the empty set, we can construct - using the "union of sets of a set" - a set that has the same structure as N.

Some of those who believe in Von Neumann's Set Theory, deny the existence of aleph0! Let's not get there!

 

Take the definition I have posted about containing itself, do you agree with when applying to N in N? I want to leave Neumann for the Quantum part, unless you disagree... and beside that the foundations of Neumann conception is based on an intutional thoughts, so as my "feeling" of "containing itself."