SUO: Re: the many worlds terminology
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
okay, i actually know people who have written papers on the
transition: university ~~~> mutiversity ~~~> transversity,
and there is a whole world, strike that, cosmos of puns
about that, but the problem of intercomm only starts
when the worlds collude, that is, interact in ways
that have consequences for life in each one of em.
so even in something as wild as many worlds qm,
nothing of interest can be said if the cosmoi
are hermetically sealed apart from each other.
so once again, the real ball'o'wax is about
what our precursors used to call universes
of discourse, which are patches of ground
being discoursed only in so far as they
are being described within a limited
frame of discription. and again,
i think the cases of real concern
are charts/theories that compete
to cover the same scapes/models.
jon awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Robert E. Kent wrote:
>
> Two choices that we could adopt for the many-worlds terminologies:
> noun: polycosmos -- adjective: polycosmic
> noun: multiverse -- adjective: multiversal
> I prefer the Greek words over the Latin.
>
> BTW, some people also use the term "cosmoi" for the plural. For example:
> A polycosmic diagram of theories represents and axiomatizes at least two
> cosmoi, whereas a monocosmic diagram of theories represents and axiomatizes
> only one cosmos.
>
> FWIW,
> Robert E. Kent
> rekent@ontologos.org
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o