SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 98
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
| Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Ubrige ist Menschenwerk.
|
| Leopold Kronecker
|
| http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Kronecker.html
| http://www.goertzel.org/universalerror.htm
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Mathew West
Matthew,
Focusing on the LIS concept <possible_individual>:
| A <possible_individual> is a <thing> that exists in space and time.
|
| This includes:
|
| - things where any of the space time dimensions are vanishingly small,
|
| - those that are either all space for any time, or all time and any space,
|
| - the entirety of all space time,
|
| - things that actually exist, or have existed,
|
| - things that are fictional or conjectured and
| possibly exist in the past, present or future,
|
| - temporal parts (states) of other individuals,
|
| - things that have a specific position, but zero extent in one
| or more dimensions, such as points, lines, and surfaces.
|
| In this context existence is based upon being imaginable within
| some consistent logic, including actual, hypothetical, planned,
| expected, or required individuals.
|
| EXAMPLE. The pump with serial number ABC123, Battersea Power Station,
| Sir Joseph Whitworth, Shakespeare, and the starship "Enterprise"
| can be represented by instances of <possible_individual>.
In particular, you wrote that <possible_individual>
includes "things that are fictional or conjectured
and possibly exist in the past, present, or future".
I have announced the following conjecture,
annotated here as the "origin of 4" (OO4).
| The number 4 was born into 4-dimensional spacetime
| existence exactly 4004 nanoseconds after the origin
| of the physical universe in the incept of the Big Bang.
The conjecture OO4 is consistent, relatively speaking,
with the "established theory of whole numbers" (ETOWN),
for instance, being affourded by the canonical axioms of
"Peano Arithmetic" (PA). Its consistency is "immediate",
logically if not temporally speaking, because PA neither
states nor implies that whole numbers exist in physical
spacetime, and PA neither states nor implies that whole
numbers do not exist in physical spacetime. Inasmuch
as PA is wholly neutral with respect to the existence
of whole numbers in physical spacetime, the addition
of the statement OO4 as a new axiom to PA, yielding
the axiom system PA + OO4, risks no more danger of
inconsistency than what's accountable to PA alone.
I have a modest background in mathematics, extending over many years
of instruction and study. I confess that it never occurred to me in
all of that time to ask my teachers if integers existed in spacetime.
I suspect that it might've been accounted a silly question, but that
wouldn't have cost me a nanosecond thought if I had 1/2-urge to know.
I cannot recall any mathematician who I ever studied or any teacher
who ever taught me ever mentioning that integers might be specified
one way or the other on the attribute of existing in space and time,
with the possible exception of Leopold Kronecker's infamous squelch
that might be hermeneutically unsealed to suggest that the integers,
or the whole numbers, according to your reading of "Die ganze Zahl",
were born one Day of Creation, therefour entering our space in time.
I can remember asking several times where numbers might indeed reside,
always receiving the conventional (1/2 nonverbal + 1/2 verbal) formula
of a shrug, uplifted eyes, and a nod toward Plato's heaven, but whether
that form of address indicated a region of physical spacetime adjoining
own own, or a 2-light zone of figmental spacetime 2-zarrely unlike ours --
that height of detail about Plato's playground I never saw fourthcoming.
So, all in all, I see nothing in my experience or training
that rules out the axiom set PA + OO4 as wholly impossible.
But where is this "established theory of unicornal topia" (ETOUT)
that you speak about with such intuitive certainty as if you once
read the Book on it?
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o