SUO: RE: Lifecycle Integration Schema
Dear Jon,
Some consequences of 4 being an individual in some possible
world are that there are no things of which 4 can be said,
since individuals have no members. Since at least one way
that 4 is ordinarily thought of is as the set of sets with
4 members, this must be some other object, and not the 4
that we ordinarily think of.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: 05 October 2003 03:14
> To: SUO
> Cc: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Subject: 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
>
>